SCCED Conference, April 18, 1994
CONTENTS
Conference Summary 1
Panel Presentations 2
Welcome and Overview of SCCED
Air Quality and Transportation
Land Use
Water
Waste
Economy
Equity
L.A. City Draft General Plan
Santa Monica Sustainable City Program
Financing Sustainability, California Constitutional Revision
Measurable Objectives & Strategies 13
Air Quality
Transportation
Energy
Growth Management and Open Space
Solid and Hazardous Waste
The Economy and Jobs
Water Resources and Quality
Housing and Human Resources
State of the Region Report (Indicators) 3
Acknowledgements
Conference Summary
On Monday April 18, 1994, 120 representatives from government agencies, non-profit organizations, business, community groups, and academia met in a day long conference to begin a process of building consensus on measurable goals and prioritized strategies for Southern California's environment and economy. This is part of a process to develop a sustainable agenda for the region.
The morning session began with a report on the State of the Local Environment and Economy, including indicators to serve as a baseline of information for conference participants. In planning for the region, it's essential to know that the population is expected to grow 40% between 1990 and 2010, and to have reference data on the amount of pollution due to transportation, energy use by sector, water use in the region, waste generated and recycled, and the environmental burdens of disadvantaged communities.
In workshops, conference attendees reviewed and gave recommendations on the goals and strategies in the Draft Regional Comprehensive Plan that has been developed by SCAG (the Southern California Association of Governments). They recommended 57 measurable objectives for the region, and prioritized strategies to meet these objectives. Issues addressed include: building the economic base and increasing the number of jobs in the region, reducing smog, conserving energy in transporatation and buildings, developing a sustainable growth management plan, reducing the amount of waste generated and incentives for recycling, developing an integrated water resource plan, and increasing the number of low cost housing units.
Follow-up will include creating a round table of the leadership in the region to oversee and empower the process of sustainable planning, convening task forces of people in different issue areas who have the technical, economic, academic, and political expertise to clarify realistic measurable goals and strategies, and building the coalition of stakeholders to work on the development of sustainable new programs. This process will be developed in conjunction with The Global Cities Project which has documented hundreds of successful programs nationwide. It will involve inventorying existing environmental programs, comparing them with similar programs around the country to make them more effective and efficient, and identifying, developing, and implementing new proven, cost-effective programs.
The conference was sponsored by the Department of Water and Power,
GTE California, Metropolitan Water District, Southern Calif. Gas Co. with in-kind support from SCAG and SCAQMD.
Highlights of Presentations at SCCED Conference April 18, 1995
Welcome and Overview of SCCED
Kathleen Gildred, Director, SCCED: This is our third annual Earth Week conference. SCCED began when we came back from Rio Earth Summit and wanted to continue the dialog between government, business and environmental people. "It is in our hands" is the true message of the Earth Summit -- it is up to us. We can't rely on government, we have to work together in dialogue and discussion to make it happen.
We are working together in workshops, task forces, round tables and conferences to develop sustainable policies and programs for the region. We have developed principles for sustainable communities, put together indicator reports to measure progress in the region, to show where we are now, what the trends are, and set targets for the future.
We have developed task forces in Transportation, Waste and Water, composed of experts in these fields. Our work today will feed back into the task forces. What is our vision for the year 2020 and how do we get there? Thank you for helping create a sustainable future for the Los Angeles area.
Terrence McNally, Moderator: Sustainability is a way to bring together our care for both the environment and the livelihood of the people. We will take a systems approach.
Air Quality and Transportation
Denny Zane, Executive Director of the Coalition for Clean Air; Former Mayor of Santa Monica: I will illustrate the dilemmas we face in transportation and air quality, and the decisions we have to make. We will experience significant increases in population, primarily from natural birthrates, not much from immigration. This increased population will want employment, which will require an increase of over 2% per year in the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), producing a 43% increase over the next 20 years. The result is that the average rush period highway speed will go from 32 mph now down to 27 mph (assuming we aggressively expand our mass transit system). The lost time will be 100% of the ideal commute time.
Drastic strategies are needed to maintain even the 27 mph. For example, we need to increase transit ridership from 5% now to 13% over the next 20 years, plus reducing single occupancy vehicles. However, there is a problem of insufficient political will to build such a transit system, since it will require $71 billion for both bus and rail.
By 2010, we will need about 50% of new car sales (500,000 cars per year) to be zero emission vehicles, and 25% to use alternative fuels such as natural gas, if we are to meet air quality goals.
Our air quality is the worst in the country, but it is dramatically better than it was 25 years ago. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are important because they are a major precursor to ozone and also to particulates (PM10), which are more deadly to our health. In 1990, we estimated 1,350 tons of NOx is produced per day in the South Coast Air Basin. The current air quality plan should get us down to 900 tons per day by 2010. But the federal standard is 550 tons per day, and the state standards are lower. The recently proposed state implementation plan claims it will get down to 613 tons per day, but that is doubtful.
NOx from stationary sources and light vehicles (cars) will decrease, but the diesel engine is a big problem. Emissions from diesels now exceed all the cars on the road in NOx, and yet the present plan has no impact on NOx from diesels.
Land Use
Rick Cole, Board Member of the Local Government Commission; Former Mayor of Pasadena: Land use plans have a dramatic impact on air quality, transportation, energy, economy and equity. For last 75 years we have built our city around the auto.
We have not paid attention to the correct indicators. One indicator is the number of pounds of metal and polymer it takes (3,000) to get a 1 pound loaf of bread. But if you are disabled, or too poor, too old, or too young to drive, you are cut off from access. If you do not have a car, you are cut off from economic and social opportunity.
Our congestion management plan mandates sprawl. It means if you have a traffic problem, you must build out where there are no traffic problems, which means the distant suburbs.
Land use plans for the rural parts of our region show that most of the land is currently vacant, and the plan is to divide that up into half open space and half residential. The result is that half of our valuable remaining open space will be covered with residential sprawl, which is the worst choice in terms of energy efficiency, water use, social equity and air quality. Even the Headquarters of SCAQMD are not accessible by public transportation,
Most of the population density increases are occurring in the central city. Yet relatively few middle class people are taking gigantic amounts of land in the suburbs. Two years ago, America's the worst urban violence showed that exporting economic vitality to the periphery and leaving the inner city to rot is an unsuccessful strategy. The Transportation Departments at both USC and UCLA are saying that we are always going to have cars, so let's concentrate on car pooling. They have challenged a more comprehensive approach to land use and transportation.
Where do we go from here? I suggest you look at the Bank of America report "Beyond Sprawl," the SCAG Livable Cities Initiative, and the conference "Putting our Communities Back on Their Feet," May 5-6 in Los Angeles.
Water
Dorothy Green, Founder of Heal the Bay, Unpave L.A. and Public Officials for Water and Environmental Reform; Former Commission of the L.A. Department of Water and Power: I want to talk politics, because that is what is important in water policy these days. With the California population doubling in the next 25 years, the desperate search for water has produced a stalemate in Sacramento among the three main interest groups: agriculture, urban water managers and the environmental community.
We get 1/3 of our water from local ground water and the other 2/3 from aqueducts. We are trying to keep the Colorado River Aqueduct full, but the Arizona Central Water Project will take more water from the Colorado River, endangering some twenty species. The Owens Valley Aqueduct from the Mono Lake area now has less water available for Los Angeles.
The third major aqueduct brings water from the San Francisco Bay Delta. The result is the Delta ecosystem is in collapse. With 75% of water now removed, the salmon is almost gone, and even the smelt is threatened. When the Wilson Administration did not enforce the Delta water quality standards, the three major groups, agriculture, urban water managers and the environmental community, decided to talk to each other, which produced a plan that every body could live with. But then the pressures of big agribusiness (major funders for the Wilson campaign) caused him to renege on his commitment to support the compromise.
As a result, the USEPA has produced a water quality plan for the Delta. On December 15, agreement was signed for a three year plan, but the pressure for more water is raising ugly specter of a peripheral canal would help some environmental problems, but cause others.
There are some new decision-making processes occurring. The Metropolitan Water District has instituted an integrated resource planning process, but it is incomplete, in that it does not adequately include ground water, waste water, storm water, etc.
Our water future is tied to better resource planning, but water is not used efficiently now. Agriculture now uses 80% of our water, with half going for rice, cotton, pasture and alfalfa. We need to control population, and build denser cities that can use water more efficiently,.
Waste
Maribel Marin, Senior Research Associate, Natural Resources Defense Council; Former Planner for the City of Los Angeles Planning Department: The AB939 Waste Diversion Mandate requires California municipalities to reduce the amounts sent to landfills by 25% by 1995, through waste reduction, composting, and recycling. This 25% target will be met, but the 50% reduction required by the year 2000 will be more difficult.
AB939 provides a strategy for dealing with waste, but it does not get to the issue of why there is waste, and how do we reduce the amount of waste produced. Resources should be used so future generations can have a quality of life.
Industry, in collaboration with consumers, sells products with many materials that have no use. For example, have you compared the amount of useful products with the amount of packaging after opening Christmas presents? There are no incentives for manufacturers to reduce the amount of packaging, unless consumers send signals to industry by responsible purchases. Now your choices are limited -- for example, can you find a toothpaste without packaging?
Today, we have the choice to move in the direction of sustainability or to continue to be dependent on land fills. The L.A. region is running out of landfill space, but there are developers who want to site new landfills. However, there will be much litigation, mostly from adjacent residential homeowners.
L.A. County has approved expansion of Puente Hills to 12,500 tons per day, Sunshine Canyon is approved for opening, others have been granted extensions. Elsmere Canyon is being proposed for 18,000 tons per day in the Angeles National Forest, endangering wildlife corridors.
This increase in our capacity means the recycling economy requires subsidies to compete. Since tipping fees are at least 50% below the actual cost, landfills are cheaper than recycling. This undermines recycling and application of AB939, putting the burden on cities which don't have actual control over the production of waste, except through variable can fees, which are hard political decisions.
There is curbside recycling pick up in 70 of the 88 cities in the County. There are many home composting programs. Green waste diversion programs have increased from 5 in 1990 to 20 in 1995. There are 11 State recycling development zones. An assessment by the State Water Control Board, found 77% of landfills are leaking into ground water, and they know there is no design that can assure ground water quality.
Economy
David Lynn, Program Director for Economic Development, L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce: The L.A. economy is not business people making decisions, but it is all of us who live here and make decisions about what we buy, where we work and how we get there.
Our economy is massive. If we were a country, our 13 million people would make us the 12th most populous country in the world. We are not a one-industry town: we are the premier aerospace center in the world, one of the largest financial centers, the largest movie and TV producer, one of the largest music centers, the second largest apparel manufacturer in the U.S., one of leaders in medical instruments, the largest manufacturing county in the U.S. (Southern California is the largest manufacturing State), one of the leaders in computers, both hardware and software (larger than Silicon Valley), and the largest international traders in the U.S. (both L.A. and Long Beach ports are larger than any other ports in the U.S. in container traffic). This economic diversity has enabled us to weather the recession.
Our economy is driven by small business, much of it led by a variety of ethnic groups. L.A. County is number 1 in the country in terms of Latino, Asian and female business ownership, and number 2 in African American business ownership.
We have been in a multi-dip recession since 1989. Some say we're starting to come out of it, others say it is flat, but I believe it is turning up. Aerospace manufacturing and engineering is back to levels of the early 1980s. Construction, except in the outlying areas, is slow. In terms of high wage jobs, there has been an increase in film, finance, and insurance jobs. These will replace the lost aerospace jobs, but it is hard for some people to switch jobs. We see an up-turning economy, but the overall U.S. slowdown will affect us.
We need to address both the economy and the people, to integrate our environment and economic activities.
Equity
Ruben McDavid, Small Community Advisor for the Mothers of East Los Angeles, Santa Isabel: Environmental equity is an umbrella covering all the issues.
Land use is a key issue in equity. We need to provide more certain economic signals to investors, to make more efficient use of land that has already been developed, and to focus on job creation and housing. We need a broad-based constituency, including environmentalists, community organizations, business, farmers, governments, to prevent sprawl.
The average real wage is constant. Our unemployment rate is discouraging. The distribution of income has become more skewed and it is more difficult for low income people to escape poverty. California has lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs since 1990. Most urban residents do not have convenient access to jobs, because it is difficult to commute to suburban jobs without a car. Most new jobs have been created in the suburbs, and the sprawl continues to the outlying new suburbs. Commute times have increased 30% between 1980 and 1990.
Middle income people have left the inner city, causing social instability as the population of low income people has increased in the cities.. As businesses and homeowners flee, the middle class ignores the social problems in the cities and fails to support needed government services.
There are many low income households paying more than 30% of their income for shelter. Average Californians spend 20% of their income on cars, leaving less for other expenses.
What is needed is better school systems, job training, access to capital for small businesses, home ownership, affordable housing, support services.
Questions and Answers
Q: Greg Easterbrook's book says that environmental organizations have not recognized the great successes that have occurred. Yet the situation in Washington seems to put us in greater danger.
A. Zane: We should feel both optimism and pessimism. There has been great success from our environmental strategies, as shown in improved air quality, but there is increased congestion. The environmental movement has been politically successful so far, but it is in jeopardy now. I believe that the environmental agenda has broad appeal within our communities and it will be difficult for the Republicans to challenge that.
A. Marin: California is beginning to understand the real cost of landfills. Estimates of cleanup costs could be $100-125 per ton. Subtitle D only requires 30 years of responsibility on the operator, leaving the burden on cities and counties to deal with cleanup. At present, tip fees of $20-$30 per ton means recycling is more expensive than landfills. But I believe the true costs of landfills will enable recycling to prevail in the long run.
A. Green: Water quality has improved with the construction of sewage treatment plants, etc., but the recent outbreak of disease in Minnesota has worried suppliers. The web of life is being threatened as many species are in danger of extinction. We need to support the Endangered Species Act.
A. McDavid: Environmental equity is an issue both here and in Mexico. We need to watch NAFTA to ensure that the poor in Mexico are not deprived of jobs and injure the environment.
A. Cole: Now the environmental movement no longer thinks of just protecting the natural environment, but recognizes the holistic nature of us in relation to our ecosystems, and sees the interconnection with social equity and sustainability.
The environmental movement needs to care about ordinary people throughout both the inner city and the outer suburbs. Our major obstacle is our division along ethnic lines. We have seen in the issues of Prop. 187 and affirmative action that some people are trying to divide us along ethnic and racial lines, which we need to combat.
A. Lynn: We need to change ourselves and our attitudes about having my own house fenced off from everyone else. We need to redo our cities to create pocket parks and green belts.
Q. How can the environmental movement get in touch with the spiritual and ethical agenda, to redefine the American dream to include frugality. The religious communities can form a partnership in this dialogue.
A. Cole: The book of Jeremiah says, "Seek the peace of the city, for in the peace of the city you shall find peace yourself." Spiritual longings make us who we are.
A. Zane: There is a legitimate concern about the role of religious beliefs in the political life, such as what the Christian Right is saying.
Q: The cost of the auto takes 25% of our disposable income. The U.S. is at a disadvantage when we compete with other countries, because of our use of cars.
A. Lynn: Yes, the auto disadvantages us in the global economy, because we put so much resources into cars, but there is no quick fix for that.
A. Stanley Hart: My concern is our enormous subsidies for autos, such as toll-free highways, cheap parking, etc. If we had to pay for these, we would be less auto dependent and take public transit.
A. Lynn: Are all of you willing to pay more for our transportation? We need to help people understand the true cost of the car, and get people to slowly address the subsidies.
L.A. City Draft General Plan
Con Howe, Director of Planning for the City of Los Angeles: The L.A. City Draft General Plan Framework is an overall basic document for our General Plan. This is the first time the city has looked at its long range goals. The Framework is contributing to sustainability by its comprehensive approach.
The document, which is in public review now, is the result of input from over two years of workshops with the community, staff, and consultants. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being reviewed by many environmental organizations. The Framework will be considered by the Planning Commission in July and then by the City Council by the end of the year.
Our context is that:
1. We have to concentrate on sensitive redevelopment, rather than trying to expand to the periphery as we have in the past.
2. We must recognize the true ethnic diversity of the city (every group is a minority).
3. The recession has changed people's perceptions of the economic future and we see we are in economic competition with the rest of the world.
4. We have started building a transit system and we must take maximum advantage of that investment.
Our key policies for sustainability are:
1. Direct growth so it reinforces existing neighborhoods, to accommodate 800,000 more residents by 2010.
2. Focus on transit oriented development, using the rail and bus systems.
3. Use mixed use development to improve the character of commercial areas.
4. Enhance the open space network, by creating bike paths, landscaped areas, urban forests, etc.
5. Have an annual report on growth and infrastructure prepared by the city which will include how the neighborhood infrastructure is being supported.
Santa Monica Sustainable City Program
Craig Perkins, Director of Environmental and Public Works Management, City of Santa Monica: We are breaking down the barriers between the different city departments, recognizing the interdependence of all components of the city. We are trying to make sure the local government programs are cost effective, moving us toward the objectives our community wants.
We set up a task force on the environment and started by defining our guiding principles and then set policy goals and targets for our community. The plan focuses on long term impacts, causes rather than symptoms, prevention rather than mitigation, resource conservation, breaking down divisions between departments, a reduction in consumption, and incorporates economic development, social justice, and other community-based issues.
We have 16 measurable indicators of sustainability in our initial draft, but we found our data is deficient in some areas. We could not come up with targets in transportation.
Our implementation strategy includes outreach to businesses and the community to get similar programs adopted in schools, large businesses. We will issue an annual State of the City report. We found our own city government processes are very complex, and hard to impact, but we have influenced the purchasing process to buy janitorial cleaning products that are environmentally sound, alternative-fuel vehicles, recycled paper, etc.
The program benefits the economic bottom line. For example, we will save $16 million per year on our city energy bill. It costs less to recycle waste than to put it in landfills. Our water efficiency programs will save us $9 million in avoided capacity costs and treatment charges over the next five years. We are trying to quantify cost benefits, such as health benefits. We see a positive correlation between environmental quality and economic health of a community.
Financing Sustainability, California Constitutional Revision
David Stein, Principal Planner for the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), SCAG: A problem facing local government in implementing the RCP is that the region does not generate the public revenues to make the RCP happen. Yet, considering inflation, we currently generate more public revenues per capita in California now than in 1978 when Prop 13 passed. The question is, can we spend more efficiently?
The fiscal system does not work, it sends the wrong signals to business and the investment community. California has ongoing battles between the State, cities and counties over who gets the revenues. We need to rethink these relationships.
The Constitutional Revision Commission is out to redo these relationships to make the system work better. The Commission has a long list of problems, but they do not have specific answers, and very little political will to tackle the solutions.
They see that there is no single system of governance that will work throughout California, in both the urban and rural areas. To prepare a set of proposals for Southern California, we have set up a task force of city and county financial managers who are looking at issues such as:
1. Financial stability for local governments to know what their revenues will be.
2. Practical approaches to inform people on how taxes are raised and spent, so they can feel they are spent well.
3. Different kinds of governments -- is county government useful in urban areas, or should there be a new cooperative structure among the cities?
4. Land use -- local governments are trying to attract businesses that pay sales tax, regardless of whether this has long term benefit to the community.
5. Current tax code puts the bulk of business taxes on manufacturers, not on services, even though California is a service economy.
We need input on the recommendations, you are welcome to come on the second Thursday of the month and listen to our discussions.
We don't want to have the taxing system encourage sprawl. We need to pay for education. We need a financial system that encourages good jobs, rather than sales. We need an economic system that is recognizes the compound growth of our population and economy from the standpoint of sustainability.
* Federal incentives to redirect aerospace to energy technology
* Creating competition for energy efficient air conditioning by 1996
Reduce parking area in new development 40%/ in mixed use/commercial, 25% by 2000 by:
* Increasing fuel efficiency 20% by 2005
* Developing fuel cells to 400 mile range, 65 MPH
* Tolling peak hour highway use by 1998
* Reducing land used for transportation 10% by 2010
* Making streets safe for bicycling by 10% cyclists by 1997
* Getting 25% of all employees telecommuting some part of work week by 1998
Compensate for loss of oxygen from cars through:
* Increasing community gardens 100% by 1996
Create school curriculum on energy efficiency awareness statewide by 1999
Growth Management and Open Space
The Economy and Jobs
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Recycle 60% of all non-hazardous wastes by 2010 through:
Indicators for 1995
The following charts present past trend data and projected targets for the future. In most cases the data are for Los Angeles County or the SCAG 6 county area.
Air Quality Past Data Projections
(if plan
implemented)
(average over South Coast Air Basin area) 1980 1990 1993 1994 2000 2010
Ave. no. days pollution exceeded Federal Ozone Std: 196 155 132 128
Peak concentrations of ozone (% above State Standard) 310%(1987) 190% 110%
Particulates (PM10 - % above State Standard) 650%(1986) 300% 250%
Emission Sources for Volatile Organic Compounds (tons per day)
Stationary 585 550 636
On-Road (cars, trucks, busses) 761 366 333
Off-Road (trains, planes, boats, construction equipment) 124 121 131
Totals 1,470 1,037 969
Emission Sources for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (tons per day)
Stationary 217 125 106
On-Road (cars, trucks, busses) 762 558 532
Off-Road (trains, planes, boats, construction equipment) 311 326 358
Totals 1,290 1,009 996
Emission Sources for Particulates (PM10) (tons per day)
Stationary 749 889 971
On-Road (cars, trucks, busses) 70 62 69
Off-Road (trains, planes, boats, construction equipment) 19 21 23
Totals 838 972 1,063
[Data and projections from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)]
Transportation Current Condition If Plan Implemented
Average Vehicle Speed on Highways (mph) 32.5 26.8 28.8
Time Lost by Highway Congestion (millions of hours/day) 2.15 3.36 4.87
Vehicle Miles Traveled per person per day 20.5 20.7
Automobiles (millions of trips per day) 35.4 46.0
Public Transportation (millions of trips per day) 1.1 3.0
Modes of Transportation to Work
Driver alone 75.6% 64.3%
Passenger in auto 18.8% 20.6%
Public Transportation (busses and trains) 5.6% 15.1%
Work at home or non-motorized trips 4.1% 10.4%
[Data and projections from Regional Mobility Element, Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG)]
Energy Past Data Projections
Use by Sector (for all California) 1990 2010
Transportation 48% 46%
Industry 27% 29%
Residences 12% 12%
Commercial buildings (stores and offices) 10% 11%
Agriculture 3% 2%
Sources (for all California)
Petroleum (in trillions of BTUs) 4,172 5,356
Natural Gas 2,350 3,053
Nuclear 68 71
Coal 61 87
Renewables (hydroelectric, geothermal, solar) 178 213
[Data and projections from Draft 1994 Energy Policy, California Energy Commission]
Land Use (Uses in 1990) More Urban Areas More Rural Areas of SCAG
Residential 45% 8%
Commercial 6% 1%
Industrial & Mining 8% 1%
Public Facilities 4% 2%
Freeways & Utilities 6% 2%
Open Space & Recreation 3% 1%
Agriculture 1% 7%
Water & Floodways 1% 1%
Vacant 26% 79%
[Source: Southern California Association of Governments]
Water 1990 2010
Amount Used in the SCAG Region (in acre feet per year) 3,290,000 3,730,000
Amount Imported (in acre feet per year) 1984 1994 2004
Colorado River 1,233,519 1,304,394
State Water Project (includes exchanges and transfers) 498,350 845,309
Acre Feet Recycled per year 270,000 400,000 730,000
Amount Spent on Conservation per year $40,000,000 $40,000,000
Number of Low Flow Toilets Installed 296,426
[Various sources, including SCAG RCP. Note that this information doesn't include all factors. ]
Waste 1988 1990 1995 2000 2020
Pounds Produced per person per day 10.7 10.3 9.7 8.0 5.0
Pounds Sent to Landfills per person per day 9.7 8.5 7.2 4.0 1.2
Pounds Recycled per person per day 1.0 1.7 2.5 4.0 3.8
Percentage Recycled 10% 17% 28% 50% 75%
Percentage Families participating in recycling programs 10% 20% 55% 80% 90%
Percentage Families participating in Green Waste Diversion 3% 20% 60% 90%
[Various sources. Targets developed by SCCED Task Force. ]
Economy and Equity
Unemployment Rate 1984 1994
Los Angeles County 7.9% 9.4%
Orange County 4.7% 5.8%
Riverside County 8.6% 10.6%
San Bernadino County 7.3% 8.4%
Ventura County 7.7% 7.9%
Average wage per job per month (inflation adjusted) 1986 1990 1993
Los Angeles County $2,570 $2,503 $2,589
Orange County $2,465 $2,381 $2,461
Riverside County $1,943 $1,923 $1,927
San Bernadino County $2,057 $2,072 $2,121
Ventura County $2,246 $2,186 $2,203
Income Distribution (no. of families, 1990) <$25,000 $25 - 50,000 $50 - 75,000 >$75,000
Los Angeles County 560,000 712,000 397,000 368,000
Orange County 91,000 195,000 147,000 157,000
Riverside County 78,000 121,000 62,000 37,000
San Bernadino County 97,000 144,000 74,000 41,000
Ventura County 26,000 57,000 45,000 39,000
Low Income Households Paying More Than 30% of Income for Shelter in 1990
County Total Households Households Overpaying for Shelter
Los Angeles County 2,994,000 781,000 26%
Orange County 829,000 201,000 24%
Riverside County 402,000 92,000 23%
San Bernadino County 466,000 108,000 23%
Ventura County 218,000 48,000 22%
Imperial County 33,000 8,000 24%
Total 4,942,000 1,238,000 25%
[Source: Southern California Association of Governments]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank our Steering Committee for the many hours of time they contributed to the success of the SCCED process:
Kathleen Allen, Concerned Citizens of South Central Peter Kreitler, Earth Service
David Brown, Douglas Aircraft Co. Bill LaMarr/Robert Herzstein, Edison Co.
Cody Cluff/Laura Mascheroni, LA Entertainment Ind. Affiairs Andy Lipkis, Treepeople
Howard Cohen, Eco-Cities Council Ruben McDavid, Mothers of East LA
Dr. Theodore Crovello, CSU-LA, Dean of Graduate Studies Walter McGuire, Global Cities Project
Ane Deister/Randal Orton, Las Virgenes Water District Bonnie McKenna, BEAC
Dennis Dickerson, Cal/EPA Adrienne Miller, LA Environmental Affairs Dept.
David Fisher, GTE California Craig Perkins, City of Santa Monica
Eugene Fisher Helen Romero-Shaw, So. CA Gas Co.
Woody Hastings, Clean Air Now Jeannette Scovill, Citizen Planners
Joe Haworth, Sanitation Districts of LA County Atossa Soltani, Rainforest Action Network
Ron Ketcham, SCAQMD David Stein/Chris Warshaw, SCAG
We thank the panelists who researched indicator information and background reports on the State of the Local Environment and Economy:
Bruce DeVine, SCAG Ane Deister, Las Virgenes Water District
Ron Ketcham, SCAQMD Joe Haworth, Sanitation Districts, LA County
Joel Woodhull, LA County MTA Kathleen Allen, Concerned Citizens, South Central
Mark Haarer, So. CA Gas Co. Jack Kyser, LA Economic Development Corp.
We thank the facilitators who helped create the process and product from the workshops:
Michael Baroff John Sanyika
Paul Clark Jeannette Scovill
Ellen Ensur Terre Virgason
Caecelia Gotama Jim Spee
Peter Lownds Michael Ward
And last, but essential to the making of our conference, we thank our sponsors:
LA Department of Water and Power
GTE California
Metropolitan Water District
Southern California Gas Co.
SCAG and SCAQMD for in-kind support
Kathleen Gildred and Jim Stewart, Conference Coordinators