Solvang City Council
December 12, 2022

Attachment B
619
Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
2 5. The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law.

If a locality has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan. The term “Builder’s Remedy” is used to describe the situation where a local agency may be required to approve an eligible housing development project because it cannot make one of the other four findings.

Are Projects Using the “Builder’s Remedy” Exempt from CEQA Review? The HAA contains no exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act. The HAA states specifically that nothing relieves the local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Section 65589.5(e).) A project may be exempt from CEQA under other provisions of CEQA, other state laws, or the CEQA Guidelines.

When Does a Housing Element No Longer Comply with State Law? Is There a Grace Period If the Housing Element Is Not Adopted by the Due Date? Housing elements are required to comply with current state housing element law on the established due date (January 31, 2023 in the ABAG region). State law has changed significantly since fifth cycle housing elements were adopted, and it would be unlikely that a fifth cycle housing element would substantially comply with current state law. If a sixth cycle element has not been adopted by the due date, the housing element would likely be out of compliance with state law until a complying sixth cycle housing element is adopted. There is no grace period, even for the period when a housing element is being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).) Are a Local Agency’s Development Standards Null and Void If the Housing Element is Not in Compliance with State Law?
No, the local agency’s development standards are not null and void if the housing element is not in substantial compliance with state law. The “Builder’s Remedy,” however, may require a local agency to approve an eligible housing development project despite its noncompliance with local development standards. Conversely, other projects may be challenged because a finding of general plan consistency cannot be made if the general plan is out of compliance with state law.

What Projects Are Eligible to Use the “Builder’s Remedy”? The “Builder’s Remedy” applies only to a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” and to emergency shelters. The HAA defines a “housing development project” as either:
• Residential units only;
• Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or

620
Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
3 • Transitional housing or supportive housing.2 (Section 65589.5(h)(2).) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes either:
• 20% of the total units sold or rented to lower income households; • 100% of the units sold or rented to moderate income households; or • 100% of the units sold or rented to middle income households.3 Monthly housing costs for lower income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of median income, adjusted for household size, and the units must remain affordable for 30 years. Monthly housing costs for moderate income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of median income. There are no standards in the HAA for housing costs for middle income households. (Sections 65589.5(h)(3), (h)(4).) An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (Section 65582(d); Health & Safety Code Section 50801(e).)

2 As defined in Section 65582.
3 Those earning no more than 150 percent of median income.

621
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Wendy Gregersen
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mission Oaks Letter Regarding Solvang Housing Element Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 11:06:22 PM
Attachments: Uhrig MOOA Position Letter.pdf
Checa - MOOA Position Letter.pdf
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Attached please find a scanned copy of two letters representing the Mission Oaks Owners Association review and concerns regarding the Housing element Proposal to be considered at the Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, December 5, 2022 and to the Mayor Uhrig and City Council members for their December 12, 2022 meeting.

The original versions of this letter will be delivered on Thursday December 1, 2022.

We request that it be placed in the packets of information being given to all Planning Commission Members for their meeting on December 5, and to Maor Uhrig and all City Council Members for the December 12, 2022 council meeting.

A copy of this packet was also sent to Ms Checa with the request that it be put in the packet of information being given to all Planning Commission members for their December 5, 2022 meeting. We also request time on the agenda to make a formal statement at both meetings.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Dan Martin MOOA President
Attachment C
622
623
624
625
From: Stephen Martin
To: Public City Council Group
Subject: Please place in packets for 12/5 and 12/22 meetings.

Date: Thursday, December 1, 2022 1:07:59 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Honorable Members of the Planning Commission and City Council We are residents of Mission Oaks Subdivision located on Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive. We strongly oppose changing the existing zoning laws to allow high density and potentially subsidized housing at 20 units per acre on both parcels of land adjacent to Mission Oaks known as lots 139-530-001 and 002.

Mission Oaks subdivision was created in 1989 on 50 acres as a PRIVATE subdivision with privately maintained roads, ultimately building 24 town house units and 60 single family homes. The development took great pains to preserve more than 500 hundred oak trees, which it cares for and replants in perpetuity, and to create dozens of acres of open green space which enhance our local environment and serve as a refuge for many wild animals. It is a quiet, cohesive community, with modest traffic, and with an active home owners association. Its character attracts many senior citizens.

We have always known that the adjacent property on Alamo Pintado could be developed but believed due to its steep topography and the fact that, like Mission Oaks, it was zoned for low density 2 units per acre, development would be consistent with the neighborhood character
We recognize the need and state mandate to provide for affordable and workforce housing, but there are numerous reasons why Solvang should not change the existing zoning of both of these lots.

It is never a good idea to concentrate and segregate large quantities of affordable housing in one location rather than integrating it in smaller quantities throughout the community. The proposed zoning change for both the1 acre and 4.48 ac. lots would allow for at least 110 new dwelling units. According to U.S. Census statistics the average number of people per household in California is 2.84.

Lower income housing generally has a higher rate of occupancy of between 5 and 6 people. The average household in California has about 2 vehicles. Thus 110 units would likely bring 300-500 new residents and at least 220 vehicles to the neighborhood.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION will be substantially increased along Alamo Pintado and particularly at its intersection with Route 246 (Mission Drive). There are already numerous subdivisions that use Alamo Pintado to access Mission Drive into Solvang and Buellton or toward Santa Inez and Santa Barbara. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal but traffic regularly backs up, 626
particularly for people coming from Santa Barbara and the Los Angeles area. Accidents persist. Some drivers along Alamo Pintado have resorted to taking the back way into Solvang using Viborg and Alisal Roads through residential neighborhoods to avoid the intersection, causing increasing safety concerns and complaints from those residents. Adding more than 220 vehicles at this end of town will make these problems substantially worse.

In addition,TRAFFIC SAFETY will be substantially reduced by the likely need for direct access to Alamo Pintado from driveways from any new dense development. The alternative of exiting via Old Mission Drive is a poor option as it is already congested from a new development on Old Mission, from delivery trucks double parking and from customers arriving and departing Mercantile shopping center. The 300 - 500 new residents would likely want to utilize Nielsen's Shopping center and, if driving, would have to negotiate across Alamo Pintado to get into the left turning lane, causing further congestion and accidents. Turning left from a development crossing Alamo Pintado toward Los Olivos would be dangerous.

Where Alamo Pintado has median dividers, drivers would have to make a U TURN at the Nielsen's shopping center. Ultimately another traffic signal may well be required there.

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY would be compromised for residents
choosing to cross Alamo Pintado to Nielsen's Center on foot. The addition of pedestrian crosswalks would only further increase traffic congestion.

It is important to remember in considering the increased traffic and congestion at the Alamo Pintado intersection that this is the direct route to Cottage Hospital and EMT'S and their emergency vehicles currently housed near the intersection will be turning and rapidly passing any new development. Increased traffic and congestion will only make their job more difficult and dangerous.

TOURISM provides Solvang witjh a major source of revenue. The GATEWAY to our city from Santa Barbara and points south is via Routes 154 and 246, and from the north is via Alamo Pintado.

There are many times, particularly on weekends, when traffic is backed up for long distances at the Alamo Pintado traffic light. The worse this delay becomes due to new congestion the less likely frustrated people will be to take this route into Solvang. It is important to keep this gateway unobstructed and inviting to tourists.

Most of the area of the lots in question is on a steep slope rising over 60 feet above Alamo Pintado. The spil is of poor quality. To locate 110 units and avoid steep driveways a great deal of earth moving will likely be required. This, along with large parking lots for 220 cars will cause problems of EROSION and RUNOFF.

Costly drainage facility upgrading going under Alamo Pintado may well be needed
Mission Oaks is located on one of the highest points in Solvang.

The view to the east from homes and the walking trail has been designated a SCENIC VISTA in the City of Solvang Community Design Element. Grading of the large lot will destroy much of this scenic vista. The current entranceway to our subdivision from Old Mission Drive will also likely be compromised
Mission Oaks and the surrounding neighborhood of lower Viborg 627
and Creekside subdivisions is quiet and single family in CHARACTER. This character will assuredly be changed by high density development and its accompanying noise and parking lots. 300 to 500 new residents will be looking for places to walk themselves or their pets and the PRIVATE ROADS and recreation areas of Mission Oaks will likely be their easiest and first choice.

New fencing will likely be required but it will be far more difficult or impossible to prevent trespassing and local law enforcement will likely have an increased burden
All of these factors will increase the cost of developing these lots.

This may well result in actually making the housing
UNAFFORDABLE or in reducing the quality of the design and of the dwellings. In any case 110 or even 90 units will sunstantially diminish the peaceful enjoyment of our property that was so carefully developed to be quiet and full of nature. It will likely cause some residents to leave and will reduce our property values and the accompanying tax revenue.

Mission Oaks has been incorrectly shown on City maps as zoned high density. A visit to the site would immediately reveal that Mission Oaks is not high density but a beautiful LOW DENSITY development and further reveal the problems associated with placing almost all of the City's projected affordable housing in one place on the subject lots. We hope you will take the opportunity to come to the area and see the situation for yourselves
The City's consultants did not give consideration to all these relevant concerns and provide options to integrate smaller numbers of affordable housing in multiuse areas, on city owned land or other vacant or underutilized properties
Mission Oaks is a real asset to the city of Solvang. It is an example of how careful planning and effort can provide housing while preserving trees and green open space, enhancing Solvang's beauty and environment. We urge you to respect and support that example and not undo our years of effort. We trust that you will carefully consider the concerns we point out as to traffic and pedistrian safety, emergency vehicles, tourism access; pollution and neighborhood character and not vote to increase housing density on both of these lots. Thank you for yoir consideration
Stephen C. Martin
Maryvonne Laparliere Martin
698 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
434-946-5510
[email protected]
Stephen C. Martin
628





 


 !"#$
% &'()*+*),))-.)(/ 0.1
23!
 !"#4,5
#!$
% 6789:;<=><?;<=?@<AAB9CDE 
67B;FGHHIB><?F8?JC<<=?KH899G9LJGMGDG<9><?8JJGCG<9C<C7BNGC;N<=9@GHOLB9J8E PQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`aZbVcdefghd\ViZjWa\k lmnoTp]qc]`qV[rs]W]\t]^urvfvvwxfyz{ |RTYi}[YZ]^X_Wi}[WZ]^XhWi}[a~`aZbVcdjWa\k l€m‚oTƒa„`icd Z]\]c} s]V^Yi}[YZ]^Xr†V\‡aˆicd}‡V}t[]‰ˆ^]``icd\[WacW]^c`~a^a„^ŠaZbVcds]b]Zaˆ\]c}`ri}\id‡}\VX]Vqi‹]^]cW]j†V\VŒV^]a~ŠVc}VV^tV^VŽ`zZVccicds]ˆV^}\]c}Ž`}V^qic]``ic`„t\icd ‘’“”•–—˜™”š›œšš‘œž‘ššœ–“Ÿ •›•’“š”¡œ¢•’ • ‘–”£‘“”•–¤ ¥¦¦•žšœ–¡œ §¨¦•©ªšœ–¡œ  `aˆ‡a`ˆ`\V^}tVcc]^]cq s]V^Yi}[YZ]^Xr †V\‡aˆicd}‡V}t[]‰ˆ^]``icd\[WacW]^c`~a^a„^ŠaZbVcds]b]Zaˆ\]c}`ri}\id‡}\VX]Vqi‹]^]cW]j†V\ VŒV^]a~ŠVc}VV^tV^VŽ`zZVccicds]ˆV^}\]c}Ž`}V^qic]``ic`„t\icda„^Ya„c}[ƒa„`icd Z]\]c}}a ŠVW^V\]c}art„}}‡]tVZZ`]]\`}at]^aZZicd^]VZZ[~V`}ac}‡i``„t«]W}j pi}‡a„}ˆ^aˆ]^ˆZVccicdŒ]V^]daicd}at]`}„WXŒi}‡Vq]b]Zaˆ\]c}}‡V}WV„`]`\a^]Wacd]`¬ac}aa„^ „cq]^`i­]qŠaZbVcd`}^]]}`Vcqi}ŒiZZ^]\Vic}‡V}ŒV[~a^]b]^j  †Œa^X]q~a^YVZ}^Vc`Yac`}^„W¬ac~a^vy[]V^`VcqˆVb]qƒŒ[vgerƒŒ[®rVcqƒŒ[®ygrV\acd`}\Vc[ ƒid‡ŒV[`ic}‡]Y]c}^VZYaV`}jƒŒ[vgeWVcca}t]Œiq]c]q‡]^]icŠaZbVcdj¯‡]`iq]ŒVZX`Vcqt„`ic]``]` t„°^]``}‡]^aVqVcq}‡]^]i`«„`}ca^aa\}a^aV\j  ±„^`iq]`}^]]}`V^]caqi‹]^]c}j²Z^]Vq[b]‡iWZ]`«„\ˆic}a}‡]}„^cZVc]V}zic]Š}^]]}Vcq^VW]qaŒc}‡]W]c}]^ }a\VX]}‡]Z]³}„^cV}²Zi`VZjp‡]c}‡V}qa]`cŽ}Œa^X}‡]}^V´W}VX]`zic]Š}^]]}Vcq^„c`VZZ}‡]ŒV[}aµi³‡ Š}^]]}V}i\ˆa``itZ]`ˆ]]q`jYa\icd~^a\„]ZZ}acr}‡]}^V´W}VX]`}‡]^id‡}‡Vcq}„^cacµi³‡Š}^]]}rVcq}‡][ ^VW]}a²Zi`VZj 
†‡Vb]Zib]q‡]^]icŠaZbVcd~a^ve[]V^`j¶Vi`]qV~V\iZ[‡]^]VcqcaŒZib]ic}‡]{i``iac±VX`ƒ±²V}±Zq{i``iac ¶aVqj¯‡]ˆ^aˆa`]qq]b]Zaˆ\]c}V}²ZV\azic}VqaVcq±Zq{i``iac¶aVqŒiZZqa„`V}^]\]cqa„`„cqaicdj  p‡]cqaŒ]t„iZqa„^ic~^V`}^„W}„^]·^`}r`a}‡V}i}WVc‡VcqZ]t„iZqicd‡a\]`¸  p‡]ci`i}¬\]}aX]]ˆa„^ŠaZbVcdr}‡]¹„Vic}Zi°Z]sVci`‡ºiZZVd]i}i`¸ ]}a`V[ca}aŠVW^V\]c}a¸  ŠicW]^]Z[rUVWXYZ[\]^hefgƒiZZ`iq]s^ib]ŠaZbVcd
629
Comments Regarding Site 3 of the Draft Housing Element update Lansing Duncan 12/2/22
Mayor Uhrig and Councilmembers,
I don’t envy the challenging task you have before you. But I do hope you will take the time to review what is before you with a critical eye and do the best job possible in a difficult situation. You do have the advantage of knowing the territory better than the professional consultants making the suggestions.

I have been following the process of the Housing Element Update and I participated in both the March and May workshops. At both those workshops I noted that the out-oftown consultants were not aware of the constraints facing the development of affordable housing on certain sites.

High in the sky from 30,000 feet Site 3 may look like a logical site but the on-the-ground reality is far more challenging. Previously the consultants separated these two parcels. I think you will find that a better approach. The parcel at the corner of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive is APN 139-530-001 and is 1 acre in size. The parcel immediately north of it is APN 139-530-002 and is 4.48 acres in size.

These parcels are currently zoned 20-R-1 which would allow for approximately 2 units per acre without counting accessory dwelling units. The consultant’s proposal would multiply the allowed density at least tenfold, possibly more with a bonus density for affordable housing. There are numerous reasons why the current zoning on the site does not allow high density development such as that suggested. Numerous past revisions to the Housing Element have studied these parcels and have not recommended increasing their development potential.

The larger parcel has steep slopes on the west side facing Alamo Pintado, the south side facing Old Mission, and the east side facing Mission Oaks. If both parcels are considered there is an elevation change of 64 feet in altitude, most of it occurring on the northern parcel. Developing the entire site at 20 units or more per acre would require extensive grading increasing the potential for soil erosion dramatically. It would also require immense expense to construct the access roads and build the necessary retaining walls, erosion control devices and drainage structures.

The USDA Soil Survey for this site indicates that most of the larger steep parcel is a combination of Diablo Silty Clay (DaE) and Terrace Escarpments (TdF). The smaller flatter parcel is shown as Santa Ynez soil (SnD). Diablo soil is notoriously expansive and the survey points out problems with permeability, surface runoff and erosion. The terrace escarpments are also characterized by rapid runoff and a high erosion hazard, with some areas “deeply gullied.”
630
An existing drainage directs runoff from developed parcels to the north and continues south over both parcels of Site 3. In some locations one can stand in this narrow drainage with the banks within arm’s reach but overhead. Flow from this deeply incised drainage impacts both Old Mission Road and Alamo Pintado Road, and debris is regularly deposited on both roads.

Because of the existing drainage flow, the steep slopes, permeability problems and soil erosion issues, development of 110 or more homes with their impermeable surfaces (roofs, roads, driveways, decks, patios, etc.) will certainly require a retention basin. Even with the inclusion of that basin, under certain conditions a “river” of water will still be flowing down Alamo Pintado Road across Highway 246. This will necessitate the construction of major offsite drainage improvements adding greater expense and distruption to major roadways.

Runoff could be reduced by making some surfaces permeable, but that will require extra expense undercutting the affordability of the project. The retention basin would undoubtedly be located on the lower parcel decreasing the room for residences on the more easily developable, and therefore more likely to support affordable development, part of the site.

The problem soils on the larger steeper parcel will undoubtedly require extensive grading and soil excavation even without considering the steep slopes. The expansive native soil will have to be entirely replaced before compaction occurs and foundations are poured.

These realities are reflected in a comment found in an earlier draft of this document.

Comment LT 160 referred to the 45 Very Low and 45 Low units assigned to Site 3 in Table H-53. “The City does not agree with listing this whole project as very low and low. This should be at the most be (sic) 20 units in the low category with the rest at market rate. This is a challenging site ot (sic) develop and it would be very difficult to fund a 100% low income project.”
This comment from City staff familiar with the site, as compared to the out-of-town consultants, is an admission that only the 1-acre flatter parcel could be developed at a density of 20 units per acre to produce relatively affordable units. The expense of developing the rest of the site would require that the other units be sold at market rate.

This rather obvious analysis can be made before any of the other constraints affecting development on this site, or the impacts to the community, are considered.

Market rate units developed on this challenging site will be expensive and fall into the Above Moderate income category. Previous Housing Elements that anlyzed this site found it only appropriate for Acove Moderate Income housing. Suggesting this site is suitable for a large number of Very Low and Low units is a recipe for failure. The City 631
will not be able to deliver these units on this site and consequently will fall behind these unrealistic expectations. Rezoning the entire site for high density affordable housing is setting yourself up for future problems with the State when the City fails to meet its Sixth Cycle Housing Element goals .

Although adjacent to Alamo Pintado Road, access to the two parcels is seriously constrained. Placement of an entry/exit on Alamo Pintado next to the Alamo Pintado / Old Mission intersection would be problematic. Most of the larger lot is at a much higher elevation than Alamo Pintado (from approx. 40 feet to as much as 64 feet) which has a median dividing south and northbound lanes. Southbound vehicles on Alamo Pintado could enter the southern end of the site directly but that may not be true for northbound vehicles. Northbound entering vehicles and exiting vehicles wishing to head north on Alamo Pintado, would have to use the Old Mission Drive / Alamo Pintado intersection, a 4-way stop with at least eight lanes.

Traffic regularly backs up at this intersection and into this intersection, from the Alamo Pintado Road/ Highway 246 intersection, creating gridlock. Two large shopping centers take their primary access from it, along with large delivery vehicles and hundreds of residents. Ambulance going to and from the hospital go through this intersection. Very large delivery trucks including semis, regularly double park on Old Mission Drive immediately west of the intersection often reducing access to a single lane. Traffic at this intersection will only get worse once the units at the west end of Old Mission are rented out.

If the site is developed with 110 or more residences with a single point of ingress / egress it may present a safety hazard in the event of an emergency. Residents along Old Mission Road have been required to evacuate when construction at the Mercantile Shopping Center punctured a gas line. Their only exit was the often-congested intersection at Alamo Pintado Road. In the event of an evacuation due to wildfire, adding additional traffic to this intersection will increase the hazard.

A dense development built well above Alamo Pintado on the larger lot would have very serious visual impacts for the entire community. Policy 7.e of the Community Design Element recognizes the need to “minimize adverse visual impacts” of “...development on sites with high visibility, such as hillsides or in the highway corridors.” This site is both on a highly visible hillside and in a highway corridor. Obviously the most direct way to minimize these impacts is to minimize the development on this site. In addition, the view from Mission Oaks towards the east and the south over these two parcels is identified as a Scenic Vista in the City of Solvang Community Design Element (See Exhibit 2/4) and should be protected.

Solvang residents might also question the wisdom of packing 110 or more “affordable” units all in one location. Even if it were not severely constrained like this site. 632
During the May workshop for the Housing Element Update the consultants showed these lots (referred to as #4 and #5 then, now collectively referred to as #3) once again and solicited input from residents (See page H-17 of the Housing Needs Assessment).

Numerous residents commented on some of the concerns listed above but the consultants seem to have seriously considered only a few.

Figure H-7 on page H-97 of the HNA shows a somewhat exaggerated section (north to south) of the hill that makes up the site. The smaller 1 acre parcel next to Old Mission is obviously much flatter than the steeper larger parcel but this actually illustrates only one aspect of the steep topography. The larger parcel also shows immense variation in an east – west section, appearing like an upside down “U.” On the east side it starts at the much lower elevation of Alamo Pintado Road (40 – 60 feet lower) and climbs steeply up a slope to a very small level area before descending another steep slope to the drainage on the west side of the property.

The Archeological analysis on page H-97 regarding the Mission Aqueduct that connected Alamo Pintado Creek with Mission Santa Ines is noteworthy and the statement that it “needs to be investigated to ensure appropriate analysis and preservation” is correct. This is one of the few areas where a large section of the aqueduct remains undisturbed. The text’s suggestion that the currently underground sections of the aqueduct constitute “two tunnels” is misleading. Virtually all of the original aqueduct was built at grade for ease of construction, access and maintenance. The fact that much of it is now underground reflects both manmade disturbance and the steady erosion over time of the hill that makes up this site. The easily erodible soil of this hill is steadily moving downward from higher elevations to lower elevations.

That part of the aqueduct that can be seen on the surface is definitely on the larger parcel and the balance of it on site can be expected to be found on that parcel since it follows a contour with minimal slope. Eliminating the larger parcel from higher density development is the simplest way to mitigate adverse impacts to this irreplaceable archeological resource.

The view from 30,000 feet may suggest this is a site suitable for developing relatively affordable “Low” and “Very Low” income housing, but on-the-ground analysis suggests otherwise. The larger steeper parcel, APN 139-530-002 should not be considered as part of Site 3 since Solvang does not need market rate housing and the impacts and costs to the community to develop this site are prohibitive. The smaller flatter parcel, APN 139- 530-001 is a better candidate although it definitely has issues / constraints such as visibility, traffic, drainage, and access.

Thank you for your consideration,
Lansing Duncan
633