A Report byThe Sierra Nevada Regional InitiativeThe California Planning RoundtableThe California Planning Foundation

JULY 2002

PLANNINGEASTERN SIERRAImproving Intergovernmental Coordination,Public Involvement and Land Use Decisions

Funded in Part by a Grant fromThe David & Lucille Packard Foundation

in the

Introduction 1

What We Value by Andrea Lawrence, SNRI 2

The Workshop at June Lake 4

The Panels 6

Initial Outcomes and Possible Directions 8

Afterword 10

Acknowledgements 11

Contents

Introduction

1

n 2000, the Sierra NevadaRegional Initiative (SNRI)received a grant from the

David and Lucille PackardFoundation to undertake the EasternSierra Land Use Planning Project.The goal of the project is to enhancethe quality of land use planning inthe Eastern Sierraregion comprised ofAlpine, Mono and InyoCounties. Project objectivesinclude strengtheninggovernmental planningthrough education, andsupporting and empow-ering participation inplanning decisions bynon-governmentalorganizations and citi-zens at large.

SNRI intends toaccomplish the projectobjectives through thedevelopment of trainingprograms and materialsto assist in enhancing the expertiseof town and county planning officials,and federal and other governmentalland managers in the Eastern Sierraregion. The programs will focus onplanning approaches and techniquesthat permit sustainable economicdevelopment while maximizing theconservation of the pristine beauty,natural resources, and unique land-scapes that are the Eastern Sierra’sprincipal attraction. The programsare also intended to include work-shops and informational outreach tonon-governmental organizations andcitizens, to assist in increasing theeffectiveness of public input inplanning decisions.

As part of this effort, the EasternSierra Land Use Planning Workshopwas held on September 8 and 9,2001, at June Lake. The workshop

was developed and conducted bySNRI, with assistance from theCalifornia Planning Roundtable andthe California Planning Foundation,and with extensive input from pro-fessional planners, policy makers,and residents from the EasternSierra region. The workshop ses-

sions attracted more than 80 partici-pants, including the groups men-tioned above, elected and appointedlocal government leaders, and profes-sional staff from local, state, andfederal agencies.

Compiled by the CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable, this report isintended to draw public attention tothe significant challenges facing theEastern Sierra, and to summarizethe discussions, issues raised, andrange of possible policy choicesidentified in the June Lake workshop.The first part of this report, thewelcoming keynote address to theworkshop by Andrea Lawrence,SNRI Project Director, effectivelycaptures the thoughtful and passionateconsideration for the Sierra sharedamong workshop participants.

Part 2 of this report, “TheWorkshop at June Lake,” brieflyreviews the major points raised anddiscussed at the workshop, and sum-marizes the workshop panels. Adetailed account of the workshopsessions can be found in an appen-dix to this report that is available on

the California PlanningRoundtable website:www.cproundtable.org

“Initial Outcomes andPossible Directions”highlights some of theideas for change thatemerged from the work-shop. More importantly,it notes that both theEastern Sierra Land UsePlanning Workshop andthis report are only initialsteps in a challengingand continuing process ofcollaborative regionalefforts to ensure the longterm preservation of the

Sierra, and its multitude of interrelatedresources.

Those who produced this reportwish to thank the people and organ-izations who made the EasternSierra Land Use Planning Workshoppossible. Partial lists of the manydedicated contributors are in thesummaries of the workshop panels,and in the acknowledgments at theend of this report. We also want toapologize in advance if we haveinadvertently misstated or misrepre-sented any of the hundreds ofcomments by workshop panelists oraudience participants.

What We Value by Andrea Lawrence, SNRI

2

The following is the welcomingaddress given at the EasternSierra Land Use PlanningWorkshop on September 8 and9, 2001, by Andrea Lawrence,Sierra Nevada RegionalInitiative Project Director.

This is a first for theeastside. We have allthree counties (Inyo,Mono, and Alpine) as wellas citizens of the east-side, plus the CaliforniaPlanning Roundtableand California PlanningFoundation, sharing intoday’s discussion.

Let’s talk about whatwe value. I’ve always feltthat the most importantthing that we have to dois to look at land use inthe Eastern Sierra firstwith our hearts and ourspirits. Then, second, wecan look at the planning and themethodology by which we approachour land use. Recently, in theNational Geographic Traveler, BudRoper set the scene so beautifullyfor this area. We should all read thisarticle, “A Mammoth Ambition,”because living here we never quitesee the big picture of the eastside.

First of all, we are a land ofsuperlatives. I’m biased about it,but it happens to be fact:

We start off with the highest point in theLower 48, Mt. Whitney;

Then we have the lowest point in theUnited States, Death Valley;

We have the continent’s deepest cleft,which is the Owens Valley, whose floor isalmost two miles below the summits bor-dering it;

From the Sierra Nevada, we can cross theOwens Valley to the White Mountains, wherewe have the world’s oldest living individual

things, which are the bristlecone pines. Thegranddaddy of them all, the MethuselahTree, is close to 5,000 years old;

Now we wander north, up to the Long ValleyCaldera, which is the active seismic area;

And, of course, as we go we’re coming upUS Highway 395, one of the most gloriousscenic highways, a crown jewel of the

state of California, and clearly an amenitythat enhances the quality of our lives;

Soon we come to Mono Basin, a visual andecological treasure, the preservation ofwhich is a stunning achievement from thepoint of view of the lake and the workthey’ve done on the lake;

Farther north is Bodie, our state historicpark;

And from the eastside, we can easily gointo the best part of Yosemite.

Also what we have here — veryimportantly — is the eastern side ofthe Sierra Nevada, John Muir’sunequaled Range of Light, which isnot only an icon for us but also forthe nation and the world. The SierraNevada is populated by glorious andwonderful meadows, lakes andstreams, and all kinds of opportuni-ties, open to us who live here aswell as to the recreating public.

Both residents and visitors are veryimportant. Living or visiting here,we can walk just a few minutesaway from town and see more beau-ty in one day than most people cansee in a lifetime. That’s a vital partof our quality of life.

The other thing that is part of ourquality of life is theincredible landscape —our great open space.One of the quirkiestlegacies of the LosAngeles Department ofWater and Power is the300,000 acres of openspace they control. Inmy heart of hearts, I’dlike us over time to findsome way to get a con-servation easement onthose lands. That wouldtruly be a worthy legacyfor all of us.

I’d like next to go tothe theme of what’s in

our hearts and what’s in our spiritsabout where we live. In an essaycalled “A Sense of Place,” TonyHiss writes about how we are sensi-tized by our environment, by wherewe live and by our communities.Hiss says, “As places around uschange — both the communitiesthat shelter us and the largerregions that support them — weundergo changes inside. This meansthat whatever we experience in aplace is both a serious environmen-tal issue and a deeply personalone.” Living in the Eastern Sierra,that becomes even clearer to me. Ibelieve that we who live on the east-side are perhaps more sensitized toour place than most people are —by the grandeur of this landscapeand by the remoteness of our com-munities and thus our interdependence— to the impact of impending changes.

3

What we bring to the issues ofplanning and land use is incrediblyimportant. What we need to do inthe long term, I think, is to realizethat while earlier, exploitive land-use patterns may be appropriate insome places, they are not appropri-ate here. We know that sprawl is nogood, no matter whereyou are. It’s not appro-priate in a rural areaand most certainly not inthe Eastern Sierra.

We have to look atother alternatives foraccommodating thegrowth our communitiesexpect. In doing so, Ithink we should beguided by our sense ofconnection to our landand our communities —our sense of place. Outof that sensibility, wecan make the decisionsthat are so critical notonly to our own sense of well-beingbut also to the quality of the futurefor our families and for our children.

We have very precious and veryrare resources here: the recreationalopportunities our mountains offer.These are not resources that peoplefind in a lot of other places. There’sa wonderful expression for moun-tains — “vertical archipelagos.”Our mountain-archipelagos aretreasures that we must understandwith our hearts as well as with ourheads — that is, with our science.In promoting recreation, I think wehave to remember that so many peo-ple will come up here, not just forthe beauty but also for theresources, especially for the hiking,for getting out into this wonderfulRange of Light.

So our planning needs to incor-porate tourism and recreation aswell as normal growth. I think manyof you who have been involved inthe Sierra Business Council processunderstand this. It’s the Sierra BusinessCouncil’s theory that we must have clearboundaries around our communities.

We cannot allow our communities tosprawl beyond those boundaries. Inwhatever planning we do, we haveto be mindful of the quality of ourlandscape, because that is our resource.

Let me emphasize this point: Ithink that being mindful of the qualityof our landscape is crucial, becauseit is the land that supports our spir-its, our livelihoods and, most impor-tantly, our quality of life. There is awonderful book by Dan Kemmisthat’s called Community and thePolitics of Place. It’s a thoughtfulpresentation about how we build ourcommunities. What he says aboutplanning is that our public policiesmust be a reflection of our places— that our policies must not beimposed on the land but must comeout of the land. And, of course, I thinkthat could not be more true of anyplace than of this place where we live.

This workshop is a marvelousopportunity to get together to startpushing the envelope and openingthe doors of our own minds to waysof refining our land use policies.Perhaps together we can bring avision into play, one that acknowl-edges and honors this landscape

that we live in.I think it’s impor-

tant to know that Goddid not make the SierraNevada a lot-and-blocksubdivision, and weshouldn’t be using it asa lot-and-block subdivi-sion. When I was on theCounty Board ofSupervisors, they com-plained about how muchpublic land we have(about 93%). “Yes,” Isaid, “that is terrible.We should have 99%public land!” I hope wecan enlist the cooperation

of private landowners and extend toprivate lands in the Eastern Sierrathe same care and consideration wehope to give our public lands.

Those are some things we need tokeep in mind. I hope that in today’sdiscussions, we will discover somereal issues that we can then focuson, issues that will pull us morefully into the future in a veryproductive way.

Let me express my huge thanksto all of you for being here. Ourworkshop facilitators are going to beabsolutely superb. They’re going tokeep you right on the mark so youcan do great things and come backto help us all solve the land-useproblems the Eastern Sierra faces.

The Workshop at June Lake

4

he Eastern Sierra Land UsePlanning Workshop held atJune Lake in September

2001 provided the venue for a careful,collaborative examination of pastand current planning practice in theEastern Sierra. Its focus was identi-fying, “What tools have worked?”and “What new techniquesshould we consider?”The first part of theworkshop provided anoverview of the uniquesetting that is the EasternSierra. The Saturdaysession began with anopening keynote addressby SNRI Project DirectorAndrea Lawrence, who isalso a former member ofthe Mono County Boardof Supervisors. Andrea’sintroduction was followedby an overview of currentconditions in the EasternSierra, including presen-tations by experts on naturalresources, water quality and supply,population, economy, transportation,and housing.

The heart of the workshop was aseries of panel discussions, coveringpublic participation in the planningprocess, collaboration in planning,community and resort development,and the economics of rural government.Each was facilitated by a member ofthe California Planning Roundtableor California Planning Foundation,and included Eastern Sierra com-munity activists, professional plan-ners, and policy makers. An impor-tant component of each panel was amoderated discussion of the topicwith members of the audience.

Sunday’s session featured tworoundtable discussions, “Planners’Gut Level Shop Talk” and “Public’sGut Level Shop Talk.” Each built on

the first day of the workshop andwas a wide-ranging, at times emo-tional discussion of planning issuesfacing the Eastern Sierra and howbest to address them.

The hours of discussion in theworkshop among planners, politicians,governmental officials at all levels,

environmentalists, and concernedcommunity members, appeared toreflect agreement that the valuableecosystems of the Sierra are endan-gered on several fronts, and that thekey challenge is how to maintain asustainable environment with thegrowth pressures unique to theEastern Sierra region.

An important foundation for much ofthe thinking and discussion at the work-shop was the Sierra Nevada EcosystemProject (SNEP), by the Center for Waterand Wildland Resources, University ofCalifornia at Davis. The SNEPassessed outcomes under severalscenarios for population growth andsettlement patterns. Although theexpected outcomes under each sce-nario varied, the SNEP report con-cluded that any future scenariowould require significant changes inland use and infrastructure policies

to achieve lower impacts on criticalhabitats. The report states: “If currentpopulation growth and settlementpatterns continue, then half the privateland in the Sierra would be settled.If a more compact form of settlementwere followed, then the land areaoccupied would still double from the

present amount. If lowpopulation growth andcompact developmentwere chosen, then littleadditional land (8%more) would be required,assuming that infill andcarefully targeted densitytransfers are used.”

The report goes onto state: Translation ofSNEP strategies intoactual policy may proceedmore easily throughdevelopment of regionalpolicies for the differentregions of the Sierra.These regions differ in

population levels, density, andgrowth, and in the manner in whichthey incorporate costs of resource useand environmental risk, governmentalcoordination, and activism. Thepattern of employment, commodityproduction, and services directlydependent on the Sierra Nevadaecosystem varies greatly across therange; economic linkages clearlydefine distinct regions within theSierra.

As the Sierra Nevada EcosystemProject report concluded: “It isunlikely that a single model or policywould apply equally well across allregions, except perhaps one thatencouraged widespread institutionalinnovation toward ecosystem stew-ardship.” These thoughts wereechoed in the workshop and therewas general consensus that effectiveregional cooperation, coordination

5

and partnerships could benefit boththe Eastern Sierra region as a whole,and each of its individual communities.

The Eastern Sierra Land UsePlanning Workshop was convenedbecause of a widely held belief thatthe unique character of the EasternSierra — its ecosystems andcommunities — and thevariety of developmentpressures that face theregion, call for the bestplanning that can bemustered. Two sets ofoutcomes of the work-shop are represented inthis report. The first is asummary of key pointsraised at the workshop,listed below. The secondis a set of approaches forfurther considerationand discussion, andappears in the “InitialOutcomes and PossibleDirections” section ofthis report.

Key points raisedEnvironmental values mustbe protected as other con-cerns (economic, social, etc.)are addressed.

Effective regional coopera-tion, coordination and part-nerships could benefit theEastern Sierra region as awhole and each of itsindividual communities.

Effective public participationis crucial to ongoing plan-ning efforts. There have beensuccesses in this regard inthe Eastern Sierra; there is aneed for more, and more meaningful,public participation. Media coverage is animportant component to involving andeducating the public.

The Eastern Sierra have had successeswith regional intergovernmental review ofplanning activities and developmentproposals; these efforts should be continuedand, as appropriate, expanded.

There is an ongoing need for developmentmonitoring and analysis.

The economics of rural government willcontinue to provide serious challenges.Funding sources have not met increasingdemands on public infrastructure andservices. To address the economics ofrural government in the Eastern Sierra,better financial tools are needed, whichmay include greater regional coordination.

Affordable housing is a critical concernshared by all three counties. A mismatchof job availability and affordable housingresults in workers who must commute intoa community because they cannot affordlocal housing. The results cut across avariety of issues: land use, transportation,and the provision of public services.

Effective public policy making requiresthe availability of compre-hensive data.

There is a need for ongoingskill building among localplanners, elected andappointed officials, and citizens, including tools for:1) planning and public participation processes; 2)land use and environmentalplanning; 3) infrastructureplanning and development;and, 4) public finance.

Several things wereabundantly clearthroughout the work-shop. One was theabsolutely unique giftthat the Eastern Sierrarepresents, both to localpeople and to the rest ofthe world. Another wasthe great love for theEastern Sierra thatcharacterizes local policymakers, communitymembers, and profes-sional staff. Finally, itwas clear that there ismuch work to be doneand that, equally clearly,there is the will to do it.

The Panels

6

he panel discussions thatidentified the above keypoints included each of the

following. A detailed summary ofeach panel may be found in anappendix to this report that isavailable on the California PlanningRoundtable website atwww.cproundtable.org.

The Eastern Sierra as PlacePanel:Connie Millar, Sierra Nevada Research Center, USFS, PSW Research Station

Steve Addington, Bureau of LandManagement, Field Office Manager, Bishop

Greg James, Inyo County Water Department

Greg Newbry, Mono County PlanningDepartment

Steve Frisch, Sierra Business Council

Scott Burns, Mono County CommunityDevelopment Director

Bill Taylor, Mammoth Lakes Senior Planner.

Facilitator: Linda Dalton-California PlanningRoundtable (with the California PlanningFoundation at the time of the workshop)

To set the stage for the discussionof planning in the Eastern Sierra,this panel provided an overview ofthe region’s identity as defined byits natural amenities and commondilemmas. Connie Millar capturedthe special character of the EasternSierra with four terms: The crests ofthe Sierra and White Mountains andthe valleys of the Great Basin desertform distinct edges. The region’sstark landforms and unique vegeta-tion create a highly readable land-scape that transgresses time. Finally,the area remains fundamentallywild, fragile and sensitive to humanimpacts. In addition, particular issuesand opportunities may be addressedby sub-regions drawn around natu-ral features such as watersheds andair sheds as well as by sub-regionsdefined politically or economically.

The panel concluded that thesedistinctive characteristics are achallenge as well as a strength.Resource exportation can depletethe economic assets of the region,while resource attraction can drawso many people that the natural andaesthetic values become diluted.Panelists wondered how projectscould be designed that increase theability of economic, social, and nat-ural features of the area to reinforcerather than drain one another.

Public Participation in thePlanning ProcessPanel:Scot Burns, Mono County Planning Director

Darin Dinsmore, Sierra Business Council

Elizabeth Tenney, Eastern Sierra AdvocatesNetwork

Rick Leslie, Lone Pine Design Review Board.

Facilitator: Tom Jacobson - CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable.

Public participation has becomea mainstay of planning in California,but there remain significant chal-lenges in how to make public par-ticipation effective and meaningful.The goal of this panel was to high-light examples of public participa-tion in planning processes in theEastern Sierra, including the associ-ated successes, obstacles encoun-tered and lessons learned.

The examples represented a vari-ety of creative techniques for mean-ingfully integrating the public intoplanning decision-making, includ-ing: Mono County — RegionalPlanning Advisory Committees,ESAN (Eastern Sierra AdvocatesNetwork) (which was known as thePESTER Network (Preserving theEastern Sierra Tradition ofEnvironmental Responsibility) atthe time of the workshop), and theInyo County Design ReviewOrdinance/Lone Pine Design Review

Board. One panelist concluded withinsights on nine fundamental princi-ples (the “Nine Cs”) for effectivepublic participation: credibility,commitment, contribution, compe-tence, collaboration, continuity, con-science, conversation and celebration.

Collaboration in PlanningPanel:Chuck Thistlethwaite, Inyo County PlanningDirector

Byng Hunt, Mono County Supervisor

Jeff Bailey, Inyo National Forest Supervisor

Nancy Upham, Chair Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra (CURES)

Facilitator: Janet Fairbanks - CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable

The panelists were asked to dis-cuss collaborative planning fromtheir perspective and experiences,and to tell the group what it meansto them. They were asked to sharesuccesses and obstacles, lessonslearned and how collaborative plan-ning can be used in the future.

The panel defined collaborativeplanning as a process where stake-holders define common goals orresolve common problems. By work-ing together in a collaborative man-ner a synergistic effect occurs; theresult far exceeds what can beaccomplished as individual agen-cies. The panel discussed the prosand cons of creating a council ofgovernments, providing opportuni-ties for collaboration on a regionalscale. The challenge facing a largegeographical area such as theEastern Sierra is how to effectivelyinstitutionalize a collaborative plan-ning process among the various gov-ernmental agencies and citizens.The panel stressed that successfulcollaborative planning is inclusive,rather than exclusive; has a commongoal; avoids compromising; recog-

7

nizes that collaborative planning isa process not an end product, andnot all problems can be resolvedwith this model.

Community and ResortDevelopmentPanel:Brian Peters, Alpine County Planning Director

Rick Pucci, Bishop Administrator/PlanningDirector

Mike Vance, Mammoth Lakes Community Development Director

Benno Nager, MMSA/Intrawest

Facilitator: Stan Hoffman - CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable, California PlanningFoundation

This panel dealt with the issuessurrounding resort developmentwhile maintaining a sense of com-munity for the full time residents.As resort areas become larger andattract more visitors on a year roundbasis, the economic forces on theland market and the need for a morediverse labor force generates prob-lems familiar to more urban areas— increasing the need for publicservices, such as schools, parks,neighborhood beautification, cultur-al activities, public works and trafficcontrol. The clash between thedemand for relatively higher pricedresort housing and the more moder-ately priced worker housing increas-es in-commuting of retail, construc-tion and service workers and createsother development impacts on boththe resort and nearby communities.

The Economics of RuralGovernmentPanel:Brian Peters, Alpine County Planning Director

John Wohlmuth, Mono County ChiefAdministrative Officer

Steve Julian, Mammoth Lakes TownManager

Facilitator: Stan Hoffman - CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable, California PlanningFoundation

Discussion of the economics ofrural government centered aroundthe issues of limited dollars andlimited resources, and how to pay forincreasing demands on public infra-structure and public services. Theaftermath of the Proposition 13, andsubsequent legislation have servedto constrain most local governmentsin providing expanded services. Ingeneral, the rural communities inthe Eastern Sierra have becomeoverly dependent on retail salestaxes and hotel lodging taxes. Howcan a community expand its finan-cial base to meet demands for increasedpublic services from resort travelers,while at the same time meeting theneeds of a growing worker population?

Planners’ Gut Level Shop TalkPanel:Marshall Rudolph, Mono County Counsel

Chuck Thistlethwaite, Inyo County PlanningDirector

Scott Burns, Mono County CommunityDevelopment Director

Rene Mendez, Inyo County Administrator

Brian Peters, Alpine County Planning Director

Mike Vance, Mammoth Lakes Planning Director

Facilitators: Susan DeSantis and TomJacobson - California Planning Roundtable

The focus of the Planners’ GutLevel Shop Talk was to discuss ideasfor building capacity within theEastern Sierra governmental structureto more effectively address growthand development issues. The ques-tion was asked: what tools are neededto help you do integrated planning?

The panel agreed that a vision isneeded for the Eastern Sierra regionto keep everyone on the same page.To establish the vision, the regionneeds to invest time up-front to buildstrong relationships. One way to dothis is to move toward a formalizedregional planning structure to providea forum for continued discussions.Two key issues were raised: affordablehousing and the airport. The plannersdiscussed pursuing a regionalapproach to housing, includingneeds assessment and strategydevelopment. They also agreed thatsettling the location of a regionalairport is challenging, particularlybecause it encompasses safety, eco-nomic and political issues.

Public’s Gut Level Shop TalkFacilitator: Linda Dalton - California PlanningRoundtable (with the California PlanningFoundation at the time of the workshop)

Participants sought more ways fortimely engagement on issues thataffect their communities:

Media coverage needs to occur in advanceof decisions.

Information should be presented clearlyand concisely, not just in complex docu-ments like Environmental Impact Reports.

Public input must reach appointed andelected officials before they have made uptheir minds, not just through public hear-ings late in the process.

Citizens need feedback on how theirinvolvement affects decisions, not just asan exercise to satisfy a legal requirement.

8

n many ways, the participantsin the Eastern Sierra RegionalPlanning Workshop confirmed

the problems tentatively identifiedby SNRI at the outset of this proj-ect. The Eastern Sierra region iscurrently experiencing unprecedent-ed growth and land developmentpressures. Despite thebest efforts of expert andmotivated local landplanners and govern-mental land managers,the magnitude, volumeand complexity of thedevelopment proposalsnow under review orexpected to be filed forapproval in the nearfuture are taxing theentire planning infra-structure of this rural area.

The traditional landuses of mining, timberharvesting, and grazingare being far outstrippedin economic terms bydestination resort devel-opments, and residentialconstruction projectsdesigned as vacationhomes, or as retirementhomes for affluent out-of-area retirees. Thesekinds of developmentprojects simultaneouslyincrease the localdemand for lower-incomeservice workers, whilethey displace many ofthe area’s existingaffordable housing units.The predictable conse-quence is unmanaged growth insmall communities outside of theprincipal population centers — akind of “rural sprawl,” which hasconsequences as grave to conserva-tion values as the “urban sprawl”

elsewhere in California. This ruralsprawl jeopardizes migrating deerherds and fragile wetlands, threat-ens the purity of mountain streams,and brings additional residents expect-ing local government services toareas where community resourcesare already overtaxed.

Both community members andagency planners in the affectedcommunities often feel overwhelmedby the new development surge.Local general plans and other landplanning documents were not

designed to address developmentprojects of the kind and scope nowproposed. As a consequence, localcommunities and their policy mak-ers are frequently asked to make adhoc revisions to their basic planningpolicies to accommodate specificprojects, sometimes under severe

time and resource con-straints. Many feel thatthey lack the necessaryland planning “tools,”relevant experience, andprofessional support toensure that these devel-opment projects aredesigned to have theminimum adverseimpact on the key con-servation values thatdraw visitors to theSierra Nevada in thefirst place. In the EasternSierra, there is no COG(council of governments)or other regional govern-mental infrastructure toprovide the institutionalsupport and coordinationneeded by the decision-makers and land plannersof the different jurisdic-tions. Local conservationgroups, whose work isperformed almost entirelyby volunteers, find itdifficult to track thegovernmental review andapproval process forsignificant projects, andto participate in those deci-sions in an informed, time-ly, and effective manner.

The articulation of these issues atthe June Lake workshop, and theresponses explored by the participants,suggest that the following approachesmay be worthy of additional localconsideration and discussion.

Initial Outcomes and Possible Directions

9

They fall into three topic areas— structure, process, and policyinitiatives — and reflect the keypoints outlined above. Clearly thereare overlaps between these topicareas (for example, a structural orprocedural approach might be usedto address substantive policies).

StructureRegional Collaboration. Convene regionalforums, workshops and other means tomaintain dialogue and collaboration oncritical issues, such as transportation,housing, air quality, airports, infrastructurefinancing, economics, open space, watersupply and quality, watershed protection,and public investment.

Intergovernmental Collaboration. Considerestablishing one or more governmentalentities charged with addressing mattersof regional concern. This might take a vari-ety of forms, such as a single purposeagency, a traditional Council ofGovernments with a non-traditional mis-sion (identification and preservation ofcritical habitat and wildlife corridors,watershed preservation, etc.), or others.

Availability of Comprehensive Data.Develop, maintain, and disseminate region-al geographic information system databas-es, imagery, and applications, includingthe publication of maps.

ProcessPublic Involvement. Develop new programsand expand existing programs for provid-ing citizens with timely information on var-ious planning efforts, projects, and publicworks activities occurring in the threecounty region. Involve interested citizens,stakeholders, and representatives oforganizations by providing workshops ontopical issues, early notification of pendingpublic hearings, and ongoing broad citi-zen/organization involvement in the plan-ning and decision-making processes.

Media Coverage. Continue to expand mediacoverage as a tool for effective public par-ticipation.

Regional Intergovernmental Review.Continue and expand efforts to informlocal, state and federal agencies aboutplanning activities and proposed develop-ment projects, and coordinate local andregional decisions with state and federalagencies.

Development Monitoring and Analysis.Produce and analyze current demographicand economic projections, and assess theimpact of changing demographic and eco-nomic characteristics on planning and pol-icy issues. This can help local govern-ments in the region “get ahead of thecurve” by being able to better anticipatethe cumulative impacts of multiple devel-opment proposals in different jurisdictions,rather than reacting to each proposal indi-vidually.

Policy Development andImplementationAffordable Housing. Consider developingand adopting countywide housing ele-ments as means of addressing city andcounty housing needs in a coordinatedfashion.

Consider applying to the CaliforniaDepartment of Housing and CommunityDevelopment for grant funding under theInter-Regional Partnership Program, aimedat developing strategies for addressingjobs/housing balance.

Environmental Values. Explore the use ofland trusts and conservancies, as part offocused land use planning efforts, asopportunities to manage large land areaswith critical resource, environmental andamenity values.

Develop mechanisms for monitoringecosystem health across county boundaries.

Identify and document the critical naturalresource systems of the region: land,wildlife corridors and habitats, wetlands,and viewsheds. Adjust local general plansto more effectively preserve and protectthose resources and systems, and moreeffectively consider and respect the naturalcharacteristics of the region.

Rural Government Economics. Explore anddevelop better public finance tools, whichare essential to the ongoing health ofEastern Sierra cities and counties. Suchefforts could provide better financial sta-bility and long term solvency through toolssuch as equitable impact fee systems.

Consider various forms of regional collabo-ration in public finance matters. Theseshould include coordinated efforts to avoidlocal governments making land use policydecisions based more on the potential toincrease sales tax and other revenues thansound planning principles (a practiceknown throughout California as the“fiscalization of land use”).

Expand public awareness of the con-straints on local government revenue gen-eration imposed by the limited amount ofland in private ownership, in terms of theability of local agencies to provide the typeand level of services the new developmentprojects need.

Explore opportunities for facilitating dis-cussions between local governments inthe region and the federal governmentregarding rural economies.

Skill Building. Increase capacity amonglocal planners, officials and citizens byproviding regular access to a variety ofinformation sources and planning meth-ods, including: 1) process tools; 2) infra-structure tools; 3) financial tools; and, 4)land use and environmental planning tools.This might be accomplished by workingwith professional planning organizationsand/or university programs, and supportedby grant funding.

Improve local access to expert facilitation,and further develop local facilitation skills.One option could be the creation of a non-profit institute that could serve as a forumfostering more effective interjurisdictionalrelationships, as a venue for developing aregional vision that could be incorporatedinto local plans.

Afterword

10

number of important andencouraging changes haveoccurred in the Eastern

Sierra region since the June Lakeworkshop. The three Eastern Sierracounty planning directors havecharacterized the workshop asresulting in “lots of energy,” “count-less discussions,” and“establishing lines ofcommunication not therebefore, such as interestin regional planning.”

The creation of anEastern Sierra Council ofGovernments (COG) isbeing discussed, andintergovernmentalcoordination is improvingat many levels. Forexample, The Town ofMammoth Lakes and theCounty of Inyo arediscussing the airport.The need for morecollaborative planninghas been acknowledgedand furthered.Sometimes this hasappeared more asprocess than measurableobjectives, but that initself is a positive out-come. Mono County,working with the MonoCounty CollaborativeTeam, applied for aaffordable housing grant,the need for which wasemphasized at the work-shop. Although the grantwas not approved, theywill try again.

A tangible result for AlpineCounty was a request for NancyUpham, Inyo National Forest PublicInformation Officer and one of theFounders of the Coalition for UnifiedRecreation in the Eastern Sierra

(CURES), to appear before theAlpine County Board of Supervisorsto talk about the CURES processand its positive programs.

Scott Burns, Mono CountyPlanning Director, had begun aprocess where the three EasternSierra county planning directors

regularly get together to review theirprojects and problems. On a recentoccasion, this process was enhancedby a large gathering of people whocame together at the suggestion ofthe Sierra Business Council (SBC)

to talk about the California MainStreet Program — an effort to revi-talize main streets in rural commu-nities. The SBC representative cred-ited the June Lake workshop for theturnout and success of the localmeeting. The work continues.

The Sierra Nevada RegionalInitiative, CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable,and California PlanningFoundation hope thatthe Eastern Sierra LandUse Planning Workshop,and this report, willassist in catalyzing fur-ther discussion andaction in the monthsahead. We share withmany the hope thatthese efforts will helpinitiate long term policydirections that willfulfill the vision of anEastern Sierra regionthat meets the needs ofthe natural environment,its communities, and allof those who treasurethe Eastern Sierra.Finally, we hope thatthis preliminary work inthe Eastern Sierraregion can assist com-munities throughout theSierra Nevada inachieving more effectiveconservation of theabundant, but ultimatelyfragile resources of theRange of Light.

Acknowledgements

11

The California PlanningRoundtableThe California Planning Roundtableis an organization of experiencedplanning professionals who aremembers of the American PlanningAssociation. Membership is bal-anced between the public and pri-vate sectors, and between Northernand Southern California. The mis-sion of the Roundtable is to promotecreativity and excellence in plan-ning by providing leadership inaddressing important, unresolvedplanning issues in California.

This report represents the viewsof the Roundtable as a group. Itdoes not necessarily represent theviews of employers or clients ofindividual Roundtable members.

Members of the CaliforniaPlanning Roundtable (CPR)Jeff Carpenter, AICPCommunity Redevelopment AgencyCity of Los Angeles

Elaine Costello, AICPCity of Mountain View

Paul C. Crawford, FAICPCrawford Multari & Clark AssociatesSan Luis Obispo

Cathy E. CreswellHousing and Community DevelopmentSacramento

Linda C. Dalton, PhD, AICPCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis Obispo

Susan A. DeSantisIBI GroupIrvine

Michael Dyett, AICPDyett and BhatiaSan Francisco

David EarlyDesign, Community & EnvironmentBerkeley

Janet Fairbanks, AICPSan Diego Association of GovernmentsSan Diego

Joanne Freilich, AICPUCLA Extension Public Policy ProgramLos Angeles

Wayne Goldberg, AICPCity of Santa Rosa

Al Herson, FAICPSAICSacramento

Sharon HightowerHightower/AssociatesClaremont

Stan Hoffman, FAICPStanley R. Hoffman AssociatesLos Angeles

M. Thomas Jacobson, JD, AICPSonoma State University

Vivian Kahn, FAICPKahn/Mortimer/AssociatesOakland

Sandra Massa-LavittPalm Desert

Mike McCoyUniversity of CaliforniaDavis

Michael MooreCity of Petaluma

John W. McKennaSan Clemente

Roberta Mundie, AICPMundie & AssociatesSan Francisco

Steve Preston, FAICPCity of San Gabriel

Marvin D. Roos, AICPMainiero, Smith and AssociatesPalm Springs

Janet Ruggiero, FAICPCity of Citrus Heights

David Salazar, AICPClaremontGraduate University

R. Ann Siracusa, AICPSantee

Richard B. StephensThe AEI-CASC CompaniesColton

Susan Stoddard, PhD, FAICP InfoUseBerkeley

Woodie TescherEIP AssociatesLos Angeles

Frank Wein, FAICP, DPDSURS CorporationLos Angeles

Mark Winogrond, AICPCity of Culver City

Members of the CaliforniaPlanning Foundation (CPF)Pam FiggeCity of Chico

Stan Hoffman, FAICPStanley R. Hoffman AssociatesLos Angeles

Larry Mintier, FAICPJ. Laurence Mintier & AssociatesSacramento

Patti Nahill, AICPPGNMurietta

David Salazar, AICPClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremont

Linda F. Tatum, AICPCity of Culver City

Paul Wack, AICPCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis Obispo

Hing Wong, AICPAssociation of Bay Area Governments

Planning in the EasternSierra Project TeamAndrea LawrenceSNRI Project Manager

Pat EckartSNRI Workshop Coordinator

Janet FairbanksCPR project manager

Stan HoffmanCPF grant manager

Paul CrawfordCPR report editor

Susan DeSantisCPR

Linda DaltonCPR

Tom JacobsonCPR

Woodie TescherCPR

Mark WinogrondCPR

Report design and production:Pierre Rademaker DesignSan Luis Obispo

Illustrations:Linda McNeill© 2002 by Linda McNeill, all rights reserved

For Additional CopiesAdditional copies of this report may bedownloaded in a PDF file from theCalifornia Planning Roundtable website:www.cproundtable.org.