Solvang City Council
March 7, 2022

AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AND

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING
COMMISSION; AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MARCH 7, 2022 – 5:00 PM
VIRTUAL & IN COUNCIL CHAMBER, 1644 OAK STREET, SOLVANG, CA 93463 Xenia Bradford, City Manager
Dave Fleishman, City Attorney
Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
Charlie Uhrig, Mayor
Mark Infanti, Mayor pro tem
Robert Clarke, Councilmember
Claudia Orona, Councilmember
Jim Thomas, Councilmember
Jack Williams, Chair
Joannie Jamieson,
Commissioner Scott Gold,
Commissioner Aaron Petersen,
Commissioner Justin Rodriguez,
Commissioner
Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 Committee meetings are permitted to be held via teleconferencing and the City will provide both remote and in-person participation options. Members of the public can observe and address the meeting telephonically or electronically. Those attending in person are required to wear masks and socially distance. Virtual participation is available via Zoom or phone. Join the Zoom meeting by visiting https://zoom.us/j/3066529195 (Meeting ID: 306 652 9195). If you wish to speak, please use the “raised hand” symbol. If you would like to make a comment by phone, please call into conference line (888) 788-0099 (Meeting AGENDA AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS - Copies of staff reports and supporting documentation pertaining to each item on this agenda are available for public viewing and inspection at City Hall, 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, during regular business hours and on the City’s website www.cityofsolvang.com. In addition, any materials related to an agenda item provided to a majority of the Committee after the posting of the agenda, will be identified and available at City Hall and may be posted to the website.

AGENDA POSTING NOTIFICATION - If you would like to receive notification of the agenda availability, please subscribe to our “Notify Me” list at: https://www.cityofsolvang.com/List.aspx. You will receive notification when the agenda is available for viewing on the website and you may view and/or print a copy.

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED FOLLOWING THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA - Any writings that relate to an agenda item for an open session that is distributed to a majority of the Committee after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s office and may be posted to the website.

PUBLIC COMMENT - The public is encouraged to address the Committee on any matter posted on the agenda or on any other matter within its jurisdiction. If you wish to address the Committee on non-agenda items, you may do so during the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS section on the agenda. Each person is allotted three (3) minutes to speak.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The Committee may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future DRC meeting.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT - It is the intention of the City of Solvang to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk at either (805) 688-5575 x206 or [email protected]. 72- hours’ notice is requested. 1 ID: 306 652 9195). The phone line will be open starting at 4:15 p.m. In-person speakers will be invited to make public comments first. Virtual speakers will follow. You may also observe the live stream of the Committee meetings on www.CityofSolvang.com/YouTube.

Distribution to the Committee – You may, but are not required to, submit your comment in advance. Should you wish to do so, please do so via email prior to 5 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Committee meeting to the City Clerk at: [email protected]. Your comment will be recorded and distributed appropriately. 5:00 PM – SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW SOLVANG ELECTIONS DISTRICT MAPS Hold a Public Hearing. Open the Public Hearing to discuss and revise the draft maps and discuss election sequence. ..................................................................................................................................4

2. ADJOURNMENT
6:00 PM – SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE ADOPTION a. Receive a report on community input and General Plan Advisory Committee recommendations for the Preferred Land Use Alternative; and,
b. Adopt the Preferred Land Use Alternative.................................................................................14

2. ADJOURNMENT

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

A. Public Comment
This section is intended to provide members of the public with the opportunity to address the Commission on items not on the Agenda. This section is limited to 30 minutes. Each speaker will be afforded three minutes, and may speak only once. State law does not allow the Commission to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except to briefly respond or to ask Staff to follow up on such items. 2 B. Requests for Continuance, Withdrawals, or Addition of Ex-Agenda items C. Conflicts and/or Ex-Parte Communications
D. Approve the minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of the February 7, 2022, and the Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee of February 17, 2022 .....................................................................................32 E. Receive and file current Planning & Building Division Projects.

2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public Hearing to consider Adopting Resolution No. 22-02 recommending to City Council amendments to Title 11 Zoning Ordinance addressing accessory structures, including sheds, in the side-yard and rear-yard setbacks. .............................................................44 B. Public Hearing to consider providing a recommendation to the City Council on the General Plan Annual Report and to Adopt a Categorical Exemption. ...........................................72

3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Preliminary review of 1783 Mission Drive Hotel and Apartments (Old Lumberyard) .......88

4. PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS

5. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS

6. ADJOURNMENT

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Annamarie Porter, City Clerk for the City of Solvang, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing notice was posted at the City of Solvang City Hall bulletin board at 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, CA and on the City of Solvang website not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, per Government Code 54954.2.

Dated this 3rd day of March 2022.
3 Agenda Item Number: 1
XX
Solvang City Council STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Xenia Bradford, City Manager
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY

REGARDING THE CREATION OF A DISTRICT-BASED ELECTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION:

Hold a Public Hearing. Open the Public Hearing to discuss and revise the draft maps and discuss election sequence.

DISCUSSION:

On June 22, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-1112, declaring its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections for the City Council commencing with the General Municipal Election in November 2022. Districting Process requires four public hearings.

Two public hearings must be held prior to release of draft maps. The City of Solvang has held the following public hearings to date:
4 A dedicated website has been established for the redistricting process. Please visit www.DistrictSolvang.org. The website includes information on prior hearings as well as draft maps for discussion today. The City is seeking community input on the draft maps. Three draft maps were developed based on community input and legal requirements. See Attachment A.

National Demographic Corporation is assisting the City in complying with the various requirements necessary to implement district-based elections. NDC has assisted many California communities in this process, and their representatives are available to respond to questions from the community regarding the process.

Following tonight’s hearing, the City Council will hold two more Public Hearings to consider an ordinance adopting a preferred map and election sequence. The dates are set as follows.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council can select one of the proposed maps or propose modifications to the maps.

Proposed modifications may or may not be allowable to meet the legal requirements and will be analyzed by the Consultant.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract with National Demographic Corporation for re-districting was previously approved by City Council and there is no additional fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Power Point Presentation
5 March 7, 2022 1
Attachment A
6 2
Transition Process
March 7, 2022
Step Description
Three pre-draft
hearings:

August 9, 2021
August 23, 2021
September 13, 2021
Held prior to the release of draft plans.

Purpose to educate on the process and to solicit input on the neighborhoods and communities of interest in the City.

Release draft plans:

February 7, 2022
Draft plans posted to City’s districting website.

Two post-draft
hearings:

March 7, 2022
March 28, 2022
Purpose to present, discuss, and receive input on the draft plans, including any direction to revise the draft plans.

Plan adoption:

March 28, 2022
April 11, 2022
Plan adopted via first and second readings of an ordinance.

Final plan must be posted at least 7 days prior to adoption. 7 3
Rules and Goals for Drawing Districts
March 7, 2022
 Equal Population
 Federal Voting
Rights Act
 No Racial
Gerrymandering

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas that
should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of people
to get to a more distant group of
people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against a political
party.”

3. Other Traditional Districting
Principles
 Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
 Future population growth
8 March 7, 2022
4  Total population deviation: 8.5%  District 3 Latino CVAP: 55%  All four districts are contiguous  Does not appear to unnecessarily split any neighborhoods or
communities of interest such as
multi-family housing, senior living
facilities, and mobile home parks
 The central business district is kept
together in District 3 (would it be
better represented in a single
district or in multiple districts?)
 District boundaries follow major
streets wherever possible
 Some districts may not be compact
9 March 7, 2022
5  Total population deviation: 8.3%  District 3 Latino CVAP: 56%  All four districts are contiguous  Does not appear to unnecessarily split any neighborhoods or
communities of interest such as
multi-family housing, senior living
facilities, and mobile home parks
 The central business district is split
between Districts 3 and 4 (would it
be better represented in a single
district or in multiple districts?)
 District boundaries follow major
streets wherever possible
 All districts are reasonably compact
10 March 7, 2022
6  Total population deviation: 6.3%  District 3 Latino CVAP: 54%  District 4 is not contiguous as it is  Does not appear to unnecessarily split any neighborhoods or
communities of interest such as
multi-family housing, senior living
facilities, and mobile home parks
 The central business district is kept
together in District 3 (would it be
better represented in a single
district or in multiple districts?)
 District boundaries follow major
streets wherever possible
 District 4 is not compact
11 March 7, 2022 7
(There must be two districts up in 2022 and two in 2024) District Green Plan Orange Plan Yellow Plan
1 2024 2022 or 2024 2024
2 2022 or 2024 2024 2022
3 2022 or 2024 2022 or 2024 2022
4 2022 2022 2024
12 8
Public Hearing & Discussion
 Questions about the proposed draft plans?
 Which draft plan do you prefer?
 What, if anything, would you like to see revised in your preferred plan?
 Please refer to the Interactive Review Map for a
detailed look at each plan
March 7, 2022
13 Agenda Item Number: 1
Special Joint Meeting Solvang City Council & Planning Commission STAFF REPORT PREPARED BY: Xenia Bradford, City Manager
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

ADOPTION
RECOMMENDATION:
a. Receive a report on community input and General Plan Advisory Committee recommendations for the Preferred Land Use Alternative; and,
b. Adopt the Preferred Land Use Alternative.

DISCUSSION:

The General Plan Update is a pivotal opportunity to shape the future of Solvang. Through the Update process, the City and its consultants (General Plan Team), with input from the public and stakeholders, will consider pertinent topics, such as a design element, economic development, housing and resiliency to ensure Solvang is positioned to achieve its vision for the future.

A General Plan is a broad planning guideline to a city’s future development goals that provides policy statements to achieve those goals. A General Plan typically sets a vision for the foreseeable horizon of 20 to 25 years. Every jurisdiction in California must have a General Plan, which is the local government’s long-term framework or “constitution” for the future. The General Plan represents the community’s vision of its future and expresses the community’s goals. The General Plan contains the goals and policies upon which the City Council and Planning Commission will base their land use and resource decisions.

The City of Solvang adopted its current General Plan in piecemeal fashion over the last 33 years. The City has initiated the update to refine the current General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, consider new challenges, and create forward-thinking implementation measures. This effort is intended to be a comprehensive overhaul of the document. This planning effort will also allow the General Plan Team to implement best practices in planning to ensure Solvang is resilient to future risks while also improving overall quality of life.

The General Plan Update Team has been collecting community input and has held three workshops to date. We are currently completing stage 3 of the planning process as shown in the diagram below. The purpose of Workshop #3, held on January 13, 2022, was to receive input on Alternative Choices. The diagram below shows the different steps of the Update process. 14 A dedicated website has been established where community members can view all General Plan Update documents and sign-up for notifications (www.PlanSolvang.com). As part of the General Plan Update process, a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) consisting of 15 volunteer community members was formed. The purpose of the GPAC is to represent the voice of the Solvang community and to advise the City Council. GPAC has been instrumental in developing the Vision & Guiding Principles presented to the City Council and Planning Commission. The City Council adopted 12 Guiding Principles which can be viewed on the website. The Guiding Principles summary is also shown in attachment A. The Guiding Principles are:

1. Heritage and Identity

2. The Village

3. Economic Vitality

4. Neighborhoods

5. Cultural Resources

6. Natural Environment

7. Mobility and Access

8. Regional Cooperation

9. Infrastructure and Amenities

10. Resident Services

11. Jobs and Housing

12. Good Governance
Community input has been collected from the Workshop #3 on Alternative Choices and an online survey.

GPAC met on February 22, 2022, to select a preferred Land Use Alternative. GPAC recommendation is summarized below.
15 Staff seeks Planning Commission and City Council approval of the Preferred Alternative recommended by GPAC.

NEXT STEPS
Based on the Guiding Principles and the approved Preferred Land Use Alternative, the General Plan Update team will work with the GPAC to develop each element of the General Plan. The City will also hold another workshop specifically focusing on the Housing Element update. The Elements of the proposed General Plan are:
• Land Use Element
• Community Design Element
• Economic Development Element
• Mobility Element
• Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element • Environment and Sustainability Element
• Safety Element
• Housing Element
The draft of the General Plan will be presented for public review/comment and will subsequently be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for initial comment and then approval.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council has full discretion to provide staff with alternate direction for process or steps forward.

The City Council and the Planning Commission may elect to modify the Preferred Land Use Alternative as part of tonight’s agenda.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The scope of work is funded within existing approved budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – Presentation Slides
16 Solvang General
Plan Update
Joint Study Session
Presentation
March 7, 2022
Attachment A
17 Meeting Purpose
 General Plan Process and Timeline
 The Alternatives Process
 GPAC Recommended Preferred Alternative
 City Council and Planning Commission Deliberation on a Preferred Alternative
 Vote on the Alternative for inclusion in the General Plan  Next Steps
18 2
General Plan
Process and
Timeline
19 3
August 2021 – March 2022
Late Spring 2023
December 2020 Summer 2022 – Early 2023
January 2021 – July 2021 February 2022 – Summer 2022
Project
Initiation
1 Existing
Conditions
and Trends
2 Alternative
Choices
3 Preparing
the
Plan
4 Environmental
Review
5 Adoption
6 General Plan Update Process
GPAC Involvement
Community Engagement
Housing Element
20 The Alternatives
Process
21 5
Purpose of the Alternatives Report
22 6
Scope of Analysis
 The land use alternatives focus on expanded housing and commercial for the future.
 The Alternatives Report analyzes three different land use alternatives. 7 Medium-density infilloriented scenario. The
density and non-residential
intensity in the HDR and TC
land use designations
increase from Alternative A.

High-density infill-oriented
scenario. The density and
non-residential intensity in
the HDR and TC land use
designations increase from
Alternative B.
23 GPAC
Recommended
Preferred
Alternative
24 8
GPAC Motion
 Recommend Alternative 1 as the preferred land use alternatives, including the following standards:
• Maximum allowable residential density of 20 du/ac,
• Allow mixed use in the Tourist Commercial, Commercial (Retail and General), and Professional Office land use designations,
• Increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 0.65, • Allow a maximum height of 35 feet, and
• Redesignate the Mission Oaks Property to Low-Medium Density Residential for consistency with underlying zone.  Vote: YES: 14 NO: 0 ABSENT: 1
25 9
10 Tourist Commercial
General Commercial
Retail Commercial
Allow 20 du/ac
Maximum 35 feet

0.65 FAR
Low/Medium Density
Residential*
26 City Council and
Planning
Commission
Deliberation on a
Preferred
Alternative
27 11
Vote on the
Alternative for
inclusion in the
General Plan
28 12
Next Steps
29 13
Next Steps
 Preparation of the General Plan Elements
 Continuing to prep the Housing Element
30 14
Thank You
31 15
February 7, 2022
Monday
6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, California.

ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners: Joannie Jamieson, Aaron Petersen, Justin Rodriguez and Chair Jack Williams Absent Commissioner: Scott Gold
Staff: City Manager Xenia Bradford, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea O’Sullivan, Public Works Director Rodger Olds, City Clerk Annamarie Porter, Planning Consultant Laurie Tamura.

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
Commissioner Rodriguez led in the Salute to the Flag.

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

A. Public Comment: Requests from the public to speak to the Commission on matters not on the agenda. - None
B. Requests for Continuance, Withdrawals, or Addition of Ex-Agenda items - None C. Conflicts and/or Ex-Parte Communications
Commissioner Rodriguez reported he received a notice from the City regarding his shed and wondered if he should recuse himself from Item No. 2B. Assistant City Attorney O’Sullivan explained it relates to a City-wide ordinance and therefore, there is no need for him to recuse himself.

D. Approval of Minutes from December 6, 2021 Meeting
Motion by Commissioner Jamieson, to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 6, 2021, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Petersen, and carried 4-0, with Commissioner Gold, absent.

2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public Hearing to review and provide recommendation to the City Council; and, Adopt Resolution No. 22-01 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang, California recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 2 and Title 11 Zoning Ordinance of the Solvang Municipal Code to address Planning Division reorganization, clarify Design Review Committee (DRC) powers, duties, and appeal bodies, and remove outdated code provisions and typographical errors.

City Manager Bradford introduced the item and deferred to City Attorney O’Sullivan for a report.

Assistant City Attorney O’Sullivan presented details of the report and highlighted recommended changes in the

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOLVANG

PLANNING COMMISSION
32 resolution.

Chair Williams opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

Discussion followed regarding the defining the designated Building Official, specifying the time period for minor alterations in development plans, removing references to "Planning Manager Designee", land use permits, DRC powers, responsibilities and duties, clarifying that upon significant changes by the Planning Commission, the item will be sent back to the DRC for review, development and adoption of design standards by the DRC, Planning Commission and City Council, updating the Design Element of the General Plan through the overall General Plan Update process, implementing State ordinances regarding ADUs, the possibility of scheduling a joint meeting with the DRC, the likelihood of additional changes to the zoning code, once the General Plan Update is completed.

Chair Williams reopened the public hearing.

Patrick Cavanaugh, Chair, Design Review Committee, spoke about the need to streamline processes; discussed the need to indicate that design standards must be approved by City Council and agreed with the prospect of holding a joint meeting of the DRC and Planning Commission.

Esther Jacobsen-Bates, Vice Chair, Design Review Committee, agreed that a joint meeting would be worthwhile, spoke about interpreting and applying approved design standards and believed the General Plan will provide clear guidelines for both the DRC and Planning Commission.

Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

The Planning Commission concurred to direct staff to schedule a joint meeting with the DRC.

Motion by Commissioner Petersen, to adopt Resolution No. 22-01 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang, California recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 2 and Title 11 Zoning Ordinance of the Solvang Municipal Code to address Planning Department reorganization, clarify Design Review Committee powers and duties and appeal bodies, and remove outdated code provisions and typographical errors and direct staff to schedule a Joint Special Meeting with the DRC, seconded by Commissioner Jamieson, and carried 4-0, with Commissioner Gold, absent.

B. Public Hearing to review and provide recommendation to City Council; and, Adopt Resolution No. 22-02 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang, California recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 11 of the Solvang Municipal Code to address sheds and other accessory structures in residential zones and make a determination of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Assistant City Attorney O’Sullivan presented details of the report and recommendations relative to sheds and other accessory structures in residential zones.

Planning Consultant Tamura discussed minimum side yard setbacks for different size lots.

Discussion followed regarding unpermitted illegal ADUs and architectural features including chimneys.

Chair Williams opened the public hearing.

Chris Horn noted that most sheds in his neighborhood are small sheds; reported sheds addressed in the ordinance are medium to large sheds and spoke about the possibility of an exception for as-built structures.

Rovi Butcher expressed concerns that sheds along fences will now be non-compliant and will increase costs for the City in terms of Code Enforcement.
33 There were no other public comments and Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Rodriguez spoke about the need to clarify requirements for residents to avoid confusion.

City Manager Bradford noted most property owners have been working with Code Enforcement to bring their sheds into compliance.

Discussion followed regarding input and recommendations from the Fire Department regarding different scenarios, challenges with developing standards that would apply City-wide and getting clarification from the Fire Department.

Chair Williams reopened the public hearing.

Chris Horn discussed recommendations in the original proposal addressing the various scenarios; commented on the complaint-based system and suggested the City work with neighbors with existing sheds for which there have been no complaints.

Rovi Butcher wondered whether Staff checked the validity of complaints when they are received and spoke about the recommendations not applying to residents who have smaller sheds.

There were no other public comments and Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

City Manager Bradford addressed the City's complaint-based Code Enforcement process; noted after a complaint is received there is an investigation and reported the City retains the right to address violations without complaints.

Discussion followed regarding proposed changes to the code, the need to comply with code requirements, whether variances can be given for legal, non-conforming structures on a case-by-case basis, accommodating existing sheds and challenges in developing an ordinance that will apply to everyone.

The Planning Commission directed staff to get clarification from the Fire Department regarding the necessary setbacks and building heights to comply with fire safety requirements.

3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Review proposed Solvang Farmers’ Market location changes and provide direction to staff City Manager Bradford introduced the item and deferred to staff for a report.

Public Works Director Olds presented details of the staff report and reported the Farmers Market has offered to install traffic control at the alleys.

Victoria Sarquilla, Solvang Farmers Market, discussed operations; addressed increasing the number farmers; spoke about the benefits of changing the location and talked about the possibility of using Parking Lot 2 for the Farmers Market.

City Manager Bradford reported that City Council has not set a date for the reopening of Copenhagen Drive.

Discussion followed regarding the possibility of using private spaces, going back to the original location once Copenhagen opens.

There were no public comments on this item.

The Planning Commission concurred with the proposed Farmers Market location changes. 34 B. Receive Planning Division’s Project Status Report regarding ongoing and future projects City Manager Bradford presented details of the staff report.

Discussion followed regarding the status of the building on Alisal that suffered fire damage, that status of the Old Lumber Yard project, the Alisal Ranch annexation project, and upcoming items for the Planning Commission and City Council joint meeting of March 7, 2022.

4. PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS - None

5. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS - None

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
35 February 17, 2022
Thursday
5:00 p.m.

JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW

COMMITTEE

1. PRILIMINARY MATTERS:

CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, California.

ROLL CALL (Planning Commission)

Present: Commissioners: Scott Gold, Joannie Jamieson, Aaron Peterson, Justin Rodriguez and Chair Jack Williams
Absent None
ROLL CALL (Design Review Committee)

Present: Committee Members: Brian Deputy, Esther Jacobsen Bates, Jennifer Dryden Hess and Chair Patrick Cavanaugh

Absent: Committee Member: Joy Culley
Staff: City Manager Xenia Bradford, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea O’Sullivan, City Clerk Annamarie Porter, Assistant Planner Sophia Checa

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
Planning Commissioner Rodriguez led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. BUSINESS ITEMS:

A. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT REVIEW OF AND COMMENT ON AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 11 OF THE SOLVANG MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES AND ROLES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION; AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 2, 8, 10, 11, AND 12 OF THE SOLVANG

MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT PLANNING DIVISION REORGANIZATION, CLARIFY DESIGN

REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION POWERS AND DUTIES, CLARIFY APPEAL

BODIES, AND REMOVE OUTDATED CODE PROVISIONS AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS Planning Commission Chair Williams introduced the item.

Discussion followed regarding making amendments to the Municipal Code, the possibility of appeals of DRC

MINUTES OF A JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SOLVANG

PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND

REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
36 decisions being heard by the Planning Commission versus City Council, items appealable to the Planning Commission, DRC decisions versus Planning Commission decisions, streamlining processes, duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and DRC and changing the definition of Planning Manager to include the designee.

City Manager Bradford explained actions required from the Planning Commission.

Design Review Committee Chair Cavanaugh suggested having the resolution reflect that the DRC supports the amendments.

Planning Commission Chair Williams invited comments from the public.

Nancy Emerson discussed suggested changes to the descriptions of the Planning Commission and the DRC.

There were no other public comments.

Discussion followed distinctions between Sections 4 and 9 in the document, Planning Commission and DRC duties and responsibilities, including language that if the Planning Commission makes significant changes to the project that affects the design, the item shall be returned to the DRC for review, specifying the DRC is responsible for reviewing exterior lighting, removing special events from Title 11 and being consistent throughout the document.

Motion by Member Jacobsen Bates to support the Planning Commission's recommendations for changes to the Municipal Code as presented and discussed, seconded by Member Dryden Hess, and carried, unanimously, 4-1, with Member Culley, absent.

Motion by Commissioner Jamieson to Adopt Resolution No. 22-01 recommending amendments to Titles 2, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the Solvang Municipal Code to reflect Planning Division reorganization, clarify Design Review Committee and Planning Commission powers and duties, clarify appeal bodies, remove outdated code provisions and typographical errors, as discussed and noting the Design Review Committee's support, seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez, and carried, unanimously, 5-0.

3. ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
37 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cavanaugh called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, California.

ROLL CALL

Present: Committee Members: Brian Deputy, Jennifer Dryden Hess, Esther Jacobsen Bates and Chair Patrick Cavanaugh

Absent: Committee Member: Joy Culley
Staff: City Manager Xenia Bradford, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea O’Sullivan, City Clerk Annamarie Porter, Assistant Planner Sophia Checa

APPROVE THE ORDER OF AGENDA, AS PRESENTED
Motion by Member Deputy, to approve the agenda, as presented, seconded by Member Dryden Hess, and carried 4-0, with Member Cully, absent.

APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2022 MEETING
Motion by Member Deputy, to approve the meeting minutes of January 20, 2022, as presented, seconded by Member Dryden Hess, and carried 4-0, with Member Cully, absent.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (NON-AGENDA) - None

2. PROJECT RECONSIDERATION: None

3. SIGN APPROVAL APPLICATIONS: None

4. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW: None

5. PRELIMINARY REVIEW: None

6. PLANNING STATUS UPDATE ITEMS:

A. Discuss and approve Tourist Related Commercial (TRC) Signage and Branding and Visitor Center exterior and interior design.

City Manager Bradford introduced the item, presented a brief background and deferred to Scott Shoemake, Cogs & Marvel for a report.

Sheila Milani, Creative Director, Cogs & Marvel, narrated a PowerPoint presentation regarding the City logo, TRC signage and branding and the Visitor Center exterior and interior design. 38 Discussion followed regarding challenges with the yellow background, adding the logo to the scope of work, avoiding clutter in the design, the hierarchy in color values, color and shape options, the proposed fonts, removing "the" and only using "Danish Capital of America" in the tag line, differences between wayfinding and monument signs, the bench concept, signage being location-dependent, creating a family of signs and scaling signs to the site and function.

The DRC commented positively regarding the exterior and interior redesign of the Visitor Center.

Motion by Member Dryden Hess, seconded by Member Jacobsen Bates to approve the Visitor Center interior redesign, conceptually; form a Subcommittee comprised of Members Deputy and Dryden Hess to consider exterior paint color and return to the DRC with a final recommendation. Motion carried 4-0, with Member Culley, absent.

B. Discuss sign regulations and design standards enforcement in the TRC City Manager Bradford presented details of the staff report and discussed the permitting system, converting to a digital sign inventory, the Sign Ordinance and enforcement.

Discussion followed regarding fees, grandfathering specific signs, Code Enforcement, the complaint-based system and the importance of the Code Enforcement Officer being able to proactively apply the rules.

Code Enforcement Officer Hseuh addressed sign-related issues; noted most people are compliant with the ordinance; reported there is a lack of directory signs in many businesses and talked about the need to be consistent in applying the rules and specifying the number of signs that a business may have.

Discussion following regarding the possibility of increasing the number of hours for the Code Enforcement Officer, budget challenges and rate comparisons with other cities.

This item was continued to an upcoming agenda for additional consideration and discussion.

7. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS:

Members Jacobsen Bates and Dryden Hess reported they will not be available to attend the DRC's meeting in March.

Member Jacobsen Bates requested that staff provide a regular update on the status of projects the DRC has reviewed as well as upcoming projects.

8. CITY STAFF COMMENTS:

City Manager Bradford provided an update on the General Plan Update process.

9. ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
39 City of Solvang
Planning and Building Division
Current Projects
March 2022
Conceptual Review – No Application Submitted
Project Zoning Project Description Content
1704 Mission Drive
APN 139-240-033
TRC Boutique hotel Scheduled for the 3/17/2022 Design Review Committee (DRC) Meeting 1783 and 1793
Mission Drive and 533
Pine Street
APN 139-150-017,-
027, and -012
1783 and 1793
Mission Drive: DR-20;
533 Pine Street:
7-R-1
77-unit hotel (38-
rooms, 12-suites, and
27-hotel
condominiums) and
45-micro unit
apartment building
Scheduled for the 3/7/2022 Planning Commission (PC) Meeting Solvang Senior
Center
1745 Mission Drive
APN 139-150-024
I Demolish existing
building and rebuild
Reviewed by the DRC at their meeting on 12/16/2021
Alisal Guest Ranch
1054 Alisal Road
APN 137-310-010
AG Annexation for
development of a
glamping site
Presented to the City Council (CC) on 10/25/2021
Applications in Process
Project Zoning Description Content
785B Fredensborg
Canyon Road
APN 137-660-045
1-E-1 Single Family
Residence
Colors, materials, landscaping, and exterior lighting scheduled for the 3/17/2022 DRC Meeting
Submitted 12/14/2021
1714 Mission Drive
APN 139-240-034
TRC Redevelopment of
vacant bank building
into a deli and market
Complete Letter due by 3/9/2022
Submitted 2/7/2022
1655 Mission Drive
APN 139-142-009
TRC Sign Scheduled for the 3/17/2022 DRC Meeting
Submitted 2/9/2022
1621 Fir Avenue
APN 139-141-004
DR-20 3 Single Family
Residence
Complete Letter due by 3/17/2022
Submitted 2/15/2022
Sansum Clinic
Medical Office
Building
P-O 30,000 SF medical
office building
Conceptual review scheduled for the 3/17/2022 DRC Meeting Complete Letter sent 2/27/2022
Submitted 1/27/2022
Agenda Item 1.E
40 1925-1927 Windmill
Lane
APN 139-540-013, -
014
1660 Copenhagen
Drive
APN 139-192-004
TRC Sign Scheduled for the 3/17/2022 DRC Meeting
Submitted 2/9/2022
393 Alisal Road/1866
Oak Street
APN 139-214-002
TRC Exterior
improvements
Parking waiver
Scheduled for the 3/17/2022 DRC Meeting
Submitted 2/10/2022
Coast Range
1635 Mission Drive
APN 139-142-005
TRC Minor Conditional Use
Permit for outdoor
BBQ
Submitted 2/15/2022
Approved – No Construction Plans Submitted
Project Zoning Description Content
459-467 Atterdag
Road
APN 139-174-014, -
013
TRC Hotel addition and
voluntary merger
Lot merger complete
Approved by the PC on 07/01/2019
539 Alisal Road
APN 139-143-004
DR-20 11-unit multi-family
development
PC approved 11/2/2020
DRC approved
1849 Old Mission
Drive
APN 139-540-018
7-R-1 3 lot subdivision Final map recorded 7/2020
Approved by the PC on 12/4/2017
Mission Drive
Boutique Hotel
1420 Mission Drive
APN 137-590-010
TRC 11-unit hotel PC approved 11/2/2020
Bocce Ball
459 Atterdag Court
APN 139-174-014
TRC Outdoor
entertainment with a
wine bar on a vacant
lot
CC approved parking waiver XX/XX/2021
PC approved the project 11/2021
Bella Vista
Development
1875, 1879, and 1883
Laurel Avenue
APN 139-100-049, -
048, and -047
8-R-1 3 SFR Waiting for resubmittal of plans that adhere with the Conditions of Approval and requirements placed by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department
Result of a lot split approved by the Planning Commission on 6/2/2003 41 Plan Check
Project Zoning Description Content
261 Alisal Road
APN 139-234-046
TRC Hotel conversion Project on hold per the owner
Resubmittal 4/27/2020
PC Action Letter sent 12/4/2019
PC approved 12/2/2019
Under Construction
Project Zoning Description Content
The Cottages on Old
Mission
1830-1900 Old
Mission Drive
APN 139-540-057, -
058, -059, -060, -061,
-062, -063, and -064
7-R-1 8 single family homes
with attached ADUs
Question about fencing along Old Mission Drive
Houses/ADU under construction
New letter on cul-de-sac revision
Substantial conformity letter
Request for reduction of road widening being reviewed with planning, Public Works, and fire
1660 Copenhagen
Drive
APN 139-192-004
TRC 300 SF commercial
building
Signs scheduled for the 3/17/2021 DRC Meeting
PC approved 9/8/2020
Solvang Theater Fest
420 Second Street
APN 139-192-021, -
022, and -023
TRC Renovate building DRC approved 4/15/2021
PC approved 2/1/2021
1731 Laurel Avenue
APN 139-091-041
7-R-1 2 lot subdivision –
Single Family
Residence with Junior
Accessory Dwelling
Units and Accessory
Dwelling Units
Under construction
Building permits issued
1546 Copenhagen
Drive
APN 139-174-006
DR-20 3-unit vacation rental Building permits issued
DRC approved 5/20/2021
PC approved 12/7/2020
670 Alamo Pintado
Road
APN 139-530-005
DR-20 32-unit condominium
project with 5
buildings
PC approved 12/7/2020
575 Alisal Road
APN 139-123-008
DR-20 Rebuild fire damage Plan check review of Site Plan and Floor Plan Fire damage and addition
New unit to be added
75% complete
42 1628 Elm Street
APN 139-141-007
DR-20 New duplex Building permits issued 11/14/2019
Surrey Cycle Building
475 First Street
APN 139-181-013
TRC Reconstruction of
existing building
Need construction management plan
Land Use Permit signed by City Manager on 1/13/2020
Merkantile
1980-1992 Old
Mission Drive
APN 139-240-074
and -075
C-2 Redevelopment of
existing commercial
plaza
99% complete; pergola still needed
Permits issued
Water Wheel
425 First Street
APN 139-192-024
TRC Renovate vacant
building
Under construction/painting
Planning Commission set for 3/1/2021
City Council Meeting Parking Fee
DRC review 5/20/2021
DRC review 4/14/2021
Clocktower
486-490 First Street
APN 139-182-030
and 139-182-029
TRC Hotel conversion and
retail
PC approval received
Several exterior changes reviewed and approved by the Board of Architectural Review (currently the Design Review Committee)

ACRONYMS
CC City Council
DRC Design Review Committee
PC Planning Commission

ZONING DESCRIPTIONS
1-E-1 Residential – 1 acre minimum net lot size
7-R-1 Residential – 7,000 square feet minimum net lot size 8-R-1 Residential – 8,000 square feet minimum net lot size AG Agricultural
C-2 Commercial Retail
DR-20 Design Residential – 20 units/acre
I Institutional
P-O Professional – Office
TRC Tourist Related Commercial
43 Agenda Item Number: 2.A
Solvang Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY:

MEETING DATE:

SUBJECT:

Laurie Tamura, Planning Consultant
Chelsea O’Sullivan, Assistant City Attorney
March 7, 2022

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION
NO. 22-02 RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS
TO TITLE 11 ZONING ORDINANCE ADDRESSING ACCESSORY

STRUCTURES, INCLUDING SHEDS, IN THE SIDE-YARD AND

REAR-YARD SETBACKS
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Solvang Municipal Code to address sheds and other accessory structures in side-yard and rear-yard setbacks in residential zones.

DISCUSSION:

Background
This agenda item is the result of an ongoing discussion regarding code enforcement issues in Skytt Mesa brought to both Planning Commission and City Council earlier this year. During this prior review, City Council directed staff to enforce the Municipal Code in the Skytt Mesa neighborhood. On July 12, 2021, City Council received an update on enforcement efforts in Skytt Mesa. This report stated most of the Municipal Code violations were sheds placed in the side-and rear-yard setbacks. On October 25, 2011, the City Council received further public comment on code enforcement in the Skytt Mesa neighborhood and directed staff to take the matter to Planning Commission for recommendation regarding revisions to the Municipal Code with respect to sheds located in side- and rear-yard setbacks in residential zones.

On December 6, 2021 the Planning Commission considered generally whether to recommend the City Council amend the municipal code to allow for certain sheds in rear- and side-yard setbacks. After taking public comment and considering the matter, the Planning Commission directed staff to develop recommended code amendments allowing for smaller sheds that do not require a building or land use permit to be placed in the side- and rear-yard setback and possibly scaling the required setback to the size of the shed. The Planning Commission also directed staff to consider the possibility of allowing zero clearance between the house and a small shed, provided requirements for fire access can still be met.

On February 7, 2022 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered proposed code amendments to address accessory structures in residential dwellings. The Planning Commission provided further direction to staff to confirm fire safety requirements, allow smaller 44 distances from the property line sheds below a certain size, and to specify a maximum height for accessory structures analogous to the height limits for accessory dwelling units.

Current Requirements
Accessory structures, including sheds, that are less than 120 square feet in floor area, with no plumbing, mechanical, or electrical, and less than 12 feet in height are not required to obtain a land use permit or building permit and are “exempt” accessory structures (Attachment A).

Accessory structures as defined do not include accessory dwelling units.

Sheds larger than this are required to obtain a land use permit and building permit and meet the requirements of those approvals (Attachment B and C). Regardless of whether a land use permit or a building permit is required, Solvang municipal code currently provides that accessory structures must meet certain set back requirements from the property line and the primary structure.

Under Solvang’s municipal code all accessory structures are currently required to “conform to the height requirements and front- and side-yard setback regulations” of the applicable zoning district (Attachment D). Current requirements effectively prohibit accessory structures in side-yards and most of rear-yards and sheds abutting the primary residence. The residential zoning districts provide:
• Single-Family Residential District.
o Side yards are to be 10 percent of the lot. However, for lots less than 50 feet wide in 7-R-1 to 10-R-1, the side-yard setback shall not be less than 5 feet, and for lots greater than 100 feet wide the side-yard setback shall not be more than 10 feet. The required setback for portions of the building can be varied provided that in lots zone 7-R-1 to 10-R-1, no portion of the building can be less than five feet from the sidelines of the lot (Attachment E).
o For lots zoned 20-R-1 to 3-E-1 no portion of the accessory structure can be closer than 10 feet from the sidelines of the lot and for lots greater than 200 feet wide, no greater than 20 feet. The accessory structure can be in the rear yard of 25 feet as long as they respect the side yard setback.
o For all single-family residential districts, the minimum distance between a building designed for habitation and any other detached building or accessory structure is 10 feet.
o For all single-family residential districts, there is a maximum building coverage requirement of no more than 40% for the rear yard setback for this zone (Attachment D).
• Design Residential District. The side-yard and rear-yard setbacks are required to be a minimum of 10 feet from any side or rear property line. The minimum distance between a building designed for habitation and any other detached building or structure is 10 feet.

Coverage of buildings containing dwellings are not to exceed 30% of the net area of the property (Attachment F).
• Planned Residential Development District. Setbacks for this district are proposed and approved on the development plans for a particular planned residential development.

Coverage of buildings containing dwellings are not to exceed 30% of the net area of the property and total building coverage is not to exceed 50% of the net area of the property.

Under the general setback regulations in Section 11-12-16(A)(5) of the Solvang Municipal Code, “[e]very part of a setback shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except as otherwise provided in this title and except for the ordinary projection of [ornamental features]” (Attachment 45 G). Accessory structures may be in the rear-yard setback provided the accessory structure is no closer than 10 feet from the principal structure and occupies no more than 40% of the required rear yard (Attachment D).

Furthermore, under the State Residential Building Code, Section R302.1 regarding FireResistant Construction, accessory structures, including sheds, that require a building permit generally require a minimum distance of 5 feet separation between buildings, except that accessory structures next to an individual dwelling unit are not required to meet the minimum separation distance (Attachment H). If the accessory structures meet certain fire-resistance ratings, these distances can be less. These requirements will be applicable regardless of what changes are made to the City’s Municipal Code but do not apply to accessory structures that do not require a building permit.

Section 503 of the California Fire Code requires a road accessible by a fire apparatus to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of a building as measured by an approved route around the building (Attachment I). The Fire Code does not require structures to be a minimum distance from the property line or that there be a minimum width for a clear pathway in side-yard or rear-yard setbacks. To enable the appropriate access for fire fighters and equipment around a building, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department recommends that there be a corridor clear from the ground to the sky with a minimum width of three (3) feet in side-yard and rear-yard setbacks. This clear access corridor does not need to be along the property line; the clear access corridor can be between the accessory structures and the primary dwelling. If there are multiple accessory structures along the side of a building, the fire department also recommends there to be a minimum of five (5) feet between the accessory structures to allow places for ladder access. Although not required by the California Fire Code, staff recommends these operational criteria recommended by the fire department be incorporated into the provisions regarding accessory structures. The code changes recommended below reflect the fire department’s recommendations.

Recommendations
Consistent with Planning Commission’s direction at the December 6, 2021 and February 7, 2022 meetings and based on staff’s review of the applicable Solvang Municipal Code provisions and analogous provisions in other municipal codes, staff recommends amendments to the Solvang Municipal Code to allow accessory structures in the side- and rear-yard setbacks of residential districts and next to the principal structure (Attachment J). These amendments were developed in conjunction with the building staff and the fire department.

As proposed at the February 7, 2022 meeting, the amendments would have required a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line and set a maximum percentage of the setback that can be occupied by accessory structures in the side-yard and rear-yard. After further discussions with the fire department and consideration by planning staff, the proposed amendments now require a minimum of a three-foot-wide corridor in the side-yard and rear-yard to be free and clear from the ground to the sky and that there be a minimum 5 feet of separation between adjacent accessory structures. The access corridor does not have to be along the property line. For accessory structures greater than 9 feet in height, the proposed amendments still require a minimum distance between the accessory structure and the property line that scales up with the size of the accessory structure. But for accessory structures less than 9 feet in height, there is no required minimum distance from the property line, provided ornamental features shall not extend over the property line or cause water to flow over the property line. The amendments still impose a maximum percentage of the rear-yard setback that can be occupied by accessory structures. In the side-yard, staff recommends setting a maximum cumulative square footage for all accessory structures in the side-yard, rather than a percentage of lot coverage. Staff also recommends, consistent with what was presented at the February 7, 2022 46 meeting, other conforming edits to remove language requiring all of a setback to be entirely unobstructed or requiring 10 feet between an accessory structure and the principal building.

ALTERNATIVES:
• Recommend the City Council include modifications to the proposed code amendments. • Provide further direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Planning Commission’s recommendations to City Council will not have any immediate fiscal impact. If the City Council decides to adopt any code amendments consistent with the Commission’s recommendations, there may be minor costs of recodification and implementation of ordinance changes, but such costs are expected to be within existing budgetary limits.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – Solvang Municipal Code (SMC) 11-16-1 Land use permits. (excerpt) B – SMC 10-1-4 Amendments – California Building Code. (excerpt) C – SMC 10-1-5 Amendments – California Residential Code. (excerpt) D – SMC 11-12-2 Accessory structures.

E – SMC 11-6A-4 Lot area requirements.

F – SMC 11-6B-4 Lot area requirements.

G – SMC 11-12-16 Lot area regulations.

H – California Building Code Section R302.1 Fire-Resistant Construction (excerpt) I – California Fire Code Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads (excerpt) J – Recommended Code Amendments to Allow for Certain Accessory Structures in Side-Yard and Rear-Yard Setbacks
K – Resolution No. 22-02
47 3/1/22, 12:03 PM 11-16-1 Land use permits.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/3
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 16 PERMIT PROCEDURES
11-16-1 Land use permits.

A. Purpose and Intent. This section establishes procedures and findings for the issuance of land use permits which are required for all uses and developments permitted under the regulations of this title. A land use permit is the final permit required by the planning/community development department. The intent of this section is to ensure that development proposals conform to the provisions of this title, the general plan and any conditions set by the city.

B. Applicability.

1. Before using any land or structure, or commencing any work pertaining to the erection, moving, alteration, enlarging, change of use or rebuilding of any building, structure or improvement within the city wherein permits are required under the provisions of this title, a land use issued by the planning/community development director unless other regulations of this title specifically indicate such permit is not required or the activity is included in one (1) of the following exemptions:
a. Repair and maintenance activities that do not result in addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of such repair or maintenance activities.
b. Fences and walls of six (6) feet or less and gateposts of eight (8) feet or less in height. c. Installation of irrigation lines.
d. Public works facilities constructed by the city.
e. Buildings or structures having an aggregate value of less than five hundred dollars ($500.00). f. Underground gas pipelines less than twelve (12) inches in diameter, and similar installations erected, installed or maintained by public agencies or public service or utility districts or companies. g. Exemptions. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, doghouses, gazebos, pergolas and similar structures, provided that such buildings do not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, and the building does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and do not include plumbing or electrical facilities. All structures, which are determined to be exempt from a land use permit, are required to conform to the setbacks of the applicable zone district.

2. Notwithstanding any provision of the specific district regulations to the contrary, where there is no development plan requirement, no land use permits shall be required for grading which is any of the following:
a. Grading which does not require a permit under title 10, chapter 5 of this code. b. Grading involving less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) cubic yards of cut or fill on slopes of less than thirty percent (30%). Provided, however, that a land use permit shall be required for grading which:
i. Has the potential to change or adversely affect an intermittent or perennial stream or regional watercourse.
ii. Would adversely impact paleontological, archaeological or uniquely important cultural resources.
iii. Could adversely affect exceptional wildlife values. iv. Is proposed to be located within three hundred (300) feet and in the visible area of a public park, or area designated as recreational or open space on the applicable general plan land use maps. v. Necessitates the removal of three (3) or more trees. These trees must be greater than seventeen (17) inches in circumference measured two (2) feet above the ground.

A land use permit shall be required prior to issuance of a grading permit (unless exempt); however, the requirements of this section shall not be construed to alter the provisions and regulations of title 10, chapter 5 of this code.

Attachment A
48 3/1/22, 12:04 PM 10-1-4 Amendments—California Building Code. qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/7
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 10 BUILDING REGULATIONS
Chapter 1 BUILDING CODES
10-1-4 Amendments—California Building Code.

The California Building Code adopted in section 10-1-1 of the city code is modified, amended, and/or supplemented as follows:

A. Delete appendices A, B, D, F, and K.

B. Amend section 101.1 to read as follows:
101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the California Building Code, hereinafter referred to as “this code.” C. Amend section 101.4 to read as follows:
101.4 Referenced Codes. The other codes listed in Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.8 and referenced elsewhere in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each reference.

D. Add section 101.4.8 to read as follows:
101.4.8 Electrical. The provisions of the California Electrical Code shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, and replacement of electrical equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings, and appurtenances thereto.

E. Amend section 103.1 to read as follows:
103.1 Creation of Enforcement Agency. The Building Division is hereby created within the Planning and Community Development Department and the official in charge thereof shall be known as the building official.

F. Add section 104.3.1 to read as follows:
104.3.1 Citations. The building official, or duly authorized agent, is granted the authority as provided in Section 836.5(a) of the California Penal Code to issue citations for violations of this chapter.

G. Amend section 105.2 and the Building exemptions only to read as follows:
105.2 Work Exempt from Permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Building:

1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage shed, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11 m2) with no plumbing, mechanical or electrical and 12′ max height.

2. Fences not over 6 feet (1,829 mm) high.

3. Oil derricks.

4. Retaining walls and non-retaining walls, including masonry and concrete free-standing walls, that are not over 4 feet (1,219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II, or IIIA liquids.

5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity is not greater than 5,000 gallons (18,927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width is not greater than 2:1.

6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.

7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops, similar finish work.

8. Temporary motion picture, television, theater stage sets, and scenery.

Attachment B
49 3/1/22, 12:04 PM 10-1-5 Amendments—California Residential Code. qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/3
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 10 BUILDING REGULATIONS
Chapter 1 BUILDING CODES
10-1-5 Amendments—California Residential Code.

The California Residential adopted in section 10-1-1 of the city code is modified, amended and/or supplemented as follows:

A. Delete appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, T, U and W.

B. Amend section R101.1 to read as follows:

R101.1 Title. These provisions shall be known as the California Residential Code and shall be cited as such and shall be referred to herein as “this code.”
C. Amend section R103.1 to read as follows:

R103.1 Creation of Enforcement Agency. The Building Division is hereby created within the Planning and Community Development Department and the official in charge thereof shall be known as the building official.

D. Add section R104.3.1 to read as follows:

R104.3.1 Citations. The building official, or duly authorized agent, is granted the authority as provided in Section 836.5(a) of the California Penal Code to issue citations for violations of this chapter.

E. Amend section R105.2 to read as follows:

R105.2 Work Exempt from Permit. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.

1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage shed, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11 m2) with no plumbing, mechanical or electrical and 12′ max height.

2. Fences not over 6 feet (1,829 mm) high.

3. Retaining walls and non-retaining walls, including masonry and concrete free-standing walls, that are not over 4 feet (1,219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II, or IIIA liquids.

4. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity is not greater than 5,000 gallons (18,927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width is not greater than 2:1.

5. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.

6. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops, similar finish work.

7. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep, are not greater than 5,000 gallons (18,927 L) and are installed entirely above ground.

8. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one-family and two-family dwellings.

9. Window awnings in Group R-3 and U occupancies, supported by an exterior wall that do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support.

10. Non-fixed and movable fixtures, cases, racks, counters, and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches in height.

F. Amend section R105.3.2 to read as follows:

R105.3.2 Time Limitation of Application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 365 days after the date of filing, unless a permit has been issued. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.

Attachment C
50 3/1/22, 12:05 PM 11-12-2 Accessory structures.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/1
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
11-12-2 Accessory structures.

A. No accessory structure shall be constructed on a lot until construction of the principal structure has begun, and no accessory structure shall be used unless the principal structure on the lot is also being used.

B. An accessory structure erected as an integral part of the principal structure shall comply in all respects with the use, yard and height requirements applicable to the principal structure.

C. Accessory structures shall conform to the height requirements and the front and side yard setback regulations of the district. An accessory structure may be located in the required rear yard setback provided that:

1. The accessory structure is located no closer than ten (10) feet to the principal structure;

2. The accessory structure occupies no more than forty percent (40%) of the required rear yard; and

3. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet.

D. No accessory structure on a corner lot shall be located closer to the street right-of-way or centerline than the principal building on that lot, nor within any side or front yard setback.

E. For a corner lot backing on a key lot, no accessory structure shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the rear property line. (Ord. 90-112, 1990)
View the mobile version.

Attachment D
51 3/1/22, 12:05 PM 11-6A-4 Lot area requirements.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/2
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Article A. R-1/E-1 Single-Family Residential District
11-6A-4 Lot area requirements.

A. Minimum Lot Size.

1. Each main dwelling unit and its permitted accessory buildings shall be located upon a lot having a minimum net lot width and a minimum net lot area, as indicated below for the symbol shown on the lot on the zoning map.

Zoning Symbol Minimum Net Lot Size Net Lot Width (Feet) 7-R-1 7,000 square feet 65
8-R-1 8,000 square feet 75
10-R-1 10,000 square feet 80
20-R-1 20,000 square feet 100
1-E-1 1 acre 100
3-E-1 3 acres 210

2. A dwelling may be located upon a smaller lot if such lot is shown as a legal lot, either on a recorded subdivision or parcel map or is a legal lot as evidenced by a recorded certificate of compliance.

B. Setbacks for Buildings and Structures.

1. Front. Fifty (50) feet from the centerline and twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way line of any street.

2. Side. On each side of the lot, ten percent (10%) of the width of the lot, except:
a. For lots zoned 7-R-1 to 10-R-1 that are less than fifty (50) feet wide, in no case shall the required side yard setback be less than five (5) feet. For lots that are greater than one hundred (100) feet wide in no case shall the side yard setback be more than ten (10) feet. b. For lots zoned 20-R-1 to 3-E-1, that are less than one hundred (100) feet wide, in no case shall the required side yard setback be less than ten (10) feet. For lots that are greater than two hundred (200) feet wide in no case shall the side yard setback be more than twenty (20) feet.

3. Rear. Twenty-five (25) feet.

C. Permitted Variations of Setbacks for Buildings.

1. Side. The required side yard setback for portions of a building may be varied subject to all of the following limitations:
a. For lots zoned 7-R-1 to 10-R-1, no portion of the building shall be less than five (5) feet from the side lines of the lot. For lots zoned 20-R-1 to 3-E-1, no portion of the building shall be less than ten (10) feet from the side lines of the lot.
b. No portion of a wall containing windows opening into rooms of a building (except a garage) shall be closer to the side lines of a lot than the required side yard setback. c. The average distance of the building from the side line of the lot shall equal the required side yard setback. Said average distance shall be computed by multiplying the length of the various segments of the Attachment E
52 3/1/22, 12:05 PM 11-6A-4 Lot area requirements.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 2/2
appropriate side of the building by their corresponding distances from the side property line and dividing the sum of the products by the total length of the building.

2. Rear. The required rear yard setback for a portion of a building may be varied subject to all of the following limitations:
a. No portion of any dwelling shall be closer than fifteen (15) feet to the rear line of the lot. b. The average distance of the building from the rear property line shall equal the required rear yard setback. Said average distance shall be computed by multiplying the length of the various segments of the rear of the building by their corresponding distances from the rear property line and dividing the sum of the products by the total width of the rear of the building.

D. Distance Required Between Buildings on the Same Building Site. The minimum distance between a building designed or used for human habitation and any other detached building or structure on the same site shall be ten (10) feet.

E. Height Limit. No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet. (Ord. 10-287, 2010; Ord. 07-272, 2007; Ord. 06-261, 2006; Ord. 04-242, 2004; Ord. 90-112, 1990) View the mobile version.
53 3/1/22, 12:07 PM 11-6B-4 Lot area requirements.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/1
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Article B. DR Design Residential District
11-6B-4 Lot area requirements.

A. Lot Size/Density. The maximum density for each lot zoned DR shall be specified by a number following the DR on the lot on the applicable zoning map and said number represents the number of dwelling units per gross acre permitted on such lot, as follows:

District Designation Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre Gross Land Area Per Dwelling Unit DR-1.8 1.8 24,200
DR-8 8.0 5,445
DR-9 9.0 4,840
DR-10 10.0 4,356
DR-12 12 3,630
DR-13 13 3,350
DR-14 14 3,111
DR-16 16 2,722
DR-20 20 2,178
B. Setbacks for Buildings and Structures. For the purpose of this article, where clustered residential development occurs, a “street” shall be defined as a public right-of-way or private right-of-way providing access to two (2) or more parcels which are owned by more than one (1) entity, excluding condominium developments.

1. Front. Twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way line of any street.

2. Side and Rear. Ten (10) feet from any side or rear property line, however the planning commission may increase this requirement to provide reasonable light, air and privacy requirements.

C. Distance Required Between Buildings on the Same Building Site. The minimum distance between buildings designed or used for human habitation and any other building on the same building site shall be ten (10) feet.

D. Building Coverage. Not to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the net area of the property shall be covered by buildings containing dwelling units.

E. Height Limit. No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet. (Ord. 90-112, 1990) View the mobile version.

Attachment F
54 3/1/22, 12:08 PM 11-12-16 Lot area regulations.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 1/3
Solvang Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
11-12-16 Lot area regulations.

A. General Setback Regulations.

1. Where a setback line is called for or shown on a recorded subdivision or parcel map or on a development plan in the PRD District under section 11-6C-5(B) of this title, the required setback shall be the setback line shown on the subdivision, parcel map or development plan.

2. In computing the depth of a rear yard setback or the width of a side yard setback, if such yard abuts upon an alley, and the owner of the yard owns all or one-half (1/2) of the underlying feet of such alley, up to one-half (1/2) the width of such alley may be included in the rear yard or side yard.

3. On any lot which has been reduced in width or depth below the original dimensions of the lot legally created by a recorded subdivision map or deed prior to October 1, 1960, which reduction was required by the county or city for road widening purposes, the required yards shall be computed on the basis of the original dimensions of the lot as though such road widening had not occurred.

4. In single-family residential subdivisions wherein all proposed dwellings are to be constructed at one time by the developer and a plot plan showing the location and dimensions of each building and the front, side and rear and setback dimensions of each lot has been filed with the planning/community development department, the planning/community development director may modify the required front yard setback for not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lots on each side of the street in each block, subject to all of the following limitations:
a. No garage shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the street right-of-way line. b. No part of the dwelling portion of the building shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to the street right-of-way line.
c. No garage shall be so oriented that there is less than twenty (20) feet of unobstructed driveway space within the property on which to park a car outside of the garage. d. The average distance of each building from the centerline of the street shall be at least fifty (50) feet.

Such average distance shall be determined by multiplying the width of the various segments of the front of the building by the setback distance of such segments from the centerline of the street and dividing the sum of the products by the total width of the building.

5. Every part of a setback shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except as otherwise provided in this title and except for the ordinary projection of sills, buttresses, cornices, chimneys, eaves and ornamental features but in no case shall such projections exceed three (3) feet.

6. Fire escapes, balconies and unroofed and unenclosed porches, stairways, or landings may extend into the front or rear yard setback four (4) feet and into a side yard setback three (3) feet when so constructed and placed as not to obstruct light or ventilation of buildings or ready use of said yards for ingress or egress.

7. In any area where a building can be legally constructed on or closely adjacent to the right-of-way line of a public street, eaves and roof overhangs, sills, belt courses, fire escapes, balconies and unroofed and unenclosed porches may project into a street right-of-way no more than thirty (30) inches; provided that all such encroachments shall be at least eight (8) feet above any area used by pedestrians, and at least fourteen (14) feet above any area used for vehicular traffic; and provided further, an encroachment permit for such projections is obtained from the city manager.

8. Where the elevation of the ground at a point fifty (50) feet from the centerline of any street is seven (7) feet or more below or above the grade of said centerline, the front setback for a private detached garage may be Attachment G
55 3/1/22, 12:08 PM 11-12-16 Lot area regulations.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 2/3
decreased by forty percent (40%) and the front setback for a dwelling may be decreased by twenty percent (20%) provided the front face of such garage is no closer than ten (10) feet to the abutting street right-of-way.

B. Through, Corner, Interior and Odd Shaped Lots.

1. Through Lots. The side yard setbacks shall extend the full depth of the lot between the street lines and there shall be two (2) front yard setbacks for the purpose of computing setbacks.

2. Corner Lots Abutting Two (2) or More Streets.
a. If a corner lot is less than one hundred (100) feet in width, the side yard setback on the street side of such lot shall be not less than twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot, but in no case shall said yard setback be less than ten (10) feet.
b. If a corner lot is one hundred (100) feet or greater in width, there shall be two (2) front yard setbacks and both shall conform to the front yard setback requirements of the applicable district. c. For a corner lot backing on a key lot, no accessory structure shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the rear property line.

3. Interior Lots. The setback regulations of the applicable district shall not apply to an interior lot but any structure located upon such lot shall have a setback of at least ten (10) feet from all property lines and the total setback area shall equal the total area of all setbacks required in the applicable district.

4. Odd Shaped Lots. In the case of odd shaped lots, the planning/community development director shall determine the required setbacks, which widths and depths shall approximate as closely as possible the required widths and depths of corresponding setbacks on rectangular lots in the applicable district.

C. Height. Chimneys; elevator and stair housings; television receiving antennas for individual receiving sets; antennas for amateur radio shortwave sending and receiving sets, for private sending and receiving sets, and for citizens band service not in connection with the business of broadcasting radio or television programs for the general public; flagpoles; monuments; church spires; and similar architectural features and similar structures may be fifty (50) feet in height in all districts subject to special permit regulations and approvals required in other sections of this title.

D. Area of Lots.

1. The lot area or building site area of a lot shall be as defined under chapter 3 of this title; provided, however, that.
a. In any district in which portions of street right-of-way are specifically excluded, the lot or building site area of a lot shall be exclusive of that portion of the lot lying within a street right-of-way. b. For the purpose of computing the lot area or building site area of a lot in any district, any portion of a driveway or easement less than forty (40) feet in width and reserved for access to a public street, the length of which portion is not adjacent to any front, side or rear yard of said lot or parcel shall be excluded.

2. For the purpose of computing the lot area or building site area of any lot, the boundaries of such lot shall be the boundaries established by the latest recorded deed, parcel map, subdivision map, etc., provided that such recorded document does not create or attempt to create a lot in violation of the provisions of any applicable law or ordinance.

3. Two (2) or more legal lots, each having insufficient area to meet lot area requirements, may be combined or resubdivided provided:
a. All other regulations of this title and this code are complied with. b. The combined or resubdivided lots are as large or larger than the original lots. c. The minimum area of each such lot is seven thousand (7,000) square feet.

4. Lots or groups of lots in one ownership, legally created and existing prior to the effective date of any city zoning regulations applicable to such lots, and containing less area than the required lot or building site area of the district in which they are located may be used as building sites for not more than two (2) dwellings per lot if permitted in the district in which the property is located, provided:
56 3/1/22, 12:08 PM 11-12-16 Lot area regulations.
qcode.us/codes/solvang/ 3/3
a. Such lots or groups of lots were legally created prior to the effective date of any zoning regulations applicable to such lots.
b. Such lots or groups of lots having a total combined area in one ownership less than six thousand (6,000) square feet exclusive of any portion thereof lying within a street right-of-way may not be used for more than one (1) dwelling per lot.
c. All other regulations of this title are complied with.

E. Lot Widths. For the purpose of computing the width of a lot having side lines which are not parallel, the lot width shall be the average width of the lot. An easement or corridor connecting the major portion of an irregularly shaped lot to a street shall not be used for the purpose of computing lot width.

F. Subdivision of Land. Except as otherwise permitted in this title, no lot held under separate ownership at the time of adoption of this title shall be separated in ownership or reduced in size below the minimum lot width or area required by the provisions of this title, nor shall any such lot having a width or area less than that required by these regulations be further reduced in any manner. (Ord. 14-304, 2014; Ord. 04-242, 2004; Ord. 90-112, 1990) View the mobile version.
57 3/1/22, 12:17 PM Section R302 Fire-Resistant Construction https://up.codes/viewer_export/juris_key/california/pub/int_residential_code_2018/ref/R302 1/9 Section R302 Fire-Resistant Construction
R302.1 Exterior Walls

ILLUSTRATION
Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1(1); or dwellings and accessory buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section R313 shall comply with Table R302.1(2).

Exceptions:

1. Walls, projections, openings or penetrations in walls perpendicular to the line used to determine the fire separation distance.

2. Walls of individual dwelling units and their accessory structures located on the same lot.

3. Detached tool sheds and storage sheds, playhouses and similar structures exempted from permits are not required to provide wall protection based on location on the lot. Projections beyond the exterior wall shall not extend over the lot line.

4. Detached garages accessory to a dwelling located within 2 feet (610 mm) of a lot line are permitted to have roof eave projections not exceeding 4 inches (102 mm).

5. Foundation vents installed in compliance with this code are permitted.

TABLE R302.1(1)

EXTERIOR WALLS

EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT MINIMUM

FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING

MINIMUM FIRE

SEPARATION DISTANCE
Walls
Fire-resistance rated
1 hour—tested in accordance with ASTM E119,
UL 263 or Section 703.3 of the California Building Code with exposure from both sides
0 feet
Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours ≥ 5 feet
Projections
Not allowed NA < 2 feet
Fire-resistance rated
1 hour on the underside, or heavy timber, or fireretardant-treated wooda, b ≥ 2 feet to < 5 feet Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours ≥ 5 feet
Openings in walls
Not allowed NA < 3 feet
25% maximum of wall area 0 hours 3 feet
Unlimited 0 hours 5 feet
Penetrations All
Comply with Section R302.4 < 3 feet
None required 3 feet
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm.

NA = Not Applicable.
a. The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the eave overhang if fireblocking is provided from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. b. The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the rake overhang where gable vent openings are not installed.

TABLE R302.1(2)
EXTERIOR WALLS—DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION Attachment H
58 3/1/22, 12:17 PM Section R302 Fire-Resistant Construction https://up.codes/viewer_export/juris_key/california/pub/int_residential_code_2018/ref/R302 2/9

EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT MINIMUM

FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING

MINIMUM FIRE

SEPARATION DISTANCE
Walls
Fire-resistance rated
1 hour—tested in accordance with ASTM E119,
UL 263 or Section 703.3 of the California Building Code with exposure from the outside
0 feet
Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours 3 feeta
Projections
Not allowed NA < 2 feet
Fire-resistance rated
1 hour on the underside, or heavy timber, or fireretardant-treated woodb, c 2 feeta Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours 3 feet
Openings in walls
Not allowed NA < 3 feet
Unlimited 0 hours 3 feeta
Penetrations All
Comply with Section R302.4 < 3 feet
None required 3 feeta
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm.

NA = Not Applicable.
a. For residential subdivisions where all dwellings are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section R313, the fire separation distance for exterior walls not fire-resistance rated and for fire-resistance-rated projections shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 feet, and unlimited unprotected openings and penetrations shall be permitted, where the adjoining lot provides an open setback yard that is 6 feet or more in width on the opposite side of the property line. b. The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the eave overhang if fireblocking is provided from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. c. The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the rake overhang where gable vent openings are not installed.

R302.2 Townhouses

ILLUSTRATION
Walls separating townhouse units shall be constructed in accordance with Section R302.2.1 or R302.2.2.

R302.2.1 Double Walls
Each townhouse shall be separated by two 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assemblies tested in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263 or Section 703.3 of the California Building Code.

R302.2.2 Common Walls

ILLUSTRATION
Common walls separating townhouses shall be assigned a fire-resistance rating in accordance with Item 1 or 2. The common wall shared by two townhouses shall be constructed without plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing.

Electrical installations shall be in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Penetrations of the membrane of common walls for electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.

1. Where a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section R313 is provided, the common wall shall be not less than a 1-hour fireresistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263 or Section 703.3 of the California Building Code.

2. Where a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section R313 is not provided, the common wall shall be not less than a 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263 or Section 703.3 of the California Building Code. 59 3/1/22, 12:19 PM Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads https://up.codes/viewer_export/juris_key/california/pub/california_fire_code_2019/ref/503 1/3 Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads

ILLUSTRATION
503.1 Where Required
Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3. 503.1.1 Buildings and Facilities

ILLUSTRATION
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm) where any of the following conditions occur:

1.1. The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3.

1.2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided.

1.3. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies.

2. Where approved by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be permitted to be exempted or modified for solar photovoltaic power generation facilities.
503.1.2 Additional Access
The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. 503.1.3 High-Piled Storage
Fire department vehicle access to buildings used for high-piled combustible storage shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 32. 503.2 Specifications
Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and arranged in accordance with Sections 503.2.1 through 503.2.8. [California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §3.05(a)] Fire Department Access and Egress. (Roads) 503.2.1 Dimensions
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). 503.2.2 Authority
The fire code official shall have the authority to require or permit modifications to the required access widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescue operations or where necessary to meet the public safety objectives of the jurisdiction.

Roads. Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather hard-surfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the public street.

Exception: The enforcing agency may waive or modify this requirement if in his opinion such all-weather hard-surfaced condition is not necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare. (a)
Attachment I
60 Recommended Code Amendments to Allow for Certain Accessory Structures in SideYard and Rear-Yard Setbacks Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 3 DEFINITIONS
11-3-1 Definitions.
. . .

ACCESSORY BUILDING OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A building or structure containing no kitchen and located upon the same building site as the primary building or use to which it is accessory, the use of which is customarily incidental, appropriate and subordinate to the use of the principal building, or to the principal use of the land. Accessory buildings or accessory structures include, but are not limited to, tool and storage sheds, playhouses, doghouses, gazebos, pergolas, guesthouses, and similar structures. . . .

Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Article A. R-1/E-1 Single-Family Residential District
11-6A-4 Lot area requirements.
. . .

B. Setbacks for Buildings and Structures.

1. Front. Fifty (50) feet from the centerline and twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way line of any street.

2. Side. On each side of the lot, ten percent (10%) of the width of the lot, except:
a. For lots zoned 7-R-1 to 10-R-1 that are less than fifty (50) feet wide, in no case shall the required side yard setback be less than five (5) feet. For lots that are greater than one hundred (100) feet wide in no case shall the side yard setback be more than ten (10) feet.
b. For lots zoned 20-R-1 to 3-E-1, that are less than one hundred (100) feet wide, in no case shall the required side yard setback be less than ten (10) feet.

For lots that are greater than two hundred (200) feet wide in no case shall the side yard setback be more than twenty (20) feet.

3. Rear. Twenty-five (25) feet.

4. Side-yard and rear-yard setback requirements in this subsection do not apply to accessory structures placed in the side-yard or rear-yard in compliance with the requirements of Section 11-12-2.

C. Permitted Variations of Setbacks for Buildings.

1. Side. The required side yard setback for portions of a building may be varied subject to all of the following limitations:
a. For lots zoned 7-R-1 to 10-R-1, no portion of the building shall be less than five (5) feet from the side lines of the lot. For lots zoned 20-R-1 to 3-E-1, no portion of the building shall be less than ten (10) feet from the side lines of the lot.

Attachment J
61 b. No portion of a wall containing windows opening into rooms of a building (except a garage) shall be closer to the side lines of a lot than the required side yard setback.
c. The average distance of the building from the side line of the lot shall equal the required side yard setback. Said average distance shall be computed by multiplying the length of the various segments of the appropriate side of the building by their corresponding distances from the side property line and dividing the sum of the products by the total length of the building.

2. Rear. The required rear yard setback for a portion of a building may be varied subject to all of the following limitations:
a. No portion of any dwelling shall be closer than fifteen (15) feet to the rear line of the lot.
b. The average distance of the building from the rear property line shall equal the required rear yard setback. Said average distance shall be computed by multiplying the length of the various segments of the rear of the building by their corresponding distances from the rear property line and dividing the sum of the products by the total width of the rear of the building.

3. Side-yard and rear-yard setback requirements in this subsection do not apply to accessory structures placed in the side-yard or rear-yard in compliance with the requirements of Section 11-12-2.

D. Distance Required Between Buildings on the Same Building Site. The minimum distance between a building designed or used for human habitation and any other detached building or structure, expect for accessory structures placed in the side-yard or rear-yard in compliance with Section 11-12-2, on the same site shall be ten (10) feet.

E. Height Limit. No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet.

Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Article B. DR Design Residential District
11-6B-4 Lot area requirements.
. . .

B. Setbacks for Buildings and Structures. For the purpose of this article, where clustered residential development occurs, a “street” shall be defined as a public right-of-way or private right-of-way providing access to two (2) or more parcels which are owned by more than one (1) entity, excluding condominium developments.

1. Front. Twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way line of any street.

2. Side and Rear. Ten (10) feet from any side or rear property line, however the planning commission may increase this requirement to provide reasonable light, air and privacy requirements. Side-yard and rear-yard setback requirements in this subsection do not apply to accessory structures placed in the side-yard or rearyard in compliance with the requirements of Section 11-12-2.

C. Distance Required Between Buildings on the Same Building Site. The minimum distance between buildings designed or used for human habitation and any other building, 62 expect for accessory structures placed in the side-yard or rear-yard in compliance with Section 11-12-2, on the same building site shall be ten (10) feet.

D. Building Coverage. Not to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the net area of the property shall be covered by buildings containing dwelling units. . . .

Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Article C. PRD Planned Residential District
11-6C-5 Lot area requirements.
. . .

B. Setbacks for Buildings and Structures. There are no standard setback requirements provided in this district. Use of standard zoning methods generally employed in the city does not give adequate means by which the city can accomplish the results desired in this district.

Setbacks shall be proposed and approved on the development plans in order to protect and preserve property values of the site and adjacent properties, ensure compatibility of different uses, avoid nuisances and advance the general welfare within the PRD District. In addition, siting of structures shall be based on the following factors. privacy, light and air, solar exposure, building configuration and aesthetics.

C. Building Coverage. Not more than thirty percent (30%) of the net area of the property shall be covered by buildings containing dwelling units, and in no case shall the total building coverage exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net area of the property. . . .

Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
11-12-2 Accessory structures.

A. No accessory structure shall be constructed on a lot until construction of the principal structure has begun, and no accessory structure shall be used unless the principal structure on the lot is also being used.

B. An accessory structure erected as an integral part of the principal structure shall comply in all respects with the use, yard and height requirements applicable to the principal structure.

C. Set-Back Requirements in Non-Residential Districts.

1. Accessory structures shall conform to the height requirements and the front-yard and side-yard setback regulations of the district.

2. An accessory structure may be located in the required rear yard setback provided that all of the following requirements are met:
a1. The accessory structure is located no closer than ten (10) feet to the principal structure;
b2. The accessory structure occupies no more than forty percent (40%) of the required rear yard; and
c3. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. 63 3. This subsection applies to all districts except the following residential districts in Chapter 6, Title 11: R-1/E-1 Single Family Residential District, DR Design Residential District, and PRD Planned Residential Development District.

D. Set-Back Requirements in Residential Districts.

1. Accessory structures shall conform to the front-yard setback regulations of the district.

2. Accessory structures shall not exceed 24 feet in height or the height requirement of the district, whichever is less.

3. An accessory structure may be located in the required rear-yard setback provided that all of the following requirements are met:
a. Accessory structures shall be located to provide the following minimum distance between the accessory structure and the property line:

Accessory Structure
Height
Minimum Distance from Property Line
9 feet or less No minimum distance, provided any
ornamental features, including but not
limited to sills, buttresses, cornices, and
eaves, shall not extend over the property
line or cause water to flow across the
property line
Greater 9 feet but not
greater than 12 feet
Five (5) feet
Greater than 12 feet Ten (10) feet
b. Accessory structures shall not impede fire access and shall be placed such that:
i. A corridor with a minimum width of three (3) feet is unobstructed from the ground to the sky; and
ii. There is a minimum distance of five (5) feet between adjacent accessory structures.
c. All accessory structures in the rear yard shall collectively occupy no more than forty percent (40%) of the required rear-yard setback.

4. An accessory structure may be located in the side-yard setback provided that all of the following requirements are met:
a. Accessory structures shall be located to provide the following minimum distance between the accessory structure and the property line:

Accessory Structure
Height
Minimum Distance from Property Line
9 feet or less No minimum distance, provided any
ornamental features, including but not
limited to sills, buttresses, cornices, and
eaves, shall not extend over the property
64 line or cause water to flow across the
property line
Greater than 9 feet but not
greater than 12 feet
Five (5) feet
Greater than 12 feet Ten (10) feet
b. Accessory structures shall not impede fire access and shall be placed such that:
i. A corridor with a minimum width of three (3) feet is unobstructed from the ground to the sky; and
ii. There is a minimum distance of five (5) feet between adjacent accessory structures.
c. The cumulative total square footage of all accessory structures in the side yard shall not exceed 200 square feet.

5. This subsection applies to all districts in Chapter 6, Title 11: R-1/E-1 Single Family Residential District, DR Design Residential District, and PRD Planned Residential Development District.

ED. No accessory structure on a corner lot shall be located closer to the street right-ofway or centerline than the principal building on that lot, nor within any side or front yard setback.

FE. For a corner lot backing on a key lot, no accessory structure shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the rear property line.

G. This Section applies to all accessory structures including accessory structures requiring a land use permit pursuant to Section 11-16-1(B)(1)(g) and a building permit pursuant to Section 10-1-4(G) and accessory structures meeting the requirements of being exempt from land use permits and building permits, also referred to as exempt accessory structures.

Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
11-12-3 Residential uses.

A. Guesthouses.

1. No guesthouse shall be located on a lot containing less than one (1) acre.

2. There shall be not more than one (1) guesthouse on any lot.

3. The floor area of such guesthouse shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet.

4. No guesthouse shall exceed a height of one (1) story, or two (2) stories if built over another accessory building.

5. There shall be no kitchen or cooking facilities within a guesthouse.

6. Guesthouses shallmust conform to all of the setback regulations set forth in Section 11-12-2the applicable district for dwellings.

7. A guesthouse shall be used only by the occupants of the main dwelling or their nonpaying guests or servants and is not to be rented, whether the compensation is paid directly or indirectly in money, goods, wares, merchandise or services. . . .
65 Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
11-12-16 Lot area regulations.

A. General Setback Regulations.

1. Where a setback line is called for or shown on a recorded subdivision or parcel map or on a development plan in the PRD District under section 11-6C-5(B) of this title, the required setback shall be the setback line shown on the subdivision, parcel map or development plan.

2. In computing the depth of a rear yard setback or the width of a side yard setback, if such yard abuts upon an alley, and the owner of the yard owns all or one-half (1/2) of the underlying feet of such alley, up to one-half (1/2) the width of such alley may be included in the rear yard or side yard.

3. On any lot which has been reduced in width or depth below the original dimensions of the lot legally created by a recorded subdivision map or deed prior to October 1, 1960, which reduction was required by the county or city for road widening purposes, the required yards shall be computed on the basis of the original dimensions of the lot as though such road widening had not occurred.

4. In single-family residential subdivisions wherein all proposed dwellings are to be constructed at one time by the developer and a plot plan showing the location and dimensions of each building and the front, side and rear and setback dimensions of each lot has been filed with the planning/community development department, the planning/community development director may modify the required front yard setback for not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lots on each side of the street in each block, subject to all of the following limitations:
a. No garage shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the street right-ofway line. b. No part of the dwelling portion of the building shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to the street right-of-way line.
c. No garage shall be so oriented that there is less than twenty (20) feet of unobstructed driveway space within the property on which to park a car outside of the garage.
d. The average distance of each building from the centerline of the street shall be at least fifty (50) feet. Such average distance shall be determined by multiplying the width of the various segments of the front of the building by the setback distance of such segments from the centerline of the street and dividing the sum of the products by the total width of the building.

5. Every part of a setback shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except as otherwise provided in this title and except for the ordinary projection of sills, buttresses, cornices, chimneys, eaves and ornamental features but in no case shall such projections exceed three (3) feet. This subsection does not apply to accessory structures in residential districts in Chapter 6, Title 11, placed in the side-yard or rear-yard in compliance with the requirements of Section 11-12-2.

6. Fire escapes, balconies and unroofed and unenclosed porches, stairways, or landings may extend into the front or rear yard setback four (4) feet and into a side 66 yard setback three (3) feet when so constructed and placed as not to obstruct light or ventilation of buildings or ready use of said yards for ingress or egress.

7. In any area where a building can be legally constructed on or closely adjacent to the right-of-way line of a public street, eaves and roof overhangs, sills, belt courses, fire escapes, balconies and unroofed and unenclosed porches may project into a street right-of-way no more than thirty (30) inches; provided that all such encroachments shall be at least eight (8) feet above any area used by pedestrians, and at least fourteen (14) feet above any area used for vehicular traffic; and provided further, an encroachment permit for such projections is obtained from the city manager.

8. Where the elevation of the ground at a point fifty (50) feet from the centerline of any street is seven (7) feet or more below or above the grade of said centerline, the front setback for a private detached garage may be decreased by forty percent (40%) and the front setback for a dwelling may be decreased by twenty percent (20%) provided the front face of such garage is no closer than ten (10) feet to the abutting street right-of-way.

B. Through, Corner, Interior and Odd Shaped Lots.

1. Through Lots. The side yard setbacks shall extend the full depth of the lot between the street lines and there shall be two (2) front yard setbacks for the purpose of computing setbacks.

2. Corner Lots Abutting Two (2) or More Streets.
a. If a corner lot is less than one hundred (100) feet in width, the side yard setback on the street side of such lot shall be not less than twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot, but in no case shall said yard setback be less than ten (10) feet.
b. If a corner lot is one hundred (100) feet or greater in width, there shall be two (2) front yard setbacks and both shall conform to the front yard setback requirements of the applicable district.
c. For a corner lot backing on a key lot, no accessory structure shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the rear property line.

3. Interior Lots. The setback regulations of the applicable district shall not apply to an interior lot but any structure located upon such lot shall have a setback of at least ten (10) feet from all property lines and the total setback area shall equal the total area of all setbacks required in the applicable district.

4. Odd Shaped Lots. In the case of odd shaped lots, the planning/community development director shall determine the required setbacks, which widths and depths shall approximate as closely as possible the required widths and depths of corresponding setbacks on rectangular lots in the applicable district. . . .
67 Title 11 ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 16 PERMIT PROCEDURES
11-16-1 Land use permits.
. . .

B. Applicability.

1. Before using any land or structure, or commencing any work pertaining to the erection, moving, alteration, enlarging, change of use or rebuilding of any building, structure or improvement within the city wherein permits are required under the provisions of this title, a land use permit shall be issued by the planning/community development director manager unless other regulations of this title specifically indicate such permit is not required or the activity is included in one (1) of the following exemptions:
a. Repair and maintenance activities that do not result in addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of such repair or maintenance activities. b. Fences and walls of six (6) feet or less and gateposts of eight (8) feet or less in height.
c. Installation of irrigation lines.
d. Public works facilities constructed by the city.
e. Buildings or structures having an aggregate value of less than five hundred dollars ($500.00).
f. Underground gas pipelines less than twelve (12) inches in diameter, and similar installations erected, installed or maintained by public agencies or public service or utility districts or companies.
g. Exemptions. One-story detached accessory structures buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, doghouses, gazebos, pergolas and similar structures, provided that such buildings do not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, and the building does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and do not include plumbing or electrical facilities. All structures, which are determined to be exempt from a land use permit, are required to conform to the setbacks of the applicable zone district or Section 11-12-2, as applicable. . . .
68 RESOLUTION NO. 22-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOLVANG,

CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE SOLVANG MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS SHEDS

AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND MAKE A

DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to provide recommendations on revisions to the City’s Municipal Code with respect to sheds in the side-yard and rear-yard setbacks in residential zones in response to public comment regarding non-compliant sheds in the Skytt Mesa neighborhood; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2021 the Planning Commission considered the matter generally and directed staff to propose specific code amendments based on the Planning Commission’s general comments; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time it considered code amendments consistent with the Commission’s prior comments and provided further direction to staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the drafted amendments to the Solvang Municipal Code are warranted to allow for sheds and other accessory structures in side-yard and rear-yard setbacks provided certain conditions are met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the drafted amendments are consistent with the general plan; and
WHEREAS, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments may have a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the adoption of such amendments is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2022, at which time it heard public input and considered the drafted amendments to the City’s regulations, and recommended the City Council approve the amendments.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOLVANG DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Solvang hereby recommends the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 11 of the Solvang Municipal Code to address sheds and other accessory structures in side-yard and rear-yard setbacks in residential zones and make a determination of exemption under CEQA.

Attachment K
69 SECTION 3. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified copy to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2022. _________________________________
Jack Williams, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________ Chelsea O’Sullivan, Assistant City Attorney Annamarie Porter, City Clerk 70 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA )ss

CITY OF SOLVANG )
I, Annamarie Porter, City Clerk of the City of Solvang, California do hereby certify that Resolution No. 22-02 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on the 7th day of March, 2022, and thereafter signed and approved by the Chair and attested by the City Clerk, and that said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
71 Agenda Item Number:

Solvang Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Laurie Tamura, Planning Consultant
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION TO

THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND TO

ADOPT A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Commission review the 2021 General Plan Annual Report, accept oral testimony and written comments, and forward to the City Council to direct that the report be filed with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

DISCUSSION:

As required by California Government Code Section 65400, the Planning Division shall submit a report to the City Council, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development:
“This report shall be considered at an annual public meeting before a legislative body where members of the public shall be allowed to provide oral testimony and written comments”.

This report includes the status of the general plan and progress in its implementation as well as the City’s progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs (RHNA).

During 2021, the city staff issued permits for 1 single family home and 3 Accessory Dwelling Units and 1 Junior Accessary Dwelling Units for a total of 5 new units.

Also, the Planning Commission approved two new housing projects in 2020. • This first project is located at 539 Alisal Road and consisted of 11 unit with one unit being committed to the very-low-income level.
• The second project is located at 670 Alamo Pintado Road and consisted of 32 units with 2 units committed to the very low-income level. The Applicant for these projects has submitted building plans for plan check during 2021 but the building permits have not been issued yet.

In 2020-2021, the city started processing one project under SB 330. The Mission Drive Apartments consists of 59 units with five units committed to the very-low income. The pre-application was call complete 2020 and the full Development Plan application was filed on February 1, 2021. Staff reviewed the application package and responded back to the applicant in March 2021. After further review of the project and consideration of a hotel element, the applicant requested withdrawal of the project in August of 2021. Recently a new pre-application has been filed that includes a 74-room hotel and 49 apartment units.

There were no new housing project applications filed in 2021.

2.B
72 ALTERNATIVES:

No alternatives are proposed for this report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The preparation of the Annual Report and the related staff report was prepared under the Planning Consultant contract.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – 2021 General Plan Annual Report
73 Attachment A
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
Agenda Item Number: 3.A
Solvang Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY:

MEETING DATE:

SUBJECT:

Laurie Tamura, Planning Consultant
March 7, 2022

PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF MISSION DRIVE HOTEL AND APARTMENTS RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Commission review and provide comments on the Mission Drive Hotel and Apartment proposed project concept located at the old Solvang Lumberyard at 1783 and 1793 Mission Drive and 533 Pine Street (139-150-017, -027, and 139-150-012).

DISCUSSION:

Existing Setting
This project is located at the old Solvang Lumberyard at 1783 and 1793 Mission Drive with 2.19 acres with a zoning designation of DR-20 units per acre. This could result in 44 units. This site has one house located on the site along with several old industrial buildings that are no longer in use.

The applicant recently purchased 533 Pine Street. The .25-acre property is zoned 7-R-1 Residential 7,000 square foot lot size. This site has one house and an accessory structure.

The surrounding uses include:

East: TRC and 7-R-12 with existing homes and apartments West: I-Institutional with county offices, senior center, Veteran’s Hall South: AG-Agricultural with the Santa Ynez Mission
North: DR-20 with the Maple Apartments
Project Description
The Applicant submitted a new conceptual plan on January 31, 2022.

The new proposal includes 77 hotel units with 27 units being referred to as condominium suite. The hotel will also include a bar/restaurant, meeting rooms, spa, fitness room(s) and pool area.

The hotel building will front along Mission Drive with wings on the east and west sides of the property with a courtyard for valet parking in the center. There is a proposed 116-space underground garage for the hotel clients.

The style of the hotel will be of Mission-style architecture. Along the frontage of Mission Drive there will be two story elements with taller architectural elements. The western side of the hotel will be four stories while the east side will be three stories.
88 On the north side of the property and along the Pine Street property there are proposed 45 apartment units with 54 parking spaces. These units are referred to as micro units at 420 sf. These units will be in a three-story building.

The underground garage will provide parking for 116 parking spaces for the hotel and for some of the apartments. The applicant is requesting that the city consider a long-term lease for 25 parking spaces in the city lot for the residential units.

Applications
This project will require a Development Plan to be processed for the whole project.

The Planning Commission may approve Development Plan Modifications including building heights, setbacks, landscaping, and parking if the Planning commission finds such modifications are justified.

The project as proposed would need modifications to height and parking requirements:
• The current DR-20 zoning ordinance prohibits buildings exceeding a height of 35 feet. The proposed project will have one or two buildings with a maximum height of 50 feet. A modification to the height requirement would be needed to approve the project as proposed. • As proposed the current zoning requires 140 parking spaces. The proposed project will provide 116 parking spaces in the underground parking structure. The project as proposed seeks a long-term lease of 25 city parking spaces. A modification to the parking space requirement would be needed to approve the project as proposed.

The hotel can be allowed by a Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the DR-20 zone. Section 11- 16-2(E) of the Solvang Municipal Code states that uses such as Conference Center, Club Facilities, Hostels, Single Room Occupancy, and uses customarily incidental to the above uses can be in the DR-20 zone with approval by the Planning Commission.

Once the revised applications are submitted the project will go through the planning process including environmental review and public hearings.

Project History
Over the last year there have been several project designs submitted to the city and several public workshops on this property.

June 27, 2020 Community Workshop on the proposed project.

July 28, 2020 Application filed for 59-unit apartment project under SB 330.

August 6, 2020 Additional information was filed. This was the official application submittal date.

August 16, 2020 Planning Commission Workshop meeting on the submitted project.

Sept. 4, 2020 Planning Department letter accepting the SB 330 application with requests for additional information.

Dec. 10, 2020 Applicant submitted a term sheet for a possible hotel development.

Feb. 1, 2021 Resubmittal package filed with the City for the 59-unit apartment project (per State Law the project information had to be filed 6 months after the SB 330 letter).

Feb. 22, 2021 City Council reviewed term sheet and possible hotel project and provided staff direction on the term sheet.
89 March 2, 2021
May 10, 2021
May 24, 2021
July 15, 2021
August 2, 2021
August 18, 2021
January 31, 2022
Planning Division sent out a complete letter for the submitted application for the 59 units. This started the technical and environmental review of the application.

The Applicant submitted an additional term sheet for processing a hotel project on this site.

City Council Meeting to discuss the option for a hotel development on this site.

CC directed staff to work with the applicant to consider an alternative plan for this property with the inclusion of a hotel.

Applicant forwarded to the city a revised project design with a hotel and apartment units.

Planning Commission workshop to review new concept plans.

Applicant formally withdrew the SB 330 application for 59-unit apartment project.

New project design submitted that includes the Pine Street property and access.

Presented today
ALTERNATIVES:

Staff is seeking general comment and policy direction to the Applicant. The Applicant has not yet submitted an application and can take into account the Planning Commission comment before final submission.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate impact based on the preliminary review. If the Applicant submits a completed project application, staff will work with the Applicant to process. Staff will enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Applicant for any legal review and specialized planning review of the application.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – Mission Drive Hotel Preliminary Plans
B – Mission Drive Elevation
C – Mission Drive Hotel Project Description
D - 1783 PPT
90 Attachment A
91 92
93 94
Mission Drive Elevation
July 2021
Attachment B
95 Attachment C
96 97
98 99
100
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Attachment D
101
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Aerial Photo of Site
Mission Drive
Alisal Road
Maple Avenue
Pine Street
102
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Access
Mission Drive
Alisal Road
Maple Avenue
Pine Street
Access Points
103
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Access
Access Points
Signalized Intersection
104
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Site Plan
105
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Land Uses
Hotel
106
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Land Uses
HotelResidential
107
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Land Uses
108
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Land Uses
109
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Heights
Two Story
110
Two Story
Three Story
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Heights
111
Two Story
Three StoryFour Story
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
Heights
112
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
West Elevation
Four Stories
Two Stories
113
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
West Elevation
Tallest Structure is Set Back 59 Feet
114
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
North Elevation
115
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
North Elevation - Existing (Maple Avenue Looking East)
116
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
North Elevation - Proposed (Maple Avenue Looking East)
117
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
North Elevation - Existing (Maple Avenue Looking West)
118
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
North Elevation - Proposed (Maple Avenue Looking West)
119
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
East Elevation
120
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
East Elevation - Existing (Pine Street)
121
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
East Elevation - Proposed (Pine Street)
122
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
South Elevation
123
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
South Elevation - Existing (Mission Drive Looking West) 124
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
South Elevation - Proposed (Mission Drive Looking West) 125
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
South Elevation - Existing (Mission Drive Looking East) 126
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
South Elevation - Proposed (Mission Drive Looking East) 127
Mission Drive Mixed-Use Concept
128

PUBLC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF MEETING AGENDA FOR MARCH 7, 2022
 5:00 PM – SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

1. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW SOLVANG ELECTIONS DISTRICT MAPS Hold a Public Hearing Open the Public Hearing to discuss and revise the draft maps and discuss election sequence.
 6:00 PM – SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING

1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE ADOPTION Receive a report on community input and General Plan Advisory Committee recommendations for the Preferred Land Use Alternative; and, Adopt the Preferred Land Use Alternative.
 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

3.A DISCUSSION ITEMS
Preliminary review of 1783 Mission Drive Hotel and Apartments (Old Lumber Yard) Via email to [email protected]; [email protected] To: Solvang Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, and General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) From: Debra Deyette, Natalie Taylor, William Tompkins, Denise Rose, Mark Dullea, Tom Kiley, Irene Ewing, Peter Laird, Susan Kagy, Joy Deming, Robert Dullea, Sharon Kiley, Susan Dullea, Robert Deming, Dana Deyette, George Rose, Tom Orem, Lorrie Flannigan, Victoria Fiore, Lenore Fusano, Joanne Neff, Priscilla Copass (all permanent voting residents of Solvang)
Date: March 7, 2022
RE: General Plan-NO Fjord Bypass; Draft Districting Maps; Old Lumberyard Proposal Honorable Solvang Mayor and City Council, GPAC members, and Planning Commission Members:

The city has requested citizen input on a number of issues on tonight’s special combined agenda. This letter addresses 3 issues that are crucial to our way of life and the future of our city. I can assure you that the opinions stated herein are shared by hundreds of residents residing in the “Alisal Glen” and “Rancho Santa Ynez Estates” area and other residents located south of downtown Solvang.

Issue #1: District Based Election System (5:00 pm “Special Meeting” Agenda Item #1) We prefer the Orange Plan. Second Choice would be the Green Plan.

WE DO NOT WANT THE YELLOW PLAN.

Issue #2: WE OPPOSE the inclusion of Fjord “extension” 246 bypass in the new Solvang General Plan (6:00 pm “Special Combined Meeting”, Agenda Item #1) We strongly oppose any and all references to a “Fjord extension or bypass” being included anywhere in the new Solvang General Plan. This has no place in a general plan because there has not been a current traffic survey performed, nor any semblance of a valid survey of impacted residents and businesses. Moreover, multiple residents have written or phoned council members to protest this and have been told, to the effect, “Don’t worry, this will never happen.” If that is truly the case, then it is disingenuous to include it in an official General Plan. As far as the “survey” the city has cited, this online survey (which used the 3rd party App called “Survey Monkey”) is junk data and cannot be relied upon for the following reasons:

1. Anyone, anywhere, was able take this survey. It was not limited to businesses and residents of Solvang, Santa Ynez Valley, or, frankly, even the United States. Jane Smith in Minnesota could take the survey.

2. The survey could be taken MULTIPLE times by the same person because it is only limited by the IP Address of the device used to connect to the internet. For example, a single person can take the survey on a smart phone, tablet, personal computer, work laptop, etc. That’s 4 times by our count. You get the idea.

3. Business owners, developers, and residents can “front load” the survey with answers that favor their plans by asking anyone they know, employees and friends, who live anywhere, to take the survey and answer the questions according to their suggestions.

4. Even if the survey did NOT have these fatal flaws that deem it useless, there were still only 114 responses to the survey. 114 responses (which likely includes duplicate responses from same person) out of 5,796 residents of Solvang!

5. This bifurcated “bypass” is a problem in search of a solution! It was originally suggested over 50 years ago and has been altered beyond recognition since that time due to housing developments and golf courses being built in its original path. It was not viable then and it is certainly not viable now. It will NOT solve the issue of traffic transiting Mission/246. It will likely create MORE traffic on the already congested Alisal Road. Routing highway traffic through residential streets will destroy the peaceful and safe neighborhoods located south of the city center, particularly the Alisal Glen and RSYME areas. We have spoken to hundreds of residents who are all uniformly OPPOSED to this.

6. The city needs to go back to the drawing board on this issue and not rely on a 50-year old concept that didn’t work then and is less likely to work now. Any plans to mitigate traffic should begin with a current traffic and environmental study performed by experts, and not based on some vague need by residents to “fix the traffic problem”, however well intended. It is reckless to include a plan for a bypass that specifies a particular route in an official city plan without a current study and could have unintended negative consequence to residents and businesses in the future. PLEASE REMOVE ALL REFERENCE TO THE “Fjord Extension/Bypass” in the General Plan. If anything, this item should be replaced with an item to “Perform traffic study and alternatives for downtown congestion.” The first step in solving a problem is to accurately identify the problem and VIABLE solutions.

Issue #3: Preliminary review of 1783 Mission Drive Hotel and Apartments (Old Lumberyard) We are strongly in favor of whatever the council and planning commission can do to curtail high density development on this property, and mitigate increased traffic and parking problems in an already congested area. We understand that the city is somewhat limited due to California SB 290 and other legislation, but we strongly support whatever you can do to accommodate the developer but still limit a high density development in this location. We do understand it is a complicated issue and hope there can be a creative solution. Most of us are well aware of the negative track record and past lawsuits in Santa Barbara concerning this particular developer and are wary of a repeat of questionable practices and negative outcomes here in Solvang.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 7, 2022
ITEM 1.D

APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 2022, AND THE JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF FEBRUARY 17, 2022
Revision to the February 7, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes regarding:

2.A Public Hearing to review and provide recommendation to the City Council; and Adopt Resolution No. 22-01 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang, California recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 2 and Title 11 Zoning Ordinance of the Solvang Municipal Code to address Planning Division reorganization, clarify Design Review Committee (DRC) powers, duties, and appeal bodies, and remove outdated code provisions and typographical errors.

Motion revised to:

Motion by Commissioner Peterson directing staff to schedule a joint session with DRC and update the proposed code amendments to reflect Commissioner Peterson’s suggested edits, seconded by Commissioner Jamison, and carried 4-0, with Commissioner Gold absent.

Minutes 2022-02-07 PC
February 7, 2022
Monday
6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, California.

ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners: Joannie Jamieson, Aaron Petersen, Justin Rodriguez and Chair Jack Williams Absent Commissioner: Scott Gold
Staff: City Manager Xenia Bradford, Assistant City Attorney Chelsea O’Sullivan, Public Works Director Rodger Olds, City Clerk Annamarie Porter, Planning Consultant Laurie Tamura.

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
Commissioner Rodriguez led in the Salute to the Flag.

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

A. Public Comment: Requests from the public to speak to the Commission on matters not on the agenda. - None
B. Requests for Continuance, Withdrawals, or Addition of Ex-Agenda items - None C. Conflicts and/or Ex-Parte Communications
Commissioner Rodriguez reported he received a notice from the City regarding his shed and wondered if he should recuse himself from Item No. 2B. Assistant City Attorney O’Sullivan explained it relates to a City-wide ordinance and therefore, there is no need for him to recuse himself.

D. Approval of Minutes from December 6, 2021 Meeting
Motion by Commissioner Jamieson, to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 6, 2021, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Petersen, and carried 4-0, with Commissioner Gold, absent.

2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public Hearing to review and provide recommendation to the City Council; and, Adopt Resolution No. 22-01 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang, California recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 2 and Title 11 Zoning Ordinance of the Solvang Municipal Code to address Planning Division reorganization, clarify Design Review Committee (DRC) powers, duties, and appeal bodies, and remove outdated code provisions and typographical errors.

City Manager Bradford introduced the item and deferred to City Attorney O’Sullivan for a report.

Assistant City Attorney O’Sullivan presented details of the report and highlighted recommended changes in the

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOLVANG

PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes 2022-02-07 PC
resolution.

Chair Williams opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

Discussion followed regarding the defining the designated Building Official, specifying the time period for minor alterations in development plans, removing references to "Planning Manager Designee", land use permits, DRC powers, responsibilities and duties, clarifying that upon significant changes by the Planning Commission, the item will be sent back to the DRC for review, development and adoption of design standards by the DRC, Planning Commission and City Council, updating the Design Element of the General Plan through the overall General Plan Update process, implementing State ordinances regarding ADUs, the possibility of scheduling a joint meeting with the DRC, the likelihood of additional changes to the zoning code, once the General Plan Update is completed.

Chair Williams reopened the public hearing.

Patrick Cavanaugh, Chair, Design Review Committee, spoke about the need to streamline processes; discussed the need to indicate that design standards must be approved by City Council and agreed with the prospect of holding a joint meeting of the DRC and Planning Commission.

Esther Jacobsen-Bates, Vice Chair, Design Review Committee, agreed that a joint meeting would be worthwhile, spoke about interpreting and applying approved design standards and believed the General Plan will provide clear guidelines for both the DRC and Planning Commission.

Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

The Planning Commission concurred to direct staff to schedule a joint meeting with the DRC.

Motion by Commissioner Peterson directing staff to schedule a joint session with DRC and update the proposed code amendments to reflect Commissioner Peterson’s suggested edits, seconded by Commissioner Jamison, and carried 4-0, with Commissioner Gold absent.

B. Public Hearing to review and provide recommendation to City Council; and, Adopt Resolution No. 22-02 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Solvang, California recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 11 of the Solvang Municipal Code to address sheds and other accessory structures in residential zones and make a determination of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Assistant City Attorney O’Sullivan presented details of the report and recommendations relative to sheds and other accessory structures in residential zones.

Planning Consultant Tamura discussed minimum side yard setbacks for different size lots.

Discussion followed regarding unpermitted illegal ADUs and architectural features including chimneys.

Chair Williams opened the public hearing.

Chris Horn noted that most sheds in his neighborhood are small sheds; reported sheds addressed in the ordinance are medium to large sheds and spoke about the possibility of an exception for as-built structures.

Rovi Butcher expressed concerns that sheds along fences will now be non-compliant and will increase costs for the City in terms of Code Enforcement.

There were no other public comments and Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

Minutes 2022-02-07 PC
Commissioner Rodriguez spoke about the need to clarify requirements for residents to avoid confusion.

City Manager Bradford noted most property owners have been working with Code Enforcement to bring their sheds into compliance.

Discussion followed regarding input and recommendations from the Fire Department regarding different scenarios, challenges with developing standards that would apply City-wide and getting clarification from the Fire Department.

Chair Williams reopened the public hearing.

Chris Horn discussed recommendations in the original proposal addressing the various scenarios; commented on the complaint-based system and suggested the City work with neighbors with existing sheds for which there have been no complaints.

Rovi Butcher wondered whether Staff checked the validity of complaints when they are received and spoke about the recommendations not applying to residents who have smaller sheds.

There were no other public comments and Chair Williams closed the public hearing.

City Manager Bradford addressed the City's complaint-based Code Enforcement process; noted after a complaint is received there is an investigation and reported the City retains the right to address violations without complaints.

Discussion followed regarding proposed changes to the code, the need to comply with code requirements, whether variances can be given for legal, non-conforming structures on a case-by-case basis, accommodating existing sheds and challenges in developing an ordinance that will apply to everyone.

The Planning Commission directed staff to get clarification from the Fire Department regarding the necessary setbacks and building heights to comply with fire safety requirements.

3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Review proposed Solvang Farmers’ Market location changes and provide direction to staff City Manager Bradford introduced the item and deferred to staff for a report.

Public Works Director Olds presented details of the staff report and reported the Farmers Market has offered to install traffic control at the alleys.

Victoria Sarquilla, Solvang Farmers Market, discussed operations; addressed increasing the number farmers; spoke about the benefits of changing the location and talked about the possibility of using Parking Lot 2 for the Farmers Market.

City Manager Bradford reported that City Council has not set a date for the reopening of Copenhagen Drive.

Discussion followed regarding the possibility of using private spaces, going back to the original location once Copenhagen opens.

There were no public comments on this item.

The Planning Commission concurred with the proposed Farmers Market location changes.

B. Receive Planning Division’s Project Status Report regarding ongoing and future projects Minutes 2022-02-07 PC
City Manager Bradford presented details of the staff report.

Discussion followed regarding the status of the building on Alisal that suffered fire damage, that status of the Old Lumber Yard project, the Alisal Ranch annexation project, and upcoming items for the Planning Commission and City Council joint meeting of March 7, 2022.

4. PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS - None

5. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS - None

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Annamarie Porter, City Clerk

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 7, 2022
ITEM 3.A
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF 1783 MISSION DRIVE HOTEL AND APARTMENTS (OLD LUMBERYARD)
Public Comment Received after distribution of the Agenda Lansing Duncan

Solvang, CA 93463
March 4, 2022
Solvang Planning Commission
City of Solvang
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
RE: 1783 & 1793 Mission Drive, 533 Pine St – Preliminary Review of Hotel & Apartment Project
Dear Planning Commissioners,
This developer has proposed at least six different proposals centered on the Old Lumberyard site so it has been very difficult for members of the public to keep up with what is currently proposed for this very important gateway site and provide the City and your commission with feedback. Although there are a few limited issues where this proposal represents an improvement on the previous proposals, the overall project only adds to the projects impacts.

The project now includes a larger underground parking garage. Providing additional parking on site obviously makes sense but the fact that the project is still requesting offsite parking in order to “improve the operation efficiency (sic) of the proposed parking of the development” suggests there is still too much development for the parking that is proposed. The fact that 21 spaces for the apartments will now be provided beneath the apartments is an improvement, but the fact that 34 more spaces for the apartments will have to be located underground in the hotel garage reflects how the site is overbuilt.

The fact that there are so many multistory buildings – 3 two story, 1 two story with penthouse above and parking below, 4 three story with parking below, and 1 four story with parking below, also tells you that the site is overbuilt. The fact that the project will far exceed the maximum height of 35’ w/ architectural features of 50’ reflects how out-of-scale this project will be for the site, particularly when one considers the adjacent single story structures in the neighborhood.

Commissioners should be wary of the visual mock-ups provided. They use a “fish eye” lens that shrinks the size of the larger multistory buildings that are farther away, while enlarging the single story buildings that are closer.

Nevertheless, you can see how out of proportion the Mission Drive elevation will be, when compared to the Library building and the Pohls office. The four story element that is cleverly screened by trees is even worse. To really see this distortion, you should ask for a straight-on mock-up of the Mission Drive elevation, including the taller structures behind the façade.

Retaining the base residential zoning of 44 units on site solves the problem of replacing it elsewhere, but the core of the site is only 2.19 acres. At least 80% of the site is dedicated to the hotel with its circulation, parking, spa, pool, restaurant, etc. There is no acknowledgement that siting 44 apartments on the site requires downscaling of the hotel and its facilities. Instead, the developer plans a man-camp of miniscule market rate microunits that supposedly will be “affordable by design.” Some or all of these units need to be larger in order to accommodate a larger spectrum of the workforce population. Grouping them together on the Maple Street frontage, with their own parking does make sense, but there needs to be more of it.

Adding the .25 acre Pine Street property to the site plan cannot make up for the inherent access problems to this site. It may eliminate left-hand turn problems on Mission Drive but rerouting the traffic does not get it off Mission Drive. It merely funnels the traffic to Pine and Mission, one of the most dangerous intersections in the City. If traffic is somehow diverted to Maple it clogs the Alisal / Mission Drive intersection, documented as having one of the longest delays in the Valley.

What the Pine Street wing of this development will do, is destroy this small more affordable neighborhood. One parcel is almost totally surrounded by this development and the likelihood of project impacts such as traffic, overflow parking and noise spilling over into the neighborhood will dramatically increase.

Community surveys during the General Plan Update process have repeatedly shown that traffic is by far the largest concern of City residents who are concerned that increased development will only add to the current traffic problem. This development needs to be downsized in order to mitigate the very serious traffic and safety problems it creates. It should be remembered that the traffic impacts for this project far exceed those of the originally proposed 59 unit apartment complex.

Downsizing the project would also reduce the immense visual impacts of such a large development at this critical gateway location. Having a 2 story Mission Drive frontage does make sense but the architecture proposed is needlessly unimaginative and repetitious. The eastern wing has far too many windows and arches. Keith Lockard, a Santa Ynez valley native and the architect of the Veteran’s Memorial Building, managed to reference the adjoining Santa Ines Mission architecture with only four arches and a few arched windows. The proposed frontage has at least 28 arches on the Mission Drive elevation, and has become a parody of “Mission Architecture” – Taco Bell on steroids.

Although most of the detailing we can see is appropriately simple, the massing of the building is inappropriate for this location. It clearly competes with the Mission itself and is out-of-scale with the “small town” architecture encouraged by the Design Element.

Without additional elevations and sections, it is hard to understand the real shapes of many of these buildings. You can’t tell how many overhanging pedestrian bridges, porches and balconies may clutter the interior spaces. What we can tell from the limited information provided, is that some are too big and too tall for the site. The interior courtyards and integrated walkways of the current plan however, are an improvement. But it is unclear where adequate landscaping to soften these large buildings and meet the DR requirement can be located.

Your staff report seems to suggest that a hotel can be built on this site without rezoning it to Tourist Commercial. The developer appears to assume a rezone to TC and seeks a Development Agreement but that may severely limit the City’s discretion in the review of a very important project.

Nobody is thrilled with the alternative prospect of seeing the purposefully horrendous 59-unit apartment complex proposed by the developer, built at this important gateway to the City. It has been patently obvious however, that the developer doesn’t really desire to build that “straw man” proposal and he has previously acknowledged to the Planning Commission that he would not be proud of it.

It is the City Council that has directed staff to consider a project that includes a hotel. It will be the Council that ultimately decides whether a rezone or a Development Agreement occurs, but it is up to the Planning Commission to advise both the developer and the Council whether the proposed hotel and apartment project fits the site. The current proposal does not fit the site and your commission’s review should clearly state that.

Thank you for your consideration,
Lansing Duncan