February 23, 2001
Los Angeles

Summary and Results

The Speaker's Commission on Regionalism (SCOR) held its third meeting on February 23 at the Getty Center in Los Angeles. SCOR Chairperson Nick Bollman gave welcoming remarks and discussed upcoming commission dates and locations.

The agenda began with the second and final review of the Visions and Values Statement and the Mission Statement. Minor changes were made to both documents and they were then adopted. David Abel, Co-Chair, State/Local Finance Committee, then began discussions on the Report of State/Local Fiscal Committee, before welcoming the Commission's first speakers.

"Collaborative Regional Planning: Los Angeles Case Studies" was the topic for the first group of speakers. Afterwards Commissioner Carol Whiteside briefly gave a report from the Collaborative Regional Planning Committee. The meeting then moved on to a panel discussion on collaborative regional planning principles.

After each group of speakers concluded, commissioners were given an opportunity for questions and discussion. At the end of the final panel, the floor was opened for public comment. The day concluded with a meeting of the Collaborative Regional Planning Committee.

Presentations and Panels

David Abel, Co-Chair of the State/Local Fiscal Committee, led the discussion of the report that was generated from a prior meeting and conference calls. However, due to lack of time and the extensiveness of the preliminary report, a decision was made to address the report again at a later SCOR meeting. Commissioners gave suggestions on how to better clarify the initial report.

Collaborative Regional Planning: Los Angeles Case Studies

The first presentation was by Terry Tamminen, Executive Director, and Terry Watt, of Environment Now. Terry Watt gave information on the Los Angeles County General Plan Update. Ms. Watt believes that the update is flawed and seriously deficient as to law and process, and misses the opportunity to create a vision for what the Los Angeles of the future should look like. For example, a revised Housing Element has been proposed that includes at least 50,000 new housing units but fails to indicate where the units are to be sited. Ms. Watt believes that a process should be put in place that will allow citizens and lawmakers alike to collectively design and implement a vision for the County of Los Angeles.

Steve Erie, Associate Professor, University of California, San Diego, continued with information on the current status and problems in the Southern California area as it relates to airport planning. According to Professor Erie, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is doing all of the "heavy lifting" for Southern California in terms of the region's international cargo load. This is problematic because capacity at LAX is not being increased to keep pace with rising demand. Professor Erie recommends that Orange County and the Inland Empire need to be brought to the table so that all of the recipients of airport benefits can collectively work toward developing new airport capacity.

Joe Edmiston, Executive Director, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, explained the history and current conditions of watershed planning in the Los Angeles region. Mr. Edmiston stated, that in essence, the clock needs to be turned back 100 years to a time before the current water strategy was adopted. The flood control district believed that the water that fell in Southern California was too dangerous to keep there and it needed to be moved out of the area as quickly as possible. On the other hand, people like William Mulholland opposed that idea and thought that water should be brought down from the Owens Valley. Ultimately, the flood control district's plan was adopted, and ever since, water consumed in LA has been imported from a distance, at a minimum, of 300 miles.

Mr. Edmiston continued by saying that politics and good planning are not going to permit growth in Southern California using other areas water resources. Therefore, watershed planning needs to be an appropriate governmental reference for all planning in the area. However, there are no regional structures dealing with watershed planning, except those by private initiative like the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Watershed Council.

Mr. Edmiston concluded by telling the commissioners that the number 1 issue people identify with, statewide, is water and watershed planning. And the key to watershed planning is regional government.

Lee Harrington, Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, wrapped up the first group of presentations by discussing the need to get the business community into the planning process. Mr. Harrington gave a presentation on the 60 Mile Circle that encompasses most of the activity in Southern California. He stated that the great strengths of the region are at risk because of the growth it has encountered and will continue to encounter.

Mr. Harrington explained that currently, Southern California is a region of 16 million people and the 11th largest economy in the world. The area's ports are the 3rd most active in the world, with 30% of all cargo that comes into the U.S. traveling through Southern California ports and airports. Cargo travel through airports is expected to triple, with the number of passengers going through Southern California airports expected to double.

In addition to the projected economic growth, workforce housing is experiencing a tremendous imbalance. Mr. Harrington said that currently there is more housing in areas like Antelope Valley than there are jobs. On the other hand, Los Angeles and Orange County have lots of jobs, but no housing to meet their needs. These imbalances exacerbate Southern California's transportation issues by requiring employees to drive too far to reach their places of employment.

All of these issues illuminate the fact that business is a critical component of the regionalism dialogue.

Panel Discussion

Collaborative Regional Planning Principles

Steve Nissen, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), began the panel discussion by explaining the efforts of the Governor's Office. He described OPR, in the 1970's, as much more aggressive in planning for the future of the state with upwards of 160 staff members. However, by the time of the Davis Administration it had fallen into disrepair with only a couple of people left in that department. Steps are now being taken to build the office back up and work aggressively to ensure a comprehensive plan to foster regional collaboration.

Mr. Nissen explained that the Administration has statutory obligations to encourage regional collaboration that include land use coordination for the state and also getting the functional plans of dozens of different state departments to be consistent. Mr. Nissen also described the work the Administration has done to foster collaboration. This includes the Central Valley Economic Summit the Governor formed that consisted of 5 planning subcommittees: education, transportation, agriculture, air & water, and economic development. Membership is open to everyone in the Central Valley, with active participants doubling since the programs inception two years ago.

One focus of OPR is to look at smart growth solutions, to see where there is an intersection of stake holder interests among businesses, developers, environmentalists, local office holders and civic leaders. OPR then works to find the common ground to effectively push a smart growth solution. Mr. Nissen indicated that they recognize public safety and education are a factor to smart growth since no one wants to live in inner cities if the schools are not good or if the streets are not safe.

Mr. Nissen went on to point out the Governor's commitment to collaborative regional planning is evident in part of the budget labeled, "Smart Planning for California's Future". In this, the Governor ". . .challenges local communities to work cooperatively on growth and fiscal policies that encourage smart growth solutions and that balance economic quality of life and environmental considerations."

Ronald Young, Deputy Secretary, Department of Planning, Maryland, continued the panel discussion by describing Maryland's aggressive regional planning programs. In 1996 the Maryland governor wanted to quickly enact a collaborative regional program without doing any further studies. He wanted a bottoms-up program, with no new beauracracies, since there would not be any new money for funding. The governor did not want to wrestle with local governments over land-use control so he wanted the program to be incentive and dis-incentive based. Therefore, representatives from different Maryland agencies spoke to every organization they hoped to engage in a regional collaboration dialogue. From these meetings a booklet was created that included every suggestion they received. It was titled, "We Asked, You Recommended." From that booklet, the governor took the things that would immediately make a difference in Maryland.

They started incentive programs like "live where you work. " Money from partnerships with businesses and local institutions enabled people to get a $3000 grant towards the purchase of a new house if they could walk or take transit to work. A program titled "smart codes" was started to make rehabilitation of existing buildings and abandoned buildings easier by streamlining the process.

Maryland also developed a "Models and Guidelines Series". These are planning guides, which help local governments that don't have the staff to do independent research. The state of Maryland assists in planning for 1/3 of the small municipalities in the state.

Mr. Young explained that the success Maryland has had is due to the state's commitment to provide adequate assistance to local governments. He explained that they haven't needed any new form of government, the state is there already. Important is the ability to attack certain regional issues based on the issue, with programs that are able to mold and change. The state of Maryland recognizes the idea of using money, incentives, and pulling people together needs to be used regionally.

Bud Laurent, Executive Director, Community Environmental Council, began his portion of the panel by urging commissioners to put the private sector in regional planning efforts earlier and more intimately. He indicated that in order for regional collaborative efforts to be successful, risks need to be taken. The fiscal inequities that are at the root of the competition between local jurisdictions is an important matter that also needs to be addressed. Mr. Laurent stressed that finances are one of the significant barriers to political collaboration.

He also indicated that a step toward trying to remedy the dysfunction of so many jurisdictions in California is to review LAFCO decisions. Keep them consistent with a constant state policy towards regionalism.

Mr. Laurent went on to explain that a way to avoid the disconnect between the people that are elected and the people they represent is to develop a new way of making decisions. He said that this would have to include the land-use authorities of the cities and counties and forcing them to participate in a regional consensus process with people who are not elected, people from business, civic groups, etc. Therefore, creating regional forums that are not another layer of government, but that require local governments to participate, with these forums led by the private sector. Mr. Laurent stressed that he did not believe that planning on a regional level should be an equal partnership between cities/counties and the private sector, but the process should be led by the private sector.

Mr. Laurent concluded by suggesting that the commission not make recommendations based on smart growth principles. However, he urged it to consider placing requirements on local growth producing jurisdictions that are economically smart.

Dan Silver, Coordinator, Endangered Habitats League, concluded the panel by telling the commissioners that he believes in the ability of people in the private and non-profit sectors to be successful and creative, and to have a great ability to work with each other. He believes people in these sectors are far more creative than government.

Mr. Silver went on to say that he is not comfortable with the way government is structured, and that it needs greater incentives to participate. He gave an example of a program in Riverside County that has impacts in many cities, however, there is very little participation by those cities. He said government needs greater motivation to participate on a consistent basis. The barrier to collaborative planning is not the absence of state support, or the absence of state funding, it is the absence of motivation to get people to the table. He would like to see the process coupled with a motivator, perhaps a mandate, or a requirement like priority investment areas.

He concluded his portion of the panel by addressing the Collaborative Regional Planning Principles report. He indicated that the proposed regional collaborative funding from the state needed to be more specific. He believes that just basing regional planning on process, not content, is not feasible. He suggested that it needs to be more proactive.

Chair Nick Bollman clarified the Collaborative Regional Planning Principles report, suggesting the state should adopt goals and policies in respect to growth around the state. He said that there would, in fact, be a statement of outcomes that were of a general nature, but would be specific enough that people would know if they met those outcomes. He also went on to explain that the framework would be such that if the process had a process as described in the principles, it would then be eligible for the financial incentives that have been recommended.

The commissioners then engaged in a dialogue with the panelists on possible incentives and guidelines that the state can incorporate into a regional planning scheme. They discussed, from a political point of view, what the state's interest would be in putting some teeth into planning guidelines.