31771864.13
Beth A. Collins
Attorney at Law
805.882.1419 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
November 15, 2024
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Santa Maria City Council
Santa Maria City Hall
110 E. Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
RE: City of Santa Maria Project 24TRM-00000-00003, 24DVP-00000-00018; Response to Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors’ Letter Asking City for to Delay “at least 90 days” the Hearing on Annexation of Richards Ranch Mixed-Use Project on Key Site 26 (APNs 107-250- 019, 107-250-020, and 107-250-022)
To the Santa Maria Mayor and City Council:
This firm represents the owners of the proposed Richards Ranch Mixed-Use Project (“Project”). We write in response to the Santa Barbara County (”County”) Board of Supervisors’ letter (“Board Letter”) requesting that the City of Santa Maria (“City”) delay its decision regarding the proposed annexation of the Project for “at least 90 days.” The Board Letter represents an unprecedented attempt to obstruct a properly noticed annexation hearing and coerce our client into renewed negotiations with the County, despite the County’s repeated failure to address fundamental infrastructure constraints over nearly four decades. For the reasons detailed below, we respectfully request that the City proceed with its scheduled November 19, 2024 annexation hearing.
Prior Negotiations with the County. The Project site has remained undeveloped for 38 years due to water constraints under County jurisdiction. When our client acquired the property in 2021, they immediately undertook efforts to resolve these long-standing water policy issues through the County’s processes. Over the course of a year, our client engaged in numerous discussions with County staff, including Supervisor Bob Nelson and the City of Santa Maria staff regarding potential solutions for a mixed-use development. The County’s proposed solutions were either infeasible or required implementation timelines exceeding eight years, with no guarantee of success. Faced with a commercially zoned property rendered effectively unusable by the County’s failure to provide basic water supply infrastructure to meet the County WAT-O-2 policy,1 our client was compelled to pursue annexation for development of a mixed-use project into the City of Santa Maria. 1 See Orcutt Community Plan Water Policy WAT-O-2 (requiring discretionary development to source supplemental water to offset water demand).
31771864.13
City of Santa Maria
November 15, 2024
In a demonstration of good faith, our client informed the County that they would reconsider the annexation application if the County could find a near-term solution to its water constraints. Now, three and a half years later, after our client has invested approximately $1,000,000 towards a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and the City’s application process to reach this scheduled hearing, the County seeks to further delay proceedings. The County’s justification—that the hearing would “prematurely interrupt” discussions regarding “options for water sales”—rings hollow given its decades- long failure to address this very issue.
County Housing Rezone. Our client’s good faith efforts to seek viable solutions within County jurisdiction extended well beyond these initial conversations. When the County began its Housing Element update process, our client asked to be included in the selected properties to be rezoned. While this would have resolved only half of the site’s constraints, leaving the commercial portion unaddressed, it would have provided a path forward for badly needed housing development in the County. The County’s Housing Element, adopted December 5, 2023, identified the property as appropriate for housing. However, ultimately the County did not rezone the property at its hearings on April 30 and May 3, 2024 hearings. That is because Supervisor Nelson intervened to prevent our client’s site from being rezoned.2 Instead, the County approved approximately 400 housing units on various Orcutt properties that are encumbered by flood zones and more intensive airport land use restrictions— constraints entirely absent from our client’s property.
Then, at the request of Supervisor Nelson, our client participated in discussions to enter into a development agreement, under the premise that the County would reverse its position and rezone our Client’s site relying on the Housing Element EIR. From May through August 2024, our client participated in negotiations with two reasonable conditions: (i) confirmation of supplemental water supply and (ii) agreement on an expedited timeline for entitlement in the County that would mirror the City’s timeline and process. These discussions ended on August 28, 2024, when the County failed to find a water solution and reversed its position on allowing the project to be rezoned, relying on the Housing Element EIR. Instead, the County only provided our client with the option to restart the entitlement process in the County (with a General Plan Amendment and a rezone), while still being unable to guarantee water availability. Requiring a Builder’s Remedy project to apply for a General Plan Amendment and a rezone not only contravenes state law, it would result in the owners giving up the protections of the Housing Accountability Act and other state laws aimed at protecting housing projects such as this. Furthermore, in the final discussion, County staff confirmed their proposed process would require up to four years of 2 See November 5, 2024, Board of Supervisors Meeting Video (“Meeting Video”) at 1:43:12 (Williams) (“We, at [Supervisor Nelson’s] request, took [the project] out of the Housing Element, which denies [the property owner] the legal route of certainty to process it within the County.”); see Meeting Video at 1:33:44 (Hartmann) (“We did discuss in the Housing Element that this would be a short opportunity to explore whether we could get a development agreement; the developer, in good faith, has done that. It really hasn’t panned out.”); see also 1:49:19 (“We did, in the Housing Element, give time for this. We did concede to what [Supervisor Nelson] asked. And it hasn’t panned out, so I think it’s time to actually make a decision . . . .”).
31771864.13
City of Santa Maria
November 15, 2024
additional processing, a new county managed EIR, and substantial project redesign. Put simply, the owners tried to work with the County but the County could not offer a reasonable path forward for the project without injecting significant additional costs and risk.
Legal Concerns with this Request. The Board Letter’s proposed remedy—creation of a working group comprising two Supervisors and two City Councilmembers for closed-door deliberations3 regarding the project and water sales—raises serious legal concerns under both the Brown Act and due process requirements. This proposal is problematic on multiple levels:
First, the working group itself would likely constitute a legislative body subject to the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements.4 The proposed closed-door format directly contravenes these requirements and would improperly exclude both the applicant and the public from critical discussions impacting the project’s future.
Second, the situation is further complicated by the overlapping roles of the individual Councilmembers and Supervisors, who are already subject to the Brown Act in their respective positions. Several of these individuals also serve on Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), which may ultimately review the Project’s annexation request. Given the years of history of this project, it is also very likely that the project in the City and the project in the County have already been discussed privately between two Brown-acted members of the City Council or two Brown-acted members of the Board (e.g., at the November 5, 2024 hearing it was clear that Supervisor Nelson and Chair Lavagnino had private conversations when proposing and drafting the Board Letter). These serial discussions plus discussions in this proposed closed-door working group also could violate the Brown Act.5
Third, the formation of such a working group creates substantial risk of due process violations in future quasi-judicial proceedings.6 The proposed closed-door deliberations among decision- 3 See generally Meeting Video at 1:35:24 (Nelson) (discussing the closed-door discussions Supervisors Nelson and Lavagnino had with the City); see also 1:51:30 (Lavagnino) (“I wasn’t part of the back -room dealing that ever happened between the City, who talked to who—I don’t know what happened.”). 4 Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 802 (holding that if less than a quorum of one legislative body meets with less than a quorum of another legislative body and act together as a single group, they are subject to the Brown Act).
5 The Brown Act prohibits “serial” meetings directly or through intermediaries to discuss or deliberate any item of business within the subject matter of the body. Cal. Gov. Code § 54952.2(b)(1) (“A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the sub ject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”); Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95. Such unlawful meetings could include in person contacts among a majority of members, technological contacts, or contacts with a majority through staff members. 84 Ops Cal Atty Gen 30 (2001). 6 See City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768. 31771864.13
City of Santa Maria
November 15, 2024
makers who may ultimately vote on various aspects of the project (in the City, County, or at LAFCO) compromises the requirement for fair and impartial decision-making. It would deny both our client and the public appropriate notice and opportunity to respond to information shared in these private sessions.
Both Supervisors Hartmann and Williams called out similar concerns during deliberations. For example, Supervisor Hartmann pointed out that she serves on LAFCO and the Board is not the place for such a deliberation to occur.7
Additionally, as Supervisor Hartmann correctly noted, any agreement regarding “what is being requested by the City in exchange for delivering commercial water to the County” requires transparent public discussion.8 Supervisor Hartmann went on to state that any such discussion “shouldn’t be something that happens under the rug.”9 As Supervisors Hartmann and Williams make clear in their statements, the suggestion that such fundamental regional infrastructure decisions should happen in such a closed door meeting demonstrates a troubling disregard for proper governmental process.
Equitable Concerns with this Request. T he Board Letter also triggers equitable concerns. During deliberation, Supervisor Williams explained at length why he thinks the Board Letter violates good governance and the rule of law.10 Supervisor Hartmann called the Board Letter “highly unusual” and said that it violates a her “sense of fair play.”11
Supervisors Hartmann and Williams explained that the Board Letter does not align with the proper legal process for considering the proposed annexation through the LAFCO. B y delaying the City’s legal process and denying the developer the legal route that it is entitled to pursue, the Board of Supervisors “is using undue leverage” against the developer.12 Supervisor Hartmann went on to say it is unfair to 7 See Meeting Video at 1:33:18 (Hartmann) (“I’m not really prepared to say that . . . the Board is the forum for [the proposed annexation] to be resolved, or that in some way we’re impliedly saying what process this should go through. We serve on the LAFCO Board and that is indeed the place.”); see also 1:43:24 (Williams) (“[The developer] has a legal right to go to the City, and there is a legal process for how that is adjudicated: at LAFCO. . . . I just think that this is a clear a ttempt to circumvent the forum under which the rules adjudicate a process like t his.”). 8 See Meeting Video at 1:46:20 (Hartmann).
9 See Meeting Video at 1:46:32 (Hartmann).
10 See Meeting Video at 1:42:30 (Williams) (expressing discomfort that the Board Letter violates good governance and the rule of law); see also 1:43:24 (Williams) (“[The developer] has a legal right to go to the City, and there is a legal process for how that is adjudicated: at LAFCO. . . . I just think that this is a clear attempt to circumvent the forum under which the rules adjudicate a process like this.”).
11 See Meeting Video at 1:33:39 (Hartmann) (“most of all, this really violates my sense of fair play.”); see also 1:4 6:40 (Hartmann) (“I feel, as my colleague Supervisor Williams, that this really changes a process and creates greater uncertainty and it’s just not fair.”).
12 See Meeting Video at 1:44:17 (Williams); see also 1:50:39 (Williams) (explaining that the developer “has the legal right to pursue the remedies of development that the law articulates” and expressing discomfort that the Board Letter removes 31771864.13
City of Santa Maria
November 15, 2024
now “hold [the] developer over a barrel and potentially see that person go bankrupt” while the County seeks to “hold to [its] bigger vision.”13 To protect the developer’s legal rights and avoid setting troubling precedent allowing the Board of Supervisors to disrupt the regional cooperation enshrined in LAFCO, we ask the City to reject this attempt to circumvent the proper legal process for considering the proposed annexation.
This Delay Further Threatens Access to Housing. The Project proposes to deliver precisely the type of housing development the region desperately needs—386 apartments and 100 townhomes, along with supporting commercial uses, consistent with the County's Housing Element. As Supervisor Williams noted in opposing the Board Letter, this delay threatens the certainty required for housing development and exemplifies the type of governmental obstruction that exacerbates regional housing and affordability crises.14 Even if a water agreement materialized immediately, the County’s demand for a complete restart of entitlements (and to include a General Plan Amendment and a rezone) would unnecessarily delay housing delivery by several years, requiring new environmental review under CEQA and multiple additional hearings. This impacts not just the availability of much-needed housing, but the cost of home ownership in a community that is desperately lacking new housing stock.
Conclusion. The County’s request for delay represents a bad faith attempt to obstruct our client’s legal right to pursue Project approval through established processes. This obstruction comes after our client’s exhaustive efforts to work within County jurisdiction, including attempting to resolve decades- old infrastructure constraints, participating in the Housing Element process, and engaging in months of development agreement negotiations. The County’s failure to provide viable solutions, coupled with its recent attempts to force renewed negotiations through procedural obstruction, demonstrates why the City should proceed with its scheduled hearing.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City maintain its November 19, 2024 hearing date and consider the Project’s annexation request on its merits.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth A. Collins
Cc: Tom Watson, City Attorney [email protected] the proposed annexation from this legal process and wrongly conditions consideration of the proposed annexation on the approval of a sitting Supervisor).
13 See Meeting Video at 1:49:11 (Hartmann).
14 See Meeting Video at 1:43:32 (Williams) (“this is important from a bigger picture about production of housing” and the Board Letter threatens the certainty needed to develop needed housing ). 31771864.13
City of Santa Maria
November 15, 2024