Adding the runoff from new impermeable surfaces such as roads, roofs, patios, and driveways to the existing drainage that flows across the site, will necessitate expensive drainage infrastructure and the creation of a retention basin, just as one was required for the adjacent Merkantile site, even though it was redevelopment of an existing shopping center. That retention basin would need to be sited on the lower flatter parcel, thereby displacing housing from the one part of the site most suitable for the development of affordable housing. A retention basin alone however, may not be sufficient to mitigate potential flooding due to high density development of this site. Expensive and disruptive offsite drainage improvements may be required.
It should be noted that in the most recent storm event the Merkantile basin filled and overflowed. This occurred even though the project installed large amounts of expensive permeable paving in order to mitigate flooding impacts caused by the impermeable surfaces of the development. An affordable housing project would not have the budget to install large areas of permeable paving, unlike a profitable commercial shopping center. Any runoff from impermeable surfaces on Site C not collected in a retention basin would add to the potential flooding of an intersection and area that has already shown itself prone to flooding.
Considering how difficult it will be to develop affordable housing on this site, it is not surprising that the Review Draft envisions only 18 Very Low and 2 Low units. This is a dramatic reduction from the naïve projection of 45 Very Low and 45 Low units made by the out-of-town consultants that clearly did not study the site carefully and generally ignored the warnings of Solvang residents. The Review Draft however, now includes 20 Moderate units and 36 Above Moderate units, none of which were previously proposed for this site.
The affordable units would undoubtedly be placed on the lower, flatter parts of the site. According to the text on H-104, “Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.” The more desirable, more expensive Moderate and Above Moderate units would obviously be sited at higher elevations and further from the road, than the 20 more affordable Low and Very Low units.
History has shown that Solvang has little difficulty producing Moderate and Above Moderate units. The analysis of the Fifth Housing Cycle shown in Table H-1 on page H-23 of the HNA, shows that Solvang achieved 220% of the Moderate RHNA and 153% of the Above Moderate RHNA in the past housing cycle.
An excess of 36 units and 40 units respectively. A look at the figures for Low and Very Low units however, shows that the surplus of units above the RHNA was much smaller, 5 units in both categories.
A review of Table H-59 Sites Inventory on page H-107 shows that the current Sixth Cycle is projected to produce far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than required, 233% of RHNA for Moderate and 304% of RHNA for Above Moderate. The 233% appears to be an error, the correct figure shows an even greater surplus, 286% of RHNA. The table indicates that the proposed rezones will result in almost three times as many Moderate and Above Moderate units as the city needs to fulfill the RHNA requirements.
There is an additional error in this table, the total RHNA with required buffer is 215 units, not 230. A buffer is not required for Above Moderate units.
It is clear that the 20 Moderate and 36 Above Moderate units that are projected for Site C that would undoubtedly be built on the steeper more expensive to develop parcel, are not needed. Mission Oaks residents have repeatedly pointed out the many ways high density development of the entire site is inappropriate and will impact the community.
Traffic has repeatedly been identified as a primary concern for Solvang residents and the development of 76 – 110 units (a developer would not be limited to the 76 units projected) would undoubtedly contribute to traffic and congestion in an area already subject to congestion. Long-term water supplies remain a very serious concern for Solvang despite the recent rains. Large scale development of Site C would certainly add to the city’s long-term water consumption.
645
Despite the recent drought, erosion and flooding from development will continue to be an important issue and one that may be an increasing cause for concern, due to climate change. Residents have also pointed out the need to protect the historic Mission Aqueduct which runs over the steeper hillside parcel and once transported water from Alamo Pintado Creek to Mission Santa Ines.
Mission Oaks has pointed out that the Community Design Element of the Solvang General Plan designates the view over Site C as a Scenic Vista. A dense development built well above Alamo Pintado on the steeper parcel 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.
Considering the many ways the unnecessary development of the unneeded 56 units of Moderate and Above Moderate units would impact our community it is foolhardy for the city to pursue development of those units in the guise of creating affordable housing. The 20 affordable units Site C is projected to create could and would most likely be built on the lower flatter parcel that is “significantly less costly to develop” and much easier to access. The much steeper problematic parcel should be removed from Site C along with the 56 unneeded units.
If it is claimed that the 56 unneeded units are needed in order to create 20 needed affordable units on Site C, the entire site should be dropped from consideration. None of the other sites create almost 3 times as many unneeded units to create the needed affordable units or generate as many serious impacts to the community.
Mission Oaks residents are deeply invested in the health and welfare of Solvang. We understand that despite how much we love our community, change will undoubtedly occur. But we expect our elected officials to make carefully considered thoroughly researched decisions that avoid unnecessary collateral damage to the future of our neighborhood and the entire community.
Thank you for your service to our community,
Dan Martin
President, Mission Oaks Owners Association
cc: Ms Sophia Checa
CityClerk, City of Solvang
646
Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element
The current draft of the Housing Element is considerably more realistic and appropriate for Solvang than the generic draft prepared by the out-of-town consultants that reflected a 30,000 ft. high perspective. Many aspects of the document have been revised including the projected development of affordable units on the four different sites (now labeled A, B, C, D) found in the Housing Needs Assessment ( HNA.) Nevertheless, the document continues to incorporate errors, omits important information, and perpetuates inappropriate development proposed in the previous draft.
There are numerous revisions to the policy language and implementation programs that warrant careful review and comment but the public and decision makers have not had adequate time to for careful and complete analysis. The update is being rushed to meet deadlines for state approval and environmental review. With the limited time available these comments will focus on certain specific issues. It is impossible for me to cover the many flaws in the Draft Housing Element that remain.
The housing projections for Site C (formerly labeled Site #3, previously Sites #4 and #5) have been revised to acknowledge that this very challenging site cannot be expected to produce more than 20 affordable units, 18 Very Low and 2 Low. The steeper hillside parcel will be far too expensive to produce affordable units and is simply not appropriate for high density development. Nevertheless, 56 unneeded units are projected for this site, 36 Above Moderate and 20 Moderate, resulting in a projected total of 76 units for the site.
The steeper parcel and its unneeded units should be omitted from Site C. Only the flatter parcel is needed for the City to produce the necessary number of Very Low and Low income units. The text states, “ Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.” The much more expensive 56 units that would undoubtedly be sited on the steeper parcel, are simply not necessary, since the City will have more than enough Moderate and Above Moderate units to meet the State requirements ( see Table H-59, pg. H-107 of the HNA). Note: There are errors in this table, some previously pointed out. The 230 Total RHNA with buffer should be 215. The 233% percentage of RHNA of Moderate units is actually 286%, showing an even greater surplus.
647
Given Solvang’ s constrained and limited circulation infrastructure, water supply, vacant land, city services and revenues, the City should not attempt to produce any unneeded housing units. This is particularly true for identified affordable housing sites and parcels zoned DR-20 that are weaponized by state laws that bypass the City’ s jurisdiction over such sites. The City’ s experience with the Lumberyard site that was zoned to allow 42 units under the DR-20 zoning and the developer’ s use of SB 330 to require very limited review should cause decision makers to think twice before rezoning a site to potentially allow 110 + units, or for that matter, the 76 units theoretically projected here.
Decision makers should also be aware that the City will be required to “report all requests to develop Housing Opportunity sites with capacity for lower income housing at densities lower than projected in the Housing Element.” - Government Code 65583(h)(6) cited on page H-54 of the HNA. This suggests Solvang should rezone for the bare minimum of units required, rather than overpromise a large number of units. It also emphasizes the need to take issues that constrain realistic affordable development very seriously.
The surplus of unnecessary Moderate and Above Moderate units reflects a documented historical pattern ( See Table H-1, page H-23 of the HNA, Fifth Cycle Housing Element Progress) that the City should learn from and avoid repeating.
There is no need to produce approximately three times as many Moderate and Above Moderate units as required as shown by Table H-59.
Developing the entire site with 76 – 110 units would require extensive grading increasing the potential for soil erosion dramatically. The current text for Site C acknowledges that difficulty but omits the excellent illustration that was included in the last version of the HNA. Figure H-7 Elevation Profile of Site 3 graphically depicted a north- south section of the site that showed the difference between the two parcels and the steepness of the northern hillside parcel. The text now reads, The hill’ s western, eastern and southern slopes are all located within the northern parcel ...... that will make grading the parcel especially difficult.” This is true but the reference to a “ U shaped contour” is confusing because it is the east- west section that is shaped like an upside- down “ U.”
The steeper parcel should not be included in Site C, but if it is, Figure H-7 needs to be retained in order to show why the site cannot accommodate more affordable units. The State and future decision makers need to understand how the dramatic topography impacts Site C’ s suitability for high- density development and affordability.
648
The soils found on the steeper parcel are problematic for construction with low permeability and rapid runoff. Diablo soil is a notoriously expansive silty clay.
Creating development pads and foundations will require excavating the existing soil and importing and compacting non-expansive soil. It will entail immense expense and community- wide impacts to construct the access roads and build the necessary retaining walls, erosion control devices and drainage structures.
An existing drainage runs over both parcels but most of it is confined to the steeper parcel. In the most recent storm event sheet flow from this deeply incised drainage deposited debris on Alamo Pintado Road and to a lesser degree, Old Mission Drive. Because of the existing drainage flow, the steep slopes, permeability problems and soil erosion issues, development of 76 – 110 units with their impermeable surfaces ( roofs, roads, driveways, decks, patios, etc.) will certainly require a retention basin. The basin would undoubtedly be located on the lower parcel, thereby decreasing the room for residences on the more easily developable part of the site, must suitable for providing affordable housing.
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, an area heavily impacted in the most recent storm event. This may necessitate expensive and disruptive offsite drainage improvements in order to mitigate potential flooding impacts. The recent storm suggests Solvang should take drainage and flooding concerns very seriously.
The unnecessary high density development of the steeper parcel will seriously impact a Scenic Vista designated in the Community Design Element. Any dense development built well above Alamo Pintado Road on the hillside would have very serious visual impacts for the entire community. DR-20 would allow almost ten times the number of units allowed by the current zoning. Grading and development would also impact or destroy the section of the historic Mission Aqueduct that crosses the steeper parcel on its way from Alamo Pintado Creek to Mission Santa Ines.
These location specific impacts are in addition to the community wide impacts of unnecessary development - traffic, long-term water consumption, demand for services, noise, air quality, etc. caused by high density development of the steeper parcel.
649
Apart from the 56 unaffordable and unneeded units allocated to Site C, the allocations to the limited number of sites reflect the smaller number of affordable units Solvang actually needs to meet the RHNA goals. Unlike the steep parcel on Site C, the other sites are much flatter and easier to develop. The current draft shows extensive analysis and refinement of what was produced during the Fifth Cycle and what credits toward meeting the Sixth Cycle goals, can be expected.
Figure H-52 on page H-90 of the HNA however, does not match what is found in Figure H-49 and H-59 in the Pending or Approved Above Moderate category. If the other tables are correct the 46 units shown should be 51.
The City should continue to refine the draft Housing Element and particularly the proposal for Site C. Solvang should only consider the smaller lower parcel for meeting the affordable housing needs of the Housing Element. Development of the larger steeper parcel will be so expensive the resulting units will not be affordable. Solvang needs homes that fall into the Very Low and Low affordability categories, not unneeded expensive market rate homes with their impacts to the community.
Thank you for your consideration and efforts,
Lansing Duncan
650
1/16/23, 1:15 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https:// outlook. office. com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE% 2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Solvang Draft Housing Element
Dan Martin < dmartinsyv@gmail. com>
Fri 1/ 13/ 2023 1:29 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Public City Council Group [email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
My name is Dan Martin. I am a lifelong resident of the Santa Ynez Valley and a longtime resident of Solvang. I am also the President of the Mission Oaks Homeowners Association.
Mission Oaks has provided you with a very detailed letter regarding the proposed rezoning of Site C, which was previously referred to as Site 3, which lies between Alamo Pintado Road and Mission Oaks. We believe this site should not be rezoned for the high density (DR-20) that the currently written Draft Housing Element encourages.
Because of the steep hillside make up of the 4.8 acre parcel of this site, it would not be possible to produce Lowcost and Very-Low-cost units. If there was development on this 4.8 acre portion, the costs involved would only produce higher income units, which the city does not need at this time.
The city does need affordable housing, but the only portion of this site that would possibly work would be the 1 acre flatter part of the property that could possibly accommodate the building of 20 affordable units. As it is, adding 20 affordable units to this site will increase traffic and congestion, and any more than this number of units to this site would become a safety issue for both locals and tourists.
I would encourage the City to pursue rezoning other areas within the city limits, perhaps allowing the rezoning of commercial properties to include Low and Very Low-cost units as part the buildings and properties.
Thank you for your consideration of matters discussed in the letter sent to you by Mission Oaks and thank you for your service to our community.
Dan Martin
708 Hillside Drive
Solvang
[email protected]
651
January 13, 2023
Members of the Solvang City Council
C/ O City Hall, City Clerk' s Office
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
RE: Housing Element Draft of 12/ 15/ 2022
Dear Solvang City Council Members,
My name is Craig Kent and I have been a property owner and resident of Solvang since 1979 (43 years). I am also a former Solvang City council candidate and have been actively engaged in various County and City planning activities for a number of local developments as an interested homeowner and resident (e.g. original General Plan creation as well as previous updates, Mission Oaks, Valley Plaza/ Old Mission Marketplace, Old Mill housing and commercial building development, Nielsen’ s Center expansion/ remodel, Cottages on Old Mission, etc.) which has given me a good understanding of the processes and studies that have been used and performed over these many decades.
I am aware of the need for the City to address the Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) mandate and the challenges that presents. I am also aware of the need for the city to expeditiously work through the Housing Element update to address the RHNA needs.
I am writing to you today to express my significant concerns about the zoning change being promulgated for the two parcels at the Northwest corner of Alamo Pintado at Old Mission Drive, currently designated as Site C formerly designated sites 4 & 5). I am familiar with this site and in past years have walked it in the company of an Archaeologist who was supporting a resource assessment activity for the former Brand property Honey Locust development and another time during assessments for the Mission Oaks development as an informal interested observer.
I am concerned that the zoning change for this entire site from 20-R-1 to DR-20 will allow a higher density of development than this property can reasonably support and will set up future city wide problems in the areas of traffic, runoff and flood control, water use, parking and infrastructure needs to accommodate the potentially large number of units that would be allowed under the DR-20 zoning.
I am troubled that this zoning change does not appear to be informed by an updated traffic and pedestrian safety impact assessment that includes not only the potential buildout of this site but also the impacts of other recently approved and developed projects, nor does it appear to be informed by the updated assessments of water use and runoff/ flood issues. The property, particularly the hillside portion has produced significant runoff in the past causing flooding and debris issues on Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado.
During the most recent storm I observed that the runoff and debris from this property primarily went onto Alamo Pintado whereas in previous storms a fair amount has also gone onto Old Mission Drive.
Recent rains underscore the significance of this concern. I have been here long enough to have seen the Highway 246 Alamo Pintado Creek bridge overtopped and impacted by debris flow twice closing the highway as 652
well as the Alamo Pintado / Highway 246 intersection along with associated property damage to several businesses on the Northeast and Southeast corners of that intersection. Indeed, that intersection historically experiences large standing pools of water after heavy rains which create hazardous traffic and pedestrian conditions.
The section of the Housing Element that discusses the proposal for Site C acknowledges the difficulty of developing the steeper parcel, “ Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.” - page H-104 of the Housing Needs Assessment ( HNA).
This is why the analysis projects the creation of only 20 affordable units for the site, even though 20 units per acre on 5.48 acres might result in 110 units. The cost of the remaining units constructed on the site will reflect how expensive their development will be.
Developing the entire site with 76 – 110 units would require extensive grading dramatically increasing the potential for soil erosion. The soils found on the larger parcel are problematic for construction with low permeability and rapid runoff.
I am aware of historical soil related foundation problems with some of the buildings in the Mission Oaks development. I have these same soils on my property nearby, and I understand the issues associated with them from my own home addition project as well as from monitoring the lot preparation work and associated issues with several other neighborhood developments.
It is notable that only the flatter parcel is needed for the City to produce the necessary number (20 total) of Very Low and Low Income units proposed for the site. The more expensive 56 units the larger parcel is theoretically projected to create, are not necessary, since the city will have more than enough Moderate and Above Moderate Income units to meet the State requirements ( see Table H-59, pg. H-107 of the HNA).
The unneeded 56-90 expensive market rate homes would only add to the City’ s water and traffic problems especially at the intersection of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive), while destroying a designated Scenic Vista and the historic Mission Aqueduct which crosses the larger parcel. A dense development built well above Alamo Pintado Road on the larger lot would have serious negative visual impacts for the entire community.
Traffic Safety will be substantially reduced by the likely need for direct access to Alamo Pintado from driveways from any new dense development. An alternative of exiting the site 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 Merkantile shopping center. Also the distance between the intersection of Alamo Pintado/ Old Mission Drive and the entrance driveway to Mission Oaks are close together and adding another driveway to a large project there will likely lead to significant traffic issues.
Considering that Census statistics reveal the average number of people per household in California is 2.84. and lower income housing generally has a higher rate of occupancy of between 5 and 6 people, this project if built to the maximum allowed density (why would the developer try to do anything less?) would result in 300 to 500 new residents. Publicly available statistics on car ownership reveal that the average California household has 2.4 vehicles. This translates to around 264 vehicles at full project density. The California Department of Transportation reports that the average driver in California makes 3.77 vehicle trips per day. This project as 653
promulgated would likely produce around 1131 to 1885 vehicle trips per day. That is a huge increased burden on traffic not only on Alamo Pintado, Old Mission Drive and Highway 246 but also on all on Solvang’ s throughfare routes.
These 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.
I recall from earlier traffic studies that Cal-Trans had advised it was infeasible to signalize the intersection of Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado Road due to its close proximity to the signalized intersection of Highway 246 and Alamo Pintado Road. Further, I recall that a determination was made that there is insufficient real estate available to construct a roundabout at Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive.
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 Ynez and Santa Barbara. The highway 246/ Alamo Pintado intersection is controlled by a traffic signal but traffic regularly backs up in the morning and afternoon particularly for people coming from Santa Barbara and the Los Angeles area. 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 264 vehicles at this end of town will make these problems substantially worse.
Pedestrian safety at all City intersections will also be compromised by all of these vehicle trips, principally for those choosing to cross Alamo Pintado to Nielsen' s Center on foot. There are already issues at this intersection with impatient drivers and pedestrians, as I know from firsthand experience and having nearly been hit while crossing Alamo Pintado in the crosswalk on two different occasions. The increased pedestrian traffic from this project on crosswalks at Alamo Pintado, Old Mission Dr and Highway 246 as well as at Pine Street an Alisal Road would only further increase traffic congestion.
I believe putting high-density zoning on the hillside parcel is going to create a lot of problems in the future and the issues it will likely cause are not being addressed contemporaneously with this present housing element update. Therefore, I recommend not rezoning the hillside parcel until such studies have been completed so as to facilitate an informed decision.
Respectfully,
Craig Kent
1901 Old Mission Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
654
1/16/23, 1:16 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https:// outlook. office. com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE% 2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Housing element at Old Mission and Alamo Pintado
Barbara Allen < barb.nana715@gmail. com>
Fri 1/ 13/ 2023 9:03 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk < [email protected]>;Sophia Checa [email protected]>
Dear Sirs/ Ladies….
My husband and I are 35 year residents of this beautiful Santa Ynez Valley. We have lived at the City limits for all of that time and we are now residents of the Mission Oaks Community. We raised one of our four daughters here where she attended Family School and Dunn School enjoying more beauty of the Valley. I was the Executive Director of Solvang Friendship House and have served on many local Solvang Boards, always happy to work for the greater good of our community.
We moved here from Orange County and have enjoyed the luxury of open spaces and beautiful views here in Solvang for all of this time. Over these 35 years, we have watched as the traffic issues of a much bigger city have crept into our daily lives and it is with great concern that we watch the City Council and the Planning Commission consider authorizing housing at the intersection of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road. Not only is this the entrance to the Solvang “ Village”. It is an extremely busy intersection, closely connected to an even busier intersection at Alamo Pintado and Route 246. We are very concerned that adding more traffic to this area will create a huge safety problem for the citizens of Solvang. I have seen myself on numerous occasions, drivers speed thru stop signs, make illegal turns and we have watched these intersections become more crowded and backed up as our community has grown.
We would ask that you give service reconsideration to adding over 80 additional housing units to this very corner.
There are also the concerns of the historic aqueduct that is a part of the SYV history also, I am sure that you have been made aware of the soil issues in this area that will require a very expensive preparation for development.
We thank you for your time and service to keeping our Valley the beautiful and safe community we are all hoping to maintain.
Barbara and Ted Allen
764 Hillside Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
655
1/16/23, 1:16 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https:// outlook. office. com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE% 2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
High Density Zoning for 100 units at AP and Old Mission fitkiwi@aol. com < fitkiwi@aol. com>
Sat 1/ 14/ 2023 9:22 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;City Clerk < [email protected]>;Public City Council Group [email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW a large complex of housing units to be built at the corning of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive.
This zoning change to allow a higher density of development than this property can reasonably support and will set up serious future Valley wide problems in the areas of safety, traffic, runoff and flood control, water use, parking and infrastructure needed to accommodate such a large number of units that would be allowed under DR-20 zoning.
The current zoning is problematic at this location let alone changing it to be increased three times what it is currently zoned for.
If you must rezoning it for the mandate please attach a CC&R with a lower maximum number of units!
PLEASE for our future generations and the safety of all! Thank you.
Karry Rossetti
Solvang Resident
656
To: Solvang City Council
From: Monica Moisan
Date: January 13, 2023
RE: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Mayor Infanti and Council members,
I am a resident of Mission Oaks and I am fortunate that even later in my years I can still drive.
It has become more and more difficult since the traffic situation in Solvang has become overwhelming. Starting with leaving Mission Oaks it sometimes takes up to 2-3 Minutes for me to be able to turn left on Old Mission Drive due to traffic generated by New Frontiers Natural Food Market delivery trucks. Then I have to deal with a 4-way stop and the traffic lights onto Highway 246.
When I first moved to Solvang it took me perhaps 5 to 8 minutes to go to El Rancho Market another market I go to) where as of now it can take up to 20 minutes, particularly to return.
Also, due to heavy traffic I no longer have the pleasure of driving through Solvang. The impact of additional housing could be such that even the smallest project like going to the market becomes a major undertaking.
So please don't take that away from me and the rest of us! Respectfully yours,
Monica Moisan
689 Hillside Drive, Solvang
monicamoisan@gmail. com
657
658
659
Drone Photo: North View
Drone Photo: South View
Drone Photo: North View of Aqueduct 3660
January 13, 2023
To: Solvang City Council
From: John Moisan
RE: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Dear Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
After attending two (2) city council meetings in December, I became more educated to Solvang’ s low- cost housing needs and future building sites being considered. I understand an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) will be done on ALL sites identified in the Draft Housing Element which should reflect my concerns. In the unlikely event the EIR does not, the following are those impacts I deem most significant.
My greatest concerns rest most on Site C bordering Alamo Pintado Road. The site has been surveyed and recognized for its archeological significance. An aqueduct dating back several centuries runs through the property to our Santa Ynez Mission. It has both Missionary and Chumash historical importance. However, it appears few of us are aware nor concerned about our lawful responsibility to preserve it.
Another concern is the significant impact of an additional 100+ housing units on Site C will have on traffic. As a commuter to both Lompoc and Santa Barbara, I’ve witnessed the increased vehicular congestion on Highway 246 specially at the Alamo Pintado Road intersection. What used to occur on rare occasions is now more common where westbound traffic backs up to Refugio Road and eastbound back into the City of Solvang. Neighborhood roads are now also being impacted as residents seek shortcuts to escape the traffic.
The additional 100+ housing units proposed to be located in the heart of a traffic corridor would further expose our infrastructure problem and create a dangerous situation for emergency vehicles.
Thank you in advance for addressing my concerns,
John Moisan
688 Hillside Drive
t2_jam@yahoo. com
661
1/16/23, 1:18 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https:// outlook. office. com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE% 2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Kathy Allain < kathyallain54@gmail. com>
Mon 1/ 16/ 2023 8:41 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa [email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically, Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the low cost units the state requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the city easily provided 220% of the moderate and 153% of the above moderate income RHNA units required.
Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary. But the current draft Housing Element, it encourages even more higher income units.
Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more moderate and above moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for moderate and 304% for above moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%) Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “ significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded higher income units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density ( DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.
The units are not even needed to meet the State' s RHNA goals for moderate and above moderate housing.
Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. It would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.
Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.
Thank you for your time and effort in serving our communityKathy Allain 757 Hillside Dr
662
1/16/23, 1:21 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https:// outlook. office. com/mail/id/AAQkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAQAKr% 2BjNQXCHhIv2fU7KIh464% 3D 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
20221221183054] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang Solvang General Plan Update < administrator@plansolvang. com> Wed 12/ 21/ 2022 10:33 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Xenia Bradford [email protected]>;David Packard < [email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Ticket: [# 20221221183054]
Name: Elaine Morris
e-mail: solvang4me@comcast. net
Comments:
The corner of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission is a traffic nightmare. Please do not allow additional building in this area without in depth study of the potential fallout. Recent redevelopment of the Merkantile center and additional housing units have created a traffic nightmare. Please do not make it worse by further developing the area.
Page title: PlanSolvang
663
1/16/23, 1:07 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https:// outlook. office. com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE% 2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Richmond Property at Corner of Alamo PIntado and Old Mission Drive and Zoning Change Gabriel Rossetti < gabrieljulian@yahoo. com>
Fri 1/ 6/ 2023 10:17 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
I am a resident and homeowner at 1911 Old Mission Drive here in Solvang. I am writing to protest the egregious zoning change request by the owners of the property mentioned above.
Solvang does not have the infrastructure to support this request. There is not enough water, the traffic at that intersection will be untenable, and the waste water treatment facility is antiquated and not up to par. The soil in the upper parcels will not support that many homes safely, and by the way a home’s foundation in Mission Oaks just a few days ago has been slipping again.
Also the housing element plan does not need that dense a project to attain its goals.
I strongly urge you to deny this request.
Thank you,
Gabriel Rossetti
gabrieljulian@yahoo. com
664
Comment RE Solvang Draft Housing Element
Site C Alamo Pintado
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers:
I am a resident of Mission Oaks and of Solvang for 21 years. I have attended the most recent Council meeting where there was some discussion of the development of Site C for low income affordable housing with the new proposal for higher income units.
As you assess this location, I want to urge you to take other concerns under consideration.
I hear that this site is proposed for housing for “workers”. I urge you to consider that workers have families with children. As proposed the density of this area does not provide for any space for children to play and do things such as ride bikes safety, walking would also present problems for pedestrians and automobile traffic. The density of the intersection would be dangerous for children and their pets. The provision of an accessible natural environment is not possible as this area is proposed. The entire intersection from Viborg to 246/ Mission Drive and along Mission Drive to Alisal Rd. is commercial development ( with the Sansum Medical Facility filling in the open field to the Santa Ynez Mission). I have not heard provisions for parking of cars and other vehicles.
With regards to children, there is only one elementary school for the Solvang District. Solvang School is currently overcrowded and understaffed. The possible addition of another 20-60+ students could present an untenable situation for students and teachers.
I also have concerns about the protection of the privacy and property use of the Mission Oaks area. I would assume that any development of Site C would provide privacy walls/ gates that would protect the area from public use. Mission Oaks Home Owners Association assumes responsibility for the management of over 40 acers of protected oak trees, roads, trails, etc.
As you consider the many other matters regarding the development of this area, please consider the quality of living for those residents and their neighbors.
Respectfully,
Felicia Carroll
Felicia Carroll
Mission Oaks Resident
704 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
fcarroll@west. net
665
Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on public review draft of housing element December 2022 Maryvonne laparliere < gth08@mac. com>
Mon 1/ 9/ 2023 11:45 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;City Clerk [email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Dear Mr Infanti, Mayor of Solvang and City Council,
I urge you to remove the sloping 4.48 acre parcel #139-530-002 from Site C in the Public Review Draft of the Housing Element released in December 2022.
Before explaining the technical difficulties of that project, here are some very pragmatic reasons why I am against that project:
I doubt that the developers will care about the way the buildings will look and certainly not be in the old Danish style like in downtown or Spanish; so that would go against the vision of charming touristic Solvang and we could hear “it is not the way it used to be…”
Even the Police think that increased traffic will be a nightmare.
Accidents have already happened. We witnessed a few days ago a car speeding right through the stop sign at Nielsen’s!! There will be many more pedestrians.
Also we heard a lot of complaints already from the backroads because of people taking shorcuts to avoid the congestion.
Improvements will definitively need to be done by Caltrans if the project become concrete.
Due to high development costs, this steep parcel is not suitable for construction of high density affordable housing.
The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will likely be built on the adjacent flatter 1 acre parcel.
Even though 56 HIGHER INCOME units are proposed for Site C, rezoning the 4.48 acre parcel for high density would actually allow for at least 81 additional higher income units above the 9 allowed by current zoning.
NONE OF THESE UNITS ARE NEEDED to meet the State's RHNA goals for moderate and above moderate housing. Building them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion, destroy a Solvang designated scenic vista and increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.
Allowing so much unnecessary dense housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city.
Thank you.
Maryvonne Laparliere Martin
698 Hillside Drive
Solvang CA 93463v
666
Allow sender | Block sender
planned high density housing
ELAINE H MORRIS < solvang4me@comcast. net>
Wed 12/ 21/ 2022 10:26 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Greetings,
It appears that the City of Solvang is seriously considering rezoning the property at the corner of Old Mission Road and Alamo Pintado Road in order to meet its requirement to develop more affordable housing in the city. This is disappointing to those of us who live nearby because building at that location is rife with problems. I would ask how much investigation was done prior to selecting that site; we deserve an answer.
The property is currently owned by Joshua Richman, who developed the “new” New Frontiers shopping center. Despite intense feedback from local residents, the project was completed with minimal foresight, and the result has been a traffic and parking nightmare.
The City Council cannot let this story repeat itself.
For starters, the city or Mr. Richmond MUST immediately erect cameras to monitor the traffic at that corner 24/7. That will enable the parties to make well founded decisions about further building at that location. It is a conversation we must have.
New Frontiers shops’ employees park on Old Mission Road because there is not sufficient parking in their own lot. That situation has been made worse by the construction of approximately 20 new dwelling units on Old Mission Road. The entrances to the shopping center are narrow, and delivery trucks block entrances and create traffic jams. I contacted the city both before and after this project was complete; nothing was done. Why? PLEASE do not let something similar happen if the proposed corner is developed. While the land may be “easy pickings”, the location is not. Creating more traffic problems at that intersection invites an accident, which when seen as preventable, could leave the city with liability.
I do not object to building on that lot, but I object to the type of building being considered. Dense housing with tenant parking will create more problems than it solves. Please do not repeat your past lack of oversight. If Mr. Richman is to develop this property, you must have a viable plan to deal with the resulting congestion, risk of accidents, traffic snarls, and lack of parking. Ongoing input from neighboring residents is critical, as we have the most to lose if this project is not done properly. We all recognize the need for more affordable housing in The Valley. But it is not our role to enhance Mr. Richman’ s wealth at the expense of local residents’ ability to enjoy the safety and tranquility of their homes.
Elaine Morris
657 Hillside Dr.
Solvang
805-686-0019
667
Wednesday, 21 December 2022 18:30 PlanSolvang Elaine Morris solvang4me@comcast. net The corner of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission is a traffic nightmare. Please do not allow additional building in this area without in depth study of the potential fallout. Recent redevelopment of the Merkantile center and additional housing units have created a traffic nightmare. Please do not make it worse by further developing the area.
Wednesday, 21 December 2022 22:43 PlanSolvang Sophia Checa scheca@cityofsolvang. com Comments received via phone call
1) Table H-59 needs to be re-worked for clarity. It took a lot of analyzing the numbers to understand the surplis and percentages. We also have the recommendation to add a column for Extremely Low Income like the Projected Housing Needs table on page H-6. The math on Table H-59 needs to be revisited. I think the 20% buffer amounts are incorrect. Additionally, why are we shooting for higher than the RHNA with buffer? 2) It is not clear where the New Construction Objectives on page H-6 came from. Did the city actually set these goals? The recommendation is to reduce them, if possible.
3) When the Consultants speak to the public and City Council again, I recommend discussing how the analysis for the sites happened and how they disbursed the various units ( extremely low, low, etc) across the sites.
Thank you!
Thursday, 05 January 2023 19:49 PlanSolvang Stephen Martin stormyscm@gmail. com Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
I strongly urge you to exclude the steep 4.48 ac parcel from Site C (formerly Site 3) in the proposed Housing Element ( HE).
Solvang needs to encourage construction of affordable, not higher income, housing. Market conditions and existing zoning have historically been sufficient to easily meet the needs for higher income housing.
While the proposed HE does encourage affordable housing, it also unnecessarily proposes high density zoning in areas where high development costs will likely exclude affordable housing. History tells us that this will use up land in order to develop unneeded moderate and higher income houses. According to the 2015 to 2023 HE 5th cycle planning period report at page H-23, table H-1, Solvang exceeded State Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA) requirements for additional moderate and above moderate housing by 220% and 153% respectively.
Friday, 06 January 2023 22:47 PlanSolvang Ester Smith waynedonaldsmith@gmail. com Taken via phone by Sophia:
I am very concerned about the rezone and building of the low-income housing at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission.
I am concerned it will bring the property values down. I've seen different low- income homes that are not taken care of very well; people don' t appreciate what they are able to rent. It is my concern this will happen in this case Friday, 13 January 2023 19:59 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti ginfanti@comcast. net On Table H-1 entitled Fifth cycle ( 2015- 2023) Housing Element Progress, there is a math error in the second row, last column: the total should be 261, not 132.
Friday, 13 January 2023 20:02 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti ginfanti@comcast. net In the section entitled Opportunities for Energy Conservation on page H-84, there is a paragraph about Southern California Edison Energy Programs. SCE doesn' t serve Solvang. Please replace with PG& E and/ or 3CE, which do serve Solvang.
Friday, 13 January 2023 20:05 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti [email protected] I have a general concern about the state law, which disregards whether a jurisdiction (City) has sufficient resources (water) to build the RNHA -allocated number of housing units.
Friday, 13 January 2023 20:10 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti [email protected] Another concern is that the state doesn't require a large enough percentage of units in a single development project to justify the incentives that a developer can claim. These incentives, such as exemptions from height limits or setbacks,can really destroy the quality of life in a neighborhood.
Friday, 13 January 2023 22:15 PlanSolvang Josh Richman [email protected] In response to the circulated draft Housing Element, I have submitted a comment letter to Sophia Checa by email. This comment field is limited to 1,000 characters which is less than my comment letter. Josh
Sunday, 15 January 2023 23: 37 PlanSolvang Sheri Noble sherinoble2@gmail. com Cannot fit all comments in a few words. I do not believe we have approved evacuation routes in an emergency as stated in this document. I would like to learn more.
In my 1/4 acre lot/single family neighborhood with all single story homes, I can put up 2 ADU' s even during a "drought" and our master plan is maintained on all single story homes? This does not make sense.
The city cannot currently maintain the current creeks during a storm, how will flood zones be maintained? Will only property owners pay for this? Traffic on Mission has to be addressed. It is hypocritical to have more growth without considering the infrastructure. Please proceed carefully to maintain the character that led us to purchase homes in Solvang. 668
Attachment C
Solvang City Council STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Rodger Olds, Public Works Director/City Engineer Sophia Checa, Planning Manager
Laurie Tamura, Planning Consultant
MEETING DATE: December 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Receive and file the preliminary draft general plan for comment at a future meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council receive the Preliminary Draft of General Plan for review and comment at a future meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The General Plan is a vision for how the City of Solvang will grow, reflecting community priorities and values while shaping the future – a long-term framework for future growth and development. The General Plan also contains the goals and policies upon which the City Council and Planning Commission will base their land use decisions. There are nine mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Environmental Justice, and Air Quality.
Solvang has chosen to include two optional elements: Community Design and Economic Development.
Over the last two years, Mintier Harnish has been working with the City of Solvang to update all the elements of the City of Solvang General Plan. The city has updated various elements, particularly the Housing Element, when required by State Law. A requirement to update the Housing Element is currently mandated by the State of California with a submission deadline of February 15, 2023.
DISCUSSION:
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was established early in the update process. This committee consists of two City Council Members, two Planning Commissioners, two Design Review Committee Members, and four at-large members.
The Planning Commission (PC) was provided with all elements of the General Plan and provided comments focused on the Housing Element at their regularly scheduled meeting of December 5 th. The
GPAC has completed the review of all the elements except for the Community Design (CD) Element, which has been partially completed. The GPAC meeting of December 14 will focus on completing the review of the CD Element and revisiting all elements of the General Plan as a complete document.
The schedule for the completion of the General Plan Update has shifted due to a change in leadership at the City of Solvang. While comments and review are still ongoing, staff is providing the preliminary draft of the General Plan for initial City Council review, included as Attachment A. 669
Housing Element Process
The only element of the General Plan that must be approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the Housing Element. This element was not started until the state and the county approved the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RNHA) numbers for 2022-2031.
The final housing number were approved in early 2022, and the City of Solvang housing assignment is 191 units.
The consultants started the final work on the Housing Element with the focus of finding vacant or underutilized sites to add housing. The first draft of the Housing Element was provided to City Staff in early October. HCD set a deadline for each jurisdiction in Santa Barbara County to submit the approved final, certified Housing Element. The deadline for jurisdiction in Santa Barbara County by February 15, 2023. There are several steps that the city needs to conduct before this final Housing Element can be filed with HCD:
1. 30-day public comment period: The Draft Housing Element along with the required the Housing Needs Assessment ( HNA) and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) must be circulated for a 30 day public review period. The consultants are preparing the draft document, and staff is ready to release the draft document on December 19th with the closing of the public comment period on January 18th.
2. Response to Public Comments: After the 30-day review, the consultants are scheduled to take 10 days to prepare responses to the public comments and amend the Draft Housing Element accordingly.
3. City Council review of Daft Housing Element for submittal: Staff has targeted the January 23, 2023, and the February 13, 2023, for City Council Hearings to review the responses to comments and the changes to the Draft Housing Element. The goal is to have the City Council direct staff to file the Draft Housing Element to HCD for preliminary review on February 15, 2023, for HCD review and comment and authorize the start of the Environmental Impact Review EIR) of the General Plan Elements.
4. Environmental Impact Review Process (estimated 9-10 months): The consultants will take about five to nine months to prepare the Draft EIR. There will be an estimated one-month block of time for city staff and the consultants to review and edit the Draft EIR. There will then be a 45- day public review period for the Draft EIR. Within this 45-day period, there will be a public workshop for public comment. At the end of the public review period. the consultants and city staff will have about one month to respond to the comment letters emails, and verbal comments.
5. Public review General Plan Elements and EIR (estimated 4 months): Once the EIR process is completed and hearing Draft EIR is ready for Public Hearing, staff will have meetings with the GPAC, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and the City Council for final approval.
6. Complete filing of the Approved Housing Element: Based on the above timeline the approved Final Housing Element will be final with HCD in March to April of 2024.
This summary indicates that we have another 15 to 18 months to complete this General Plan update process. During this remaining time, there will be multiple public meetings and opportunities for public comments.
State Law on Housing Element Delays:
For jurisdictions that have not fully completed their Housing Element review, state law has established several consequences for not meeting the February 15, 2023 deadline:
1) The City of Solvang cannot qualify for any grants that require a certified Housing Element by HCD.
670
2) The deadline for rezoning land to align with the updated housing element is one year instead of three years.
3) Builder’s Remedy arises out of the Housing Accountability Act. See Attachment B for more information.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council can provide direction to staff regarding the timing of the review of the Preliminary Draft of the General Plan Update, either the Housing Element alone or the entire document.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City Council approved a General Plan Update contract in 2020 with two amendments for a total of almost $700,000.00. There may be an additional contract amendment as this project moves through the next 18 months.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Preliminary Draft General Plan
B – The Builder’s Remedy and Housing Elements
C – Public Comment on the Housing Element
671
SOLVANG CITY COUNCIL
January 23, 2023
Agenda Item 6.d
Discussion and possible action to receive and file the draft Housing Element of the General Plan
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO 4 PM ON JANUARY
23, 2023
672
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Credits
Pending / Approved
Projects
3 45 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 0 32 32 64
Site
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
63 14 20 71 168
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 66 59 63 228 416
RHNA with required 20 % buffer (1) 66 47 27 75 230
Surplus (beyond buffered total)+/- 0 + 12 + 36 + 153 + 186 of RHNA Planned 120 % 126 % 233 % 304 % 218 %
ORIGINAL DRAFT - Table H-59 Site Inventory; page 478/ Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Plan Solvang
1) No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 % buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period Errors Slide1673
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Credits
Pending / Approved
Projects
3 45 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 0 32 32 64
Site
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
63 14 20 71 168
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 66 59 63 228 416
RHNA with required 20 % buffer (1) 66 47 27 75 215 (230) Surplus (beyond buffered total)+/- 0 + 12 + 36 + 153 + 201 (+ 186) of RHNA Planned 120 % 151 %( 126 %) 286 % (233 %) 304 % 218 % ORIGINAL DRAFT ( ERRORS CORRECTED) - Table H-59 Site Inventory; page 478/ Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Slide 2(
1) No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 % buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period Plan Solvang
674
ORIGINAL DRAFT - Table H-54 List of Vacant Sites Requiring Rezoning; H-98 / Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Site Address APN Size
acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA Income
Categories
Notes
A 741 Alamo Pintado
Road; 739 Alamo
Pintado Road
139-031-064;
139-031-063
1.0 20-R-1 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
17 6 Very Low
5 Low
6 Above Moderate
5th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
56 and 57)
B 1999 Viborg Road 139-031-020 0.64 20-R-1 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
11 4 Very Low
4 Low
3 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
26); 5th cycle above moderate
income opportunity site
Site 55)
C Parcel west of junction
Alamo Pintado Road /
Village Ln; Northwest
corner Alamo Pintado
Rd / Old Mission Dr
139-530-002;
139-530-001
5.48 20-R-1 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
76 18 Very Low
2 Low
20 Moderate
36 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
22-23); 5th cycle above
moderate – income
opportunity site (Site 87-88)
D West of Alisal Road;
bisected by Juniper
Avenue
137-260-021 3.71 REC 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
64 35 Very Low
3 Low
26 Above Moderate
Only 3.71 acres of 5.83- acre
property developable due to
Alisal Road’ s realignment
within parcel boundary due to
washout of Alisal Bridge in
January 1969
Plan Solvang
Slide3675
REVISED PROPOSAL - Table H-54 List of Vacant Sites Requiring Rezoning; H-98 / Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Site Address APN Size
acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA Income
Categories
Notes
A 741 Alamo Pintado
Road; 739 Alamo
Pintado Road
139-031-064;
139-031-063
1.0 20-R-1 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac as
required by State Law
17)
0 6 Very Low
5 Low
6 Above Moderate
5th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
56 and 57)
B 1999 Viborg Road 139-031-020 0.64 20-R-1 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
11 6 ( 4 ) Very Low
2 ( 4 ) Low
3 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
26); 5th cycle above moderate
income opportunity site
Site 55)
C Parcel west of
junction Alamo
Pintado Road /
Village Ln;
Northwest corner
Alamo Pintado Rd /
Old Mission Dr
139-530-002;
139-530-001
5.48 1.0
20-R-1 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
76)
20 20 ( 18 ) Very Low
2 Low
20 Moderate
36 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
22-23); 5th cycle above
moderate – income
opportunity site (Site 87-88)
D West of Alisal Road;
bisected by Juniper
Avenue
137-260-021 3.71 REC 20-R-20
minimum 20 du/ ac
as required by State
Law
64 38 ( 35 ) Very Low
3 Low
26 Above Moderate
Only 3.71 acres of 5.83- acre
property developable due to
Alisal Road’ s realignment
within parcel boundary due to
washout of Alisal Bridge in
January 1969
Plan Solvang
Slide4676
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Credits
Pending / Approved
Projects
3 45 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 0 32 32 64
Site
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
64 ( 63 ) 2 ( 14 ) 0 ( 20 ) 29 ( 71 ) 95 ( 168 )
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 67 ( 66 ) 47 ( 59 ) 43 ( 63 ) 186 ( 228 ) 343 ( 416 ) RHNA with required 20 % buffer (1) 66 47 27 75 215
Surplus (beyond buffered total)+ 1 ( +/- 0 ) 0 ( + 12 )+ 16 ( + 36 )+ 111 ( + 153 )+ 128 ( + 201) of RHNA Planned 122 %( 120 %) 121 %( 151 % ) 195 % (286 %) 248 %( 304 % ) 180%( 218 %) REVISED PROPOSAL - Table H-59 Site Inventory; page 478/ Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Plan Solvang
1) No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 % buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period Slide5677 Allow sender | Block sender
RE: Housing Element / 741 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang
Brett Jones < [email protected]>
Sat 1/21/2023 2:28 PM
To:Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>;Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hi Sophia,
On behalf of my sister-in-law, Michele Jacobsen, I wanted to officially state that she and I (a resident of Solvang) are against the poten al rezoning of her vacant property, located at 741 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang.
Can you make sure that this le er is included as public comment and is part of any packets for the Planning Commission or the City Council? Thank you!
Bre Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
bre @joneslanduse. com
www.joneslanduse. com
805) 688- 4974 ( office)
805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Bre Jones
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Sophia Checa < SCheca@cityofsolvang. com>; Planning Dept Public List <planningdept@cityofsolvang. com> Cc: Angela Janes < angie@joneslanduse. com>; Michele Jacobsen < 07mkmorrison@gmail. com>; Rodger Olds <rolds@cityofsolvang. com> Subject: RE: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Thank you!
Bre Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
bre @joneslanduse. com
www. joneslanduse. com
805) 688-4974 (office)
805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Sophia Checa < SCheca@cityofsolvang. com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Bre Jones < bre @joneslanduse. com>; Planning Dept Public List <planningdept@cityofsolvang. com> Cc: Angela Janes < angie@joneslanduse. com>; Michele Jacobsen < 07mkmorrison@gmail. com>; Rodger Olds <rolds@cityofsolvang. com> Subject: Re: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang I have added it to their folders. Thank you!
From: Bre Jones < bre @joneslanduse. com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:00 PM
To: Sophia Checa < SCheca@cityofsolvang. com>; Planning Dept Public List <planningdept@cityofsolvang. com> Cc: Angela Janes < angie@joneslanduse. com>; Michele Jacobsen < 07mkmorrison@gmail. com> Subject: RE: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Thank you Sophia.
Yes, please include this email as public comment.
Bre Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
bre @joneslanduse. com
www.joneslanduse. com
805) 688- 4974 ( office)
805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Sophia Checa < SCheca@cityofsolvang. com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Bre Jones < bre @joneslanduse. com>; Planning Dept Public List <planningdept@cityofsolvang. com> Cc: Angela Janes < angie@joneslanduse. com>; Michele Jacobsen < 07mkmorrison@gmail. com> Subject: Re: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Hi Bre
Thank you for following up. Do you want me to submit this for the record as public comment? I am new to being involved in this process, so I will answer the best I can. Laurie, our Planning Consultant, is the other email address on the Planning Dept Public List. She is more familiar with General Plan processes and may weigh in as well.
There is a responsibility to inform the property owner of a poten al re- zone. I am not sure when it typically is supposed to happen.
Once the General Plan is no longer being modified, it will undergo an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) process with the other elements of the general plan. I believe the rezone will happen a er the comple on of the EIR as the environmental impact of the rezone is being assessed through the EIR. The city council would also need to vote to approve it. 678
It does not require a property owner to propose any development. There are several parcels on Copenhagen Drive that were rezoned around 2007 where proposed development did not happen un l this year. Through the Housing Element, we need to show either projects in the works or land that could be redeveloped to account for all of the units we need in order to meet out Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number.
I looked in the Housing Element. It does not look like 737 APR (745 APR on the Assessor' s Look Up) is being considered either as a site that does not require rezone or as a site that requires rezone.
Table H-52 List of Vacant Sites Not Requiring Rezoning is on pages 172 through 174: _12052022-739 (cityofsolvang.com).
I will need Laurie to weigh in on this. I do not believe you are locked in to having to provide low- income units. However, I could see ramifica ons in terms of having to state that the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan when we are wri ng the Planning Commission Staff Report. Addi onally, we'd need to iden fy another site to allocate those units. I am curious what Laurie will say. She will be a ending the mee ng virtually.
Thank you,
Sophia
From: Bre Jones < bre @joneslanduse. com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Planning Dept Public List <planningdept@cityofsolvang. com> Cc: Angela Janes < angie@joneslanduse. com>; Michele Jacobsen < 07mkmorrison@gmail. com> Subject: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Hi Sophia,
My sister-in-law is the property owner of 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang and she also owns 741 AP Road, a vacant parcel that is currently under review for re-zoning. She and I have a few ques ons:
What is the City’ s process and / or responsibility to inform a property owner of a poten al re-zone? What is the next step in this re-zone process?
Does this re-zone require the property owner to propose any development? How does the re-zone affect the property directly to the west ( 737 APR) / is that developed parcel being considered as part of the re-zone? Is the re-zoned property required to include a low-income component. For example, if a SFD and an ADU is proposed on the parcel, would either unit be required to be low income? I will plan on a ending the Zoom mee ng tonight and can ask these ques ons there, as well.
Thank you!
Bre Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
bre @joneslanduse. com
www.joneslanduse. com
679
805) 688- 4974 ( office)
805) 886- 2706 ( cell)
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
FW: housing element
Annamarie Porter < aporter@cityofsolvang. com>
Mon 1/ 23/ 2023 8:21 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Laura Ishikawa < lauraishikawa@yahoo. com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:07 AM
To: City Hall <cityhall@cityofsolvang. com>; Public City Council Group <council@cityofsolvang. com> Subject: housing element
Solvang City Council - Iknow that the housing element is acomplex issue and Iunderstand no onewants tohave more housing next to them in what is currently open space suchas the lots being conside Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend
Solvang City Council -
I know that the housing element is a complex issue and I understand no one wants to have more housing next to them in what is currently open space such as the lots being considered on Alamo Pintado, but clearly the state is requiring us to provide more housing.
I agree with the comments in the draft housing element that the Alamo Pintado lots are ideal for more housing as those locations are walkable to many amenities such as grocery stores, medical, pharmacies, and restaurants.
I feel that what Solvang is missing is moderate/mid-level housing/ " starter homes". I work as a public-school teacher and my amazing paraprofessionals have been trying to break into the housing market for years but so much of what has been available has been high end/huge houses that are out of financial reach for them. They tell me "I don't need big and fancy, I just want to stop renting and own my own place". They are trying to begin to build their generational wealth for themselves as well as for their children.
Please encourage the developers to provide as much moderate "missing middle" housing as possible ( small but not tiny) and housing affordable to basic working folks.
Thank you for your hard work.
Laura Ishikawa
Solvang Resident
692
Lansing Duncan
635 Aqueduct Way
Solvang, CA 93463
Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
Thank you for listening to the concerns of Solvang residents on Monday December 12 regarding the Housing Element proposal to develop 90-110 or more units on Site 3 (now labeled Site C.) Those residents pointed out the many reasons why the steeper hillside parcel would be very expensive to develop and would not result in affordable units. Your own staff has pointed out this issue and stated that the entire site with both parcels “ should be at the most 20 units in the low category with the rest at market rate.”
Reflecting that statement, the current Public Review Draft now shows 18 Very Low units and 2 Low units. These units could be more easily developed on the lower flatter site described as significantly less costly to develop” without the construction of the additional 20 Moderate and 36 Above Moderate units, undoubtedly sited on the steep hillside parcel, that the City does not need.
At the December hearing the owner and prospective developer of Site C (formerly Site 3) spoke after residents so there was no opportunity for residents to rebut his comments. This letter will address some of the pointed questions and confident assertions the owner made.
The owner questioned the fact that only his site had been commented on by the speakers. I suspect there are many reasons for that. The first being that the number of units proposed for Site C is far larger than any other site. Secondly, Site C with its prominent hill is highly visible to members of the public who live in the neighborhood or shop at the two nearby shopping centers. Thirdly, Site C is the most egregiously poorly- considered proposal of all sites by far.
There were legitimate reasons motivating the comments of the speakers. It was not a personal attack on the owners.
The owner also wondered why only Mission Oaks residents questioned the appropriateness of Site C to support affordable housing on the scale proposed. I suspect this was because a relatively small number of Solvang citizens were aware of what is proposed. The draft document had only been released prior to the Planning Commission hearing which occurred just a week before the Council’ s meeting.
It is totally understandable that neighbors are the city residents most likely to be able to identify a piece of property from the minimal description incorporated in planning documents. When a property has no address and only an APN is listed it can be difficult to know what is being discussed. Mission Oaks residents abut the Site C parcels to the west and to the north so it is not surprising that they are more familiar with its location. They are also the City residents who are 693
most familiar with some of the challenges to develop it, such as the steep terrain, the existing drainage, the Mission Aqueduct and the difficult expansive soils involved.
It is not surprising that the owners of the shopping center across the street were not protesting the prospect of hundreds of new customers. And it is not surprising that the owners of the Merkantile to the south, were not calling attention to Site C, since they are also the owners of Site C. Would the owners of Site C prefer that no residents talk about how appropriate the steep hillside of Site C is for the dense development proposed and the production of affordable housing? Fortunately, Solvang residents have the opportunity to be heard when they speak out about poorly considered public planning decisions that will affect them.
The owner cited the redevelopment of the Merkantile as an example of dealing with the problems that would be encountered on Site C. The neighbors who experienced the demolition of the Valley Plaza Shopping Center and its replacement with the Merkantile however, might question the confidence expressed by the developer. Those who monitored the project know that the project was continually in flux and many promises made to the neighborhood never panned out. Numerous impacts to the community were not adequately mitigated and continue to this day.
Many residents questioned why a California Ranch style shopping center such as Valley Plaza, so well-suited to the topography of the site, and the residential neighborhood, was being demolished. They were told that the new shopping center would have direct access to Hwy. 246 thereby reducing the traffic on Old Mission Drive and the impacts to the neighborhood. That did not happen because Caltrans ultimately denied access.
The community pushed back when the developer proposed to cut down all of the many specimen trees on the site. The developer then claimed that he would be able to retain all the perimeter trees including the large Sycamores, but all the interior trees would have to be removed. Two subsequent revisions to the project however, required the removal of 8 more mature trees. The original grading plan did not meet the necessary standards and had to be revised, lowering the grade behind New Frontiers and removing more trees. A significant 37% expansion to the Forest Service building required more removal of screening trees.
The community was told that the hedge behind the large New Frontiers building that helped protect the neighborhood could be retained, but then we were told it would have to be removed.
Only because the community objected and the modification appealed, was the project revised to allow its retention. Because the five existing trees that would have screened the back of New Frontiers had to be removed, new trees ( 5 along Old Mission Drive) were promised to replace those that had to be removed, but they were never planted. Others trees that were planted have died and have not been replaced. The hedge was supposed to grow to 8’ high to provide screening but it remains less than 6’. There are many areas where the landscaping has died and has not been replaced. Transformers that were never shown on the original plans have no landscaping to screen them from the residential neighborhood. 694
Solvang requires that parking lots be screened by walls or landscaping from public roadways but the plantings that were supposed to screen the large parking lot visible from Hwy. 246 and Alamo Pintado Road have failed to do so. The only substantial landscaping features are some shrubs along Hwy. 246 that were part of the Valley Plaza’ s well-established landscape, and the large perimeter Sycamores that the neighbors insisted be retained. But they are deciduous so when they are out of leaf the shopping center and all its bulk and signage is totally visible. Too many of the much smaller new trees are also deciduous. More evergreen trees should have been used. They would provide much needed shade that was readily available in the old Valley Plaza Shopping Center that hosted concerts on the grass.
Originally the commercial square footage of the Merkantile was comparable to that of Valley Plaza plus the addition of eight apartments that were supposed to expand the diversity and affordability of Solvang’ s housing. Ultimately the commercial space was substantially increased and five of the apartments became Air BnB rentals.
The community was told that all the tenants of the Merkantile would be locally - owned businesses but that has not panned out. New Frontiers itself, is the only business that could be considered locally- owned. The local businesses that attempted to locate on the Merkantile site ultimately moved out, presumably because the location was inappropriate and / or the rents were too expensive.
Neighbors were concerned that the expanded size and uses of the Merkantile would negatively impact public safety and parking on Old Mission Drive, which is substandard in places. They were told that there would be ample parking on site for customers, residents and employees and that the improved New Frontiers loading dock would take care of deliveries. In fact, certain businesses insist that their employees park on the street and large trucks often park or doublepark on Old Mission Drive while making, or waiting to make, deliveries. The loading dock is difficult to access and vehicles waiting to use it can block the entry to the shopping center.
The shopping center is supposedly pedestrian friendly but both the entries from Old Mission Drive lack pedestrian sidewalks that would connect the interior sidewalks with the public sidewalk. Pedestrians have to walk in the driveways and dodge vehicles.
All the buildings of The Merkantile are essentially two-story. The Bank building is actually single story but its massing is that of a two-story building. It is placed ten feet closer to Alamo Pintado Road than indicated on the plans shown to the public and the Planning Commission.
Since it is placed at a high elevation well above Alamo Pintado Road, it intrudes dramatically on the public streetscape and dramatically infringes on the canopy of an existing Sycamore, in violation of the project’ s Tree Protection Plan.
Because The Merkantile sits on the highest corner of this gateway intersection it should have been designed with a low profile to fit with the topography and the surrounding development. 695
But instead, it was designed to have as much visibility as possible, in order to serve as a billboard for its elevated signage.
Almost all the Valley Plaza Shopping center appeared to be single- story. Although the People Helping People building was two- story it was set into the grade and back from the road to reduce visual impacts. The four unobtrusive upper- story apartments were carefully placed to reduce visual impacts, most people were unaware of their existence. Valley Plaza did not have the large blank walls seen at the back and side of the New Frontiers building leading the neighbors to call the building “ The Penitentiary.” Neighbors were able to look over the old shopping center to see the mountains.
Valley Plaza signage was unobtrusive and dramatically different from the interior- lit signage and multiple monument signs of the Merkantile. The entry to Solvang was unnecessarily impacted by the demolition of the lushly landscaped well-designed Valley Plaza Shopping Center and the erection of The Merkantile. The last step in its construction was the expansion of the highly visible Forest Service building with its fenced parking lot, the addition of another large monument sign and the poorly- placed brightly lit charging stations that are totally out-ofplace.
The owner and developer of The Merkantile will face much larger challenges in the creation of affordable housing on the steep hillside parcel of Site C. He will not be able to take advantage of existing retaining walls on the north and south side of the site as he was at the Merkantile. He will have to develop entirely new access to public roads and drainage infrastructure on a far more challenging site with a 64 foot change in elevation. He will not be able to rely upon any existing landscaping. He will have to deal with an existing drainage that runs through the site and protect the Historic Mission Aqueduct. But most importantly, if he were actually constrained to produce affordable housing, he would not be able to continually revise the business plan, the site plan, the tenants, the customer base, the rents and / or the sales prices to pay for the very expensive costs of developing on such a challenging site.
Depending on your perspective, you may or may not consider The Merkantile an unqualified success, but there is no question that many of the original promises made to the community have not been realized, suggesting that future development of a far more challenging site by the developer, cannot be relied upon to produce truly affordable housing.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lansing Duncan
696
To: Sophia Checa, Planning Manager and the Solvang City Council Topic: Development of Parcels C at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road Dear Sophia Checa and our Solvang City Council,
Meetings are coming up for discussion on the proposed development by owner Joshua Richman on the two parcels he owns.
We understand the need for Solvang to comply with the State of California’ s housing needs.
We are okay with projects that will provide this housing, without deteriorating the quality of where we all live.
We have read the 2022 Solvang Housing Element and a few items are of concern.
It says some reductions in parking requirements could be considered. I believe we read that one single space per unit could be the minimum. This would mean that the unit’ s other vehicles would park offsite. Here at Old Mission Road, there is no parking available. The good folks who work at the New Frontiers store and the other businesses park regularly on the Old Mission Street. We also have the large produce trucks that park on the street as they wait to use the single unloading dock for New Frontiers.
If this were allowed, we anticipate some 40+ vehicles looking for parking daily. So, we have a few questions.
1- How many vehicles would the City Council or the developer need to park off of the building site?
2- Does the developer suggest another location for these vehicles which will not fit in the parking space of their unit?
3- What would occur if these same vehicles started parking in the shopping centers at New Frontiers and at Rite Aid and Leonardo’ s? The other concern is the horse trading that will occur between the City Council and the Developer. It is our hope that the City, does not bear any cost for this project. If the developer builds a quality housing project with 697
access, parking, and low- income housing. We are sure he would recoup his monies with the sale of the upper priced homes on the hill.
That being said, we appreciate the work that you have done and know that you first thoughts are what is good for all parties concerned. It could be a good project.
Sincerely,
Jack and Elizabeth Clymer
698
FW: zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units;
Annamarie Porter < aporter@cityofsolvang. com>
Mon 1/ 23/ 2023 8:29 AM
To: Sophia Checa < SCheca@cityofsolvang. com>; Rodger Olds < rolds@cityofsolvang. com> From: Stephanie Statom < stephaniestatom@yahoo. com>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cityofsolvang. com>
Subject: zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersec on to allow high density of 76-110 units; Dear Planning Commission, Iam not in favor of the proposed zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and OldMission intersec on to allow highdensity of 76-110 units; dra housing element project. My con Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender sophospsmartbannerend
Dear Planning Commission,
I am not in favor of the proposed zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units; draft housing element project.
My concern is the corridor for wildlife.
The corridor for wildlife has already been impacted and narrowed greatly by the newest projects around Alamo Pintado, hwy 246 and Old Mission drive cul-de-sac where fencing is cutting off fair passage for deer, bob cat, badger, coyote and greater apex predator such as mountain lion. If you take a drive or a walk along historic Old Mission drive you will see the south side is now solidly fenced. The only unfenced area is east side of the very busy Merkantile parking lot which sits next to the flow of heavy traffic on Alamo Pintado and hwy 246.
I would warn that once these and other projects go up, there is and will be no way to go backwards to mitigate the thoroughfare necessary to sustain healthy and necessary passage.
The issue of fencing needs to be considered ahead of time with a fair environmental review, a review by those who are on the side of wildlife as opposed to a review made by those who would benefit from the current proposal.
I could not find a fair consideration comment from the property owner regarding wildlife and would like to know if this person is even aware of such things - the Cougar and Deer and Bobcat, the Hawks and threatened songbirds who live there. I'd also like to know whether the planning commission is considering the subject of wildlife existing among us as a whole... not on separate lots but how we want to live with them and what our duty to them looks like on a bigger scale.
As it stands now this project would disrupt and destroy the only piece of land left that safely accepts and provides harbor, food and respite for wildlife who live among us who have to navigate through Solvang from the low lying land below the Old Mission and either forge under the Alamo Pintado bridge or risk crossing hwy 246’s heavily trafficked road, and make their way north up Alamo Pintado. This corridor is important for them. It is to their benefit that there is a stop light at 246 and Alamo Pintado but it still doesn't keep wildlife from being hit by cars and nor keep humans safe from injury due to collisions with wildlife.
As Solvang gets more and more congested the concern for wildlife passage should be a priority. As I stated above - you can’t go backwards once it’s done.
I would ask the planning commission to please be aware of how any current and proposed projects already do and will include fencing that cuts of safe passage now and in the future to corridors that have existed for years and years.
The fencing at Los Padres National Forest new offices in the Merkantile parking lot, the adjacent building west of the Los Padres offices, and the extreme fencing at the cul-de-sac on Old Mission dr. is an example of how 3 different projects ended up cutting off entry for wildlife coming from south side of 246. The townhouses at the end of Old Mission cul de sac have a solid fence cutting off all access and what’s left is essentially a dangerous ravine between their backyards and 699
hwy 246. The fencing goes all the way around to 246. How is wildlife supposed to manage safely? The new proposed project will undoubtedly further cut off another vital portion of corridor and chop it up.
Housing implies noisy humans, dogs and pets who through no fault of their own will undoubtedly frighten , detour and injure wildlife. The consequences of causing fear to wildlife will undoubtedly cause greater peril and death for wildlife who have no other option but to run into traffic to get away from pets and people. Of course this implies increased traffic accidents i.e. animal/ verses/ vehicles collisions and higher mortality.
One element necessary for healthy wildlife is wild untouched land, peace and quiet and this is key. I would say humans need this as well. We all benefit from open pasture.
All these things need to be seen as a whole not as separate issues. In other words as each project comes before you the whole issue of healthy wildlife, their corridors and safe sustaining lands and passage should have already been studied on a grander scale. It should be and needs to be an important element and a key factor in the planning of Solvang.
I understand the pressure the state is applying to build affordable housing but this lot is important for wildlife.
Please be fair and be educated in your decisions.
Thank you for listening to me,
Sincerely,
Stephanie Statom
404 First st
Solvang, California
805-574-0061
700
Solvang Housing
Element Update
City Council Meeting
January 23, 2023
2 Introductions
Jim Harnish, JD
Project Director
Ryan Lester
Deputy Project Manager
Ryan Russell
Senior Planner
Housing Element Basics
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
New Implementation Actions
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Public Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Next Steps
3 Presentation Agenda
Housing Element
Basics
4 One of nine elements in City’s General
Plan
Housing Element updates required by
State law
Updates done on a schedule
prescribed by the State
5 Housing Element Basics
Housing Element Basics
Housing Element:
Provides an assessment of both current and future housing needs Identifies opportunities and constraints on housing production Establishes goals, policies, and programs to meet these needs Updates City practices and regulations to reflect new State laws Changes to the Housing Element in this cycle are driven by new State law 6 Relevant Legislation
Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: SB 35 (2017) Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: AB 879 (2017), AB 1397 (2017)
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: AB 686 (2017)
No-Net-Loss Zoning: SB 166 (2017)
By-Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing:
AB 2162 (2018), AB 101 (2019)
Safety Element Update to Address Adaptation and Resiliency:
SB 1035 (2018)
Lot Splits and ADU Requirements: SB 9 (2021)
7 Relevant Legislation
Accessory Dwelling Units: AB 2299 (2016), SB 1069 (2016), AB 494 (2017), SB 229 (2019), SB 13 (2019), AB 670 (2019), AB 671 (2019)…
Density Bonus: AB 1763 (2019)
Housing Crisis Act of 2019: SB 330 (2019)
Surplus Land Act Amendments: AB 1486 (2019), AB 1255 (2019) Housing Impact Fee Data: AB 1483 (2019)
Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019: AB 139 (2019) Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: SB 6 (2019) Evacuation Routes: SB 99 (2019), AB 747 (2019)
8 Do we have to comply?
Without a compliant Housing Element, the City could:
Face legal challenges to land use decisions
Have to pay fines and fees
Lose grant funding opportunities
Be mandated by courts to comply
Lose local land use control
Face a court-ordered moratorium on all permits
HCD has a new Accountability Unit that will pursue actions against noncompliant jurisdictions.
9 Engagement Events
March 24, 2022
Community Workshop #1
April 20, 2022, to May 21, 2022
Housing Needs Survey
Available in English and Spanish
May 11, 2022
Community Workshop #2
Summer 2022 – Fair Housing
Survey
10 Contents of the Element
Needs Assessment
Assessment of current and future housing needs
Analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints Zoning for a variety of housing types
Housing resources
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Policy Document
11 Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
12 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing means “ taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” AFFH Seeks to:
Combat housing discrimination
Eliminate racial bias
Undo historic patterns of segregation
Lift barriers that restrict access
Ultimately, foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity.
13 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Five categories of analysis of fair housing issues:
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
2. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
4. Disparities in Access to Opportunities
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs (including displacement) 14 Assessment of Fair Housing
Meaningful Actions
The Housing Element must include meaningful actions to address identified fair housing issues and contributing factors.
Example meaningful action:
Provide a minimum of one informational event on fair housing rights, fair housing resources, and common predatory practices, especially related to older adults in partnership with Santa Barbara County and other public and non-profit agencies. (see Program HE-P)
For a summary of fair housing issues, contributing factors, and meaningful actions, see page H-A-96 in the Public Review Draft.
15 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
New
Implementation
Actions
16 Builds upon existing goals, policies, and programs
Updates the City code for State law compliance
Considers AFFH in programs under most goals, not just under the fair housing goal
Programs were written with the City’s budget and staff constraints in mind.
No optional programs were added
HCD generally requests additional actions based on their review 17 Policy Document
The Policy Document is organized under five previously established goals:
1. Conserving and Improving Existing Housing
2. Facilitating Development of a Range of Housing Types
3. Adequate Sites
4. Mitigating Governmental Constraints
5. Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity
Each goal contains policies and programs that establish the City’s action plan.
Programs establish specific commitments and are the focus of HCD’s review of the Policy Document.
18 Policy Document
Four new programs are included in the Public Review Draft to meet State requirements.
HE-O: Municipal Code Updates. Required for compliance with a variety of State laws.
HE-U: Missing Middle Housing. To encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing types (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes). Addresses requirement to provide a program that promotes housing mobility.
HE-V: Housing Information Transparency. Required for compliance with AB 1483 2019).
HE-W: Surplus and Excess Public Land. Required for compliance with AB 1486 (2019). 19 New Implementation Actions
Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
RHNA)
20 Prepared by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments SBCAG)
6th cycle: February 15, 2023 – February 15, 2031
21 What is RHNA?
SBCAG
Housing
Element
Updates
RHNA
Determination
RHNA Methodology
What is the RHNA?
Two Processes
1. The Housing Element plans land to accommodate the RHNA HCD requires land zoned for each income category and programs to support development
2. Each year, the City reports the number of units permitted within each income category through the Housing Element Annual Report HCD reviews this progress and may require the City to adopt additional incentives to encourage housing production
22 What is Solvang’s Goal for Housing?
SBCAG identified 191 housing units as the City’s goal.
23 Cycle
Lower
Moderate Above
Moderate RHNAVeryTotal
Low Low
Solvang 55 39 22 75 191
Solvang with
Buffer (20%)* 66 47 27 75 215
Due to AB 166, cities must plan for an additional 20 percent buffer, at minimum, in the lower- and moderate-income categories to account for potential net loss of units.
What is Solvang’s Goal for Housing?
24 Cycle
Lower
Moderate Above
Moderate RHNAVeryTotal
Low Low
Solvang 55 39 22 75 191
Solvang with
Buffer (20%) 66 47 27 75 215
Sites that count toward lower income capacity goals:
Vacant or underutilized residential sites allowing 20 du/ ac Sites rezoned to allow residential uses at a minimum of 20 du/ ac Affordable units with deed restrictions ensuring affordability long-term Meeting Housing
Needs
25 How Do We Meet the RHNA?
Provide residential capacity in the sites inventory
Incentivize production through implementation actions
Strategies to provide capacity to meet the RHNA
Identify ADU trends, current projects, and existing residential capacity Rezone residential sites to allow for increased density Rezone nonresidential sites to allow residential or mixed use 26 How Do We Meet the RHNA?
Strategies to incentivize affordable production to meet the RHNA:
Streamlined ministerial review
Priority processing
Fee waivers
Incentives for ADU construction
Partnerships with non-profit developers to apply for funding 27 Site Selection and Analysis
The sites inventory must account for 191 housing units in various income levels.
Due to AB 166, a new State law, the Sites Inventory must account for an additional 20% in the lower- and moderate-income categories to account for net loss.
Process:
Research ADU trends and project credits toward the RHNA Count pipeline project units by income level
Identify vacant parcels and calculate residential capacity of each If remaining capacity is needed, rezone sites to allow residential uses and/or increase density
28 Site Selection and Analysis
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Sixth Cycle RHNA with 20% buffer1 66 47 27 75 215
CREDITS
Assumed Accessory Dwelling
Units 0 0 32 32 64
Pending and Approved
Projects 3 45 10 51 109
Remaining Capacity Needed 63 2 0 0 65
29 1: 20 percent buffer is only required of very low-, low-, and moderate-income levels.
Site Selection and Analysis
ADUs and pending and approved projects do not provide sufficient capacity to meet the lower income RHNA categories
With City Staff input, we identified vacant sites with potential for development
No existing vacant properties meet the density threshold for lower income housing (20 du/ ac)
30 Site Selection and Analysis
31 Vacant Sites shown at Community Workshop #1
Northern Solvang Southern Solvang
Site Selection and Analysis
With City staff input, we analyzed vacant sites to identify those with potential for rezoning
Sites must be between 0.5 and 10 acres in size
Must be in general proximity to goods, services, and transportation routes Must allow a minimum density of 20 du/ ac
Must allow a minimum of 16 units per site
This disqualifies many of the vacant parcels in Solvang, which are less than 1 acre unless allowed density is greatly increased.
For example, for a 0.5-acre site to provide 16 units minimum, the allowed density would need to be 32 du/ ac. The General Plan Advisory Committee opted to keep the allowed maximum density in the city at 20 du/ ac and not increase it.
This is beyond the City’s intent and isn’t feasible on many vacant sites. 32 Site Selection and Analysis
33 Constrained Sites
Although some sites meet the acreage criteria,
many sites were deemed infeasible by City staff
due to constraints including lack of secondary
access, private roads, entitlements for single
family residence, and steep slopes.
These sites were determined as inappropriate
for rezone to 20 du/ ac.
Constrained sites map, shown at Workshop #2
Sites Discussed at Workshop #2
34 After removing these sites, five parcels were
initially identified and discussed at Workshop #2:
1: 139-031-064
2: 139-031-063
3: 139-031-020
4: 139-530-002
5: 139-500-001
Following Workshop #2, the sites inventory was
written and presented to the GPAC for review.
Sites for GPAC Review
35 In preparation of the initial draft:
Adjacent parcels were consolidated
A new site was added based on interest
from the owner (shown as Site #4 here).
Sites 1 and 3 sites were initially assumed
for 100% lower-income capacity
Sites 2 and 4 were initially assumed for
moderate or above moderate-income
capacity.
All sites assumed for DR-20 zoning
Sites Discussed with GPAC
36 But we are already meeting the Moderate and Above Moderate capacity goals between the assumed ADUs and pending and approved projects as shown on slide 20…why are we assuming more?
By rezoning to allow 20 du/ acre we are creating the opportunity for lowerincome development that does not currently exist Our conservative assumption responds to HCD’s requirements for “ realistic capacity assumptions”
This approach gives the City sufficient remaining capacity if a lowerincome site is challenged by HCD or developed at market rate Finding new sites in the middle of the process does not leave sufficient time for public review. The public is often caught off guard.
GPAC Feedback
37 Site 3
The GPAC did not agree with listing Site 3
as 100 percent lower income capacity due
to constraints
GPAC and City staff felt that only 20
dwelling units should be considered lower
income and the rest should be considered
moderate or above moderate
Developing Parking Lots
38 Recently, there have been the suggestion that City parking lots in the TRC zone be considered for housing development, while retaining existing parking at surface level.
These sites were discussed with City staff early in the process These parcels would be expensive to develop and are not appropriate for lowerincome capacity if parking lots are retained.
The City would lose control of City-owned parking lots.
The Housing Element would need to outline the City’s plans to sell or release an RFP to develop each property before certification.
Public Review Draft
39 In preparation:
Sites were re-labeled with letters A-D to
match HCD’s forms.
Based on GPAC and City staff feedback,
assumptions for Site C (formerly site 3)
were moved from a realistic capacity of
110 lower-income units to 76 units:
18 Very Low-,
2 Low-,
20 Moderate-, and
36 Above Moderate.
Public Review Draft
40 Assumptions for Sites B and D (formerly
Sites 2 and 4) were changed from
moderate to a mix of lower and above
moderate units to meet the lower income
RHNA.
Vacant Sites Proposed for Rezone to meet RHNA
41 Vacant Sites Proposed for Rezone to meet RHNA
42 Vacant Sites Proposed for Rezone to meet RHNA
43 Vacant Sites Proposed for Rezone to meet RHNA
44 35 Very Low
RHNA Capacity
45 Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
CREDITS
Assumed Accessory Dwelling
Units 0 0 32 32 64
Pending and Approved
Projects 3 45 10 51 109
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites requiring Rezoning 63 14 20 71 168
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 66 59 63 228 416
RHNA with required 20 percent buffer (min.) 66 47 27 75 215 Surplus ( beyond buffered total) 0 + 12 + 36 + 153 + 201 RHNA Capacity
46 Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Surplus (beyond buffered total) 0 + 12 + 36 + 153 + 201 Again, why are the Moderate and Above Moderate assumptions so high? The City has many vacant low-density single-family parcels that are inconsistent with lower-income minimum density requirements. Whether we count them or not, they are currently in the City’s inventory.
We assume some moderate and above moderate units in our rezone sites to provide the City flexibility if a site is developed at market rate or challenged by HCD.
This is not an attempt to provide more Moderate or Above Moderate. It’s zoning for lowerincome capacity (minimum density), while calculating capacity assumptions on more realistic outcomes
Public
Comments on
the Draft
47 Public Review Draft Comments
48 Just prior to the release of the Public
Review Draft on December 15th, the
owners of Site A asked for the site to be
removed from consideration
These parcels cannot be utilized in the
Housing Element to provide capacity to meet
the lower income RHNA.
Lower-income units assumed for Site A must
be redistributed among remaining sites.
Regardless of owner intent, the City can
redesignate land as it sees fit through the
update to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
Public Review Draft Comments
49 Commenters argued that the larger portion of
Site C should not be included due to
constraints.
Without a rezone, the maximum capacity is 2 du/ ac and
can provide no lower income capacity on the secondlargest piece of vacant land in the City Moderate and Above Moderate are more realistic
assumptions for this site, based on identified constraints By rezoning both parcels, the owner can use portions of the larger parcel that aren’t constrained
Sites included in the Housing Element are incentivized to make affordable housing more feasible
Public Review Draft Comments
Comment letters: while letters from neighbors are considered, HCD is likely to put more weight behind a letter from a property owner.
HCD does not consider traffic issues to be a valid reason for not considering a site
HCD does not consider water constraints in reviewing the Sites Inventory.
Environmental impacts will be evaluated through the General Plan EIR. 50 Implications of Removing Part of Site C
Without the larger parcel, Site C can only accommodate 16 lowerincome units The remaining lower-income units will need to be redistributed among the remaining sites listed in the sites inventory The owner of site C won’t be able to incorporate portions of the larger parcel into a unified development due to zoning
incompatibility
Owner-driven rezoning for the property will make lower-income development infeasible due to the time and expense involved 51 Next Steps
52 Revise Draft Housing Element to respond to public comments and feedback from the City Council
Submit to HCD for initial 90-day review
Initiate the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Revise based on HCD comments and EIR results; hold public adoption hearings
Submit adopted Element to HCD for 60-day review and certification Estimated to be early 2024
53 Next Steps
Thank You
54