With L.A.-Like Gridlock On The 101, Santa Barbara Considers Regional Solutions For Growth Management

Supervisor, in conjunction with Congress members Lois Capps & Earl Blumenauer and Supervisor Long from Ventura County, you recently co-hosted a regional conference to discuss the possibility of a new commuter rail line linking Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Obviously the problem to be solved is maddening congestion on the 101 freeway corridor just south of the city of Santa Barbara. What was the conference's focus and options agenda?

The conference focused on rail, but encompassed a broader discussion of transportation challenges of all kinds, and the realization that Santa Barbara-Ventura County is a distinct region. Many of our transit and automobile trips take place daily between Western Ventura and Southern Santa Barbara County. So w really need to be finding solutions together.

As an elected official, transportation has been one of the greatest challenges I've faced. The frustration we have with transportation projects is that they take so long from approval to completion. Ten years is a customary period of time for any transportation project along a major corridor. But after ten years the need for a project has often changed.

The other frustration we have is with the lack of surety about funding, particularly for transit or rail, which have never received the kind of dedicated funding source that roads and highways have. With rail, we have the added challenge of dealing with difficult jurisdictional issues. Union Pacific, who own the tracks, and Amtrak and Metrolink, who lease the tracks, all have their own needs.

We are looking to Metrolink to extend their ridership up to Santa Barbara. But Metrolink is such a local through Ventura County that the rides are quite long. Nevertheless, rail remains a very popular, at least as an option. It remains to be seen whether people who think it's a great idea will actually ride it if it's available. We need to explore all possible options, from the potential for widening the freeway corridor, to increasing transit, to looking at HOV lanes. If we don't really do this conscientiously in a very focused way, we could look back ten years from now and not have accomplished anything.

Supervisor, Santa Barbara county has clearly grown over the last decade. Many of those who migrated in the past to Santa Barbara County from all over the world, including Los Angeles, thought thay could avoid the problems of urbanity. It appears that's easier said than done. Could you describe what's changed in the region and what electeds must do to be responsive to those changes?

It's changed significantly in just the last ten years. One thing that has happened is people are coming to live here who actually work in Los Angeles. They want their families to be a part of the Santa Barbara south coast community and they have the financial resources to live here, so they become a part of the commuting crowd on the freeway. More significantly, they contribute to the increasing real estate values, which have resulted in many Santa Barbara workers not being able to afford to live in the community in which they work.

We are also looking at increased commuting between Santa Barbara County and Ventura County. Ventura now is really a part of Santa Barbara's economy and quality of life. More and more people who work here– even county employees– have gone to live in Ventura where they can afford to own a home or condominium. Unfortunately, property values in Ventura communities are escalating as well. So, even if you just want to consider it in terms of good government, we now have to partner with Ventura to come up with solutions.

Many policy wonks believe that Santa Barbara county and city too often have choosen to separate themselves from the rest of urban California – whether over water, transportation, housing policy, or about job producing industry – and that now the region is rightfully paying a price because it doesn't have the proper infrastructure to support population growth. Is this a fair assessment of your county?

I think it's fair to say that Santa Barbara has considered itself distinct and has made decisions that have set it apart. Had we not done that, we would be looking at even more pronounced infrastructure needs. There is a carrying capacity of any area. Unless you want to destroy the ambiance that makes your community special and the livability of a community this size, you have to realize there are constraints; and you have to try and live within those constraints. Even if we decided to develop the heck out of this place, we'd still have constraints because of land values, geography and infrastructure. We will never be able to build our way out of the problems that we're acknowledging right now.

Deciding where to go from here is the big challenge. We need to bring land use decisions more in line with our infrastructure needs. We have to focus development in those parts of our community that are not dependent on commuting, and invest in housing for our workforce.

You mentioned the need for Santa Barbara County to take a more regional approach to its transportation and environmental challenges. Obviously, the word region doesn't appear in any Federal or State constitution – it's a concept, not a legal but a political term of art. Is it possible for the county to think regionally - to successfully build regional infrastructure and create mobility programs and at the same time deliberate over splitting the county up? How, within the county's divisive political environment, does any leadership in Santa Barbara shape a regional mobility agenda?

In the greater Los Angeles area you have SCAG, which includes Ventura County. Now SCAG itself may be a very complex, unwieldy, and ripe for reform. But in its structure, SCAG acknowledges the existence of a region and the need for a decision making body that encompasses that region.

Our COG only encompasses Santa Barbara County. We are realizing now that both on the Southern end, as it relates to Ventura, and on the Northern end, as it relates to San Luis Obispo, we have daily regional concerns that we don't have a formal structure to address. So, we are reaching out now to try and create what presently are informal means of communication..

The other difficulty with regional government is, how do you structure it? Our COG is structured such that every city in the county has one vote, and each of the five County Supervisors have one vote. We have eight cities in the county, the smallest has a population of about 4,000 people, and the largest is close to 100,000 people. But each city only has one vote, regardless of size. Is this an equitable structure for regional decision-making?

Many residents of Santa Barbara feel themselves comfortably insulated by geography and wealth from the often daunting urban challenges that many moved to Santa Barbara to avoid. If you, a 12-year veteran of the Board of Supervisors, were to assume the role of a 21st Century John Adams, writing a new constitution for Santa Barbara County (rather than Massachusetts), what might you suggest as a more optimum governmental structure for managing your county's present and future challenges?

For the most part, elected officials respond to the people who elected them. The difficulty in regional decision-making is that electeds are called upon to engage in problem solving for areas in which their constituents don't live. The only way to be successful is through educating the public. That is where decision-makers expand their views, and where they can move from narrow to broader concerns. People live with influences every day that go beyond their jurisdiction. They need to be educated as to how they can get involved and put pressure on their local elected officials to engage in regional problem solving.

On the other hand, we need to have much better discussions about what constitutes an optimum working structure for regional decision-making. I think a discussion of infrastructure is the best place to begin. You have to start knowing you may have an imperfect structure to begin with, but be willing to be flexible.

Over the past 125 years, six efforts have been made to split-up Santa Barbara County; and a seventh effort is now underway. What is motivating this repetitive political quest to break-up the County?

One of the impetuses for this current county split movement has to do with urban-agricultural interface and a disagreement over the appropriate level of government regulation as it relates to agricultural endeavors. We have a principally agricultural Northern County and an urban South county. There's a tradition among farmers and ranchers of a "hands-off" approach; the least government is the best government.

We have not done everything that we could have done to have a better understanding on how to balance the needs of the agriculturalists with the importance of protecting environmental resources. We have tried, but it's been in a very rancorous environment. I'm still hopeful that this conversation can be had in the future, without splitting the county. But if people start playing hardball between now and March of '06, then I think you're going to find more and more south county folks supporting a county split.

Who actually cares whether the County is split in two?

South County people care, because, we will now have a North County dominated Board of Supervisors. As an example, South County doesn't want renewed offshore oil and gas drilling, while North County residents have traditionally been supportive of oil and gas. The list is a long one; the preservation of the Gaviota Coast, watershed protection, planning for creek setbacks, and protecting oak trees have all been very contentious issues.

The governor and legislature agreed in late July on a state budget which significantly impacts state-local fiscal arrangements and the budgets of county government, in particular. It's noteworthy that local government organizations consented, as part of the budget deal, to taking less revenue from the state for the next two years in return for a promise of some state constitutional protection from raids by state government in the future. With county government the stepchild of the state, what, if anything, is the actual problem with our present state-local fiscal arrangements? How possible is it for local government to function as the architects of their own futures?

It's a tremendous burden on local governments, particularly on counties. We have a legal responsibility to carry out a lot of the state's functions, but we don't always have access to the resources that should accompany the mandate. I am really concerned for the future. I think we have another patchwork budget this year. I don't just lay it in the governor's lap, because for the last few years the legislature has done no planning for our fiscal future. But it's dangerously heightened this year. With the initiatives allowing more borrowing that were approved in March, we're living on multi-credit card debt in the state of California.

The budget this year that gave some solace to counties is cold comfort, because the governor can still withdraw other kinds of funds that counties now get through the back door in times of emergency. Unless we really get this tiger by the tail and be willing to make some very unpopular political decisions at the state level, or have a miraculous economic boom, we're heading for trouble.

One more related question. Santa Barbara County has effectively been reapportioned out of representation in the State Senate. What, if any, consequences have resulted from the county's residents losing their only state senate seat?

In the last reapportionment we lost State Senate representation. For 20 years or more we had a senator- someone in the senate that was approachable that knew and represented our county and San Luis Obispo County. Our senate district now extends east and north and every which way. Santa Barbara County's interest are just a drop in the bucket for that district. I have to credit our legislative leadership at the time with the outcome, and it's terribly disappointing.