REINVENTING PARADISE: SANTA MONICA'S SUSTAINABLE CITY PROGRAM

SPAEF

REINVENTING PARADISE: SANTA MONICA'S SUSTAINABLE CITY PROGRAMAuthor(s): Gerry RiposaSource: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1/2 (SPRING 2004-SUMMER 2004), pp.222-251Published by: SPAEFStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288218 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 13:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public AdministrationQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:26:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaef

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288218?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


REINVENTING PARADISE: SANTA MONICA'S SUSTAINABLE CITY PROGRAM

Gerry Riposa Department of Political Science California State University, Long Beach

** The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Mark Daniels, symposium editor, and Carolyn Dersch, Assistant Director of Research, California State University, Long Beach.

ABSTRACT

Faced with the growing cross-pressures of citizen consumer demands, economic vitality, finite environmental resources, and resident concern over quality of life issues, a number of cities have looked toward a sustainable community strategy as a potential policy solution. While such an alternative has shown promise, it has only begun to move from an intellectual vision to an applied program. To build on our knowledge concerning the scope and practice of sustainable communities, this article examines Santa Monica, California, which, over six years ago, initiated a multifaceted sustainable city program. From this research, scholars and practitioners will gain a stronger understanding of the pattern of policy adoption, types of programs, implementation tools, and the facilitative and constraining agents in this city's sustainable community program experience. Along with making a contribution to mapping the current sustainable community terrain, this research also suggests a series of variables for hypothesis construction and testing in future research.

INTRODUCTION

For the past half century, economic development has stood as the uncontested king amidst crowded and conflictual urban agendas, regardless of city size (Bowman, 1987; Wolman and Spitzley, 1996). Faced with the



PAQ SUMMER 2004 223

prospects of an increasingly competitive national and

global economy, rising citizen demands, and cyclical federal resources, cities have established governing regimes - informal associations of local government leaders, members of the private sector, unions, and at times, representatives from community non-profit organizations -

to pursue commercial and housing projects (Stone, 1989). Although many cities have attained a certain level of success in these endeavors, some results have drawn concern. Urban settlements, particularly large metropoles, sprawl with look-alike subdivision tracts, endless strip malls, and big box shopping centers. Each part of the

spatial system stands isolated from the others, yet accessible primarily by automobile. While this

development pattern has created jobs, generated tax revenues, and stabilized some capital and population migration, it has also produced traffic congestion (the anathema of urban living), pollution, losses in forests and

open spaces, and a deteriorating experience of place (Corbett and Corbett, 2000; Hiss, 1990; Massing, 2000).

Although a minority, voices of dissent have called attention to alternatives for urban development inefficiencies (Jacobs, 1961; Lovins, 1977; Odum, 1971; Schumacher, 1973). The essence of these critiques of society is the need to rethink design and operation of urban space; to reconfigure local production and consumption processes so as to make cities more engaging and livable without incurring environmental destruction. Land, labor, and capital remain fundamental to a city's built environment (Harvey, 1985); however, a city should also be a place of social interaction and culture, where images and memories reflect who belongs and what is valued (Zukin, 1995). This re-conceptualization of the city, strengthened by a growing acceptance of post-material values that stress lifestyle issues within society's middle



224 PAQ SUMMER 2004

and upper-middle classes, has generated an agenda more receptive to land use planning alternatives.

Sustainable communities - defined here as communities that foster a system of programmatic relationships to and with their environments to limit the

impacts of city living and to elicit community engagement in policies beneficial to community members at large -

offer one such option (Daniels, 1998). During the 1990s a number of cities, including Seattle (WA), Santa Fe (NM), and the California cities of San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara, and Santa Monica, have adopted, in varying degrees, sustainable community principles. Regardless of individual differences, each of these cities has planned and

operated some mix of energy efficiencies and recycling, diversity in built structures, compact living with enhanced

open spaces to encourage residential walking and

interaction, and other activities to reduce environmental

damage.

Today a literature on this form of development is

emerging; yet, a gap exists in case studies of specific programs, successes and disappointments within particular cities. Our objective, then, is to contribute to the knowledge base concerning sustainable communities by examining Santa Monica, a city with a broad and multi-layered sustainable program. Three central questions organize this examination: (1) What pattern has policy change taken in the city? (2) What policies have been adopted? and (3) What policies show evidence of accomplishment or

disappointment? To explore these questions, and to make this case study as useful as possible to scholars and

practitioners, we will provide a theoretical framework for

policy change and a reflective account of Santa Monica's historical development, identifying contextual conditions that have and will continue to affect the city's Sustainable



PAQ SUMMER 2004 225

human cognition to comprehend the universe of

alternatives, with attendant costs and benefits, policy imitates an incremental curve (Dahl, 1961; Lindblom, 1959; Waste, 1986). Simon (1977) supports the notion of incremental policymaking in that policymakers face an

overwhelming array of public demands; hence, they must deal with them in serial fashion, one at a time, thereby avoiding wide-scale, programmatic change. When demands do mobilize, countermobilization usually occurs, blunting the disruptive impact on political institutions and forcing compromise, at best (Dahl, 1961; Truman, 1951). Accordingly, the proclivity for policy equilibrium with its manifestation of incrementalism challenges cities such as Santa Monica in efforts to innovate.

Yet change, even dramatic change, does occur. We

suggest that in sustainable community policy, particularly evident in the Santa Monica example, policy change does not follow a slow, flattened, incremental curve, nor the

widely supported diffusion curve which allows for rapid change only to flatten out post-adoption; rather, it exhibits

punctuated equilibrium. In this theory, periods of equilibrium are followed by rapid change, which, in turn, are followed by new periods of equilibrium (but along points of stability different from those previous points of departure) which subsequently give way to new periods of rapid change (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993, 18; Sharp, 1999, 310).

Driving the ponderous policy system from an equilibrium point requires formidable conditions to generate a window of political instability. External or internal shocks that demand immediate attention must permeate the policy making system. Events such as an energy or environment crisis serve as the catalysts to heighten public attention, thereby raising levels of the attentive public and constituency demand (Cobb and Elder,



226 PAQ SUMMER 2004

1983). During this period of instability, new participants and proposals flood the system's institutional agenda (Anderson, 2000, 91; Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, 21). Policy actors redefine issues in such a way that existing solutions are unable to cope with fresh demands, thus

creating new ground for institutional acceptance of risk-

taking or experimentation, and implicitly seeking movement toward a new period of stability.

The absence or resignation of political monopolies - dominant institutions and a powerful idea associated with the institution - assists the viability of

policy change. Also, positive feedback through media

depictions or supportive political movements helps news ideas to proliferate (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993, 16). However, Jones (1984) argues that while positive feedback can facilitate rapid change, political entrepreneurs are

necessary to exploit issue redefinition, capture media

attention, and move proposals into more formal decision

making venues. These actors become even more effective in the change process if opportunities and solutions have been gestating within a policy community of attentive

experts (Kingdon, 1984).

While punctuated equilibrium may offer a critical lens for viewing rapid policy change that holds potential for resource reallocation, reprioritization, and eventual institutional transition, Sharp compellingly reminds students of urban policy that policy change, regardless of its form, is a product of policy learning and is shaped by the imperatives of local politics (1999, 316). Therefore, to understand the pattern of sustainable community policy adoption and implementation in Santa Monica, we must understand the exigencies that exist within this local

community. With that in mind we now turn to the city's development to identify the political considerations that



PAQ SUMMER 2004 227

previously defined, and continue to shape, this policy arena.

Building Paradise and Marketing Sunsets

Perched on the edge of a 3,000-mile land mass, staring into the vastness of the blue Pacific Ocean, Santa Monica radiates a magical presence. It has been the destination, or final stop, for migrants who were grateful for their arrival (Fulton, 1997, 23). Moreover, Santa Monica has represented an alternative to the conventional, a liberating break with the past. As such, this Pacific coast

city has developed into more than a brick and mortar

jurisdiction of commercial enterprises and homes - it has become an ideal.

Although southern California hosted nomadic dwellers for a period of 10,000 years dating back to the end of the last ice age, organized human settlement did not occur in the area we know as Santa Monica until a thousand years before the European invasion. The Tongva people, Shoshonean-speaking hunters and gathers, lived in numerous villages throughout the coastal river and marsh areas (City of Santa Monica, 2000a, 1). Also sharing this area were people of the Chumash culture who lived further west in Malibu and the Channel Islands.

Change happened subtly, yet irrevocably, when Juan Cabrillos, a Portuguese navigator sailing under Spain's flag, led an expedition along the southern California coast in 1542. Anchoring in Santa Monica Bay, he claimed the territory for Spain and visited the grounds of the future city. Yet, this prize went virtually unexplored and unexploited for another 200 years until the King of Spain sent a party of soldiers and Franciscan priests to colonize the land and proselytize the native people. While Catholic fathers built missions a day's journey apart



228 PAQ SUMMER 2004

throughout the state, soldiers received large land tracts for their service, thus initiating the rancho system that would dominate California's economy and settlement for the next hundred years.

Between 1822 and 1851, three hacienda families

struggled over possession of the area that would become Santa Monica. Just one year after California became a state, land commissioners divided the disputed land parcel of 36,000 acres between the three families. Still, except for

grazing cattle and Los Angeles residents camping on the cliffs and beaches of Santa Monica Bay to escape the dry heat of the nascent metropolis, the area remained largely undeveloped (City of Santa Monica, 2000b, 2).

In 1872 this economic picture changed sharply. Colonel R. S. Baker, a migrant from the northeast and a cattleman, purchased a portion of the area to operate a

sheep ranch on the mesa overlooking the ocean. Two years later, Baker took on a partner, Senator John Percival Jones, acknowledged as the founder of Santa Monica. Dismissing the idea of the retaining the area as an agricultural investment, Jones envisioned a townsite on the ocean

serving as the terminus for a southern California rail

system. Despite the eventual failure of his rail line and, with it, his dream of a new, bustling harbor center, Jones did manage to survey the town site and initiated a real estate strategy that sold six hundred residential lots and established a precedent for marketing that Santa Monica

follows, even today. His advertising did not simply sell

land; it sold a dream:

...we will sell at public outcry to the

highest bidder, the Pacific Ocean, draped with a western sky of scarlet and gold; we will sell a bay filled with white winged ships; we will sell a southern horizon, rimmed in a choice of purple



PAQ SUMMER 2004 229

mountains. . . we will sell a frostless, bracing, warm yet languid air, braided in with sunshine and odored with the breath of flowers... the title to the ocean and the sunset, the hills and the clouds, the breath of life giving ozone and the song of the birds is

guaranteed by the beneficent God who bestowed them. .. (City of Santa Monica, 2000a, 2)

Even with Jones' economic failure, Santa Monica's development benefited from the wave of tourism that hit California in the 1880s. Tourist dollars infused the economy and attracted permanent residents. Having a reliable economic base and a critical mass of population, the city incorporated in 1886. But the completion in 1896 of the interurban rail line to Los Angeles and the infusion of the automobile in the 1920s generated a building boom and started the transformation from seasonal beach city to bedroom community (City of Santa Monica, 2000a).

With accessible transportation and the development of the Douglas Aircraft factory, Santa Monica solidified its transition to a city of permanent residents and commercial enterprises. WWII and, later, the Cold War defense industry and domestic demand helped drive this shift. Factory workers swarmed into the city looking for shelter (Clavel, 1986, 140). Orchestrating this development the local growth machine - defined by Logan and Molotch (1987, 32) as an interlocking relationship between pro- growth associations and government dedicated toward increasing land value through development and rents, and in so doing, raising tax revenues - produced homes and apartments across the city.



230 PAQ SUMMER 2004

The city council applauded the machine's success in

creating commercial projects and jobs. However, in the

flurry of investment in a city of eight square miles, land values soared in a market dominated by scarce land and

high demand. Santa Monica was becoming a city of landlords and renters. By 1960, 69% of the resident

population were renters in a city with seemingly infinite demand (Clavel, 1986, 140). Construction in 1966 of the Santa Monica Freeway to Los Angeles (Interstate 10), made the beach city accessible to downtown LA within 25

minutes, spiking housing demand and shifting Santa Monica's economy to real estate investment. With

escalating demand for living space, real estate gorged on rental development. Between 1960-72 some 14,000 apartments were built, comprising 40% of the city's housing stock. With housing prices beyond the reach of middle and even upper-middle class residents, rental became the only option for those wishing to live in the city. By 1980, the proportion of renters reached 80% (Fulton, 1997, 24).

However, as early as the 1970s indications of

misgivings concerning the city's development emerged. Residents formed the Santa Monica Democratic Club, whose agenda included growth control and pro- environment issues. Environmentalist groups began challenging the conservative establishment, buttressed by the growth machine, over landfills in the bay and high-rise apartment units that blocked the viewscape to the ocean

(Clavel, 1986, 141). Together these groups stopped the demolition of the Santa Monica pier (ironically, now one of the city's favorite recreation venues).

Soaring land values and home prices become the final catalysts for institutional and policy changes; local activists formed Santa Monicans for Rent Control (SMRR). Gaining strength from its coalition with the Democratic



PAQ SUMMER 2004 231

Club and Tom Hayden's and Jane Fonda's Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED) and operating an aggressive grassroots strategy, SMRR gained passage of the rent control initiative in 1979 and won 2 seats on the city council. In 1981 SMRR increased this foothold by winning a majority of the city council seats and the mayor's office (Clavel, 1986, 148). This change in power also ushered in shifts in policy perspectives and development decisions. Reformers and citizens began to challenge conventional conceptions of rampant growth that exhibited little concern for quality of life issues (Fulton, 1997, 33). Since the 1980s, SMRR control of local government has ebbed and flowed, but their legacy has not been reversed.

Quality of life issues - those conditions that have attracted people to Santa Monica for decades - now occupy legitimate positions in the city's development and have facilitated the acceptability of sustainable community programs. Development has continued but with environmental and equity components that flow back to the community at large. With an increasing number of interest groups seeking to protect the lifestyle and environment of the city, a city council dominated by a progressive majority, and a mayor-elect from the Green Party, this policy perspective is not likely to change in the near fiiture.

Santa Monica and Sustaining Community Program

Urban theorists have chronicled the tendency for the latest stage in metropolitan development to exhibit spatial fragmentation, decentralization, and real estate investment (Gottdiener, 1994; Monkkonen, 1989; Teaford, 1993). Although this development stage has become a vortex of investment and habitation - almost 80% of U.S. residents live in urban areas - it has drawn strong criticism. Corbett



232 PAQ SUMMER 2004

and Corbett (2000, 1) capture the essence of this sentiment in their critique of today's urban society:

No longer is there the human-scale development that in the past provided physical beauty, a sense of

community, and a setting where basic human needs can be fulfilled. Instead, urbanization, coupled with much of modern technology, has produced a society and lifestyle that are unhealthy and stressful for the individual. At the same time, this lifestyle is systematically destroying the earth's support system.

To stem negative prospects of metropolitan development - and the prophecies of social critics on urban

living - Santa Monica initiated a broad strategy to save its

community's livability. Because this city has strong appreciation for its location and environment, its threshold of adoption for some environmentally sensitive programs is

low; however, through the early 1990s, such efforts were incremental.

In 1991, the city council appointed a special task force of residents, academicians, and practitioners with

expertise in environmental issues. At first, their charge was to assess the city's performance in protecting the quality of life through environmentally sound practices. After a six- month review, they concluded that while the city had made some discernable progress, it was piecemeal. For example, the city's recycling program demonstrated success; however, the city still purchased products that produced hazardous waste. Understanding that the city's environment and quality of life were twin assets that had

propelled the city's progress and that both were in danger, the city council extended the mission of the task force to include an on-going advisory capacity on environmental issues. During the next eighteen months, the task force embarked on a much greater project - ascertaining the roots of the city's environmental problems and then developing a



PAQ SUMMER 2004 233

comprehensive strategy that emphasized measurable long term decisions and outcomes (City of Santa Monica, 1997). Fueling this bolder move was the growing concern over contamination of the Santa Monica Bay, water shortages, and the 1992 Rio conference which reminded the city's activists, staff, and public officials about the gravity of the environmental problems.

The task force encouraged participation by holding community meetings, interacting with local interest groups - including Heal the Bay, Coalition for Clean Air, and Global Green USA - conducting presentations, and directing a survey to identify high interest players. They drew upon the lessons from Howard's New Towns of 1898 and FDR's Garden Cities of 1936, and the promise of the Ahwahnee principles, the sustainable community manifesto developed in 1991 by the Local Government Commission, Sacramento, California (Corbett and Corbett 2000). From this policy formulation and design period emerged the city's working definition of "sustainability" - the ability to meet current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same - and the adoption of a set of guiding principles and an implementation plan in 1994 (City of Santa Monica, 1994).



234 PAQ SUMMER 2004

Figure 1

Santa Monica's Guiding Principles

• The Concept of Sustainability Guides City Policy • Protection, Preservation and Restoration of the

Natural Environment is a High Priority of the City • Environmental Quality and Economic Health are

Mutually Dependent • All Decisions Have Environmental Implications • Community Awareness, Responsibility,

Involvement and Education are Key Elements of Successful Programs/Policies

• Santa Monica Recognizes Its Linkage with the

Regional, National, and Global Community • Those Environmental Issues Most Important to the

Community Should be Addressed First, and the Most Cost-Effective Programs and Policies Should be Selected

• The City is Committed to Procurement Decisions which Minimize Negative Environmental and Social

Impacts

Source: Santa Monica Sustainable City Program, City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works and Environmental Affairs, 1994.

The underlying assumptions of these principles are that Santa Monica's economic future is inextricably linked



P AQ SUMMER 2004 23 5

to the state of the environment, and that the health and quality of life is dependent on a more symbiotic relationship between economy, lifestyle, and environmental quality. Along with manifesting the city's vision of a sustainable community, these principles provided a decision making framework to address the underlying causes of environmental problems - without simply addressing the symptoms (City of Santa Monica, 1999, 1). Four major policy areas were targeted, each with goals, measurable objectives, and numerous programs to achieve success. For each target, 1990 was used as a base year with the year 2000 as the target for accomplishment. The four policy target area goals and objectives are:

• Resource Conservation: Promote conservation technologies and practices to the use of nonrenewable resources. Develop local, non-polluting renewable energy, water and material resources, and recycling. Target: reduce energy 16%. Reduce potable water 20%. Reduce solid waste volumes 50%. Average 50% recycled content in City paper purchases. Convert 75% of City vehicle fleet to reduced-emissions fuel. Reduce wastewater flows 15%. Increase number of trees on public property by 350.

• Transportation: Promote alternative means of transportation, including public transit, walking, bicycling, and car-pool/rideshare. Reduce city pavement areas and encourage work schedules that reduce duration of the commuting day. Target: increase ridership on city's bus lines 10% and increase vehicle ridership to 1.5 for all employers with over 50 employees.

• Pollution Prevention and Public Health Protection: Protect and enhance environmental and public health by reducing or eliminating the use of hazardous and toxic materials by residents and businesses, minimizing pollutant levels entering the air, water, and soil. Ensure that no single geographic or socioeconomic group in the city bears



236 PAQ SUMMER 2004

an unfair burden in the implementation of this policy. Target: reduce total volume of dry weather storm drain

discharges to the ocean 60%. Reduce consumption of hazardous materials, including pesticides 15%. Cleanup and close 75% of all underground storage tank contamination sites.

• Community Development: Encourage development of

compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented projects to maximize affordable housing, encourage walking, bicycling, use of existing and future public transit and creation of community gardens. Promote growth of businesses that provide residents with job opportunities and have positive environmental and social impacts. Facilitate education that enriches the lives of all community members and assist the implementation of the program. Target: provide 750 additional housing units and create three new

community gardens (City of Santa Monica, 1994). This program's design and adoption represents a

sharp break with the city's past record, both in scope and

magnitude. Thirty-five ongoing city programs were

brought under the aegis of the sustainable policy, most of which have been revised to expand their scope to address

greater levels of sustainability. Another 35 new programs were proposed, many of which have now been adopted by the city council.

What Has Happened?

As mentioned before, this research does not pretend to do conventional program evaluation; the central task is, instead, to map the terrain. Still, as we sort through various

polices, we do point out some of the successes and failures and some factors that have influenced the current state of

sustainability.




By 1996, Santa Monica had made discernable

progress in a number of important areas according to their indicator targets. Table 1 demonstrates this record in water

usage, land filled solid waste, city vehicle fleet usage of reduced-emission fuels, wastewater flows, average vehicle

ridership of employers with over 50 employees, dry weather stormdrain discharges to the ocean, deed restricted affordable housing units, and open public space. Other areas fared less well: energy usage, ridership on city mass transit, community gardens, and implementation of a sustainable schools program (City of Santa Monica, 1996, SI). Still other program areas remained inadequately measured such as city purchase of recycled paper, increase of trees in public space, reduced use of hazardous materials

citywide, and clean-up of known underground storage tanks sites.

Although successes in a number of the sustainable

programs had established its value and legitimacy, the

overarching program continued exhibiting a piecemeal format, thus resisting coordination. Little effort had been

expended to integrate the Sustainable City Program with the City's General Plan. Consequently, other city departments remained unaware or unmotivated to adopt changes in their routines and practices. Worse, little effort had been spent on involving the business community, the school district, the local community college, local non- profit organizations, and the general residents. Without broadly based community support, the chances of a successful implementation and compliance with this type of program are dim (Roseland, 1998, 211; Stewart, 2000, 186).



238 PAQ SUMMER 2004

Table 1 Sustainable Community Program Indicators

Sustainability I 1990 1995 I 1998 I 2000 Indicators Baseline | | Target Resource Conservation • Landfilled solid 124,000 93,178 111,636 62,000

waste (tons/yr) • Water usage 14.3 12.2 12.4 11.4

(millions of gallons/day)

• Energy usage 6.45 5.63 Pending Pending (millions mBTUs/yr)

Transportation • Annual ridership on 19.0 17.8 20.8 20.9

municipal bus line (millions)

• Average vehicle Unknown 1.29 Pending 1.50 ridership (AVR) of city's employers with over 50 employees

• % of city fleet Unknown 15% 33% 75% vehicles using reduced-emission fuels



PAQ SUMMER 2004 239

Table 1 (Continued)

Pollution Prevention and Public Health Protection • Hazardous waste N/A N/A Pending 10%

generated by City reduction operations

• City purchases of N/A N/A N/A 10% hazardous materials reduction

• Known Unknown 18 17 6 underground storage tank sites requiring clean-up

• % Underground N/A N/A 95% (as 100% storage tanks in of 9/99) compliance with federal UST standards

• % Diversion or N/A N/A 92% 100% treatment of dry weather stormwater runoff for all city stormdrains (May- October)

• Wastewater flows 10.4 8.85 9.05 8.8 (citywide; millions gallons/day | |



240 PAQ SUMMER 2004

Table 1 (Continued)

Community and Economic Development • Create and N/A Proposal No Full

implement developed further imple- sustainable schools progress mentation program in city school system

• Deed restricted (Target affordable housing year is units 1172 1470 1725 2003)

(Public) N/A N/A 661 1903

(Private) 928 • Public open space 164 179.5 180.6 180

(acres) • Number of 2 2 2 5

community gardens • Trees in public 28,000 28,000 29,263 31,263

spaces (est) (est)

Source: City of Santa Monica, Sustainable City Program Report, 1999.

To build on its successes and to remedy its

weaknesses, the city initiated another punctuated period of accelerated program development. Understanding that some external influences were beyond local control, such as the restructuring of the public utilities, the Taskforce called upon the city to revise and update the action plan to meet indicator targets, meaning that additional programs would be needed and existing programs expanded. Additional staffing would be needed, with requisite funding, to broaden implementation and monitoring. Greater efforts to integrate the Sustainable City Program into the city's planning process and daily operation were

underscored, thus requiring meetings and education of staff from appropriate departments and divisions. Last, the




Taskforce directed attention toward the need to develop a

plan that would involve the community at large in the

program (City of Santa Monica, 1996, S2).

By 1999, demonstrable changes had occurred. From the 1990 base-year to 1999, solid waste diverted from landfills had increased to 37%, ridership on public transit had increased by 9.5%, and usage for reduced emission fuels by the city fleet has risen to 34%. In addition, the city had begun to purchase 100% renewable electricity for all

city facilities and had retrofitted all city facilities to

improve energy efficiency. Between these same years, sustainable policies reduced water usage by 13%, green house gas emission by 5.2%, and wastewater flows by 14%. Untreated dry-weather urban runoff into Santa Monica Bay was reduced 92%, with a new treatment center to achieve further reduction slated to become operational in 2000. Hazardous materials and chemical usage lessened. In

Community Development, publicly assisted affordable

housing, open space, new trees in public areas, and streetscape and park renovations all increased (City of Santa Monica 1999, 4).

Normally city leaders fear that sustainable

community programs will hurt business and economic development within a city (Corbett and Corbett, 2000; Shuman, 1998). The environmental improvements noted above have encouraged, rather than discouraged, business growth. Witnessing how protection of the city's environment has increased the city's popularity for tourism, residence, office space usage, and shopping, the Chamber of Commerce and business leaders now endorse the Sustainable City Program (Dean Kubani, Santa Monica's Director of Environment Programs Division, personal interview, 12/6/2000). As Shuman (1998, 6) points out sustainable cities need not chase corporations; rather these cities will be able to cultivate local entrepreneurs and



242 PAQ SUMMER 2004

indirectly attract migrating business by creating a healthy and attractive environment for working and shopping. Mixed-use development, such as the city's successful street

promenade in the old downtown shopping area, more trees and parks, more hazard-free construction, all require more

regulation and higher developmental costs. Yet, business knows that the city, with its environment, is a place where an enterprise can make money, so new ones are attracted and older ones do not leave. Not coincidentally, Santa Monica has one of the few AAA bond ratings (Kubani, personal interview, 12/6/2000).

The primary actors in this program are city staff, particularly the Environmental Programs Division of the

Department of Public Works and Environment. Indeed, Director of Public Works initiated the drive for a sustainable city program. His leadership has exhibited an

entrepreneurial/broker style that has kept the program on the council agenda. This leadership also translates into

hiring environmentally-committed staff who are the driving forces bringing innovative ideas, problems, and new

proposals before an admittedly sympathetic city council.

Working with local, high profile, environment interest

groups and entrepreneurs in other city departments, the Environment Programs Division has increased its influence in shaping and expanding this policy area.

The city manager, a supporter of the Sustainable

City Program, has directed her departments to cooperate and participate, thus building a tighter linkage between that

program and the City's municipal plan, as well as enabling the city to establish role model leadership for the rest of the

community. Because of bureaucratic inertia when dealing with new practices, this integration of city departments has occurred slowly since the inception of the program; yet, it has been occurring at a steady rate.



PAQ SUMMER 2004 243

To successfully implement a sustainable community program, cities have employed a number of tools. Table 2 ranks the category of tools used by Santa Monica.

According to Dean Kubani, Director of the Environment

Programs Division, regulation is the most effect tool and is used frequently to achieve program goals (Kubani, personal interview, 12/6/2000). Municipal laws give these policies authoritative presence in behavior. For example, the Green

Building Code requires developers to submit a recycle plan before any demolition can occur. Licenses and permits allow the city to review and sign-off prior to the project; standards provide criteria for residences and commercial

enterprises to follow and allow for future monitoring. When dealing with developers, quid pro quo has been effective in increasing park space. Regulatory compliance tools demand appropriate staffing levels. Ordinance enforcement requires adequate numbers of inspectors to achieve desired effectiveness. Currently, the city only has one water inspector and no inspectors monitoring chemical

usage that negatively affects the ozone layer.

Financial incentives are the second most effective instrument in the city. Of all the tools in this category, pricing through tier systems for water usage and solid waste recycling has achieved greatest results. Additionally, subsidies have helped maintain public affordable housing, and loans have encouraged energy efficiency technology. So far vouchers have not been utilized, but rewards and rebates have led 80% of city residents to convert to low flush toilet retrofitting.

Voluntarism is essential to keep implementation and monitoring costs down; however, this instrument has been less effective in changing behavior. For example, wealthy neighborhoods periodically ignore the tier system penalty and pay for high water usage. As the program becomes more institutionalized, as tier systems become more



244 PAQ SUMMER 2004

prohibitive, and as educational programs are brought on line, voluntary behavior may become a stronger component.



PAQ SUMMER 2004 245

Table 2 Rank Order of Policy Instruments

Categories Instruments

Regulations 1 . Laws 2. Licenses, Permits, and Standards 3. Tradable Permits 4. Quid Pro Quo with

business/developers

Financial Incentives 1 . Pricing 2. Taxes and Charges 3. Subsidies and Tax Incentives 4. Grants and Loans 5. Rebates and Rewards 6. Vouchers

Voluntary 1. Information 2. Volunteers, Voluntary Associations 3. Technical Assistance

Expenditure 1 . Expenditure and Contracting 2. Monitoring 3. Investment and Procurement 4. Enterprise 5. Public/Private Partnerships

The expenditure category has been used only sparingly. Santa Monica uses purchasing and procurement as primary instruments in this group. This leadership role models and stimulates the market for environmentally safe



246 PAQ SUMMER 2004

goods. Still, this category is the least used in the city's repertoire.

Overall, Santa Monica has created a successful, multifaceted sustainable city program, though not without

problems. The recent robust economy has encouraged both

development and rising energy usage. Outreach has succeeded in building support for the program but has fallen short of expectations and needs to concentrate future

participation expansion efforts. For example, because of limited budget and staffing, the program has failed to make a concerted effort to integrate sustainable practices into the

operations and classroom education of the local community college and K-12 school district (City of Santa Monica, 1999). For now, the Sustainable Community Program hovers in a stable stage, but this could erupt into another

ramping-up period as the city reevaluates indicators for the

year 2000, as the city recruits more participants into the

program, and as energy wars and shortages loom on the horizon.

CONCLUSION

From this exploratory case study, we have seen how Santa Monica has taken a decisive step toward

implementing a sustainable city program. In the process, we have observed, at least in this instance, that the city's path in this policy area approximates puncutated equilibrium. Additionally, we have noted the scope and some of the success and shortcomings of the city's program, along with identifying important factors that have assisted or hindered implementation. At one level this

study contributes to the breadth of knowledge that we, as scholars and practitioners, are currently collecting on sustainable communities in order to build a better

composite of this emerging urban spatial strategy.



PAQ SUMMER 2004 247

However, at another level this study suggests a research agenda for a number of variables that may prove critical in assessing the initiation, design, and

implementation of current and future sustainable city programs. Variables such as local history, environmental values in local culture, geographic location, level of interest

group and business support or opposition, and public official policy disposition played key roles in the Santa Monica experience and may influence the sustainable

community policy process in other cities. By using some or all of these variables to construct testable hypotheses, we will increase our understanding of conditions that either drive or constrain sustainable communities in our urban arena.

REFERENCES

Anderson, James. (2000). Public Policymaking, Fourth edition, New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones (1993). Agenda and Instability in American Politics.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bowman, Ann. (1987). The Visible Hand:Major Issues in

City Economic Policy. Washington, DC: National

League of Cities.

City of Santa Monica (1994). Sustainable City Program:Guiding Principles. Santa Monica: Author.

City of Santa Monica, Task Force on the Environment (1996). Sustainable City Progress Report. Santa Monica: Author.



248 PAQ SUMMER 2004

City of Santa Monica (1997). Sustainable City Program:Progress Ssummary 1994-1996. Santa Monica: Author.

City of Santa Monica. (1999). Sustainable City Progress Report and Update. Santa Monica: Author.

City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Group (2000a). Historical Preservation. Santa Monica: Author.

City of Santa Monica, City Clerk's Office (2000b). History of Santa Monica. Santa Monica: Author.

Clavel, Pierre (1986). The Progressive City:Planning and Participation, 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder. (1983) Participation in American Politics:The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Corbett, Judy and Michael Corbett. (2000). Designing Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Dahl, Robert A. (1961). Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.

Daniels, Mark. (1998). "The Role of Technology in

Creating Sustainable Communities." Proceedings of American Society for Public Administration's

Regions TTT/TV 1998 Conference:Network-Public Administration in the 21st Century. Fairfax

County, VA: George Mason University.



PAQ SUMMER 2004 249

Fulton, William (1997). The Reluctant MetropolisrThe Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press.

Gottdiener, Mark. (1994). The New Urban Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Harvey, David (1985). The Urbanization of Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hiss, Tony. (1990). The Experience of Place. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Jacobs, Jane (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.

Jones, Bryan D. (1994). Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Kingdon, John. (1984). Agenda, Alternatives, and Public

Policy. Boston: Little, Brown.

Lindblom, Charles (1959). "The Science of Muddling Through

" Public Administration Review 19(1): 77-88.

Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch (1987). Urban Fortunes:The Political Economy of Place.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lovins, Amory (1977). Soft Energy Paths:Toward a Durable Peace. San Francisco: Friends of the Earth International.



250 PAQ SUMMER 2004

Massing, Michael (2000). "Stalled in Paradise." The American Prospect ll(13):22-27.

Monkkonen, Eric. (1989). American Becomes Urban.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Odum, Howard T. (1971). Environment, Power, and

Society. New York: Wiley.

Roseland, Mark. (1998). Toward Sustainable Communities. Stoney Creek, CT. New Society Publishers.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is BeautifuhA Study of Economics as If People Mattered. London: Blood and Briggs.

Sharpe, Elaine B. (1999). "Policy Change in American Cities and Counties," in R E. Weber and P. Brace

(eds ). American State and Local Politics. New York: Chatham House.

Shuman, Michael. (1998). Going Local: Creating Self- Reliant Communities in a Global Age. New York: Free Press.

Simon, Herbert (1977). Models of Discovery. Boston: D. Reidel.

Stewart. (2000)."Community Governance," in Hugh Barton

(ed.) Sustainable Communities. London: Earthscan.

Stone, Clarence N. (1989). Regime Politics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.



PAQ SUMMER 2004 25 1

Teaford, Jon C. (1993). The Twentieth-Century American City. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Truman, David B. (1951). The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Waste, Robert J. (1986). "Community Power and Pluralist Theory," in R. J. Waste (ed.). Community Power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wolman, Harold and David Spitzley. (1996). "The Politics of Local Economic Development." Economic Development Quarterly 10 (2): 115-150.

Yin, Robert K. (1984). Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zukin, Sharon (1995). The Culture of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.



Documents

REINVENTING PARADISE: SANTA MONICA'S SUSTAINABLE CITY PROGRAM