DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 106 080 SE 018 296

AUTHOR Burnell, Elaine H., Ed.TITLE Today's Action Tomorrow's Profit. An Alternative

Approach to Community Development.INSTITUTION Community Environmental Council, Santa Barbara,

Calif.PUB DATE M.y 72NOTE 56p.; A special report on a citizens' symposium held

at Santa Barbara, California, May 1-22, 1972

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-93.32 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Community Development; *Community Planning;

*Community Programs; *Environment; PhysicalEnvironment; Planned Community; Post SecondaryEducation; *Regional Planning; Suburban Environment;Transportation; Visual Environment

ABSTRACTDuring May 1972, the Adult Education Center of Santa

Barbara City College sponsored a symposium on the goals and purposesof planning for community development. Through lecture anddiscussion, members of the community undertook a critical review ofthe related problems of community, growth, population, taxes,transportation, zoning and water. This pamphlet represents the workof the World Game class in Continuing Education of Santa Barbara CityCollege. The pamphlet is divided into three parts. Part one dealswith Perspectile, Past and Present and covers the meaning ofcommunity growth and progress, and the county general plan. Part twc,entitled Unlimited Expansion: County Cost or County Benefit?,encompasses population, property taxes, transportation, zoning andwater. The third part, The Challenge and the Opportunity deals withthe consequences of today's actions and offers an alternativeapproach to community development. Acknowledgments and a formulatoraction conclude this pamphlet. (BT)

7

0

U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION A WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EOUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPROOUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVEO FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATiNG IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

.

Ar

4

4

O

Alrirtrtgio.kiWrgr.

itVr

,,:=:.,,,,:74411

'4

'

,,41",r,

'LL

r4,. 4

ito

<

Z

}}}uj

, I

10,,LL).

47',110CI! ja EL

-a:4t)2 2-LAS-to

,of

,:}4..,}:''''

i;g11.v4, , , }},,,,,}0}84.\,, , )7, 1,0 }}i }r'',}

ir,,,Iir...,,,..-,..,,...;

'.."."!Cii

kit' 1' ''''' ,

4 , ,

'fe17.4,613,'',4,'a'70'-,1si4.'ff

:fr''''''''"::11:.';:6)::::

'fr,;31',,t ......,--7:4'),0P),";:-... '-v, . "

,WiliA.,,,aile4P, .41,,e.

.:=',. -.g.,..,,-.- -

}}}}}4 ''',14?'";E}!7:,f7,1-7-V,:,,v,S.;(}},ti.

-,,,E '6,:;}.}"Y0,}r '}:}

it} 24.1}, u}}Er'rc.}`},,,t , c ,, c,.),..1

e7,

.40 .

1 :''?r,:cr:C ' 154'''Oc' g',2

4 .....,=-;,......''4'4'....7%'6'4,"7,/,>.-'21',:r'',..,,0,

'4

, , ,, , .,,

44,. '1, '' ,N,,,,s,.........,,f, .,,,...;. .,,,,,,-.4,t,,i,

'r' 44,'. 7 4 .7.',7., i., 77 ,....- V" ' "1 1 0, ",

49%: n., .. Int ei,,,f,..4, ' '''',i'4'. :

nen .1 ,,L,,, , L,-,,,

w ,, , .0 "nr yr' CtdL ";

, 1- ' ','y,,.

"1-4 '141

TODAY'S ACTIONTOMORROW'S PROFIT

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A review of the multiple criers Wei the South Coast ofSanta Barbara County and a proposal for their resolution.

A special report on acitizens' symposium heldat Santa Barbara, CaliforniaMay 1 - May 22, 1972

PUBLISHED BYTHE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL. INC,

SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA

To

SELMER 0. WAKEwhose vision and leadership have contributed

so substantially to the excellence of

adult education in Santa Barbara

and whose continuing interest

in the welfare of the community

has made possible this present study and the

public presentation of these critical issues

through the forum series, ' Last Call for Santa Barbara

The Good Life or Megalopolis?'

5

Foreword

The Santa Barbara County South Coast area is rapidly reaching a pointof no return. Basic and far-reaching decisions must be made within thenext one to three or four years if our present environment is to be

carried forward into the nineteen-eighties and nineteen-nineties.Until approximatcl:, two years ago, the South Coast was being developed

in an almost indiscriminate manner. The General Plan had little effect, andany "good" development was almost automatically approved regardless of itslong-term effect upon the environment. Attitudes of elective officials havechanged somewhat in the past two years, and there is a possibility a slimone that the drastic decisions needed to preserve our environment will bemade.

Two of the prime decisions that must be made are:1) the adoption ofa new General Plan, radically limiting future

population growth; and2) the rolling back o; zoning to conform to such a new General

Plan.If these two steps are not taken, the environment of the South Coast area

of Santa Barbara will be degraded simply by an overabundance of people.Population projections show a South Coast total in the year 2000 of nearlythree-hundred-thousand persons and this figure is below the holdingcapacity of th present general Plan. We can probably live with somegrowth, but we cannot live in a quality environment as we know it todaywith anything like three-hundred-thousand people in the South Coast area.

The only way a dramatically new General Plan can be adopted and zoningrolled back is through intense and constant political pressure. This meansthat persons who arc sympathetic to this philosophy must be elected tooffice. It also means that continual presciire must be applied by the peopleon local legislators to see that these decisions are made. It can be done, butonly if the will to do it exists and the needed constant effort is applied.

Santa Barbara, CaliforniaJuly 24, 1972

6---lealype,

6 iii

George H. Clyde

Contents

During May, 1972, the Adult Education Centerof Santa Barbara City College sponsored asymposium on the goals and purposes of planning.Through lecture and discussion, concernedmembers of the community undertook a criticalreview of the related problems of community,growth, population, taxes, transportation, zoning,and water. The symposium was called in responst!to a mounting sense of crisis among citizens of theSouth Coast, a feeling that Santa Barbara is facedwith not one but a series of crises in politics, ineconomics, in environmental quality, and inresources.

For fifteen months a serious group of citizenshad been meeting weekly to study all aspects ofplanning for the South Coast of Santa BarbaraCounty. They were members of ContinuingEducation's World Game class, and the more theyinvestigated the more they became concerned aboutthe community's inability to cope with change,which is the common denominator of all thesecrises. They viewed with alarm the frequency ofdecisions sure to affect the lives of cominggenerations and the absence of any simultaneouseffort to understand the far-reaching consequences.Believing with Richard I lofstadter, one ofAmerica's great historians, that "democracy is not aself-congratulatory society,': members of the classbegan a process of self-criticism in the hope that thequality of the community might be preserved andimproved by a frank examination of its pressingproblems. This pamphlet reflects the work of thatclass as it was presented to the community duringthat symposium in May. Both the World Game classand the symposium were coordinated by DanielSisson, a PhD candidate in American history, whoalso wrote the brief contextual passages thatintroduce each of thc sections of this pamphlet.

Foreword 111

PART ONE PERSPECTIVES, 1

PAST AND PRESENT

The Meaning of Community 2Elaine H. Burnell

The Myths of Growthand ProgressGilbert LaFreniere

8

The County General Plan, 12Its Strengthsand ContradictionsDamon Rickard

PART TWO UNLIMITED EXPANSION: 15COUNTY COSTOR COUNTY BENEFIT?

PopulationElse Ocskay

Property Taxes and GrowthC.H. Van Hartesveldt

Transportation on theSouth CoastJosephine H. Webster

Zoning 28Kathleen Sullivan

16

20

24

Water! The Economics of 32the Feather River ProjectDaniel Sisson

PART THREE THE CHALLENGE 37AND THE OPPORTUNITY

Today's Action,Tomorrow's Profit:An Alternative ApproachTo Community DevelopmentPaul Relis

38

Acknowledgments 47

Editor Elaine H. Burnell.Associate Editor Joan Crowder.Design Damon Rickard.Cover and Graphics Charles Weber.Black and While Photography Barry Burnell.Color Photography Paul Relis and Hal Conklin.Color Reproduction Glen E. Tyler, coordinator; ColorIncorporated of Glendale, negatives; Elmer Pickard Printing

Q and Lithography, printer.k-7 P-oduction Hal Conklin, coordinator; Kathleen Sullivan.

v

PART ONE

PERSPECTIVES,PAST AND PRESENT

The crisis that is rapidly building along the SouthCoast of Santa Barbara is part of a greater crisisfacing all of America. One of its symptoms is thecurrent sad state of the nation's great cities. We calltheir present condition "megalopolis," and theforces that have produced megalopolis elsewhereare at work in Santa Barbara today.

At root, the problem is one of "planning."Megalopolis did not just happen; it was plannedthat way. For most of our history, Americans havenot anticipated conditions; they have reacted tothem instead. They have planned for the short span,for five to ten years ahead, ignoring the long-spanperspective. Americans have traditionally givenlittle or no thought to posterity or to the questionof man's chance for survival as a species. Gravecontradictions have existed between planningmeans and planning ends; consequently America'surban areas face disintegration and disaster.

Santa Barbara cannot claim immunity to thedisintegrative process. Already megalopolis isapproaching from the south with relentlessdetermination. On almost any Sunday afternoon,tnffic jams extend from the Santa Barbara-Venturaborder to the limits of Los Angeles, a grim reminderthat the South Coast lies on the very edge of one ofthe greatest urban centers of them all.

Meanwhile, planning for Santa Barbara seems tobe taking place in a vacuum. A recent discussion ongrowth and planning between Stanley C. Lowry,executive vice-president of the Santa BarbaraChamber of Commerce, and George H. Clyde, aCounty supervisor, illustrates one of the conflicts invalues that is creating this vacuum. In Mr. Lowry'sview, citizens may develop their property any waythey wish, and zoning "is a citizen's right." Mr.Clyde, however, interprets zoning as a privilege anddenies that the individual has the right to develophis property in a manner damaging to the interestsof the community. The community cannot endorseboth views simultaneously if planning is to have

9

1

meaning or consistency.The point is further illustrated by the statement

of another supervisor, Daniel G. Grant, who saidthat traditionally the Third District supervisoraccepts the recommendations of the GoletaChamber of Commerce in the appointment ofplanning commissioners. To what degree can achamber of commerce reflect the views of an entirecommunity? Is it possible to have good planning ifany one segment of the community exerts adominant influence on any planning board?

The County General Plan represents the singlerecent effort to place planning in an overallenvironmental framework. Important as it is, theGeneral Plan was meant only as a beginning, as astart at comprehensive planning, and its framersfrank'si stated as much.

In practice, planning efforts are fragmented. TheCounty governing body appoints a planningcommission. An advisory staff of professionalscounsels both the Board of Supervisors and theCounty Planning Commission. The task of thePlanning Commission is to consider conservationand housing, circulation and transportation plans,park and recreation plans, public-service and utilityplans, flood control and drainage plans, all inrelation to the General Plan. In the words of oneexpert, the result is "an overemphasis on detail atthe expense of comprehensive planning."Commissioners can become discouraged by thecomplexity of the planning process and preventedfrom taking a comprehensive view.

On another level, in the recent debate on SantaBarbara's crosstown-freeway project, citizens havebeen arguing over nothing more than highwaydesign. They have not been arguing over the valuesthat the freeway will create when it is put intoplace or considering what the freeway will do topreserve or destroy Santa Barbara as they know it.

The planning staff, which advises commissionersand supervisors, has no constituency, no realauthority, no way of making contact with thecommunity to ascertain its interests. No Countyagency has the responsibility for finding out whatthe definition of "community" for the South Coastor other areas of the County should be.

If the Santa Barbara area hopes to avoid thecatastrophe of megalopolis, it must begin to seeitself in perspective and to ponder thecontradictions and conflicting priorities that nowcharacterize its planning. Only with suchperspective can the greater community of the SouthCoast address itself to the crises that confront it.

THE MEANINGOF COMMUNITYElaine H. Burnell

Community has been man's necessity andpleasure almost from the beginning. Allthrough history, as the sense of community

has flourished in any time or place, individuals havegrown strong and waxed prosperous; as communityspirit has waned men have lapsed into decadence,corruption, and confusion.

Today genuine communities are hard to findexcept among those peoples who are late inemerging into modern civilized life. Thecommunities of old seem to have disappeared infavor of fast- and oft-moving populations whosemembers dart in and out of cities, suburbs, andcountry resorts. It is fair to ask if the communityconcept is obsolete. Is it perhaps a relic of lessadvanced times, no longer applicable to fast-pacedmodern life?

The answer, noc surprisingly, may be found inAnn Landers. Devotees of Ann Landers will havenoticed that the human misery she deals withderives from problems long familiar to men. Mostof the complaints that cross her desk withregularity have to do with love unrequited love,faithless love, over-zealous love, and all the peskyconsequences of true love. There is anothercomplaint, however, just as regular, just aspersistent, and it has nothing to do with love exceptthe lack of it. It is loneliness the suffering ofbeing uprooted, the despair of being isolated, either

This and the quotations before each of the other chapters are fromthe Santa Barbara County General Plan.

The people of Santa BarbaraCounty constitute the mostprecious resource. . . . The lovethat many hold for Santa BarbaraCounty and the institutionslocated here make them asignificant force behind thephysical development planned forthe future of the area.*

in solitude or in the midst of a hurrying mob. AnnLanders can tell us with certainty that the humanspift still yearns for community.

Many of the letters that reveal this yearningbegin, "My husband had a chance for a better job,and we had to leave our community," or simply,"We have just moved to a new community." Theunhappiness that these letters convey is genuine butthe phrasing all too often betrays a lack ofunderstanding of the nature of community. Perhapspeople still do move from real communities, but noone has ever yet moved to a community. Acommunity is not a place. It is a complex of humanrelationships, of give and take, of living and lovingand laughing and learning together. Geographicboundaries are common to communities but notnecessary to them. The boundaries provide acontainer, as did ancient city walls, but communitymust develop within. Just as a house is built byartisans but a home by those who occupy thebarren structure, so it is with communities. Somegood homes never saw a nail, and some solidlysuccessful communities know no geographicalbounds at all.

Creating a community is not a matter of namesand boards and master plans; it is a matter ofhuman desire and necessity, effort and energy.

In order to discern the potential for communityin the Santa Barbara area, we must examine some

0 of the conditions that have contributed to the4-I- health of great communities elsewhere. The first of2

1

these conditions is an overwhelming common needfor community and its benefits. Need is not thesame as interest. Need implies a sense of urgency, aperception of threat It involves the basic drives ofman. Communities arise in response to man'sinstinct for self-preservation; they are formed toinsure survival.

During World War II, all of Britain became onecommunity, united, and, as a community, itaccomplished what no group of individuals orgovernment structure could have accomplished. Itsurvived a relentless, automated barrage of superiordemolition weapons sent to destroy it. Thecommon need, born of crisis, inspired communityin order to insure survival. .

The second condition of community sinceancient times has been the presence of an adequatefood and water supply and the necessity forpreserving it. Modem man has come to take thesebasics for granted. A twist of the tap, a quick tripto the supermarket, and food and water have beenin abundance for all who could afford them. Noone living along the South Coast today, however,can escape the mounting evidence that we are shorton water and growing shorter. Most of us do notyet detect any real threat to our food supply, butwho can ignore the fact that a dollar buys preciouslittle lettuce or tomatoes or fruit? And, in an areaclose by the sea, who can pretend that thegovernment has suddenly turneduncharacteristically alarmist when it issues ablanket ban on mercury-laden fish? The SouthCoast is now covering much of its cropland withasphalt and concrete and pouring pollutants into itsstreams and coastal waters. Supermarkets stillglitter with every imaginable product in everypossible variation, but daily ,come the warningsfrom officialdom of a new contaminant suspectedhere, another carcinogen reported there.Preservation of the food and water supply may wellbe a vital consideration propelling us towardcommunity in this modern day.

The third condition of community has alwaysbeen communication. Without the means or desirefor communication, we can have houses, markets,parks, streets, theatres, beaches, and schools, butwe cannot build community. Communication is thevery purpose of community, as the derivation ofboth words implies. Both have their roots in theLatin word for "common," meaning shared. Themaximum limit of any community has always beenset by the range of possible communication. Duringthe Second World War, Britain was able to maintain

3

essential communication throughout its unusuallylarge community by a singularly ancient devicethe ringing of church bells to spread the alarm. Thislimited means of communication was, of course, fora limited purpose, but it amounted to a vitalexchange of information and it produced a vitalprotective response.

Ours is presumably the age of communication,but we do not communicate well in any real sense.Too often, bombarded by a steady stream ofelectronically broadcast news items, we receive butnever transmit, and learning is often one-sided oraltogether distorted.

A fourth condition for community, shocking asit may seem, is growth. In nature, all things grow orelse they wither and die, and so it is with men. Ourprejudice against growth has its roots in our faultyperceptions. Those phenomena we are accustomedto regard as growth are in reality its diametricopposite an endless proliferation of stenle formsand meaningless activities. Real growth occurs whenthere is challenge new ideas, new solutions, newforms, new concepts. Growth insures the fluiditythat keeps the human condition dynamic. Whengrowth ceases, our institutions stultify, our creativecapacity disappears, we lose our ability to adapt, wesicken and shrivel and perish.

If we are to grow, we must recognize the signsthat growth has ceas d. One of the surest of thesesigns is the volunw y and escapist immersion ofpeople everywhere in life-denying routines. Anothertelltale sign is our compulsive devotion to theaccumulation of things, the substitution ofsuperfluous material wealth for the wealth thatcomes from ideas and friends and accomplishment.Material wealth in itself is neither good nor evil, butwhen it is the source of ou. only satisfaction, weare the victims of arrested growth.

Our insistence on unsatisfying and life-defeatingrepetition has shaped much of the South Coast inrecent times, and it continues to dessicate it, stifleit, and destroy it. Nevertheless, there is true growthhere also, and we should know it and exalt in it andtake heart from it. Within an old stucco building onSan Ysidro Road, new methods and new ideas aregiving to the time-tested routines of elementaryeducation a new dimension, and the childrengrowing up in that area have the opportunity togrow in spirit and mind as well as body. Severalmiles from them, in Santa Barbara, small groups ofcitizens from every background have begun to putaside their apathy and their differences and to joinin a mutual exchange of ideas. Occasionally we see

exciting new housing concepts or the developmentof an industry that brings challenging newdimensions to our civic life, at the same time that itoffers economic opportunity. All these representgrowth in the true sense and they are good, forwithout growth we cannot survive.

Still another condition of community is fitness.Fitness denotes appropriateness, suitability, thephysical individuality that distinguishes eachcommunity from all others. Its antitheses areuniformity, imitation, mindless repetition. CentralPark is fit for New York; it would be inappropriatefor Santa Barbara.

. ; f -`f ?IPA: 4.,-!*

We maymay not even be conscious that many of ourstructures are not fitted to their sur-roundings, butwe are aware of their inappropriateness nonetheless.A winding, wild creek seems out of place in themidst of overly-tidy stucco houses, and we canderive no sense of tranquility when we look on aproliferation of gables jutting awkwardly from thesun-filled plain.

The importance of appropriateness in thephysical dimensions of communities is that publicbuildings and street plans and private shelters areextensions of the people themselves. As such, theymust not only reflect the culture of the inhabitantsbut also enhance the security and richness ofindividual and community alike, Structures canbring the community into equilibrium with thegeography and climate of any area. The Acropolisof Athens seemed to rise directly from the irregularrock of the mountain guarding the city and gave tothe populace spread below a sense of the unity of

124

earth and sky. So should the structures of theSouth Coast unite twentieth-century people withtheir surroundings, and the materials used in thesestructures shoull reflect the sensibilities and theacculturation of Americans in the technological age.

The next condition of community is perhaps themost essential and the most difficult to achieve andsustain. This condition is participation by allmembers in some aspect of the community's vitallife. Participation cannot be forced or achieved byexhortation, civic-minded hustling, registrationdrives, or door-to-door solicitation. It can beachieved only through attraction, never bypromotion.

The great strength of ancient Athens was that allits citizens participated in all its activities. The greatweakness of Athens was that it excluded foreigners,merchants, businessmen, and slaves fromcitizenship. As traders entered the city in greatnumbers, they were denied the benefits ofcitizenship and the power to participate incommunity life. These men of commerce felt nosense of responsibility. It was every man forhimself, and under this kind of pressure theAthenian community declined and fell.

We can learn much from the Athenianexperience. One lesson stands out above the rest:every time that those in power, or those involved inplanning, fail to listen to the voice of a citizen or

ay him the right or the opportunity toparticipate in the shaping and enrichment of hiscommunity, they grant him simultaneous license tobe irresponsible. Those who are barred from groupparticipation, for whatever reason, cannot ensuretheir own survival by contributing to the health ofthe whole. They become narrowly self-serving inself-defense.

Another attribute of a true community iseconomic and cultural self-sufficiency. Nocommunity can flourish if it depends onuninterested outsiders for its lifeblood. In everyvital area, it must have the resources for its ownsupport or maintain sufficient hard cash to bartereffectively for them. To be beholden is to becontrolled by those beyond eff-ctive reach; and todepend for necessities on the distant city or onstate, federal, or private largesse is to become apawn of all who contribute.

A final requirement is that a community mustalways maintain singleness of purpose.Communities exist to insure life and prosperity fortheir members. All else is peripheral to this centralconcern. Foreign relations, national poverty,

judicial injustice, and the like are properly theconcerns of individuals and groups within thecommunity, for they are members of the largercommunity of man. When those who speak for thecommunity, however, place it as an entity onrecord on either side of any outside issue, theyexclude all who disagree.

By now we can see, in essence at least, what goesinto the making of a human community. As peoplefeel a common need, they find in community ameans to communication, growth, expression, andprosperity.

If we accept the demonstrated truth that throughcommunity individual men in the past have foundthe opportunity for the highest personal attainmentand happiness, how can we explain the scarcity oftrue communities today? The deep answer, perhaps,is that in the process of societal evolution fromsimple primitive to complex technological men havesomehow lost touch with their beginnings and lostsight of both their interckpendenceand theirdependence on the natural word that is their home.There are specific difficulties also.

Every city hz its formal and informal civicorganizations and clubs. The work of theseorganizations often brings great public benefit, butnone are devoted to bringing ordinary citizens intothe mainstream of community life.

Instead of contributing to the enhancement ofcommunity spirit, many informal or voluntaryassociations actually encourage anti-communityfeeling, even though they do so without maliceaforethought. The reason is that most of theirappeal is based on exclusivity, which is the enemyof community. La Casa de la Rena, for example,does not solicit membership from white,Anglo-Saxon, Protestant areas, which it q'properly regards as outside its sphere of interest orinfluence. And no one ever heard of the JuniorLeague looking for members among the residents ofHaley Street.

Another difficulty is that most informal,voluntary associations attract members of the upperand upper-middle classes. Because of their superioropportunity, members of this class have much tooffer, but in terms of community, these civicdecision-makers often make very poor leadersindeed. In the amorphous sprawl that now passesfor community, these people are the least deprivedand the best served. To build a real communityrequires greater diversity of leadership.

Today we as a people have formed emotionalattachments to modes and patterns that prevent

5

community development. We have come to worshipspace and speed, propulsion and professionalism.These are not rational attachments because theyhave little or no relationship to our happiness orwelfare.

We Americans, without doubt, are the inventorsof the geograpnical cure. Whatever the ill thatbesets us, wz relieve it by moving. If we feel a sense

1.314,,n in our 130-unit apartment building, wet Ile low-density suburb where isolation ismore profound. If one city offers nothing but

economic failure, we move to another, start over,and fail again.

Seemingly, all of America is on the wing, or onthe pavement, to be more accurate. The automobileis our symbol. Everywhere we go we take ourselveswith us, and with every move we deepen ourdilemma.

We complete our isolation by defending the needfor flight and calling it "freedom." Far from free,we are many of us prisoners of an alienation sodeep that it prevents us from participation at anylevel. We feel powerless; we remain goalless; wewithdraw, in spirit if not in body. We cease tocommunicate. We begin to see decay as progress,constant mobility as stability, routine as living.

Those of us who do participate often mistakecircular motion for accomplishment andstatus-seeking for civic-mindedness. In our effort tofind simple answers to the complex problems thatconfront us, we have adopted a conspiratorial viewof history, a Good-Guys-versus-Pad-Guys approach,

which in itself prevents community.The South Coast has been peculiarly blessed by

nature, for we are enclosed and contained bynatural boundaries just enough to feel ourselves anentity but not so thoroughly that we can lapse intofatal complacency. The way through the Rincon,south, is open, and the South Coast can feel thepressure from the metropolis beyond. If we shouldelect to make of this natural haven a truecommunity, the pressure can flow on around us. Ifwe wish to reject community in favor ofautomobile-supported mobility, we can do that tooand probably make room for Los Angeles.

The most hopeful sign today is that many of uslove this area and are uneasy at the threat we nowperceive, if ever so dimly. As the crisis deepens, andit surely will, many of us, in a spirit of cooperationborn of necessity, will seek to turn back the threat,in the process we may discover the road to truecommunity.

There are many other hopeful signs. Within thebroad lap of the South Coast are several areas thatmight honestly be called pre-communities. Asidefrom Santa Barbara, two come to mind, at oppositesides of the coastal basin, radically different instructure, temperament, and style.

Montecito on the east has the closest thing to themarketplace of old in its village center whereMontecitans can meet for food and good talk. Inthis day of mass culture, a .surprising number ofMontecitans know each other by name, surprisingbecause Montecito has the lowest average density ofany South Coast region, and low density isnormally inimical to a spirit of community. What

146

Montecito loses through low density it makes upfor in stability. Montecitans come to stay, and theyseek to protect and improve their environment.

In direct contrast to Montecito is Isla Vista onthe west. Where Montecito is stable, spacious, andwealthy, Isla Vista is young, transient, crowded,and poor, but it is nonetheless increasingly offeringits citizens a chance to communicate andparticipate. The spirit that is just developing in IslaVista has arisen from the crisis of recent trouble, inanswer to a deep-felt need.

When it happens that the many crises nowpressing on us meld into one large threat totranquility and peace of mind and the good life,and as this threat is seen as a menace even to oureconomic well-being, a broader community spiritmight emerge. As each separate entity along theSouth Coast perceives more and more clearly thatits own welfare and the welfare of the whole SouthCoast are one when the threat becomes at oncedeeper and more generalized the entire area couldunite to form a genuine community.

If and when that happens, it will not happen in a_spirit of great self-sacrifice. No matter what therhetoric, people do not like to sacrifice what theyhave worked to attain. Community does notdemand sacrifice. Quite the contrary. It offersopportunity. If offers more than any of us couldhope to gain individually or at odds with oneanother. Lommunity gives man the chance forattainment economic as well as social, intellectual,physical, and spiritual. In the morass that wesolemnly call civilization today, could anyone askfor more? 077

Elaine H. Burnell graduated from Smith College and theNaval Japanese Language Post-Graduate School at theUniversity of Colorado. She has worked for EncyclopaediaBritannica and the Library of Congress and has been a seniorbook editor at the Center for the Study of DemocraticInstitutions.

tlf........arr1,;:;..4...vi_... _

...

.---__111%;;;a:,

Am. /Ira *. viosa.0.. 1

%1 .....A 'Allii--1'41.--41:-%'""*.-3-- cif .04.001. falai. ' loft& 4.

a--"7""Jr

4"*.

"'' :

444

I WI

141111 I 111001.

I

.. -

. . '.4 . )

;:

t lg,r.,.. i(s ..

...o 4

. -. 4 "'

4 /1... 4A-1.

,..

,/r.,ta.

,i.

.1, %

...a

1

,,r,-.-. - p.r. ,sr,,

,qA.

,s:-,t:

r

.

.L,1. I .. ,, .

'gt4 .7t .:",`

z*

-".

-4'.--,.

4" 4 1. -, i.r :......- - 4 ,0- 1 °Z"t-'',, ."-

V e^ ..-.,-.. Sn- r- -, , r.

'1.1:;'4

.

.., ......,'.:,.' ..,$.4 tdillitkilgp;.,,: 4' '4411.=.V.. ,.1 ,....4.-1.0s

iv ' 0 _ IOW"-t.:41`."4744 , / - .,..,Amikii. 440-

1 ''?'

got,

.

''

'4

Te

31',4,.,,;.;: ; ..:' .4.:.iZ

rili.'15.f,ro

'.t'';,...(f.r l'

'i7J1e...."

"tiirr441W'

'.iV

'`'41".f.t t

''' i40'14"'

..

I.

't1--,:ctror,

-(4X' ''''''

3.4

...,

Pt

ftrIkr r-A6r5-t't;7

4.rft

),"4",' :r

t

...v..r.,, .

-ItIfe'i.r-

sf_LF'-fe,ik,:' 4

.::

.mc

1AS

4514.7.1kA4.4

ea,

'i;

.0

V.?4110:4'

41`D

I;V.

`46:t.'"%

de,.

te..

,

-toe,

:.-

r',

re,

t4 V

I

4re

-t.

546.4_541,

THE MYTHS OFGROWTH AND PROGRESSGilbert LaFreniere

Forty-five air miles northeast of SantaBarbara, the dome-like mass of the SanEmigdio Mountains rises to elevations of

nearly nine thuusand feet. Their granitic andmetamorphic rocks are studded with Whim Fir and

0. Ponderosa Pine. Snow-capped in winter, the range iscleft east to west by a deep valley caused by theSan Andreas fault, where Pinon Pine joinsPonderosa to enhance the magnificence of openmeadows. The most splendid of these meadows isMil Potrero, framed by the snow-covered northslopes of Mount Pinos, reminiscent of the easternface of the Sierra Nevada.

Today piped music shatters the remote stillnessof Mil Potrero, now the site of a golf course and anartificial lake. The meadowland is splotched withparking lots and prefabricated cabins. TennecoWest, Inc., a subsidiary of Tenneco, Inc. of HoustonTexas, has plans for twenty-eight hundred "secondhomes" along and adjacent to the San Andreas faultzone within this spectacular, fireprone valley of theLos Padres National Forest. This is good, it is saidby many, for economic growth is a necessarycondition of the good life. This, we are told, isprogress.

168

Growth can change many things,including the very fiber of an area.The roseate glow that comes tosome with the thought ofunlimited expansion sometimespalls with the cold realization ofwhat such growth implies in termsof the responsibilities assigned tothe public bodies.

Americans today are faced with the prospect ofecological disaster, but they are prevented by boththeir conditioning and their implicitly held valuesfrom undertaking the political, social, andenvironmental reform necessary to avert thatlong-term disaster. The idea of progress is the beliefthat civilization has moved, is moving, and willcontinue to move in a desirable direction, implyingthat we will see a steady increase in humanknowledge and, somewhat less certainly, in humanhappiness. A majority of today's adults, along withmost of today's children, assume that the amenitiesof our technological society are a heritage thatAmericans can claim by the very fact of beingAmericans; by the fact that we are riding the crestof the greatest golden age of material wealth theworld has ever known. Past and future costs ofthese amenities rarely occur to us: we acceptwithout question our right to the wealth bought bythe brutal enslavement of colonial peoples andsubsistence wage-earners in mines and mills; aid weignore, when we can, the hundred and five billiondollars we know we must contribute in taxes by1975 just to keep the environment from becomingvirtually unlivable.

Even as we continue to accumulate privatepossessions and services, we notice a rapiddowngrading of the public sector or commons, butfor the most part we continue to adhereunquestioningly to our unexamined faith in

1

"progress" and to an optimistic vision of the future.The major American myth is that we have gotten,and can continue to get, something for nothing.

In The Future as History, one of the best modernshort volumes on American attitudes towardgrowth and progress, Robert Heilbroner wrote in1959, "[Ti o hope for the best in a situation whereevery indication leads us to expect a worsening ishardly the way to fortify ourselves against thefuture. Optimism as a philosophy of historicexpectations can no longer be considered a nationalvirtue. It has become a dangerous national delusion,. . . something very much akin to the faith of theearly classical economists in the 'inevitability' ofprogress . . .."

In spite of recent setbacks, the myth of historicoptimism prevails today. Americans in the sixtiesspent two billion a year on jewelry, as much as thetotal federal budget for the War on Poverty; theyspent twice as much on pleasure boating as theyexpended for peaceful foreign aid. Americans todaystill believe that individual spending for comfortand pleasure takes priority over expenditures aimedat upgrading the community as a whole. Theirnotions of the nature of freedom and responsibilityin a democratic society still lead them to supportthe principle of something for nothing. Why?

Like the attitudes of all other peoples in all othernations, American asLumptions have their roots inhistory. Western man has seen the evolution ocessentially three different interpretations of themeaning of historical :vents: these three are theideas of cycles, providence, and progress and areworld views that arose successively in the ancient,medieval, and modern worlds. The latter two havestrongly influenced American thinking. TheChristian idea of Providence may or may not bechallenged by the idea of secular human progressinplicit in modern scientific teaching. Such modernversions of the cyclical view of history as Spengler'sDecline of the West or Toynbee's Study of Historyhad not influenced popular American thought untilthe crisis of the sixties.

In the classical world of Greece and Rome, theidea of cycles predominated. Man's condition in theuniverse was seen as essentially fixed and static. Theancients had little expectation of any substantivechange in the human situation and therefore didnot entertain a belief in progress. Even the classicalinterpretations that did not agree with the theoryof cycles saw man as having declined from an earliergolden age or saw reality as a condition of eternalchange without direction or ultimate purpose.

By the fifth century, A.D., the classicalworld-view had been displaced by the Christian ideaof Providence, as set forth in St. Augustine's greatsynthesis, The City of God. According to this viewof reality, the universe was designed by God for aspecific purpose, presumably for the salvation ofthe souls of the chosen. These elect human beingswere thought to be those considered worthy in theeyes of the Lord. Early Christians also believed inthe millenium a second coming of Christ leadingto a thousand-year reign of the elect, followed bythe Last Judgment an idea later to be revivedwith vigor during the Protestant Reformation andthe early colonization of America.

A belief in progress was not possible during theMiddle Ages because men accepted withoutquestion the biblical truth of man's fall from gracein the Garden of Eden. This view of man'sdegeneration was reinforced during the late MiddleAges by a renewed reverence for Greek and Romanthought, particularly for the logic and philosophyof Aristotle, and a concomitant sense of theinferiority of medieval thinking.

By the late sixteenth century, the increasingcommercial activity, individualism, and secularismof the Renaissance led Europeans to question theintellectual superiority of the ancients, andthe seventeenth-century achievements of Bacon,Descartes, and Newton finally convinced WesternEuropeans of their own superiority. With theseintellects, the notion of progress in humanknowledge was born. The modern idea of progresscame into its own a century later during the Age ofEnlightenment, with the emergence of a faith inman's ability to perfect himself through theapplication of reason.

During the second half of the eighteenth century,there emerged two major schools of thought on thenature of human progress. The idealists consideredprogress the result of the precarious gains of reasonover the irrational and emotional elements ofhuman nature. The realists, on the other hand,taking their cue from laissez-faire economic theoryin France, viewed progress as an inevitable andautomatic phenomenon. This belief waspopularized by the English economist Adam Smithand later fortified by Darwin's theory of evolution.Only a short step was required to proceed from thenotion of the survival of the fittest to a belief in theamoral ideal of rugged individualism.

It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of17 the idea of progress as inevitable and automatic on

the average American's conception of citizenship.

9

Largely on the basis of this idea, Americans havetended to focus on their inalienable rights andprivileges while they have neglected theirresponsibility to take thought and action on behalfof the community.

Although the idea of progress had its origins inseventeenth- and eighteenth- century Europe, it hasflourished most vigorously in America. Thisapparent paradox can be explained, at least in part,by the historical fact that the Christian idea ofProvidence and the philosophy of progressenunciated by eighteenth-century realists haveoverlapped and influenced one another throughmuch of American history.

The period of colonization coincided with aperiod of renewed belief in the Christian millenium.Protestant and Catholic ecclesiastics alike developedthe vision of the millenium to include the beliefthat the second coming of Christ was to bepreceded by the conquest of America and theconversion of the Indians. When the second comingproved less imminent than anticipated, the Puritanethic of glorified work and deferred or sublimatedgratification began to take root in the America:,commercial milieu.

Following the American Revolution,industrialization began to complement colonialcommerce, and in the late eighteenth century thespirit of capitalistic economic individualism was asstrong as the spirit of political democracy. AdamSmith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776,found many in America receptive to the economictheory that the hidden hand of Providence woulddirect individual actions to produce higher levels ofknowledge and material wealth even as menpursued their greedy, selfish ends.

Had the United States not enjoyed enormouseconomic advantages over Europe in the nineteenthcentury, Americans might not have believed soreadily that the pursuit of profit and power was abenign manifestation of a law of progress inherentin the economic process itself. Part of a virgincontinent of enormous natural wealth, isolatedfrom Europe, bordered by militarily weak politicsto the north and south, and free from the historicalstrictures that complicated the IndustrialRevolution in Europe, America came to accept theintensely powerful myth of optimistic futurism.Thus, at the very beginning of their history,Americans began to see themselves as a "chosenpeople." The two centuries it has taken them tosquander mr,st of their natural resources has seenthem approach the limits imposed upon all societies _i.8

10

by space, resources, and history with their eyesclosed to the fact that the United States, like allnations, has a history.

Today we cling to the myth that science,technology, and industry will bring us furthermarvels Wand comforts while they provide easysolutions to the problems associated with economicgrowth. Take, for example, the enormous

4.,...1. ......... iistoAssommtlilosole.flo...... iiii0iiiil 411:1644114..iaiiiiime

1.4.64 okttelm ................40.osilloissoosemplo. .....6.....iemssmseiee4eosemset

ej4mep0_l4iow e4Ml:4ioio-i4d

4ot0reOi4eisi.!i_ie

. 4UrIii

MIttio____4002!!!..4_eNNO.10_10,__ oe......T........see_ esteiftillii eir

.mooessesoftwooftwoomeimmie_A .iiibe..-400iiiiiiieemoommoseeiiiN

popularity among college youth of BuckminsterFuller, whose unqualified faith in the inevitablesuccess of a world technological society knows nobounds. His popularity remains undiminished in theface of the dismal prognostications of a recentstudy that followed Fuller's own suggestion ofturning the ecological crisis over to the computer.

The computer model used by a seventeen-manM.I.T. team focused on the interrelationshipthrough time of five variables: population; foodsupply; natural resources; industrial production;and pollution. (Note the absence of qualitativevalues in this list.) The model projected knowntrends of the five variables into the future: theprojections indicated that population and industrialcapacity will continue to expand, generating agrowing demand for natural resources; as resourcesdiminish, prices will be forced higher, leaving lessmoney for investment in future industrialexpansion; new investment will therefore fall belowthe cost of depreciation, eventuating in the collapseof the industrial base; collapse of service industriesand agriculture soon will follow; and the still-risingpopulation will begin to decline precipitously from

lack of food and health services. Numerousvariations in the model resulted in similarlydisastrous projections.

A more conventional study by theworld-rznowned economic geologic; Charles Park ofStanford indicates that the last decades of thetwentieth century will see not cooperation andworld unity but a grim struggle among the greatpowers for the remaining resources.

f :Santa Barbara County, because of its great

natural beauty, is a focal point in the mountingcontroversy over uncontrolled growth. Here thebalance between man and nature is still capable ofbeing preserved if we can cast aside our falseconviction that stable population and economicequilibrium are equivalent to social stagnation andabandon our idea that "growth" is good per se.

Should we succumb to the notion that long-termprosperity will come from a temporary boom,

1911

provided by such things as the space-shuttlecontract, or should we support the argument thatwe must have imported water to permit"inevitable" expansion, then growth for SantaBarbara County can mean nothing but decay.

Nearly two centuries ago, the French philosopherDiderot, reflecting on the American Revolution,expressed the hope that Americans might "ward off

. . extreme growth and unequal distribution ofwealth . . . that they may maintain their liberty andtheir government . . . [and] postpone . . . thedecree pronounced on ali earthly things . . . whichcondemns [them] to follow a succession of birth,vigor, decrepitude, and destruction."

Heilbroner's conclusion's in 1959 suggest thatDiderot's fears were justified. "Economic growth is. . . a process of change; and the alternative it offersus is whether we will attempt to control thatchange or permit it to obey its own internaleconomic momentum. In all probability we shallfollow the latter course."

Today, thirteen years later, our owndevelopment pattern in Santa Barbara Countyoffers little to indicate that either man was wrong.

Gilbert LaFreniere took degrees in geology at the Universityof Massachusetts and Dartmouth College and received anMA in history from U.C.S.B. Currently a PhD candidate inhistory and environmental studies at U.C.S.B., in 1968 hepublished a report for the U.S. Geological Survey dealingwith the ground-water geology of the upper Santa YnezValley.

THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN,ITS STRENGTHSAND CONTRADICTIONSDamon Rickard

The Santa Barbara County General Planrepresents one of the most ambitious effortsundertaken by citizens of the County and

their representatives in government. The GeneralPlan attempts no less than to translate the ideals ofthe people of this area into workable policy and toexpress in concrete terms the kinds of effortrequired for sound community development.

In order to understand the significance of theGeneral Plan and to appraise its strengths andweaknesses, it is necessary to review briefly thecircumstances that encouraged its preparation andthe scope of its recommendations. During themiddle and late nineteen-fifties, severaldevelopments added to the long-standing attractionprovided by Santa Barbara's environment toprecipitate a vigorous burst of growth. Thecompletion of Cachuma Reservoir guaranteed anample supply of water; the University of Californiaacquired four hundred acres in Goleta on which tobuild a large campus; and the federal government,in 1957, developed Vandenberg Air Force Base as amajor defense installation, which, together with thePoint Arguello Naval Station, accounted directlyfor the influx of fifty thousand r.eople. As a result,the population of the County swelled until, by1961, seventy thousand new inhabitants werecalling Santa Barbara home.

Recognizing the implications of this kind ofgrowth and confronted by unprecedented pressure

No goal for the future can be too high,No hope is beyond attainment,No idea is too grandiose to be realized,For, in this County, there is thepotential for greatness.

for development, the County Board of Supervisorsdecided in 1960 to secure the services of SimonEisner and Associates, a Pasadena firm of planningconsultants, to assist the County PlanningDepartment in developing a master land-use plan.The. objective was to establish a workablerelationship between the aspirations of the peopleand their needs for housing, transportation,education, community development, recreation,and cultural facilities.

As a basis for this planning, statistical analyses ofthe area were developed, and, more significantly,the Board of Supervisors appointed numerouscitizens' committees throughout the County. Theirtask was to evaluate specific proposals incommunity-wide terms, to develop goals andpriorities, to insure the realization of these goals inthe plan that finally emerged, and to publicize andgain support for the General Plan.

The General Plan is not a law, but it was adoptedby a resolution of the Board of Supervisors in 1964as the land-use policy for the unincorporated areasof the County. Together with a U.S. Forest Serviceplan and the plans of the various incorporated citieslike Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, andGuadalupe, the General Plan became the basis fordetermining land use throughout the County.

Part of the General Plan is devoted to a briefsummary of the history and characteristics of the

20 respective geographical areas of the County. Much

12

of it, however, deals with the specific problems ofgrowth and development. It offers suggestions foreffectuating its general principles and makesrecommendations concerning the use of zoningordinances, subdivision laws, building-heightregulations, and land-assessment practices.

Beyond recommendations of this nature, theGeneral Plan addresses itself to the economichistory of the region, extrapolating into the futurethe effects of certain stimuli the university,agriculture, tourism, mining, manufacturing, andthe like on the County's economic development.In addition, it analyzes the effects of theseeconomic stimuli on population growth andpredicts future population trends for the County.Finally, it defines standards for respective land uses.Agriculture, for example, is one classification ofopen-space use, and the standard for agriculturegives specific definitions and recommendations.

This, in brief, is the scope and content of theGeneral Plan. But what of its philosophy thegoals on which its principles and standards arebased? In paraphrase, the stated goals are:

TO PROTECT THE FERTILE LANDS FOR GROWINGCROPS AND FOR OTHER AGRICULTURAL USES.

TO PROVIDE FOR THE SOUND GROWTH OF URBAN .

AREAS BY ORDERLY EXPANSION OUTWARD FROMURBANIZED CENTERS.

TO PROVIDE THE ESSENTIALS FOR SAFE ANDECONOMICAL TRANSPORTATION.

TO ENCOURAGE THE MAINTENANCE OF THOSEFEATURES THAT DISTINGUISH SANTA BARBARA ASA DESIRABLE PLACE TO WORK AND LIVE.

TO RECOGNIZE THE MOUNTAINOUS FOREST LANDAS A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR ITS ROLE ASWATERSHED, ITS BEAUTY AS A BACKDROP, AND ITSPOTENTIAL FOR WILDERNESS AND RECREATION.

TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE USEFULNESS OFTHE SEASHORE.

TO PROTECT AGAINST POLLUTION.

TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THECOUNTY'S HISTORICAL HERITAGE.

TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECREATION.

TO PRESERVE THE BEAUTY OF THE LANDSCAPEWHILE PROVIDING FOR DESIRABLE GROWTH.

At first impression, these goals are lofty andappropriate for an area known for its beauty. Adeeper study, however, reveals some basiccontradictions: "To protect the fertile lands" and"To provide for the sound growth of urbanizedareas outward?" Which one takes precedence?Where are the priorities listed? How can anurbanized area grow outward without using fertilelands? How can the goals of protecting againstpollution and protecting our historical heritage bereconciled with steady expansion?

A study of the principles on which the Plan'sspecific recommendations are based does nothing toclear the confusion. The second principle states thatthe fertile lands shall be preserved for agriculturaluses as long as economically feasible. Sinceagriculture is known to be one activity thattraditionally pays its own way and more, in termsof the cost of County services, the questions mustbe asked: "Economically feasible for whom? Forthe County government? For the community as awhole? For landowners? For developers?" Answerscan be found in recent history.

The early sixties was a period of economic boom,and the community was divided essentially into twogroups: one group included businessmen,developers, and speculators, who accepted thetraditional view that progress is synonymous withexpansion and fought for land-use policiesconsonant with this approach; the. other includedranchers, farmers, conservationists, and those'concerned with the implications of uncontrolledgrowth and its probable effect on their way of lifeand the environment of the County. Both groupswere well represented on the citizens' committeesset up by the Board of Supervisors.

The goals and principles that finally emerged inthe General Plan represent an attempt atcompromise between the widely divergent interestsof these two groups, with the views of developersand business interests prevailing. Although theconcerns of agriculturalists and conservationists arereflected, we find in the General Plan an acceptanceof the inevitability and desirability of expansionunder restrictions of only the widest possiblebounds.

For the most part, the tone of early statementsdescribing this expansion was exuberant. "Therecent housing projects, some on the sites ofvisionary pioneers in land development, are formingthe nucleus of the fine community of homes that

21.will be the Goleta of tomorrow," proclaimedEugene Sexton, who is now a planning

13

commissioner. Richard Whitehead, then theplanning director, declared, "Tomorrow rubselbows with the past in the Goleta Valley, but onlyfor an instant, for there is no static position in thisvalley of opportunity."

Not all commentators vk ere optimistic. Some likeT.M. Storke, then publisher, editor, and owner ofthe Santa Barbara News-Press. warned that "thosewho are here ten or fifteen years from now willhave many problems because of the expansivegrowth." Simon Eisner himself, as early as 1961,declared that never had he "run up against such an

aggressive bunch of landhawks."Despite its weaknesses and contradictions,

however, the General Plan still stands as atremendous achievement by the people and officialsof this County. With revision, it still has thepotential for guiding the County to the greatnessthat its framers recognized as the County'spotential. The challenge to citizens today is todetermine which of those goals set forth in 1964are still the true goals of the community in 1972and to find effective means of converting today'sgoals into tomorrow's reality. Aio.

22

14

Damon Mt kard received his bachelor of science degreefrom the U.S. Air Force Academy and served in publicrelations in the Air Force. He has worked for a number ofresearch firms in the fields of applied physics and chemistryand has acted as a researcher for a County consulting study.He is presently assistant director of the 'Ecology Center.

PART TWO

UNLIMITED EXPANSION:COUNTY COST ORCOUNTY BENEFIT?

When we survey the development that has occurredalong the South Coast over the past ten years, theoverwhelming impression is that we have had littlesense of the limitations imposed by finite resourceson the process of growth. Planning has seeminglybeen based on our implicit endorsement of nearlyunlimited expansion. Everywhere is evidence thatplanning has been in response to the economicimperative, the notion that the primary meaning ofprogress is an increase in property values.

Correct or incorrect, this concept creates aconflict between the lofty purposes set forth in theGeneral Plan and the day-to-day results of theapplication of zoning ordinances. This conflict isespecially acute in the matter of the Plan'sagricultural-lands policy. Premature zoning tends toencourage the disappearance of farmland, and a taxpolicy of reassessment to urban uses works toassure its eventual eradication.

The relationship of the General Plan to zoninghas immediate significance in light of the recentdecision by the state legislature that general plansand zoning must be brought into consistency. If thedecision in this County should be to modify thePlan to conform to zoning, might we then freezeinto the planning process a value system regardinggrowth that may be already obsolete?

A serious deficiency in planning at present is thelimitation placed on citizen participation. In themajority of cases, decisions are reached at meetingsheld during daylight hours, with the consequencethat interested citizens who must work cannotattend. Such a basic denial of democratic principlesin the planning process guarantees the rights ofspecial-privilege groups over those of ordinarycitizens and reinforces any tendency planners mighthave to a status-quo orientation.

One of the difficulties with planning in theCounty today is that the profeseonal planning stafffinds itself spread thin and overburdened withadministrative detail. Of the twenty-four authorized

full-time personnel in the County PlanningDepartment, four devote time to advancedplanning, two are assigned to current planning, andthe remainder, including secretaries, are engagedalmost exclusively in administration. In otherterms, the Planning Department averages about37,200 man-hours per. year in all of its activities. Ofthis, approximately 33,300 man-hours are spent ondepartmental and ordinance administration andarea planning, leaving 3,900 man-hours, less thaneleven percent of the total, for advanced planning.

These figures represent, in terms of staff, a totalof two persons out of twenty-four spending fulltime on advanced planning each year.

Much emphasis is given to the preparation offederal-grant proposals. The Public ServicesAllocation Study consumed 2,189.5 man-days lastyear. Aside from the time and energy it divertsfrom planning for the County's immediate andlong-term needs, this heavy preoccupation withsecuring federal money raises deeper, more subtlequestions. To what extent is the County free toimplement the values of its citizens? To preservethe intangibles of beauty and community? To setits own priorities? And to what degree must it havea care to implement the ideas of those in federalgovernment who control the purse strings?

Quite apart from the formal planning process,providing multiple services to a county of ourpresent size creates planning problems in itself. Nomatter how well the road department performs, forexample, it is still one department among many,concerned only with its specialty. The same is trueof sewage and flood control and water and all therest. Flow of traffic and its volume are only aportioa of the total problem of roads, improvingcreeks and constructing dams only a small part ofthe question of streams. Efficiency itself producesfragmentation, and the qualitative values that givethis County its distinction are often, in the interestsof good administration, left in limbo.

If we in this County have been correct in givingpriority to econorr;cs in our planning, struggling topreserve our less quantifiable values when economicfeasibility permitted, the benefit to the Countyshould by now be dear. After nearly a decade ofincreasing population, rising property values,elevating taxes, and multiplying traffic arteries, arewe the citizens and the government of thisCounty seeing a profit? How large is the overallbenefit and how great the sacrifice in qualitative

i)terms? Now is a time for audit, for a tallying of thenti black against the red.

15

POPULATIONElse Ocskay

The question of population, and the pressures itgenerates, is basic to most problems plaguingAmerican cities and towns. Population is a

generic termused to denote numbers of people, butwhen we speak of population we are speaking reallyof human beings and of their aspirations, hopes,and fears. "Population" connotes the many facesand multiple voices of individuals from all walks oflife as they come together to form groups andsometimes even communities.

Population is usually considered from one of twoapproaches size or distribution. Since worldpopulation has risen from about five hundredmillion in the mid-sixteenth century to 3.6 billiontoday, and is mounting by seventy million a year,size is of major concern to historians, scientists,sociologists, and technologists. Their reactions varyfrom glowing optimism at the prospect of acomputer-controlled, genetically manipulatedfuture golden age to deep pessimism over theeffects of superindustrialized, prepackaged societieson human creativity and potential. Distributionusually concerns localities, as controversies overpopulation density clearly indicatc. Distributiondetermines the impact of people on the immediatephysical and social environment and on the fabricof communities.

In 1970 California reached the twenty-millionmark to become the most populous state in thenation. Between 1900 and 1940, California's

Changes in density can mean.. .

in final retrospect, one kind of acommunity or an entirely different one.Density standards determine thenature of the community and themany areas within it and the needthat can be anticipated for theservices that people will demandunder stated conditions.

population grew from one million to seven million.Ten years later, it had reached ten million. Withintwenty years that figure had doubled, a vastlyaccelerated rate of growth caused largely bymigration. During the past ten years, California'sgrowth rate of twenty-eight percent has been

..exactly double the rate of the nation.What of Santa Barbara County? The 1972 World

Almanac lists Santa Barbara as the fastest growingcounty in the United States, with an expansion rateof fifty-six percent between 1960 and 1970. Thisrate is twice that of the state and four times that ofthe nation. The area of most intensive growth hasbeen Goleta, where the population jumped fromtwenty thousand in 1960 to sixty thousand by1970. There, the idea of progress as rampantgrowth in the name of economic health is mostmanifest, as orchards and farms have given way tohouses, shopping centers, and technical-serviceindustries. Second to Goleta in terms of rapidgrowth has been Isla Vista, now one of the densesthalf square miles outside the central cities, with apopulation of twelve thousand. Expansion alongthe South Coast reached its peak rate during thefirst five years of the sixties, leveling off to twopercent per year thereafter.

Of great interest to the South Coast because oftheir proximity are greater Los Angeles and

24 Oxnard-Ventura. 'I he Los Angeles-Long Beach areareflects the accelerated migration of people from

16

country to city characteristic of the whole country:a statistical analysis reveals that seventy-threepercent of Americans now live in urban areas; andthe most urbanized state is California with 90.5 percent of its population living in central cities, theirsuburbs, or communities numbering twenty-fivehundred persons or more. With a population of7.032,075, Los Angeles-Long Beach has become thesecond largest metropolis in America, larger thanChicago and outranked only by New York.Oxnard-Ventura has had a growth rate ofeighty-nine percent during the past decade,outstripped only by Las Vegas and Anaheim.

Los Angeles is still ninety minutes away, andOxnard-Ventura thirty, but many of the symptomsassociated with their state of urtnn congestion aremanifesting themselves in the Santa Barbara area.

Residents of the South Coast, in self-protection,u(,uld do well to consider the causes of rising drugabuse, vandalism. theft, vagrancy, and other socialills :ham, te-istie of impersonal cities. The pleasantstreets, modest homes. and neatly kept gardens ofsome of our tracts give no evidence of social ills,but beneath the veneer are typical qualities thatengender suburban crime working mothers, a lackof nurseries and playgrounds, and the absence ofcommunity spirit.

Much of the Goleta environment is sparklingnew, and its recently arrived inhabitants are 25

17

uithout roots, nomads of the modern age. \ou a

suburb of sixty thousand people. Goleta has nocore in the form of a town center. Mobile, rootlesspopulations always suffer a disruption in normalhuman relations, often manifested by a lack ofcommunity identity and the rise of social problems.The usual pattern in such suburbs is that localplanning deteriorates into a weapon for theprotection of powerful small groups: rapid influxprevents the consolidation necessary todevelopment of the community consciousness thatleads to community action. Anger and frustrationtend to replace participation as a channel forexpressing energy.

To understand census figures and interpret themin terms of community character requires aknowledge .of the make-up of the population itsage, its econonjic power, its social hierarchy. Onecritical factor in a community is its housing pattern.in Santa Barbara County, this pattern is relativelycncouraging. Fifty-eight percent of houses areowner-occupied, which represents a slight dropfrom -1960, as apartments are becoming morepopular; today only 1.3 percent of houses lacksome or all plumbing facilities, a great improvementover 1960 when this lack was fourteen percent;only 2.1 percent of today's houses are withoutcomplete kitchens.

Santa Barbara County figures show abouteighty-four thousand households, with an averageof 2.99 persons in each, and these householdsaccount for about 251,000 of the total populationof 264,324. Nearly one of twelve are one-personhouseholds, and ten percent of family householdsarc headed by women, a figure of some significancein terms of the need for nurseries, subsidizedincome, and other services associated withfatherless homes. Almost fourteen thousand peoplelive in group quarters, presumably young people,including students.

The income of nearly thirteen percent of allhouseholds falls below the federal poverty line of$350 a month for four in the city and $300 forfour in rural areas. Stated in other terms, 7.6percent of all families, and 11.6 percent of allpersons, in the County are "poor," according tofederal standards. (Families include about seventypercent of County population.) The median annualfamily income is $10,455, and about fifty, percentof families earn less than $10,000 per year. Only4.5 percent of families earn over $25,000. (Thesefigures are taken from the most recent Departmentof Commerce analysis. 1970 Ceous of l'opulatilm

. /it %Mt: Clislls I Santa Barbara.taint), ma. Standard Th.tropolitan Statistical Area.April. 1972.1

Such large percentages of poor andmitidk 'monk- pcoplt w ill hat c .in important effecton the possibilit of raising taxes or passing bondissues to balance Counts budgets or pat for futureimprovements.

Ethnic minorities increased between 1960 and1970 from 3.7 percent to 5.6 percent. with theheat lest concentration in the Cit of Santa Barbaraand (11tadalupe.

Age groups arc represented in the followingchart:

1-18 32% 25% elementary and secondaryschool

7% pre-school

18-24 15% 18.000 are students

24-65 44%

Over 65 9% 13.000 in Santa Barbara3.100 in Goleta1,200 in Montecito

A rapidly rising population has brought with it aparallel increase in the number of thc sociallydependent and in the need for services. Thecertified medically needy have formcd the largestdependent group. Projections for 1972, however,indicate increases in other categories of the needy.

Estimated yearly budgets for 1972-73 arc:

Families with dependent children: $11,168,190

Disabled needy: S 3.232,238

Recipients of old-age benefits $ 4,259,565

The County Welfare Department estimates thatall its aid programs for the year 1972-73 will comcto $19.318.321. The County's share of this costwill be $2.878,571.

1 hest figures take on added significance in lightof population projections to thc year 2000. TheGeneral Plan ent isions a jump from a population of264.324 in 1970 to 365,937 by 1985 and to466.001 in 2000. I-or Santa Barbara, this means anincrement of 35.621 persons, for Goleta an increaseof 83/53. and for Santa Ynez a doubling of itspopulation to 16.781.

In spite of these projections. there is littleidence of advanced planning to provide for the

housing, health, and recreational needs certain toincrease at a corresponding rate or of a seriousattempt to anticipate the social and physical impactof such a large increment of newcomers. Withoutreal forethought, the environment cannot help butdeteriorate drastically and the cost of services likewater rise beyond conception.

Tice total work force of the County in 1972,according to the Department of Human ResourcesDevelopment, numbered 105,500, of whom 98,700were employed. The major employer was thegovernment, with services a close second, and trade,manufacturing, construction, and agriculture, indescending order, accounting for the rest.

Quite aside from present employment patterns, aglance at the primary sources of County incomeover the past twenty years could supply guidelinesfor future growth. This would be particularly true ifpast trends could point up the means to improvingprofits without environmental devastation.

Until the development of Vandenberg in 1950,agriculture topped all other sources of income. Thearea was famous for its orchards walnut, lemon,orange, and avocado for its vegetables, and for itsflower seed. By 1970, agriculture had dropped offto a mere nine percent from a previous high of 27.4percent, as farmland gave way to urbar. pressure. Ifpresent planning trends continue, agricultural landsmay be expected to disappear within the nextfifteen years.

Vandenberg, at the peak of its activity,accounted for about twenty -eight percent ofCounty income. Now down to 20.5 percent,income from this source may be expected to riseagain until the space-shuttle construction period isover, when it will probably drop sharply.

Next in rank to agriculture over a twenty-yearperiod has been income from higher-pricedproperties and from affluent pensioners attracted toSanta Barbara by the unusual qualities of the area.This income amounted to approximately sixteenpercent of the total in 1960. Close to it has beenthe income from visitors attracted by many of thesesame qualities. The three categories of properties,pensioners, and visitors still constitute over thirtypercent of total incomc, a figure expected to rise tothirty-five percent by 1985. Income from thesethree sources exceeded that from mining,

o manufacturing, and trade. Like agriculture,40 moreover, these categories place comparatively

little drain on public funds.

18

An economic study of the County.commissioned last year to ascertain whether thegoals of the Gereral Plan were still realistic,confirmed the importance' of properties,pensioners. and visitors but also warned thatpreservation of a quality environment is crucial totheir maintenar. major source of Countyincome.

In: Teasingly, cities and towns throughout thecountry, are recognizing the need for new economicthinking. Lincoln, outside Boston, has discoveredan economic advantage in buying lands as a publictrust to preserve their historic value. Amherst,Massachusetts, has turned down an ambitious,architecturally desirable, open-space housingproject on the economic grounds that purchasingand preserving agricultural lands is more profitablein the long run. Nevada and I 'mail too are havingsecond thoughts about the advaantages of rapidgrowth.

Recently a Los Angeles radio station has been

4I19

carrying nightly commercials run I tht. S.IntaBarbara Chamber of Commerce. A composite of thethree messages broadcast pictures the Santa Barbarathat was and, in sonic measure, still is:

Santa Barbara, the city with seashore andmountain% and old Spanish charm. More ofthe good things about California than ..MIever dreamed were still around. Beauty. freshair, serenity no noisy jangle. no neonjungle. Remember how happy you once werethat you were li%ing in California? Come!Recapture that happiness for a few days!

Population is more than a matter of statistics.The number. distribution, and motivation of peopleshape the fundamental character of any area.Immediate decisions regarding population and itscontrol by the people and officials of the SouthCoast will determine whether the image projectedby the Chamber of Commerce remains the truth orbecomes a bitter piece of irony by 1985. %oh

like Ocskay took her bachelor of arts degree from theothwrsity of California at Berkeley and subsequentlystudied at the Graduate School '(Social work at Berkeley.She did advanced tmly at the University of Berlin and theUniversity of Madrid. She worked in Europe with the ('sitedNation: Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration fortwo years. following which she worked for the InternationalRefugee Administration in Washington. D.C.

V

V

PROPERTY TAXESAND GROWTHC. H. Van Hartesveldt

Over the past several years much agriculturalland along the South Coast has been convertedto urban use in order to accommodate in rising

population. As our property tax system operates,this conversion has been producing a net loss inCounty government funds. As a result, the Countyfaces the imminent prospect of having its costsexceed its revenue, and the City of Santa Barbara issimilarly confronted with a need for austerity.

To understand the reasons for this impendingdeficit, it is first necessary to compare the rise in

The lack ofa balanced economy,in which . . . industrial andcommercial uses pick up the bill fora portion of the costs of . . .

residential developments, points upthe need for careful protectionof the qualities of the County.The more expensive homes,with their high assessed valuations,usually are attracted . . . where thequality of the living environmentis excellent.

population and in assessed valuation with the rise incost of government. As the following tableindicates, from 1965 to 1971 County populationrose from 238,100 to 267,500, an average increaseof two percent per year. (Some areas, like Goleta,absorbed a greater percentage of the total growthand have the most potential for future growth aswell.) During this period, assessed valuation rose 2.6percent per year, from $623 million to $690million, which appears to be a normal relationshipto the population growth.

720

275,000700

680

660250,000

640

620

225,000 I I I I 600

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

COUNTY POPULATION1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

ASSESSED VALUATION

Over the same period, total expenditures for fiscal year 1970-71, an average growth of

County government increased from $27,700,000 001 twenty-one percent per year or ten times thefor the fiscal year 1966-67 to $50,200,000 for the tC0 population growth rate. The number of County

20

employees increased from 1,575 in 1965 to 2,848in 1972, an average increase of twenty percent peryear, closely matching the rate of increase inexpenditures.

Two categories of expenditures are the principalreasons for the increase in costs. One is the cost ofpublic assistan-,!, of which welfare payments are amajor part. Public assistance has more than doubledin cost in four years, going from $12,600,000 in the1966-67. fiscal year to $25,200,000 in the 1970-71fiscal year. The other category is public protection,which has increased from $5,800,000 in 1966-67 to$11,800,000 in 1970-71.

50

40

VI

p_ 307J-J

3 20

10

01965

I I I I t166 67 68 69 70 71

COUNTY EXPENDITURES

Only increased taxes and contributions fromstate and federal governments have delayed the dayof reckoning for the County. County taxes haveincreased 6.5 percent over the past four years, andreassessment upward of property values is alsoincreasing the County's tax income. Federal andstate contributions to the County increased from$12,400,000 in 1966-67 to $23,000,000 in1970-71. Although the City of Santa Barbaraobtains only twenty percent of its revenue fromproperty taxes, it also faces difficulties, and boththe City and the County are at the point ofreducing public services if taxes cannot beincreased.

1965 66 67 68 69 70 71 72NUMBER OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES

While taxes are certainly one tool for shapingfuture growth, a tax system is also made up ofeconomic, social, and political factors of greatcomplexity. The following analysis does notattempt to present a case for higher or lower taxesor for tax reform, but it does point up the need fortax control.

The County has 566 separate tax districts, eachmade up of a few common components and asmany as ten to twenty different components. Withthis many tax districts located in thirty-two schooldistricts and approximately forty other types ofdistricts (sewage, water, and so forth), citizens findit virtually impossible to achieve an overall view.

A serious deficiency in the property-tax system isthe lack of any budget for depreciation of facilities,an oversight that can constitute a series of timebombs in the form of new bond issues in the future.The present property-tax make-up does, however,have two saving graces: first, each district must payfor the specific amenities it desires and cantherefore control its tax rate to some degreethrough its district supervisors or by its vote onbond issues specific to its district; and second, each 29

21

district may decide in some instances what servicesor facilities it is willing to do without in the interestof cutting its taxes, which is probably the onlyreasonable approach to tax reduction.

In each tax district, the tax rate is broken downinto components similar to those of Code Area No.69-025, shown below.

County Tax 3.60Goleta Cemetery .06

Goleta County Water .46S.B. County Water Agency .02

S.B. County Fire Protection .32

S.B. County Fir* Protection Zone No. 5 .29

S.B. County Flood Control .03

Feather River Project .05

Goleta Flood Zone No.1 .10

Goleta Sanitary District Exp. .07

Goleta Sanitary District Bond .04

Goleta Valley Mosquito Control .02

S.B. Metropolitan Transit .05

School Tax 623Total Tax Rate (S Per $100 of

Assessed Value) $11344

The total tit. rate of S11.34 is near the averagefor the County, which is $11.11; the rate goes aslow as $4 on the Channel Islands and rises to $20 inthe highest districts. Districts located in the City ofSanta Barbara have a component of $1.46 per $100that is turned over to the City. As mentioned, taxincome pays only twenty percent of the City'sbudget.

According to state law, the County may notborrow money to pay expenses but may spend onlywhat it collects. The County acts merely as acollector for approximately three-eighths of thetaxes it takes in, dispersing this proportion to otheragencies. The remaining five-eighths is spent by theCounty, not set aside. intake is therefore equivalentto the County's costs. During fiscal year 1970-71,the County collected $76,730,000 in taxes, or $287for each person in the County. It additional Cityexpenditures of about twenty million are added,the total per person reaches $365, but, for thepurposes of this study, $287 will be considered theCounty cost for each person.

Land use is of major importance in the balancebetween County revenues and County costs. Arecent study in Ventura County, which has aper-capita cost similar to Santa Barbara County's,revealed that 6,200 acres of agricultural land had apopulation of seventy-two persons, or .0116persons per acre. A similar agricultural area in SantaBarbara County would cost the government $3.33per acre, figured by multiplying the cost per person($287) by the number of persons (.0116). At anassessed valuation of $1,100 per acre and at theaverage County tax rate of $11.11 per $100 of

ANALYSIS: AGRICULTURE VS. URBAN

ACRE 1

AGRICULTURE

.0016 persons

Assessed Value $1,100

COST To County: $3.33

REVENUE To County: $122.00

Apparent GAIN: $118.67

assessed valuation, the income per acre emerges as$122. This figure is arrived at by multiplying therate times one one-hundredth of the assessedvaluation ($1,100 x .01 x $11.11). As the chartbelow indicates, income is greater tinn cost. Landin agriculture therefore eases the tax burden on thecommunity.

If an acre of agricultural land is urbanized, anaverage result, according to the Ventura study, is17.3 people per acre. At an average family size of3.2, this density requires 5.4 dwelling units peracre. Assuming that families purchase or rent homesworth approximately two and a half times anannual income of $8,500, the total market value ofthese homes would be $114,750 ($ 8,500 x 2.5 x5.4), with an assessed value of $28,688. At theaverage tax rate of $11.11 per $100, the tax incomewould amount to $3,187 per acre. Countygovernment cost for the 17.3 people occupying thisacre would be $4,965 (17.3 x $287), a net loss of$1,778, plus the loss of the previous profit of$118.67, for a total loss of $1,896.67 per acre.

An even worse situation can result from use of anacre for a maximum-occupancy apartment building.If basement parking is used, a fifty-five-unitapartment building with a market value of$1,000,000 is feasible on one acre. If the average isthree persons to a unit, or 165 people in all, thecost to the County government would be $47,355(165 x $287). The acre would have an assessedvaluation of $250,000. Taxes paid, therefore,would be only $27,775 ($250,000 x .01 x $11.11).The loss in this case would be $19,580, plus the lossof the previous profit.

Average County Real Estate Taxes: $287 Per Person

ACRE 2

URBAN

17.3 persons

5.4 dwellings

Assessed Value $28,688

COST To County: $4,965

REVENUE To County: $3,187

Apparent LOSS: $1,778

ACRE 3

URBAN

155 persons

55 dwelling units

Assessed Value $250,000

COST To County: $47,355

REVENUE To County: $27,775

Apparent LOSS: $19,580

TO BREAK EVEN ON URBAN ACRES COUNTY REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL MARKET VALUE

ON PLACE OF EMPLts :WENT OF $3,737.08 PER PERSON FOR ACRE 2 AND $4,314.92 PER PERSON

FOR ACRE 3 OR TAX LOSS MUST BE MADE UP BY OTHERS IN COMMUNITY

J21j

On the face of it, therefore, the conversion ofone acre of agricultural and to urban use results ina net loss of revenue to the County. This loss can bepartially, or even entirely, offset by theemployment of new urban residents in localbusinesses whose property taxes per employee arehigh enough to make up the difference. Purely froma tax standpoint, therefore, population growthshould be paralleled by commercial installations ofhigh property value per employee. People whowork outside the County and school or government

3123

employees whose "pl.Int" pays no taxes do not helpto offset revenue losses.

Tourist facilities can help to lessen the deficit,and homes of high value at least $10,000 ofmarket value per occupant can reduce the taxburden for the rest of the community. As thingsstand at present, funds for civic or environmentalimprovement can be provided only by additionaltaxes or government grants since neither theCounty nor the City has any excess for communityprojects.

\

C. H. Van liarte.cveldt receiped a bachelor of science degree

in chemical engineering from the University of Michigan.

Recently retired, he spent many years in independentresearch and development and holds fifty patents. He hasbeen division manager for T.R. iv. Corporation and HooverBall and Bearing Company and a vice-president of Sterling

Precision Corporation.

TRANSPORTATION. ON THE SOUTH COAST

Josephine H. Webster

At present most residents of this area wouldprobably say that. except for the matter ofthe crosstown freeway, we have no serious

transportation problems. We are rarely caught inintolerable traffic jams: we do not choke on smog.It is easy for us to go where we wish, if we owncars. If we have any problem at all, it is the happyassumption that we have no problem.

But what does the future hold? It holds chaosand congestion, unless we plan ahead. As we plan, itis essential that we realize how our every decisionconcerning transportation will have an impact onthe manner in which this South Coast communitygrows and on the quality of life that will be enjoyedby its residents. Transportation and land use areinextricably linked. Furthermore. no matter howsuccessful we are in controlling all kinds ofdevelopment in this area, we will to some extent beaffected by the "San-San" that is predicted for thisentire coast of California: a city that will stretchfrom San Diego to San Francisco, pavement andtacky -tacky everywhere.

Transportation is the moving of people andgoods by various methods. The criteria for thesuitability of any method would be: 1) its safety; 2)its cost: and 3) its pleasure and comfort for thetraveler. To the traveler, cost involvesconsiderations of speed (for time is money),efficiency, and convenience, but the costs tocommunities must also be considered. Pleasure and

[The] street and highway systemmust be viewed as more than justthe way to get to work or home.It is the streambed for the flowof people and commodities,opening access to recreational,cultural, social, and economicopportunities, contacts, and experiences.

comfort must always be secondary to the effectsany transportation system might have on thecommunities through which it passes.

Today transportation planners think in terms ofsystems that involve all modes of transport, whichmust be interconnected in such a way that atraveler can easily transfer from one mo,'c toanother. This kind of approach requires planning ofregional scope. The South Coast may be regarded assuch a region, and it is fortunate in that itstopography lends itself to a linear layout, which isthe most efficient.

It is unfortunate that its narrow coastal plain isthe only place for automobile and rail traffic in thispart of California. Residents must accept this fact,but they can at least insist that the town mattersmore than the travelers who pass through it. Ofcourse, the freeway offers residents of the SouthCoast the most efficient way to move from one endof the region to another, at least for the present.

The transportation needs of this area have notbeen ignored by government and nrofessionalplanners. The chief result of their studies is theexcellent Comprehensive Transportation ActionPlan for the Santa Barbara County Arca, made bythe Santa Barbara County Cities Area PlanningCouncil. There are also the SCOTS studies: SCOTSis an acronym for South Coast Transportation

99 Study, Santa Barbara County.Lbw The various types of transportation available can

24

be divided into public and priute. In the field ofprivate transportation, the automobile, of course,dominates the scene. It has long offered theindividual the ideal 1,1 to mu% e about, for it gibeshim great mobility, taking him where he wishes togo, when he wishes to go there, in privacy, and witha certain amount of protection from variousdangers to which a pedestrian is exposed.

However, the excessive proliferation of theautomobile can deprive it of mu i of its prizedmobility. (If we did not know how much thesemachines cost, we might suspect thein of spawningin the still of the night, so rapidly do they seem tomultiply.) It is expected that by the year 2000 thenumber of cars will double, the number of milestraveled will triple, and sixty-five percent of allmileage will be in urban areas. The Regional PlanAssociation of New York discovered that "thesaturation point for the square mile at the heart ofevery city was nearly identical and the size of thecity seemed to make little difference in the numberof cars its downtown area could handle." By 1990,the hundred and two square miles of the SouthCoast will be classified as an urbanized area; by1976 cars may be banned in the Santa Barbaracentral business district.

It is expensive to own and operate a car, butAmerican drivers do not pay the full cost of theroads and streets they use or of the social damagetheir driving produces. In cities, each automobile issubsidized from the property taxes of the city byabout ten cents a mile. (This subsidy includes thecost of land in streets and roads as it then producesno property taxes; cost of building roads and thciimaintenance; and cost of all types of trafficcontrol.) According to the New York study, "theLeague of California Cities estimated that cityresidents in that state paid an average of $440 ayear in various taxes to subsidize automobiles."

I fere in Santa Barbara, we have seen an increaseof parking lots in the central business district,which in part is a response to the competition ofthe outlying shopping centers. As the value of realestate increases, it will surely become moredesirable. and entirclt economical, to build moreparking garages. since the present one now pays foritself. EAentu.tll charges for parking may have tobe scaled to make the alto-nark c of publictransport more attractie. but such a polic mustokioush be preceded k the aailability of goodpublic transportation.

As congestion increases. a slight staggering ofarrival and departure hours by business and

industr% can assist in relic% mg lash-how crank. ascan the use of ear pools. Various incenti% es couldbe used to encourage the formation of car pools.Some large cities. for example. are considering a Lartoll to be le% led for the prix ilegk. of entering thecentral business district.

r 4

Small cars would help to solve some problems.and most cars coulL conveniently be smaller, zsmany are used most of the time to transport onlyone or two people. I Jere again, some form ofgovernment intervention may be necessary thecarrot or the stick or both.

No one likes the prospect of burgeoningbureaucracies, of increased regulation of our lies.of more and more government intervention. Aspopulation increases and life in general becomesmore complex, such public management of privatelife, however. seems unavoidable. Moreover.regulation would be nothing new. 1 he averagecitizen is usually not aware that at present there is agreat deal of government regulation. For instance.the Interstate Commerce Commission has toda), anunindcxed file of fort -Three trillion different ratesthat apply to moving different goods aryingdistances! The citizen's concern should be whetherexisting regulations are for his benefit or for thebenefit of special-interest groups The highway

9,,-) lobby is one of the most powerful in the nation.tit/and citizens might well ask. w hose interest does

it lobby?"

25

11 lien everts in the field of transportation talkto the genet al public. the% are prone to dazzle theimagination of thc la nun, and thus also to obscuresonic of the unpleasant realities of our problems, byspeaking of thc fantastic hardw are that the futureoffers: people in capsules being propelled at highspeed through tubes. computer-controlled %chidestipping safely along the freew ays of the future.Indeed, tic ma have such devices some day. butnot tomorrow.

In the meantime, most problems can be solvedby the proper use of what we already have. We needa systems-analysis approach, to whichtransportation is probably more suited than anyother problem of modern society. This approachmeans planning, and it v ill probably require, from apeople obsessed with speed and -accustomed tomobility and independence, a reluctant acceptanceof less speed, less mobility, less independence.

Another form of private transportation is thebicycle. In 1971 more than eight million bicycleswere produced, and by now the bicycle must beconsi icred a valid form of transportation. A bicyclecosts far less than a car, both to own and tooperate. It consumes no fuel, does not pollute, andtakes little space.

We need bike paths, bike lanes, and bikeways,all manner of accommodation to the bicyclist sothat his exemplary mode of travel will be safe,pleasant, and expeditious. It is to the advantage ofthe motorist and the pedestrian, as well as of thebicyclist, to establish clearly marked bicycle lanesor separate bikeways.

We lag behind many communities in giving thebicycle the attention it deserves. In answer to thosewho would plead cost as an excuse for inaction,many inexpensive recourses are open. In parts ofthe city there are sidewalks on which one rarelysees a pedestrian. The bicyclist, unca.afortablyconscious of the cars and trucks around him, hasbeen told that sidewalks are not for him. In suchareas, why not halve the sidewalk? All that wouldbe needed are some signs and a little paint. The Citysuccessfully experimented with bike lanes recentlyby banning parking on one side of a street usedextensively by student bicyclists going to and fromschool. Buses and trains could be equipped withracks so that passengers could carry bicycles. Theseand many more possibilities cost little money.

In an area where tourism is one of the mostimportant sources of income, safe bikeways wouldbe a great economic as well as recreational asset.

As for the pedestrian, he cannot get far very fast,

and he usually has no safe place in which to walk.Portions of the South Coast avoid sidewalks inorder to preserve a rural atmosphere, but in manyareas, sidewalks would provide children with safeplaces for play and, in addition, serve the neglectedpedestrian.

It does not seem acceptable for this wealthiest ofnations to deny mobility, and therefore the right toshare fully in its prosperity, to twenty-fivepercent of all Americans the young, thehandicapped, the elderly, and the poor. These arethe groups who can travel only by publictransportation, so often inadequate in California. Itseems unlikely that the South Coast will need or beable to support typical forms of mass transit in thenear future. It sprawls too much; but "mass transit"and "public transportation" are not completelyinterchangeade terms. We do have publictransportation, at least to some extent.

There is the taxi, a specialized service for whichone must pay well. There are buses, those of theMetropolitan Transit District and the GreyhoundCompany. Eventually what will probably providethe greatest flexibility with the minimum ofinvestment will be a fleet of minibuses that willswing through residential neighborhoods, feedinginto main routes handled by the conventional largebus. Such a hybrid bus systenri could serve eachcommunity on the South Coast, with express busesconnecting the different towns. Even buses threedays a week would be a great improvement over"never-ever" in those areas now without service.

There are railroads. The tracks are there, and theday will surely come when they will see morefrequent use. Amtrack's problems are notinsurmountable, and necessity may compel asolution. We could have commuter trains, morningand evening express runs for those who live andwork in different communities along the SouthCoast, from Vandenberg to Port Hueneme. We canalso anticipate the kind of auto-train that is alreadypopula. on the East Coast, taking families and theircars from the Washington area to Florida Service ofthis sort for the West Coast could reduce to someextent the number of vehicles on freeways.

One other mode of public transportation is theairplane. We have an airport. It does not make avery good neighbor, and air is a mode of travel tooexpensive for many. For those who can afford it, itis ideal for the quick trip away.

When we consider such matters as fuel34 consumption and air and noise pollution, fast

ground transport is to lie preferred to airplanes.

26

11igh-speed trains are proving successful on the EastCoast. As population density on the West Coastapproaches that of the East, it is to be hoped thatthe railroad will offer airlines stiff competition.

What is especially important is a passenger depotthat will connect all modes of transportation. Itmust be planned now, so that the commuter mayone day be able to leave the tram he took fromVandenberg and at the depot in Santa Barbara takea bus, and perhaps then a minibus, direct to his caror to his door.

As the South Coast population grows, every newhousing development or business will have animpact on transportation. Every new road that isbuilt will have some effect on the value of the landthrough which it passes and to which it leads.Transportation truly "opens up the frontiers," bigor little. If we are to have efficient publictransportation systems at reasonable cost, we mustrestrain our sprawl a bit.

Many claim that Santa Barbara is the"environments: capital" of the country. True, anoil spill in the channel did much to spark nationalconcern and unite local government and citizens inprotest. Most of the recent environmental efforts,however, are splendid examples of what determinedindividuals can do, not evidence of strong localpolitical leadership. If we arc indeed to be theenvironmental capital of the country, trulyaggressive leadership is required. It would beespecially appropriate to see such leadership in the 0

27

area of transportation. for the mess in the channelhad to do with a nonrenewable resource that is thelifeblood of transportation. Large sums of moneyare not essential; willingness and innovation are.

Transportation is much in the news these days,and some of the news is good. Consider thesevarious recent headlines in the Santa BarbaraNews-Press:

AUTO CLUB CALLS FOR TOTALTRANSPORT NTION

MASS TRANSIT GETSAUTO DEALER BOOST

TRANSIT DISTRICT HEREQUALIFIES FOR FUNDS

PROPOSAL IN "TALKING STAGE" FORDOWNTOWN MINIBUS PLAN

Such evidence of rising interest in transportationand its effects is coming none too soon. JohnBurby, who was special assistant to Secretary ofTransportation Alan Boyd, puLlished a book in1971 entitled The Great American MotionSickness: or Why You Can't Get There From Here.In his final paragraph, Burby makes clear the scopeof imminent decisions on transportation facing ourown South Coast today:

Transportation is more thanthree-dimensional. It has a fourth dimension,which is its power to change lives for better orworse. It has a fifth dimension, which is time.Transportation systems tend to stay with thepeople who build them for many generations,as the Roman aqueducts and the Spanish trailin Florida have endured. Unless Americansthrough their government begin to treat thetransportation system as more than anabstraction, the sins of the father's Packard,which have been visited upon the son's stationwagon and his wife's Volkswagen and hisson's Honda will be revisited upon a future sopolluted and so congested as to be no futureat all. to

Josephine II. (Fiji) Webster graduated magna cum laudefrom Wheaton College in Massachusetts. For many years aconservationist, she has been active in both the Sierra Cluband the Audubon Society. She is also on the board ofdirectors of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and hasparticipated in the American Field Service student exchangeprogram.

ZONINGKathleen Sullivan

Zoning grew out of man's desire for comfortand pleasant surroundings. As land took onvalues other than agricultural, residences

needed protection from obnoxious neighbors. Noone wished to live near a garbage dump or afactory, and, through zoning, various land uses

were segregated according to function.The chaotic growth of American cities dictated

by laissez-faire economics expanded the purpose ofzoning. As it was first legally defined in New YorkCity in 1916, zoning came to mean "the regulationby districts, under the police power, of the height,

,_b_u_*, and use of buildings, the use of land, and the/ density of population."

Since then, cities have continued to grow andzoning has grown with them. By now zoning haschanged from a local mechanism for nuisanceprevention to a vehicle for communitydevelopment. Its intention is still regulation, butthe danger has been, and is, that it was created as avalue-laden defense system. Ideally, zoningpromotes the interests of community over theambitions of selfish landed individuals, but zoningas an ideal and zoning in practice are only distantlyrelated. Zoning today is a strictly local regulatorysystem to be used or abused at will. Subject toentrepreneural exploitation, the process originallydeveloped to protect communities has in most casesbecome the tool that destroys them. The goal, alltoo often, is great growth, the approach a piecemeal

°6u

28

Is there a maximum densitybeyond which it would be imprudentto build in Santa Barbara County?That point of diminishing returnwould appear to come from theattitude of the people . . . based onthe type of area they want to live in.In recent years all too much emphasishas been given to the demandsof speculative builders . . . .

and shortsighted one. As a result, the word"zoning" often refers to a labyrinth of unworkableregulations that promote areas of suburban sprawlwhere densities are too low to permit efficientpublic service. The outcome is a total loss of anysense of community.

Before the development of the General Plan forSanta Barbara County, zoning had created manyopportunities for land abuse by confining itself tospecific uses. It had dealt with separate landdevelopments without any concept of the whole.The consequent need for a comprehensive land-useplan to replace piecemeal zoning ordinancesresulted in the adoption of the General Plan.

The General Plan is theoretically a guide toorderly development promoting the health, safety,and welfare of the people of the County. It isan attempt at an overall designation of land use torectify the hodgepodge of zoning. It looks to bothpresent and future use of land a sort of "advancezoning." The General Plan expresses basic policiesthat shape community character, and the zoningordinance, in theory, establishes specific limitationsthat presumably help to achieve the goals set forthin the Plan. Zoning is meant to act not as asubstitute for the Plan but as a tool for itsimplementation.

The Santa Barbara Zoning Ordinance "classifiesand regulates the use of land, 'oailding, andstructures in accordance with a General Plan to

assure orderly and beneficial development of theCounty; to encourage the most appropriate uses ofland; to maintain and stabilize the value ofproperty; to conserve and protect the naturalresources; to reduce fire hazards and improve publicsafety; to safeguard the public health; to preventundue concentration of population; to decreasetraffic congestion; and to create a comprehensiveand stable pattern of land use upon which to plantransportation, water supply, sewage, park, school,and other facilities and public services."

These goals leave much room for specificinterpretation. Unhappily, there has been atendency to regard the General Plan "only as aguide," while the zoning ordinance has beenconsidered law. Since it is only a guide, theargument goes, the General Plan can be ignored andzoning allowed to dictate land-use policy. Onlyrecently, the Board of Supervisors affirmed theirview that the General Plan is nothing more than astatement of development policy. In light of thispronouncement and in consideration of the amountof land zoned contrary to the recommendations ofthe General Plan, it seems that zoning has takenprecedence in the planning of this County.

While the General Plan may also have itsshortcomings, legally it should be superior tozoning ordinances. California law requires that eachcounty or city planning agency prepare acomprehensive, long-term general plan for thephysical development of its region. The plan mustthen be adopted and implemented. While everycounty must have a general plan by law, none arerequired to have zoning. Zoning is described simplyas one of many implementing tools. If a planningcommission agrees to a zoning change that conflictswith general-plan recommendations, the plan is notbeing implemented and is ineffective.

A number of court decisions in recent years havemade even more explicit the relationship betweenzoning and general plans. In Oloane v. O'Rourke in1965, the judge called the general plan a"constitution" for all future development withinthe City of Commerce. Ile felt that zoningordinances should be judged in terms of theirfidelity to the plan and went on to say, "It surelycannot be contemplated that the council, inadoption of future zoning ordinances, will gocontrary to the general plan that it adopts."

In Milpitas, in the case of Van Sicklen v. Brownlast year, the California Court of Appeals ruled infavor of the general plan over a zoning ordinance.Zoning for a highway-service district allowed a

conditional-use permit for a gas station, althoughthe general plan did not indicate this type of use.The court denied the building of the gas stationbecause, even though it met zoning requirements, itdid not conform to the objectives of the generalplan. Santa Barbara's zoning ordinance, as it is

written, is in agreement with this view: "Thisordinance classifies and regulates the uses of land,buildings, and structures in the area in accordancewith a master plan."

Notwithstanding, the working relationshipbetween zoning and the General Plan remainsconfused. Although zoning has often been used todo the job of planning, it is by nature incapable ofsubstituting for a master land-use plan. Zoning lawswere established as defensive measures, subject toeconomic pressure. It is little wonder, then, thatthey have failed in establishing standards of urbandevelopment that produce good communities.

Zoning decisions have greater impact onindividual pocketbooks than any other kind ofdecision made by local officials. Especially is thistrue in view of the broad discretion that officialshave and the ease with which improper actions orinactions can be concealed. Zoning might be calleda thermometer: it measures the amount of heat ona given piece of property at a given moment. Aspressure for development increases, zoningresponds, and property can be zoned for the usethat brings the highest price at any particular time.

Conditional-use permits an variances, used asmethods of -obtaining relief from zoningregulations, are usually allowed in compliance withvague standards and are subject to officialindulgence. As a consequence, public interest isoften a minimum factor in zoning changes.

Isla Vista is a prime example of the damage thatcan come from rezoning and the granting ofvariances. Most changes there have been madeagainst the recommendations of the PlanningDepartment and the County Planning Commissionand have been granted on appeal to the Board ofSupervisors. The Estero Road area, for example,was rezoned in 1957 from duplexes to multiple

.units (four) in order to increase apartment densityand land value. This change was allowed in spite ofprotests from ninety-nine Isla Vistans. At the time,the County Planning Department commented thatenough housing capacity was provided for byexisting zoning to accommodate twice the numberof students living off campus with a university

3ienrollment of fifteen thousand.Isla Vista was again rezoned in 1967 to make it a

29

special student residential district; this changesubstantially reduced the amount of space in andaround buildings, permitted higher buildingcoverage and more units per acre, and substitutedpaved parking areas for landscaped yards. Rezoningthus made Isla Vista, in effect, a planned ghetto. Onbeachfront lots, the footage used to calculatebedspaces for rezoning included the cliff and theocean!

If all vacant land in Isla Vista is developed undercurrent zoning, there could be 23,000 people livingin one-half square mile where there are now about12,000. And if Isla Vista were to be razed andrebuilt according to current zoning, landownerscould, quite legally, pack in 43,000 people!

Isla Vista is not alone in suffering from theinadequacy of zoning procedures. The developmentof the Goleta Valley epitomizes the destructivepattern created by zoning in the South Coast area.Zoning ordinances in Goleta have been out of stepwith actual needs and have been subject tospeculative pressure and short-sighted planningpractices.

After the Second World War, the influx of thosedesiring single-family housing in an area suppliedwith ample water, served by a university,distinguished by clean industry, and favored by arural setting disturbed the leisurely pace of thepredominantly agricultural Goleta Valley.Agriculture immediately became less profitablethan it had been as land assessments were altered toreflect potential, rather than actual, use. Farmersthus profited by selling out to large economicinterests. A self-perpetuating urbanization machinewas set into motion as more and more land wasmade available for housing and industry. Growthwas considered good.

The question before planners and citizens of thecommunity was how to control this growth.Pressure for development was high, time scarce, andaccurate information lacking. As a result, initialzoning met little opposition in the Isla Vista area,and only sixty people attended a meeting in July,1950, called to approve zoning for the GoletaValley.

As noted, zoning in Isla Vista proved to be adeveloper's dream. During the fifties, developersentertained similar hopes for the town of Goletaand its environs. Industrial zones were extendedsouth of Hollister Avenue from Fairview to GlenAnnie to "protect" residences from industry,although some farmers registered protests atincreasing urbanization. In 1955 Richard

Whitehead, who was then planning director,commented that the Goleta Valley was entering aperiod of accelerated growth. "[T] he Los Angeles

basin is filling up and we are becoming the floodplain." Although most newspaper articles andeditorials during this period posed anxiousquestions as to the future of the Valley, theatmosphere was basically one of confusion, and thevoices of concern were too often drowned out bythe roar of bulldozers.

People were aware that some way must be foundto guard against the wholesale destruction ofagricultural land. Zoning, however, was not theanswer. Much of whnt zoning had accomplished hadbeen based on the often arbitrary concept ofradiating bands: the town center was zonedcommercial; the airport and the arca beside thefreeway were made industrial; residential zonesfollowed in a series of bands ranging from highdensity near the center to low density in areas closeto the foothills. The result was that the inner ringtended to become a hodgepodge mixture of .gasstations and hamburger stands called "garbagegrowth" by the Planning Department whilesubdivisions and shopping centers leapfrogged intothe remaining open space.

Richard Whitehead estimated that every acrezoned industrial would bring a population increaseof about 350 people. The zoning of several hundredacres of commercial and industrial property,therefore, required the development of residentialzones to meet demand. Subdivisions multiplied androads divided the once fertile Valley. Conflictsarose. Some felt that residential development wasproceeding at too fast a pace and that zoning policyshould be revised to redirect any furtherdevelopment into the more hilly, less fertile lands,leaving prime bottom land for agriculture; othersargued that it was inconsistent to promoteindustrial development without providing sufficienthomesites for workers, and the flat lands seemedideally suited for building. The forces fordevelopment prevailed and the Valley continued togrow more urban.

Zoning could not control development because itdepended primarily on economic criteria and itspurposes were shortsighted in terms of communitywelfare. As growth progressed, property valuessoared, and whoever could afford to buy coulddetermine the use of the land.

The General Plan was adopted to change thisfli)

CJhaphazard,piecemeal pattern and to provide the

() means for sound growth and development with "an

30

eye to quality rather than quantity; to beautyrather than the commonplace; to economicallysound growth, not boom or bust." However sincereits ideals, the General Plan was renderedimmediately ineffective. The Plan revoked nozoning privileges and established no specificland-use criteria. It did not contain the nowmandatory elements of conservation and openspace. It left unresolved the conflict betweenland-use designations and zoning's conditional-usepermits. Where the Plan indicated residential,therefore, it was possible for zoning to interpret thedesignation as a resort hotel or a public stable.

One great inconsistency between the Plan andzoning has been the concept of pyramid zoning.Pyramid zoning permits a number of choices withinbroadly defined land uses where the General Planpermits only one use. For example, C:2 zonescombine commercial with residential where theGeneral Plan indicates commercial only; an M-1-Bzone allows both industrial and commercial usewhere the General Plan indicates Industrial Park.Zoning symbols are not restrictive enough.

Zoning has enabled planners to weave in and outof the loopholes of the Plan. A patchwork ofscattered subdivisions has been created that puts aburden on the County in terms of efficient publicservice, on agriculture as a result of the profits to bemade by conversion to urban use, and on everycitizen in consequence of a diluted sense ofcommunity, a diminished potential for open space,and an elevation of taxes.

The pattern that has emerged in the GoletaValley since the adoption of the General Plan hasbeen one of upzoning and rezoning for growth.Officials concede that at least half the increase inGoleta's population since 1965 has resulted fromrezonings contrary to the General Plan. Once anexception is granted say for a trailer park wherethe General Plan indicates residential everydeveloper feels entitled to similar treatment. ThePlan's vague guidelines for "controlled" growththus give way to zoning's razor edge.

Since the successful campaign to prevent

rezoning of the El Capitan ranch, citizens' groupshave injected themselves more emphatically intothe planning process. Associations like the GoletaValley Citizens' Planning Group have sensed a needfor greater public control and for a revision ofprocedures to contain aggressive private interests.They are recognizing that too little communicationbetween planners and the community has resultedin short-range, limited planning goals runningcounter to the public interest.

State Law AB 1301 states: "County zoningordinances shall be consistent with the General Planby January, 1973." Hearings are being held toassure compliance with this law, seemingly thelogical culmination of the state's original intent toinstitute a firm yet flexible approach tocoordinated regional planning.

Unfortunately, the language of AB 1301 is vagueand the current open hearings may thereforeconcern themselves with nothing more thansemantics. If they are to have meaning, resident ofthe South Coast must ask themselves what kind of acommunity they want and how they may achieveand preserve it. Should zoning continue to play akey role in the planning process? If the GeneralPlan is to be a functional guide to stabledevelopment, should its ideals and goals beredefined?

Some argue that if zoning and the General Planare made consistent, they will cancel each otherout. If the spirit as well as the letter of AB 1301 isfollowed, however, the General Plan will indicatethe nature of land use, and zoning will limit itself tospecifics height, bulk, setback, and perhapsdensity. To change zoning to make it consistentwith a weak, imprecise Plan or to change the Planto make it consistent with zoning as it has thus farbeen manipulated is to lock the South Coast intoa growth pattern leading to destruction.

Definitions of performance-oriented criteria thatdefine the function of land and the nature of landuse are needed before the arrival of the bulldozer.Once land is in buildings, the community cannotcall back its other alternatives. %Pa

Kathleen Sullivan graduated from Skidmore College,

Saratoga Springs, New York. She worked for AmericanHeritage Publishing Company of New York before comingto Santa Barbara. She has been on the staff of the Isla Vista

4-)n Planning Commission and Planned Parenthood of SantaI) Barbara County. She is presently on the staff of the Ecology

Center.

31

WATER!THE ECONOMICS OF THEFEATHER RIVER PROJECTDaniel Sisson

Without water, the South Coast cannot prosper.Scarcity or abundance of this simple yet vitalresource can make the difference between

poverty and wealth, or even sickness and health.For this drought-prone area, imminent decisionson when and how to supplement the presentwater supply could involve the County in themost massive expenditure in its history.

Light rainfall and rapid population growth overthe past several years have combined to produce theworrisome possibility of a water crisis. Localheadlines proclaim a shortage in Goleta, and there istalk of rationing. Residents of all sections feel agrowing apprehension.

The time of decision for the County isapproaching. To evaluate alternatives andappreciate the significance of possible commitmentsthat will affect South Coast residents for manyyears to come, we must review the history of theCounty's involvement in the Feather River Project;we must examine the costs outlined by MaxBookman and R.M. Edmonston, the officialconsultants to the County; and we must search out"hidden costs" often not explained in theconsultants' reports. Only with an understanding ofthe ultimate cost and impact of importing stateproject water can citizens weigh the alternatives orappreciate the stakes involved.

In 1963 when the County of Santa Barbarabelieved it must make a hard decision on whether

Generally speaking, in nearly allareas of the County where recenturbanization has occurred . . . .it has resulted in an increase innet water use because it hasoccurred largely on dry land oron orchard lands in areas of confinedground water.

or not to become a part of the California WaterProject, the state seemed the only dependablesource of supplemental water. Only the state had-the physical capability and the capital to beginconstruction of a massive aqueduct system to servesouthern California. The technology fordesalinating water and converting effluents into apotable supply did not at that time exist. TheCounty, therefore, considered only four factors inits deliberations: timing; economics; physicalproblems; and legal requirements.

Because the South Coast had a prior history ofwater shortage, the County faced an obligation toplan far in advance. Population was projected toexpand, and supplemental water had to betransported over long distances. To have sufficientwater available when it would be needed requireddecisions many years ahead.

The cost of importing water was prohibitive for asingle county with limited resources. Mountainranges had to be crossed, pipelines and pumpingstations constructed, and entire counties traversedin order to deliver northern California water to theSouthland. Such a project demanded thecommitment of many counties to long-termcontracts if the state was not to be burdened withthe costs at some future date. Participating countieswere required to sign binding legal contracts to

40 ensure that those who intended to use the waterwould actually pay for it.

32

It is not surprising that, given the enormousbarriers existing at the time and with no apparentalternatives or easy technological solutions, theCounty fathers of Santa Barbara made acommitment for Feather River water. It thenappeared the only sensible method of averting acritical water shortage some time in the future,especially in view of rising County population.

In February, 1963, the Santa Barbara CountyFlood Control and Water Conservation Districtentered into a contract with the state to providewater from the Feather River Project. By 1965, theCounty maximum entitlement had been set at57,700 acre feet per year. At that time the County

in conjunction with San Luis Obispo Countyofficially contracted to build the coastal stub, afourteen -mile tube running off the main Californiaaqueduct in the San Joaquin Valley. A five-yearadvance clause was also agreed upon at that timewhereby the County would give five years' noticeof the date certain it wished to receive its first dropof imported water.

In addition to the stub, the County committeditself to build a "ditch" or coastal aqueduct. Thisaqueduct, together with the stub, was to be onehundred miles in length; it was to run fromKettleman City in Kings County to San Luis ObispoCounty and bring water to the Santa BarbaraCounty line at Santa Maria. Before the water-shortSouth Coast could actually get Feather River water,however, still another conduit the SantaMaria-Cachuma conduit would be required to runfrom Santa Maria to Lake Cachuna. In addition, alateral conduit would later be needed to supplyLompoc and Vandenberg Air Force Base, andmodificatioAs to the Tecolote Tunnel would benecessary to make it capable of delivery to theSouth Coast.

These, in general, were the commitments madeby the County to ensure an adequate water supply.

The costs of these commitments, as compared tothe price we currently pay for water, bear closeexamination. In 1971 = - entire South Coast used45,900 acre feet of water. This water had anaverage "raw" cost of twenty-five dollars per acrefoot. (This figure is derived by averaging theassumed ten-dollar-a-foot cost of well water withthe cost of Cachuma water, which goes as high asthirty-five dollars an acre foot.) At this averagecost, South Coast residents spent approximately$1,147,500 for water in 1971.

When we compare this figure with the estimatedcapital costs of Feather River water, serious doubts 41.

33

arise as to the County's ability to pay for importedwater. The coastal stub, which has been completed,carries an initial cost to the County of an estimatedfour million dollars, plus the cost of maintenance inperpetuity. To repay our share of the cost of themain aqueduct and the stub, the County is

committed to pay $365,000 a year at present.Beginning in 1975, however, that cost will increaseuntil it reaches a maximum of $.14 per $100 ofassessed valuation, or $1,465,000 per year,indefinitely.

The coastal aqueduct will cost Santa BarbaraCounty an additional forty-five million dollars ifSan Luis Obispo County participates. If Sra LuisObispo fails to use Feather River water (and recentindications arc that it will not use it), the costs of aslight smaller coastal aqueduct will be borneentirely by Santa Barbara County taxpayers.

Another major capital investment will be theSanta Maria-Cachuma conduit For twenty-onemillion dollars, this additional aqueduct, stretchingforty-odd miles, will bring water to the point wherethe South Coast can use it. Included in this estimateare the lateral conduit to serve Lompoc andVandenberg and the modifications necessary to theTecolote Tunnel.

Total initial capital costs amount toapproximately $71,000,000 if San Luis ObispoCounty participates and an estimated $81,000,000if it does not. In addition, the Coun ;' must payadded variable costs, like the Delta water charge,which is approximately ten dollars per acre foot, aswell as pumping costs.

The official Bookman and Edmondston reportsspeak of costs in terms of dollars per acre foot. Aninitial cost of $205 per acre foot to each user hasbeen quoted, diminishing to $131 per acre foot bythe year 2001. These figures theoretically includecapital costs, interest rates, maintenance,administration and overhead, and such additionalcharges as may be necessary.

A more realistic way of understanding the truecost of Feather River water is to examine thepresent and future cost of water at the meter,which is the price the customer actually pays.Today a resident of the South Coast typically pays$120 per acre foot for water at the meter. If wededuct from this figure the assumed average cost ofraw water,which is twenty-five dollars per acre foot,we see that residents on the average pay an i:npliedsurcharge of roughly ninety-five dollars per acrefoot to cover treatment, local distribution, andadministrative expenses.

f),4ji >'".4

Nr .

In 1971, as mentioned, the South Coast usedabout 45,900 acre feet of water. Consider theimpact on a water bill if an equal amount ofFeather River water is added at an average raw costof $205 per acre foot as quoted by Edmonston.One half of the cost would be $25 per acrefoot, the other half $205 per acre foot, for anaverage raw cost of $115 per acre foot, if the costof Feather River water is spread equally over allexisting, and new, water users. Add to this raw costthe ninety-five-dollar surcharge, and most peoplewould be paying $219 per acre foot at the meter, orroughly twice what they pay now.

If, on the other hand, Feather River water costswere borne only by new users, meter costs wouldinclude an average raw cost of roughly $700 peracre foot in the first years of delivery. This amountwould gradually decrease to $131 per acre foot bythe year 2001 when the "ditch" is expected to runfull. Meter costs to these new users would be $795per acre foot at first and $226 by the year 2001!

These figures have been calculated directly fromEdmonston's reports, but, startling as they are, theydo not include a multitude of hidden costs. Toquote one water expert, Raymond Baughman,assistant water director, City of Santa Barbara,"The $205 figure is not realistic; it is way out inspace!" In order to comprehend the reason for hisstatement, we must examine the hidden costs thatwill make County involvement in the Feather Riverproject a matter of truly staggering expense.

Arve Sjovold, a former water commissioner forthe City of Santa Barbara, has noted "aninconsistency between Edmonston's earlierestimates of capital costs (1961 report), his latestzstimates (1970 report), and his assumed rates ofinflation that arc supposed to represent thedifferences in these two estimates. The currentestimate seems in error (i.e., low) by three milliondollars. In addition, it may be fairly stated that hisassumed rate of four percent per year between1970 and 1976 is unrealistically low, which wouldadd even more to the total costs in the latenineteen-seventies."

Another related factor, not referred to explicitlyby the consultants, is the high rate of inflation forconstruction materials. The Engineering NewsRecord, the most reliable index for prices on theWest Coast, states that the costs for constructionmaterials rose twenty-three percent from January,1969, to mid-1971. To illustrate concretely, onelinear foot of 16"-diameter pipe cost $18.2() in1; 9 and $23.70 in mid-1971. Most engineers

'11.

expect this trend to continue well into the future.At a conservative estimate, rising costs ofconstruction materials might raise the cost of thecoastal aqueduct estimated at forty-five milliondollars in 1967 to sixty-six million dollars today.

Another cost not included in the consultants'estimates, and referred to only obliquely, is theexpense of constructing an equalizing reservoir.This new reservoir will be required to balancesummer peak demands with winter lows when theditch runs full. If a new reservoir is not built andCachuma, is used for this purpose, excess waterduring a wet cycle might have to be dumped overthe spillway. Such dumping would not only wasteexpensive water but would have yet anotherunfortunate effect for the taxpayer. As the waterspilled over the dam, it would recharge aquifersdownstream, making it unnecessary for thosedownstream to buy imported water. Potentialcustomers would thus be lost.

One cost alluded to by the consultants is SanLuis Obispo's share of the project. Edmonston saysit is "about nine dollars per acre foot." This figure,as well as its reference, is misleading and imprecise.A more realistic figure was supplied by Sjovold: ifSan Luis Obispo does not use Feather River water,Santa Barbara County's capital costs will beincreased by fourteen percent of the total cost, orapproximately ten million dollars.

Other costs not mentioned in the consultants'reports are operation and maintenance costs:depreciation, movement, and the caulking forleaking joints. Administrative costs amount toalmost seventy pircent of the average hourly wage.

Another cost not mentioned, one which presagesa massive increase in water charges, is expenditurefor a "backbone system'? This is a system ofparallel, supplementary conduits that will benecessary as the main conduits, run full; thesupplements will be major arteries used bywholesale and retail distributors. While thenecessity for these conduits must be determined byeach water district separately, they are factors ofenormous import if and when the capital costs ofnew arteries arc passed on to the c nsumcr.

Related to this hidden cost is the need for"middle men," the water service contractors whosell water. Eaughman notes that "not all the waterwill be used and some must be sold at discountrates." The questions then arise: Who will buy thewater? At what price? And at what loss to thetaxpayer?--/t1

Other related questions naturally arise. In light of

35

stricter federal and state regulations. who would beresponsible for the treatment of this eater after it isused= Would this cost be passed on to theconsumer? Or would it be included in aCounty-wide tax?

If large investments are required for tertiary aswell as primary and secondary treatment, the costsmay fall unfairly upon the general population. Adensely developed acre of la d uses much morewater, for example, than an acre in agricultural use,while some industries use more than either farmersand ranchers or suburban residents. In the past wehave allowed large users to pay less per acre footthan small consumers. is this preferential treatmentstill justified? Should it be reversed? Should ratesbe charged perhaps by the acre rather than by theconsumer?

The assumption behind the County's originalcommitment to them Feather River Water Projectwas that we had entered an age of unlimitedpopulation growth. The population figurespresented by the consultants assumed that theCounty would grow from its present size to466,001 people by the year 2000. The 1970 census,however, shows those figures to be curvingdownward. It is no longer reasonable to expect anexplosive growth pattern in the future.

The costs of Feather River water have beenscaled to rapid growth. As we witness a reduction ingrowth, will also see an increase in per-capitacosts. In this perspective, it may no longer beconsistent with community goals to import 57,700acre feet of water. The danger is that, once theproject is initia 1, the County will, in effect, becomm.tted to growth in order to build a tax baselarge enough to pay for the project.

The County now has an irrevocable commitmentto pa: its share of costs for the main aqueduct andthe stub and to pay the Delta water charge on aschedule of minimum annual entitlementsbeginning in 1980. These charges are now reflectedon our property-tax bills; they guarantee our rightto a certain amount of Feather River water whenand if we need it.

The County is not yet irrevocably committed totake that water at any specified time or to build theSanta-Maria Cachuma conduit. Our contract statesthat we may delay our request for water. Ouroption can remain open in perpetuity.

What the residents of the South Coast need nowis time time to determine whether technology iscapable of providing us with a feasible alternativethat is truly within our ability to pay. Baughman

has stated that a new "crash" water reclamationprogram by Du Pont will in all likelihood provide uswith a cheaper alternative in less then three Years.lie believes that Du Pont can build a

million-gallon-per-day plant for less than half amillion dollars to produce potable water.

The South Coast today pours about 17,850 'acrefeet of effluent into the ocean eery year. Withmore efficient collection, this amount could beraised to twenty thousand acre feet each year.Roughly half that amount is now reclaimable. Iftechnology can improve on that ratio, the Countymight be able to postpone its decision on FeatherRiver water for fifteen, perhaps twenty,years. Thelogic of delaying that decision seems irrefutable.Recently John Hamilton, chairman of the CityWater Commission, stated, "The South Coast cansave four million dollars a year in interest costsalone for each year it delays importation of stateproject water."

Questions for current consideration are whetheror not the County has, or will have, the. economicresources to embark on a project of such greatexpense and whether it might not be economicallyof great advantage to explore thoroughly the costsof imminent technological alternatives. Thesequestions have especial pertinence in theperspective of current County income levels. With11.6 percent of County residents on or below thepoverty line, with about fifty percent of countyfamilies drawing an income of less than $10,000 peryear, the County has no large middle class to takeon the financial burden. Rather than wait toconsider possibly cheaper alternatives, should wesacrifice social services we now enjoy for the sakeof Feather River water? This sacrifice would be afurther "hidden cost" that might have adverseeffects on minorities, senior citizens, wage earners,small entrepreneurs, and, certainly not least,wealthier citizens.

Questions concerning the Feather River Projectraise an even more fundamental question forresidents of the South Coast: Are those who doubtthe advisability of continued rapid growth the"impractical dreamers ?" Or are they, perhaps, thetrue realists of our time? The answer citizens givewill determine the future of Santa Barbara County.

Daniel Sisson, a PhD candidate at Claremont GraduateSchool, graduated from California State College. LongBeach. A former junior fellow at the Center for the Study of

44 Democratic Institutions, lie is a teacher m the AdultIiducation Division of Santa Barbara City College.

36

PART THREE

THE CHALLENGEAND

THE OPPORTUNITY

The urbanization of the South Coast, begun in thesixties, has continued unabated into the seventies.In spite of increased unemployment, at leasttemporarily reduced corporate profits, and animpending water shortage, enthusiasm for expansionhas remained high in the business community. The1971 Annual Report of one of Santa Barbara'smost prestigious financial institutions reflects thegrowth-oriented optimism still prevalent amongmany South Coast businessmen:

According to demographers, the coastalregion from Santa Barbara to San Diegowill someday be one "megalopolis," agreat concentration of population andeconomic power. . . . [Ml anagement isprepared to capitalize on this situation asthe Company becomes well established inthose areas of the state's populoussouthern third where population trendswill result in future growth.

Requests from developers continue to mount forrezoning to higher densities and for conversion ofagricultural land to urban uses. Pressure fordevelopment has urbanized more than onethousand acres of undeveloped land each year.Without a change in policy, this trend can beexpected to continue and intensify.

Rising environmental concern among theresidents of the South Coast has thus far failed toblunt the trend toward expansion. Rapid growth,however, affects more than environmental quality.Its impact on the nature of human associations andon the perspective of individuals alters thefundamental character of communities. A rapidlyrising population usually brings an increase in theproportion of young people. The normal balancethat exists in slower-growing areas is suddenlyupset. Unemployment rises as the young swell thelabor force. At the same time a "generation gap"develops between them and the relatively fewerolder citizens whose taxes skyrocket to provide forschools and whose values are abruptly challenged.

The culmination of this process is the breakdown ofcommunication and the build-up of resentment.

Rapid growth also brings with it new values, inparticular an emphasis on efficiency andproductivity. Since large, centrally controlledenterprises can be more productive and efficientthan a number of small operations, supermarketstend to replace mom-and-pop stores, large farmingcorporations to take over small farms, and a fewlarge businesses to displace the many littlebusinesses of slower, smaller times. Gradually thecommunity finds itself with less variety and moreuniformity. Its physical aspect becomesmonotonous, its people bored with mediocrity.

Lack' of variety carries with it the potential forcatastrophe. Dependence on limited sources ofsupply can mean instant scarcity in the event ofeven the smallest emergency. Striking meat cuttersor retail clerks may, for instance, cut off staplefoods for a whole community dependent on two orthree large food chains. If electricity is the onlysource of power, an outage can cause crisis withinhours. The bankruptcy of a single major industrycan bankrupt an entire city where that industry hasbeen the dominant economic force; failure torecognize the importance of variety can createghost towns overnight and thrust thrivingcommunities like Seattle and Santa Maria intosudden depression.

The face of the South Coast is changing throughmore than the loss of its agricultural lands. Duringrecent years the trend has been away from themany and the varied toward the few and thelook-alike. Some of the newer shopping centers inGoleta, Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, and evenMontecito dominated by the food chains, banks,and drug and liquor combines -= are barelydistinguishable from those in Ohio, Alabama, orNew York. With every move toward homogeneityand mediocrity, the South Coast gives up more ofits identity and its special character. Ascommunication between age groups becomes moredifficult, as the bored silence of supermarket linesreplaces friendly, small-market give and take, as themechanics of living and getting to and froincreasingly preoccupies its residents, the SouthCoast cannot help but lose its pride in being.

To retain the richness of its own individualitywill require a conscious effort. Otherwise, thepredictions of the growth enthusiasts will cometrue, and the South Coast may well become the

45northern terminal of an undifferentiated coastal"megalopolis" extending south to San Diego.

37

..;

TODAY'S ACTION,TOMORROW'S PROFIT:AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACHTO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPaul Relis

For residents of Montecito, Hope Ranch, andportions of Santa Barbara, urbanization andits attendant ills seem remote indeed. The

quality environment characteristic of these areaswas established well before the emergence of _theGeneral Plan by respected, visionary citizens whoused their influence to assure that the General Planwould protect their cherished aesthetic values..

For all their :beauty, these communities cannotstand in proud isolation under modern conditions.Smog from glutted highways respects no economicor social class. Crime and ill-health in one small areacan threaten all the rest. Effluents move with thelittoral drift to foul the beaches of rich and pooralike. Fire consults no planning board indetermining the direction it will choose. And oilmoves with the wind and tide to coat waters farfrom the source of spill.

The future of the most attractive South Coastcommunities will be determined by decisions madein areas beyond their direct control in theunincorporated communities of Goleta, Isla Vista,and Summerland, in the new city of Carpinteria,and in the relatively young towns of Lompoc, SantaYnez, and Santa Maria where the battle is beingfought and lost. These communities have been andcontinue to be victimized by a value system thathas long since proved its bankruptcy in countlesstowns and cities across America.

// 6Unless it is revised, the County General Plan will 1k

38

With recent pressures, it has beenall too easy to overlook the factthat, in haste to accommodategrowth, the very reasons for itmay be destroyed. There havebeen tendencies to let the "bars"down, to do things as they do inLos Angeles, in Orange County, orin other places that are not at alllike Santa Barbara County.

bc a blueprint for the destruction of the SouthCoast. Despite its far-sighted features, the GeneralPlan will, if followed to the letter, bring about theruin of the Goleta Valley, despoil the Carpinteriaflood plain, alter the character of Lompoc and theSanta Ynez Valley, and jeopardize the future ofSanta Maria. -

Stripped of its lofty verbiage, the General Plan islittle more than an economic model that prescribesland use in terms of single functions. It speaks ofzones residential, highway-related, commercial,professional, and the like as if these separatezones were in no way interrelated or interacting.

Economics alone is no longer an adequatestandard for planning because it leads to theinhibition of all other aspects of life. Studies in thenatural sciences have revealed that single standardsdestroy stability. In the forest, for example, manyspecies coexist and are arranged in a definitehierarchy, descending from dominant tree speciesthrough subdominates to soil micro-organisms.These multiple species play cooperative orsymbiotic roles, and any simplification of thisnatural diversity can jeopardize the forest's stabilityand even destroy it.

Diversity is no less important to humancommunities. Automation, wherein complex,perceptive human beings have been forced to thinkof and perform a single function repeatedly, hasresulted in intense boredom leading to neurosis and

antisocial behavior. Evidence of a belatedunderstanding of the importance of diversity is thedecision by . one automobile corporation tode-automate its operations, with a resultingimprovement in both quality and productivity.

The South Coast can no longer ignore the provenrelationship between diversity and stability. Ifmonotony is not to reign supreme, if congestion isnot to bring irreversible damage to the remainingland, citizens must reexamine the concepts thatgave rise to the General Plan and present zoningordinances. Deficient planning concepts can meanirreversible damage to the fragile ecosystems onwhich future generations must depend for survivaland can lead to a fatigued and frustrated humancommunity of malfunctioning neurotics.

Perhaps the most graphic example of thedestruction being wrought in the name of theGeneral Plan is the change in character of theGoleta Valley over the past twenty years.

Prior to 1950, Goleta .remained a small town surrouneod by vast

tracts of orchards and croplands of fine quality.

Goleta urbanized rapidly during the late fifties and early sixties, with

development spreading outward from the town center. By 1965 the

Valley was well on its vay to saturation. ii'li. I39

From 1965 to the present, construction has proceeded at an

undiminished pace, filling the entire eastern portion of the Valley

with new development, except for bits of agricultural, marsh, and

brush lands: At the same time are arterial extensions have been

constructed to penetrate the western end of the Valley, assuring

access to still undeveloped tracts far from the heavily urbanized areas

to the east. Also, the first developments have impaired in the western

section of the Valley.

Unless planning perspectives change, the Valley is destined for

complete urbanization in the future, as shown in THE SPECTRE

above. Opera space MI retreat to the perimeters of urban areas

except for strips around coastal streambeds and parks, indicated in

white. The larger white arm represent golf courses, the University's

lagoon area, and private or public holdings with limited public access.

The largest white area is land now in agri :Jtural preserve and may be

permitted to convert to another use in ten years if the owners so

request. (This area is in Los Cameros Canyon, the location of the

finest County lemon and avocado orchards.)

The plight of the Valley can be appreciated evenmore from comparative pictures. In the followingphotographs, each plot of presently undevelopedland is pictured with an existing G.,letadevelopment of the same density as that proposedby the General Plan and zoning ordinances for theundeveloped area.

A walnut orchard in Winchester Canyon. The General Plan allows six units to the acre, similar to thedevelopment on the right.

An open field containing the largest Eucalyptus forest in the Valley, a breeding pound for Monarchbutterflies. A map has been filed for 329 of 500 houses planned for fifteen acres. Most of the trees willbe cut.

Lemon and avocado orchard on the corner of Patterson and Cathedra! Oaks. According to the GeneralPlan, this land will be developed to look similar to the tract on the right.

Corona Del Mar Rancho just off the freeway at Glen Annie Road. It is destined for six units to the acre.

1l)

Area surrounding Los Cameros Lake. The General Plan calls for six units per acre, but there is pressurefor making this the site of a County park.

rPrime agricultural land on Patterson Avenue, now in organically grown lettuce but surrounded bybuildings. The area is designated ProfessionalInstitutional on the General Plan and is probably destinedfor office buifdinec

An orchard on Cathedral Oaks Road, neglected in anticipation of development containing six houses tothe acre, similar to the new tract on the right.

The last of the truck farms along Calle Real between Patterson and Fairview. The General Planindicates highwayrelated use for this land.

49

Clearly, an exclusively economic perspective isinadequate if the South Coast wishes to protect itsremaining open lands from the fate that hasbefallen those in Santa Monica, Long Beach, andsimilar communities. Planning for the Valley, andfor all other open areas, needs the benefit of anapproach that gives weight to the full range ofnatural and social values indispensible to human lifeand genuine progress.

"Nature," Ian Mcllarg has said, "is the arena oflife." Using this simple proposition as hisfoundation, McHarg, who is professor of regionalplanning and landscape architecture at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, has developed a

dynamic and revolutionary approach based on aconcept called intrinsic suitability.

"Le: us accept," he urges, "that nature isprocess, that it is interacting, that it responds tolaws, representing values and opportunities forhuman use with certain limitations and evenprohibitions to certain of these."

To employ intrinsic suitability as a basis forplanning means, in simplest terms, to consider everysection of land in the context of its naturalfunction and to calculate in precise terms whatlosses the community might suffer frominterference with this function. Man eventechnological man depends upon the sun, therain, the ocean, and the soil for every amenity andfor existence itself. If nature is "the arena of life,"then a respect for natural processes is essential tosurvival. Natural processes must therefore be givensocial value and must be considered in advance ofany development.

Once we accept the need for such an ecologicalperspective, for a land-use policy based on thefunctions of various types of land, many of ourpresent problems will be amenable to solution. Thisapproach offers unique advantages: its method isrational, since it depends on evidence provided byexact sciences and data from substantial sources;much necessary information is already available;any two people, applying the method to a givenarea, are likely to reach the same conclusions; and,most important of all, the community can apply itsown value system in determining land use, thuspreserving attributes of especial importance t1 it.Montecito is a prime example of a communitywhose distinction has been maintained by closeattention to the values cherished by its residents.

With a moment's thought, for example, we canappreciate the long-term economic advantage ofconsidering farmland in terms of its function and its

; %-(i v

42

potential for contribution. Prime agricultural land isthe product of thousands of years of alluviumdeposits, and this land is therefore as enduring andpriceless a community asset as mountains and oceanvistas. Farmers forced by urbanization to abandonprime soils must turn to those of inferior quality.An enormous capital investment is required to bringthese inferior lands into full production; even so, itis uncertain how long they can be kept productivewith chemical fertilization and pesticides tocompensate for their lack of native fertility.

With our present perspective, it is extremelydifficult to protect even the best land whenhighway-commercial zoning multiplies its valuetwenty times over or when rezoning to residentialuse increases market value tenfold. To protect allfarmland might be as undesirable as it is impossible,but a suitability study might reveal that theultimate costs of converting the best soils todevelopment would be too high. Such a studymight therefore lead us to classify some lands as"Productive-Commercial," amenable only to suchuses as agriculture, recreation, orone-residence-per-ten-acres, which are compatiblewith preservation of their natural superiority.

If all land is viewed in terms of its function andits possible long-term value to the communitynot merely in terms of current market value landuse will be determined by an evaluation of manysocial, economic, aesthetic, and ecological factors,ranked in order of their importance to the healthand livability of the area. Preserving ecologicalvalues is not necessarily incompatible withdevelopment.

Take, for example, a shoreline area with a sanddune running the length of the beach. On the dunelives a community of grasses whose roots help tostabilize the dune and which are totally vulnerableto any kind of human activity. Behind the dune is arelatively flat area covered with a greater variety ofgrasses and plants. A housing developmentconstructed on the dune destroys the grasses withtheir stabilizing roots, making the dune and thehouses vulnerable to the forces of the wind and sea.As the dune erodes, houses are battered by theocean, as happened in Oxnard Shores. Adevelopment built in the flat area is protected bythe dune and its grasses and is safe from sea erosion.From a building standpoint, th' flat land is ofgreater value than the dune; from an ecologicalviewpoint, the dune itself is of more value than theland behind.

To determine the best use of land along the

South Coast requires a series of value-determinationstudies in the form of maps. When overlaid one onthe other, these maps constitute a synthesis of allvalues, and the composite that results provides aguide for determining optimum use of each parcelor land. Those areas of greatest suitability for urbandevelopment will be revealed by mapping each ofthe following: soil expansiveness; seismic hazard;tsunami (tidal wave) hazard; flood hazard; slope;soil erosion; fire hazard; cliff retreat seiche; scenic

FLOOD HAZARD

SOIL EXPANSIVENESS 5143

quality: historic value; and so forth.As a demonstration of the method, six maps have

been prepared of a portion of the South Coast westof Ellwood. Six factors have been chosen forrepresentation and each map is an evaluation withinthe context of one factor. In terms of flood hazard,for example, the greatest hazard is shown by thedarkest tone and areas of least hazard are shown on

. the map in white.

SEISMIC HAZARD

FIRE HAZARD

,t_-.SgOg

URBAN SUITABILITY COMPOSITE 52

44

Areas highly suitable for urbandevelopment are determined byoverlaying these and otherconstituent maps. In the resultingcomposite, the lightest colorindicates land where developmentwould be most compatible withthe natural landscape.Urbanization is contraindicatedwhere several hazards interact tomake land unsuited for highdensity or for expensiveinvestment (the dark tones). Thecomposite will also preclude urbandevelopment where land of uniquescenic, scientific, or educationalinterest might be adverselyaffected.

It will be seen that this composite resembles amosaic. Normal land-use maps. like the GeneralPlan map, are more like posters. w ith each land usecarefully segregated. Conventional map!: fail tore% cal en% ironmental .friability and thereforeprevent us from responding to it in our planning.

thorough application of the intrinsic-suitabilitymethod to the South Coast would reveal ouroptions for the future. From the standpoint ofurban development, the most valuable lands wouldbe those capable of accommodating a wide range ofcomplementary uses simultaneously agriculture.housing, recreation, and conservation. When certainhinds emerge as potentially suitable for severalconflicting uses, the General Plan could provide thebasis for decision. If its goals were restated toindicate the community's priorities, specificdeterminations could be made without politicalpressure. The criteria used in this method arcneutral and objective, and a priority ranking ofcommunity goals would guarantee a similarobjectivity in the administration of the Plan.

A system that considers land uses in terms ofmost to least desirable for each specific area hasenormous advantages over our present system.First, it makes possible the consideration of vitalfactors that cannot be precisely priced according toeconomic absolutes. Second, it enables theinclusion of unquantifiable values of utmrstimportance to community residents, giving citizensthe right to insist that the development processrespect these values. Third, it makes it possible todetermine with some precision the total costsocial, aesthetic, and ecological, as well as economic

of any planning proposal.The temptation today is to believe that

increasing concern for the environment amongSouth Coast residents will alter the pattern ofdevelopment. Such optimism might be justified ifremaining open lands were owned exclusively bylocal citizens with a stake in the community. Butthey are not. Again Goleta provides an example.

A glance at the ownership of the largest openacreage surrounding Goleta otters littleencouragement to those who hope that theperipheries may he spared. Wallo% cr. Inc. of NewYork owns 1.138 19 acres. extending from high inthe mountains to the beach. TransamericaCorporation of San Francisco, with a mailingaddress in Corona Del Mar, holds 3,308.63 acrespenetrating into the front country. SurroundingLake Los Cameros is the property of Boise Cascade,with 19.68 acres. R.A. Watt Company, with 37.91

acres. and Bowatt Properties of fialdt.na. with76.06 acres. American National lnsurancc Comp.inof c,aheston, (Ads. owns 591.65 acres of foothillLand oh the Santa Barbara side of Goleta. Choicebeach in opert on both sides of the freeway is heldby Securit Pacific National Bank 442.08 acres.Other giant tracts are ow nett by I lollister Company(919.73 acres), Ellwood Ranch Company (1,119.67acres). Stow Company (267.92 acres), and LaPatera Cattle Ranch (449.50 acres).

If citizens of greater Santa Barbara desire areevaluation of their planning means and planningends, if they wish to disco% er what development ismost suitable for the South Coast and where itshould occur, all that b necessary- is their mandatefor a strengthening of the General Plan to make itresponsive to current needs. .\ suitability study ofthe South Coast is well within the expertise of anumber of local residents. and the astronomicalcosts usually associated with such studies,therefore, need not apply. Furthermore, such amandate w ould not be without precedence.

Palo Alto. California, some ten months ago,initiated a moratorium on development in a largeand vulnerable portion of the urban fringe. Itsauthority was Government Code 65558, whichgives a charter city the power to declare amoratorium without a popular vote, providing abona fide study has been made or is in process. PaloAlto's city attorney cited the case of Mang v.County of Santa Barbara as legal precedent foradopting an interim ordinance to protect the publicsafety, health. and welfare. Palo Alto's FoothillDesign Study has recommended that one parcel bedeveloped and that others, some of them as small asten acres, be placed under the Williamson Act,which is the basis for agricultural preserve.

Once it is understood that the major deficiencyof the General Plan is its reliance on planningconcepts that are far too limiting, the need forre ision becomes clear. A call for revision wouldnot imply a permanent cessation of development ora rejection of economic growth. A mandate forrevising the General Plan would, instead, recognizethe truth that neglect of social, ecological,, andhuman values predisposes toward eventualbankruptcy, prevents long-term prosperity, andreduces the community's chances for survival.

Paul Relis received his bachelor's degree from the University

of California, Santa Barbara. He has worked for the U.S.Forest Service and been involved in a research project for

jt) the County. He is at present director of the I.cology Center.

45

'',0001,

'kcknowledgments

The Community Environmental Council is

deeply indebted to Pearl Chase, whose

support and backing have made this

publication possible, and to the many

individuals who have demonstrated their

concern for this community by contributing

freely of their time and talent.

5547