Differing view of spheres of influence

By SUSAN J. ROSE

There has been much attention paid recently to the issue of spheres of influence and annexations, and whether the area between the cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta will be annexed to either city in the near future.

In addition, a few letters have been circulated regarding annexation and they have, unfortunately, contained a considerable amount of misinformation. I would like to clarify the facts and inform interested residents about what may or may not happen in the next several months to years.

There is an important distinction between spheres of influence and annexations. A sphere of influence is a plan for the probable future physical boundaries and service area of a city. The county still “controls” that area, but tries to coordinate planning for the area with the city that has it in its sphere. Annexation is where a city actually takes an area into its boundaries and the area becomes part of the city. Annexations may only occur within an established sphere of influence. The agency that oversees the placement of spheres of influence and annexations is LAFCO, the Local Agency Formation Commission, which is made up of elected and appointed members from throughout the county.

Fallacy One: This area must be included in either Goleta or Santa Barbara.

No statute or LAFCO policy requires annexation of any area to either city, nor is there a formal policy that urbanized areas should be within cities. The choices are not just between the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara. Staying as part of the unincorporated area is also an option. Another option is that part of the area might choose to annex to one city and another portion may choose to annex to the other city.

Fallacy Two: Municipal service reviews will expand city spheres of influence.

One letter incorrectly stated that after LAFCO performs a municipal service review “suburban areas will be moved into a city sphere of influence.” There is no statute or LAFCO policy that requires that. Also, no one should pre-judge the outcome of the review hearings.

Fallacy Three: Residents are powerless to control their destiny.

A letter incorrectly states residents have no voice in the process. In fact, for any annexation of land inhabited by 12 or more registered voters, the voters have an absolute veto over whether they are annexed to a city. Residents do have a great amount of control of their governmental future.

Fallacy Four: ZIP codes will change.

A letter’s reference to a “Goleta 93111” address is inaccurate. ZIP codes are federal-mailing zones that are unrelated to the location of city boundaries. The designation of ZIP code 93111 is Santa Barbara.

While the foregoing are false statements, it is accurate to say that LAFCO must determine the sphere of influence for each city. It cannot delegate this duty and decision to anyone else. Local agencies do not adopt their own sphere of influence. A popular vote is not needed to approve a sphere of influence line, although LAFCO must conduct public hearings and accept any testimony before making this decision.

Unlike sphere decisions, changes in city boundaries require not only LAFCO approval but the approval of those being annexed. If 25 percent of residents in an inhabited area protest, an election must be held and the area can be annexed to a city only with the consent of a majority of the registered voters in the area to be annexed.

With that said, it is important to note that neither Goleta nor Santa Barbara has applied to annex any of the area between them, nor have they proposed to expand their spheres to take in any more area. There is a tremendous amount of analysis that must go into the study of a boundary change and neither of the cities nor the county has formally committed the staff or funds to undertake such a complicated review. At the earliest, LAFCO’s review of sphere of influence updates for the Goleta-Santa Barbara area will begin in late spring.

I hope this helps clarify some of the confusion. If, at some point in the future, there is real movement on a potential change to either a sphere or city boundary, I will hold a public meeting at which all the issues can be aired and experts can address your questions. Until then, please feel free to contact my office.

Susan J. Rose represents the 2nd District on the county Board of Supervisors. She can be reached at 568.2191.