Planning Commission punts Richards Ranch decision to Board of Supervisors

After accusing Santa Barbara County of acting in bad faith and playing politics, Richards Ranch didn’t get what it wanted: for the Planning Commission to overturn staff’s decision calling the project application incomplete.

“Normally, this is not how the county would treat an applicant. I think politics are afoot,” Richards Ranch attorney Beth Collins told the commission at its March 19 meeting. “I think the county’s heading to some trouble.” 

Collins said the project applicant took issue with several things, including the timeline of the county’s response, the parts of the application staff said were incomplete, and staff’s determination that the project had forfeited its builder’s remedy application. Initially filed while the county’s housing element was out of compliance with state housing rules, the proposed mixed-use housing and commercial development in Orcutt filed its application as a builder’s remedy project under state Senate Bill 330 (updated by Assembly Bill 1893)—which means it doesn’t necessarily need to conform with the county’s zoning rules if a certain percentage of the housing units are deed-restricted to low- or very low-income.

By pulling the project’s builder’s remedy vesting, staff is essentially denying the project under the state’s Housing Accountability Act, Collins said. 

“It’s the gotcha part of this, where we lose our builder’s remedy,” she said. “Obviously we wouldn’t be here if the stakes weren’t so high.”

Developer Michael Stotley proposes 750 housing units and commercial development that includes retail, a gas station, and a car wash just outside city limits near the Santa Maria Airport. His project is concurrently going through an annexation request with the city of Santa Maria so it can use city water. 

As part of the county application process, Richards Ranch alleges that the county responded to its resubmitted application in 31 days, not within the required 30 days. And because the county was late, the application defaults to being accepted as complete. 

At issue is whether the county has to count Jan. 20, Martin Luther King Day, when county offices were closed and when the application was submitted, as the first day in its response timeline. The county says it doesn’t, and the applicant disagrees.

“Planning and Development’s policy is to receive applications on the days that we are open,” Supervising Planner Gwen Beyeler said. 

The developer also alleges that the county introduced new problems with the application, beyond “clarification.” The county made the decision after a third round of submittal and responses for the project application, which Collins said means the county can’t introduce new issues. 

Planning and Development Deputy Director Travis Seawards pushed back, saying that all of the issues were introduced in earlier back-and-forths between the county and applicant. Any added language in the most recent county response was intended to clarify anything staff felt was misunderstood in previous requests.

“They identified the things that they needed, they repeated those needs in subsequent areas, and they clarified things they needed to clarify,” he said.

County staff also believe the project’s proposed construction square footage has changed by more than 20 percent since its initial application, which means it forfeits builder’s remedy. That amount of change means the project needs to submit a new application altogether, the staff report states. 

“Staff is saying we changed our project; we didn’t,” Collins said. “Our project seems to be treated differently.”

California’s Housing and Community Development Department is planning to write the county a letter regarding the decision, as well, Collins said. 

“I’m just hopeful you can see the train, where it’s going here, and see the county in, honestly, what could end up in a bad faith situation,” she said, adding that the wrong decision could end up in court.

Fourth District Commissioner Roy Reed asked when that letter would be arriving. Collins said she wasn’t sure. 

“So you’re asking us to make a decision based on promises of an imaginary letter and what it’s likely to contain. … Does that sound reasonable to you?” Reed asked. “I don’t appreciate the multiple references to litigation and saber-rattling.” 

The project, he said, would be a great benefit to the community as a whole. It’s multi-use with commercial and would develop an area along Union Valley Parkway that he said needs it. 

“I find myself distressed that it has gone down this path where we’re sitting here hearing potential threats of litigation,” Reed said. “I feel very strongly that the proper board/group to handle this issue is the Board of Supervisors, not us.” 

Other commissioners agreed that with the legal issues involved in the appeal, it was best to punt the decision to supervisors, as well. First District Commissioner Michael Cooney said he wouldn’t be surprised to see the issues resolved by one of the county’s superior court judges. Third District Commissioner John Parke added that there’s a lot at stake for both the developer and the county and that the Planning Commission doesn’t have the expertise to deal with legal issues. 

“I think this matter should be decided by the Board of Supervisors so they can weigh the risk in saying no to this applicant for the county,” Parke said. 

Commissioners unanimously decided to deny the appeal and uphold staff’s decisions on the project.

This article appears in Mar 27 – Apr 6, 2025.