The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission has denied an appeal related to a controversial Orcutt development’s proposed mixed-use project under the state’s relaxed housing laws, calling the Board of Supervisors the proper venue for the matter.

Developer Michael Stoltey submitted an application for the Richards Ranch project on 44 acres along Union Valley Parkway east of Highway 135.

He applied under the state’s Builder’s Remedy law, implemented to push cities and counties into updating planning documents and adding affordable housing.

Along with 750 multifamily units, the applicant plans 13,000 square feet of commercial development with a car wash, a gas station, a convenience store and a drive-through restaurant plus a 140,000-square-foot mini-storage facility.

However, county staff deemed the application incomplete, prompting Stoltey to appeal amid concerns of forfeiting the Builder’s Remedy project protections.

The planning commissioners voted 4-0 Wednesday morning to deny the appeal, with Commissioner Vincent Martinez absent.

“I feel very strongly the proper group to handle this issue is the Board of Supervisors, not us,” Fourth District Planning Commissioner Roy Reed said. 

Planning Commissioner John Parke agreed that the Board of Supervisors would be better suited to consider the various factors, including legal liability.

The Planning Commission didn’t have time to make “a truly logical, rational decision,” he said.

“There’s a lot at stake for both sides. There’s a lot at stake for the public. The public in Orcutt is looking for commercial. It’s looking for rational development,” Parke said, calling the development “a massive project” and possibly precedent-setting.

He likened Builder’s Remedy to a monster and questioned the nitpicking involved in the Richards Ranch spat.

“The state basically meant Godzilla to be unleashed if those housing elements didn’t produce real housing, and they did,” Parke said. “The kind of nitpicking on what’s complete and what’s not complete will be seen by the court as an attempt to impose a dog license on Godzilla.”

The commission mulled delaying the decision until the arrival of a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development weighing in on the county’s interpretation of the rules.

Under Builder’s Remedy, projects may include special concessions, including more units than typically allowed or fewer parking spaces than required.

The developer’s appeal of the county staff’s rejection of the application cited multiple issues, including challenging whether planning staff responded within the required deadline. If the county missed the 30-day limit, the project automatically would be deemed complete.

A representative of the applicant resubmitted the item on a county holiday via the online system, prompting a difference of opinion on whether staff responded in 30 days as required, or 31 — a day late. 

The letter also said the applicant did not submit floor plans for the businesses or items related to traffic matters requested by Public Works staff. Another dispute centered on allegations that the developer changed the square footage, which could mean it forfeited Builder’s Remedy status.  

Richards Ranch representatives disagreed, contending that the responses were sufficient to be deemed complete and that the county missed the deadline by a day. 

Beth Collins, a land-use attorney with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, cited the state Department of Housing and Community Development’s comments to other cities and suggested that the county remained in precarious position.

“I think it’s on the way to violate the Housing Accountability Act, but I think it’s not staff actually. I think it’s some politics here,” Collins said of the decisions to deem the application incomplete.

She urged the Planning Commission to approve the appeal to avoid ending up in court.

“I’m just hopeful that you guys can see the train where it’s going here and save the county from honestly what could end up in a bad faith determination in the fact of HCD’s guidance and clear words in regards to the 90 days in particular,” Collins added. 

“I’ll tell you one thing. I don’t appreciate the multiple references to potential litigation and the saber rattling,” said Reed, who represents the Fourth District, which includes Orcutt.

The development has remained at the center of a years-long political tug of war. 

Stoltey pushed hard last year for the site’s rezoning when the county adopted its Housing Element Update to designate areas for development of new residences. 

However, Richards Ranch was excluded at the request of Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson, who said he intended to seek a development plan to spell out various concessions from the developer.

Stoltey also submitted an application to Santa Maria, which agreed to supply water for the commercial development. However, that would require annexing the land into the city limits, a step expected to be considered by the Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission this year. 

In the proposal to the city, Richards Ranch would have about 400 apartments, 100 townhomes and assorted businesses, including a specialty grocery store, a gas station, restaurants and more. 

Orcutt residents vehemently opposed the land becoming part of Santa Maria.

The projects continue to move in parallel, with the Builder’s Remedy application at the county being a placeholder, Collins said.

“It’s another way, another path to entitlement of this property,” Collins said, calling Richards Ranch a “quintessential infill” project.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Richards Ranch attorney said that side intends to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial.

County planning staff told Noozhawk that the Board of Supervisors could consider the matter at the April 8 meeting.