Agenda packet — Solana Beach City Council, May 10, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

The City will continue to facilitate the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Also, the City will continue to ensure the City’s zoning does not constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities or residential care facilities. In addition, it will amend its zoning ordinance to treat transitional and supportive housing as residential uses subject to the same requirements as any other residential use in the same zone.

Ordinance 445 amending zoning
was adopted 2/12/14.

Ordinance 445 amended the
City’s Zoning code to comply
with Request for Reasonable
Accommodate under the Fair
Housing Act and clarified the
definitions of Supportive
Housing, Transitional Housing,
and Residential Care Facilities.

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element. The City will analyze
constraints relevant to the provision of
housing for persons with disabilities and
other special needs portions of the
population as required by State law.

6.E Facilitate Housing for the
Extremely Low Income
Amend the City’s zoning ordinance to clarify that
SROs are considered studios or efficiency units,
which are permitted in multi-family zones.

The City permits studios/efficiency units in its multi-family zones and will amend its zoning ordinance to clarify that SROs are considered a multi-family use. In addition, the City will encourage and facilitate the development of housing for extremely lowincome households through a variety of activities such as holding workshops with housing developers, providing financial or in-kind technical assistance or land writedowns, providing expedited permit processing, identifying grant or funding opportunities, applying for or supporting applications for funding on an on-going basis, and offering a reduced fee schedule.

In 2016, the City amended its
zoning code to clarify that
single-room occupancy units
(SRO's) are permitted in multifamily zones.

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element.

6.F Priority Water and Sewer
Service for Affordable
Housing
Immediately following adoption, provide the Santa
Fe Irrigation District with a copy of the Housing
Element. Adopt priority sewer service for
affordable housing.

The City will immediately forward the adopted Housing Element and any subsequent amendments to the Santa Fe Irrigation District. The City will also develop priority service procedures for its sewer service.

The Housing Element was sent
to the Water Authority.

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element.

6.G Housing Element
Consistency and
Monitoring
A housing element that is consistent with the rest
of the General Plan and other important planning
and policy procedures
The City will continue to monitor the Housing Element as part of its annual general plan implementation report. This includes monitoring the Housing Element for consistency with any amendments made to the Safety, Conservation, and/or Land Use Elements pursuant to AB162 and the required annual review of floodplain maps. If sites identified in the Housing Element as suitable for housing are subsequently identified as inappropriate due to changes in the flood maps, additional sites may need to be identified.

The City’s General Plan
consistency review between the
adopted current Housing
Element and the other elements
within the General Plan is
ongoing.

Per State law, the City is required to maintain
consistency between all elements of the
General Plan. As revisions are made to other
elements within the City’s General Plan
during the 6th Cycle, the City will amend the
Housing Element if necessary to remain
consistent.

6.H Employee Housing Act
Compliance
Ensure compliance with the Employee Housing
Act.

Review the City’s regulations for compliance with the Employee Housing Act, particularly sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 of the Health and Safety Code regarding farmworker housing. Make amendments to the City’s regulations as necessary.

Employee Housing Act has been
reviewed and the Housing
Element was found in
compliance..

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element. If future revisions to
the Employee Housing Act occur, the City will
make the necessary amendments to remain
in compliance.
7 Emergency Shelter Housing
Site Identification
Amend the zoning ordinance to allow emergency
shelters by right in the General Commercial zone
and develop objective standards for their
development.

To ensure compliance with this requirement, the City will modify its zoning ordinance to permit emergency shelters in its General Commercial zone and develop objective standards for their development.

Zoning ordinance amending
emergency shelters outright in
General Commercial and
permitting them in the
Public/Institutional zone with a
Director's Use Permit with
The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance Page A-5
Past Performance
# Program Program Objective Program Action Current Planning Period Accomplishments Effectiveness and Appropriateness
development standards was
adopted February 12, 2014.
8 Illegal Unit Conversion Continue to implement the illegal unit conversion program. Research the feasibility of implementing
an amnesty program.

This program allows homeowners with illegally established accessory dwelling units on their property to apply for legalization.

No applications for conversion
have been received so far in the
planning period.

This program will be continued in the 6th
Cycle Housing Element. New state law
regarding ADU compliance, development
standards, and permitting requirements will
be addressed.
9 Preserve Existing At-Risk
Units
Continue to monitor units at risk of conversion,
identify non-profit housing organizations capable
of assisting with the preservation of at-risk units,
and identify available funding sources. Prevent the
one at-risk unit from converting to market rate.

The City will contact the owners of properties with affordable units at risk of converting to market rate to learn of their plans and explore the possibility of purchasing these developments through HUD or a non-profit corporation, actively seeking out non-profit housing organizations that could assist in the preservation of the at-risk units, and applying for financial assistance from sources such as CDBG and HOME funds to attempt to offer financial incentives to extend the terms of the affordability restrictions. Once a non-profit is identified, the City will assess the nonprofit corporations’ capacity to acquire and manage, assist or support funding applications, and provide tenant counseling.

Received project application for
Solana Highlands in 2014 with
32 affordable units, which will
replace units previously
monitored by the County of San
Diego. The expiration date for
these affordable units was 2011
and 18 units currently remain.

The project was approved by
City Council in December 2018.

The City is required by State law to address
the preservation of units at-risk of converting
to market-rate within the next 10 years. This
analysis is included within the 6th Cycle
Housing Element.
10 Section 8 Rental Assistance Assist developers in applying for project-based Section 8 rental assistance as opportunities arise
and continue to work with the County of San Diego
Housing Authority regarding the administration of
the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program.

The City will provide flyers in both English and Spanish notifying residents and landlords of the availability of Section 8 rental assistance. The City will also seek out project-based Section 8 vouchers to assist with the operational income of affordable housing projects.

The City has continued to
coordinate with the County of
San Diego Housing Authority to
implement and administer
Section 8 Rental Assistance.

The City will continue to provide community
members with updated information materials
regarding the availability of Section 8 Housing
Choice Vouchers so long as funding for the
program remains available.
11 Capital Improvements
Program
Update the Capital Improvement Program on an
annual basis.

The City annually prepares and adopts as part of its annual budget process a multiyear program of capital improvements. The primary focus of the program is repair and maintenance activities.

Continued to implement City's
CIP program, annual budget
adopted each year.

The City successfully updated and
implemented its CIP and will continue to do
so in the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning
period.
12 Condominium Conversion
Policy
Continue to implement the ordinance. The City will consider requests for the conversion of existing rental housing of ten or more units to condominium units only when the rental vacancy rate exceeds 6 percent.

In the event that a conversion request is granted, the project is subject to the affordable (inclusionary) housing ordinance, which requires that 15 percent of the units be set aside as affordable.

No applications for conversion
have been received so far in the
planning period.

The City will continue to implement the
existing condominium conversion ordinance
as detailed within the City’s Municipal Code.
13 Residential Code
Enforcement
Expand the program to make complaint forms
available in Spanish and available to download on
the City’s website. The City will monitor and
review code enforcement activity on an annual
basis and identify all housing complaints by type,
action taken, and results achieved.

The City will expand its residential code enforcement program by making complaint forms available in Spanish and including additional information on the City’s website.

A code action data base for
housing complaints is routinely
maintained and the complaint
form is available in English and
Spanish.

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element.
14 Residential Rehabilitation Continue to provide informational materials to promote this County program.

The City of Solana Beach provides information regarding the residential rehabilitation program. The residential rehabilitation program addresses a wide range of rehabilitation needs. These include minor repairs as well as substantial structural, heating, electrical, or plumbing modifications, as well as technical assistance with applying for loans, housing inspections, and construction inspections.

City staff continues to make
available informational
materials discussing the
County’s residential
rehabilitation program to the
public.

The City will continue to make available to
residents any existing and updated
information discussing this County program
for as long as it remains available.
15 Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC)
Continue to provide informational materials
regarding this County program.

The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program assists low and moderate-income firsttime home buyers. Under this program, which is administered by the County of San No applications have been received, the MCC handout has
The City will continue to make available to
residents any existing and updated
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance Page A-6
Past Performance
# Program Program Objective Program Action Current Planning Period Accomplishments Effectiveness and Appropriateness
Diego, qualified first-time home buyers are able to take a federal income tax credit of up to 20 percent of the annual interest paid on their mortgage. been made available at City
Counter.
information discussing this County program
for as long as it remains available.
16 Distribute Fair Housing
Information
Continue to provide informational materials
regarding fair housing.

The City will stay informed of the current fair housing complaint process, continue to distribute the FHCSD’s information on fair housing, and refer fair housing questions and housing discrimination claims to the FHCSD. The City will distribute and make available informational material at both the Building and Planning Department counters and identify other venues (e.g., libraries and other public venues) and opportunities to distribute the information. The City will also maintain a record of fair housing inquiries, referrals for fair housing assistance, and complaints filed.

The City distributes brochures at
the Library and City Hall and
participates in Fair Housing
Council. No complaints received
or referred to FHC during 2016.

The City is required by State law to analyze
current and future efforts to affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH) as part of the 6th
Cycle Housing Element Update. The City will
continue to make materials and resources
regarding fair housing available to the public.
17 Energy Conservation Complete the development of the energy efficiency program.

The City will continue to implement the Solana Beach Green Building Incentive, which offers expedited permit processing for green building applications, permit fee reimbursement for projects that receive GreenPoint Rated certification, and public recognition.

The City will continue to provide information on the City’s website regarding steps residents can take to increase their energy efficiency and SDG&E rebate/voucher programs available to Solana Beach residents and businesses.

The City will develop an energy efficiency program for the community and continue to monitor pertinent legislation which would make it easier to implement solar installations.

The City will continue to utilize the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Environmental Sustainability to work closely with the Clean and Green committee to develop additional energy conservation and sustainability programs.

The City implemented the PACE
program in winter 2014 and
continues to identify areas and
programs for reducing energy
use in the development of the
Climate Action Plan.

The City currently has
information regarding the
programs in the City Website,
on the Energy Efficiency
Programs page, including links
to rebates and services and
additional state information.

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element.
18 Public Participation Keep track of public noticing and participation procedures and as part of the annual review of the
housing element, identify and implement effective
public communication strategies.

The City must make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community. As part of the annual review of the housing element, the City will evaluate the effectiveness of its public communication strategies The City maintains all notices
provided to the public and
mails, Eblast, places information
on the City website and
Facebook, and has used surveys
to obtain feedback and
information.

The City is required by State law to conduct
community engagement as part of the 6th
Cycle Housing Element Update process. All
community outreach materials, workshop
summaries, and written comments are
included within the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Update as well as on the City’s website.
19 Affordable Housing on CityOwned PropertyIssue RFPs to develop affordable housing on the City-owned sites identified in the suitable sites
inventory (Sites 3 and 4).

The City will be issuing requests for proposals (RFP) for the development of the other two sites (Sites 3 and 4). To encourage development of these sites, the City will offer incentives such as a reduced fee schedule, land write-downs, and expedited permit processing.

There are currently two RFP’s on
the City’s website.

The City successfully completed this program
as part of the implementation of their 5th
Cycle Housing Element. As part of the 6th
Cycle Housing Element Update, the City will
evaluate the appropriateness of these sites in
using them to meet the City’s RHNA need,
given the reuse requirements of State law.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-1
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis
Candidate Sites Analysis Overview The Housing Element is required to identify sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA Allocation. The sites identified within the Housing Element represent the City of Solana Beach’s ability to develop housing at the designated income levels within the planning period (2021-2029). These sites are either residentially zoned or within a commercial zone that permits residential uses at 20 du/ac.

The City of Solana Beach has prepared a candidate housing sites inventory (Tables B-4 and B-5) which includes:
• Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
• Address
• Size (Net Acres as defined by the City and in Appendix D) • Zoning
• Description of Existing Use
• Ownership
• Density
• Potential Development Capacity (Dwelling Units)
• Square footage of existing use and maximum buildout
Table B-1 shows the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA need by income category as well as a breakdown of the sites identified to meet that need. The analysis within Appendix B shows that the City of Solana Beach has the capacity to meet their 2021-2029 RHNA allocation through a variety of methods, including:
• Identification of additional capacity on existing, residentially zoned sites and commercially zoned sites that permit residential development at 20 du/ac
• Identification of City owned properties suitable for the development of housing • Future development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) Water, Sewer, And Dry Utility Availability
Each site has been evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to water and sewer connections as well as dry utilities.

Each site is situated with a direct connection to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure to service the candidate site.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
As a result of this legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications so far in 2020. The City has approved 12 ADUs for development in 2020, 2 of which are affordable.

Additionally, the City received 24 applications for ADUs in 2020. The City is still processing some of these applications, which will likely receive permits early in 2021. In accordance with State law, ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow single dwelling unit or multiple dwelling unit development. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JrADUs) are permitted only in single dwelling unit zones.

The City of Solana Beach has determined based on past performance and HCDs approved methodology that it is appropriate to anticipate the development of 16 accessory dwelling units per year from 2021 to 2029 for a total of 128 ADUs.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 2
Table B-1: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory

Extremely
Low/
Very Low
Income
Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
2021-2029 RHNA 316 159 160 240 875
RHNA Credit (Units Built) 32 41 79 152
Total RHNA Obligations 316 127 119 161 723
Sites Available
Existing Residentially Zoned
Properties 10 32 20 62
Existing Commercially Zoned
Properties 480 -- 182 662
Total Potential Capacity Based on
Existing GP and Zoning 490 32 202 724
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Production 15 113 -- 128
Total Sites Available 505 145 202 852
Potential Unit Surplus 62 26 41 129
B.1 Very Low- and Low-Income Sites Inventory
This section contains a description and listing of the candidate sites identified to meet the Solana Beach’s very low and low income RHNA need. A full list of these sites is presented in Table B-4.

The City of Solana Beach has identified sites with capacity to accommodate the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. This capacity is based on existing zoning and does not require the City to complete rezones in order to add capacity to what currently exists. This City has identified 31 parcels within the high density residential, general commercial, and special commercial zones. Each of these zones permits residential as a standalone use.

The identified sites have been evaluated to determine the extent to which on-site uses are likely to redevelop within the planning period. It was found that a number of the existing uses (identified in Table B-4) are either temporarily or permanently closed or have reduced hours of operation. Many of the uses are in multi-tenant commercial centers with one ownership and most show little to no evidence of recent investment or redevelopment.

Unless provided directly by the owners and tenants, the City does not have access to lease structures as these are private documents but has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period. To determine the potential for future redevelopment of the sites identified within Appendix B, the City has conducted an analysis of recent redevelopment of non-vacant sites for residential uses and drawn comparisons between the previous use on those sites prior to redevelopment and the existing uses on candidate housing sites. Each of the example sites found in Table B-2 was a viable business prior to redevelopment, but residential (either as a sole use or in a mixed-use setting) was determined to be a preferable use for the site and the projects were processed and constructed successfully.

As shown below, the City has a past history of developing residential uses within non-residential zones that have existing uses. This is often done in a mixed-use development which retains commercial uses as described in the following section. In order to account for the potential for commercial development in a mixed-use setting on some of the candidate sites. the City has applied a conservative 80% residential development factor to every identified candidate site. This means that while the City anticipates that sites will likely develop as residential projects, the assumptions made assume that every future redevelopment could include a non-residential component. Mixed-use City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-3
development projects within the City are typically developed in this manner as shown in the provided development examples (636 Valley Avenue and 330 S. Cedros Avenue) in Table B-2.

It is important to note that the City has not had a fully non-residential project within the general or special commercial zones within the past twenty years, so a fully residential or mixed-use project is highly probable for future development within the identified areas.

Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
Solana Beach relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate the housing need for lower-income households. To accommodate the City’s need at each of the different income levels, the City has analyzed sites within the general commercial, special commercial, and high-density residential zones. The City has also evaluated recent projects that have redeveloped within commercially zoned areas that included residential units. Those projects, including the zoning, use prior to redevelopment, and a project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table B2. The City’s analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to the existing uses on sites identified within the sites inventory in Table B-4.

The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the next eight years, are provided in Table B-4. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and research that can be found through online research. The City does not always have access to private lease information but has included information that property owners have shared regarding individual sites. As shown in Table B-4, some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving. On some candidate site, the City has identified just the surface parking area with existing uses to remain.

As evidenced below, the City has a history of redevelopment of non-vacant sites in which the existing use is either abandoned or accommodated within a mixed-use configuration as is the case in 625 Valley Avenue where the existing dentistry use was relocated into the new building. The City has made the assumption within the inventory that development will likely continue to occur in this manor, with existing uses either accommodated within the 20% assumption for non-residential uses or replaced by residential uses.

The following residential development projects have been constructed within the City’s general and special commercial zones. In all instances, the projects could have developed more residential units than were ultimately completed. The City’s zoning code did not prohibit additional residential development, rather the property owners chose to develop non-residential uses in conjunction with the residential uses on site. All projects completed within these zones within the past twenty years have included a residential component.

Table B-2: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address/ APN
Dwelling
Units Zoning Use Prior to Redevelopment Project Analysis Development Classification 636 Valley
Avenue/
2981333900
3 C
Small singlefamily residence
on a large lot,
mostly
undeveloped lot.

Project developed 3 residential units
and a small commercial component.

At 20 du/ac, the project could
accommodate 4 dwelling units but
opted to only do 3 to incorporate the
commercial component. This justifies
the City’s adjustment factor shown in
Table B-4 in Appendix B. Similar to the
inventory, this project developed at 3
new units to 1 existing unit (3:1) ratio,
with two new additional units. This
project completely removed the
existing structures and redeveloped
B
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 4
In addition to the completed development projects shown in Table B-2, the City has received applications for potential future development within the High Density Residential zone, which the City has identified in the sites inventory. This the site to include the uses listed
above.
625 Valley
Avenue/
2981310800
2 C
Commercial
dentist offices
on a large lot.

Project redeveloped the lot to keep
the dentistry office uses and add two
residential units at the rear part of the
parcel. This project had the potential
to include additional residential (up to
five units potentially) but chose to
keep over half of the lot for dentist
offices and related parking. Similar to
the inventory, this project created two
additional residential units on a site
that previously had none. This project
completely removed the existing
structures and redeveloped the site to
include the uses listed above.

A
330 S. Cedros
Avenue/
2980761300
8 SC
Commercial
nursery with
outdoors
sales/display
areas and a
small
commercial
store structure.

Project developed 8 residential units in
addition to ground floor commercial
space along Cedros Avenue and
additional creative office space for
lease within the two-story structure.

This development could have
developed up to 17 residential units
but chose to include additional
commercial/office space. This project
created 8 residential units on a site
that previously had none and was a
complete redevelopment of an
existing commercial site, removing
existing structures, to develop the uses
described above.

A
343 S.

Highway 101/
2980521400
25 C
Five adjacent
parcels
consisting of a
commercial car
repair/autobody
shop, vacant
mobile home
park, vacant
residence, and
homes
converted to
office uses.

This 1.95 acre project site consists of 5
parcels in the General Commercial (C)
zone that were directly adjacent and
consolidated to develop this mixed-use
project. The project consists of
approximately 52,000 square feet of
commercial office, restaurant and
dining, and retail space in addition to
25 multi-family residential units. This
development could have developed up
to 36 residential units permitted
within the current zoning but chose to
include additional commercial/office
space. This project completely
removed the existing structures and
redeveloped the site to include the
uses listed above.

A
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-5
application, while not approved, proposes a thirteen-unit development with two affordable units. This project achieved close to the maximum number of units it could based on the current zoning (a maximum of fourteen potential units).

While these projects do not contain affordable units, they show that the City has a past performance of developing residential units within the general and special commercial zones. As all of these uses retained a small commercial component, the City has included a residential development factor of 0.8 to accommodate for the inclusion of commercial uses in redevelopment. The Housing Plan section outlines actions the City will take to promote the development of affordable units within the downtown and commercial areas.

Relationship of Development Examples to Housing Sites Inventory Based on the information provided in Table B-2, the City has created a development example classification system for sites with characteristics that are applicable to those within the candidate sites inventory. The intent of this classification system is to draw parallels from past development and local knowledge and trends in development to the potential future development of the candidate housing sites identified. These classifications are based in real past development that has occurred within the City and while some comparisons may not be an exact match for the sites identified, they show a strong correlation with the understanding that every parcel is unique in terms of site characteristics, existing use, ownership, and other factors which can affect future development. All example developmentsin Table B-2 completely replaced the uses and structures that were existing on site. The same approach is anticipated for the candidate sites in the City’s inventory with the exception of the parcels in the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza shopping center which anticipate redevelopment of existing parking lots areas primarily. This is in line with many southern California regional trends which re-envision shopping centers and malls as lifestyle centers where regional and neighborhood serving retail uses complement housing for a more walkable development. Recent local San Diego County examples of this type of redevelopment include:
• The Shoppes at Carlsbad which envisions the addition of 300+ apartments, a hotel, and recreational opportunities in addition to 1.4 million square feet of commercial and dining uses. • North County Mall in Escondido, which recently was purchased and is undertaking a visioning process to redevelop the property to be more experiential, including the potential for residential uses. • Otay Ranch Town Center which Brookfield intends to modify to include the development of 1,900 apartment units.

Not all proposed candidate sites fit within these past development examples. Sites that do not fit within these categories have an expanded analysis within the Redevelopment Analysis column of Table B-4. Development Classification A: Development within this classification occurs primarily within Solana Beach’s main commercial corridors (Highway 101 and S. Cedros Avenue) on the west side of Interstate 5. Existing uses are primarily mixed-use commercial/residential or residential in nature. The development examples shown in Table B-2 resulted in mixed-use multi-family projects with commercial components along the ground floor. This is consistent with the capacity adjustment factor shown in Table B-4.

Development Classification B: Development within this classification is infill in nature within commercial and residential corridors in Solana Beach. Existing uses may be neighborhood commercial, professional office, or residential in nature and are likely to redevelop as either fully residential projects or mixed-use.

Development of Small Site Parcels
Sites identified to meet the City’s very-low and low income RHNA were selected based on their ability to meet the default density of 20 dwelling units per acre and the AB 1397 size requirements of at least half an acre but not greater than ten acres. While several sites identified in the City’s sites analysis do not meet this requirement, the City has a history of developing residential uses on parcels in the downtown that are less than half an acre. This shows the City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 6
viability of these sites. Additionally, the City has identified sites under a half-acre in size that are either adjacent or share characteristics such as common ownership. This is shown under the consolidation group column of Table B-4.

Table B-3: Adequacy of Small Sites to Meet RHNA
APN Address Parcel
Size
Consolidated Site
(Shown in HCD
Site Inventory
Template
Analysis Findings/Description
2982118100 S Sierra Avenue 0.33 A
This parcel is currently a city-owned
parking lot with no existing structures.

The Sites Analysis shows this parcel as
consolidated with 511 S Highway 101 (APN
2982114000), a fit athletic club for which
it currently serves as overflow parking.

These parcels are directly adjacent, share
an ingress/egress point and the parking is
not used for any other adjacent use. As
the parcel is City-owned, the City has
added control over the future use of this
parcel and is interested in developing it for
residential uses as indicated in the
Housing Element.
2980103200 201 S Highway 101 0.35 C
This parcel as well as the parcel directly
adjacent to it (APN 2980103100) are both
vacant parcels within the City’s downtown
core. Both parcels have a common
ownership under the Kornberg Family
Trust and have no existing structures or
developed sections. The properties are in
close proximity to a number of multifamily developments which have developed on parcels within similar size,
shape, and location.
2980103100 204 S Sierra Avenue 0.43 C
See above description. Parcels are
anticipated to be developed together and
have been identified as consolidated sites
in the City’s Sites Inventory.

Sites were selected based on their realistic viability to accommodate lower income housing within the 2021-2029 planning period. This includes an evaluation of vacant land within the City (Table B-2) as well as underutilized sites that may provide the potential for redevelopment to accommodate residential at higher densities. Solana Beach is almost entirely built out, with the little vacant land within the City containing steep slopes or other characteristics which make it difficult to develop. As such, mostsites identified within the housing element are on non-vacant parcels.

As shown in the previous section, the City has a history of developing residential units on non-vacant parcels.

Figure B-1 shows the locations of all parcels identified to meet the City’s lower income RHNA need. A detailed map and list of candidate sites can be found on the City’s website.

Infrastructure Availability
As discussed in Section 3, each site has been evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to water and sewer connections. Each site is situated adjacent to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure to service the candidate site.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-7
Figure B-1: Map of Identified Sites (All Income Levels) B '

0.5 Solana Beach 6th Cycle Housing Candidate Sites
r- "'\
I ' 1.
.. .
•I
C •
~
L .,
~
r _J City Boundary Candidate Sites 2018 Hispanic Population (Esri) / 2018 Total Population (Esri) * Low and Very Low D < 20%
* Moderate D 20% - 40%
* Above Moderate - 40% - 60%
- 60%- 80%
- > 80%
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 8
Table B-4: Sites to Accommodate Low and Very Low-Income RHNA (*Indicates a non-vacant parcel was used in a previous Housing Element or a vacant parcel was used in two previous Housing Elements and is subject to by-right if affordability requirements are met per Program 1F) Note: Some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving. On some candidate site, the City has identified just the surface parking area with existing uses to remain.

APN Zone GPLU Address Owner Size
(AC)
Realistic
Density
Capacity
Adjustment
Factor
Potential
Capacity Vacant Existing Uses and Redevelopment Analysis Consolidation Group
Existing
Building
Square
Footage
Maximum
Buildable
Area (SF)
Remaining Buildable
Area (SF and % of
Maximum)
Development
Classification
2982118100* C C S SIERRA
AVE

CITY OF SOLANA
BEACH 0.33 20 0.8 5
City-owned surface parking lot that provides parking solely to the adjacent gym facility. City is in the process of issuing RFPs for the future development of the property for
residential uses.

A 0 17,250 17,250 (100%)
A
2982114000 C C
511 S

HIGHWAY
101

HARRISON

FAMILY TRUST
01-09-91

1.15 20 0.8 17
Directly adjacent to the City-owned lot and anticipated that it may redevelop in conjunction with City RFP for adjacent parking lot.

A 16,096 60,330 44,234 (73%)
A
2980102000 C C
236 S
SIERRA
AVE
236 S SIERRA
LLC 0.53 20 0.8 7
Small office space for Cruzan (Real Estate Developer), ID Studios, Inc (Interior Designer), and OrangeWallstudios architecture+planning. This site has capacity to add
residential uses while maintaining existing commercial, similar to the sample professional dentist office which recently redeveloped.
9,176 27,822 18,646 (67%)
A
2980106100 C C
155 S

HIGHWAY
101
101 PLAZA L L C 0.55 20 0.8 6
Small commercial center including uses such as GC Dance Company, Beach Grass Café, Sotheby’s, nail salon, travel agency, and movement center. Several of these uses,
including Beach Grass Café, the Center of Movement and
Balance, Choukri Salon, and WorldView Travel were
determined to be permanently closed via information
available online.
9,505 28,712 19,207 (67%)
A
2980521200 C C
305

HIGHWAY
101

LONGS DRUG
STORES

CALIFORNIA INC
(SUBLESSEE)
<LF>

1.80 20 0.8 27
CVS Pharmacy location with ample surface parking. Single tenant and building show no signs of recent
renovations/reinvestment. Directly adjacent to new mixeduse development (343 S. Highway 101) 24,629 94,191 69,562 (74%)
A
2980531700 C C
405 S

HIGHWAY
101

BANK OF

AMERICA

NATIONAL

TRUST&SAVINGS
ASSN

0.98 20 0.8 15
Large underutilized parcel with single tenant (Bank of
America) Building shows no signs of reinvestment or
renovation and market trends point to bank uses going
online with smaller physical footprints.
6,534 51,051 44,517 (87%)
A
2980910100 SC SC 337 S

CEDROS ST

HARRISON
KEITH&SARA 0.71 20 0.8 7
Small commercial center for Amari Active (currently closed), Devine Grace Today (currently closed), Imeriti Inc and
Investors 1031 Exchange. Building shows no signs of
reinvestment or renovation.
11,628 30,803 19,175 (62%)
A
2980921100 SC SC 0 CEDROS
AVE

SOUTH CEDROS

ASSOCIATES L L
C

0.91 20 0.8 11
The site contains parking spaces and a portion of a
commercial center (Pedego Electric Bikes and Shauns
California Sunglasses store).

This site may redevelop with sites labeled “B” in the
consolidation group. Building shows no signs of
reinvestment or renovation.

B 0 39,642 39,642 (100%)
A
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-9
Table B-4: Sites to Accommodate Low and Very Low-Income RHNA (*Indicates a non-vacant parcel was used in a previous Housing Element or a vacant parcel was used in two previous Housing Elements and is subject to by-right if affordability requirements are met per Program 1F) Note: Some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving. On some candidate site, the City has identified just the surface parking area with existing uses to remain.

ACADEMY
DR

ACADEMY
HOSPITAL LLC 0.58 20 0.8 6
Single tenant (Academy Animal Hospital) and building shows no signs of recent renovations/reinvestment. Lease terms are not known for this use.
3,132 25,354 22,222 (88%)
B
2981121900 SC SC
524

STEVENS
AVE

CANTERBURY
2008

IRREVOCABLE
TRUST 05-22-08

0.62 20 0.8 6
Small Commercial center with tenants such as A Diva’s
Hidden Hair, Annie’s Café’s and Deli (currently closed), Bongiorno’s and Charco Financial LLC. Charco Financial LLC has no website or information available to show they are still in business. Buildings show no signs of renovation or reinvestment.
7,290 26,885 19,595 (73%)
B
2981122000 SC SC
532

STEVENS
AVE
SOLANA
PARTNERS L P 1.79 20 0.8 21
1 Carpet San Diego, Mitchell’s Floor Coverings, Studio 540 Jiu Jistsu, Hylete, PERFECT PET SALON and Sydnee’s Pet
Grooming are the current tenants of the small commercial center. There is surface parking surrounding the building that may be redeveloped with room for commercial uses.
18,240 77,963 59,723 (77%)
B
2981122100 SC SC
722

GENEVIEVE
ST
SOLANA
PARTNERS L P 2.43 20 0.8 29
Small commercial center that currently has A’LaFin Skincare, akovash hardwood (currently closed), Back To Perfection, Beauty & Body Med Spa Salon Solana Beach CA, Busy Moms
Fitness Solana Beach & San Diego, Custom Home Audio as
tenants. The building is surrounded by surface parking
spaces and shows no indications of reinvestments or
renovations.
30,000 105,751 75,751 (72%)
B
2981122200 SC SC
742

GENEVIEVE
ST
SOLANA
PARTNERS L P 1.61 20 0.8 19
Ballet Arte, Body Design, Breyer’s Branches Test, and Dyjak Design Build are the current tenants for the building. There are surface parking lot surrounds the building and no
indicator of renovations or reinvestments.
18,240 70,011 51,771 (74%)
B
2633513500 SC SC
124
LOMAS

SANTA FE

OZAWA FARMS
INC <DBA J&T
INVESTMENTS>

1.82 20 0.8 28
A Commercial Shopping Center with Two Buildings with
Aliza D. Cierone, ND, American Family Martial Arts, Andeliz Nails & Spa, Balancio Insurance, BioIntelligent Wellness, Blue Water Tackle(currently closed), Capstar Mortgage,
Chief’s Burgers & Brew, Dr. Alexia Garcia Chiropractor, Foundation Yoga Center, Johnson Air Systems, Linda’s Hair Nails & Rfxlgy(currently closed), Local Greens, lu ann for hair, Michele Fry, L.Ac., RYT 500, Old Mission Properties, Purebowl, ShorelineFishing, SMartface, Sneaky Feet Aikido, Solana Beach Fish House, Solana Donur House, Solana Spa, Spark Health – IV Therapy Vitamin B12 & Other Services, Subway, Supeirior Legal Divorce & Mediation Services and Tidewater Chiropracter as current tenants. There is ample surface parking spaces that surrounds the building and
building shows no indications of reinvestments and
renovations.
30,270 79,348 49,078 (62%)
A
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 10
Table B-4: Sites to Accommodate Low and Very Low-Income RHNA (*Indicates a non-vacant parcel was used in a previous Housing Element or a vacant parcel was used in two previous Housing Elements and is subject to by-right if affordability requirements are met per Program 1F) Note: Some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving. On some candidate site, the City has identified just the surface parking area with existing uses to remain.

HIGHWAY
101

PINNACLE
SOLANA II L L C 0.82 20 0.8 12
Single tenant building (Parioli Italian Bistro) with front and rear surface parking. The current site is underdeveloped with a large undeveloped portion of the parcel in the rear.

This parcel is almost identical in nature to one of the redeveloped parcel examples shown in Table B-2.
1,870 43,023 41,153 (96%)
A
2982114900 C C
731 S

HIGHWAY
101
BLUE MAX 1.72 20 0.8 27
Mercado del Sol Commercial Shopping Center containing
Double Take, Qwik Corner, JI Phone Repair (Permanently
Closed), Bravo Salon (no website or indication of operation), Talisman Arts Tarot, Bangkok Bay Thai, a dry cleaner, and others. Many of these uses have limited hours and little web presence to determine a viable business. The building has surface parking in the front and one side of the building.

There a no signs of recent renovations or reinvestments on the building.
36,647 90,131 53,484 (59%)
A
2982118500* C C
635

HIGHWAY
101

CITY OF SOLANA
BEACH 1.08 20 0.8 17
City Hall of Solana Beach is located in the building and has ample parking in the rear. This parcel is city-owned and has been considered for residential uses in the past and the City will continue to pursue developer interest in the site. The site is underdeveloped and shows no indicators of recent renovations or reinvestments
14,344 56,535 42,191 (75%)
A
2982402400 C C
100
BORDER
AVE

COOPER-HARRIS

FAMILY TRUST
01-07-04

0.60 20 0.8 9
Dated and underutilized small Commercial/Office Shopping Center. The building has rear parking and is directly
adjacent to existing multi-family uses.
14,000 31,102 17,102 (55%)
A
2982405800 C C
777

HIGHWAY
101

PACIFIC

EXECUTIVE

PLAZA L L C

1.11 20 0.8 17
Small Business Park (with tenants including Andrew
Moranchel, CPA P.C., Balance Strategies, LLC, Daniel
Lowther Law Offices and Dumbeck & Dumbeck Law Office)
that has ample surface parking in the front and side of the building. .
21,186 58,093 36,907 (64%)
A
2985301900 SC SC
761

ACADEMY
DR
MAX

FIRSTENBERG

WEINSTOCK

FAMILY L L C

1.03 20 0.8 11
Small Business Park that includes 2 buildings with 2 tenants (Center for Cosmetic Dentistry and David Daughters, DDS, Inc.). The shopping center is dated with no indications that the building has recent renovations or reinvestments and surface parking is in the front.
11,726 44,998 33,272 (74%)
B
2985302000 SC SC
809

ACADEMY
DR

ACADEMY
GROUP LLC 1.03 20 0.8 12
Top Tier Training, Stratum Fitness and The Saints Thrifts Store are the present tenants of the building with front parking. Presently there is no sign of renovations or
reinvestments.
0 44,953 44,953 (100%)
B
2980103200 C C
201 S

HIGHWAY
101

KORNBERG

FAMILY TRUST
08-11-92 PERL
FAMILY

MARITAL TRUST

0.35 20 0.8 5
VAC
Currently the site is a vacant lot and is clearly
underdeveloped. The project may redevelop in conjunction with an adjacent site labeled “C” in the consolidation group.

C 0 18,086 18,086 (100%)
A
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-11
Table B-4: Sites to Accommodate Low and Very Low-Income RHNA (*Indicates a non-vacant parcel was used in a previous Housing Element or a vacant parcel was used in two previous Housing Elements and is subject to by-right if affordability requirements are met per Program 1F) Note: Some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving. On some candidate site, the City has identified just the surface parking area with existing uses to remain.

KORNBERG

FAMILY TRUST
08-11-92 PERL
FAMILY

MARITAL TRUST

0.43 20 0.8 6
VAC
Presently the site is a vacant lot and is underdeveloped.

The project may redevelop in conjunction with an adjacent site labeled “C” in the consolidation group.

C 0 22,245 22,425 (100%)
A
2980106300* C C
140 S
SIERRA
AVE

CITY OF SOLANA
BEACH 1.00 20 0.8 16
City-owned surface parking lot that provides parking solely to the adjacent commercial shopping centers. This parcel has been considered for residential uses in the past and the City will continue to pursue developer interest in the site. 14,000 52,285 38,285 (73%)
A
2634210800 C C
607
LOMAS

SANTA FE
DR

SECURITY

PACIFIC

NATIONAL BANK
<LF> ANDERSON
CAROL

1.05 20 0.8 15
A single tenant building (Chase Banking) with ample surface parking and currently underdeveloped. Building shows no signs of reinvestment or renovation and market trends
point to bank uses going online with smaller physical
footprints. The City has identified the larger shopping center and is in the process of obtaining a letter of interest for residential development.
6,252 55,132 48,880 (62%)
--
2980920200 SC SC
444 S
CEDROS
AVE

SOUTH CEDROS

ASSOCIATES L L
C

0.48 20 0.8 5
A commercial center (24-7 Towing SOLANA BEACH, AIM
Wellness Center, BPI Training Now/Home Star and Cloud
Applications & Accounting Services) that has front and side surface parking. This site may redevelop with sites labeled “B” in the consolidation group.

B 0 20,909 20,909 (100%)
A
2632936000 C C
971
LOMAS

SANTA FE
DRIVE

PACIFIC SOLANA
BEACH

HOLDINGS

3.98 20 0.8 63
Commercial center with multiple tenants such as Samurai Japanese Restaurant, PostalAnnex, The Frame Shop, and
Craftsman Revival Home. This site has ample surface
parking with no indication of recent renovations or
reinvestments.
71,403 207,988 136,585 (66%)
--
2632935900 C C
LOMAS

SANTA FE
DRIVE

PACIFIC SOLANA
BEACH

HOLDINGS

9.85 20 0.8 64
Large commercial center with multiple tenants such as
Vons, Big 5 Sports Goods, HomeGoods and 24 Hour
fitness(presently closed)but not limited to tenants listed above. This site shows no recent reinvestments or
renovations and currently has ample surface parking. The site identified includes only the parking areas, not individual buildings.
0 582,041 582,041 (100%)
--
2633040100 C C
354
ACACIA
AVE

HAGIO MICHIO
TRUST 01-31-02 0.52 20 0.8 10
The commercial center is located on the corner of a major roadway and shows no signs of recent renovations or
reinvestments. The current tenants include Mitch’s Surf Shop North, Joe Blair Surfboards and Moreland Choppers.

The City is in the process of obtaining a letter of interest for residential development from the property owner.
0 27,218 27,218 (100%)
A
2981643200 HRd HR
802

STEVENS
AVE

ARNAIZ RONALD
M & HILLARNAIZ 0.51 13 0.8 4 There is an existing 2 single-family detached houses and currently the site is underutilized. A realistic density of 13

N/A N/A N/A
B
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 12
Table B-4: Sites to Accommodate Low and Very Low-Income RHNA (*Indicates a non-vacant parcel was used in a previous Housing Element or a vacant parcel was used in two previous Housing Elements and is subject to by-right if affordability requirements are met per Program 1F) Note: Some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving. On some candidate site, the City has identified just the surface parking area with existing uses to remain.

MAKAYLA R

TODD AUDREY
du/ac (permits 20 du/ac) has been applied and existing
units have been removed from the potential yield.
2982810900 HRd HR
841

STEVENS
AVE

GRANADOS

FAMILY TRUST
10-22-18

0.59 13 0.8 6
There is an existing single-family detached house on a
underutilized parcel. The current building shows no signs of any recent renovations or reinvestments into the property.

A realistic density of 13 du/ac (permits 20 du/ac) has been applied and existing units have been removed from the
potential yield.

N/A N/A N/A
B
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page B-13
B.2 Moderate and Above Moderate Sites Inventory
This section contains a description and listing of the candidate sites identified to meet the Solana Beach’s moderate and above moderate income RHNA need.

Calculation of Unit Capacity
The capacity for sites identified to meet the City’s above moderate RHNA need was determined by multiplying the net parcel size by the maximum achievable density for that zoning designation and rounding down to the nearest whole dwelling unit. Alternatively, the capacity for sites identified to meet the City’s moderate RHNA need was determined with the same methodology using the minimum achievable density for that zoning designation. In taking this approach, the City is using a conservative methodology. Where information is known, acreage has been netted out for potential constraints to development.

All of the sites included in the inventory for moderate and above moderate sites can realistically add at least twice as many net new units as exist on the site today (known as the net new unit ratio). The only exception to this is sites which can accommodate one new unit but are currently vacant as noted in Table B-4. The net new unit ratio is calculated accounting for existing units. The potential units to existing unit ratio for all sites is calculated as is demonstrated below and is at least 3:1 on all sites

0.62 * 5 du/ac = 3 potential units (rounded down to nearest whole unit) 3 potential units – 1 existing unit = 2 net units
Net new unit ratio = 3 potential units : 1 existing unit (3:1) At least 2 new units per site
Selection of Sites
This Appendix B contains a selection of those sites that are most likely to be developed for moderate and abovemoderate income housing. For the purpose of identifying sites with the potential to be redeveloped within the planning period, this analysis considered existing zoned parcels that permit residential as a primary use within the following zones based on the permitted densities within those zones:
• Above moderate
o LRc, Low Residential C
o C, General Commercial
• Moderate:
o MRd, Medium Residential D
o MHRd, Medium-High Residential D
Due to the primarily developed nature of Solana Beach’s communities, sites with a capacity through the existing zoning to develop for at least one additional unit were considered within the analysis. In most instances, additional units are achievable through the subdivision of an existing property and addition of dwelling units.

For the purposes of this analysis, accessory dwelling unit potential was calculated separately as outlined within the Candidate Sites Analysis Overview section above. ADUs represent additional potential units to meet the City’s RHNA.

Existing Uses of Commercial Sites in Moderate/Above Moderate Inventory There are six sites in the candidate sites inventory identified with capacity to assist the City in meeting the moderate and above moderate RHNA. These sites are located within the Solana Beach Towne Center a neighborhood commercial shopping center with large surface parking areas with the potential for redevelopment. Solana Beach Towne Center has aging one and two-story structures with commercial and professional office uses and a hyperunderutilized parking area. As identified with the lower income sites within the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza, it is anticipated that the majority of existing uses will remain in place with new development occurring in the existing parking fields.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 14
This is consistent with development occurring on larger commercial properties in the region. Recent local San Diego County examples of this type of redevelopment include:
• The Shoppes at Carlsbad which envisions the addition of 300+ apartments, a hotel, and recreational opportunities in addition to 1.4 million square feet of commercial and dining uses. • North County Mall in Escondido, which recently was purchased and is undertaking a visioning process to redevelop the property to be more experiential, including the potential for residential uses. • Otay Ranch Town Center which Brookfield intends to modify to include the development of 1,900 apartment units.

Existing uses are individual retail tenants and a desktop analysis of the shopping center shows existing vacancies for lease. Based on regional trends for similar properties, these sites show the potential to redevelop within the planning period.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Page B-15
Table B-5: Sites to Accommodate Moderate and Above Moderate RHNA APN Zone Address Owner Size
(AC)
Realistic
Density
Potential Net
New Unit
Capacity
(excluding
existing units)
Vacant Notes
2981331100 MHRd 834 VERA ST CLARK MIRIAM E 1992
TRUST 06-30-92 0.15 8 1 VAC Vacant Parcel
2981400900 MHRd 645 IDA AVE PICKERING JENNIFER A M 0.38 8 2 Single-family house 2981340501 MHRd 833 VERA ST JONES SETH J&ROBIN K 0.46 8 2 Two small singlefamily structures 2982932000 MHRd 0 IDA AVE BRISA MAR
DEVELOPMENT 0.51 8 4 Underutilized site w/ fence
2981623700 MHRd 0 IDA AVE K N N MANAGEMENT LLC 0.77 8 6 VAC Vacant Parcel 2982604400 MHRd 0 DEL MAR DOWNS
RD

SAINT JAMES CATHOLIC
PARISH IN SOLANA BEACH 0.94 8 7 VAC Vacant Parcel
2982701800 MRd 2466 MANGO WAY MARANDINO FAMILY
TRUST 08-17-03 0.21 5 1 VAC Vacant Parcel
2982703500 MRd 684 VIA DE LA
VALLE

MENGLER

BRUCE&GRAHAM SUSAN
FAMILY TRUST 05-20-15

0.51 5 1 VAC Vacant Parcel
2982830900 MRd 880 STEVENS AVE PELLERITO JAMES J 0.62 5 2 Single-family house 2982704100 MRd 990 HIGHLAND DR M C S DEL MAR
CORPORATE CENTER LLC 1.22 5 6 VAC Parking Structure
2634210900 C 225 STEVENS AVE SOLANA BEACH
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 2.02 20 31 Church Facilities
2634211000 C 663 SAN RODOLFO
DR S B T C HOLDINGS L L C 3.49 20 54 Commercial Shopping Center 2634211200 C 114 SOLANA HILLS
DR S B T C HOLDINGS L L C 3.26 20 51 Commercial Shopping Center 2634211300 C 0 SOLANA HILLS DR S B T C HOLDINGS L L C 0.51 20 8 Commercial Shopping Center
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis Appendix B - 16
Table B-5: Sites to Accommodate Moderate and Above Moderate RHNA APN Zone Address Owner Size
(AC)
Realistic
Density
Potential Net
New Unit
Capacity
(excluding
existing units)
Vacant Notes
2634211500 C 667 SAN RODOLFO
DR S B T C HOLDINGS L L C 1.55 20 23 Commercial Shopping Center 2981313000 C 616 STEVENS AVE WINDWARD PLAZA LLC 1.00 20 15 Commercial Shopping Center
2980943200 LRc 0 GRANADOS AVE CARLTON FAMILY TRUST
12-10-93 0.34 3 1 VAC Vacant parcel
2981215600 LRc 524 S NARDO AVE SANCHEZ FELIX 1.19 3 2 Single-family house 2634020500 LRc 148 S NARDO AVE CARADINE JON C 1.79 3 4 Single-family house 2634022200 LRc 170 S NARDO AVE BATCHMAN FAMILY
TRUST 10-13-10 1.26 3 2 Single-family house
2980811100 LRc 302 S NARDO AVE BARTHELL FAMILY TRUST
12-12-02 2.02 3 4 Single-family house
2980812500 LRc 258 S NARDO AVE BARTHELL FAMILY TRUST
12-12-02 1.56 3 2 Single-family house
2980921300 LRc 0 RIOS AVE

ESTRADA EDDIE

M&GLORIA A REVOCABLE
TRUST 04-08-08

0.42 3 2 VAC Vacant parcel
2980921400 LRc 0 RIOS AVE NORTH COUNTY COASTAL
LLC 0.40 3 1 VAC Vacant parcel
2980934400 LRc 535 S GRANADOS
AVE

SIHOTA JAGBIR S TRUST
06-14-11 1.05 3 2 Single-family house
Appendix C:

Community Outreach
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-1
Appendix C: Community Engagement
Summary
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that, "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). A discussion of citizen participation is provided below.

As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process, the City of Solana Beachhas conducted extensive public outreach activities beginning in 2020. These recent outreach efforts included presentations, City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions, Community Workshops, digital media, and noticed Public Hearings. Project materials, including summaries from community workshops and public meetings, notices, and draft public review documents are available on the City’s website: https://www.ci.solanabeach.ca.us/housingelement Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Solana Beach community, includes the following actions:
• Community Workshop#1 – The City conducted a community workshop on March 5, 2020 at City Hall that was advertised using both handouts and flyers as well as the City’s website. The Workshop had 13 attendees. The workshop is available for viewing on the City’s webpage at https://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/housingelement. At the workshop participants were provided with an overview of the planning process. The City’s RHNA obligations and engaged in an interactive exercise to focus on and identify the responses and creatives solutions to the following:
o What are the biggest challenges to housing in Solana Beach? o What creative ways can Solana Beachprovide housing in the future? o What types of programs r assistance could the City provide to facilitate housing? o What other opportunities or ideas do you have to address housing issues in Solana Beach? • Community Workshop #2 – The City virtually conducted a second community workshop on October 15, 2020. The workshop was advertised through flyers in both English and Spanish and on the City’s Housing Element Update webpage. The workshop is available for viewing at https://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/housingelement. During the workshop, participants were provided with an overview of the current status of the update process, information on previous outreach efforts, and information on each section of the Draft Housing Element. The workshop also directed participants to take an online housing survey and to provide comments on the public review draft.
• Community Workshop #3 – On November 12, 2020, the City virtually hosted a third community workshop to review the contents of the Public Review Draft Housing Element and collect comments. The workshop was advertised through flyers in both English and Spanish and on the City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-2
City’s Housing Element Update webpage. The workshop was held approximately one week before the close of the public review period so that residents and interested parties had an opportunity to review the document, formulate questions or comments, and provide those to the project team. During the meeting, the project team made a short presentation with highlights of the contents of the Public Review Draft Housing Element and received several verbal comments from participants.
• Online Community Survey – From October 15, 2020 to November 30, 2020 the City of Solana Beach launched an online community survey to gather additional feedback regarding the Housing Element Update. Participants were asked to consider potential policies and programs to include in the Housing Element, as well as potential housing types and opportunities for housing in the City. The survey also solicited feedback regarding potential barriers to housing access and constraints to the development of housing.
• City Council Study Session – The City held a City Council Study Session on October 28, 2020.

During the study session, the project team provided a presentation to the Solana Beach City Council with an overview of the Public Review Draft Housing Element and Housing Element update process to date. Community members had the opportunity to give public comments and several were received by the City.
• City Council Study Session #2 – The City held a City Council Study Session on March 24, 2021.

During the study session, the project team provided an updated draft of the Housing Element to review based on HCD comments received.
• Housing Element Update Website – A website developed for public consumption, which can be accessed at https://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/housingelement. The website provides relevant information about the update process, key features of the housing element, project timeline and a calendar of events for outreach activities. The website also provided a link to the community survey tool as well as the contact information of city for residents and community members to send additional comments or request additional information.

As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council.

This Appendix contains a summary of all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City at scheduled public meetings, and the Appendix has been provided to the City Council.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-3
C.1 Community Workshop #1
This section contains all available public oral comments provided during the first Community Workshop, as well as provided workshop materials and handouts. Public comments were received in written and oral form.

City of Solana Beach Housing Element Update
6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Workshop 1, Summary
Date: March 5, 2020
On Thursday, March 5th, 2020 the City of Solana Beach held a public community workshop for the 2021- 2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information on the Housing Element update process and to gather input and ideas from the public that will shape the goals, policies and programs in the Housing Element. The workshop included a PowerPoint presentation as well as an interactive feedback session to answer the following questions:
• What are the biggest challenges to housing in Solana Beach? • What types of programs or assistance could the City provide to facilitate housing? • What other opportunities or ideas do you have to address Housing issues in Solana Beach? A video of the full presentation and the PowerPoint slides are available on the City’s website. Below are the comments and responses received at the workshop.

What are the biggest challenges to housing in Solana Beach?

1. Maintain open space balance and permeable land (for runoff)

2. Lack of freely developable property

3. Fear of the types of people who live in affordable housing

4. Cost

5. The parking requirements

6. Already dense

7. Zoning limits

8. Support appropriate setbacks but they can be a limitation

9. How to classify different types of housing?
a. Ex: mobile homes, tiny homes

10. High cost of materials and labor to produce housing

11. Cost of land and construction

12. Financing building and permits

13. Calling people NIMBY’s does not help and only inflames fears

14. Emerging ways to build, construction changes
a. Example: 3D printers

15. High cost of land

16. Excessive taxation

17. Loss of private property rights mandated by the State

18. Regulations with HOA’s

19. NIMBY attitudes

20. Lack of vacant land

21. Zoning- a lot of rural zoning on the east side

22. State legislation creating constraints in Cities

23. Population increases – how to accommodate growing numbers What creative ways can Solana Beach provide housing in the future?

1. Limited and clearly delineated regulatory process
City of Solana Beach Housing Element Update
6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Workshop 1, Summary
Date: March 5, 2020

2. Simplified ADU permitting

3. Golf course

4. ADUs

5. Multi-generational and co-housing (at the train station?)

6. Living units at businesses

7. Adding backyard limits will destroy our neighborhood, too dense, too many cars, parking on streets.

8. Reasonable expectations, cohesive positions, flexibility, education

9. On church parking lots

10. More mixed-use development with studio lofts

11. Co-housing
a. Varied designs
b. Maybe a contest when property is selected

12. Political will

13. Expedite the permitting process

14. Transit oriented development with minimum parking regulations

15. Tiny villages (Seattle)

16. Live work

17. Accelerated approvals

18. Multi-use TOD development at NCTD transit center

19. ADUs will change the character of the community

20. Utilize parking lot behind Vons for apartments (3 story ok!)

21. Tie parking for ADUs to house on property to help address parking concerns

22. Reduce/restrict short term rentals in residential neighborhoods a. It limits housing for people who want to live and work full time in Solana Beach b. Not against it, just need to regulate it
c. You could probably provide/build more housing is you saw that people were actually living full time in the City

23. Eliminate or lower fees for ADUs if deeded affordable

24. Allow single family homes to be split into multiple units

25. Rethink zoning in certain parts of community such as shopping centers near freeways, they might be able to accommodate mixed-use/live-work

26. Micro-units

27. Pre-approve certain types of buildings and plans

28. Shared parking resources

29. To provide more affordable housing we need better public transit a. Frequency and additional routes
What types of programs or assistance could the City provide to facilitate housing?

1. Cohousing
a. Micro-units
b. Small units
City of Solana Beach Housing Element Update
6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Workshop 1, Summary
Date: March 5, 2020

2. Down payment assistance – affordability issues

3. Accessory Dwellling Unit (ADU)/Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) program a. Example: City of Encinitas

4. Land bank/ use of existing structures and lots available a. CVS area
b. Existing commercial

5. Vertical development

6. Mixed-use development
a. Incentives, planning

7. City approved auxiliary housing units

8. Fee waivers or reduction for ADUs deed restricted affordable

9. Annex and subdivide Rancho Santa Fe

10. Financing for building/splitting to increase density if units are publicly available (not for within family)

11. P3 ground lease any viable empty city property

12. Research and educate on
a. Building plans for ADUs
b. 3D printers
c. Architects builders etc.

13. City can use incentives (go to the front of the line, etc)

14. Limit affordable housing to people who serve Solana beach such as fireman, police, medical personnel, and teachers for instance
What other opportunities or ideas do you have to address Housing issues in Solana Beach?

1. New development should maintain community character (bulk, scale, and maintain buffers/setbacks between property)
a. Relax standards within reason

2. HOA issues – Park Del Mar

3. Educate community on new regulations and options
a. Architects
b. Land owners
c. Fliers at hardware stores
d. Etc.

4. Funding
a. Hold contests
b. Promotional

5. Educate community on funding opportunities for ADUs etc

6. Use church parking lots
~ \J u ~IL- .
l °""'°' ( f.__, { """ f t)
,=--,~~
~Ne,,\ 9?ev~ \e
Pr-b()~
Jhe;. farkj~
ri!,1 k.i rtrtJeA/e,
A{r~
cl U\S-(
Zo" k.:h
•
\
. ,-ts
rA IWI~
•rov-to
Ot/ I nl-11..
~c&.5
+ I 0-?0v-
~ ()rod v-. u_
~vv0;~~
\
'
G (.Q_ss, '1 ~
~)(~6V\
Li)')li¼u 4rw(
c\eu"J
e\ e (', n't!A. ~
r ~ v 1 «-ti,,y
-pro~-e sses.
':)( vY>p\i -fie.(
~w pe<mi~
~ r, \
~0\~ \
n\ '\cp' ~ \J \. .._,) ...__,,,, rv1 are ,,;:,xe.J.
l.t St Je.ve-Lof
w j.fi,1 ~J.,~/
\ofk
--
m k,\ \,' ~ ltx.,
To~
"G>.W~ \ 0 \9~
0J:-NG1L)
~Y'lJ--J\S ., \-- ~
~-. \'IIIA-,
~
~~
of"
1\tE=- Co• •~ttrrl
(J1! hu f 1,~u?
! ot JJe;h1vlll
VONS oz;r
a pr rr;W,i)fs
(3· ;?t{Jrvy of--! )
1ie. ,., \,1 hr
f\bus t.· "9~,c.
0" t"t4J1 .
-\"?>
~"'\
"'"'f ~ (Mttlf.'a
V--Wv<-0.R.j ~-c+
S,R.~ \ Y\
(2L ;/, ~-e>-.a
h//l * bov,- V14)c9-_s
liNt-~~ 'lf'.J
•vh>\qll-t)(l\e,lllfd,
\¥n-fkl\1ifttl, \I\ AO~'
rot; . ~
~w.
~ 4
~~ - ~
~J~tt;=
r)JfA bf tJ ~,.'
1·· kl6, ii
'.flM ~ ~ ·-
~..,
~~ Ii~ .. ~ .,.
~\~~~DY
Lo1AX4 V-u5
W AL>l).s
,_:_ ot-£d.uo
t\ .. R-~o,cJ:?' (?.,
~~
-Z-Ot,v-;~ 1· Y'-
<A,,r¼ I V\ y> O\k--5
0~ l'.)OyY\ V°Y'vi-+--1 ~
S> \t\ CM ~ s ~'vi;J ~ i'v-J
C,,~5 Y\a,D-,1 ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~h-\,
~«},. \A,~/\ \y(,,, lA™V
. ~
• : I IIIJSI,
P.Mb\lC ~t.l6rl:
. Lara.·~, . . ,.. .
~~~f,e,etii~
r . \tntlMtft<\
.. '.f~{(~~~ " . -:-I-: IW/iia.t dr,11,w
- _, >
i' -fX : -~fb•llt,q,
_ WMr WE& (f fltogt~Mt;, <£ ~T~
CJJAU> 1\1e, ~ fl!Ov10E ,>"9atlfM\i tl~ING,?
~ A.-PV- 5
d L-e-6 y-~ t,tt i Lle-d
+\ .q.¾"'.?V 6a\o \ c:..
/1. y\ 1/l -12-r-. 4-
s(,( ..b cJ \ '1 I ~..Q_
Rav)cko S°'-n-\~ fz
\~\lul~ tuLu_~e CY\
(-) \old. !~ \a,1 S ~" 11 l)V i
8 'J -1) rv'\~tu ~
& o.-Yct'-'- i L ..,r_s I 2" , J di ~
1k..
'
\v, sv-:1,JQ0
( _L l I r'
1J() l C, 7 ¼, ,.....( c.; lf
~•~~ \ \ "-r~ de,j
MtJ~,,
shwlcl MttiMft:t,0
{()r)1 tnU1 ~ {hvtfll t¥
(bv/Jc-, St/4/e, .t-
/'nv1trttt,n ~I
fehttcfc- bti-M /J~~s)
1'
Ytlv\X 'o\&\rdlvrcto w{\n ~
Wk~ df\Ee \OEl&/~NlTi&'b
---..---r -::. l» lOU """~ b ~ W¥1M \SlaS
\N~Ufat?
t-d \) ceJ-- e. e:!-s~
(,G!WI.W\ \] y\ l 1 (JV\ /'-W
, ~W' -> + o hdV\__s
- Ar-Jrv--\-c-::., \ .S
U\M.""'--\JV\-1 av\
~~, 1f ,vM,)•«i
- \_.~ ~ ~ -W- A-Dv r »k--"
- f-\ 1--t/c; J ~~ S~5
-~
City of Solana Beach Housing Element Update
6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Community Workshop #1 - Sign-in Sheet
Date: March 5, 2020
NAME
!-t5.S
E-Mail ADDRESS
City of Solana Beach Housing Element Update
6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Community Workshop #1- Sign-in Sheet
Date: March 5, 2020
NAME
' . ~,'+1,n 4 Da,n-,e{ f'.nv1 ~
E-Mail ADDRESS
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-15
C.2 Community Workshop #2
This section contains all available public comments provided during the second Community Workshop, as well as provided workshop materials and handouts. Public comments were received in written and oral form.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Community Workshop #2
The City of Solana Beach is preparing to release the Public Review Draft of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Please join us for a virtual workshop to learn about the different parts of the draft document as well as how you can provide feedback during the public review period.

WHEN: October 15, 2020, 6 p.m.

WHERE: The link to this virtual meeting will be made available on the City's Housing Element Update page, located on the City's website (www.ci.solana-beach.ca. us)
For.questions,please contact Joseph Lim at (858) 720-2434 or by email at [email protected]
Ciu.dad de Solana Beach
0 c:::::J 11
; Q ! Actualizaci6n del Elemento Vivienda 2021-2029
Taller Virtual
La Ciudad de Solana Beach se esta preparando para publicar el Borrador de la Revision Publica del Elemento Vivienda 2021-2029. Por favor unase a nosotros en un taller virtual para aprender acerca de las diferentes partes del documento preliminar asi como tambien proporcionar sus comentarios durante el periodo de revision publica.
,,
CVANDO: 15 de Octubre de 2020, 6 p.m.

LUGAR: El lugar de enlace para esta reunion virtual estara disponible en la pagina de Actualizaci6n del Elemento Vivienda de la ciudad, ubicada en el sitio web de la ciudad (www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us)
(www.ci.solana-beach.ca. us)
· fara preguntas, contactar Joseph Lim a (858) 720-2434 o [email protected] 1 2
Solana Beach Housing Element Update
6th Cycle (2021-2029) Virtual Community Workshop #2
Agenda
• Purpose of t he Workshop
• Overview of Housing Element
Update Process
• Overview of Public Draft
Housing Element (2021-2029)
• Next Steps
• Community Conversation
Thursday, October 15th, 2020
1 3
4 Purpose of the Workshop
Th is workshop is intended to:
• Provide an opportunity to
pa rticipate in the Housing
Element Update process
• Introduce the Public Draft
Housing Element
• Receive feedback from the
community
2 5
6 Housing Element Update Process
March/April ' 2020 -
Housing Element Process Overview
• Workshop #1 gathered input and ideas
to shape the goals, policies, and
programs in the Housing Element
• Workshop participants identified:
• Challenges to developing housing in Solana
Beach
• Opportunities t o address Solana Beach's
housing issues
• Solutions to provide housing in the future
• Programs and Assistance the City could
consider
Workshop #1 summary contained in
Appendix C
3 7
8 Housing Element Organization
• Section 1: Introduction
• Section 2: Demographic and
Housing Community Profile
Section 3: Housing Constraints,
Resou rces, and Fair Housing
• Section 4: Housing Plan
• Appendices
4 9
10 Section 1: Introduction
• Overview of the City's Housing
Element
• State's legal requirements for
Housing Element
• Shows Solana Beach's Regional
Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) requ irements
Section 2: Housing and Demographic Profile
Demographic Profile
Population and Household
characteristics
Socioeconomic Profile
Market conditions
• Th is section informs and
supports the development of
the identified policies and
programs in t he Housing Pla n
•••
5 11
12 Section 3: Constraints, Resources, & Fair Housing
• Ana lysis of Constraints that may
limit the City's ability to develop
housing
• Analysis of Housi
00 available from programs, services, .._ •
or fund ing/financing ~.
• Analysis of Fair Housing within
the City ~
Governmental Constraints
• Constraints related to local or
regional governmental
requirements and processes
• Ana lysis of Governmental
Constraints includes:
• Land use controls
• Development Standards
Development Fees
Local Processing and Permit
Procedures
6 13
14 Non-Governmental Constraints
• External constraints outside
the City's control
• Analysis of Non-Governmental
Constraints includes:

Land costs and construction
costs
Availability of financing
Economic Conditions
rastructure Constra
Constraints associated w ith
infrastructure needed to
serve housing
• Analysis of Infrastructure
Constraints includes:

Water Supply
Wastewater Capacity
Stormwater Capacity
Fire, Police, and Emergency
Services
7 15
16 ironmental Constraint
• Constraint s due to existing or
futu re environmental conditions
Analysis of Environmental
Constraint s includes:

Geological/Seismic Hazards
Flooding
Habitat/Sensitive Areas
Topography
High Fire Severity Zones
Adequate Sites Analysis
City of Solana Beach 2021-2029 RHNA Housing Growth Need Income Category
% of Area Median Income Range* RHNA Allocation
Income (AMI)* (Housing Units)
Min. Max.

Very Low Income 0 - 50%AMI $0 $46,350 316 units
Low Income 51 - 80%AMI $46,351 $74,160 159 units
Moderate Income 81 - 120%AMI $74,161 $111,240 160 units Above Moderat e >120%AMI $111,241 >111,241 240 units Income Total 875 units
• Income Range is based on t he 2020 HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for San Diego County of $92,700. 8 17
18 Adequate Sites Analysis
• The City must identify sites
to accommodate 2021-
2029 RHNA growth need.
• The analysis evaluates all
areas of the City they could
accommodate
development of housing.

Adequate Sites Analysis
• "Candidate Sites" are chosen based on a
variety of factors, some of which include:
• adequate zoning,
• size requirements,
proximity to services and transit, and
• availability of infrastructure.
• State law outlines additional criteria for
the selection of adequate sites
• Solana Beach's candidate housing sites
strategy is not anticipated to require
rezoning of any parcels within Solana
Beach
9 19
20 Fair Housing
• City is required by law to conduct a Fa ir Housing
Assessment
• Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) definition:
• Taking meaningful actions that address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity
• Replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns,
• Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and
Fostering and maintaining compliance with civi l rights and fair housing laws.
10 21
22 Next Steps Date
Public Review Draft Housing Element Available October 22, 2020 City Council Work Session October 28, 2020
Public Survey: Sites ane Programs
Please respond to the Housing
Element Update survey
located at:
• [Insert surveymonkey link]
• Pu rpose of the su rvey is to
gather community input on:

Potential additional housing
focus areas and locations
Issues or opportunities that
may be addressed by Housing
Programs
• Any additional relevant
feedback
11 23
Live Public Input
[INSERT INSTRUCTIONS PER CITY]
24 12
13 Thank you!
For questions, please contact:

Joseph Lim, Community Development Director
[email protected]
(858) 720 ‐ 2434
25 City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-31
C.4 Community Survey
The City conducted a community survey which launched on October 15, 2020. This section contains a summary of the survey results, as well as all survey response data.

City of Solana Beach
Housing Element Update, 2021-2029
Summary of Housing Element Survey
1 Housing Element Update Survey
From October 15, 2020 to November 30, 2020 the City of Solana Beach launched an online community survey to gather additional feedback regarding the Housing Element Update. Participants were asked to consider potential policies and programs to include in the Housing Element, as well as potential housing types and opportunities for housing in the City. The survey also solicited feedback regarding potential barriers to housing access and constraints to the development of housing. Below is a summary of the survey’s results.

Survey Results
Question 1: Where do you think the City of Solana Beach should prioritize the development of housing? Participants were provided a multiple-choice question in order to gather information about where residents, stakeholders and other survey participants were most interested in seeing housing.

Figure C 1 displays data results for participant responses to Housing Development Locations. Based on the data, participants were most interested in development in the Existing Commercial Shopping Centers while development in Existing Residential Neighborhoods , City-Owned Parcels and other locations were the least appealing for the participants. Participants showed a variety interestin development Highway 101 Corridor and Near the Train Station.

Figure C-1: Housing Development Locations
Question 2: What types of housing would you like to see within Solana Beach? Participants were provided a variety of housing types in multiple choice format and ask to identify or select all the option they are interested in seeing in Solana Beach.

Figure C 2 displays data results of participant responses to question 2. Based on the data, participants favored Mixed Use (apartments next to stores and restaurants), while Co-Housing and Other were the least favored by participants. Participants showeda mixed interest in Single-Family units, Duplexes/townhouses, Apartments/condos, Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUS) and Multi Generation Housing .

Highway 101
Corridor
Existing
Commercial
Shopping
Centers
Existing
Residential
Neighborhoo
ds
City-Owned
Parcels
Near the
Train Station Other
Participant Responses 18% 22% 13% 13% 20% 13%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
[ + +
Cit y of Solana Beach
Housing Element Update, 2021-2029
Summary of Housing Element Survey
Figure C-2: Housing Development Types
Other • 2%
Co-Housing (multiple bedrooms rented separately ... • 2% M ulti-Generational Housing
Acx:essory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Mixed-use (apartments next to st ores and restaurants)
Apartments/Condos
Duplexes/t ownhouses
Single-family units
0% 5%
10%
16%
16%
14%
16%
l et¾ 15%
25%
20¾ 25% 30¾
Question 3: Please rate how much you agree with the following statement: Mixed-Use housing (a mixture of housing and other uses, including rommercial office, or other within the same site) is a good solution to addressing Solana Beach's futt.re housing needs.

Participants were asked to rate the above statement on the follow ing sea le:
• 1 - Disagree
• 2 - Somewhat Disagree
• 3 - No strong feeling either way
• 4 - Somewhat Agree
• 5 - Strongly Agree
Participants agreed that mixed-use housing is a good solut ion to addressing Solana Beach's future housing needs at an average of 4.33. The figure below identifies a further breakdow n of responses, show ing that over half of participants strongly agreed to the above statement.

Figure C-3: Rating of M ixed-Use Housing
Dis.agree
Somewhat Disagree
No strong feeling either way
Somew hat Agree
Strongly Agree
2 City of Solana Beach
Housing Element Update, 2021-2029
Summary of Housing Element Survey
Question 4:What information (if any) would you like provided on Acressory Dwelling Urits (AOUs)? Participants were provided a multiple-choice option regarding ADU information and ask to identify what type of information they would most like the City to provide.

Figure C 4 displays the data results of question 4. Participants identified information on Pre-approved floorplans as the highest priority while information on what an ADU is was the least requested.

Participants showed a variety interest on information on "how to build an ADU" and not wanting any information.

Pre-a pp roved
floorplans
44%
Figure C-4: Information on ADU's
How do I build
one?
L 20%
4%
Question 5: What types of housing for special need groups are needed within Solana Beach? The survey provided participants with the following multiple-choice options: Senior living, Student Housing, Transitional/Supportive Housing, and Assisted Living. Participants were asked to select all housing types which are needed for special needs groups in Solana Beach.

Figure C-5 displays survey results for question 5. The data shows that majority of the participants were the most interested in senior living housing. Participants showed a mixed interest in Transitional/Supportive Housing and Assisted Living while participants were least interested in student housing.
3 City of Solana Beach
Housing Element Update, 2021-2029
Summary of Housing Element Survey
Assisted Livi~
32%
Figure C-5: Special Needs Housing Types
Other
6%
Transitional/Supporti-.e 7
Housing
12% _j
f Senior Living
') 41%
Question 6: Are there any other groups within the community with unique housing concerns that should be considered?
Participants were provided an open comment box to solicit a variety of specific responses. Participants identified housing for low-income families, as well as housing for individuals that work in Solana Beach as topic for consideration in the Housing Element.

Question 7: The Housing Element is the guiding document for housing-related decisions within the City.

This document looks at potential constraints, resources, fair housing issues, and action programs to address important topics relating to housing within the community. Knowing that, are there any additional housing-related issues or constraints that the City should review as part of this process? Participants were provided an open comment box to solicit a variety of specific responses. Participants voiced their concerns of ADU' s turning into short term rentals as well as support of development of ADU's.

Question 8: What district do you live in?
Participants were provided a list of the four districts in Solana Beach, as well as an option for those who do not reside in the City.

Figure C-6 displays results for question 8. Majority of the participants live in District 2 and there were not participants that lives in District 3. Pa rt icipants also lived in District 1 and District 4 as well as not living in the City.
4 City of Solana Beach
Housing Element Update, 2021-2029
Summary of Housing Element Survey
5 Figure C-6: Participant’s Districts
33%
44%
0%
11% 11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 I do not live in Solana Beach
ID Start time Completion time Email Language
Where do you think the City of Solana Beach should prioritize the development of housing? What types of housing would you like to see within Solana Beach? (Please select all that apply.) Please rate how much do you agree with the following statement:Mixed‐Use housing (a mixture of housing and other uses, including commercial, office, or other within the same site) is a good solu...

What information (if any) would you like provided on
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)? (Please select all that apply.)
What types of housing for special need groups are
needed within Solana Beach? (Please select all that
apply.)
Are there any other groups within thecommunity with unique housing concerns that should be considered?
The Housing Element is the guiding document for housing‐ related decisions within the city. This document looks at potential constraints, resources, fair housing issues, and actionprograms to add...

What district do you live in?Image Source: National Demographics Corporation
1 10/15/20 13 37 55 10/15/20 13 38 06 anonymous English (United TEST; TEST TEST 2 10/15/20 16 31 25 10/15/20 16 33 01 anonymous English (United Highway 101 Corridor;Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Near the Train Station
Apartments/Condos;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants) Duplexes/townhouses 5 Pre‐approved floorplans Senior Living District 4 3 10/15/20 17 15 01 10/15/20 17 21 40 anonymous English (United Near the Train Station; Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants); 5 None.; Senior Living;Assisted Living; Simplify subdivision of large parcels District 1 4 10/16/20 14 05 10 10/16/20 14 20 40 anonymous English (United I think you're going to need to utilize all of these spaces.; Single‐family units;Duplexes/townhouses;Apartments/Condos;Multi‐Generational Housing;Co‐ Housing (multiple bedrooms rented separately within one unit);Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); 5 Pre‐approved floorplans; Senior Living;Student Housing;Assisted Living; There is a lot of vacant housing in Solana Beach, especially in thebluff condo areas. I've rented in there and spoken with friends who live in them currently and hear they are about 50%
occupied. I think this is a current constraint and a constraint to future housing that might be built in Solana Beach if we don'timplement policies that discourage this. In Canada, there is atax/fee for housing that is vacant. This could be a good source of income for the city. In addition, the car parking that is required for housing here is outdated in my opinion, especially in light of climate change. District 1
5 10/16/20 15 10 08 10/16/20 15 16 05 anonymous English (United wherever possible; Single‐family units;Duplexes/townhouses;Apartments/Condos;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); 5 None.; Senior Living;StudentHousing;Transitional/Supportive Housing ; Low income families and singles! District 2 6 10/16/20 16 08 48 10/16/20 16 12 07 anonymous English (United Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Existing Residential Neighborhoods Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants) Apartments/Condos Single‐family units 4 None. Low Income District 2 7 10/17/20 10 30 41 10/17/20 10 34 20 anonymous English (United Highway 101 Corridor;Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ; Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Multi‐Generational Housing; 5 None.; Assisted Living; Affordable units for those on disability Ability to maintain available facilities to support additionalresidents. How to realize adequate park space, open space, andother recreational opportunities if we're being asked to measurably grow. District 1
8 10/17/20 21 41 03 10/17/20 21 45 40 anonymous English (United Existing Residential Neighborhoods; Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs);Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants); 5 Pre‐approved floorplans;How do I build one?; Senior Living;Transitional/Supportive Housing
;Assisted Living; District 2
9 10/18/20 14 11 50 10/18/20 14 13 31 anonymous English (United Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Existing Residential Neighborhoods Near the Train Station
Apartments/Condos;Multi‐Generational Housing;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants) 4 None. Senior Living Assisted Living I do not live in Solana Beach 10 10/19/20 9 05 35 10/19/20 9 10 28 anonymous English (United Highway 101 Corridor;Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Near the Train Station;Existing Residential Neighborhoods;City‐OwnedParcels;There are many avenues of opportunity to allow for theneeded housing. More favorable mixed‐use zoning in commercialareas, along with relaxations for granny flat or duplex type builds inthe more traditional residential areas.

Single‐family units;Duplexes/townhouses;Apartments/Condos;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Multi‐Generational Housing 5 Pre‐approved floorplans Senior Living Assisted Living homes for blue collar workers, and blue collar
salaries ‐ restaurant workers, etc...
if a site is constrained either by physical properties and/or economic qualities from a build for low income housing to come to fruition, the City should be realistic with that and honest in where they are identifying where this type of housing canactually be built. District 2 11 10/24/20 9 00 07 10/24/20 9 28 43 anonymous English (United Please hold another public workshop now that the map is available.;Highway 101 Corridor;Existing Commercial ShoppingCenters ;City‐Owned Parcels; Single‐family units;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory DwellingUnits (ADUs); 4 Pre‐approved floorplans; Senior Living;Assisted Living; Yes. Housing for special needs adults.Wondering about the impact on existing infrastructure and services such as providingmore classrooms for children especially now that classes are necessarily smaller and likely toremain so because of pandemics. Parking is essential since it is unlikely that commuters
would take the train until that service isexpanded both in frequency and destinations within the County. What is the impact on ourClimate Action Plan with this increase inhousing? Obviously the RHNA numbers address the need for affordablehousing. We don't need more luxury units. ADUs should bespecifically for this use not available for offices and vacationing family members. The ADUs should not qualify as VBRO or
AIRB&B units. District 1
12 10/24/20 9 30 16 10/24/20 9 44 28 anonymous English (United Highway 101 Corridor;Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;City‐ Owned Parcels;Near the Train Station;
Single‐family units;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory DwellingUnits (ADUs); 4 Pre‐approved floorplans; Senior Living; People who work in Solana Beach should have
priority for new housing here.

Don't change existing zoning beyond allowing ADUs.

Who will pay for the added infrastructure necessary for theadded RNHA units (schools, parks, etc.)?There are probably many unauthorized units already existing within "single family" homes. Consider an amnesty program that doesn't penalize ‐ maybe even rewards ‐ homeowners who comeout of the shadows with their existing rentals toward our RNHAtarget. District 1 13 10/28/20 10 36 17 10/28/20 10 38 25 anonymous English (United Existing Residential Neighborhoods;Near the Train Station;City‐ Owned Parcels;
Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Multi‐GenerationalHousing;Apartments/Condos;Single‐family units;Duplexes/townhouses; 4 Pre‐approved floorplans; Transitional/Supportive Housing ; The underpaid. Multi family limitations I do not live in Solana Beach 14 11/2/20 17 44 51 11/2/20 17 47 58 anonymous English (United Closer to Lomas Country Club where the traffic can be accomodatedand there is much more space Duplexes/townhouses Single‐family units 1 None. Senior Living Solana Beach is ideally sized and the density is appropriate for the area and topography. District 1
15 11/6/20 15 17 36 11/6/20 15 23 56 anonymous English (United Existing Residential Neighborhoods;City‐Owned Parcels; Single‐family units;Duplexes/townhouses;Apartments/Condos;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs);Multi‐Generational Housing; 5 Pre‐approved floorplans;How do I build one?; Senior Living;StudentHousing;Transitional/Supportive Housing ;Assisted Living;
Existing property owners that may want to split
their land yet are not allowed to do so. Allow
flag lots again. Waive fees for ADU's and offerfree plans. Make the setbacks less restrictive.

Ease requirements, approve faster, offer incentives, and beeasier to work with. District 2 16 11/6/20 16 01 12 11/6/20 16 02 56 anonymous English (United Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Highway 101 Corridor; Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); 5 What is an ADU?;How do I build one?;Pre‐approvedfloorplans; Assisted Living; District 2 17 11/6/20 16 43 10 11/6/20 16 48 12 anonymous English (United Near the Train Station; Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs);Apartments/Condos; 5 How do I build one?;Pre‐approved floorplans; Senior Living;Assisted Living; Make is easier and simpler to build AUD. Encourage people thru incentives. Also, maintain the ability to enable homeowner to use their property for short term rentals. It is NOT a problem in our community and provides the city income and our businesses customers. District 2
18 11/12/20 12 59 56 11/12/20 13 27 27 anonymous English (United Highway 101 Corridor;Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Near the Train Station
Single‐family units;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Accessory DwellingUnits (ADUs) Duplexes/townhouses 3 Pre‐approved floorplans How do I build one? Senior Living Would like to see more people living close to
work, to minimize commute. Those include
people working in Solana beach on permanentjobs, such as fire fighters, police, teachers, other local government employees and youngprofessionals.

Land cost, lack of available vacant land, high construction costs for coastal areas. District 2
19 11/12/20 19 06 01 11/12/20 19 21 16 anonymous English (United Highway 101 Corridor;City‐Owned Parcels;Existing Commercial Shopping Centers ;Near the Train Station;
Apartments/Condos;Mixed‐use (apartments next to stores and restaurants);Duplexes/townhouses; 4 None.; Senior Living;Assisted Living; City of Solana Beach workers and public school
teachers should have places to live near work.

I’m concerned that ADUs or apartments built in or over garages will become short term rentals, taking them out of the available long term housing stock and leading to a degradation of single family residential areas and a loss of the sense of community dueto constant turnover. District 4 Solana Beach Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Community Survey

1. Where do you think the City of Solana Beach should prioritize the development of housing? Forms Solana Beach Housing Element Update (20… - Saved MM 19 Responses
07:59
Average time to complete
Active
Status
Highway 101 Corridor 8
Existing Commercial Shopping… 10
Existing Residential Neighbor… 6
City-Owned Parcels 6
Near the Train Station 9
Other 6
Microsoft Forms Page 1 of 4
https://forms.microsoft.com/Pages/DesignPage.aspx 11/25/2020 •
•
•
•
•
•
?o

2. What types of housing would you like to see within Solana Beach? (Please select all that apply.)

3. Please rate how much do you agree with the following statement: Mixed-Use housing (a mixture of housing and other uses, including commercial, office, or other within the same site) is a good solution to addressing Solana Beach's future housing needs. 1 - Disagree 2 - Somewhat Disagree 3 - No strong feeling either way 4 - Somewhat Agree 5 - Strongly Agree Image Source: Solana 101

4. What information (if any) would you like provided on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)? (Please select all that apply.)
Single-family units 10
Duplexes/townhouses 9
Apartments/Condos 10
Mixed-use (apartments next t… 16
Accessory Dwelling Units (AD… 10
Multi-Generational Housing 6
Co-Housing (multiple bedroo… 1
Other 1

4.33 Average Number
Insights
18 Responses
What is an ADU? 1
How do I build one? 5
Pre-approved floorplans 11
None. 7
Other 1
Microsoft Forms Page 2 of 4
https://forms.microsoft.com/Pages/DesignPage.aspx 11/25/2020 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

5. What types of housing for special need groups are needed within Solana Beach? (Please select all that apply.)

6. Are there any other groups within the community with unique housing concerns that should be considered?

7. The Housing Element is the guiding document for housing-related decisions within the city. This document looks at potential constraints, resources, fair housing issues, and action programs to address important topics relating to housing within the community. Knowing that, are there any additional housing-related issues or constraints that the City should review as part of this process? Senior Living 14
Student Housing 3
Transitional/Supportive Housi… 4
Assisted Living 11
Other 2
Latest Responses
"City of Solana Beach workers and public school teachers should have pl… "Would like to see more people living close to work, to minimize commu… 11 Responses
Latest Responses
"I’m concerned that ADUs or apartments built in or over garages will bec… "Land cost, lack of available vacant land, high construction costs for coas… "Make is easier and simpler to build AUD. Encourage people thru incenti… 13 Responses
Microsoft Forms Page 3 of 4
https://forms.microsoft.com/Pages/DesignPage.aspx 11/25/2020 •
•
•
•
•

8. What district do you live in? Image Source: National Demographics Corporation District 1 6
District 2 8
District 3 0
District 4 2
I do not live in Solana Beach 2
Microsoft Forms Page 4 of 4
https://forms.microsoft.com/Pages/DesignPage.aspx 11/25/2020 •
•
•
•
•
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-42
C.5 City Council Study Session Notes
The City held a City Council Study Session on October 28, 2020. This section contains all associated materials of the study session.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING

AUTHORITY, HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, October 28, 2020 * 6:00 p.m.

Teleconference Location Only-City Hall/Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California This meeting was conducted in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 related to the COVID-19 virus.

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Jewel Edson, Mayor
Judy Hegenauer, Deputy Mayor Kristi Becker, Councilmember Kelly Harless, Councilmember David A. Zito, Councilmember Gregory Wade
City Manager
Johanna Canlas
City Attorney
Angela Ivey
City Clerk
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

Mayor Edson called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m.

Present: Jewel Edson, Judy Hegenauer, Kristi Becker, Kelly Harless, David A. Zito

Absent: None
Also
Present
Greg Wade, City Manager
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney
Angela Ivey, City Clerk
Dan King, Assistant City Manager
Mo Sammak, City Engineer/Public Works Dir.

Rodney Greek, Interim Finance Dir.

Joseph Lim, Community Development Dir.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) - Voice of San Diego v. City of Solana Beach & Does (Case No. 37-2020-00024389-CU-WM-NC) Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, reported that the City Council, by a vote of 5-0, authorized the City Manager to execute the settlement agreement resolving litigation. The material terms include: Voice of San Diego will dismiss the action with prejudice in exchange for consideration in the amount of $16,474.06 and revision to Administrative Policy #32 extending email retention to 2 years before emails are automatically deleted from the City’s mail server.

FLAG SALUTE:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Mayor Edson to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Edson, Hegenauer, Becker, Harless, and Zito. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 2 of 8 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items relating to City business and not appearing on today’s agenda by having submitted written comments for the record to be filed with the record or by registering to join the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda.

Comments relating to items on this evening’s agenda are taken at the time the items are heard. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action shall be taken by the City Council on public comment items. Council may refer items to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

Lisa Montes spoke about her opposition to Measure S on the upcoming election, that La Colonia de Eden Garden successfully fought to rid its community of drugs in the 1980’s, having family affected by drugs in the past, and marijuana being a gateway to heavier drug use.

COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTARY:

An opportunity for City Council to make brief announcements or report on their activities. These items are not agendized for official City business with no action or substantive discussion.

A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Action Items) (A.1. - A.5.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted in a single action of the City Council unless pulled for discussion.

A.1. Minutes of the City Council.

Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve the Minutes of the following City Council meetings, September 9 and September 23, 2020.

Approved Minutes http://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=F0F1200D-21C6-4A88-8AE1- 0BC07C1A81A7&Type=B BASIC
Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Councilmember Harless to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Edson, Hegenauer, Becker, Harless, and Zito. Noes:

None. Motion carried unanimously.

A.2. Register of Demands. (File 0300-30)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Ratify the list of demands for September 26, 2020 – October 9, 2020.

Item A.2. Report (click here)
Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Councilmember Harless to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Edson, Hegenauer, Becker, Harless, and Zito. Noes:

None. Motion carried unanimously.

A.3. General Fund Adopted Budget Changes for Fiscal Year 2020/21. (File 0330-30) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the report listing changes made to the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 General Fund Adopted Budget.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Item A.3. Report (click here)
Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Councilmember Harless to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Edson, Hegenauer, Becker, Harless, and Zito. Noes:

None. Motion carried unanimously.

A.4. Closing City Hall Between the Christmas and New Year’s Holidays. (File 0110-75)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2020-138 authorizing the closure of City Hall and all nonpublic safety facilities on Monday, December 28th, Tuesday, December 29th, and Wednesday, December 30th for miscellaneous, confidential and management employees, and approve 12-hours of additional leave to the fire employees’ leave banks and 24-hours of additional leave to the marine safety employees’ leave banks.

Item A.4. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Councilmember Harless to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Edson, Hegenauer, Becker, Harless, and Zito. Noes:

None. Motion carried unanimously.

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
C. STAFF REPORTS: (C.1. – C.4.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Any member of the public may address the City Council on an item of concern by submitting written correspondence for the record to be filed with the record or by registering to join the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda.

The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

C.1. 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update Discussion. (File 0610-10) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Discuss and provide guidance regarding the Draft Housing Element Update.

Item C.1. Report (click here)
Item C.1. Supplemental Docs (Updated 10-28 at 525pm)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Greg Wade, City Manager, introduced the item.

Joe Lim, Community Development Dir., presented a PowerPoint (on file).

Council and Staff discussed the November 12th public workshop, identification and Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 4 of 8 modification of sites, affordable/junior accessory dwelling units (ADUs), parking requirements and calculation of ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) towards meeting the housing needs allocation.

Shawna McGarry said she submitted a letter prior to the meeting with most of her comments, that the challenge to locate space for 875 units was difficult and that some of the methodology and data did not make sense for such a small town, and that she supported a housing seminar on ADUs to educate the community.

Tracy Richmond spoke about the lack of funds to build local affordable housing, the State needing to return funds/abilities to cities that was taken away years ago, difficulty in solving at a local level, and the need to equitably distribute the needed units between different sides of town.

Greg Wade, City Manager, responded to some public comments stating that the map was based primarily on existing multi-family zoning, that fewer areas on the east side of town were zoned for multi-family, that the funding of affordable housing was challenging due to the elimination of Redevelopment, as well as small lots, high land values and limited vacant land.

Council and Staff discussed site development, sites east of I-5 such as the shopping center, flexibility of site locations, affordable units in commercial zones that would allow for residential, the census data, high vacancy rate and low overcrowding factors that impact housing allocations, and ADUs allowed within Home Owner Associations (HOA).

Council, Staff, and Consultant (Nick Chen, Kimley-Horn) discussed the census data used by SANDAG, that overcrowding assessments are often due to the number of households that are primary residences rather than second homes and the number of people per household, and how each housing cycle affected a new allocation process.

Council discussed considering identifying the Vons shopping center for potential affordable housing, avoiding zoning changes to meet housing allocations, the disproportionate allocation between different cities, affordable requirement of 20 units per acre, goal of housing or units (i.e. vacation rentals) from Housing and Community Development (HCD), HOA’s ability to restrict but not prohibit ADUs, and concern for number of units identified in southwest quadrant of City.

Greg Wade, City Manager, stated that he understood direction and Staff would review some slight revisions to the map/list including looking at the East side, staff would further research ADU development, and that public comment would be received at the November 12th public workshop.

C.2. Senate Bill 1383 Organic Waste Requirements and Impacts. (File 1030-50) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive a presentation from Staff on SB 1383 and provide direction to Staff as appropriate. Direction could include to draft regulations and ordinances as required by SB 1383 for Council to consider and to explore options to COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 28, 2020
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development
SUBJECT: 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Discussion
BACKGROUND:

The Housing Element is a State-mandated policy document. The Housing Element is required by State Housing law to be updated every eight years. The City’s current Housing Element is for the 5th Cycle planning period which covers 2013-2021. The next planning period is the 6th Cycle which covers 2021-2029.

Housing Element Law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.

All California municipalities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-65590) to adopt a Housing Element as part of their General Plan.

Distinct from the other General Plan elements, the Housing Element is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

This item is before the City Council to discuss and provide guidance regarding the Draft Housing Element Update.

DISCUSSION:

AGENDA ITEM C.1. I
October 28, 2020
6th Cycle Housing Element Update Discussion

Page 2 of 4 ends

The Housing Element is a guiding document that is used to implement goals, policies, objectives and programs that further the development of housing for all income levels in the City. The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory Elements of the General Plan that identifies ways to address housing needs of current and future residents.

As mandated by state law, the City is required to include specific content within the Housing Element in an effort to provide each jurisdiction’s “fair share” of regional housing needs. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for preparing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for all jurisdictions within the SANDAG region. For the 6th Cycle planning period (April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029), the City of Solana Beach was allocated a total 875 units, including 316 very low-income units, 159 low-income units, 160 moderate income units, and 240 above-moderate income units.

The City has conducted two workshops (March 5, 2020 and October 15, 2020), during which, City Staff and Kimley-Horn Associates, the City’s Housing Element consultant, updated the community about the State’s requirements for the Housing Element Update process and solicited input from the community regarding various housing challenges, facilitation of housing programs, and housing opportunities within the community.

Comments received from the community and City Council have contributed to the draft Housing Plan section of the Housing Element which lays out the goals, policies and programs aimed to facilitate housing development in the community.

The draft Housing Element also includes a map and list of candidate sites where the housing for each income category could be developed. After review and evaluation of the City’s existing zoning and General Plan land use capacity, it has been determined that the City can accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation through a variety of methods and among the candidate sites identified without the need to rezone any properties in the City. While the City has very little vacant/undeveloped land, the draft Housing Element identifies vacant and City-owned properties suitable for development of housing, identifies additional capacity on existing residentially zoned and commercially zoned sites, and identifies future development capacity for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) throughout the City. Details of this analysis are contained in Appendix B – Candidate Sites Analysis of the Housing Element.

Sites identified to meet the City’s very-low and low income housing categories were selected based on factors established by the State (AB 1397), which include a default density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a minimum parcel size of ½ acre, but not greater than 10 acres. There were some exceptions to the minimum parcel size requirement either where there had been examples of recent development on similarly sized sites or where sites were identified as having common ownership to adjacent parcels that could possibly be combined into suitable site for housing or mixed use development. Due to City’s existing land use and zoning designations, the candidate sites analysis resulted in a greater concentration of very low and low-income housing sites being located in the southwestern quadrant of the City, where higher density zoning designations currently exist.

October 28, 2020
6th Cycle Housing Element Update Discussion

Page 3 of 4 ends

For moderate-income and above moderate-income housing, sites were identified based on properties that had the greatest possibility to be redeveloped on existing medium- and low-density zoned properties. In most instances, the sites identified would allow for development of one or more units based on the permitted densities.

As noted in the draft Housing Element, the RHNA allocation of residential units by income category is summarized in the following table:

The draft Housing Element is being made available for public comment on October 22, 2020 through November 23, 2020. Comments from the public and City Council will be incorporated into the final draft of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element which is scheduled to be forwarded to HCD in December 2020. HCD will provide comments to the final draft within 60 days of City submittal. Based on HCD comments, edits will be made for final consideration and adoption by City Council prior to April 15, 2021.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

This discussion item is not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this item.

Table, s-1: summaiy ,of Rlil NA status and sites 11nventory Extremely Aibov,e, Low/ Low Moderate Modlerafe Total
Vrerv Low llncome lrncom.e lrncome llncome
202 1-202.9 R 3 16 159 160 2 875
R NA C redit IU s Built) 2 2.

Total RHNA Oblig;afions 316, 159' 160 23& 873
Sites Availabll'e
91 Re -d e Zoned
23 44 107
rope es
Exist ing Com e c yZoned :506 - 1 680
operties
Total Pofe rnfiall Capa:cily llased on 529 44 224 757 Existirn g GP ,a n.d Zorning Acc-essory Dw e lli g U
d c t ion 43 120 29 192
Total Siles Available 572 16.4 253 9"49
Potential Un i't S urpl'u,s. '97 A u 7 1,
October 28, 2020
6th Cycle Housing Element Update Discussion

Page 4 of 4 ends

OPTIONS:

City Council may wish to consider including any number of policies that would further housing development. The following are a list of items that City Council may consider:
 Suggest, modify, and/or comment on candidate sites.
 Incentives to encourage affordable ADU construction.
 Less restrictive development standards for ADU development.  Explore zoning modifications that would support ADU and affordable housing development.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide guidance regarding the Draft Housing Element Update.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Legislative Fact Sheet

2. SANDAG RHNA Allocation Per Income Category

3. Solana Beach Candidate Housing Sites

4. Draft Housing Element Update
From: Shawna McGarry
To: EMAIL GRP-City Clerk"s Ofc
Subject: Cool Article on ADU opportunities
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 4:19:08 PM
Hello Angela,
This might be of interest to Council/Staff with regard to ADUs, https://www.dwell.com/article/tiny-home-no-cost-construction-roundup-c58d3abe.

Thanks!
Shawna
CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-52
C.6 City Council Study Session #2 Notes
The City held a City Council Study Session on March 24, 2021. This section contains all associated materials of the study session.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY

ACTION AGENDA
The Action Agenda of the City Council Meeting is a document provided immediately following the Council Meeting in order for staff and the public to be aware of the business transacted and actions taken by Council. This is a preliminary draft and not a public record. The meeting’s legal record is the Minutes approved by the City Council.

Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, March 24, 2021 * 6:00 p.m.

Teleconference Location Only-City Hall/Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California This meeting will be conducted in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 related to the COVID-19 virus.

MEETING LOCATION WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Due to the Executive Order to stay home, in person participation at City Council meetings will not be allowed at this time. In accordance with the Executive Order to stay home, there will be no members of the public in attendance at Council Meetings. Alternatives to in-person attendance for viewing and participating in City Council meetings are being provided under provided below.

AGENDA MATERIALS
A full City Council agenda packet including relative supporting documentation is posted online www.cityofsolanabeach.org Closed Session Agendas are posted at least 72 hours prior to regular meetings and at least 24 hours prior to special meetings.

WATCH THE MEETING
• Live web-streaming: Meetings web-stream live on the City’s website on the City’s Public Meetings webpage. Find the large Live Meeting button.
• Live Broadcast on Local Govt. Channel: Meetings are broadcast live on Cox Communications - Channel 19 / Spectrum (Time Warner)-Channel 24 / AT&T U-verse Channel 99. • Archived videos online: The video taping of meetings are maintained as a permanent record and contain a detailed account of the proceedings. Council meeting tapings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s Public Meetings webpage.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
o Written correspondence (supplemental items) regarding an agenda item at an open session meeting should be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] with a) Subject line to include the meeting date b) Include the Agenda Item # as listed on the Agenda. o Correspondence received after the official posting of the agenda, but before 3:00 p.m. (or 3 hrs. prior to the meeting start time) on the meeting day, will be distributed to Council and made available online along with the agenda posting. All submittals received before the start of the meeting will be made part of the record.
o Written submittals will be added to the record and not read out loud. o The designated location for viewing supplemental documents is on the City’s website www.cityofsolanabeach.org on the posted Agenda under the relative Agenda Item.

OR
Verbal comment participation: If you wish to provide a live verbal comment during the meeting, attend the virtual meeting via your computer or call in.

Before Meeting
o Sign up (register) to speak at the virtual meeting for the Zoom webinar as early as possible and at least 3 hours prior to the start of the meeting so that Staff can manage the speaker list.

Public Participation Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN MuqaK8NYR1urX4Ly83IxIg -Follow the prompts to enter your name and email address and identify the item you are speaking on. o Join the meeting by locating your confirmation email, that was sent immediately following registration, which will provide your log-in link.
o Join/Log-In to the meeting at least 15 minutes prior to the start time so that the City Clerk can verify you are ready to speak before the meeting begins.
o If your computer does not have a mic to speak or you have sound issues, you can use the call-in audio information (Zoom ID, Participant ID) from a landline or cell phone to join the meeting for the audio accessibility.
o If you call in as well for better audio, mute your computer's speakers to eliminate feedback so that you do not have two audios competing when you are speaking.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 8 During Meeting:
o Choose Gallery View to see the presentations, when applicable. o Participants will be called upon from those who have Registered and their name is identified by the City Clerk calling from the registration list. You will be called on by name and unmuted by the meeting organizer and then you may provide comments for the allotted time. Allotted speaker times are listed under each Agenda section.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED - AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT TITLE 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Section 202. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s office (858) 720-2400 [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Lesa Heebner, Mayor
Kristi Becker
Deputy Mayor
Kelly Harless
Councilmember
David A. Zito
Councilmember
District 1
Jewel Edson
Councilmember
District 3
Gregory Wade
City Manager
Johanna Canlas
City Attorney
Angela Ivey
City Clerk
SPEAKERS:

See Public Participation on the first page of the Agenda for publication participation options.

READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:

Pursuant to Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 2.04.460, at the time of introduction or adoption of an ordinance or adoption of a resolution, the same shall not be read in full unless after the reading of the title, further reading is requested by a member of the Council. If any Councilmember so requests, the ordinance or resolution shall be read in full. In the absence of such a request, this section shall constitute a waiver by the council of such reading.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

FLAG SALUTE:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 8 COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTARY:

An opportunity for City Council to make brief announcements or report on their activities. These items are not agendized for official City business with no action or substantive discussion.

A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Action Items) (A.1. - A.8.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted in a single action of the City Council unless pulled for discussion.

The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

Those items removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the Council will be trailed to the end of the agenda, while Consent Calendar items removed by the public will be discussed immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar.

A.1. Minutes of the City Council.

Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve the Minutes of the February 24, 2021 City Council meetings.

Approved Minutes http://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=F0F1200D-21C6-4A88-8AE1-0BC07C1A81A7&Type=B BASIC COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
A.2. Register Of Demands. (File 0300-30)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Ratify the list of demands for February 20, 2021– March 05, 2021.

Item A.2. Report (click here)
COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
A.3. General Fund Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2020/21. (File 0330-30) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the report listing changes made to the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 General Fund Adopted Budget.

Item A.3. Report (click here)
COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
.

A.4. Housing Element Annual Progress Report (File 0610-10) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-032 approving the 2020 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and the 2019/20 Housing Successor Annual Report as submitted and direct City Staff to file the report with the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 4 of 8 Item A.4. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
A.5. Destruction of Obsolete Records. (File 0170-50)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-036 authorizing the destruction of officially obsolete records.

Item A.5. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
A.6. National Wildlife Federation’s Mayors’ Monarch Pledge. (File 0480-75) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-034 authorizing the Mayor to Sign the National Wildlife Federation’s Mayors’ Monarch Pledge.

Item A.6. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
A.7. Temporary Art Compensation Increase (File 0910-41) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-035 authorizing a modification to the Temporary Public Arts Program artist compensation from $500 to $1,500 for a one-year loan.

Item A.7. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
A.8. SEA Long-Term Renewable Power Purchase. (File 1010-45) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve Resolution 2021-039 authorizing the City Manager to execute a long-term power purchase agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Shell Energy to satisfy SEA’s long-term procurement obligation under SB 350.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 5 of 8 Item A.8. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (B.1. – B.2.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

An applicant or designee(s) for a private development/business project, for which the public hearing is being held, is allotted a total of fifteen minutes to speak, as per SBMC 2.04.210. A portion of the fifteen minutes may be saved to respond to those who speak in opposition. All other speakers have three minutes each.

After considering all of the evidence, including written materials and oral testimony, the City Council must make a decision supported by findings and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

B.1. Public Hearing: 537 North Granados Ave., Applicant: Gladnick, Case DRP20-005/SDP20-009. (File 0600-40)
The proposed project meets the minimum zoning requirements under the SBMC, may be found to be consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2021-033 conditionally approving a DRP and SDP to demolish a single family residence, construct a replacement two-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage and single carport, and perform associated site improvements at 537 North Granados Avenue, Solana Beach.

Item B.1. Report (click here)
Item B.1. Updated Report #1 (added 3-24 at 4:30pm)
Item B.1. Supplemental Docs (added 3-24 at 1:26pm)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0 with the update d landscape plan and additional language that states conditions would not supersede the conditions of the City’s water efficient landscape regulations.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 6 of 8 B.2. Solana Energy Alliance Rate Schedule. (File 1010-45) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Adopt Resolution 2021-038 amending the rate schedule for Solana Energy Alliance.

Item B.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
C. STAFF REPORTS: (C.1. – C.2.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

C.1. 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update Status. (File 0610-10)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Provide comments and direction on the proposed Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update changes.

Item C.1. Report (click here)
Item C.1. Updated Report #1 (added 3-24 at 10:00am)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Discussion.

C.2. La Colonia Park/Fletcher Cove Park Playground Design. (File 0720-30, 0730-40) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-030 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $111,250, with Van Dyke Landscape Architects for design of a new playground at La Colonia Park and design of new playground equipment at Fletcher Cove Park.

Item C.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved 5/0
Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 7 of 8 WORK PLAN COMMENTS:

Adopted June 12, 2019
COMPENSATION & REIMBURSEMENT DISCLOSURE:

GC: Article 2.3. Compensation: 53232.3. (a) Reimbursable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, meals, lodging, and travel. 53232.3 (d) Members of a legislative body shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency “City” at the next regular meeting of the legislative body.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Committees
REGIONAL COMMITTEES: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) a. City Selection Committee (meets twice a year) Primary-Heebner, Alternate-Edson b. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) JPA: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito c. County Service Area 17: Primary- Harless, Alternate-Edson d. Escondido Creek Watershed Authority: Becker /Staff (no alternate). e. League of Ca. Cities’ San Diego County Executive Committee: Primary-Becker, AlternateHarless. Subcommittees determined by its members. f. League of Ca. Cities’ Local Legislative Committee: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker g. League of Ca. Cities’ Coastal Cities Issues Group (CCIG): Primary-Becker, AlternateHarless h. North County Dispatch JPA: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker i. North County Transit District: Primary-Edson, Alternate-Harless j. Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA): Primary-Harless, Alternate-Zito k. SANDAG: Primary-Heebner, 1
st Alternate-Zito, 2nd Alternate-Edson. Subcommittees
determined by its members.
l. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito m. San Dieguito River Valley JPA: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker n. San Elijo JPA: Primary-Zito, Primary-Becker, Alternate-City Manager o. 22nd Agricultural District Association Community Relations Committee: Primary-Edson, Primary-Heebner
STANDING COMMITTEES: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees) a. Business Liaison Committee – Zito, Edson.
b. Fire Dept. Management Governance & Organizational Evaluation – Harless, Edson c. Highway 101 / Cedros Ave. Development Committee – Edson, Heebner d. Parks and Recreation Committee – Zito, Harless
e. Public Arts Committee – Edson, Heebner
f. School Relations Committee – Becker, Harless
g. Solana Beach-Del Mar Relations Committee – Heebner, Edson

CITIZEN COMMISSION(S)
a. Climate Action Commission: Primary-Zito, Alternate-Becker ADJOURN:

Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting is April 14, 2021
Always refer the City’s website Event Calendar for Special Meetings or an updated schedule.

Or Contact City Hall 858-720-2400
www.cityofsolanabeach.org
Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Actions March 24, 2021 Page 8 of 8

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
§
I, Angela Ivey, City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, do hereby certify that this Agenda for the March 24, 2021 Council Meeting was called by City Council, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Public Financing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Solana Beach, California, was provided and posted on March 17, 2021 at 1:20 p.m. on the City Bulletin Board at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Said meeting is held at 6:00 p.m., May 24, 2021, in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California.

Angela Ivey, City Clerk * City of Solana Beach, CA
CITIZEN CITY COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS:

Regularly Scheduled, or Special Meetings that have been announced, are posted on each Citizen Commission’s Agenda webpage. See the Citizen Commission’s Agenda webpages or the City’s Events Calendar for updates.
o Budget & Finance Commission
o Climate Action Commission
o Parks & Recreation Commission
o Public Arts Commission
o View Assessment Commission
}
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-61
C.7 Community Workshop #3
This section contains all available public comments provided during the third Community Workshop, as well as, provided workshop materials and handouts. Public comments were received in written and oral form.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Community Meeting
The City of Solana Beach is hosting a Community Meeting following the release of the City's Public Review Draft Housing Element. Please join us to discuss the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element and ask any questions you have.

WHEN: November 12th, 6 p.m.

WHERE: Please visit [www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us] for a link to access the Community Meeting.

For questions, please contact Joseph Lim at (858) 720-2434 or by email at [email protected].

Ciudad de Solana Beach
Reunion Comunitaria de Actualizaci6n
del Elemento Vivi end a 2021-202 9
La Ciudad de Solana Beach esta organizando una reunion comunitaria despues de la publicacion del Borrador de Revision Publica del Elemento Vivienda. Por favor unase a nosotros para discutir el borrador del Elemento Vivienda 2021-2029 y hacer cualquier
pregunta que tenga.

CU.ANDO: 12 de Noviembre, 6 p.m.

DONDE: Por favor visite [www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us] para obtener un enlace para tener acceso a la reunion comunitaria.

Si tiene preguntas, comuniquese con Joseph Lim al (858) 720-2434 o [email protected].

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Page C-64
C.8 Public Comments
This section contains all available public comments provided during the Public Review Draft open comment period and any additional comments received by the City relating to the Housing Element update process. Public comments were received in writtenform.

Greg Wade
City Manager
CEDROS ••
AVENUE ••
solana beach
City of Solana Beach, CA 92075
This is Sean Macleod. As you know, I have been a property owner, developer and redeveloper of commercial and residential projects in Solana Beach since 1992.
i can confirm that code requirements and development regulations have not been constraints in getting my projects in Solana Beach approved.

Sincerely,
Sean acleod
th Cedros Associates, LLC
From: Margaret Walker
Date:November 10, 2020 at 4:37:30 PM PST
To:Joseph Lim >
Cc: Judi Strang < >, Barbara Gordon <
Subject:Housing Element Workshop #3

To:

RE: Smoke-free/Vape-free Policies in Solana Beach Housing Element Update

As work continues on updating the city’s housing element plan, San Dieguito Alliance for Drug Free Youth would like to respectfully recommend that the city adopt and enforce a comprehensive smokefree/vape-free ordinance for multifamily housing (MUH) properties as part of the Housing Element Update 2021-2029.

We fully support the suggestion of Dr. Wilma J. Wooten, Public Health Officer and Director for San Diego County, that all cities, including Solana Beach, consider such an ordinance and incorporate language into Housing Element goals and policies to:

Reduce secondhand and thirdhand smoke and vapor death and disability, and that such policy "cover all exclusive-use areas, exterior areas (such as private balconies and decks) and interior unit spaces, as well as common areas not already covered by state law."

We believe this action is critical as it will impact housing developed in the city over the next nine years far for all income levels.

As Dr. Wooten pointed out, this action provides an opportunity to increase health equity for all residents, sparing them exposure to harmful chemicals from secondhand smoke/vapor and its lingering residues (thirdhand smoke/vapor). Inclusion of the wording vape-free will spare MUH occupants from chemicals and vapor resulting from vaping aerosols, known to be equally as harmful as secondhand smoke.

The U.S. Surgeon General has stated there is no safe level of secondhand smoke and the risk of harm is most acute in MUH. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Peggy Walker
San Dieguito Alliance for Drug Free Youth
Public Health Educator
Solana Beach Resident
-
From: Peggy Walker >
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 8:21 AM
To:Joseph Lim >
Subject: Re Housing Update
Hello Joe,
Thanks for a great public workshop last week on the Housing Element Update. In checking with the county, it appears a letter from Dr. Wilma Wooten, the County’s Public Health Officer, regarding Smoke-free Multi Unit Housing (MUH) policy was sent to Solana Beach but it went to Greg Wade -- and that was back in August. I can understand that with all the fray around putting such a complicated plan together it may have missed your desk or been overlooked.

I’ve attached below Dr. Wooten’s August 7th letter to the City below for your information, and do so with all due respect for the work that’s been done.

Our organization and others associated with the San Diego County Tobacco Coalition are concerned about the adverse health effects of secondhand and thirdhand smoke on MUH residents, especially the low-income populations targeted. In a move toward environmental equity, many cities including Berkeley, Long Beach and Pasadena have already implemented exemplary smoke-free policies that may be of interest to you.

Another aspect of social equity associated with smoke-free MUH policies is that those of lower income levels and/or families with children disproportionately live in MUH complexes. I've attached a sample smoke-free ordinance for your perusal.

Thank you again, for considering smoke-free MUH policy as you move forward.

Please let me know if I can provide you with further information regarding the value of smoke-free MUH.

Regards,
Peggy Walker
San Dieguito Alliance for Drug Free Youth
Public Health Educator, Youth Program Development
San Diego County Tobacco Control Coalition
Letter from Dr. Wooten to City of Solana Beach
August 7, 2020

TO: Greg Wade
City Manager
FROM: Wilma J. Wooten, M.D., M.P.H.,
Public Health Officer & Director, Public Health Services

RE: Smoke-free Housing in Housing Element Update

As the Public Health Officer for the San Diego County, I am contacting you to discuss your City’s mandated housing element update. The update of the housing element is an opportunity to increase health equity by ensuring all residents live in safe and healthy conditions. As the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has stated, in its recent guidance on environmental justice in general plans, exposure to harmful chemicals from secondhand smoke and its lingering residues (thirdhand smoke) is a threat to safe housing. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, which annually causes an estimated 41,000 deaths by people who do not smoke. The risk of harm is most acute in multifamily housing, where drifting smoke from one person can contaminate many living units and is expensive and difficult to clean up.

As you work on updating your housing element, we would ask that you consider incorporating the following language into your goals and policies:

To reduce secondhand and thirdhand smoke death and disability, adopt and enforce a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance for multifamily housing properties that covers all exclusive-use areas, both exterior areas (such as private balconies and decks) and interior unit spaces, as well as common areas not already covered by state law.

Attached is the document, entitled Prohibiting Smoking in Multifamily Housing: Model Language and Rationale Statement for Inclusion in General Plan Housing Elements, July 2020. This document explains the rationale for including tobacco elements in general plan housing elements. Also, included for your reference are two information fact sheets, from the California Department of Public Health, on the dangers of secondhand and thirdhand smoke.

Staff from the Public Health Services Tobacco Control Resource Program, in the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, would be happy to discuss opportunities to include tobacco protections in your city’s housing element. For further information of questions, please feel free to contact Parke Troutman at or . Additionally, San Diego County is a center of
research on thirdhand smoke. Staff would be pleased to connect you with leading local scientists if you would like a presentation on the state of current research on this topic.

Sincerely,
Wilma J. Wooten, M.D., M.P.H., Public Health Officer and Director, Public Health Services
County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency
From: Don Glatthorn >
Sent: Thursday October 15 2020 3:29 PM
To: Joseph Lim
Cc: Tiffany Wade >
Subject: Housing Element Workshop #2
Joseph,
I am the Owner and Manager for South Tracy Land Partners LLC (STLP) and VDM 383 LLC (VDM).

STLP and VDM are the tenants in common owners of the
and the vacant land on
Beach, Ca.

I have a sincere interest in furthering housing opportunit ies in north county San Diego and intend to bring a development application forward on the above referenced properties at some point in the future. I am fa irly well informed on Housing Element programs and State guidelines for incentivizing the construction of new market rate and affordable units. I also understand the ongoing controversy on RHNA allocations to small coastal cities.

My experience in developing housing is largely based on my recent and ongoing attempts to bring housing to the City of Del Mar. After seven years of effort, our Del Mar results have been a mix of good and very bad. We have been successful in gaining approval of the 941 Camino Del Mar project which will build two affordable and six market rate units with a groundbreaking of summer 2021. If interested, you can view a video of the project on the 941caminodelmar website. Unfortunately our efforts to gain approvals for the Watermark project in Del Mar have been unsuccessful to date. We remain undaunted and are continuing our efforts to seek approvals for Watermark despite the recent failure of the Del Mar City Council to amend the Community Plan allowing residential in the NC Zone and refusa l to adopt reasonable development standards to incentivize the construction of housing w hich address unique the physica l constraints of the NC Zone. All of w hich are required pursuant to the 2013 certified Del Mar Housing Element.

The Watermark project could bring 38 market rate plus 10 affordable housing units to the City of Del Mar if approvals are gained.

I provide the background on my Del Mar efforts in order to color my unique insights into the extreme housing challenges facing cities and property owners in affluent coastal communities. My experience in Del Mar highlights many challenges and include the following:

1. Many members of the public have incorrect misconceptions regarding the rea lit ies of affordable housing. Those misconceptions include: the income levels and jobs of affordable occupants, a perception of diminished property values to adjacent neighboring properties, higher traffic counts, extreme noise impacts, poor maintenance and diminished curb appeal.

2. Property owners use affordable housing law as a "get rich quick" scheme to circumvent local control.

State required development standard incentives which balance the economic challenges of integrating affordable components such as increases for FAR, height and others will ruin the character of a community in appearance and soul.

3. Affordable housing will overcrowd schools and diminish the quality of education in those schools.

All of the above are flagrantly incorrect and often times based on rumor and ignorance.

I am proud to live Solana Beach and fully support the efforts of the our Planning Department and City Council to do educate the public public on the importance and benefits of a more integrated community both socially and economically. The public outreach for the HE update has been robust and effective.

I applaud the inclusive and honest dialogue regarding housing challenges in Solana Beach and the sincere efforts of staff and City Council to incentivize new housing opportunities across all income levels.

Generally the City of Solana Beach currently establishes reasonable development standards to facilitate housing construction with the notable exception of height. About four years ago the City amended the Highway 101 Specific Plan to reduce height from three stories to two stories. In my opinion this was done without sufficient public outreach, specifically failure to notify each individual property owner. I believe the catalyst to this botched and rushed literal down zoning was the Solana 101 project. I encourage the City to revisit height measurement in the Highway 101 Specific Plan and reset it back to three stories to incentivize housing construction in mixed use projects along Highway 101.

With respect to my Solana Beach properties referenced above and the City of Solana Beach Housing Element I have the following comments.

1. I have attempted to look at the HE online and believe the reference to size and capacity may be incorrect. I emphasize MAY be incorrect because I am not 100% sure. The document is extremely large and I may be missing some things. My property consist of five different parcels APN’s Those parcels total about 27,000 SF and are ideal
candidates for redevelopment of a mixed use project with housing including an affordable component.

Please confirm the proper size and density calculations in the HE if not already correct. They very well may be correct and I am simply missing the information.

2. Please consider height amendments and reverting back to 3 stories in the Highway 101 Specific Plan area.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I appreciate your outreach for comments and sincerely appreciate our City Council for its honesty and a desire to be inclusive and do housing right.

Sincerely
Don Glatthorn
Manager
STLP and VDM
From: Rev. Gerard Lecomte CJM
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:46 AM
To:Joseph Lim <
Cc: deacon Peter
Subject: City of SB
To whom it may concern,
Joseph Lim, Community Development Director, City of Solana Beach Re: Solana Beach Housing Element Update
St. James Catholic Parish, located at 625 S. Nardo Avenue in Solana Beach, has been working with the San Diego chapter of Catholic Charities in identifying potential uses for available land we possess at the south end of our property. We would like to go on record expressing an interest in developing this land for public benefit, specifically housing to support low-income individuals. Please consider including this intention in your Housing Element Update.

Sincerely,
Fr. Gerard Lecomte
Pastor
From: Heather Dinsmore <
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 9:55 AM
To:Joseph Lim
Subject: bring flag lots back to SB
Hi, JoeRegarding the virtual workshop next week, I wanted to suggest the idea of bringing back the option to do flag lots and relaxing the restrictions for people wanting to split them. It would be a win for the landowner that could sell a portion of their property and it would create another lot that would pay property taxes.

I also love that ADU's are being allowed now and I think that SB should follow suit of some of the other local cities by offering free building plans, loosing restrictions, and waiving fees to encourage homeowners to build them.

Just my two cents. I'll try and listen in on the call. I hope that you are doing well and staying healthy.

Best,
Heather Dinsmore
247 South Rios Ave

3939 Iowa Street, Ste. 1
San Diego, CA 92104
Phone: (619) 239-6693
Fax: (619) 239-5523
www.housingsandiego.org
San Diego’s Voice for Affordable Housing
October 28, 2020
Mr. Joseph Lim
Community Development Director
City of Solana Beach
635 S. Highway 101
Solana Beach, CA
Submitted via email:

Re: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Mr. Lim:

On behalf of the San Diego Housing Federation, we are writing to provide comments and feedback on the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element for the City of Solana Beach.

The draft Housing Element contains several actionable items that will help Solana Beach make progress toward meeting its housing goals. We applaud these components of the draft Housing Element and would like to make some additional recommendations to strengthen the plan’s impact on achieving housing goals.

Implementing State Legislation
The San Diego Housing Federation was a proud co-sponsor of AB 1486, a bill that strengthened and clarified the state’s Surplus Land Act. City implementation of this bill will advance Housing Goal #1 (page 4-2) to accommodate Solana Beach’s share across all income levels.

Identifying unused City-owned sites for housing can help to ensure the City is compliant with the State Surplus Land Act and helps support the development of affordable housing.

We are pleased to see Housing Program 1J (page 4-5) included in this plan to update the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. We recommend that the City move quickly to implement AB 1763, a bill we supported which provides a density bonus for developments that are 100 percent affordable, to serve as a tool for building affordable housing. The City should also work to implement AB 2345, a bill we supported that builds on the success of the City of San Diego’s Affordable Homes Bonus Program (AHBP) by taking the program statewide. A report by Circulate San Diego, “Equity and Climate for Homes,” found that 63 percent of AHBP projects were located in high and highest resource census tracts, demonstrating the program’s role in affirmatively furthering fair housing. Just passed and signed into law this year, AB 2345 is a valuable tool to achieve the City’s housing goals.

Local funding for affordable housing
The draft Housing Element recognizes the need for funding to build housing that is affordable to low-income individuals and families. As is recognized throughout the draft Housing

SAN DIEGO

HOUSING

FEDERATION
-
San Diego’s Voice for Affordable Housing
Element, federal and state funding is a critical piece to the resources puzzle. We recommend that the Housing Element specifically include a goal to prioritize funds made available through the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), also known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), for the development of deed-restricted affordable housing. Maximizing the use of these funds to build housing for extremely low-, very low-, and moderate income households will help the City meet its RHNA obligations. Additionally, as local gap financing is critical, we encourage the City to consider dedicating former redevelopment funds, sometimes called “boomerang funds,” as a local source of funding for affordable housing.

Affirmatively furthering fair housing and equity
As noted in the housing element, the majority of the City of Solana Beach is classified as a high opportunity zone as identified by the Regional Opportunity Index (Figures 3-2, page 3-50) and the city is predominantly White with the White population 12.6 percent higher than San Diego County (page 2-3). The City of Solana Beach should take the opportunity in its Housing Element to recognize the role that the City has played in segregation on a regional level. In particular, constraints on increasing housing supply such as the Growth Management Measures described on pages 3-9 to 3-10 should be examined for their role in creating exclusion.

We recommend that the City review the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and include the recommendations and actions outlined in the report. We additionally recommend that the City work with HCD on AFFH recommendations as they relate specifically to Housing Elements and incorporate those recommendations in the plan.

Housing and Climate Change
Our September 2016 report, “Location Matters: Affordable Housing and VMT Reduction in San Diego County,” found that lower-income households are more likely to live in transit-rich areas, own fewer cars, are likely to live in larger building and smaller units, all factors that make affordable housing near transit a key greenhouse gas reduction strategy. In addition, the City’s Climate Action Plan calls for reducing average commuter trip distances (Measure T-3) and increasing commuting by mass transit (Measure T-4). However, the few mentions of the Climate Action Plan in the Housing Element are in relation to energy conservation measures and makes no mention of dense, deed-restricted affordable housing as a greenhouse gas reduction tool. We urge the City to examine the role of affordable housing in helping the City to meet both its RHNA obligations and its Climate Action Plan goals.

We thank you for consideration of our feedback and comments. We appreciate the time and effort that Planning Department staff have dedicated to the draft Housing Element document and look forward to supporting the City of Solana Beach in adopting a robust plan that will help to meet the City’s housing goals.

Sincerely,
San Diego’s Voice for Affordable Housing
Laura Nunn
Director of Policy & Programs
Santa Fe Irrigation District ~ PO Box 409 ~ 5920 Linea del Cielo ~ Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067-0409 Phone 858.756.2424 Fax 858.756.0450
www.sfidwater.org
Santa Fe Irrigation District

March 8, 2021
Gregory Wade, City Manager
City of Solana Beach
Via Email Transmission Only
Subject: City of Solana Beach 6th Cycle Housing Element - Availability of Water Supply Dear Mr. Wade,
This letter is to confirm that Santa Fe Irrigation District and its regional water supplier, the San Diego County Water Authority, have sufficient water supply to continue to serve the Solana Beach community and the additional planned 875 units over the next 8 years of the Housing Element cycle.

Please note that depending on the details of the proposed development(s), supplemental hydraulic analyses may be required to confirm the adequacy of the existing water distribution infrastructure to meet the service and fire protection requirements (set forth by the Fire Department).

Should you have any questions, please contact Engineering Services Manager, Rania Amen at (858) 227-5796.

Sincerely,
//signed//
Albert C. Lau, P. E.

General Manager
2695 Manchester Avenue ∙ P.O. Box 1077 ∙ Cardiff by the Sea ∙ CA 92007-7077 ∙ (760) 753-6203 ∙ (760) 753-5935 FAX

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Kristi Becker
Kellie Hinze
David Zito
Catherine Blakespear

ADMINISTRATION
Michael T. Thornton
General Manager
April 13, 2021
Gregory Wade
City Manager
City of Solana Beach
635 S Highway 101
Solana Beach, CA
Subject: Capacity to Provide Wastewater Service
Dear Mr. Wade,
The San Elijo Joint Powers Authority (San Elijo JPA) has reviewed the City’s inquiry for available wastewater service for 875 new housing units identified with the City’s Housing Element update. The City owns 2.625 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater treatment and disposal capacity; although, 0.425 MGD of that capacity if leased to other agencies leaving 2.2 MGD available. Currently, the City has 8,110 connected Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) that have contributed an average daily flow of 0.973 MGD to the San Elijo JPA over the last five years. The proposed 875 new dwelling units represent a potential new wastewater flow of approximately 0.105 MGD (average dry weather flow) that could increase the City’s average dry weather flow to 1.08 MGD, which is well within the City’s available capacity of 2.2 MGD.

Therefore, it is our conclusion that the City has the capacity rights for wastewater treatment and disposal/recycling for the potential addition of 875 dwelling units.

Sincerely,

SAN ELIJO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Michael T. Thornton, P.E.

General Manager
YIMBY Law
1260 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
[email protected]
04/05/2021
City Manager Gregory Wade
City of Solana Beach
635 South Highway 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Via Email
Re: Solana Beach 6th Cycle RHNA Final Draft Housing Element and March 2021 Revisions Dear Mr. Wade:

This letter is a detailed analysis of the City of Solana Beach’s 2021-2029 Final Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle RHNA. We wish to express our concern regarding a myriad of issues in that document, including the city’s public outreach efforts, the likelihood of development, forecasted ADU production and the affordability of those ADUs, AFFH, constraints on development, the site inventory, and a few other topics. Please note that we have also emailed this letter to the community development director, as well as the executive assistant for the city manager's office to be disseminated to the city council. We have also forwarded a copy of this letter and its enclosure to the city’s housing element reviewer at HCD, as well as to HCD’s Fair Housing Office in its Housing Policy Division.

Public Participation
State law requires that every city and county “shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort."1In HCD’s February 16, 2021 letter to Solana Beach, it reminds the city of this obligation. While the city reported the number of attendees to its first workshop—13 individuals—it did not report the number of attendees in either of its subsequent workshops. Assuming 13 different individuals attended all the workshops, as well as the city council study session, 52 different people attended various housing element-related events, or 0.4% of the city’s population.2 Additionally, while the city reported it circulated a Spanish-language flyer for its second and third workshops, it did not report such accommodation for any other public outreach event, nor did it report that Spanish-language translation 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program
1 Government Code § 65583(c)(7)

YIMBY LAW
services—or translation services for the 7% of city residents who speak a language other than English or Spanish in their home—were available at any of the workshops or at the council study session.3,4 Another concern about the city’s reporting of its outreach efforts is that its housing element survey only listed responses as percentages, not the actual number of responses, so it is unclear how many people truly participated. If this is incorrect and the unlabeled, unnumbered page immediately preceding Page C-6 of the housing element is the summary of survey participants, that only 19 survey responses were received is cause for alarm and an indication of a failure of this tool to produce meaningful data.5 Moreover, not a single person from Council District 3 participated in the survey; Council Districts 1 and 2 were significantly overrepresented amongst those who responded.6 This is particularly troubling because, according to Exhibit A of City of Solana Beach Ordinance 488, Council District 3 has the fewest white voters, the most immigrants, the most language diversity and isolation, the least amount of residents with graduate degrees, and the highest proportion of lower-income households.7 A simple fix to this problem would have been focused outreach to households in that district. Furthermore, when the city receives comments to its draft housing element, it must actually incorporate them into its thinking and manifest them as housing element policies and programs, or otherwise justify not doing so.

Last, it does not appear as though the City of Solana Beach made a serious effort to solicit input from key stakeholders, such as the public housing authority; affordable housing developers; civic organizations, like NAACP, LULAC, and AAPI groups; disability advocates; the area Continuum of Care; the area chamber of commerce; the area workforce development board; local and area daycares, school districts, colleges, and universities; public interest lawyers; and tenants’ rights groups, to name but a few. Any housing element that lacks solid grounding in the needs of its community is prima facie deficient and HCD should not certify such an element. To be clear, community is an inclusive term meaning those who work, live, work and live, and own property in the city, as well as and especially those who cannot afford to live in the city because of the arbitrarily exclusionary and constrained land use decisions that make the city unaffordable to lower-income households. For reference, the median home price in Solana Beach was $1,623,242 as of February 2021.8
Likelihood of Development
An accurate assessment of the site inventory’s zoned capacity is necessary in order for the housing element to support sufficient housing production. The site capacity estimate should account for the following two factors:

1. What is the likelihood that the site will be developed during the planning period?

2. If the site were to be developed during the planning period, how many net new units of housing are likely to be built on it?
8 Zillow
7 Exh bit A, Ordinance 488, City of Solana Beach
6 City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), p. 5 of Appendix C 5 Unlabeled, unnumbered page of City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), p. 158 of PDF document 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program
3 Exh bit A, Ordinance 488, City of Solana Beach

YIMBY LAW
These are the likelihood of development and net new units if developed factors, as required by HCD guidelines.9,10 The portion of the jurisdiction’s RHNA target that a site will realistically accommodate during the planning period is:
(likelihood of development) x (net new units if developed) = realistic capacity The City of Solana Beach’s site inventory identifies 82 candidate sites; only 11 of all 82 sites are vacant, and only 2 out of 53 total residential sites, both nonvacant, are appropriate to accommodate the very lowand low-income RHNA.11 These 82 sites’ total zoned capacity is 513 dwelling units for very low- and low-income households and 260 dwelling units for moderate- and above moderate-income households, or 773 total dwelling units, but there is no estimate at all of the likelihood of development.12,13 Instead, the December 2020 Final Draft Housing Element and the March 2021 revisions thereto assume all sites have a 100% probability for (re)development, which is to say the draft housing element assumes every single site will be (re)developed, with no quantitative evidence to support this assumption.

Additionally, all but 2 of the 32 very low- and low-income candidate sites are envisioned to be built on commercially zoned sites, with only 10 units of lower-income housing—out of the city’s total lower-income RHNA of 475 units and claimed total lower-income capacity of 513 units—planned on residentially zoned land.14,15 Moreover, the city claims a “development factor” of 80% for its commercial and special commercial zones, assuming that the commercial component and requisite site improvements of mixed-use projects will use only 20% of the buildable area of those sites. That such a calculation exists is proper; however, the city fails to demonstrate that this 80% factor is a verifiable, evidence-based metric.

In the one example the city provides to substantiate its past performance in nonvacant site development, only one of the four example sites includes information about the maximum number of dwelling units the site could have accommodated. Specifically, 636 Valley Avenue was redeveloped from a single-family home into a commercial use with three dwelling units.16 Since 636 Valley Avenue could have developed four dwelling units but instead only developed three, the development factor the city claims should be 75%, not 80%.17 Additionally, since there was already a residential use at this site and the number of net new units is only two, the net development factor is two out of four, or 50%. The city should include this level of detail for 625 Valley Avenue, 330 S. Cedros Avenue, and 343 S. Highway 101 if it wishes to claim a development factor greater than 75% for nonresidential nonvacant sites and 50% for residential nonvacant sites.

Nevertheless, there is no consideration for the likelihood of development that these sites will be developed during the 6th Cycle, especially considering many were not developed in the 5th Cycle. This is evidenced by the city confusing realistic capacity and likelihood of development when discussing the past redevelopment of commercial sites, for which they report “that an 80% factor is appropriate to realistically 17 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. B-3 and B-4 16 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-51 15 City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), pp. 3-3, 3-42, and 3-43 14 California Government Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
13 Tables B-1 and 3-16 were not updated to reflect the increase in zoned capacity from 756 to 773 total dwelling units between the December 2020 final draft and the March 2021 revisions. 12 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. B-2 11 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. B-9 through B-22 10 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 21
9 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 20

YIMBY LAW
gauge the residential development potential.”18 This describes realistic capacity, not the likelihood that any of these nonvacant sites would be redeveloped at all, which is made clear when they write in the next sentence, “the City has a past history of developing residential uses within the general commercial and special commercial zones at approximately 80% of the maximum capacity.”19 If this is incorrect and the city believes both its realistic capacity and likelihood of development of nonvacant sites are 80%, there is no calculation within the housing element to account for such.

Another area of concern is that the draft housing element identifies high residential zoning as a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre when, according to HCD’s Building Blocks, a suburban city within a metropolitan jurisdiction should have a lower-income density of “at least 20 dwelling units per acre.”20 Moreover, the city reported that its Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan “promotes the development of mixed-use residential and commercial uses along Highway 101 at a range of densities;” however, if those densities are less than at least 20 dwelling units per acre, they are neither in compliance with state law nor a development incentive.21
Specifically, of the 295 residential units that were forecasted to be developed on nonvacant sites in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, only 30 units in total were entitled, permitted, or constructed before June 30, 2020. Of those 30 units, 25 were assigned to a project that included five APNs, four of which were developed and one of which will remain undeveloped and available on the 6th Cycle Housing Element site inventory.22 Since the mixed-use project with 25 units used only four of five APNs, we credit that site as only 80% developed, before applying the development factor, and, thus, reduce for the following calculation the number of units from 25 to 20. That said, the aggregate amount of units developed on nonvacant sites was 25, out of a total of 295 dwelling units of total zoned capacity—just 8.475%.

Therefore, the 6th Cycle Housing Element should be bound to the local, evidence-based trend of

8.475% of all nonvacant sites in the site inventory being redeveloped, which would, consequently, require the city to identify enough parcels where the RHNA target can be achieved, whether through rezoning existing sites or expanding the site inventory. If the city were to realistically plan for 475 very low- and low-income units during the 6th Cycle, it would need to identify sites to plan for 5,605 units, based on its own data that support such a statistically low likelihood of development.

For instance, 100 Border Avenue, which is Site 4.46 on the site inventory, is a two-story commercial building on a 0.60-acre site.23 There are currently no residential units at this site, and the site inventory identifies it as appropriate for 20 dwelling units per acre, which would support affordable housing in a suburban city within a metropolitan area, so long as that is at least 20 dwelling units per acre, not a maximum of 20 dwelling units an acre. The site inventory properly applies a development factor of 80% to satisfy curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, setbacks, and other improvements, which results in:

0.60 acres * 20 dwelling units per acre * 0.80 development factor = 9.6 dwelling units 23 Non-Residential Sites Draft 10/21/20
22 Of note, this project was approved in 2017, but as of the date of this comment letter, no construction activity has begun. 21 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-45 20 HCD Building Blocks, Analysis of Sites and Zoning; City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), p. 3-3; City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. 3-45 and 3-47 19 bid.
18 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. 3-44 and 3-45

YIMBY LAW
Additionally, with a true development factor of 75%, not 80%, the correct number of units is:

0.60 acres * 20 dwelling units per acre * 0.75 development factor = 9.0 dwelling units However, the city failed to include the likelihood of development in its calculation, which drastically changes this site’s realistic capacity. When including the likelihood of development calculation, and when using the more accurate development factor of 75%, the true site capacity equals:

0.60 acres * 20 dwelling units per acre * 0.75 development factor *

0.08475 likelihood of development = 0.76275 dwelling units When factoring the likelihood of development, as calculated from the city’s own data about development of nonvacant sites during the city’s 5th Cycle Housing Element, this site that was assumed to yield nine dwelling units instead yields less than one. Importantly, no density bonus applies to projects with only one unit, so relying on State Density Bonus Law or policies and programs championing the success of a local density bonus are of little value in such circumstances. This calculation is a critical step that is not only called for in HCD’s own guidance but must be strictly adhered to in order for the city and the state to have a truly realistic assumption about how much constructed, habitable housing a local agency’s housing element will accommodate.24 While the statewide housing crisis is not the fault of any one city, unrealistic or incomplete calculations not grounded in reality will not produce a meaningful amount of new homes, which will continue to perpetuate homelessness and segregation.

Solana Beach must, therefore, include the calculation of the likelihood of development for all candidate sites in its site inventory and make the subsequent adjustments to its housing element. The City of Sacramento’s draft site inventory provided a high-quality, numerical analysis of the likelihood of their sites’ development through a “tiered classification system to classify the non-vacant underutilized sites.”25 This approach offers a model for Solana Beach to adapt to its unique circumstances. Additionally, Table 3-11, Project Timing from Entitlements to Building Permits, identifies the number of projects entitled and permitted since 2018.26 In 2018, two-thirds of entitled projects received building permits, in 2019, it was less than two-thirds of entitled projects, and in 2020, it was exactly one-half of entitled projects.27 These data further support the reality that the likelihood of development is well below 100% in Solana Beach.

Frustratingly, the city totally misinterpreted market conditions with regard to Millennials and Generation Z, the latter also known as “Zoomers” and being born after 1996.28 While it is certainly true that Millennials, as a group, wish to purchase homes and build wealth like every other generation before them, that so many live and rent homes in suburbs like Solana Beach instead of main downtown areas is a function of cost, not desire—as was misunderstood by the city. That 63% of Millennials live in suburbs and “other city neighborhoods” is related to the unaffordability crisis, not a desire to commute long distances, need a car at all, or live exclusively in single-family homes.29 Consequently, when Millennials, and, soon, Zoomers, are pushed into suburbs and exurbs to find housing, the communities they settle in are not exempt from 29 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-52 28 Pew Research Center
27 bid.
26 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-34 25 Public Review Draft, City of Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029, p. H-2-15 24 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 21

YIMBY LAW
their duty to plan for, entitle, and permit more affordable and market-rate housing stock. This is important because the city’s housing element admits that, without more affordable housing choices, Millennials and Zoomers will continue to be pushed farther away and will likely also be excluded from the city due to the rising cost of housing.30
Furthermore, it is ironic if not tragic that Solana Beach describes itself as “built out” when it provides estate residential zoning with a maximum density of 1 and 2 dwelling units per acre, depending on location; low residential with a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre; low medium residential with a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre; and medium residential with a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per acre.31 This is a particularly jarring reality when one considers that approximately 25% of all zoned land within the city is set aside for estate residential zones; approximately 50% of all zoned land within the city is set aside for low, low medium, and medium residential zones; and approximately 15% of all zoned land within the city is set aside for zones that allow 8 or more dwelling units per acre.32 Last, the city reported that its 5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA was 43 units of extremely low-, 42 units of very low-, 65 units of low-, and 59 units of moderate-income housing; however, during that period, it permitted no units of extremely low- or very low-income housing, 6 units of low-income housing, and 14 units of moderate-income housing.33 That the previous planning period yielded only 6 out of 150 planned extremely low-, very low-, and low-income homes is incredibly instructive, and a 4% likelihood of development for these income categories during the previous planning period should be taken into consideration when estimating how much housing the city can reasonably anticipate during the 6th Cycle planning period. This is not a unique circumstance within California, and the housing crisis is a direct result of this arbitrary zoning constraint that perpetuates unaffordability and reinforces segregation.

Forecasts of ADU Development and Affordability of ADUs
The city reported that it permitted 6 ADUs in 2018, 10 ADUs in 2019, and 12 ADUs in 2020; two of the ADUs permitted in 2020 were claimed to be affordable to households with lower incomes.34 Unfortunately, while the city acknowledged HCD’s safe harbor guidelines for estimating ADU production, it failed to properly perform the safe harbor calculation.35 The correct safe harbor calculation in forecasting ADU production is the average of production in 2018, 2019, and 2020, which results in 9 ADUs per year (6 + 10 + 12 = 28; 28 / 3 = 9.33). Therefore, the appropriate estimate is 75 ADUs during the planning period, not 128 as stated (12 * 9.33 = 74.64).36 Even if the city estimated that it would permit 28 ADUs every 3 years (9.33 * 3 = 28), this forecast calculation does not change, and the city should therefore amend its Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory as listed in Tables B‐1 and 3-16.37 This more accurate forecast will likely result in the city failing to plan for a sufficient amount of moderate-income housing. If the city wishes to claim a higher number, it must present findings and 37 City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), pp. B-2 and 3-49 36 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-48 35 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 31
34 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-54 33 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-78 32 City of Solana Beach Official Zoning Map
31 City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), p. 3-3 30 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-52

YIMBY LAW
substantial evidence that its local programs and policies incentivize the development of ADUs more than current state law, and, should the city demonstrate success in exceeding their recent performance, it can amend the relevant sections of its housing element. Program 1C anticipates this permitting shortfall but conditions action on said shortfall being 20% or more of the anticipated number of permitted ADUs.38 This is insufficient because if the number of ADUs actually permitted falls below the number of ADUs anticipated to be permitted, the city will likely drop below its relevant RHNA income category and would automatically be noncompliant with Housing Element Law and subject to housing element decertification.

Similar to the city’s claims regarding its forecasted production of ADUs, the data Solana Beach relies upon to determine the affordability of ADUs should be included in the housing element. The city’s report about affordability casually explains that 2 out of 12 ADUs permitted in 2020 were affordable, but there is no evidence of the circumstances that result in these ADUs’ affordability to lower-income households. Are those affordable ADUs rented at below market rate-rents to friends or family members of the owner of the ADU, are those ADUs rented at no charge to friends or family of the owner of the ADU, or is there some other circumstance, such as access to or favorable terms for construction financing in exchange for a certain term of affordability? If the city wishes to claim 15 ADUs affordable to lower-income households throughout the planning period, it must provide some evidence that such a prediction is valid and not a sweetheart deal for a small, exclusive group of people personally known to the owner of the ADU or who otherwise have special access to the homeowner’s social network.39 On balance, an ADU that is not held out for rent to the public rental market is not affordable within the meaning of affordable housing. We do not contest that all new housing relieves pressure on the housing market; however, rental housing that is not accessible to all renters only skews the data related to the amount of affordable housing in a region.

Additionally, in Table 3-14, Approved Entitlements Counted as Credit Towards 2021-2029 RHNA, the city reported it issued 10 ADU permits in the current planning period that began June 30, 2020, but, interestingly, all 10 ADUs were counted as affordable to moderate-income households, even when the new single-family home they accompany was counted toward being affordable to above moderate-income households.40 Barring a deed restriction, how can the city know the affordability of a permitted-but-unbuilt ADU, and why were all of these ADUs counted toward the moderate-income RHNA category? If the city has evidence that all ADUs that are simultaneously permitted when a building permit for a single-family home is issued, it should provide it; otherwise, claiming all new ADUs are affordable to moderate-income households is improper and should be disallowed.

Furthermore, for ADUs permitted and built since January 1, 2018, has the city claimed credit in its Annual Progress Reports more than once, e.g., one ADU being permitted in October 2019 and built in July 2020, with the former’s building permit counted in the 5th Cycle planning period’s April 2020 APR and the latter’s certificate of occupancy counted in the 6th Cycle Housing Element? Moreover, reducing the number of ADUs counted as affordable to moderate-income households would likely cause the city to fail to plan for enough dwelling units to accommodate its moderate-income RHNA obligation, precluding HCD from certifying the city’s housing element and also having No Net Loss consequences. Even more, the city claims that all ADUs not affordable to very low- and low-income households will automatically be affordable to moderate-income households, but without 40 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-47 39 bid.
38 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-3

YIMBY LAW
findings or substantial evidence, we find this to be an unjustifiable claim.41 This is further supported by the city identifying that it has several unpermitted ADUs within its community and that it has a track record of converting one per year into a legal, permitted use.42 While the city offers no evidence of this, it should be noted that all eight of these unpermitted ADUs are, when brought into compliance, expected to be affordable to above moderate-income households, signifying the city is well aware that not all of its ADUs are naturally affordable to moderate-income households.

Additionally, the city has authorized its city manager to reduce “development impact fees by 75 percent for accessory dwelling units (ADU)...provided that a deed restriction for state law affordability provisions is recorded for the term of 99 years.”43 However, earlier in the same chapter of the housing element, the city states that it will consider offering incentives to owners of ADUs who “elect to file a 30-year deed restriction to rent the unit to lower income households.”44 Those incentives include waiving fees and reducing parking and development standards or “or providing other incentives consistent with the Costa Hawkins Act.”45 We are confused by this conflicting information about ADU development incentives, not understanding whether the city requires 99- or 30-year deed restrictions to receive an incentive or whether these are in fact parallel incentive programs with the more lengthy deed restriction having fewer and the shorter having a greater suite of options. Moreover, after examining the relevant Solana Beach Municipal Code section, we are unable to locate any mention of 30-year deed restrictions and what incentives they might be coupled with.46 In addition to relying upon the 99-year timeframe for ADU development incentives, as described in Title 17 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code, we are uncertain as to what precisely the city believes Program 1B will accomplish, since the city will only “continue to incentivize and promote the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units, especially those that may be leased at affordable rates” and “develop outreach collateral for public dissemination, including updates to the City’s website, information at City Hall and via other appropriate print and digital media.”47,48 The city goes on to state that “[t]he intent of [Program 1B] is to make sure residents are aware of this incentive and have information readily available that may ease the development of ADUs at affordable levels.”49 Without clear, actionable objectives, Program 1B will have little if any value.

While this is superficially a good policy, in actuality, it has no practical benefit. First, reducing or waiving fees is a public benefit, which makes the ADU “paid for in whole or in part out of public funds” and triggers prevailing wage law; second, while the city manager is authorized to reduce fees, they are not required to; third, a 99-year period of rental affordability would make almost any ADU project infeasible; and fourth, ADUs smaller than 800 square feet are exempt from development impact fees.50,51 For instance, if a person took out a $200,000 commercial loan with a repayment period of 20 years and an interest rate of 5%, they would have a monthly payment of $1,320. Assuming prevailing wage adds 30% to construction costs, that would increase the loan amount to $260,000; however for this example, we omit that number. 51 League of California Cities, Prevailing Wage Compliance Monitoring: Practical Advice for City Officials, pp. 3 and 4 50 Prevailing Wage Compliance Monitoring: Practical Advice for City Officials, pp. 3 and 4 49 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-3 48 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-3 47 SBMC § 17.70.060, as amended by Ordinance No. 500 dated March 29, 2019 46 SBMC § 17.20.040(D), as amended by Ordinance No. 508 dated January 23, 2020 45 bid.
44 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-17 43 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. 3-24 and 3-25 42 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), Table 4-1, Summary of Quantified Objectives 41 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-54

YIMBY LAW
Adding an additional $200,000 of assessed value—although, it would likely be higher—this example homeowner’s insurance and property taxes would also increase by approximately $200 per month, for a total of $1,520 per month. Since underwriters typically count 75% of rental income toward a borrowers’ debt to income ratio, this example homeowner would need to charge $2,027 per month to cover the cost of the loan, increased premiums and taxes, and ADU vacancy.52 If this example homeowner wanted to enjoy positive cashflow and generate passive income, they would ignore these calculations and charge whatever the market would bear; as of April 4, 2021, the median rent for a studio apartment in Solana Beach was $2,100.53 If this example homeowner needs $2,027 per month to break even but can only expect to charge $2,100 per month in rent, that makes any deed-restricted affordability infeasible and would kill the project. While this ordinance has no practical effect on smaller ADUs, ADUs 800 square feet and larger would be similarly affected because, in addition to costing more but not being rented for more, the development impact fees would be substantial and cost-prohibitive. All of this is to say that the city’s ADU development impact fee waiver program is of little if any value and should not be used to justify any development incentive to claim increased rates of production.

With the city’s overreliance on ADU production to accommodate its RHNA, as well as the city’s overreliance on ADU affordability, we find an automatic biennial review is acceptable, but an automatic annual review is more appropriate. If the city should fail to permit the number of ADUs it claims it will, and if the ADUs it permits do not achieve the anticipated level of affordability it claims they will, not only is it almost certain that No Net Loss would be triggered, but there is also cause for HCD to decertify the city’s housing element. An automatic annual review would allow the city to better evaluate Programs 1B and 1C, then work to mitigate constraints and / or incentivize development. Last, we find the city’s arbitrary 20% underperformance metric to be insufficient and request the city provide stricter performance standards and program revision timelines. With so few moderate-income dwelling units planned for in the housing element, a 20% shortfall is not appropriately responsive. We also encourage the city to update

Page 3 ends

what will be either four or eight housing element program reviews throughout the planning period.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City of Solana Beach is a community with a wealth of resources, having zero census tracts that qualify as racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty under either HUD definition.54 The other side of that same coin is either a) the city is an egalitarian utopia free of the national and international forces of segregation, racism, and capitalism, or b) the city is an exclusive enclave of wealthy white people. Unfortunately, that latter is true, as it is in many areas of California and most coastal areas of California. In the beginning of its AFFH chapter, the city reported that, according to its Regional Opportunity Index score, three out of its four census tracts were classified as highest opportunity and the remaining census tract was classified as high opportunity, and, therefore, “the analysis indicates that access to opportunity is not a substantial issue within Solana Beach.”55 This is a misguided interpretation. 55 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. 3-62 and 3-63 54 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-60 53 Zumper
52 Free and Clear

YIMBY LAW
According to 2019 Census Bureau data, the City of Solana Beach is 76.2% white but not Hispanic or Latino, 0.7% Black, 0.9% Native American, 4.9% Asian, 0% Native Hawiian and Pacific Islander, and

15.5% Hispanic or Latino.56 There are fewer Black people in Solana Beach than in both Encinitas and Carlsbad, and there are also fewer people who identify as Native Hawiian and Pacific Islander in Solana Beach than in both Encinitas and Carlsbad. Solana Beach has less than half as many Hispanic or Latino residents per capita as the County of San Diego, and aside from white people who do not identify as Hispanic or Latino, Solana Beach is less diverse than the County of San Diego in every racial category.57 Said clearly, Solana Beach is whiter and less diverse than the county in which it is located.

We dispute the use of the ROI tool as the reference document for AFFH analysis given that it uses data from the 2010 decennial census and was last updated in 2014; there are newer, more robust sources of demographic data available. For instance, the state’s Opportunity Map categorizes all of the city’s census tracts—the entire city—as areas of highest opportunity, and all of the “tract opportunity indicators” in the Mapping Opportunity in California map exceed the average score within SANDAG, except for the adult employment rate in Census Tract 173.06, which is, presumably, due to the immense wealth in a mostly estate residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre zone.58,59 Additionally, roughly 55% of K-5 students in the SANDAG region live in poverty, but no more than 20% of K-5 students in any census tract in Solana Beach live in poverty.60 Furthermore, the only census tract that does not have a percentage of adults with bachelor’s degrees roughly 75% or higher is Census Tract 173.04, where that number is slightly below 60%.61 Of note, Census Tract 173.04 includes the majority of both Council Districts 2 and 3, which are 57% and 58% multifamily housing, respectively, compared to Council Districts 1 and 4, which are 29% and 15% multifamily housing, respectively.62
Other demographic differences between Census Tract 173.04 and the others—again, Census Tract 173.04 includes the majority of households in Council Districts 2 and 3—include 30% and 32% of households making between $0 and $50,000 per year, respectively, while households in Council Districts 1 and 4, primarily in other census tracts, have 14% and 21% making between $0 and $50,000 per year, respectively.63 Council Districts 2 and 3 have 21% and 18% of households making more than $200,000 per year, but Council Districts 1 and 4 have 36% and 29% of households making more than $200,000 per year.64 Council districts 2 and 3 have less than half as many immigrant-residents who have not yet become naturalized citizens, and have the lowest percentage of white residents.65 Council District 2 is 32% Hispanic or Latino, Council District 3 is 17% Hispanic or Latino, Council District 1 is 8% Hispanic or Latino, and Council District 4 is 5% Hispanic or Latino.66 Frankly, Census Tract 173.04 is an entirely different community than Census Tracts 173.03, 173.05, and 173.06, which together comprise Council Districts 1 and 4. While there are no statutorily defined RECAPs in Solana Beach, there is clear and obvious segregation and homogeneity throughout the city. 66 bid.
65 bid.
64 bid.
63 bid.
62 Exhibit A, Ordinance 488, City of Solana Beach
61 bid.
60 bid.
59 University of California, Berkeley, Othering and Belonging Institute 58 2021 Tax Credit Allocation Committee and HCD
57 bid.
56 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program

YIMBY LAW
Despite the low quality of the ROI map, we reviewed these data, since they are the dataset analyzed by the city. Even as far back as 2014, all four census tracts in the City of Solana Beach had lowest opportunity housing scores for the ROI Place analysis, meaning all four census tracts were unaffordable as compared to the mean census tract in the region. Additionally, Census Tract 173.04’s “civic life” score was also ranked as lowest opportunity, again, as compared to the mean census tract in the region.67 Civic life is defined as “the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.”68 For the “housing opportunity” metric in the ROI People analysis, which “measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs,” only Census Tract 173.04 had unaffordable housing, which is likely a function of the high number of households earning between $0 and $50,000 per year and more than half of the census tract being composed of households living in multifamily housing.69 Again, the thesis of the city’s AFFH chapter is “everyone in our wealthy enclave has great access to our exclusive resources!”, which is flatly untrue, as evidenced by the realities lower-income households face in Census Tract 173.04. As seen in Figure 3-23(b), Regional Opportunity Index, Place, 2014, approximately two miles beyond Solana Beach’s eastern boundary lies an area of lowest and low health, environmental, housing, and economic opportunity.70 This level of resource hoarding and segregation, intentional or unintentional, is anathema to the idea of creating opportunity. To wit, affirmatively furthering fair housing means making some extraordinary effort, beyond whatever legal mandate or obligation exists, to create opportunities for disadvantaged communities and people comprising lower-income households.

With regard to the continued ghettoization of lower-income households, the overwhelming majority of the city’s lower-income site inventory candidate sites are located in the southwest quadrant of Solana Beach—Census Tract 173.04 and most of Council Districts 2 and 3. Of the city’s 32 very low- and low-income housing candidate sites, only 2 are located to the east of I-5 in Census Tract 173.06, and they are adjacent, nonvacant parcels with newer-construction buildings containing grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores covering nearly 14 acres. There are also only two very low- and low-income candidate sites located north of Lomas Santa Fe Drive in Census Tract 173.03, and they are both nonvacant commercial uses.71 That 93.5% of the city’s candidate sites for very low- and low-income housing are located in the census tract that already has the lowest income, least housing stability, lowest rate of homeownership, lowest rate of adults with bachelor’s and graduate degrees, and most Asian and Hispanic / Latino residents demonstrates the City of Solana Beach is not serious about “replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”72 Furthermore, we strongly object to the city claim that Programs 1B and 1D, concerning ADUs, AFFH. 73 Again, a local agency cannot claim that it is affirmatively furthering fair housing by complying with established laws. Creating a class of serfs who have no opportunity to become homeowners, build equity, and bequeath generational wealth to their children or other family members is exactly the opposite of AFFH. 73 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-77 72 Exhibit A, Ordinance 488, City of Solana Beach; City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-68 71 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-69 70 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-64 69 University of California Davis, Center for Regional Chance; University of California Davis, Center for Regional Chance, Regional Opportunity Index Overview p. 5
68 University of California Davis, Center for Regional Chance, Regional Opportunity Index Overview, p. 13 67 University of California Davis, Center for Regional Chance

YIMBY LAW
Figure 3-6, Candidate Sites – Ethnicity Analysis, reveals that 10 out of 32 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas with a Hispanic / Latino population greater than 13% of the total population, 3 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas with a Hispanic / Latino population between 10% and 13% of the total population, and 19 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas with a Hispanic / Latino population between 7% and 10% of the total population; 0 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas with a Hispanic / Latino population between 2% and 7% or less than 2% of the total population.74 Furthermore, as seen in Figure 3-7, Candidate Sites – Racial Analysis, only 2 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas with a nonwhite population between 2% and 4%, and 0 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas with a nonwhite population below 1%; 30 candidate sites are located in areas with larger nonwhite populations.75 By its own admission, nearly 50% of the city’s very low- and low-income candidate sites are located in the parts of the city that have the fewest white residents.76
Furthermore, in Figure 3-8, Candidate Sites – Income Level, the city continues to prove our point that it will continue to segregate lower-income households. This graphic shows that 10 out of 32 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas that already have more than 22% of the city’s low- and moderate-income households, 14 out of 32 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas that already have between 16% and 22% of the city’s low- and moderate-income households, and 5 out of 32 very low- and low-income candidate sites are in areas that already have between 10% and 16% of the city’s low- and moderate-income households; 1 very low- and low-income candidate site is in areas that already have between 9% and 10% of the city’s low- and moderate-income households, and 2 very lowand low-income candidate site is in areas that already have less than 9% of the city’s low- and moderate-income households.77
While we wish to give the city the benefit of the doubt, we fundamentally disagree that “[t]he data shows [sic] that the proposed candidate sites to meet the very-low and low income RHNA need are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services and transit.”78 Again, it is facially nonsensical to claim such a thing when there is not a single unit of lower-income housing integrated into any area of estate residential (ER-1, ER-2), low residential (LR), low medium residential (LMR), medium residential (MR), or medium high residential (MHR) zones anywhere in the city. Placing 98.5% of the city’s lower-income RHNA capacity on nonvacant sites zoned as commercial and special commercial is not affirmatively furthering fair housing, and simply saying it is does not make it true.

Constraints
ADUs
The city’s draft housing element identifies medium high residential- and high residential-zoned sites as requiring conditional use permits for the construction of ADUs; however, the housing element states “all residential zones also allow one Accessory Dwelling Unit on lots with existing or proposed single-family 78 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-70 77 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-75 76 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-72 75 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-73 74 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-71

YIMBY LAW
homes or multifamily developments.”79,80 Which is it? Regardless of whether MHR- and HR-zoned sites are areas for multifamily housing, a requirement for CUPs runs counter to state law providing relief for construction of ADUs on any residentially zoned parcel, including parcels with multifamily housing.81 Furthermore, the draft housing element describes conditions the city requires by ordinance for the entitlement of ADUs, including minimum lot sizes, prohibition on detached ADUs, maximum square footage, aggregate FAR calculation, owner occupancy requirements, impact fees, and parking replacement, all of which are now incompatible with and preempted by state law. While the city acknowledges its ordinance is preempted by state law, it commits only to “develop outreach collateral for public dissemination, including updates to the City’s website, information at City Hall and via other appropriate print and digital media” and lists the timeline for revision to its ordinance as within 12 months of housing element adoption.82 A simple, efficient, and prompt solution to this unenforceable law is simply a rescission of the ordinance; however, if the city chooses to schedule revisions to their ADU law, no more than three years to complete that work is appropriate and twelve months is preferred.

Land Use Element
The city’s land use element provides for special overlay zones, which the city claims will not be a constraint. Practically, all development restrictions and requirements are a constraint to some degree, so we reject the city’s claim that its Scenic Area Overlay Zone “is not considered a constraint to the development of housing currently as recent development applications indicate that proposed projects are able to meet density assumptions.”83 The Solana Beach Municipal Code constrains ADU development by requiring a development review permit for all ADUs that exceed the floor area ratio of the primary structure and “any development on properties along Highway 101 or Lomas Santa Fe Drive, which is not visible from Highway 101 or Lomas Santa Fe Drive.”84 This permit, for ADUs and especially for multifamily projects, adds time and cost to development, which is incompatible with state law and reduces project feasibility, respectively. Additionally, this overlay zone requires that the “placement of buildings and structures shall not detract from the visual setting or obstruct significant views,” which interferes with and is preempted by by-right development laws for ADUs on residential parcels.85 The intent of the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone is to “preserve and enhance the existing community character and aesthetic quality of the City of Solana Beach, by providing regulations to ensure and protect the character of established residential neighborhoods; and by preserving the traditional scale and seaside orientation of residential areas in the City of Solana Beach.”86
Given the history of race- and protected class-based hosuing discrimination, the implementation of programs and policies that are described by the use of the phrase neighborhood character or community character may very well constitute a Fair Housing Law violation. Furthermore, both the SAOZ and SROZ include candidate sites from the city’s site inventory, but the city claims “the SROZ does not apply to any of the site [sic] the City has identified to meet their lower income RHNA need.”87 Without a separate ordinance or a revision to Title 17 of the city’s municipal code to exempt very low-and low-income 87 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-5 86 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-4 85 SBMC § 17.48.010.F2
84 SBMC §§ 17.48.010.C, D2, and D5
83 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-4 82 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-3 81 California Government § 65852.2 et seq.
80 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-6 79 City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), p. 3-13

YIMBY LAW
candidate sites from the provisions of these overlay zones, these overlays zones substantially constrain the likelihood of development and the realistic capacity of development.

Minimum Lot Size
Minimum lot sizes generally constrain the ability to build denser housing. The city provides no analysis of how much of any one category of zoning exists within its boundaries, so it is difficult to assess whether there is a fair and equitable distribution of residential sites in Solana Beach. Also, larger minimum lot sizes reduce walkability and auto-independent travel options, resulting in reduced pedestrian and bicyclist safety, higher greenhouse gas emissions, and sprawl into the wildland-urban interface. Furthermore, it is completely detached from reality to insist that state law that preempts local control concerning the development of ADUs acts as relief to the substantial constraint of more than half of Solana Beach’s zoning being less than 7 dwelling units per acre. If Solana Beach truly wished to remove this development constraint, it would legalize plex zoning on all of its residential parcels, especially in the estate residential zones. Having between two and six attached homes on parcels half an acre and one acre in size is both a smarter and more practical use of land, especially as it concerns AFFH.

Setbacks play a significant role in limiting the developable area of a parcel, and we disagree with the city’s claim that “there is enough flexibility in the current ordinances that setback requirements do not constitute a significant constraint on residential development.”88 As described in Table 3-3, Residential Development Standards in Solana Beach - Setbacks and the city’s zoning map, the setback for a parcel in the medium high residential zone is 25 feet to the front and to the rear, 5 feet to the side, and 10 feet to the streetside.89 The minimum lot size in the medium high residential zone is 5,000 square feet, and, according to Table 3-2, Residential Development Standards in Solana Beach - Dimensions, the minimum lot dimensions are 50 feet wide and 100 feet long for interior lots.90 For a typical lot in the interior medium high residential zone the buildable area is 40 feet wide and 50 feet deep or 2,000 square feet—only 40% of the lot size. The medium high residential zone supports a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre, but with a floor area ratio of 75%, the maximum allowable square footage of all site improvements is 1,500 square feet.91,92 Practically speaking, a development on this example site could fit four 375 square foot efficiency units; however, the project would be denied because of the required 1.5 parking spots per unit required for studios, efficiency units, and single-room occupancy, plus one additional spot because this hypothetical development has four dwelling units.93 However, even on a 5,000 square foot medium high residential interior lot with no setbacks and 100% FAR, the maximum allowable square footage of all site improvements would be 5,000 square feet. To accommodate the on-site parking requirements for twelve 416 square foot efficiency units, a developer would need to plan for 22 parking spaces.94 At 8.5 feet wide by 19 feet long, 22 parking spots would consume 3,553 square feet of the 5,000 square foot lot.95 If the city had an ordinance exempting parking from FAR calculations for multifamily development—it does not—a developer would be able to build a 95 City of Solana Beach Off-Street Parking Design Manual, p. 6 94 bid.
93 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-10 92 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-7 91 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-3 90 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-7 89 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-8; City of Solana Beach Official Zoning Map 88 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-6

YIMBY LAW
four-story building with three 416 square foot efficiency units on each floor. Unfortunately, the medium high residential zone has a height limit of 25 feet, so the remaining 1,447 square feet of buildable area would be enough to build 3.48 of the 12 homes allowable in that zone on one floor or two larger studios or one-bedroom apartments on a bottom floor and one on a second floor. If FAR was ignored and all 12 units were permissible, the city would still require a CUP to exceed the 25-foot height limit, but this would be a fool’s errand because the CUP permits a maximum height of 30 feet.96 These scenarios present polar opposite development goals: maximizing units or maximizing parking. In reality, only a fraction of the density allowed in each zone can actually be built, which presents a significant government constraint.

Setbacks
Aside from both variations of estate residential zones, all residential lots are required to be no less than 100 feet long in depth.97 All residential lots except for those located in the estate residential zones have Setback Designators C and D, both of which have front and back setbacks of 25 feet each.98 For interior lots, Setback Designator C requires 10-foot side setbacks, and Setback Designator D requires 5-foot side setbacks.99 While low medium residential zoning has 10,000 square foot lots, which allows for 4,000 square feet of buildable area, the maximum density in this zone is four dwelling units per acre. Requiring parcels to be more than 50% private open space constitutes a significant governmental constraint.

Lot Coverage and FAR
The city’s FAR requirements are incompatible with the site characteristics necessary for the construction of affordable housing. While the city says it uses lot coverage and FAR standards “to control bulk, mass, and intensity of a use,” arbitrarily requiring so much private open space—at the expense of building more housing—for no other reason than because it can, reduces the likelihood of development and realistic capacity of affordable housing.100 What is the virtue of a public park, and why does the entire city lie within the Coastal Zone, if it is so necessary to consume more than half of a given parcel with private open space? Concerning residential development, the city writes “these standards may only limit the size of dwelling units, and do not limit the number of units…”; however, it then writes immediately thereafter that “FAR, combined with height limitations, can potentially prevent maximum density from being achieved in certain cases.”101 It is deeply concerning that the city can identify and describe such a substantial governmental constraint but then fail to acknowledge that the constraint only exists because the city created it, and, thus, the city must be the one to mitigate it.

Maximum Building Height
In its description of this government constraint, the city writes, “[a]ll properties within the City of Solana Beach are located within the Coastal Zone as defined in the California Coastal Act. Therefore, the City’s Local Coastal Program, as approved by the California Coastal Commission, restricts the maximum building height within the City to 25 feet in residential zones.”102 This is illogical: Not only was the city not required to develop, adopt, and have certified a Local Coastal Program, but when it pursued creating an LCP, the city invented this 25-foot height limit of its own volition. To use the same logic as the city does in 102 ibid.
101 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-7 100 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-6 99 bid.
98 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-8 97 bid.
96 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-7

YIMBY LAW
justifying this self-imposed height limit, one might say “all of my money is deposited in my savings account; therefore, I can’t buy groceries because I don’t have any money in my checking account.” This sounds ridiculous for the same reason the city’s explanation about its maximum building height does. The simple solution to this metaphorical problem is for the individual to move some of their money from their savings account to their checking account, just like the simple solution to the city’s actual problem is to increase its maximum building height in its LCP.

The city reported that its “maximum building height may be increased to 30 feet pursuant a Development Review Permit” and “35 feet for civic uses” with a CUP for projects in the medium high residential and high residential zones.103 That such a variation exists demonstrates that there is no adverse impact on public health or safety related to taller buildings. Since the city created its LCP and the city controls its zoning code, the only valid activity that would mitigate this substantial governmental constraint is the city amending its LCP to allow an increase in maximum building height. If the city is concerned about visual corridors and viewsheds, a uniform maximum building height of 45 feet—and 50 feet with a DRP—makes coastal resources no less accessible than a uniform maximum building height of 25 feet—and 30 feet with a DRP—since no human being has ever grown to be 25 feet tall, much less 45 feet tall.

Parking Standards
One of the greatest failures of the planning profession is the steadfast belief that every car is entitled to a home but not every person is. The corrupted prioritization of auto-centric planning has led to the City of Solana Beach requiring an unreasonably high amount of parking, such that it makes infeasible affordable housing. In addition to these project-bankrupting parking requirements, the city has chosen to maintain its parking standards for ADUs, even though they could have chosen to eliminate them under SB 1069.104 Not only is the requirement to provide replacement parking for garage-conversion ADUs and new parking for new-construction ADUs, but the overzealous parking requirements for multifamily housing, as well as the type of deed-restricted single-family homes a nonprofit developer like Habitat for Humanity would build, make it a near impossibility to build affordable housing in Solana Beach.

Specifically, requiring 1.5 parking spaces for efficiency units, studios, and SROs is unreasonable.105 Not only are efficiency units typically occupied by a single individual and SROs legally occupied by only a single individual, but, oftentimes, occupants of these types of homes are in transition between various life events, need supportive services, or intend to live in such accommodations for a limited amount of time.106 Occupants of these housing types should not be assumed to own or have cars without such a constraint on development being supported by evidence. Furthermore, studios are smaller homes, typically suitable for one person, so while it may be appropriate to require parking for studios, requiring more than 1.0 parking spaces per studio—and more than 1.0 parking spaces per efficiency unit and SRO unit—is a substantial government constraint.

Furthermore, requiring two parking spaces for apartments with two or more bedrooms, plus an additional parking space for guests for every four dwelling units, is phenomenally cost-prohibitive. Surface parking costs approximately $20,000 per space and garages and covered parking spaces cost approximately 106 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-19 105 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-10 104 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-7; California Government § 65852.2 et seq. 103 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-7

YIMBY LAW
$50,000 per space.107 Underground parking costs an astronomically high $80,000 per space.108 For a 12-unit affordable housing development, the city would require 27 parking spaces, costing more than half a million dollars. This amount is likely more than 10% of the entire project’s cost, making development designed for very low- and low-income development nearly infeasible. The very existence of the parking concession in SDBL seeks to remedy this issue, and the city’s unwillingness to reduce its parking requirements actively constrains development. This might explain the dearth of affordable housing in Solana Beach, and until the city removes this substantial constraint, that condition will remain unchanged.

Growth Management
SB 166, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, renders moot growth management controls and residential caps under certain conditions.109 Those conditions include that the enacting local agency’s electors approved the ordinance before January 1, 2005 and that the local agency is located in a predominantly agricultural county, defined as one that is composed of at least one-half agricultural land and that has more than 550,000 acres of agricultural land.110 According to most recent version of the California Farmland Conversion Report, not only does the County of San Diego have just 340,111 acres of important farmland, well below the threshold of 550,000 acres, but the entire county measures 2,712,200 acres in size, placing the proportion of county farmland at just 12.5%.111 Therefore, Ordinance No. 251 and Proposition T are deficient, making both laws null and void.112 While unenforceable laws do not necessarily create a government constraint, the city should nevertheless conspicuously advertise that, until the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 sunsets, prospective housing developers should ignore these laws.

Zoning Controls
According to Table 3-6, Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses in Solana Beach, single-family homes are allowed in all residential zones, including medium high and high residential zones.113 Not surprisingly, the city appears to be totally oblivious to the segregated conditions it perpetuates when it defined a single-family home as “[a]ny building designed and used to house not more than one family including all domestic employees of such family.”114 Both group residential facilities and senior citizen and congregate care housing with any number of units are forbidden in both estate residential, the low residential, and the low medium residential zones.115 Group residential facilities with any number of units are forbidden in the medium residential zone but allowed with a CUP issued by the planning director in the medium high and high residential zones. Senior citizen and congregate care housing with any number of units is permitted with a CUP issued by the city council in the medium residential, medium high residential, and high residential zones. Since senior citizen and congregate care housing requires discretionary approval by the city council, and, thus, the city council may deny this type of housing from ever being constructed in the City of Solana Beach, regardless of the zone type or the number of units the development would have, we find this subjective condition affecting a protected class to be a facial violation of Fair Housing Law.
115 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-13 114 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-14 113 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-13 112 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. 3-10 and 3-11 111 California Department of Conservation
110 ibid.
109 California Government Code § 66300 et seq.
108 ibid.
107 New CA Database Shows How Much Parking Costs and How Little It’s Used

YIMBY LAW
Additionally, the city described its compliance with employee housing laws, stating that while it believes its ordinances comply with California Health and Safety Code §§ 17021.5 and 17021.6, it will complete Program 1M to update its codes and make explicitly clear that it is not in violation of these laws.116 However, the city failed to update Table 3-6, Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses in Solana Beach, omitting pertinent information required to be published in the housing element.117 Disappointingly, the city also continues to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how access to opportunity works, stating with regard to farmworker housing, “[a]ccording to the American Community Survey, less than two percent of Solana Beach’s workforce was employed in the farming industry.

Therefore, there is no need for farmworker housing in Solana Beach.”118 We find this statement and the subsequent regulatory environment it produces to be discriminatory and a facial violation of Fair Housing Law.

Local agencies are prohibited not only from exercising bias based on race, sex, familial status, age, or religion, but from discriminating against any individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any other land use because the residential development is subsidized, multifamily, or occupancy will include low- or moderate-income persons.119 Local agencies may also not impose different requirements on assisted developments than those imposed on non-assisted developments.120 However, local agencies may extend preferential treatment to local, state or federally assisted developments, and developments intended for occupancy by low- and moderate-income households or agricultural employees. This preferential treatment may include, but is not limited to, reduction of fees, changes in architectural requirements, site development and property line adjustments, building setback requirements, or vehicle parking requirements that reduce development costs of these developments.121
Additionally, the city makes no distinction between senior citizen and congregate care housing with six or fewer units and those with seven or more units.122 Again, the legal requirement described in California’s AFFH law means “taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”123 Last, Table 3-6, Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses in Solana Beach, identifies where group residential facilities are permissible within the city, but it does not distinguish between those facilities that have six or fewer units from those with seven or more.124 This is curious because the city distinguishes between various unit sizes of residential care facilities and family day care homes, but neither of those uses received any revisions in the subsequent pages of the March 2021 update to the Final Draft Housing Element whereas the information about group residential facilities was significantly revised.125 125 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-15 124 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-13 123 California Government Code §§ 8899.50 and 65583 et seq. 122 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-15 121 California Government Code § 65008(e)(2)
120 ibid.
119 California Government Code §§ 65008(b)(1)(D) and (d)(1) and (2) 118 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-15 117 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-13 116 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-14

YIMBY LAW
People with Disabilities
Program 4C affects people with physical and developmental disabilities, and through this program, the city commits to “continue to take actions to accommodate the approval of group homes, ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures through the implementation of Title 24 as well as amend its procedures to provide more flexibility in the development of accommodations for persons with physical and developmental disabilities by eliminating the need for a variance.”126 The city relies on this passive construction in many of its housing element programs, and we contend that continuing to do something that produces no or limited positive results is useless. The city should amend this program’s objectives and, in service of the dozens of people with physical and developmental disabilities, issue an RFP for one of the city-controlled candidate sites to develop very low- or low-income housing to support this group of residents.

Development Fees and Impact Fees
The housing element does not include a comparison of the city’s development fees and impact fees to those charged in nearby cities, such as Carlsbad, Encinitas, Del Mar, and the City of San Diego, so reviewers of the housing element are unable to readily discern whether $122,500 in combined fees for a single-family home is commensurate with combined fees charged in those neighboring jurisdictions.127 In August 2019, the International Code Council “estimated that the average per square-foot cost for good-quality housing in the San Diego region was approximately $117 for multi-family housing and $129 for single-family homes.”128
To use the city’s example of a 3,000 square foot single-family home, the cost of construction would be approximately $387,000. Since construction costs have increased since August 2019, a rough estimate of a 25% increase would change that cost for a 3,000 square foot single-family home to $483,750. With combined fees of $122,500 for that 3,000 square foot single-family home, a residential developer would be paying more than 25% of the project’s construction costs in fees alone. This is a different assessment than the city provides in the last paragraph of Page 3-25, which we assume is due to the city factoring in land costs.129 We disagree with this method of calculating the proportional burden of development fees and impact fees, since no two parcels are likely to have their land appraised or assessed at the same value, such a calculation does not account for the speculative value of land, and the cost for “good-quality” construction, as defined by the ICC, is static regardless of where that good-quality construction occurs in the San Diego region.

Furthermore, the city reports it would charge an estimated $1,143,800 in combined fees for a 13-unit apartment development, or nearly $88,000 per unit.130 Unfortunately, however, while the city reports the ICC’s estimate of good-quality multifamily construction costs, the city does not offer either the per-unit or combined square footage of this example multifamily development. Omitting that information makes it impossible for the reviewer to assess the proportional burden of multifamily development fees and impact fees, so we are unable to discern whether those fees constitute a substantial governmental burden. The city does however disclose an upper estimate of the proportional burden of development fees and impact 130 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-25 129 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021) 128 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-1 127 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-25 126 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-10

YIMBY LAW
fees for multifamily housing that is approximately 50% than the amount disclosed for single-family home development fees and impact fees, so, presumably, the proportional burden of those fees for multifamily housing is greater than 25%.131 Nevertheless, regardless of whether the Solana Beach’s single-family home development fees and impact fees are commensurate with neighboring jurisdictions’ fees, we find this proportional fee burden to be a substantial governmental constraint in the development of housing in Solana Beach.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The housing element does not include a comparison of the city’s performance in processing applications for development to the performance in nearby cities, such as Carlsbad, Encinitas, Del Mar, and the City of San Diego, so reviewers of the housing element are unable to readily discern whether six to eight months to process an application is commensurate with application processing performance in those neighboring jurisdictions.132 The city also fails to disclose its application processing performance for the multifamily development designated Project Number 17-14-08 and located at 343 S. Highway 101.133 On November 13, 2019, the city council unanimously approved applicant-requested modifications to an earlier-approved entitlement.134 The city should provide clarification regarding its performance in processing the various applications for this nonvacant site redevelopment to support its claimed six-to-eight month performance.

Without further information, this level of performance may constitute a governmental constraint that would certainly be (partially) mitigated by reducing the regulatory burden associated with applications for development within multiple overlapping overlay zones and a Coastal Zone.

Site Inventory
With regard to the February 16, 2021 letter from HCD, the city must provide significantly more detailed “findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period.”135 Additionally, HCD also explained in that same letter that sites smaller than 0.50 acres are not eligible for inclusion in the site inventory absent substantial evidence that the city has both experience and a track record of supporting development on small sites.136 Alarmingly, almost a third of the site inventory—32 of 83 sites—is sites smaller than 0.50 acres.137 In its revised housing element, the city includes three example sites to summarize the type of evidence it relies upon to demonstrate the site’s small size will not be an impediment and the site’s use will likely discontinue in the planning period. We find these explanations are not findings, not substantial, and not adequate within the plain meaning of these words and phrases.138
For instance, Site 4.73 is a city-owned parking lot adjacent to a privately held parcel identified as Site

4.40.139 The city does not report that the owner or person in control of the business located at Site 4.40 has made any indication they wish to buy Site 4.73, nor has the city demonstrated that the owner or person in control of the business located at Site 4.40 has residential development experience or the 139 City of Solana Beach, Non-Residential Sites, Draft 10/21/2020 138 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. B-5 137 City of Solana Beach, Non-Residential Sites, Draft 10/21/2020 136 ibid.
135 HCD letter to City of Solana Beach, Appendix p. 3
134 City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Staff Report, City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Minutes 133 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. B-4 132 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-32 131 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-25

YIMBY LAW
capital necessary to redevelop Site 4.73. Additionally, Sites 4.68 and 4.69 are separate, adjacent parcels held by the same private owner, and the city has assumed that each site being less than 0.50 acres is of no concern because they can be consolidated.140 While such a lot consolidation is of course possible, the city fails to present any evidence that the owner plans to consolidate the parcels themselves, intends to sell both parcels together to a residential developer, or presently desires to sell the parcels at all.

Surprisingly, the city relies upon the effects of the pandemic to catalyze the residential redevelopment of nonvacant sites within the city. This is a curious approach, especially considering that the city has done no focused outreach to owners, renters, and lessors of those sites to make any realistic assumptions about the likelihood of those parcels being redeveloped. The city provides no evidence whatsoever to support its assumption that temporarily or permanently closed sites will be redeveloped as housing instead of a different commercial use. While the city directs the reader to Appendix A for copies of correspondence with owners, renters, and lessors, the version of Appendix A in the December 2020 Final Draft Housing Element is entirely composed of the city’s evaluation of the performance of programs in the previous planning period and does not include copies of letters, emails, or other documents that would support its claims about nonvacant site redevelopment.141 (Perhaps there is an updated version of Appendix A that was inadvertently excluded from the staff report for the recent city council meeting where these revisions were discussed?) At best, the city claims to have engaged in “discussions with those property owners who came forward as interested in developing their properties for affordable housing through the planning period;” however, the city uses this passive grammatical construction, presumably, because it did not proactively initiate this type of outreach.142 In addition to the above concerns, the city includes in its site inventory several candidate sites that are facially unlikely to redevelop, such as a veterinary clinic, two bank branches, and city hall.143 Throughout the pandemic, the need for people to access financial institutions and receive medical care for themselves and their pets has remained steady, and as of the date of this letter, in addition to 40% of adults being vaccinated in California, the economy added 916,000 jobs in March, the latter of which lowered nationwide unemployment to 6% and signals an imminent increase in economic activity.144 Additionally, we are unpersuaded that the city is serious in having Solana Beach City Hall redeveloped, and this site should not be included in the site inventory without an accompanying RFP and active legislative measures to support by-right development of this nonvacant nonresidential site. To our knowledge, no city anywhere in California has redeveloped an existing, actively used city hall for the purpose of adding housing, so the inclusion of city hall as a feasible candidate site should be disallowed without significant, substantial incentives. It seems almost unfathomable that a majority of a local agency’s elected officials would vote to allow its seat of government to be redeveloped for residential use, since it would be cost prohibitive to lease replacement office space for the displaced city employees and the infrastructure to support public meetings would be dismantled, to name just the first two challenges that come to mind.

Even if a parking lot were used for the development of homes on the nonvacant city hall site, the city would then need to accommodate off-site parking facilities and transportation for its workforce, as well as accommodate however many new tenants it shared its remaining parking area with. Without completing 144 40% of California adults at least partially vaccinated against COVID-19, data show – The Sacramento Bee; Strong U.S. Job Growth in March Fuels Optimism on Recovery – The New York Times 143 City of Solana Beach Final Draft Housing Element (December 2020), Appendix B 142 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), Appendix A and pp. 3-51 and B-3 141 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), Appendix A and p. 3-51 140 City of Solana Beach, Non-Residential Sites, Draft 10/21/2020

YIMBY LAW
even that basic first step, or the more serious step of issuing an RFP, city hall is unequivocally inappropriate to include as a candidate site in the site inventory.

The city also reported that its reliance on small sites is appropriate because it has a track record of allowing development on nonvacant sites; however, it defends that track record by describing programs to subdivide existing residential parcels.145 We are confused as to how subdividing residential parcels supports the redevelopment of nonvacant, commercially zoned sites smaller than 0.50 acres in size, both active and temporarily or permanently closed. A more appropriate program would be one that supported lot consolidations at low- or no-cost and / or with expedited application processing times. Additionally, the site inventory omits information about whether a candidate site was included in either of the last two planning periods, making it unnecessarily difficult for reviewers to discern whether by-right development conditions exist at any of the identified sites, pursuant to state law, such as Site 4.70, which “has been considered for residential uses in the past.”146,147
Last, Site 4.63 with APN 263293-6000, included in the Non-Residential Sites, Draft 10/21/2020 document, and APN 2632935900 (no unique site identifier), included in the Revised Final Draft Housing Element, are together the Loma Santa Fe Plaza.148,149 Site 4.63 is listed as being 3.98 acres in size, and APN 2632935900 is listed as being 9.85 acres in size.150,151 However, according to the Parcel Lookup Tool, Site

4.63 is actually 4.22 acres in size and APN 2632935900 is actually 13.2 acres in size.152 Unless the city has evidence demonstrating these sites are not the size reported by SANDAG, which relies on county assessor data, APN 2632935900 is larger than 10.0 acres and must undergo a similar analysis about feasibility for nonvacant sites as the many sites smaller than 0.50 acres also in the city’s site inventory.153 Other Concerns
Housing Program 1G, Federal and State Funding Programs, binds the city to maintain an ongoing effort to obtain federal and state funding programs; Housing Program 1O binds the city to pursuing external funding for lower- and moderate-income funding sources, “as opportunities arise.”154 These programs’ objectives are weak. Program 1G requires the city to only review funding opportunities and conditionally work with developers to support their applications to said subsidy programs.155 A stronger, more actionable program would include more affirmative language, using words like “shall,” as well as commitments to pursue HOME funds, which the city discusses but does not disclose whether it applies for, CalHome funds, Infill Infrastructure Grant funds, California Emergency Solutions and Housing funds, Emergency Solutions Grants Program funds, Homkey funds, and Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities funds.156 Program 1O requires only that the city “seek to partner with local agencies that may provide funding opportunities or other resources that can assist in the development of housing 156 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-55 155 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-4 154 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), pp. 4-4, 4-5, and 4-7 153 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pp. 17-18
152 SANDAG SanGIS
151 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. B-16 150 City of Solana Beach, Non-Residential Sites, Draft 10/21/2020 149 City of Solana Beach
148 City of Solana Beach
147 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. B-15 146 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 11
145 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-51

YIMBY LAW
affordable at the lower and moderate income levels.”157 Seeking to partner as opportunities arise is exactly the level and intensity of commitment that has led to the bottomless chasm that is the housing affordability crisis. We implore the city to develop more actionable objectives.

The citation for the location of the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone is incorrect.158 Figure 3-5, Existing and Proposed Affordable Housing Locations in Solana Beach, is incorrect because it does not include a yellow star for the candidate site located at 607 Lomas Santa Fe Drive.159 Conclusion
We are grateful for the opportunity to review the city’s Final Draft Housing Element and the subsequent revisions directed by HCD, and we look forward to seeing the city’s response to the concerns we raised. It is our hope that the city takes our concerns seriously and makes another round of substantial revisions to comply with the strengthened Housing Element Law and various other relevant sections of Government Code. We would be delighted to meet with city officials to discuss the contents of this letter and work together on improving the draft housing element to better serve the residents and city.

Sincerely,
Jon Wizard
Housing Elements Coordinator
YIMBY Law
[email protected]
159 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-69 158 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 3-4 157 City of Solana Beach Revised Final Draft Housing Element (March 2021), p. 4-7

YIMBY LAW
City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-1
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S.

Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Acreage, Net. The total land area within the lot lines of a lot or parcel minus land area which will be required for public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use or open space (including undevelopable slopes, bluffs, and sensitive lands).

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. AFFH means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.

Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), Federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, Federal Sections 221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate program), Federal Sections 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Sections 515, multi-family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.

Below-Market-Rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderate-income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” (2) The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.

Build-Out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan. Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitled communities and administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-2
Condominium. A development consisting of an undivided interest in common for a portion of a parcel, coupled with a separate interest in space in a residential or commercial building on the parcel.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.

Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.

Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.

Density, Residential. The number of dwelling units per net acre.

Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.

Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price which is financed.

Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as the residence of two families living independently of each other.

Dwelling Unit (DU). One or more rooms including bathrooms(s) and a kitchen, designed as a unit for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes.

Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds. Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional Housing.”) Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or less than 30% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the Section 8 Program.

Family. Two or more persons living together as a bona fide single housekeeping unit.

General Plan. The city of Solana Beach general plan as adopted by the city council.

Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.

Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency) City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-3
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.

Historic/Cultural Landmark (Site). Any building, structure, or site (including significant trees or other plant life located thereon) which has been determined by the city council, pursuant to SBMC 17.60.160, to have significant historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological value.

Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See “Family.”) Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low-and moderate-income households.

Housing Element. A State-mandated element of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing Elements must be updated every eight years.

Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and utilities.

Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income; also called Payment-toIncome Ratio or Front-End Ratio.

Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.

Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.

Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.

Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a built-up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.

Land Use. A description of how land (real estate) is occupied or utilized.

Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.

Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 51%-80% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-4
Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households.

Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile home” and “Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-Use Development. The development of a parcel(s) or structure(s) with two or more different land uses such as, but not limited to, a combination of residential, office, manufacturing, retail, public, or entertainment in a single or physically integrated group of structures.

Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 81%-120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the borrower on a monthly basis.

Used with gross income to determine affordability.

Multifamily. Multiple separate housing units for residential (i.e., noncommercial) inhabitants contained within one building or several buildings within one complex. Includes multi-bedroom units, one-bedroom units, efficiency units, studios, and single room occupancy.

Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.

Overcrowded Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one which is occupied by more than one person per room.

Parcel. A parcel of land under one ownership that has been legally subdivided or combined and is shown as a single parcel on the latest equalized assessment roll.

Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.

Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-5
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.

Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction and affecting a broad geographic area.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment. A quantification by the local council of governments of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.

Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.

Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents.

Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.

Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30% of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation.

Senior Housing. Typically, one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.

Shared Living Facility. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential districts by Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Single-Family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”) Single-Family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). The smallest dwelling unit allowed by the Uniform Building Code which provides full living quarters, including kitchen and bathroom facilities (see current UBC Chapter 12). Also referred to as Efficiency Unit.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-6
Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms or mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.

Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.

Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d), and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible forservices provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b) and 53260(d)]
Target Areas. Specifically, designated sections of the community where loans and grants are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing affordable by Very-Low and Low-income households.

Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area.

State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the community’s supply of very low- and low-income housing.

Tenure. A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is owner-occupied only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified as renter-occupied including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent.

Townhouse. A building subdivided into individual units such that each owner owns the unit structure and the land on which the unit is located, plus a common interest in the land upon which the building is located.

Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See “Homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”) Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City.

City of Solana Beach
2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms Page D-7
Acronyms Used
ACS: American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DDS: Department of Developmental Services
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/AC: Dwelling Units Per Acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RTFH: Regional Task Force on the Homeless
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SANDAG: San Diego Associations of Governments
SDCAA: San Diego County Apartment Association
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 2023-058

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING IN ITS

ENTIRETY THE UNCERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT OF

THE GENERAL PLAN, ADOPTING IN FULL THE REVISED
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TO THE

GENERAL PLAN AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE
REVISED 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TO

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
WHEREAS, the City of Solana Beach’s (City) General Plan provides strategic planning for community sustainability and evaluates, defines, and sets goals for development preservation and rehabilitation of distinct neighborhoods and commercial areas; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan was initially adopted in 1988 and although it has been amended throughout the years, has never been comprehensively revised; and WHEREAS, the State requires periodic updates to reflect changes in the community and current laws; and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-65590)) requires the City Council to adopt a Housing Element as part of the City’s General Plan to accommodate the City’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA); and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65588(b) requires the City to prepare an update to the Housing Element for the 2021 – 2029 6th Cycle planning period; and
WHEREAS, to comply with the State Housing Element Law, the City has prepared the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (Housing Element) that assesses the City’s housing needs, inventories the resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs, and provides a program of scheduled actions the City will take to implement the Housing Element’s policies, goals, and objectives; and WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the past 30 months, including three public workshops and two workshops before the City Council; and
Resolution 2023–058
Revised 6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption

Page 2 of 7 ends

4893-4514-6206 v1
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65585(b), the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update was posted to the City’s website and circulated for a 30-day public review beginning October 22, 2020, and ending on November 23, 2020; and WHEREAS, after responding to public comments, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review on December 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the City received a letter from HCD regarding the draft Housing Element which included a request for additional information and analysis including, but not limited to, housing conditions, affirmatively furthering fair housing, updating inventory of land suitable for residential development, potential governmental constraints, non-governmental constraints, special housing needs; and WHEREAS, the February 16, 2021, letter from HCD further requested changes to Housing Programs including, but not limited to, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), actions to further development of housing for extremely low-income households and households and individuals with special needs, conservation and improvement of existing affordable housing stock, promotion and affirmatively further fair housing, and quantify objectives for rehabilitation and conservation and preservation of housing; and WHEREAS, the City incorporated each of HCD’s specific requirements identified in the February 16, 2021 and July 21, 2021 letters and email comments/feedback received on February 23, 2022, September 13, 2022, and January 23, 2023 into the revised draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the revised draft Housing Element was recirculated for a 7-day public review beginning February 23, 2023, and ending on March 2, 2023, and then was resubmitted to HCD for its review on March 3, 2023, in accordance with State Law; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2023, the City received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element as revised, which concluded that the revised draft Housing Element meets applicable statutory requirements and that the Housing Element will substantially comply with the State Housing Element Law when it is adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Housing Element (Project) is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) common sense exemption, because the Project involves policies, programs, and actions to meet the City’s RHNA allocation that either would not cause a significant effect on the environment or were previously analyzed adequately in the Solana Beach General Plan EIR (SCH No. 1987071508). The Project does not redesignate any properties for new or increased development, nor does the Housing Element identify the need for specific properties to be redesignated in order to accommodate the City’s RHNA for all income levels. Given their nature and scope as programmatic changes to facilitate housing production that is already permitted under the City’s existing General Plan and zoning designations, the proposed Housing Resolution 2023–058
Revised 6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption

Page 3 of 7 ends

4893-4514-6206 v1
Element programs and policies would not result in physical environmental impacts.

Additionally, the Housing Element does not grant any development entitlements or authorize development beyond what is allowed under the City’s current General Plan and Zoning Code (Municipal Code Title 17). Future City actions and private housing development pursuant to the Housing Element would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory framework, namely federal, state, regional, and local (i.e., General Plan policies, Municipal Code, Standard Conditions) regulations. Moreover, future City implementation actions and housing development would be subject to further discretionary review or approval by the City, including environmental review under CEQA. Based on these factors, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Housing Element is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments; and
WHEREAS, upon adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the document will be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2. Based on the totality of the record and evidence described and referenced in this Resolution, the City Council finds that the proposed Housing Element is consistent with the purposes of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and adopted Local Coastal Program in that the amendments support a variety of objectives including increasing housing choice by accommodating a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all Solana Beach residents, providing adequate sites with corresponding density to meet the City's RHNA allocation, and adopting State mandated and locally desired programs to implement the Housing Element effectively.

3. The City Council finds that, since 2019, the City has engaged in a robust discussion with the public regarding the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element including workshops, surveys, public meetings and hearings.

4. In compliance with Government Code Section 65585(e), the City Council has considered the findings and recommendation set forth in HCD’s letters, which Resolution 2023–058
Revised 6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption

Page 4 of 7 ends

4893-4514-6206 v1
determined, in part, that the City’s Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element required revision to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 65585(f)(1), the Housing Element was revised to incorporate HCD’s recommendation and comments, which has been incorporated to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.

5. The City Council finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2), and as set forth in Section 4 (Housing Plan) and Appendix B (Sites Suitability Analysis) of the Housing Element and in the foregoing, the existing uses on the sites identified in the Sites Suitability Analysis to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued and/or there is sufficient development capacity on identified sites during the planning period, and therefore such existing uses do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the Housing Element. In reviewing these possible residential opportunities the City used a set of guiding principles including analysis of the City’s development history and local and regional development trends to determine if each of those areas and their individual traits support the likelihood for redevelopment as noted below:
a. Solana Beach relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate the housing need for lower-income households. To accommodate the City’s need at each of the different income levels, the City has analyzed sites within the general commercial, special commercial, and high-density residential zones. The City has also evaluated recent projects on non-vacant sites that have redeveloped within commercially zoned areas that included residential units. Those projects, including the zoning, the existing use prior to redevelopment, and a project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table B2. The City’s analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to the existing uses on sites identified within the sites inventory in Table B-4. b. The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the next eight years, is provided in Table B-4. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and can be found through online research. The City has included information that property owners have shared regarding individual sites. As shown in Table B-4, some sites in the inventory show no “Existing Building Square Footage” but are not marked as “Vacant” due to existing parking lot/paving.
c. Additionally, on some candidate sites, the City has identified only the surface parking area with existing uses to remain on which housing may be developed without redevelopment of the existing non-residential use.

Resolution 2023–058
Revised 6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption

Page 5 of 7 ends

4893-4514-6206 v1
As evidenced below, the City has a history of redevelopment of nonvacant sites in which the existing use is either abandoned or accommodated within a mixed-use configuration as is the case at 625 Valley Avenue where the existing dentistry use was relocated into the new building. The City has made the assumption within the inventory that development will likely continue to occur in this manner, with existing uses either accommodated within the 20% assumption for nonresidential uses or replaced by residential uses. d. Many residential development and mixed use (residential/commercial) projects have been constructed within the City’s general and special commercial zones. In all instances, although the projects could have developed more residential units than were ultimately completed the City’s zoning code regulations did not prohibit additional residential development, rather the property owners chose to develop nonresidential uses in conjunction with the residential uses on site. All projects completed within the general commercial and special commercial zones within the past twenty years have included a residential component.
e. These projects show that the City has a past performance of developing residential units within the general and special commercial zones. As all of these uses retained a small commercial component, the City has included a residential development factor of 0.8 to accommodate for the inclusion of commercial uses in redevelopment. The Housing Plan section outlines actions the City will take to promote the development of affordable units within the downtown and commercial areas. f. Based on the information provided in Table B-2, the City has created a development example classification system for sites with characteristics that are applicable to those within the candidate sites inventory. The intent of this classification system is to draw parallels from past development and local knowledge and trends in development to the potential future development of the candidate housing sites identified.

These classifications are based on actual past development that has occurred within the City and while some comparisons may not be an exact match for the sites identified, they show a strong correlation with the understanding that every parcel is unique in terms of site characteristics, existing use, ownership, and other factors which can affect future development. All example developments in Table B-2 completely replaced the uses and structures that were existing on site.

The same approach is anticipated for the candidate sites in the City’s inventory with the exception of the parcels on the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza and Towne Center West shopping centers on Lomas Santa Fe Drive Resolution 2023–058
Revised 6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption

Page 6 of 7 ends

Solana Beach City CouncilMay 10, 2023

Solana Beach City Council
May 10, 2023