A group of Santa Ynez Valley residents has filed a lawsuit contending that Solvang improperly deemed a controversial development’s application as complete, with its attorney instead labeling it incomplete and defective.

The March 7 legal action by plaintiffs S.Y. Valley Residents Association in Santa Barbara County Superior Court names the City of Solvang, Joshua J. Richman, Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC and unnamed individuals as defendants. 

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the residents group by Pasadena-based Mitchell Tsai Law Firm plus land-use attorney Marc Chytilo of Santa Barbara, centers on the proposed Wildwood development at the corner of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive at the eastern entrance to Solvang. In the Solvang General Plan, the vacant land is known as Site C. 

The developer’s latest application calls for 100 units, down from the 109 units initially proposed, and has been filed under the state’s Builder’s Remedy law. 

The multifamily housing development, consisting of seven buildings, seeks to have reduced on-site parking and setback requirements on the 5.48-acre lot.

Associated internal roadways and other improvements are proposed to be constructed on an additional, approximately 1.32-acre non-exclusive easement on property not owned by the applicants.

The lawsuit contends that city staff improperly deemed the application complete although the residents believe its defective so the city should void the document and halt processing.

For several years, residents have spoken out during City Council meetings to express concerns about development of Site C.

The state implemented Builder’s Remedy to spur cities and counties into updating planning documents and meeting requirements to add affordable housing. 

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

Taking advantage of the Builder’s Remedy, the developer submitted the Wildwood proposal while Solvang was out of compliance with its Housing Element Update.

The S.Y. Valley Residents Association, formed in 2024, says the city’s incorrect actions affect the group’s “purpose of protecting the rural character of the Santa Ynez Valley, maintaining the quality of life of the community, and promoting orderly and proper land use planning and development within the region.”

The applicant has proposed a vehicle access road and parking on a 60-foot-wide non-exclusive easement over approximately 1.23 acres by Mission Oaks Owners Association members.

Builder’s Remedy requires signed documents from all landowners, but the Wildwood applicants submitted an affidavit with only Richman’s signature, according to the residents group’s attorneys.

The land under the common easement is jointly owned by 18 individuals whose signatures aren’t included in the preliminary application.

The developer contended they don’t need signatures of neighbors to use the 60-foot easement. Wildwood deemed the request “inappropriate and unnecessary,” contending that the use falls within the easement’s scope.

“The applicants’ position, in this regard, completely ignored the principles and requirements of California law on the issue of real property ownership,” the lawsuit said. 

During one review of the Wildwood application, the city noted the missing title report for the 60-foot easement. The city’s May 2, 2024, notice suggested the report would help determine if they needed additional signatures.

A third full application submitted in November still lacked the title report, yet the city deemed the application complete despite the missing signatures.

The residents group also contended that the project no longer meets the low-income housing requirements under Builder’s Remedy (minimum 20% low-income units) and could not legally be converted preemptively under a new law. 

In late 2024, the developer submitted an application with 13% affordable units although the revised law didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2025. 

“That made it out of compliance with the Housing Accountability Act at the time,” Chytilo said.

Solvang’s planning staff unilaterally changed the application to ensure it complied with law in effect late last year, he said.

“That’s very unusual for a city to revise a developer’s application,” Chytilo said. 

The residents group attempted to file an appeal so the matter could be considered by the City Council but staff declined to accept it, leading to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit asks the judge to vacate the city’s decision deeming the application complete. 

City Manager Randy Murphy said Solvang officials don’t comment on litigation.

The agenda for Monday night’s City Council meeting mentions the lawsuit as an item for discussion in closed session. 

The defendants are expected to submit officials’ ‘ responses to the civil lawsuit in the coming weeks. 

While city staff deemed the application complete, the project still faces public hearings along the route to final approval.