LAFCO preserves status quo in Eastern Goleta Valley

BY COLBY FRAZIER
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

The heated question of what to do with a large stretch of land between Santa Barbara and Goleta was answered loud and clear by the Local Agency Formation Commission yesterday, when the commission decided to leave the land and the nearly 30,000 people who inhabit it under the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Barbara.
The unanimous vote by the seven member commission ensured worried mobile home park residents who reside in the area that their county rent controls would be preserved, and capped what some residents estimate was as much as seven years worth of debate by three groups of people, those who wanted to be part of Santa Barbara, others who wanted to be aligned with Goleta and still others who favored the less talked about option of maintaining the status quo.


To the delight of most of those who packed the Board of Supervisor’s hearing room at the County Administration Building, the latter choice prevailed.
“It was a positive ending and I was pleased that we had unanimous support,” said commission member and Second District County Supervisor Janet Wolf, who lives in the unincorporated area in question. “I think everyone saw the rationale in our decision.”
That decision was to deny a request by a group called the Committee for One, who wanted the City of Santa Barbara to expand its sphere of influence, which would have essentially lassoed the land in question with a Santa Barbara border. The city then would have had the legal right to annex the land as its own all at once, or piece by piece if it wished.
The commission’s decision, which came recommended by Bob Braitman, executive officer of LAFCO, also states that any future proposals by either city to expand their sphere of influences over the Eastern Goleta Valley can only occur with a concurrent proposal to annex the land.
Braitman explains in his agenda report that “marrying” the two steps will ensure that “affected voters and landowners will determine to which city, if either, they wish to annex.”
While elected officials from Santa Barbara pledged their support during public comment for the Committee for One, others from Goleta did exactly the opposite.
“We have seen substantial community support for change,” said Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum, who added after the meeting that she was disappointed by the commission’s decision.
“It wasn’t the city council’s fight or anything, it was the fight of the residents in that area between the two cities,” Blum said. “I’m disappointed too because we were trying to help them.”
Michael Bennett, Goleta’s mayor pro tempore, countered that a “wholesale swallowing” of the entire Eastern Goleta Valley by either side would be uncalled for and pledged to show those who reside in the unincorporated area the quality of services Goleta, which was incorporated in 2002, can provide.
But the majority of voices during public comment were those of older Eastern Goleta Valley residents who reside in five mobile home parks located in the unincorporated area. Many of these residents have long feared that annexation by either city would put the rent controls afforded by the county in jeopardy.
Margaret Crouch, a resident in one of the mobile home parks, said she and many of her neighbors have suffered from “constant anxiety” as a result of the possibility of losing the security of rent control. She and many other speakers said the loss of rent control could force low income residents out of the area or drop property values as a result of not being able to sell the homes.
Had the commission decided to expand Santa Barbara’s sphere of influence, Braitman explained that “islands” of mobile home parks, which would be surrounded by the City of Santa Barbara, could remain with the county.
Blum said if the commission had chosen to widen the sphere, it would have preserved the mobile home areas as islands. She said the city’s rent control for mobile homes was challenged in the courts and lost, and as a result, no rent protections exist.
Other residents said they didn’t approve of Santa Barbara’s planning.
Jim Marino told the commission the City of Santa Barbara has turned its downtown in a “Disneyland,” “high rise,” “combat zone,” filled with panhandlers and street gangs.
“There are many of us in the Eastern Goleta Valley that don’t want this kind of planning coming to us,” Marino said.
Blum noted after the meeting that Santa Barbara is one of the only communities on the South Coast with a height restriction for buildings and said she didn’t believe the LAFCO venue was the appropriate place to attack the city.
Due to the size of the area in question, (the City of Goleta has a population similar to that of the unincorporated area), some noted that it could one day become its own city.
In the meantime, residents in the area eventually hope to draft a general plan, which will act as a blueprint for planning there.
Fifth District County Supervisor and Chair of the LAFCO Commission Joe Centeno, summed up his thoughts to the tune of a raucous applause before the vote.
“You’re the people who live here,” he said. “You’re the people who ought to decide what happens to your community.”