Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive, Solvang, CA
Josh Richman, who grew up in Solvang, and Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC proposed Wildwood, a builder's remedy housing development on 5.48 acres at Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive, the eastern entrance to Solvang (city file LUP-23-242). The preliminary application was submitted in October 2023, after the city missed its housing element deadline and before HCD found Solvang's adopted element in substantial compliance on February 12, 2024; KSBY reported 109 units in February 2024. Richman later cut the plan to 100 units, saying he lowered the buildings and reduced the density after meeting with the neighboring Mission Oaks homeowners. On December 23, 2024 Planning Manager Rafael Castillo deemed the application complete, describing 100 residential condominium units. He accepted it on the basis of 20 percent lower-income units because AB 1893, under which the developer had asked to cut that share to 13 percent, was not yet in effect, and he said staff expected an environmental impact report to be required. According to its later petition, the S.Y. Valley Residents Association of California tried to appeal that determination on January 2, 2025 and the city would not accept the appeal. On February 10, 2025 the City Council voted 4-1 to hire Rincon Consultants for up to $252,272 to prepare an initial study and begin work toward the EIR. The association sued the city and the developer on March 7, 2025, asking the court to declare the preliminary and full applications void because they lacked signatures from the owners of land under a roughly 1.3-acre easement the project relies on, and because of changes to the affordable share. On August 5, 2025 Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James F. Rigali sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling the challenge premature and leaving the group free to sue after a final decision. The city's February 2026 project list said the applicant had asked for the project to be put on hold, and its September 2026 list says "Project on hold via agreement." No environmental document or hearing has been reported. News reports describe the units as apartments, while the city's completeness letter calls them condominium units, so the project type is left blank.
Ask a question to begin.
Press Enter to send · Switch personas to start a new conversation
KSBY reports the 109-unit proposal. Planning and Building Manager Rafael Castillo says it was first submitted in October 2023, after the city missed its housing element deadline.
KSBYRichman says he lowered the buildings and reduced the density from 109 to 100 units. Neighbors say he lacked signatures from owners of the land under his easement.
Santa Maria SunThe planning manager accepts the application at 20 percent lower-income units and asks for a $66,746.80 deposit to begin an initial study.
City of SolvangAccording to the residents' later petition, the city would not accept their appeal of the completeness determination.
Santa Barbara County Superior CourtThe contract with Rincon Consultants, up to $252,272, covers an initial study and work toward an EIR. Councilmember Louise Smith dissents.
Santa Ynez Valley StarThe S.Y. Valley Residents Association of California asks the court to vacate the completeness determination and declare the applications void.
Santa Barbara County Superior CourtJudge James F. Rigali sustains the city's demurrer without leave to amend. The group may sue again after a final decision.
Santa Maria TimesThe city's major projects list, dated Sept. 30, 2026, says "Project on hold via agreement." Its February 2026 version said the applicant had asked for the hold.
City of Solvang"The decision implicitly acknowledges the legislature's goal of getting housing projects in the pipeline and to a vote." (August 2025, after the lawsuit was ruled premature)
Sued March 7, 2025 to void the completeness determination and the applications. Attorney Marc Chytilo: "In our view that preliminary application was never completed."
Its members raised traffic safety, zoning and density concerns. Richman says the association believes he needs its permission to use the easement, which he disputes.
"There are residents who have an easement with Lot C [Wildwood], and the applicant did not get the signatures of the shared easement when he provided his pre-application." (October 2024)
Sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend on Aug. 5, 2025: "Balkanization of the process does not further Legislature's desire for a speedy application processing." He wrote that the group may raise "any future challenge if there is a final approval decision."
"The city is pleased that the court agreed with the city's position that the lawsuit was premature." (August 2025)
"The EIR is that avenue. We need to move the project along." (February 2025)
Staff found the project subject to CEQA and said it expected an EIR to be required. The council approved a contract of up to $252,272 with Rincon Consultants on Feb. 10, 2025. No environmental document has been reported, and the city lists the project as on hold.
The group sued to have the preliminary and full applications declared void, arguing that missing easement-owner signatures and changes to the affordable share ended the project's builder's remedy eligibility. Judge James F. Rigali ruled the challenge premature on Aug. 5, 2025; the group may sue after a final decision.
Each row is a dated action by a deciding body, taken from the minutes, agenda packet, video, or ruling linked in the source column.
| Date | Body | Action | Vote | Staff recommendation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 7, 2025 | Court | lawsuit filed S.Y. Valley Residents Association v. City of Solvang (25CV01519), Santa Barbara County Superior Court; Joshua Richman and Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC are real parties in interest. | — | Unknown | Santa Barbara County Superior Court |
| August 5, 2025 | Court | ruling issued Sustained the city's demurrer without leave to amend, finding the claims premature. The posted tentative ruling also sustained the developer's demurrer; the Santa Maria Times reported that the judge ruled only on the city's. | — | Unknown | Santa Barbara County Superior Court |