SCAG’s Kome Ajise on Local Government’s Role in Regional Resilience

It’s important to set the context. SCAG is a regional visioning organization, and I truly believe we have the best job in the region. We represent 19 million people, across 191 cities and six counties. Our role is to bring together leadership from these jurisdictions to address issues that transcend any single city or county—even the City of Los Angeles, as large as it is, faces challenges that extend beyond its borders. SCAG provides a forum to discuss regional impacts and establish a shared vision.

We are tasked with developing a long-range regional plan, which is at the core of what we do. We call it Connect SoCal, and we published the 2024 edition last April. This plan takes a 20- to 25-year view of the region, analyzing projections for population, housing, and employment, and planning accordingly. But it’s not just about growth—it’s about ensuring that growth happens sustainably, with resilience and equity in mind.

For the 2024 plan, we made resilience and equity central themes. Our mission is to be a catalyst for a brighter tomorrow for the entire region. That means fostering innovative plans and solutions that improve people’s lives while ensuring collaboration across jurisdictions. Because of this focus on resilience, we have already been doing extensive work on adaptation. The wildfires that recently hit our region have only heightened our sense of duty. While SCAG doesn’t own or operate infrastructure, we do play a role in regional adaptation planning.

 A few years ago, we spent two years studying climate impacts and published a Regional Adaptation Plan in 2021. That plan remains actionable, and we are currently updating it. That adaptation framework included lessons from six major wildfires, and the strategies from those studies are still relevant today. Right now, we are actively participating in task forces focused on rebuilding efforts. The priority is, of course, rebuilding as quickly as possible so that people can return to their lives. However, we also need to ensure that reconstruction incorporates resilience measures.

That’s where a real tension exists. People want to rebuild fast, and they should. But we can’t ignore the fact that climate change is making wildfires more frequent and intense. We have a responsibility to ensure that rebuilding efforts take future risks into account and to help address these challenges, SCAG is convening a regional policy discussion on February 6. We’ll bring together experts to discuss lessons learned from past fires—like those in Paradise and Sonoma—alongside perspectives on the current rebuilding efforts. We’ll also have representatives from the mayor’s office and county task forces on housing. Our goal is to facilitate a productive conversation and help guide regional leadership toward a stronger, more resilient rebuilding process.

‘Some’ people now argue that after billions invested in resiliency, ‘everything still burned down.’ How do you respond to this ‘what’s the point’ perspective?

I don't know that I necessarily agree that it all burned up–yes, a lot of things got burned up–we also learned something in this fire because it was unprecedented. The models told us we were going to have some really serious winds, but I don't know that any of our systems that are in place today could have helped—and this is just me, not necessarily any expertise that I bring to the table—but my understanding so far, having looked at what happened, I don't think there was a whole lot that our current systems could have done to mitigate.

The question then is, now that we know that winds can be as intense as they were, what opportunities do we have, or—what science can we bring to the table in deciding how we might mitigate against such winds in the future? The main weapon in this fire was wind, moving those embers faster than any firefighting vigilance or diligence could have addressed. So, we have to think about a different way of pre-positioning our material so we're ready for outbreaks. We also need to think about further hardening our commercial and public spaces so they don't become the igniting opportunities that then spread through a community.

There are a thousand different ways of looking at this. As you look at individual homeowners rebuilding and making sure they're using materials that make sense, they have vegetation stances that make sense—these are all things we need to work through and talk about. Are we going to be 100% safe from wildfires? I don't know that we could predict that, but we surely have to minimize the potential effects and damage.

No one knows better than SCAG about the complexity of aligning Southern California’s local jurisdictions. What is your reaction to current discussions about creating a State authorized rebuild entity with the power to override local government ordinances & regulations with regards to wildfire recovery?

I don’t know that I necessarily see the need to override local government. I think what we’re looking for is collaboration among local governments. It’s the city of LA, it’s the county, it’s smaller cities—Pasadena, Sierra Madre—these are all sovereign jurisdictions that have come to the table, and they’re working with the county’s leadership under the emergency services structure that’s set up right now.  There is a lot of collaboration.

We don’t want to see the state acting on its own—well-meaning as that may be—trying to do what it feels necessary without fully understanding the local context. When we have the cities and the county coming together, there’s an understanding of community needs. I think they can create a super-jurisdictional governance structure adapted to this particular situation.

Are you suggesting a super-jurisdictional joint powers agreement is possible?  

It could be a joint powers agreement. I think this is going to be a long process, and once we get past the emergency response, moving forward to rebuilding, there will be many other actions that need to be taken from formal governance. We're trying to figure out how we fund these improvements that need to happen, which may require some financing from a joint-powers governance.

Again, these will evolve organically, so that we have folks at the table and all the interests are represented. I'm not necessarily buying into this need for an imposed governance on the process. Rather, it’ll be governance that's already organically shaped, and ultimately, when it's all built back, certain jurisdictions will be responsible for maintaining and taking care of the assets that are replaced to become stewards in maintaining the resiliency that's necessary for future events. 

Is there an immediate need for local governments to establish a collaborative governance structure that can quickly and responsibly respond to pressing rebuilding housing and infrastructure demands?

I think everyone is well aware of those pressures. We can’t waste a single day trying to figure things out. There are multiple layers of complexity, and while I haven’t been in the field for this particular event, I have been involved in numerous emergency responses throughout my career—especially during my nearly three decades at Caltrans. Emergency response is incredibly fluid and dynamic. From the outside, people may think, "Why aren’t we rebuilding right now?" But on the ground, there are constraints that only those directly involved understand.

That said, I trust that the people managing the response right now, across the various task forces we have insight into, are working with urgency to clear the way for rebuilding. Recovery has to happen on multiple fronts. We need to restore critical infrastructure—sewer lines, water lines, power grids—before we can even begin reconstructing homes and businesses. Public spaces, schools, parks, and libraries must be rebuilt. At the same time, thousands of individual property owners need access to their land. But before that can happen, we must ensure public infrastructure is in place.

There are many people working with deliberate speed to get this done. I understand the frustration—people have been displaced from communities they nurtured and built over decades. Until they are restored, there is no real sense of relief.

LA Mayor Riordan after the Northridge earthquake famously said, "It’s better to ask forgiveness than permission," and introduced incentives like contractor bonuses for finishing projects ahead of schedule. Many with loss are looking for that kind of executive & decisive authority from their elected leaders. Do you think this public expectation is a positive?

Absolutely. That example makes a lot of sense for those of us who have managed emergencies and rapid reconstruction projects—especially in transportation. At Caltrans, we used incentives like contractor bonuses to accelerate major highway rebuilds after disasters. When you consider the impact on affected populations, the cost of an incentive is often pennies on the dollar compared to the economic and human toll of delays.

We will get to that point here, too. Right now, however, there are urgent on-the-ground needs. Hazardous materials must be removed. Recovery efforts are still ongoing. But in the coming weeks, we’ll start to see clearer project scopes emerge—ones that will require the type of incentivization you’re talking about to accelerate reconstruction.

Look at Pacific Coast Highway—Caltrans has already worked quickly to restore most operations there. That’s a well-defined piece of infrastructure, unlike local streets that weave through burned-out communities. Those will take more time, but we are moving as fast as possible.

Elaborate on SCAG’s resiliency tools, including a new wildfire risk screening layer as part of an update to your housing, environment, and land-use parcel tools. How do we integrate these tools into the rebuilding process?

The key is to formalize and memorialize what we already know, along with new insights that have emerged. The work we’re doing isn’t introducing entirely new concepts—it’s consolidating best practices and lessons learned so they can be easily referenced and applied. Many of the people leading this rebuilding effort are our colleagues. They already have access to the data they need, and we’re ensuring they have the best possible tools to use it effectively.

What we’re documenting in the resilience toolkit is meant for long-term planning as well. This fire is one event in one part of our region, but there are 191 other cities that aren’t dealing with an emergency today—but will need to prepare for future climate shocks. Wildfires aren’t the only threat. We’ve seen record-breaking floods, extreme heat, and even a hurricane last year that caused major damage from the Coachella Valley to the LA Basin. Each disaster teaches us something new. Our goal is to capture those lessons, so when the next crisis happens, we’re not starting from scratch. We’re working to ensure that cities across the region—whether they are recovering now or preparing for future events—have the resources they need to build more resilient communities. We’ll be publishing this work later this year.

While a collective response from elected leaders is wanted, there's also incredible distrust of government … stoked by many different players. SCAG and you are at the vortex of any collaborative SoCal government efforts. What’s your personal take on how best to address that cynicism and to rebuild trust?

Cynicism is at the far end of the spectrum. I think people are naturally skeptical until you prove to them that you’re there to help, rather than just perpetuating bureaucracy. The issue isn’t just how people feel—it’s how we as government institutions have been perceived over time. We have to work harder to change those perceptions, and that can only happen by delivering results.

At SCAG, our approach is to be as transparent as possible. We don’t overpromise things that cannot happen, because when you overpromise and underdeliver, it only fuels cynicism. We have to be upfront about what we can and cannot control. SCAG is not an authoritarian body; we work in a collaborative environment, trying to move multiple jurisdictions in the same direction. We bring a lot of expertise to the table, but we don’t dictate outcomes—that comes from collaboration among cities, counties, and stakeholders. That’s why it’s essential to communicate clearly about what we are working on, what’s in the pipeline, and what we’ve already accomplished. Many of the planning efforts we’ve led have helped cities improve their ability to plan for the future, but if people aren’t aware of that, they won’t see the value in what we do. We need to do a better job of making that work visible, showing how past efforts have contributed to real improvements, and continuing to bring the public into the process.

Ultimately, trust is built by consistently demonstrating that policymakers are working in good faith to solve today’s challenges and prepare for a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable future.

In light of the executive orders and actions from the new federal administration, what do you perceive as the impact of this first week on SCAG’s responsibilities and workload?

Regarding the new administration’s executive orders, there are several of them, and one of our biggest challenges right now is sorting through exactly what they mean and what their implications are for our programs at the federal level. SCAG receives funding from the federal government, so we’re closely examining where potential impacts may arise—not just for SCAG’s programs, but also for our members’ funding opportunities. While we receive federal funds for planning work and studies, many cities and counties within our six-county region also have projects funded at the federal level. These projects are owned and operated locally, so any changes in funding at that level could have a much larger impact.

We’re still assessing the full scope of potential disruptions. At the start of the week, there was a lot of anxiety, but over the last couple of days, things have calmed down somewhat. I just saw an update that the OMB memorandum issued on Monday has been rescinded, which helps lower the collective blood pressure a bit. So, to summarize, our focus right now is on determining the actual, tangible impacts of these executive orders, rather than reacting purely to the rhetoric surrounding them.How does receiving an executive order without specifics from OMB freezing federal funding affect your team’s ability to fulfill SCAG’s mission/ responsibilities?

When we first saw the executive orders, our initial reaction was that they wouldn’t directly impact us. However, when the OMB memo was issued, it announced a freeze on federal funding—grants, loans, and similar programs. That’s so broad that we had to quickly sort through exactly what was being frozen.

Over the last two days, we received clarifications that formula funding programs were not affected. That was a relief because most of our funding comes from formula programs. However, we also receive a number of federal grants, primarily from the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy—especially for our work on decarbonization. We’re still working to determine which grants might be affected. We’re not out of the woods yet, so we remain concerned about how this situation will unfold.

Before we conclude, one focus of the upcoming VerdeXchange Conference in April 2025 will be the 710 Freeway corridor. As the region’s MPO, and given the significant federal infrastructure dollars committed to goods movement decarbonization in Southern California, please update readers on current 710 corridor planning and plans.

The 710 is without question one of the most significant freight corridors in the country. At the same time, it runs through densely populated communities, which creates a tension between its role as a major goods movement corridor and its impact on local residents. That tension has become much more central to the discussion over the past five or six years.

For decades, the focus was on expanding the 710 to increase capacity and improve the movement of goods. Plans were slowly being implemented to widen the freeway and accommodate more trucks. But as awareness grew about the environmental and health impacts on nearby communities, the conversation shifted. The old approach of simply adding lanes is no longer viable.

Now, the focus is on a more balanced corridor enhancement strategy. There are still safety-driven capacity improvements planned, but they are much smaller in scale than what was originally proposed. The broader program now being developed by LA Metro is incorporating community input, and the priorities have evolved significantly. For example, active transportation improvements—bike and pedestrian infrastructure—are now being considered as part of the corridor plan. Electrification of the corridor is another major discussion point. There’s an open question about how to finance that transition, but it’s a critical part of the conversation. Additionally, rather than solely focusing on expanding vehicle capacity, Metro is looking at how to integrate multimodal solutions along the 710.

The project is still a work in progress, but it’s clear that we are moving away from an expansion-first mentality. Instead, we’re asking: How do we decarbonize goods movement along the corridor? We can’t remove all truck traffic, but we can make the truck fleet cleaner. We can also look at shifting more freight from trucks to rail, which would significantly reduce emissions and congestion.

Do SCAG’s corridor enhancement strategies include ‘dynamic in-motion charging?’

It’s been discussed, and while it’s not off the table, it’s not a central part of the current conversation. The technology just hasn’t matured enough for large-scale implementation. Years ago, when I was at Caltrans, we looked at in-motion charging as a pilot project at a truck stop along I-5. The results were mixed, and it didn’t move forward at the time. However, the technology has advanced since then. We’re now seeing promising results from pilot projects in Sweden and Israel, so it remains an area of interest.

One concept that was explored early on was electrifying a dedicated truck lane along the 710, allowing trucks to charge as they drive. A demonstration project along Alameda Street tested an electrified catenary system, but the infrastructure costs were significant—it’s almost like building a light rail line. There are also logistical challenges, like how trucks transition off the electrified lane once they leave the corridor.

If I were to summarize where we are with the 710 today, I’d say the planning work is ongoing. We still have a massive volume of truck traffic coming from the nation’s busiest port complex, and that’s not going away. So the question is: How do we manage that capacity while reducing the environmental impact on surrounding communities?

One key strategy is shifting more freight from trucks to rail. Right now, only 20–30% of port cargo is transported by rail, and increasing that share would significantly reduce truck traffic on the 710. Both ports are investing in projects to make that transition more feasible.

Overall, there are many moving pieces, but the goal is clear: make the 710 corridor more efficient, reduce emissions, and lessen the burden on the communities that live alongside it.