Extending the boundaries of the city of Lompoc west to Bailey Avenue has been the dream of politicians, some property owners, and developers for several decades. But there are two opposing arguments, one supporting and another objecting to westward expansion of the city.
Supporters of an annexation point out that going back over 50 years, we can see evidence on the extreme west side of town that all the intersections are four-way and dead end in farm fields; there are alleyways normally used for utility easements and access between residences on different streets that separate houses from farm fields; and there is a sewer line that the city built along Bailey Avenue—a county farm road—to support any future development.
Clearly, they say, this indicates that developers, city planners, and politicians of the time believed that the city would expand west.
In October of 2008, the city received two reports: one titled Bailey Avenue Specific Plan and the other titled Bailey Avenue Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project that included 2,700 homes and 200,000 square feet of commercial space. The City Council did not approve the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan, nor did they certify the EIR.
Chief among the report’s concerns was the fact that the area proposed for development is on Class I prime soils; the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), an agency that is the approval authority for annexations, has consistently voted against any effort to annex this type of land and specifically against annexation of this land.
LAFCO policies state, “the loss of any primary agricultural soils should be balanced against other LAFCO policies and a LAFCO goal of conserving such lands,” and “annexation and development of existing vacant non-open space lands, and nonprime agricultural land within an agency’s sphere of influence is encouraged to occur prior to development outside of an existing sphere of influence.”
I checked LAFCO policies in other counties, and the language was the same. So, it’s not uncommon for LAFCO in most jurisdictions to object to expansion into primary agricultural soils.
The report also cited concerns that unless additional police officers were hired and a fire station were relocated, the city couldn’t meet emergency service call response times to the proposed annexation.
The opposing argument from farmers, ranchers, and others is that this is prime agricultural land that has been in active tillage for several generations. In 2010 the Environmental Defense Center settled a lawsuit requiring the city to reconsider approval of a General Plan update that would have set the stage for potential annexation of approximately 300 acres of prime farmland (Bailey Avenue) for development.
Later, the City Council approved the 2030 General Plan Land Use Element which states that “the city shall encourage development of under-developed and vacant land within its boundaries and shall oppose urbanization of agricultural lands east of the city and west of Bailey Avenue.” Perhaps this was in response to this settlement.
During a council meeting in November 2019 concerning a developer’s 2016 annexation request—proposing to build 624 dwellings and 125,000 square feet of commercial space on two widely separated parcels at separate locations in the Bailey Avenue corridor—the council discussed transferring the annexation effort from the Planning Department to the city attorney.
The staff report chronicled the process so far stating that during a recent meeting, Paul Hood, former LAFCO executive officer, “made a statement indicating he did not think LAFCO would approve the annexation.” The staff also estimated a cost of between $92,500 to $160,000 for the city attorney to continue the negotiations. So that left an important question: Who is going to pay for this? The city or the developer?
The project developer agreed to pay the costs, so that cleared up that matter. When asked if there was a limit to what his client was willing to spend, he said this project has been in planning for more than a decade and “we are already in it for about $500,000 over the last 18 months and hopefully we are nearing the end.” He also said his client didn’t intend to stop until a final decision is reached.
After a lengthy hearing, despite the annexation concerns expressed in 2007, a legal settlement by the Environmental Defense Center in 2010, and at least two previous denials by LAFCO, the council voted 5-0 to transfer the task to the city attorney, which also included a requirement for the developer to pay all costs.
Why the city attorney didn’t point out the 2010 Environmental Defense Center settlement at that meeting is an unanswered question.
There has been little progress since, and the Planning Division reported “draft MOA (memorandum of agreement) routed to county Dec. 6, 2019. Response received on Dec. 19, 2019, not supporting proposal.”
On March 3, 2021, the Environmental Defense Center sent the following objection of the annexation to LAFCO: “Proceeding with this annexation is contrary to LAFCO policies encouraging the conservation of prime agricultural lands and is not in the interest of the city community or the residents of the county of Santa Barbara.”
Now we’ll see if LAFCO will agree to allow the annexation after objecting to it vigorously in the past. If they do, I will be surprised since they have repeatedly stated that the city should grow north, and it appears to be contrary to their polices.
Ron Fink writes to the Sun from Lompoc. Send your thoughts, comments, and opinionated letters to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Mar 25 – Apr 1, 2021.
