From: susan bryant < >
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 5:46 PM
To: Dana Eady <[email protected]>
Subject: Richards Ranch, City Council November 19, 2024, meeting *** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments. *** Dana,
Please forward this to the City Council members for their November 19 meeting regarding Richards Ranch. Thank you.
Susan
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my concerns regarding this Richards Ranch pre- zoning and annexation application.
I began following this process in March 2022 before the publication of the draft EIR. And, since then I've attended or watched remotely every City and County meeting, study session, and hearing for this application.
The following is my understanding and sincere hope for the future of this development.
What is this annexation application about?
It is not about housing which can be built with or without annexation.
It is not about timelines which are virtually neutral with or without annexation.
It is not about building plans which are conceptual only.
It is not about the surrounding Orcutt community which will be disenfranchised by annexation.
It is not about supplemental water which the City has the discretionary authority to provide for commercial development.
And, it is not about the City's General Plan options which were chosen after lengthly study and community outreach. (Richards Ranch was not an option put forward nor was it discussed in that process.)
Housing
Denying this annexation application does not prevent building housing on the site. In fact, everyone--County, City, Orcutt community, Santa Maria organizations--agrees to the building of housing on this Richards Ranch site.
Richards Ranch investors do not need to annex this site to build housing. Nor do they need to invoke Builder's Remedy of 700-plus units if annexation is denied. Instead they could work with the
County in good faith using the now completed EIR while the City, in good faith, uses their discretionary approval of supplemental water for the commercial aspect.
Timelines and conceptual plans
During the City Planning Commission's October hearing Richards Ranch investors stressed how much time it took to process this application. They objected to how long the EIR took to complete.
Orcutt community did what government officials ask of residents--we participated. The EIR took longer simply because we submitted constructive comments.
If delays are issues, cooperating to reach agreements with the County is unlikely to extend that timeline any more than continuing on with LAFCO.
Many may not know that the annexation application plans are conceptual. As I am sure you are aware, only after annexation will conceptual plans be replaced with specific plans that will then need to be submitted and processed for review and approval by the City.
Orcutt community and
commercial development
Richards Ranch investors are not developers. The property with its entitlements, particularly water, will be quite valuable to sell to developers if annexed.
It certainly is the investors' right to do so. However, any developer(s) will need to submit plans to the City for review and approval. To be clear, submissions may differ from the conceptual plans presented to the surrounding Orcutt community. If annexed, that community will not have a voice in how those new plans are reviewed, approved, and implemented.
Up until recently, proposed commercial development of this project was overshadowed by pressure to move forward with housing. What had been overlooked was that at their two Orcutt community meetings Richards Ranch investors heavily promoted the concept of a commercial market place for the Orcutt community. In April of this year, the County Board of Supervisors were not remiss in denying the Richards Ranch partial proposal which no longer included the promised commercial development or the yet-to-be-finalized EIR.
The County reached out to the City to mitigate the lack of supplemental water for this commercial development. Discussion during the November 5 County Board of Supervisors meeting clarified that the City has historically been guided by a competitive policy to deny Orcutt water in similar situations.
Keeping this entire project in the County, housing and commercial, is vital to Orcutt's future viability.
"Fair play"
The County Board of Supervisors during their November 5 meeting discussed and approved a proposal to ask the City to delay this annexation application hearing for 90 days to allow the County and City to continue their water issue discussions.
Some have said that agreeing to this delay "violates a sense of fair play" for the investors. How would it be unfair to any party for the County and the City to work together voluntarily to resolve a decades-long dispute over water? To resolve a dispute that affects this project and could very well affect future projects?
Some also have said that this application should move on to LAFCO without delay and that further discusions would be "unusual" . I hope it is not considered "unusual" for parties to take time to communicate directly to resolve issues before proceeding.
Where to go from here
It is clear what this annexation application is not about. And, only Richards Ranch investors know their motivation for continuing with the annexation process.
Perhaps this City Council could look past the confusion and competition and even gossip to simply see this project from a local community perspective. The local community being Orcutt--those who will be directly affected and lose the most.
Respectfully, I urge you to deny this annexation application and encourage all parties to work to develop this full project with and within the County's Orcutt community.
Susan Bryant
Orcutt Resident