In the PO and C-2 districts, residential developments are allowed with a major conditional use permit. If approved, secondary use residential developments have a maximum residential density of twenty units per acre. The City is committed to promoting the development of secondary uses through maximum floor area bonuses that incentivize twenty- and thirty-year deed restricted low income, moderate income, and senior units. It is not known how many mixeduse residential units are currently located in commercial areas of Solvang, but the City is eager to encourage such uses, especially for housing workers in the Tourist Related Commercial (TRC) zone.
Planned Residential Development
The purpose of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) District is to ensure comprehensively planned development of large acreages that are intended primarily for residential use. The PRD designation is intended to promote flexibility and innovative design of residential development and to provide desirable aesthetic and efficient use of space. The PRD also allows for a diversity of housing types and encourages clustering of structures in order to provide open space and preserve areas of aesthetic value or environmental importance. PRD projects are subject to a discretionary development plan.
The City of Solvang is committed to continuing PRD development wherever flexibility is needed for larger residential developments. However, few, if any, of the City’s remaining vacant parcels are large enough to be appropriate for PRD zoning. There are currently no parcels zoned PRD in the city.
Development Permit Procedures
The development review process is an important tool in ensuring that new housing meets all necessary health and safety codes, conforms to architectural and aesthetic design standards for neighborhood compatibility, is supplied with all necessary utilities and infrastructure, and does not have a significant impact on the environment. Yet, the development review process can also constrain opportunities for the development of lower income housing, particularly through the indirect cost of time in the process and fees.
The City uses various development permits to ensure quality housing while minimizing the costs associated with lengthy reviews. The City's permit process is codified in Title 11 of the Solvang Municipal Code and provides for three (3) levels of review: (1) conceptual, (2) ministerial, and (3) discretionary. All projects are to receive a Land Use Permit regardless of their level of review. Discretionary projects also require environmental analysis and review by the Design Review Committee (DRC). This section describes each of these processes.
Conceptual Review
Conceptual Review is a public discussion whose purpose is to allow Planning Commissioners, and/or Design Review Committee members, and the public to hear the conceptual project as put forth by the potential applicant. The applicant can then hear the concerns and begin to address those concerns early in the process. This process can speed up the application process in a way that also more fully protects environmental and neighborhood concerns. Participating 278
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-71 residents also benefit from participation as early attention to their concerns makes a positive outcome more likely.
Through Conceptual Review process, applicants must be aware, however, that they are not obtaining approval and not obtaining any vested right to proceed in any manner. There is also a cost associated with each meeting, e.g., $980 for the Design Review Committee and $3,136 for the Planning Commission. The major benefit from conceptual review is that applicants can save a considerable amount of time by addressing public concerns early in the planning process.
Ministerial Review
A ministerial review is an action taken by a public agency that follows established procedures and rules and does not call for the exercise of judgement in deciding whether to approve a project. Actions taken by Planning Division Staff that do not require Design Review Committee or Planning Commission action are ministerial decisions. Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ministerial projects receive land use clearance in the form of a Land Use Permit (LUP). All housing projects, including those permitted by right, are required to receive a Land Use Permit issued by the Planning Division. The purpose of the LUP is to ensure that all residential development proposals conform to applicable provisions in the City's Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and any other conditions set by the City. The LUP is the final permit required by the Planning Division and cannot be issued until all necessary approvals, except building permits, have been obtained. To obtain an LUP, an applicant submits all required materials in accordance with the Solvang Municipal Code and approval by planning staff. A typical LUP is obtained at staff level without public hearings within ten business days.
Discretionary Review
Projects requiring discretionary review are reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC), the Planning Commission, and the Planning Department. These projects also undergo the appropriate level of environmental review, according to State law. Projects requiring discretionary review are those that are larger and/or more complex, such as those that are required to submit a Conditional Use Permit or a Development Plan.
For these projects, the City's development review process focuses on the early identification of resources, zoning, planning, design, and infrastructure issues. Once projects are submitted to the Planning Division, materials are distributed to various city divisions and external agencies, e.g., the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, for staff review. The division has thirty days to respond with the status of the completeness of the application and comments generated by the staff review, which is consistent with the State Permit Streamlining Act. Once a complete application is accepted, environmental review commences.
CEQA Review
Many small projects are exempt from CEQA. If a project is exempt from CEQA, the project proceeds directly to the Design Review Committee then to the Planning Commission for review. If the project is not exempt, an initial study is prepared to identify potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the project, identify mitigation measures, and determine the appropriate environmental review. If a Negative Declaration (ND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, staff or a City approved consultant would prepare the document.
The draft environmental document is circulated for public review and comment, as required by State law. If an EIR is required, the Planning Commission holds a public hearing to take public comment on the draft document.
Prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission on the project, public notice is made. If a Negative Declaration was prepared, the Planning Commission adopts it at this hearing. If an EIR was required, the Planning recommends certification to the City Council, who would then adopt the findings and mitigation measures of 279
H-72 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 the EIR and makes a statement of overriding considerations if it is warranted. For housing projects, affordability can be the basis for a statement of overriding consideration.
Design Review
The City of Solvang is a unique community, which has evolved into a highly popular tourist destination. The City's identity and economic vitality are linked closely to the aesthetic character of the community. Therefore, it is important for the City to establish community design standards to ensure that the City's Danish design theme be maintained and enhanced. First, there is a need to maintain the distinctive image of the TRC zone, also known as the Village Area, so that the "Old World" Danish atmosphere that so critically supports the tourism industry is retained. Second, there is a need to ensure that development in areas of the City outside of the TRC zone is also of high quality and reflects the rural character of the community. To date, most new development projects within the City, including multifamily residential developments, duplex units, townhomes, mixed-use developments, and condominiums, have required review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC) as the DRC has authority over all design reviews in the entire city. Single family residences are exempted from DRC review.
The City’s Design Guidelines, adopted in 1988, provide guidance to applicants through the DRC review process.
Required findings include provisions related to exterior appearance, siting, and landscape/hardscape with separate requirements for the Village Area and areas outside the Village Area. Although several of the requirements within the Design Guidelines provide quantifiable objective requirements, such as “Where adjacent to a street, parapet walls (blank walls along the side property lines) shall be set back from the front property line twenty-five (25) feet,” the Guidelines also include subjective requirements without quantifiable criteria, such as, “Buildings should be designed to be compatible with the scale and residential character of the area” that can lead to uncertainty in the approval process.
Although the DRC’s review adds additional time and effort in the development application and review process, the need to maintain the Old World Danish theme in the TRC zone is paramount to the economic vitality of the City and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, without placing undue restrictions on allowed uses of the building. The DRC helps projects to not only be accepted by the community by making sure that they are compatible with the neighborhood, but also ensures that these developments are adhering to the appropriate design guidelines. Provisions for an increase in staff-level administrative approvals as opposed to DRC review could assist with incentivizing housing growth by decreasing the time and expense of the design review process for developers of market rate projects. The City acknowledges market rate developers’ concerns and is committed through Program HE-E to adopt objective design standards for the TRC zone (Village Area), which will preserve the City’s commitment to encouraging Northern European design without subjective determinations of conformity that may pose undue constraints on housing production, especially in the TRC zone, which may allow residential uses as a primary use in the future. Further, Program HE-Y commits the City to adopting Objective Design Standards and an optional ministerial review process for by-right multifamily uses in multifamily zones.
Affordable housing projects are not subject to adhere to the Danish/Northern European theme of the TRC zone, allowing for expedited processing. Program HE-N commits Solvang to adopting an official, streamlined ministerial approval process for affordable housing, which includes bypassing DRC review. 280
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-73 Processing Time
The processing time for a residential development project varies depending on its size and complexity. Projects requiring an environmental impact report, special zoning changes, or modifications and those with design problems can take considerably more time than less complex projects. The following table (Table H-41) shows typical processing time for all development applications that require Planning Commission approval. These include subdivisions, condominiums, Planned Unit Developments, Conditional Use Permits, and modifications. Typically, steps one through three are the same for all development projects that need Planning Commission review. Step six splits into three possible outcomes to illustrate the different timelines associated with a project that is exempt from CEQA and one that requires the preparation of an initial study. The estimated timeline for simpler projects, which do not require Planning Commission review, is estimated at 10 to 45 days.
A typical single-family home is expected to take less than ten weeks to be ministerially approved from initial application submittal. A typical multifamily development, given that it is exempt from CEQA or is referenced in the General Plan EIR, will take approximately six months.
As it can be seen in Table H-41, some steps are dependent on the applicant. An assumption has been made regarding the amount of time an applicant takes to complete those steps, but applicants can take more or less time to complete the steps. Because of holding costs and inflation, the longer the approval process takes, the higher the cost to develop the project. To the extent possible, the City facilitates and expedites affordable housing projects. 281
H-74 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table H-41 Estimated Typical Timeline for Projects Requiring Discretionary Review Event Time Total Time
1. First Application Submittal Begin Timeline Begin Timeline
2. First Application Completeness Review/Project declared incomplete6 30 days 4 weeks 2a. Staff Review Meeting Within 30-day
review period
4 weeks
4. Second Application Submittal/Project declared complete7 30 days 2 months
5. Design Review Committee Review8 30 days 3 months
6. Environmental Assessment
▪ If project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or references General Plan EIR, proceed to step 7. ▪ If project is not exempt from CEQA and a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is permissible, proceed to step 6a.
▪ If project is not exempt from CEQA and requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), proceed to step 6b.
30 days
4 weeks
4 weeks
4 months
5 months
5 months
6a. Project Not Exempt from CEQA and ND or MND Required i. Preparation of Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration ii. Public Review Period for the Draft Negative Declaration Proceed to step 7.
8 weeks
30 days
8 months
9 months
6b. Project Not Exempt from CEQA and EIR Required
i. EIR Preparation and Public Comment
ii. Final EIR Certification
Proceed to step 7.
4-6 months
45-day review
9 to 11 months
10.5 to 12.5 months
7. Planning Commission Hearing 30 days Exempt from CEQA:
5-6 months
Negative Declaration:
9 months
EIR Required:
14 months
Source: City of Solvang, 2022.
Conditional Use Permits
The City may require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for projects requiring special attention to site planning. Table H46Table H-46 illustrates the land uses that require a CUP. To apply for these permits, an applicant must submit an Application as specified in the Zoning Ordinance (process outlined in Municipal Code Section 11-6-2). The Planning 6 Additional information is usually required of the initial application because first applications are often incomplete. 7 Frequently Applicants submit a complete application on the second submittal. However, this is not always the case. 8 The City of Solvang encourages applicants to go through a conceptual review with the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Committee prior to submitting for the first time. 282
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-75 Manager and/or Director has authority over minor CUPs, and the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over major CUPs.
The time frames associated with securing a discretionary permit depends upon the public hearing process and staff review process. Generally, the CUP process takes approximately 5-6 months. Due to the CUP requirements and timelines for approval, a CUP requirement is considered to be a constraint to affordable multifamily development in Solvang.
Program HE-N commits the City to providing streamlined ministerial review for all multifamily and mixed-use projects that provide a minimum of 20 percent affordability to lower income households, in compliance with State law.
Modifications
Modifications provide a measure of flexibility in the strict application of zoning regulations on land, buildings, and structures where, because of exceptional conditions such as the size, shape, unusual topography, or other extraordinary condition of the property, the literal enforcement of the zoning regulations would impose impractical difficulties or undue hardship on the landowner or developer. A modification cannot be granted to permit a use or activity that is not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property is located. A modification may only be granted from the regulations on land, buildings, and structures, and not from the procedural regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Typically, modifications are included in the Development Plan Application as Municipal Code Section 11-16-4(G) allows for modifications when there is a finding that such modifications are justified. In rare cases, the Planning Manager may consider or render decisions on matters of slight modification or minor adjustment of zoning standards provided the modification/adjustment does not increase or reduce a numerical standard by more than ten percent, complies with all applicable life/safety codes, and will not adversely affect neighboring properties (Municipal Code Section 11-12-24). The Planning Manager and/or Director and/or the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve modifications up to the percentages shown in Table H-42.
Table H-42 Allowable Modifications
Type of Regulation Modification
Minimum lot or building site area or width up to 10%
Front, rear, side yard setback up to 50%
Building height up to 10%
Parking up to 20%
Landscaping up to 10%
Distance between buildings up to 50%
Source: City of Solvang Zoning Ordinance, Title 11, Section 11-16-3(C) Development Plans
The purpose of a Development Plan (outlined in Municipal Code Section 11-16-4) is to provide discretionary action for projects allowed by right within their respective zoning districts, but because of the type, scale, or location of the development, require comprehensive review. Development plans are required for developments in the following scenarios:
• Any use of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning district, Design Review (DR), or Tourist Commercial District (TRC)
283
H-76 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 • Any rezone of a parcel currently zoned as a part of the Mobile Home Park (MHP) district • Any rezone of an existing Industrial (M), Institutional (I), or Professional Office (PO) parcel • Most development, alterations, or additions in Retail (C-2 and C-3), subject to exceptions in 11-7C-1(B)(2) and 11-7B-1(B)(2)
• The subdivision of a parcel, such that the existing underlying zone requires a development plan A Development Plan must include a detailed plot plan, floor plans, elevations, contour map, drainage plan, landscaping plans, and statistical information as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Manager and/or Director is responsible for processing the Development Plan through environmental review, and then the Planning Commission must hold at least one public hearing prior to acting on the plan. Approval by the City Council is also required for any rezone application submitted in conjunction with the Development Plan.
The typical Development Plan follows the steps and timeline outlined in Table H-41 above.
The Development Plan process is a constraint to multifamily development as it imposes requirements and an additional public hearing on multifamily uses in multifamily zones. Development plans pose an additional constraint to housing development in Solvang’s Tourist Commercial Districts (TRC); however, this process is necessary to preserve the Northern European character of Solvang, which is vital to the economic vitality of the city. To mitigate constraints, Program HE-Y commits the City to develop a ministerial review process for by-right multifamily uses in multifamily zones. The process will include Objective Design Standards, with specific standards related to the TRC zone (see program HE-E) and will not include subjective findings or discretionary approvals.
Through the current (2022) General Plan Update the City is revising the Land Use Element to allow residential uses in all commercial and professional office designations with a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Following the General Plan Update, the City will need to update commercial and office zones for consistency and will implement multiple programs to overcome constraints. Program HE-K commits the City to updating the Municipal Code to allow residential uses up to 20 dwelling units per acre in all commercial and office zones and to increase allowed FAR in these zones from 0.15 to 0.65. Further Program HE-E commits the City to adopting objective design standards for the City tourist commercial zones, and Program HE-N to providing a ministerial review process for housing developments in compliance with SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act.
The City is committed to overcoming constraints by encouraging mixed use developments through subsidies and maximum floor area increases, and by ensuring that any lower-income projects that are submitted to the City will receive priority processing (Program HE-K).
In the Mobile Home Park (MHP) district, development plans protect housing by creating a discretionary barrier between lower income residents who may reside in mobile home parks and redevelopment interests that may seek to change the land use of their property.
Specific Plans
These regulations are based on the recognition that one parcel or group of parcels, which may be in separate ownership, are suitable for a specific use or combination of uses and should be planned as a unit to ensure protection of valuable resources and to allow maximum flexibility in site planning. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to allow for a more precise level of planning for an area than is ordinarily possible in the General Plan Land Use Element and to provide for 284
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-77 a mixture of uses through comprehensive site planning. The review process for a Specific Plan is the same as a Development Plan.
Fees and Exactions
The City of Solvang collects various fees to cover the costs of processing permits. The City's development fees are a flat fee and are comparable to other jurisdictions. Ministerial land use permits range from $196 for additions and remodels, to $1,021 for single-family dwellings and accessory dwelling units. Large development review applications can be charged as deposits, based on an hourly rate of $196, if it is determined that the processing time will significantly exceed the fixed fee. Table H-43 summarizes the major planning fees collected by the City.
Table H-43 Planning Fees, August 2022
Fee Fee Amount
General Plan Amendment $9,800
Zoning Amendment $3,920
Land Use Permit9 $196 to $1,021
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $3,920
Variance $3,920
Subdivisions
1-4 lots
5+ lots
$7,840
$11,760
Development Plans
Up to 10,000 ft2
10,001 ft2 &over
$7,840
$11,760
Specific Plan Amendments $19,600
Environmental Review
Negative Declaration
Pre-EIR Prep (Initial Study NOP)
$5,880
$5,880
Source: City of Solvang Master Fee Schedule, 2022.
State Law authorizes communities to charge developers for providing specific services as well as meeting the resulting service impacts from new development. Like most California jurisdictions, the City also collects various fees from developments to cover the costs of providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development projects. Table H-44 provides a typical cost estimate of development fees for a new 2,500 square foot single-family 9 For new single-family dwellings and second units.
285
H-78 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 home in Solvang. As indicated, the total estimated fees, including discretionary permit fees, building and safety permit fees, and utility connection fees, are approximately $43,874, which translates into roughly $17.50 per square foot.
Table H-44 Estimated Building Fees for 2000-2500 ft2 Single-family Home, August 2022 Type of Fee Estimated Fee Amount ($)
Fire Protection Certificate $536
Land Use Permit $1,176
Water Connection Fee (3/4 inch) $14,151
Sewer Connection Fee (3/4 inch) $9,040
Electrical Connection Fee $125
Gas Connection Fee $100 to $2,000
Road Improvement Fee (traffic impact) $3,067
Impact Fees $26,000
Planning Fees $11,760
Building Permit Fee $5,904
School Fees $8,375
Total Fees $82,134
Source: City of Solvang, 2022
Note: Estimates including electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits. The most current school fees were used after communication with school district representatives. Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District levies $1.26 per sq. ft. and Solvang Elementary School District levies $2.09 per sq. ft.
286
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-79 Table H-45 Estimated Building Fees for a New 5,000 ft2 Two-Story 10-unit Multi-Family Project Type of Fee Estimated Fee Amount ($)
Fire Protection Certificate $536
Land Use Permit $196
Water Connection Fee (3/4 inch) $14,151
Sewer Connection Fee (3/4 inch) $9,040
Electrical Connection Fee Approximately $15,000
Road Improvement Fee (traffic impact) $17,176
Planning Fees $1,176
Impact Fees $1,800
Building Permit Fee $10,899
School Fees $16,750
Total Fees $86,724 ($8,672 per unit)
Source: City of Solvang, 2022; Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2022.
Note: Estimates including electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits. The most current school fees were used after communication with school district representatives. Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District levies: $1.26 per sq. ft. and Solvang Elementary School District levies $2.09 per ft2.
Building Codes and Site Improvements
The City of Solvang contracts with Willdan for plan check and building inspections. The City defaults to the California Building Code and has most recently adopted the 2022 Edition of the California Building Code (CBC), which establishes standards and requires inspections at various stages of construction to ensure code compliance and minimum health and safety standards.
In 2020, the City administered the Amnesty Program, which offered to bring properties into compliance without fines or penalty fees after unpermitted work and construction. This program, which aimed to improve the community’s health and safety, improve property values, and decrease liability through the permitting process, helped several property owners reach compliance with the Municipal Code.
The City's Building Code also requires new residential construction to comply with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which specifies a minimum percentage of dwelling units in new developments that must be fully accessible to the physically disabled. Although these standards and the time required for inspections increase housing production costs and may impact the viability of rehabilitation of older properties which are required to be brought up to current code standards, the intent of the codes is to provide structurally sound, safe, and energy-efficient housing.
Site improvements cover a range of water, sewer, circulation, and other services and infrastructure needed to facilitate residential developments. To ensure adequate improvements are in place, Solvang requires pro-rata payments for offsite extension of water, sewer and storm drain systems, and traffic signals. Solvang requires, in total, according to Municipal Code Section 12-5-3, street improvements, utilities, draining facilities, structures, erosion control, fences, 287
H-80 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 planting, right-of-way dedication, and other provisions for public safety, health and general welfare, both within the subdivision and off the site. Requiring developers to make site improvements, pay pro-rata shares toward infrastructure costs, and pay for additional public services will increase the cost of housing and impact the affordability of the homes.
However, these minimum requisite site improvements are necessary to maintain the quality of life desired by City residents and to ensure that public services and facilities are in place at the time of need. Costs associated with site improvements are not an undue constraint on housing production.
As these requirements are quite low, for communities within Solvang that may desire a higher level of site improvement, the City is open to administering maintenance districts. Maintenance districts operate by collecting fees levied upon residents of a defined community to provide cohesive optional site improvements, such as lighting and landscaping.
Currently, the Skytt Mesa subdivision is a part of the Solvang Mesa Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, which levies fees from Skytt Mesa residents and maintains a higher standard of site improvements than what the City requires.10
Locally-Adopted Ordinances
Solvang has passed two development-related local ordinances to help ensure growth of quality housing and to provide quality of life improvements for residents of the City.
Minor Modifications Ordinance
Property owners in Solvang, much like in any other city, might require a minor modification for their property to be used in a way that is just for them, while also not deviating from the City’s General Plan’s goals and policies. A minor modification allows for small deviations from development standards to accommodate projects that are compatible with and appropriate for the area where they are located.
The City of Solvang‘s Minor Modifications Ordinance (Section 11-12-24 of the Solvang Municipal Code) allows flexibility in development standards on a project-by-project basis. According to this ordinance, the planning manager may consider and render decisions on matters of slight modification and minor adjustment of zoning standards as deemed appropriate in connection with the efficient administration of the zoning ordinance, provided the modification/adjustment does not increase or reduce a numerical standard by more than ten percent, complies with all applicable life/safety codes, and will not adversely affect neighboring properties. The ordinance helps ensure development, including residential growth, can occur on parcels with due to irregular parcel size or shape or environmental constraint.
Short-term/Vacation Rental Ordinance
Solvang’s primary industry is tourism and hospitality, which creates sizable demand for short-term living arrangements through hotels, hostels, motels, and more recently, short-term/ vacation rentals. Short-term rental sites such as VRBO and Airbnb offer residents a way to easily list their bedrooms or homes for tourists coming into town. Solvang’s City Council has recognized the issues associated with this conversion of housing units into short-term/ vacation rentals and has acted to ensure that Solvang’s housing stock is not significantly impacted by this trend.
Adopted in 2016 and updated in 2022, Solvang’s short-term/vacation rental ordinance, outlined in Municipal Code Section 11-12-30, prohibits short-term/ vacation rentals outside of the TRC zone/Village Area and properties between 10 Best, Jennifer. “Solvang to continue management of Skytt Mesa landscape maintenance.” Santa Maria Times. 30 May 2019. 288
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-81 addresses 1506 and 1546 Copenhagen Drive. The ordinance has successfully limited short-term/ vacation rentals in the city. For more information, see the vacancy rate analysis in the Housing Conditions section.
Physical Constraints
A variety of physical constraints affect potential land development in the City of Solvang. The potential for development along the Santa Ynez River, Alamo Pintado Creek, and Adobe Creek is constrained due to flood hazard and biological resource considerations. Similarly, steep slopes and other areas of potential geologic hazards limit the extent of potential development in hillside areas within and around the city.
The need to preserve the Old World Danish historical setting and atmosphere of Solvang's Village Area and the rural setting surrounding the community (land uses surrounding the City consist almost entirely of open space, horse ranches, and estate residential), represents an important physical constraint. Various Elements of the General Plan include provisions to ensure that the need to maintain and enhance the City's visual character is reflected in the City's development. Program HE-E commits the City to adopting Objective Design Standards and a ministerial review process for residential development for commercial and office zones. This program will provide developers with clear direction on the City’s expectations regarding design and reduce the time required for review and approval. 289
H-82 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Housing Element Law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family homes, multifamily housing, ADUs, mobile homes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. Table H-46 summarizes housing types permitted within the City's primary residential and commercial zoning districts.
While the majority (approximately 65 percent) of housing units in Solvang are single-family units, various other housing types are needed to meet the needs of lower income persons, seniors, persons with a disability, and agricultural workers, and other residents with special housing needs. Housing types that meet the needs of those with special housing needs, particularly those on a fixed income, include multifamily housing, second units, secondary mixed-use housing, mobile homes, residential care facilities, and group housing. Table H-46 identifies housing types permitted in Solvang. 290
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-83 Table H-46 Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Residential Commercial
AG
R-1
E-1 DR PRD MHP TRC C PO
Single-family P DP DP Sec Use P
Two-family DP DP
Multifamily1 DP DP
Accessory Dwelling Units P
Guesthouse P P
Mixed-use DP2 DP2 CUP2
Mobile Home Park DP
Mobile Homes/Manufactured
Homes (on permanent
foundations)
P
Group Residential (e.g.,
Dormitories, residence halls).
CUP
Family daycare home, small /
group homes or community care
facilities serving six (6) or fewer
individuals
P P
Family daycare homes, large (7
or more individuals)
LUP LUP
Emergency shelter P DP
Short-term/ Vacation Rentals3 DP2
Single Room Occupancy CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Transitional and Supportive
Housing
P P P
Notations:
P=Permitted (Ministerially); DP=Development Plan; CUP=Conditional Use Permit; LUP=Land Use Permit. 1Includes row houses, townhouses, condominiums, and cluster developments. 2Permitted only as a Secondary Use to primary commercial use. 3Subject to restrictions in Solvang Municipal Code 11-12-30, subsection E(2) Solvang Municipal Code serves as precedence to this table for official decisions.
Source: City of Solvang Zoning Ordinance
291
H-84 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Multifamily Housing
Municipal Code Section 11-6B-2 states that multifamily projects of 16 units or less are a permitted use in the DR zoning district. Multifamily projects in the DR zoning district reaching a density of 20 dwelling units per acre are additionally subject to review by the Design Review Committee. All projects in the DR zoning district, including multifamily projects, require a Development Plan to be submitted for review.
Municipal Code Section 11-6C-3 and 11-6C-4 states that multifamily projects are also allowed in PRD zoning districts with a discretionary development permit. The purpose of the development permit is to ensure that the proposed project is in conformance with applicable General Plan policies and that buildings and structures are clustered to the maximum extent feasible to provide the maximum amount of contiguous open space. Through Program HE-N the City will create and a ministerial review process for multifamily projects that incorporate a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, providing a by-right ministerial path for multifamily development that meet affordable thresholds (minimum 20 percent lower-income or 100 percent moderate-income), in compliance with State law.
Density Bonuses
Per California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918, local governments are required to provide density bonus provisions to projects that comply with specific standards. Legislation approved in 2020 increased the maximum density bonus amounts for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The California Government Code describes how maximum densities shall be calculated for very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing in a tabular format.
Additionally, local governments are also required to provide one or more incentives for qualifying projects and are required to accept an incentive proposed by a developer unless the incentive proposal is found to cause environmental harm, a health and safety issue, a cost reduction, a detriment to historical property, or otherwise contrary to law. Both density bonuses and incentives are granted based on the number of affordable units present in each project.
The City has established density bonus provisions (Municipal Code Section 11-12-23) for affordable housing that directly defer to California Government Code 65915 in Municipal Code Section 11-12-23 and is incompliance with State law.
Employee and Agricultural Worker Housing
Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 of the California Health and Safety Code establish specific requirements for the permitting of agricultural employee housing in a jurisdictions’ zoning code. Specifically, Section 17021.5 mandates that “employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use.” Furthermore, designated employee housing, as defined above, cannot be subject to Conditional Use Permit requirements, zoning variance, fees, taxes, or any other requirement other than those pertaining to a traditional single-family structure. Section 17021.6 requires that larger employee housing facilities featuring a maximum of 36 beds in group quarters, or 12 single-family units, should be deemed an agricultural land use and cannot be subject to any restrictions, conditional use requirements, zoning variance, fees, taxes, or other requirements not imposed on other agricultural uses in the same zone.
City of Solvang Municipal Code Section 11-12-26 allows employee and farmworker housing for six (6) and fewer persons subject to the same standards and permit requirements as a single-family house in all zones, and as a principal permitted use in residential zones, in compliance with Section 17021.5 of the Health and Safety Code. 292
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-85 The City is not in compliance with Section 17021.6. Program HE-O commits the city to amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow ministerial review and approval of group quarter employee housing consisting of up to 36 beds or 12 units designed for use by a single household as a principal residential use in the City’s AG zone without applying any discretionary actions. The City is also considering removing the AG zone designation as all AG zoned land is not appropriate for active agricultural uses and are instead more closely aligned to recreational or open space uses. The remaining AG zoned land is a part of Mission Santa Ines or is a part of the Santa Ynez River riparian zone, which is unsuitable for any development.
Currently, Alisal Ranch, a working ranch encompassing over 10,000 acres with small portion located within the City of Solvang, offers 45 units of employee housing. These units are comprised of 25 studio apartments (as defined by Alisal Ranch management: 18 single rooms, three large rooms, four bunk house units), 13 one-bedroom apartments, one twobedroom apartment, and six three-bedroom apartments. These housing units are available to full-time employees of the Ranch and their families at an affordable rent.
Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing
AB-139 requires local government to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters are allowed by-right without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. Local governments are authorized to impose only those development standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone. However, a local government may impose specified objective standards, including standards for off-street parking based on demonstrated need, as specified. The intent of these regulations is to help streamline the development of varying housing types.
AB-139 requires the need for emergency shelter to be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count, the number of shelter beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of beds that go unused on an average monthly basis, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing. The bill also requires sufficient parking for employees and one space per two beds in the shelter. Under AB-139 and California Government Code Section 65651, local governments must allow supportive and transitional housing as a by-right use in all districts where single-family and multifamily uses are allowed, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings (i.e., single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings) of the same type in the same district.
Due to new State law, AB 2339, which amended Government Code section 65583 and took effect in 2023, jurisdictions must now provide capacity for emergency shelters in a zone(s) that allow residential uses and must expand the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. As explained above, emergency shelters are allowed in the DR zone, which is a residential zone in compliance with AB 2339. There are two underutilized parcels in the DR zone that could accommodate an emergency shelter, including APN 139-174-005 (0.17 acres) and APN 139-174-027 (0.22 acres). The parcels were identified as underutilized due to improvement to land value ratio of 0.0 and lack of existing structures or uses. The parcels are located in proximity to goods and services along Mission Drive. Based on the calculation methodology established within Government Code Section 65583 by AB 2339 that requires a minimum of 200 square feet per person and assumed lot coverage of 50 percent, these parcels have capacity for approximately 42 beds, well above the identified need (12 residents in the Santa Ynez Valley subregion, including Solvang). Additionally, the City has designated the Solvang Veteran’s Hall as an emergency shelter for temporary use for overnight shelter or as a 293
H-86 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 heating/cooling center. The facility is approximately 3,000 square feet, and has a capacity or 15 people, based on the capacity methodology outlined in AB 2339.
The City is currently (2023) not in compliance with State law as the municipal code definition of emergency shelter does not include interim interventions. Program HE-O commits the City to revising the Municipal Code to allow for emergency shelters in compliance with recent amendments to Government Code section 65583 subdivision (a)(4), including revising the emergency shelter definition to include interim interventions and providing an updated capacity analysis that responds to any development activity that may occur on the parcels currently identified as capacity to meet the local need.
The City, as codified in Municipal Code Section 11-6A-2, 11-6B-2, and 11-6C-4, allows both supportive and transitional housing by-right in all residential zoning districts in compliance with State law, but not in the AG zone, which allows single-family residential uses. Program HE-O commits the City to revising the Municipal Code to allow for transitional and supportive housing in compliance with AB 2162, including, but not limited to, permitting these uses in all zones allowing residential uses, including the AG zone, subject only to the requirements of residential uses of similar type and form in the same zone. Additionally, Municipal Code Section 11-6B-2 states that emergency shelters are identified as a by-right use in the DR zoning district. During the planning period, tThe City is also committed through Program HE-S to promote and facilitate emergency, transitional, and supportive housing facilities to assist community members experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
California Government Code Section 65660 identifies low barrier navigation centers are facilities that focus on moving people into permanent housing and connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Like displaced persons shelters, these facilities are intended to accommodate people with disabilities, pets and their owners, partners (if not a gender-specific site), the storage of possessions, and survivors of domestic violence. Specifically, the State mandates that low barrier navigation centers have services “to meet the diverse needs of (the) population.” In addition, local governments may not impose parking requirements onto low barrier navigation centers.
The City is not currently in compliance. Program HE-O commits the City to amend the Zoning Code for compliance with California Government Code Section 65660. In updating the Code, the City shall list low barrier navigation facilities as allowed by-right wherever multiple-unit dwellings and mixed-use development are allowed.
Single-Room Occupancy Units (SROs)
Single-room occupancy (SROs) residential units are a traditional form of affordable housing for very low- and low-income individuals. These units consist of a single room, often between 80 and 250 square feet in size, with or without cooking and sanitary facilities, which is rented out, often on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
The City does not have single-room occupancy residential units as a permitted use in any zone or through conditional use permits. Program HE-O commits the City to allowing these uses in commercial and mixed use zones. Program HEN commits the City to providing developers with information to explore the benefits and opportunities that come with building SROs.
294
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-87 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are defined as attached or detached dwelling units that provide independent living facilities on the same parcel as a legal single-unit or multiple-family unit dwelling, and which include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. Due to the lower cost of construction and reduced environmental impact, the State has enacted many laws aimed at incentivizing the development of ADUs to help combat the worsening housing crisis. The State requires local governments to treat all ADUs that comply with specific standards as ministerial approvals. Local governments reserve the exclusive right to impose specific design and development standards, which include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum and maximum parcel size, and maximum height.
Government Code Section 65852.22 also defines a smaller type of ADU, known as a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), as a dwelling unit that is 500 square feet or less, has cooking facilities, and an entrance to the outside. The main difference between JADUs and ADUs is that JADUs cannot require parking and do not require a personal, private bathroom for the dwelling unit. JADUs can have shared bathroom facilities, similar to an arrangement of a dormitory or single-room occupancy (SRO) residential building.
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are intended to encourage more efficient use of residential zones where, because of the decrease in household size as a result of changing social patterns, existing housing resources are being underutilized. The intent is also to ensure a safe and attractive residential environment by promoting high standards of site development to preserve the integrity of single-family areas.
Solvang’s Zoning Ordinance does not reference ADUs nor JADUs, however it references second residential units, an anachronistic term for accessory dwelling units. A second residential unit is defined in Municipal Code Section 11-3-1 as an attached or detached dwelling unit, which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons.
Municipal Code Section 11-6A-2 states that second residential units are permitted in the R-1 and E-1 zoning districts.
However, California State law requires accessory dwelling units to be allowed by-right (without discretionary review) in all zoning districts that allow single-family and multifamily residential uses.
Program HE-H commits the City to codifying Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions within the Municipal Code that directly defer to California Government Code 65852.2. In the meantime, the City of Solvang actively encourages accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and evaluates projects individually for compliance with State law.
Secondary Use/Mixed Use
The Zoning Ordinance, in Section 11-3-1, defines “secondary use” as the creation of residential units in conjunction with commercial uses in the Professional Office (Municipal Code Section 11-7D-3), Retail Commercial (Municipal Code Section 11-7B-2), and Tourist Related Commercial (Municipal Code Section 11-7A-2 and 11-7A-3) Zones, Secondary Use is equivalent to mixed-use definitions in other jurisdictions.
In the Tourist Related Commercial Zone, secondary residential use is currently defined as two (2) residential bedrooms per one thousand (1,000) square feet of total gross floor area of commercial development. The total gross floor area of residential development cannot exceed the total gross floor area of the commercial use. The maximum residential density for secondary uses is twenty units per acre. The City encourages residential uses in the Village Area by implementing and maintaining zoning standards for residential densities that encourage pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development to help meet Solvang's fair-share of regional housing needs. 295
H-88 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 The City plans to overhaul its secondary use regulations and replace them with modern mixed-use zoning standards through the General Plan Update process. This update plans to completely remove current standards regarding residential bedrooms per square feet of commercial development and replace them with more flexible regulations allowing for more diverse mixed-use districts with developments having both more residential and more commercial uses. In effect, the City plans to remove conceptions of a building’s “primary” or “secondary” use in favor of simply mixeduse developments. Such changes incentivize greater residential development while preserving the live, work, and play feel of the TRC zone. Additionally, the change has the additional positive effect of bringing legacy nonconforming primarily residential developments in the TRC established before the City’s incorporation into present compliance with the Zoning Code.
In the Professional Office (PO) District, residential uses are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit such that the residential density does not exceed twenty (20) units per acre. In the Retail Commercial (C-2) District, residential uses are permitted by right with the same restriction of residential density not exceeding twenty (20) units per acre.
Program HE-K commits the City to incentivizing mixed-use development by allowing mixed-use development by-right in all commercial and office zones, providing priority processing to mixed-use projects with special needs or senior housing units, and reaching out to local stakeholders to advocate for mixed-use projects.
Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
The City, through Municipal Code Section 11-6A-2, permits manufactured housing and mobile homes in all single-family residential (R-1/E-1) districts, provided that the units are certified under the National Manufactured Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and on a permanent foundation system. Mobile homes in these zones are subject to design standards for roof overhang and roofing and siding materials and colors, which are regulations permitted under California Government Code 65852.5. However, State law requires that manufactured housing be allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional stick-built structures. Program HE-O commits the City to revising the Municipal Code for compliance with State law.
Mobile home parks are permitted subject to a discretionary development plan in the MHP zoning district at a maximum density of seven units per acre. Solvang also allows mobile home parks in the MHP zoning district to reach a maximum density of eight units per acre subject to the requirement of 10 percent of sites being allocated to single-wide units.
According to the California Department of Finance, approximately 5 percent of Solvang's housing stock consists of mobile homes. The City has one mobile home park, Rancho Santa Ynez Estates, a senior-only park with a total of 162 units, as of 2022. The City is committed to promoting the preservation of mobile homes and mobile home parks during the planning period through Program HE-D.
Special Care Facilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements provide a program to “address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” In line with encouraging the development of housing for those with disabilities, the State requires that small, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with six or fewer residents) be treated as a single-family useallowed “by right” in all residential zones. Additionally, the State, through HCD, requires that cities consider constraints to reasonable accommodation for large licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with seven 296
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-89 or more residents). Program HE-R commits the City to adopting a universal design ordinance to incentivize the implementation of certain accessibility features in new construction projects.
Solvang’s Zoning Ordinance in Sections 11-6A-2 and 11-6B-2 currently allows for small residential care facilities by right in the Single-Family Residential and Design Residential Districts. Additionally, the city has a residential overlay zone, the Planned Residential District (PRD), which serves as an overlay zone allowing for more flexibility for large residential projects in the Single-Family Residential or Design Residential Districts. Since the PRD district is an overlay over either of these base districts, the PRD district designation also allows for small residential care facilities by right despite not being expressly listed as a permitted use for the overlay zone in Municipal Code Section 11-6C-4. As such, the City is in compliance with State lawHowever, small residential care facilities are not allowed in AG zone, where single-famly homes are allowed, which is not in compliance with State law..
Regarding large care homes, the Municipal Code, through Section 11-3-1, uses the term “special care home” to refer to a residential care home licensed to provide 24- hour non-medical care and supervision for seven or more persons. This definition includes group homes, large family homes, and foster homes. Special care homes are expressly permitted in the Institutional District according to Municipal Code Section 11-8-2 and in residential zones with a discretionary Conditional Use Permit according to Municipal Code Sections 11-6A-2 and 11-6B-2. However, A use permit requirement in zones allowing multifamily uses is considered a constraint to the development of these uses.
In order to remove constraints to residential care facilities, Program HE-O commits the City to allowing residential care facilities of six or fewer in zones allowing single-family uses, subject only to the requirements of single-family uses, in compliance with State law (HSC § 1568.0831); and permitting facilities with seven or more beds in all residential zones with objectivity and certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form. As the City did not receive any requests for construction of new special care homes in the previous planning period, current regulations are not considered to be a constraint to the development of large licensed residential care facilities. Additionally, Program HE-R commits the City to adopting a universal design ordinance to incentivize the implementation of accessibility features in new construction projects.
In Solvang, the only large special care home facility is Atterdag Village of Solvang, which includes 188 total beds. Among these are 18 beds dedicated to patients in need of memory care, 54 beds with skilled nurses, and 14 assisted living units.
One small residential care facility operates in Solvang, Family Connect Memory Care Solvang, which has a capacity of six residents. Overall, there is a total special care capacity of 194 beds within the city limits of Solvang.
Table H-47 List of Special Care Facilities
Facility Address Beds
Solvang Lutheran Home, Inc. d.b.a. Atterdag Village of
Solvang
Including Care Center (formerly Santa Ynez Valley Recovery Residence)
636 Atterdag Road 188
Family Connect Memory Care Solvang 659 Chalk Hill Rd 6
TOTAL 194
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2022. 297
H-90 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Government Code Section 65583(a) (7) requires the “analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development.” This is important due to the key role played by energy efficiency in determining the relative affordability of housing. Lower rates of energy usage decrease utility costs for residents, making housing more affordable. The discussion that follows outlines current State policies and development standards along with local City policies that promote energy conservation for new and existing development in the City of Solvang.
Title 24 Energy Budget Standards
Utility-related costs can directly impact the affordability of housing in California. However, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code sets forth mandatory energy standards for new development and requires adoption of an "energy budget." In turn, the home building industry must comply with these standards while local governments are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations which can increase affordability for residents.
All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations respond to California’s energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made.
The energy requirements of the new State code are significantly more stringent than the prior codes (heat pump requirements for single-family and multi-family homes and businesses; electricity-ready requirements for single-family homes; and new solar power requirements for high-rises, hotels/motels, tenant spaces, offices, stores, restaurants, schools, and civic spaces) and are intended to progress to 100 percent clean electricity and carbon neutrality by 2050 or earlier. In 2019, the City adopted the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (Volumes 1 and 2). Program HE-O commits the City to updating the building code for compliance with the new 2022 edition of the California Building Code.
In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Part 11 of Title 24 contains California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). In 2019, the City of Solvang adopted the most-recently revised standards (2019 California Green Building Standards Code) with amendments in Municipal Code Section 10-1-4 to require readily accessible areas for storage and collection of trash and recycle in approved containers.
Southern California Gas Programs
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) offers an Energy Savings Assistance Program to limited income customers. The program offers no-cost weatherization that includes attic insulation, weatherstripping, caulking, watersaving devices, and energy-efficient lighting. Additionally offered is a no-cost furnace repair and replacement service and a clothes washer home improvement. SoCalGas also participates in the State CARE program, providing low-income customers with a 30 percent discount on their gas bills. Finally, SoCalGas provides a Past Due Bill Forgiveness program and a One-time Bill Grant program aimed at assisting with natural gas bills.
Solvang Green Website
The City of Solvang, in partnership with the Solvang Chamber of Commerce, runs solvanggreen.com, a website set up to provide residents and businesses a hub to learn more about and share ways to be more environmentally sustainable 298
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-91 and energy efficient. The website includes information about conserving gas, conserving water, conserving electricity, landscaping sustainably, and how to participate in City programs for committing to sustainability.
Central Coast Community Energy (3CE)
Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) is a Community Choice Energy agency that allows for residents to enroll for their power to come from renewable resources. The city of Solvang joined this program in December 2019. 3CE seeks to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while having increased electricity delivery efficiency as more people join the program. 3CE utilizes current power infrastructure created by Southern California Edison to deliver the power to residents.
General Plan Goals
Energy conservation is not only a goal for housing in Solvang but is a shared value across the entire General Plan. Energy conservation requires multifaceted solutions to truly make a difference environmentally and financially. The Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan overlaps the shared values of green building practices and renewable energy that support the creation and maintenance of affordable housing. Policies in the Environmental and Sustainability Element include encouraging energy retrofitting for more sustainable appliances, promoting zero waste, and educating the public on sustainability issues. The Mobility Element includes provisions to help improve Solvang’s bike route and bike lane network, which is currently very sparse and in need of expansion. Such improvements can help reduce car dependency for local trips and decrease costs involved with living in the community. 299
H-92 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Housing Resources
Future Housing Need
State Housing Element law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Compliance with this requirement is measured by the City’s ability to providing adequate land with adequate density and appropriate development standards to accommodate the RHNA. The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), as the regional planning agency, is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the region. For the sixth Housing Element cycle, the City of Solvang has been allocated a RHNA of 191 units, divided into four income levels as shown on Table H-48.
Table H-48 Projected Housing Needs (Regional Housing Need Allocation) Lower
Moderate
(80-120%
AMI
Above
Moderate
(120%+
AMI)
Total Extremely Low
(0-25% AMI)
Very Low
(25-50%
AMI)
Low
(80-120%
AMI)
Solvang 28 27 39 22 75 191
Santa Barbara
County
5,799 3,935 4,397 10,725 24,856
Source: SBCAG, HCD Pre-approved Data Package, ACS 2015-2019, Table 25.
The City's Housing Element must demonstrate the availability of sufficiently zoned land to meet the planning targets defined in the RHNA throughout the entire planning period. This stipulation of continuous compliance throughout the planning period, known as the No Net Loss Requirements Law (California Government Code Section 68563), necessitates planning a buffer to accommodate twenty percent more housing units than the RHNA requires in the very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories. This buffer ensures that if a site becomes unavailable due to a developer choosing another land use or if a site develops under its predicted density, the City will be able to stay in compliance with State law and avoid forced rezoning of parcels.
To provide more granular information on housing needs, the City assumed 50 percent of its very low-income regional housing needs are extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very low-income need of 55 units, the City has a projected need of 28 units for extremely low-income households. Zoning to meet the needs of extremely low, lower, and moderate-income households must be of sufficient density and with reasonable development standards to facilitate development affordable to these groups.
Credits Toward the RHNA
Following the analysis of RHNA credits, specific sites throughout the city were considered for potential for housing development. Site selection for the residential sites inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. 300
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-93 Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of twenty units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.
Pending/Approved Projects
Solvang currently has three pending residential projects projected to provide 88 units of housing, which includes three units of very low-income housing, 45 units of low-income housing, 10 units of moderate-income housing, and 30 units of above moderate-income housing. Solvang also has two projects, Cottages on Old Mission and the 1731 Laurel Avenue Lot Split, which were completed during the beginning of the planning period, allowing for 21 units to be counted towards the Sixth Cycle RHNA. In total, Solvang can credit 109 units to pending and approved projects for the current cycle.
Table H-49 Summary of Pending and Approved Projects
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Pending Projects
Old Lumberyard Site 0 45 0 0 45
539 Alisal Road 1 0 10 0 11
670 Alamo Pintado Road 2 0 0 30 32
Approved/Completed Projects
Cottages on Old Mission 0 0 0 16 16
1731 Laurel Avenue Lot Split1 0 0 0 5 5
Total Pending Projects 3 45 10 51 109
Source: City of Solvang, 2022.
1Although a six-unit project, the project can only count for 5 net units due to a previous single-family home on site being demolished for the project.
Old Lumberyard Site
The Old Lumberyard Site, located at 1793 and 1783 Mission Drive (APN(s): 139-150-017, 139-150-027), is a 2.2-acre site located due east of the Tourist Related Commercial (TRC) zone slated for a hotel project with 45 low-income microapartments, approximately 420 square feet each, intended for workforce housing. The site is set to be rezoned from DR20 as Tourist Related Commercial (TRC), which will allow the secondary use of housing on site with the primary use of the hotel. Affordability for these units was established based on anticipated rents, which, according to the applicant, are expected to be approximately $800 per unit. As discussed earlier, the median household income of Solvang residents is $82,838. Based on this, a lower income household that makes 80 percent of the median income can afford to pay just more than $1,600 per month toward housing without experiencing a cost burden of 30 percent or more.
The City of Solvang has received the pre-application for the project, which involves a general plan amendment and rezone that will allow the mixed use project. The application has been reviewed by the City staff, and Public Works and Utilities 301
H-94 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 staff have determined that this project can developed as currently proposed. The project has also been reviewed by the Design Review Committee through conceptual review. It was determined by staff to include this application in the General Plan Update and the related EIR to save cost and time in the processing of this application. Once the General Plan Update and related EIR are complete (expected late 2023), the City expects that the application will be processed within four to six months.
539 Alisal Road
539 Alisal Road (APN: 139-143-004) is a 0.33-acre site located due north of the TRC zone, slated for a 11-unit condominium complex. Ten units are moderate income units, and one unit is a deed restricted very low-income unit. The condominium is expected to have two- and three-bedroom units ranging between 859 and 1,101 square feet. The building is three stories tall and has an exterior that matches the Old World Danish theme of Solvang’s TRC zone.
Construction started in the summer of 2022.
670 Alamo Pintado Road
670 Alamo Pintado Road (APN: 139-530-005) is a 1.06-acre site located in northeast Solvang near Rite Aid and Valley Fresh Market. The site is expected to add 32 units of condominium housing. Thirty units are slated for above moderateincome households and two units are deed restricted for very low-income households. The site was approved by the Planning Commission in December 2020 and is expected to begin construction in late 2022 or early 2023.
Cottages on Old Mission
Cottages on Old Mission (APNs: 139-540-057 to 139-540-064) is a series of eight single family homes, each with a single attached accessory dwelling unit, located at 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 Old Mission Drive in Eastern Solvang near The Merkantile Shopping Center. The project was initially approved by Solvang City Council with an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration finalized in May 2017. The project was completed with certificates of occupancy issued during the current planning period. The project can be counted for 16 above moderate dwelling units. 1731 Laurel Avenue Lot Split
The 1731 Laurel Avenue Lot Split (APNs: 139-091-041 and 139-091-042) is a residential development consisting of six dwelling units on a former single family home site. The original parcel was subdivided into two parcels which were subsequently developed with a single-family home, a junior accessory dwelling unit, and an accessory dwelling unit on each parcel. The original single family home site was demolished, therefore the project resulted in a net gain of five dwelling units, all above moderate-income units. With each lot containing three dwelling units, the project is a prime example of the intended effect of SB 9 (2021). As of December 2022, both parcels are for sale for $2.5 million each.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
During the fifth cycle, cities across California have found substantial housing growth from the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). Residents have found ADUs and JADUs to be a cost-effective way to earn extra income, increase the City’s housing stock, and increase their property values. In Solvang, this same trend created 23 additional housing units in the City between 2019 and 2021, which is a small, however important growth source for the city’s housing stock. The City expects that this growth from ADUs will continue in the future to further meet housing needs given further popularity and incentives. 302
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-95 Table H-50 Accessory Dwelling Units Constructed, 2019-2021 ADUs Constructed
2019 2
2020 8
2021 13
Source: City of Solvang, 2022.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.1, the City can work to meet the regional housing need using ADU and JADU trends and existing resources and incentives that promote their development. As a conservative projection, HCD recommends a minimum assumption equal to the average permitted total for 2019 to 2021. For Solvang, this average equates to eight ADUs or JADUs per year for a total projection of 64 units over the eight-year planning period.
Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
In 2021, the U.C. Berkeley Center for Community Innovation released the report “Implementing the Backyard Revolution:
Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners,” which provided information from a study that gathered basic information on construction, permitting, and rental states of ADUs across the state of California through mailed out postcards. The conductors of the study were able to gather sufficient data from several counties and regions across the state, including Santa Barbara County, which is a part of the Central Coast region defined in the study. The researchers found that the median rental price of ADUs was $1,925 in the Central Coast region, equating to about $3.75 per square foot.
Monthly rent of $1,925 is affordable to households making approximately 95 percent of area median income. Given Solvang’s higher cost of living and higher rent in comparison to other North Santa Barbara County areas, the City has conservatively classified projected accessory dwelling units as moderate- and above moderate-income units, as shown in.
Table H-51 compares the selected ADU affordability assumption for the planning period and the affordability suggestion provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in a draft report on ADU affordability both statewide and in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Table H-51 ADU Affordability Assumptions for the Sixth Cycle RHNA Income Group ABAG Affordability Suggestion Selected ADU Affordability Assumption
Very Low 5% 0%
Low 30% 0%
Moderate 50% 50%
Above Moderate 15% 50%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, “Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units,” 8 September 2021. 303
H-96 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Residential Sites Inventory
Vacant Residential Sites
Solvang is generally built out, and there are only scattered vacant sites remaining that are suitable for residential development. Table H-52 below lists 22 sites which have been identified as suitable residential development sites without a rezone. The majority of these sites are slated for market rate single-family housing development on a single lot. All sites have available water and sewer infrastructure located on roads adjacent to the parcel. All sites have access to or ability to connect to all infrastructure, as stated in the Availability of Infrastructure section below. Figure H-5 shows vacant sites appropriate for residential development. Sites labeled with a number correspond to vacant sites in Table H52. Vacant sites with a proposed rezone have been labeled with letter A-D. These sites are discussed under the heading “Vacant Sites with a Proposed Rezone” below.
Lower Income Sites Used in Previous Housing Element Cycles While State law mandates that sites identified in prior planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income households unless a program requires rezoning within three years, none of the sites included in Table H-52 are included as capacity to meet the lower-income RHNA. 304
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-97 Figure H-5 Vacant Sites Suitable for Development
305
H-98 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table H-52 List of Vacant Sites Not Requiring Rezones
# Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing GP Land
Use
Existing
Zoning Proposed Zoning Realistic Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental Constraints
1 928 College
Canyon Road
137-
140-044 1.80
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
land in an
established
neighborhood; 5th
cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 2)
2 Parcel on west
side of
junction
Rancho Alisal
Drive / 3
Springs Road
137-
410-020 1.00
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
land in the Alisal
Valley
3 Parcel west of
395 Rancho
Alisal Drive
137-
410-022 0.72
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
land in the Alisal
Valley
4 Northeast
parcel on 3
Springs Road
at city limits
137-
410-036 0.87
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
land in the Alisal
Valley
5 Northeast
corner Rancho
Alisal Drive / 3
Springs Road
137-
410-037 0.78
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
land in the Alisal
Valley
6 Parcel on west
side of
junction
Rancho Alisal
Dr / Riley Rd
137-
420-039 0.99
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
land in the Alisal
Valley
7 Interior parcel
south of 1673
Kronen Way
137-
480-026 0.40
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
Extremely steep
parcel
8 Approximately
634 Chalk Hill
Road
137-
570-013 0.49
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
9 Approximately
1680 Overdel
Lane
137-
660-016 2.04
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 4
4 Above
Moderate
10 Approximately
1537 Gamby
Way
137-
660-036 1.18
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 2
2 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 24)
11 South corner
Viking Way /
Gamby Way
137-
660-038 1.33
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 2
2 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 25)
306
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-99 # Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing GP Land
Use
Existing
Zoning Proposed Zoning Realistic Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental Constraints
12 1201 Petersen
Avenue
137-
120-047 15.82
Medium Density
Residential (3-7
du/ac)
10-R-1 10-R-1 47 47 Above
Moderate
Currently has 1
above moderateincome home on
site; 5th cycle
above moderateincome
opportunity site
(Site 01)
Southwestern side of
property has steep cliffs
off side of Skytt Mesa
13 235 Alisal Rd 139-
234-064 0.17
Medium Density
Residential (3-7
du/ac)
7-R-1 7-R-1 1 1 Moderate
4 th cycle lowincome
opportunity site
(Site 32); 5th cycle
low-income
opportunity site
(Site 80)
14 226 Valhalla Dr 139-
490-024 0.44
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 18); 5th cycle
above moderateincome
opportunity site
(Site 84)
15 217 Valhalla Dr 139-
490-042 0.49
Low Density
Residential (1
du/ac)
1-E-1 1-E-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 17); 5th cycle
above moderateincome
opportunity site
(Site 85)
16 581 Oak Ridge
Rd
137-
750-004 0.23
Medium Density
Residential (3-7
du/ac)
10-R-1 10-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
17 750 Chalk Hill
Road
137-
132-009 0.27
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
18 Interior parcel
south of
Hillside Drive,
north of 1871
Laurel Ave
139-
100-047 0.36
Medium Density
Residential (3-7
du/ac)
8-R-1 8-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 31); 5th cycle
requires
infrastructure
connections/nonRHNA categorized
opportunity site
(Site 64); For sale
with 139-100-048
and -049 for
$1.75m in August
2022
On the side of a steep hill
307
H-100 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 # Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing GP Land
Use
Existing
Zoning Proposed Zoning Realistic Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental Constraints
19 Interior parcel
south of
Hillside Drive,
northeast of
1871 Laurel
Ave
139-
100-048 0.35
Medium Density
Residential (3-7
du/ac)
8-R-1 8-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 31); 5th cycle
requires
infrastructure
connections/nonRHNA categorized
opportunity site
(Site 65); For sale
with 139-100-047
and -049 for
$1.75m in August
2022
On the side of a steep hill
20 Interior parcel
east of 1871
Laurel Ave and
west of 1905
Old Mission Dr
139-
100-049 0.27
Medium Density
Residential (3-7
du/ac)
8-R-1 8-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
4 th cycle
moderate-income
opportunity site
(Site 31); 5th cycle
requiring
infrastructure
connections/nonRHNA categorized
opportunity site
(Site 66); For sale
with 139-100-047
and -048 for
$1.75m in August
2022
On the side of a steep hill
21 1890 Old Mill
Road
139-
540-040 0.57
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 1
1 Above
Moderate
22 Old Mill Road
east of Santa
Ynez Mission
139-
240-013 1.42
Low/Medium
Density
Residential (2
du/ac)
20-R-1 20-R-1 3
3 Above
Moderate On the side of a steep hill
Total 1 Moderate
74 Above Moderate
308
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-101 Remaining RHNA
Accounting for the vacant residential capacity; entitled, approved, and pending projects; and projected ADUs, the City has a remaining RHNA shortfall of 65 lower-income units to reach the RHNA with 20 percent buffer. Table H-53 details the existing progress towards the 6th cycle RHNA and the remaining RHNA that the City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards. As shown, when compared to the RHNA with 20 percent buffer, the City’s capacity analysis has a shortfall of 65 lower income units. This remaining capacity is achieved through proposed rezones, as discussed below.
Table H-53 Progress Toward RHNA
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
RHNA Allocation 94 22 75 191
RHNA with 20 percent buffer 113 27 75 215
Pending or Approved 48 10 46 104
ADUs 0 32 32 64
Vacant Residential Sites 0 1 74 75
Total 48 43 153 244
Surplus (beyond buffered total) -65 16 78 29
309
H-102 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Vacant Sites with a Proposed Rezone
The three sites listed in Table H-54 are significant vacant sites that have potential for increased density. Sites B and C are both located on Alamo Pintado Road, near amenities, such as supermarkets and pharmacies. Site D is located on Alisal Road near its junction with Fjord Drive, a location which provides walking distance access to Solvang’s primary employment zone, the Tourist Commercial (TRC) zone. All three sites are located in high resource areas, allowing for greater access to opportunity for lower income residents. Sites C and D have potential for lower income housing development.
Currently, sites B and C are zoned 20-R-1 and Site D is zoned as REC. The City is proposing to rezone sites C and D to accommodate lower income housing based on the density requirements for lower income rezone sites within Government Code 65583.2(h) and (i). These provisions require that rezoned parcels planned for very low and low-income households allow a minimum of 20 units per acre with at least 16 units per site. Program HE-J commits the City to applying a these minimum density and minimum unit requirement to provide capacity as lower income sites, in compliance with State law. At the required density minimum, with proper adjustments, sites C and D provide capacity for 95 units of low-income housing.
Sites C and D, both vacant, have been included due to property owner interest in developing housing on the sites. Site B is also being proposed for rezone to accommodate additional housing units. On all three sites, the City is proposing to change the zoning to DR-20 with a General Plan designation of High Density Residential, however, because Site B does not assume lower-income capacity, the additional requirements of Government Code 65583.2(h) and (i) do not apply to this site. By rezoning this site, the City is working to ensure that sufficient capacity is provided at 20 dwelling units per acre, if site C or D is developed at market rate during the planning period.
Please note: Site A, a vacant site along Alamo Pintado north of Sites B and C was included in a previous draft of the Housing Element. In late 2022, the City received a comment letter from the property owner asking for the parcel to be removed from consideration in the Housing Element. Based on the owner’s comments, the City does not feel that the site is feasible for lower-income capacity within the planning period. Site A has been removed from this draft.
Lower Income Sites Used in Previous Housing Element Cycles None of the sites listed in Table H-54 were included as capacity to meet the lower-income RHNA in either of the previous two cycles.
310
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-103 Figure H-6 Vacant Sites with Proposed Rezoning
311
H-104 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table H-54 List of Vacant Sites with Proposed Rezoning
Site Address APN Size (acres) Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA Income
Categories
Notes
B
1999 Viborg
Road 139-031-020 0.64 20-R-1
DR-20 11
6 Moderate
5 Above
Moderate
4th cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site (Site
26); 5th cycle above
moderate-income
opportunity site (Site
55)
C
Northwest
corner Alamo
Pintado Rd /
Old Mission Dr
139-530-001with a
portion of 139-530-
002
Approximately
2.5 20-R-1
DR-20
(minimum 20
du/ac as
required by
State law)
36 36 Lower
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
DR-20
(minimum 20
du/ac as
required by
State law)
59 59 Lower
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
Please note: Site A, a vacant site along Alamo Pintado north of Sites B and C, was included in a previous draft of the Housing Element. In late 2022, the City received a comment letter from the property owner asking for the parcel to be removed from consideration in the Housing Element. Based on the owner’s comments, the City does not feel that the site is feasible for multifamily capacity within the planning period. Site A has been removed from this draft. To avoid confusion, Site A has been removed, but the remaining sites, B-D, retain their original labels.
312
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-105 Site B: 1999 Viborg Road
Table H-55 Site B Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.64 ac
Existing Zoning 20-R-1
Existing General Plan Land Use Low / Medium Density Residential Proposed Zoning DR-20
Proposed Land Use High Density Residential
Current Allowed Density 2 du/ac
Proposed Density 20 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 13
Realistic Capacity 11
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 6 Moderate
5 Above Moderate
Current Use Vacant Land
B
313
H-106 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 85% Based on development standards, demand for residential development, and programs to incentivize development
Land use mix No adjustment Not applicable.
Typical densities 95% Due to the high cost of land and construction, affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus)
Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint Site B is a 0.64-acre site located at the junction of Alamo Pintado Road and Viborg Road that is currently zoned 20-R-1, or low-density single family residential. The site has no environmental constraints. The site currently has dense foliage that will need to be cleared.
The City intends to rezone the parcels to DR-20 with a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, allowing 20 dwelling units per acre. At the proposed zoning, the site has realistic capacity for a total of 11 dwelling units, six moderate and five above-moderate income.
314
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-107 Site C: Alamo Pintado at Old Mission
Table H-56 Site C Summary
Site Description
Site Size 5.48 total acres (2.5 feasible for affordable housing development due to environmental constraints)
Existing Zoning 20-R-1
Existing General Plan Land Use Low / Medium Density Residential Proposed Zoning DR-20
Proposed Land Use High Density Residential
Current Allowed Density 2 du/ac
Proposed Density 20 du/ac by Program HE-J
Maximum Capacity 50
Realistic Capacity 36
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 36 Lower
Current Use Vacant Land
C
315
H-108 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 85% Based on large lot size, development standards, demand for residential development, and programs to incentivize development Land use mix No adjustment Not applicable.
Typical densities 95% Due to the high cost of land and construction, affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus). Property owner additionally expressed interest in developing at or, if possible, above 20 du/ac.
Environmental constraints Total acreage
considered
reduced to 2.5
acres
The steep nature of the site is cause for adjustment of units; however, the developer has stated that they are willing to densify wherever building is possible.
Archaeological constraint 90% Approximately one percent of the site, according to the owner, is affected by the historical aqueduct. As a conservative estimate, we have applied an adjustment factor of 90 percent.
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint Site C consists of two parcels, one 4.48-acre parcel and a one-acre parcel totaling to 5.48 acres. The two parcels of Site C comprise the largest vacant residential site in Solvang. Located at Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive, the site is in a high resource area close to transportation routes, stores, and services critical to lower-income households.
Due to the environmental constraints outlined below and in the public comment received (see Appendix C), the City of Solvang would like to work with the Owner of the two parcels to consider a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the two lots prior to rezoning. The goal of the lot line adjustment is to consolidate the lower developable area of both parcels within a single parcel of approximately 2.5 acres that will be rezoned to DR-20 and apply the required minimum density of 20 du/ac through Program HE-J, as required by state law. The adjustment will result in a minimum realistic capacity of 36 affordable units. The remainder of the lot will remain zoned as 20-R-1.
The owner of the site has expressed interest in developing the site for multifamily housing through condensing units into flatter, lower elevation portions of the parcels. In addition to the smaller one-acre corner parcel, an additional 1.5- acre area at the southern base on the hill within the larger parcel is suitable for high density development.
Environmental Constraints
The northern, 4.48-acre parcel of Site C is on a hill that has a change in elevation of, at its most extreme, approximately 64 feet over 969 feet from the top of the hill to the bottom, heading south. The northern parcel has steep slopes that face east, west, and south and an east-west cross section that looks like an inverted “U”. This topography will make grading the parcel especially difficult. Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.
Archaeological Constraints
In addition to the environmental constraints identified on the parcel, the property owner has been made aware of possible archaeological constraints on the site in the potential presence of a historical aqueduct. According to the property owner, the aqueduct affects approximately one percent of the site, but needs to be investigated to ensure appropriate analysis and preservation. Given this constraint, it is assumed that five percent of the land area of the site (approximately 11,500 square feet) will not be used for construction.
The aqueduct was created to irrigate fields and provide water to Santa Ines Mission in the early 19th century shortly after the mission’s establishment in 1804. According to State-acknowledged local research done in 2005 by Santa Ynez 316
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-109 Valley High School students, the aqueduct runs through Site C mostly covered by sediment at five hundred feet elevation.
For a portion of the site, the aqueduct is above ground, a remnant of a larger, naturally pressurized water system that once carried water from a dam along Alamo Pintado Creek (located near modern Rebild Drive) to the northeast and Santa Ines Mission’s reservoir (now located in the middle of the Mission parking lot) to the southwest.
Developer Interest
The owner of the two parcels, Lots on Alamo Pintado, LLC, has expressed enthusiastic interest in developing the site at its maximum density of 20 du/ac for housing.
“Given the size of the parcels and the number of units that staff has identified as being realistically possible for the site, I believe that with appropriate incentives from the City, there is an economically feasible path to getting some affordable units constructed on the parcels.”
Manager, Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC
The owner of the lots has been engaged in the Housing Element public engagement process and agrees with the Housing Element’s projection of the use of the parcels for higher density residential development. 317
H-110 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Site D: Alisal Commons
Table H-57 Site D Summary
Site Description
Site Size 5.83 acres (3.71 developable acres)
Existing Zoning REC - Recreation
Existing General Plan Land Use Open Space / Recreation
Proposed Zoning DR-20
Proposed Land Use High Density Residential
Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 20 du/ac by Program HE-J
Maximum Capacity 74
Realistic Capacity 59
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 59 lower
Current Use Vacant Land
D
318
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-111 Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 85% Based on development standards, demand for residential development, and programs to incentivize development
Land use mix No adjustment Not applicable.
Typical densities 95% Due to the high cost of land and construction, affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus)
Environmental constraints Total acreage
considered
reduced to 3.71
acres
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
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint The Alisal Commons site is a 3.71-acre portion of a large open space, recreation zoned parcel that encompasses portions of the right-of-ways for Alisal Road, Juniper Avenue, and Fjord Drive. The site is entirely flat, allowing for more affordable housing development. The property owners have expressed interest in developing the site for housing and potentially workforce housing. Site D has realistic capacity to accommodate 59 lower-income dwelling units. 319
H-112 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Summary of Capacity to Meet the RHNA
Accounting for all sites identified, the City has identified sufficient capacity to reach and exceed Solvang’s fair share of housing needs for the planning period between 2023 and 2031. A total of 354 units are planned across a variety of income categories. Broken down, these 354 units include capacity for 143 lower-, 49 moderate-, and 162 above moderate-income units. The City has planned to reach its lower-income RHNA primarily through vacant rezone sites and pending projects.
Table H-58 Sites Inventory
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 94 22 75 191 Credits
Pending/Approved Projects 48 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 32 32 64
Sites
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
95 6 5 106
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 143 49 162 354
% of RHNA Planned 152% 223% 216% 185%
RHNA with required 20 percent buffer1 113 27 751 215
Surplus (beyond buffered total) + 30 + 22 + 87 + 139
1 No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 percent buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period for moderate- and lower-income RHNA projections.
City-Owned Vacant and Underutilized Sites
The City currently owns a vacant 0.35-acre parcel located at 377 Second Street that is currently used to store heavy machinery such as government trucks and vans. The lot is currently zoned Tourist Related Commercial (TRC); therefore, as-is, the lot is not permitted for residential construction as a primary use. Given that the City actively uses the lot and there are sufficient units planned in the Sites Inventory, there is no urgent need to rezone this lot and consider it a part of the sites inventory. However, if the need arises, the City will consider using this lot for residential purposes given its centrality and proximity to existing residential uses.
Availability of Infrastructure
Solvang has sufficient access to water, sewer, and dry utilities to meet the needs housing need identified in the RHNA.
Solvang’s water and sewer services comply with the requirements for sufficiency and access for low-income developments now and for the foreseeable future. In addition to basic utilities, the City also is served by numerous telephone/cellular service, cable or satellite television, and internet service providers. 320
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-113 Water Supply
The City of Solvang is served by four water suppliers: the Department of Water Resources (State Water), Upland Wells, River Wells, and the Santa Ynez Water District (ID #1). The City is entitled to 1,500-acre feet per year from State Water, subject to changes based on drought conditions. The City’s multiple water supplies help prevent current and future issues of supply from State Water.
Water Treatment
The City of Solvang operates twenty miles of sewer pipeline of various sizes and collects wastewater under a Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of Solvang operates a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 101 South Alisal Road that has a design capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The City shares the plant with the Santa Ynez Community Services District, which is entitled to 0.30 MGD per day of wastewater treatment processing at the plant.
SB 1087 Compliance
Upon adoption of the housing element, the City distributes copies of the element to water suppliers and sewage treatment providers serving the city. The City of Solvang is committed to compliance with SB 1087 to ensure that any developments, especially lower-income developments often affected by accessibility issues, will be able to have safe, consistent, and reliable access to water and sewer services.
Electricity
The City of Solvang is served by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). PG&E allows for new connections to any property in the City of Solvang.
Telephone
Solvang is served by all four major wireless telephone providers: AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint. All four telecoms are actively accepting new customers and have capacity for new customers in the future. The City is also served by a variety of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVMOs), such as Cricket Wireless, MetroPCS, and Boost Mobile, which offer service to lower income households. Legacy landline telephone service is provided by internet service providers.
Internet
Solvang is served by Xfinity and Frontier Communications. Both providers accept new customers and have capacity for new customers in the future. Broadband internet service is being expanded within the city. Both providers also provide access to landline telephone or VOIP telephone connections.
Financial Resources
Solvang has access to a variety of funding sources available for promoting and supporting the development of affordable housing.
HOME Investment Partnership Program Fund
The County of Santa Barbara leads the Santa Barbara County HOME Consortium, which Solvang is a member. The Consortium receives funding annually from the Federal government with the purpose to provide decent affordable 321
H-114 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 housing to lower-income households. Funding is available for projects through an application process. The Consortium additionally has funds reserved for potential projects that address housing priorities of the community.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
The County of Santa Barbara is the lead agency for Santa Barbara Urban County Partnership, which Solvang helped form.
The Partnership receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which is distributed to members of the partnership. The funds are articulated through a through a Notice of Funding Availability. An Action Plan is additionally created to create goals for funding local objectives and priorities. The three national objectives for CDBG are to meet urgent community needs, benefit low and moderate-income households and to eliminate blight and slums.
Community Resources
Several organizations are operating across Santa Barbara County to provide holistic resources to people experiencing housing insecurity. Public organizations help administer government-funded programs, such as Section 8, that aim to address homelessness. Many non-profit affordable housing organizations help not only help people have access to housing, but also provide a system of support through community, case workers, and employment.
Public Affordable Housing Resources
Important resources, including housing and healthcare, are available to people experiencing homelessness through public agencies in Solvang.
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara (HASBARCO) The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara, shortened as HASBARCO, is a public agency that provides rental subsidies, manages, and develops affordable housing for residents in need in the county. The Housing Authority operates out of Lompoc and is the largest property management organization in the County. HASBARCO operates several properties in Santa Barbara County. HASBARCO notably also operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program for the entire county.
HASBARCO also offers educational assistance, health services, employment assistance, and family services to help families keep and maintain their housing to achieve housing security.
Property Management
HASBARCO’s most significant contribution to housing is through its ownership and/or management of several multifamily communities across Santa Barbara County. The direct management of these properties allows the Housing Authority to provide unencumbered access to affordable, subsidized housing in addition to a multitude of resources that promote sustainable long-term housing. The Housing Authority owns no properties within the city limits of Solvang.
However, it operates three properties nearby: Valley Station in Buellton, Vintage Walk in Buellton, and Golden Inn and Village in Santa Ynez.
322
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-115 Figure H-7 HASBARCO Managed Properties Near Solvang
Source: Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County, 2022; OpenStreetMap Contributors, 2022.
Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is a federal program that provides access to the private housing market to qualified low- and moderate-income individuals or families. HASBARCO is authorized to administer the vouchers, which pay between 30 and 40 percent of adjusted monthly gross rents. The qualified individual must find the housing and submit the proper documentation.
Family Self Sufficiency Program
Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) is a savings program and resource for families using Housing Choice Vouchers to reduce their need for government subsides. Participants must sign a contract to commit to being employed and economically independent within five years. The program features an escrow account, which allows the family to gain money in an effort to be self-sufficient at the end of their contract. For every period in which the family experiences an increase in earned income, the Housing Authority will match a portion of that increase with Housing Authority funds and deposit it into the escrow account, being available in total when the terms of the contract are met.
Resident Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (ROSS)
Resident Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (ROSS) is a program that provides educational services, financial management training, supportive health/disability services and resources for families. ROSS looks to create a positive change for families through this and coordinates local organizations and other institutions to provides services and opportunities for family units.
323
H-116 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Non-Profit Affordable Housing Resources
In addition to public agencies and resources, Solvang is served by many non-profits which aim to help provide and support affordable housing across the city. Many of these agencies have been operating for decades in collaboration with civic leaders and local stakeholders.
Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation (SBCHC)
Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation (SBCHC) is a nonprofit corporation looking to help house lower income individuals and is managed day-to-day by an executive director and governed by a volunteer board. SBCHC manages properties totaling more than three hundred units and approximately five hundred residents. The nonprofit rehabilitates and converts existing properties while also taking up new construction of homes.
Coastal Housing Partnership
Coastal Housing Partnership is a program offered for employees of companies that are affiliated with the Coastal Housing Partnership. The partnership offers home buying education, closing cost savings on a home purchase, lender savings on the upfront fees for a mortgage refinance, reduction in market rent on new leases, and access to a local rental search site. These benefits are available to employees of any income level.
Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County
Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County (HTF) is a nonprofit agency certified as a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI). HTF aims to create more affordable housing for low-to middle- income residents throughout Santa Barbara County. HTF offers programs such as the Revolving Loan fund which provides low interest loans to serve low-income residents who are between zero and 80 percent of Area Median Income. HTF also offers the workforce home buyer program, which provides down payment loans to support people buying a home where they work.
Northern Santa Barbara County United Way
Northern Santa Barbara County United Way (NSBCUW) is a nonprofit organization that primarily serves communities north of the Santa Ynez Mountains, including Santa Maria, Lompoc, Solvang, Guadalupe, and the rest of the Santa Ynez Valley. The NSBCUW specializes in fundraising, regranting, community collaboration, and local partnerships. Select programs of the NSBCUW include Home for Good, United for Literacy, and Financial Literacy. AmeriCorps is a frequent partner of the NSBCUW.
People Helping People
People Helping People is a nonprofit which provides basic needs and services assistance to communities in the Santa Ynez Valley. The nonprofit offers rental assistance based on their standards of imminent eviction is required and income standards with the goal to maintain stable housing. Federal market cost and habitability standards must be met and drug testing for applicants is required.
People’s Self-Help Housing
People’s Self-Help Housing is a nonprofit founded in 1970 that aims to build homes and provide services to assist disadvantaged communities, including low-income households, families, farmworkers, seniors, veterans, persons living with disabilities, youth transitioning out of foster care, and those formerly experiencing homelessness. People’s SelfHelp Housing additionally provides an innovative pathway to homeownership through a “sweat equity” program that 324
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-117 allows eligible persons to receive assistance and mentorship to build their own homes in lieu of a cash down payment.
The program also provides access to a lower interest mortgage to make maintaining homeownership possible. People’s Self-Help Housing also runs rental properties, a learning center, and other programs to create a comprehensive housing support system.
Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County
Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County (LAFSBC) is a nonprofit law firm that provides free legal assistance to Santa Barbara County residents. Their mission is to provide high-quality civil legal services to low-income residents and other vulnerable groups to ensure equal access to justice. They offer direct representation, legal advice, and community education. Their vision is to create a community where low-income people and other vulnerable residents are empowered to thrive and where all residents have meaningful access to the civil justice system. Since 1959, Legal Aid has provided legal services to those most in need in the community.
Transitions - Mental Health Association
Transitions - Mental Health Association (T-MHA) is a nonprofit organization serving San Luis Obispo and North Santa Barbara Counties. The mission of T-MHA is to eliminate the stigma and promote the recovery and wellness for people with mental illness through work, housing, community, and family support services. T-MHA launched the 50Now program, later renamed to 60Now and then 70Now, to help chronically homeless individuals gain stable housing in collaboration with the Housing Authority and the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Social Services.
Rona Barrett Foundation
The Rona Barrett Foundation (RBF) is a nonprofit organization that is the catalyst behind the Golden Inn & Village, a housing development for low-income seniors. The organization’s namesake, Rona Barrett, is a celebrated former reporter that gained fame through numerous print publications and TV shows such as Good Morning America. The goal of the foundation is to provide a model for senior communities that can be replicated around the United States.
Chumash Foundation
The Chumash Foundation is a nonprofit foundation founded in 2005 that aims to serve the local community with emphasis on activities and programs that expand opportunities to the least advantaged, protecting the environment, and enhancing the lives of youth in the region. The Chumash Foundation is a part of the Federally-recognized Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The Foundation offers a grant to eligible local organizations in five focus areas: Community Enhancement and Environment, Culture and Recreation, Education and Personal Development, Health and Human Services, and Native American Interest.
325
H-118 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
326
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-119 Appendices
Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)............................................................................ H-A-1 Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element........................................................................ H-B-1 Appendix C: Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element......................................... H-C-1 327
H-120 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
328
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Internal Draft, November 2022
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Insert cover here
329
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
330
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-1 Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview of AB 686 ..................................................................... 3 Approach to Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Analysis of Impediments Findings..................................................................................................................... 6 Fair Housing Resources and Analysis..................................................................... 7 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity .......................................................................................... 7 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends................................................. 10 Race and Ethnicity............................................................................................................................................. 10 Persons with Disabilities .................................................................................................................................. 18 Familial Status................................................................................................................................................... 24 Household Income............................................................................................................................................ 34 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ......................................... 41 Poverty and Segregation................................................................................................................................... 41 Concentrated Areas of Affluence..................................................................................................................... 47 Disparities in Access to Opportunity..................................................................... 52 Transit Access and Walkability ........................................................................................................................ 52 Access to Education ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Economic Outcomes......................................................................................................................................... 58 Healthy Environment......................................................................................................................................... 66 Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement.................................... 71 Cost Burden....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Substandard Housing ....................................................................................................................................... 77 Overcrowding .................................................................................................................................................... 78 Homelessness................................................................................................................................................... 82 Displacement..................................................................................................................................................... 83 Contributing Factors ............................................................................................ 88 Local Data and Knowledge ................................................................................... 90 Sites Inventory..................................................................................................... 94 331
H-A-2 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page intentionally left blank.
332
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-3 Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to (affirmatively further fair housing) AFFH into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the city’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.
Approach to Analysis
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Solvang to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
• The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer • Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
• U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• CalEnviroScreen 4.0
• California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
• All Transit
• Walkscore
• County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020 (AI) • The Comprehensive House Affordability Strategy (CHAS) • US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
HCD AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract-level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation, and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes. 333
H-A-4 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Urban Displacement Project
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic White population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more impacted by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities compared to other communities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California. Hayward continues to explore programs and policies to address community pollution, environmental health access to open space and government decision making through creation of an Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan.
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies and departments to further the state’s fair housing goals. The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to highopportunity areas for families with children.2 Opportunity Maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table 1. The Opportunity Maps include filters to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty Status: census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level
• Racial Segregation: census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all non-White populations in comparison to the county
334
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-5 Table 1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps 2020.
AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.
The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.
Walk Score
Walk Score provides walkability services and apartment search tools to addresses across the United States, with the mission “to promote walkable neighborhoods.” Walk Score measures walkability by assigning a numerical walkability score based on distance to amenities within a 30-minute walk and evaluates pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density. 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
As part of the CDBG program certification process, participating jurisdictions prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. The 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.
Community Engagement and Outreach
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City implemented a community engagement program, soliciting input from the general public, housing stakeholders, and City decision makers. Results and feedback obtained during the community engagement program have been incorporated into the Housing Element, including this section on affirmatively furthering fair housing practices. Please see Chapter 1 for more details on the City’s outreach efforts and the Local Data and Knowledge section at the end of this analysis for a summary of fair housing issues raised from the community.
335
H-A-6 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Analysis of Impediments Findings
Regional Trends
As part of the CDBG program certification process, participating jurisdictions must prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. This analysis, the County of Santa Barbara Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), is an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures that will be pursued to mitigate or remove identified impediments. The AI covers the Santa Barbara County Consortium. Consortium jurisdictions include the City of Buellton, City of Carpinteria, City of Goleta, City of Lompoc, City of Santa Maria, City of Solvang, and unincorporated County of Santa Barbara. The AI provides a demographic profile of Santa Barbara County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. Regionally, the AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing:
• The poverty rate in the Consortium has consistently been higher than the statewide rate, and has increased slightly more than the state as a whole;
• Renters are, by far, the most cost burdened group in the Consortium. The cities of Santa Maria and Lompoc have the highest percentages of cost-burdened renters. Rents have increased by 18.3 percent since 2010; • Addressing the needs of the homeless, disabled, veterans, seniors, and youth is met with delivery services that need greater coordination;
• The housing stock in the Consortium is slightly older than the rest of the state • Lending concerns surrounding Asian applicants and Hispanic applicants. Asian applicants are more likely to be denied, and Hispanic applicants are most likely to be denied financing based on credit history.
Local Trends
A summary of contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in Solvang are discussed in detail below.
The AI identified the following trends specific to Solvang that may contribute to impediments to fair housing:
• High old-age dependency ratio (high ratio of residents aged 65 and older compared to residents aged 16 through 64);
• Solvang had one of the highest percentages of residents living with a disability (12 percent) in the County; • Large increase in median household income between 2010 and 2017 (increase of 20 percent) which could indicate risk of displacement;
• Significant increase in the percent of residents below the poverty line, from 6 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2017;
• High rates of cost burden, especially among renters (49 percent of renters paid 30 percent or more of their income on rent);
• Thirty (30) percent increase in median rent costs between 2010 and 2017; 336
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-7 Fair Housing Resources and Analysis
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.
Regional Trends
Table 2 below includes a list of key regional stakeholders in Santa Barbara County who conduct fair housing assistance outreach. These organizations collaborate with local governments to address housing and community needs and provide the following services:
• Fair housing testing and complaints
• Fair housing counseling and education
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Homeless prevention program
• Rental assistance program
• Rent/deposit grant program
• Home seeking services
• Shared housing counseling placement
• Homebuyers’ education learning program
337
H-A-8 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table 2 Organizations Active in Santa Barbara County
Organization Activities and Capacity
Santa Barbara County: Housing and Community Development Division
Preparation of Consolidated Plan
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara Rental assistance and affordable housing production and preservation
Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation Affordable housing services including preservation and production
People’s Self-Help Housing Corporation Affordable housing services and production Community Partners in Caring Senior support services for independent living Independent Living Resource Center, Inc. Housing for persons with disabilities Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County Housing services for children, victims of domestic violence, and homeless
People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) Housing support services Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara Housing support services Women’s Economic Ventures Economic empowerment for Women Just Communities Inclusionary and racial justice education and leadership United Way, Home for Good Homelessness services and advocacy Source: Santa Barbara Consolidated Plan, 2024
Fair Housing Enforcement
HUD maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. From 2015 to 2019, 56 fair housing complaints in Santa Barbara County were filed with HUD. Nearly 57 percent of complaints filed were from residents of the City of Santa Barbara. Lompoc and Goleta filed a fair number of complaints after the City of Santa Barbara. Overall, disability-related discrimination was the most commonly reported—comprising 46 percent of all cases.
Complaints concerning familial status (26 percent), retaliation (10 percent), race (7 percent), national origin (6 percent), sex (6 percent) were also regularly reported. Half of all complaints filed (55 percent or 31 cases) were deemed to have no cause and another 23 percent (13 cases) were conciliated or settled.
Fair housing testing was conducted in the County with a total of 118 sites tested for familial status, race, and disability (reasonable accommodation). Disparate treatment was found at 16 sites for all variables: five cases for familial status, six cases for race, and five cases for disability.
338
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-9 Local Trends
The City of Solvang has a long history of communicating and collaborating with other governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address housing, health, and other related issues. The City participates in the HOME Consortium. According to HOME Consortium, there were no official housing complaints between from 2015 to 2019.
However, this does not mean residents were experiencing no fair housing or discrimination issues.
The HOME Consortium partners with the City and other participating jurisdictions to address fair housing issues throughout the region. The HOME Consortium contracts with the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County to provide legal advice and information on landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities, training to property managers and tenants, and monitor and report on fair housing issues. The City’s website also provides information on fair housing rights and how to issue a complaint to HUD.
339
H-A-10 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Segregation and Integration Patterns and
Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.
To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015 – 2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies.
Race and Ethnicity
Regional Trends
Regionally, the more urbanized areas located in the western part of Santa Barbara County contain populations with at least 40 percent non-White residents, as demonstrated in the geographic depiction of 2015-2019 ACS data shown in Figure 1. Comparatively, the urbanized areas located in the southern part of the county contain a higher percentage of White residents. Most of the county is predominantly White, except for census tracts within and to the west of the cities of Guadalupe and Santa Maria and census tracts within the cities of Lompoc, Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria, which are predominantly Hispanic, as shown in Figure 2.
HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index as a measure of segregation. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index represents the extent of which any two racial/ethnic groups differ across a defined geographical area. The index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between the two racial/ethnic groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. An index value below 40 is generally considered low segregation, a value between 40 and 54 is considered a moderate level of segregation, and a value above 55 is a high level of segregation. Racial/ethnic segregation in Santa Barbara County increased between 2010 and 2019. Table 3 shows racial/ethnic segregation in Santa Barbara County using the dissimilarity index using data from HUD’s AFFH mapping tool. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the most segregated in the county compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Segregation between Black and White residents is moderate, since the racial dissimilarity index score is between 40 and 54 for 2019. Segregation between Non-White and White residents, between Hispanic and White residents, and between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is considered low, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are below 40 for 2019. Increasing rates of segregation could be attributed to greater concentrations of Black and Asian residents in urban areas due to the presence of services and lower housing costs in urban centers. In addition, wealthier, White residents could afford to move away from urban centers to the outlying areas of cities and rural parts of the county. 340
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-11 Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Santa Barbara County) Racial/Ethnic
Dissimilarity Index
1990 2000 2010 2019
Non-White/White 24.05 24.48 22.10 28.93
Black/White 49.03 38.24 33.75 41.95
Hispanic/White 24.03 28.85 24.25 31.11
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White
31.91 29.03 29.17 35.82
Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Mapping Tool – Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, 2022 It is also important to see if race and ethnic groups are also related to concentrated poverty and poor housing stock to identify potential inequities that may be a result of discriminatory housing policies or other barriers to affordable housing. In the Consortium, Native Americans/Alaskan Natives and Black and African Americans have the highest poverty rates, followed by Black or African American, then Hispanic population as seen in Table 4. Typically, in areas with predominantly White groups, the poverty trends are less. In comparison to the State, the region makes up about 74 percent White population versus 61 percent of the state, as seen in Table 5 below. Hispanics make up the next largest racial group, with a total of 46 percent Hispanic population in the Consortium, compared to just 39 percent total in the state of California.
341
H-A-12 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table 4 Poverty and Racial/Ethnic Composition
Race/Ethnicity Santa Barbara County California (state)
# in Poverty % in Poverty # in Poverty % in Poverty
Consortium 51,861 15.9% 5,773,408 15.1%
White 36,393 14.8% 3,183,011 13.7%
Black or African American 1,303 21.1% 502,610 23.2%
Am. Indian/Alaska Native 649 22.3% 62,078 21.9%
Asian 3,096 18.8% 607,792 11.2%
N. Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 7 1.4% 21,470 14.5%
Some other race 8,331 21.0% 1,141,471 21.8%
Two or more races 2,082 14.4% 254,976 14.3%
Hispanic 29,674 19.5% 3,052,999 20.6%
Data note: “# in poverty” is the estimate of people in poverty in race/ethnicity group and “% in poverty” is the percent of the persons in poverty in the race/ethnicity group.
Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Source: 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 342
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-13 Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
343
H-A-14 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 2 Santa Barbara Predominant Race (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
344
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-15 Table 5 Racial and Ethnic Composition
Race Consortium California (state)
Estimate % of Total Estimate % of Total
White 330,827 74.1% 23,607,242 60.6%
Black or African American 8,307 2.0% 2,263,222 5.8%
Am. Indian/Alaska Native 3,869 .9% 292,018 0.7%
Asian 23,927 5.8% 5,503,672 14.1%
N. Hawaiian/Other PI 732 0.2% 152,027 0.4%
Some other race 55,909 12.7% 5,329,952 13.7%
Two or more races 19,425 4.6% 1,834,714 4.7%
Hispanic 198,556 46.0% 15,105,860 38.8%
Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Local Trends
The City of Solvang is predominantly and sizably White, as seen in Figure 3, with the southern area in the city predominantly White. When compared to the Consortium, the City of Solvang is approximately 89 percent White compared to 74 percent of the Consortium, based on the 2013-2017 ACS estimates shown in Table 6. Figure 4 shows the level of diversity in the population in Solvang by Census block group data, showing the areas with the most diversity west of Alisal Road and north and south of Mission Drive in the center of the city. The northern area has the least diversity in the city.
As shown in Figure 3, the southern part of the city had a predominant majority of White residents. This part of the city consists of the Alisal Golf Course and Alisal Ranch, as well as low density single-family housing, while other parts of the city have a greater diversity of land uses and a mix of housing types and density. Additionally, the southern part of the city is part of a large census tract that primarily includes unincorporated parts of the county. The unincorporated areas and the southern part of Solvang are accounted for in the analysis of racial/ethnic diversity. Rural areas of the county tend to have less racial/ethnic diversity.
345
H-A-16 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 3 Predominant Population – White (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
346
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-17 Figure 4 Racial Demographics (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
347
H-A-18 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table 6 Racial and Ethnic Composition in Consortium by Percentage of Population Member
Cities White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian/Alaska
Native Asian
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Some
Other
Race
Two
or
More
Races
Hispanic
Ethnicity
Buellton 85.8 2.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 6.1 4.2 29.4
Carpinteria 73.3 0.4 0.9 3.8 0.0 18.6 3.0 45.1
Goleta 69.1 1.9 0.6 8.7 0.1 14.5 5.1 36.4
Lompoc 64.4 5.1 1.9 3.3 0.3 17.6 7.4 56.7
Santa
Maria
73.4 1.3 0.4 5.2 0.1 16.7 2.8 74.6
Solvang 88.8 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 6.5 2.7 27.1
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Estimates, 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity includes access to housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s special needs and disability-related services as required under federal civil rights law. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.1
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureaudesignated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.2 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit. In addition to having to overcome barriers such as housing discrimination and accessible housing units, people with disabilities are typically on a fixed income and as a result, will often face financial hardships at higher rates when compared to the average person.
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 10 percent of Santa Barbara residents had one or more disabilities. An estimated 9.4 percent of the total population of the Consortium (32,314 residents) had a disability of some sort, leaving a large portion of the population out of reach for 1 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 2 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
348
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-19 accessible and affordable housing. Figure 5 shows the spatial distribution of residents living with one or more disabilities across the county. Communities in the central region of the county such as Lompoc, Orcutt, and eastern Santa Maria and some coastal areas in Goleta and Santa Barbara were estimated to have a larger share of residents with disabilities compared to western coastal areas and central southern areas of Santa Ynez. Among those with disabilities, it is also typical across the County and State for those with disabilities to have other constraints. Most tend to be elderly, where roughly half of those with disabilities in the Consortium are 75 years and over, and 21 percent is 65 to 74 years (Table 7). In addition to that, minority groups also experience higher rates of disability across the board, as seen in Table 8.
349
H-A-20 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 5 Persons with Disabilities (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer 2022
350
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-21 Table 7 Disability and Age (Santa Barbara County and Solvang) Santa Barbara County Solvang
With a Disability % of Age Group With a Disability % of Age Group Persons with a
disability 43,333 9.9% 602 10.6%
Under 5 Years 120 0.4% 7 3.5%
5 to 17 Years 2,770 3.9% 0 0.0%
18 to 34 Years 5,926 4.7% 25 2.4%
35 to 64 Years 14,188 9.6% 123 5.6%
65 to 74 Years 7,014 20.2% 141 22.7%
75 Years and Over 13,315 46.4% 306 50.1%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S1810, 2015-2019 Estimates Table 8 Disabilities among Racial and Ethnic Groups by Percentage of Population Member
Cities White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian/Alaska
Native Asian
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Some
Other
Race
Two
or
More
Races
Hispanic
Ethnicity
Buellton 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 12.3 6.5 49.0
Carpinteria 11.6 12.3 16.0 3.8 0.0 18.6 3.0 45.1
Goleta 10.7 5.9 0.0 2.6 53.3 2.6 4.6 5.4
Lompoc 12.7 17.6 19.4 7.2 27.4 7.0 11.0 7.4
Santa
Maria
9.5 15.9 21.1 9.9 15.4 5.1 9.6 5.7
Solvang 12.8 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 11.3 5.4
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2019, 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Local Trends
According to the AI, Solvang is among the top 3 jurisdictions for disability rates throughout the Consortium. ACS 2015-2019 estimates show a total of 602 persons with disabilities reside within the City of Solvang, which is approximately 10.6 percent of the population. A high percentage of those with disabilities are elderly. Approximately 36.3 percent of Solvang residents over the age of 65 have one or more disabilities. Feedback from the City’s Fair Housing Survey identified a need for ADA compliant 351
H-A-22 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 housing to accommodate older residents with disabilities. Figure 6 depicts the percentage and even distribution of the population with a disability residing in the city. Throughout the city, there are no areas have a concentration of residents living with a disability. 352
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-23 Figure 6 Population with a Disability (City of Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
353
H-A-24 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Familial Status
According to the Fair Housing Act, familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the marital status of the head of households. Protections to this class is an important requirement in addressing income disparities and economic outcomes for families, especially for households with children, as research shows higher housing discrimination when compared to households without children. HUD provides examples of familial discrimination as (a) refusing to rent to families with children; (b) evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody; (c) requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas; (d) imposing overly restrictive rules about children’s use of the common areas (e.g., pools, hallways, open spaces); and I advertising that prohibits children.3 Single-parent households are protected by Government Code Section 65583(a)(7). Because of their relatively lower incomes and higher living expenses, single-parent households can have limited options for affordable, decent, and safe housing. As a result, single parents among the groups most at risk of experiencing poverty.
In addition to barriers to fair housing for single-parent households, large families (defined as families with 5 or more persons) can also experience housing discrimination as property owners impose occupancy limitations that can preclude large families with children. HUD data shows that familial status discrimination ranks third in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination due to disability and race.4
Regional Trends
According to the AI, familial status was second most common fair housing complaint in the County of Santa Barbara. According to 2015-2019 estimates, Santa Barbara County had a total of 145,856 households. Households with children present comprised approximately 29 percent (41,957) of the total households in the county. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table
9. High percentages of children living in a female headed household or single parent households reside in areas with higher concentrations of predominantly non-White communities. This includes cities in the northwest and southeast regions, including Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Figure 8 shows that areas of the county with a higher percentage of children living in female single-parent households were located in more urban areas, in and surrounding the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Solvang, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Female single-parent households are often living on a single income. Therefore, urban areas which typically have lower housing costs and greater access to services like childcare generally have a higher percentage of female single-parent households.
As shown in Figure 9, areas with the highest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located along the coast, in western and southern parts of the county. Areas with the lowest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located in more urban areas, particularly in the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, Isla Vista, and Santa Barbara. Isla Vista is located in proximity to the University of 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/discrimination_against_families_children#_ Who_Is_Protected?
4U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2017.” 354
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-25 California, Santa Barbara which would account for the low percentage of adults living with a spouse.
Figure 10 shows the percentage of adults living alone was highest in the cities of Lompoc and Santa Barbara. This could be due to the lower cost of housing and greater access to jobs in urban areas. 355
H-A-26 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 7 shows that concentrated areas in the cities of Lompoc and Goleta include almost 40-80 percent of children living a single or female household.
Table 9 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Santa Barbara County) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent OwnerOccupied Renter-OccupiedPercent RenterOccupied Married-couple family, with
Children Present
14,947 19.8% 14,680 21.2%
Single-Parent, Male
householder, no
spouse/partner present
1,075 1.4% 2,884 4.2%
Single-Parent, Female
householder, no
spouse/partner present
1,659 2.2% 7,150 10.3%
Total Households with
Children Present
17,681 23.4% 24,714 35.7%
Total Households 75,640 69,322
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.
Figure 8 shows that areas of the county with a higher percentage of children living in female singleparent households were located in more urban areas, in and surrounding the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Solvang, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Female single-parent households are often living on a single income. Therefore, urban areas which typically have lower housing costs and greater access to services like childcare generally have a higher percentage of female single-parent households.
As shown in Figure 9, areas with the highest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located along the coast, in western and southern parts of the county. Areas with the lowest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located in more urban areas, particularly in the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, Isla Vista, and Santa Barbara. Isla Vista is located in proximity to the University of California, Santa Barbara which would account for the low percentage of adults living with a spouse.
Figure 10 shows the percentage of adults living alone was highest in the cities of Lompoc and Santa Barbara. This could be due to the lower cost of housing and greater access to jobs in urban areas. 356
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-27 Figure 7 Children in Married – Couple Households (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
357
H-A-28 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
358
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-29 Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
359
H-A-30 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
360
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-31 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Solvang had a total of 2,364 households. Households with children present comprised 30 percent (709) of the total households in the county. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table 10. In Solvang, around 9.2 percent of children live in a single-parent, female household. Figure 11 shows the distribution of single-parent, female headed households, the highest concentration of which are located in the central areas of the city. Families, particularly female-headed families, are disproportionately affected by poverty. Children living in married-couple households are evenly distributed throughout the city, with 40 to 60 percent of children living in married-couple households, as seen in Figure 12. Additional analysis regarding household characteristics for Solvang is included in the Housing Needs Assessment.
Table 10 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Solvang) Household Type
OwnerOccupiedPercent OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedPercent RenterOccupied Married-couple family, with
Children Present
289 20.0% 115 12.5%
Single-Parent, Male householder,
no spouse/partner present
6 0.4% 81 8.8%
Single-Parent, Female
householder, no spouse/partner
present
59 4.1% 159 17.3%
Total Households with Children
Present
354 24.5% 355 38.6%
Total Households 1,445 919
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates. 361
H-A-32 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 11 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
362
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-33 Figure 12 Children in Married – Couple Households (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
363
H-A-34 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Household Income
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI)). Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases.
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates shown in Table 11, Santa Barbara County had a median household income of $74,624. Figure 13 provides median household income data by block group for Santa Barbara County. LMI areas are concentrated throughout the northwestern, central inland and coastal southern areas of the county as seen in Figure 13. In the northwestern county area, LMI areas are highly concentrated in parts of Santa Maria and Lompoc. In the central inland area, concentrations can be seen in Solvang and Buellton. In the southern coastal portion of the county, clusters of LMI areas are seen in the City of Goleta, the City of Santa Barbara, and in some parts of the City of Carpinteria. Households that earn less annually, are typically concentrated within city limits in urban areas, versus rural fringe areas.
Higher income households make up much of the central coastal and inland areas with much of the population earning greater than $125,000 per household annually, exceeding the HCD 2020 State median income (Figure 14). Surrounding areas earn over $87,100 per household annually, which meets the HCD 2020 State median income. Data shown in Figure 14 is represented by block group, and groups meeting or exceeding the state median income are mostly present throughout the City of Santa Barbara, northern Carpinteria, and outer edges of Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Goleta. Higher earners are typically located in rural or fringe areas, and rarely in the city centers. 364
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-35 Figure 13 Lower- and Moderate- Income Areas ( Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
365
H-A-36 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 14 Household Income (Santa Barbara County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
366
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-37 Table 11 Median Household Income in Consortium Region
Municipalities 2010 2017 Percent Change 2010-
2017
Unincorporated Santa
Barbara County
$60,078 $68,023 13.2%
Buellton $63,988 $77,462 21.0%
Carpinteria $63,834 $69,834 9.4%
Goleta $67,895 $87,068 28.0%
Lompoc $46,932 $49,074 4.6%
Santa Maria $50,208 $55,485 10.5%
Solvang $61,289 $73,373 19.7%
California $60,883 $67,169 10.3%
Source: 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Solvang had a median household income of $83,431 in 2019.
Solvang’s median household income is higher than the county’s median income and is increasing by almost double the rate of surrounding cities with the exception of Buellton and Goleta (Table 11). As shown in Table 12, between 2014 and 2018, approximately 68 percent of Solvang households were considered moderate or above-moderate income, while 32 percent of households were considered lower income.
Table 12 Households by Income Category (2014-2018)
Income Category (% of County AMI) Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 260 11%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 145 6%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 350 15%
Moderate (81 to 100% AMI) 195 8%
Above-Moderate (over 100% AMI) 1,415 60%
Total 2,365 100%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.
As depicted in Figure 15, lower- and moderate-income households are located mostly in the southern area of the city, south of the Santa Ynez River. In this area, between 50 and 75 percent of the population 367
H-A-38 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 was comprised of LMI residents. However, this area is predominantly composed of the Alisal Ranch and golf course, a resort and vacation destination, and surrounded by large-lot single-family homes.
Therefore, the limited residents in this southern area of the city are likely not LMI households. Further north, the percentage of LMI populations decreases, with the northern area of the city having the least concentrated LMI. Median household income is also greater in the northern area of the city, where median income exceeds $125,000 annually, compared to central and southern areas of the city, as seen in Figure 16.
By HUD’s definition, households paying more than 30 percent of their monthly household income is cost burdened. According to the AI, renters are by far the most cost burdened group in the consortium.
As seen in Table 13, renters in Solvang earn substantially less in median household income when compared to homeowners. Stakeholders and focus group respondents from community outreach note that rents continue to rise and exceed this figure.
Table 13 Housing Tenure and Median Household Income
Occupied Housing
Units Percent Occupied
Median Household
Income
Owner-occupied 1,482 62.3% 118,483
Renter-occupied 898 37.7% 63,889
Total 2,380 100.0% 83,431
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2019, 2019 Inflation-adjusted dollars 368
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-39 Figure 15 Low to Moderate Income Population (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
369
H-A-40 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 16 Median Household Income
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
370
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-41 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (also known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold, as well as a poverty test. For an area to be identified as having a racial and ethnic concentration, the threshold is that a R/ECAP have a non-White population of 50 percent or more, within metropolitan or micropolitan areas. In locations outside these areas, where the non-White populations are likely to be much smaller than 50 percent, the threshold is set at 20 percent. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or those where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration and also meets the poverty test would be considered a R/ECAP.
Historical discriminatory policies have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, and despite decades long fair housing policy, many neighborhoods have not yet transformed from racially and ethnically concentrated areas to areas of opportunity. Areas with higher concentrations of poverty can be indicative of discriminatory housing policies and other barriers to affordable housing.
Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
In Santa Barbara County, there are no R/ECAPs. However, there are areas with concentrated poverty in the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Isla Vista, Goleta, and Santa Barbara, as depicted in Figure 17. In addition, there is one census tract in the City of Lompoc that is identified by TCAC as an area of high segregation and poverty, shown in Figure 18. According to the AI, three cities (Buellton, Carpinteria, and Goleta) experienced a decrease in poverty between 2010 and 2017. The overall county and cities of Lompoc, Santa Maria, and Solvang had an increase in poverty between 2010 and 2017. Solvang had the highest increase in poverty, with a 145 percent increase from 2010 to 2017. 371
H-A-42 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 17 Concentrated Areas of Poverty (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
372
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-43 Figure 18 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
373
H-A-44 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Local Trends
Solvang does not have any R/ECAPs. As shown in Figure 19, Solvang does not have any concentrated areas of poverty. Poverty rates are consistent throughout the city, with less than 10 percent of the population living below the poverty level. Figure 20 shows neighborhood segregation in Lompoc using data from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP). According to the UDP, the racial/ethnic composition varies throughout the City. The predominant racial/ethnic composition in the northern part of the city is a mix of Hispanic/White. The predominant racial/ethnic composition in the southern part of the city is a 3-part mix of Hispanic/White/Other. When compared to other jurisdictions in the County, Solvang has experienced the largest poverty percent change from 6 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2017, totaling a 145 percent change from 2010 to 2017. Increasing poverty rates in the city could be attributed to the growing senior population. Seniors are often living on a fixed income, such as Social Security, which often is much lower than the area median income. 374
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-45 Figure 19 Poverty Status (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
375
H-A-46 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 20 Neighborhood Segregation (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
376
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-47 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. HCD defines an RCAA as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.5
Regional Trends
According to the AI, median household income in 2017 in Santa Barbara County ($68,023) is comparable to that of California ($67,169). However, median household income varies widely among the cities within the County. For example, Lompoc ($49,074) and Santa Maria ($55,485) have much lower median household incomes compared to cities such as Goleta ($87,068), Buellton ($77,462) and Solvang ($73,373) which have higher median household incomes. Cities like Carpinteria ($69,834) are more comparable to the MHI of the county and state. Figure 21 highlights the predominantly White census tracts within Santa Barbara County which are concentrated in the central and southeast areas along the coast in areas such as Santa Ynez, portions of Solvang and Buellton, Goleta, Montecito, and Carpinteria. Generally, these predominantly White areas are associated with areas of high median income as seen in Figure 16.
There are several RCAAs within Santa Barbara County located in and around the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara. These areas are predominantly White and have high median incomes. Figure 22 shows the RCAAs within Santa Barbara County. Areas with the highest concentration of White residents are generally located north of the City of Solvang as well as areas in and around the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara. This corresponds with the areas that have the highest median incomes in the county.
Areas with a lower concentration of White residents are generally located in and near the cities of Guadalupe, Santa Maria, and Lompoc.
5 HCD. April 2021. AFFH Guidance for all Public Entities and for Housing Elements. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 377
H-A-48 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 21 Predominant White Population (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
378
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-49 Figure 22 Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
379
H-A-50 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Local Trends
Median Household Income in Solvang is comparable to higher Median Household Incomes in the County. While there are no RCAAs areas in Solvang, low density residential zoning correlates with predominant White populations and populations with higher median income. Racial/ethnic diversity is highest in the middle of Solvang, where higher density residential land uses are prevalent (Figure 4) compared to areas in the north with larger, more rural lots.
Areas with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of White residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes. The northern area of the city has the highest median income and the lowest percentage of non-White residents in the city, as shown in Figure 23. 380
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-51 Figure 23 Percent Total Non-White Population and Median Income (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
381
H-A-52 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity often means both improving the quality of life for residents of low income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses access to education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).
Transit Access and Walkability
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices. Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low income neighborhoods.6 The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice.
Persons who depend on public transit may have limited choices regarding places to live.
Regional Trends
AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The data is scored from 1-9. According to AllTransit, cities with the lowest performance scores in Santa Barbara County were Buellton (1.2), Solvang (1.2), Lompoc (3.2), and Santa Maria (4.3). Overall, low scores were generated from a low number of transit routes within a half mile paired with a low number of jobs accessible. Carpinteria (6.3), the City of Santa Barbara (6.4), and Goleta (5.4), scored a moderate combination of trips per week enabling a moderate number of people to take transit to work.
Figure 24 shows the region’s transit system which provides services to the majority of the populated areas. The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District provides services for the entirety of urbanized areas in the south coast. In the north coast, four different service providers connect the subregion. The northern and southern regions are connected by the Clean Air Express commuter services. This connection is critical as there is a greater diversity and number of jobs in the south coast. An expensive housing market in the south coast leaves many seeking housing on the north coast, where housing is more affordable.
6 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles”. UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998).
382
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-53 However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Low-income workers, especially female heads of household with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home, regardless of access to public transit. Women in general are disproportionately responsible for household-supporting activities such as trips to grocery stores or accompanying young children to and from schools.
Local Trends
Solvang has an AllTransit performance score of 1.2, with approximately 1.0 percent of commuters using transit. This score is lower than Santa Barbara County, which has a performance score of 8.8.
Walk Score is a tool that produces a walkability index by assigning a numerical walkability score to cities and neighborhoods. Walkability is measured by analyzing population density, distance to amenities, and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. Solvang has a walk score of 19 out of 100, which means the city is considered car dependent and almost all errands require a car.
Santa Ynez Valley Transit provides bus service in the Santa Ynez Valley, and the City of Solvang is the service administrator for the joint powers authority. Santa Ynez Valley Transit has two fixed-routes and Dial-A-Ride services for seniors and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) certified patrons. The fixedroute service provides connections between Buellton, Solvang, Santa Ynez, and Los Olivos. Riders are provided a demand response (Dial-A-Ride) service on Sundays, and service from Monday through Saturday between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The City of Lompoc provides a Wine Country Express, servicing Solvang each weekday with three trips throughout the day. Additionally, Amtrak has bus stops in Solvang for regional connection.
Based on the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, the highest percentage of transit dependent people are those over the age of 65. Solvang contains double the percentage of elderly transit dependent people (21 percent) to other northern county cities (10 percent). Feedback from the City’s Fair Housing Survey identified the importance of public transportation to commercial centers for seniors who may not be able to drive. Other transit dependent people in the area are those aged under
14. Where 17 percent of the population is transit dependent. 383
H-A-54 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 24 Public Transit and Affordable Housing (Santa Barbara County) Source: SBCAG Connected 2050 RTP-SCS
384
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-55 Access to Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores measure educational outcomes using math and reading proficiency (the percentage of 4th graders who met or exceed math proficiency standards), high school graduation rates (the percentage of high school cohorts that graduate on time) and student poverty indicators (the percent of students not receiving free or reduced-priced lunch). The TCAC education domain scores are derived from 2018- 2019 Department of Education data. This analysis incorporates demographic and socio-economic measures to spatially evaluate access to educational opportunities at the census tract level.
Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Santa Barbara County is illustrated in Figure 25. Positive education outcomes are common through the central and eastern and southeastern coastal areas of Santa Barbara County and lower education outcomes are prevalent in the northwest portion of the county. The areas with the highest educational scores correlate to areas with predominantly White populations, such as areas like Buellton, Solvang, Santa Ynez, Goleta, Montecito, and areas of Orcutt (Figure 21). Areas with lower education outcomes correspond with areas with higher concentrations of poverty (Figure 17) and higher concentrations of low- and moderate income households (Figure 13) such as neighborhoods in Santa Maria and Lompoc.
Local Trends
Solvang is served by the Solvang School District, Ballard School District, and Santa Ynez Union High School District. The Solvang School District consists of one school, Solvang Elementary, which serves grades K-8 and has a student enrollment of approximately 600 students.7 A small portion of the northern area of Solvang is located within the Ballard School District, which consists of one school, Ballard Elementary, for students K-6.8 Santa Ynez Union High School District consists of two schools, Refugio High and Santa Ynez Valley Union high, with a total student population of about 8649.
Figure 26 shows Solvang’s TCAC scores related to access to education on a census tract level. The entire city has more positive education outcomes.
7 National Center for Education Statistics
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0637110 8 http://www.ed-data.org/district/Santa-Barbara/Santa-Ynez-Valley-Union-High 9 National Center for Education Statistics
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0635850 385
H-A-56 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 25 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
386
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-57 Figure 26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
387
H-A-58 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic outcomes. Access to high-quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract and consider poverty (the percent of the population with an income above 200 percent of the federal poverty line), adult education (the percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above), employment (the percent of adults between age 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or armed forces), job proximity (the number of jobs filled with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a determined radius), and median home values (the value of owner-occupied units). A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 10 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.
Regional Trends
According to the Regional AI, the unemployment rate of Santa Barbara County is steadily decreasing.
However, this trend assessment was made utilizing pre-COVID data. Since then, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in February 2022 that the County’s unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. This is still a downward trend in unemployment from 9 percent levels in 2010. 2015-2019 ACS estimates, show Santa Barbara County had a labor force participation rate of 64.1 percent of persons 16 years and older, which is approximately 0.3 percent higher than the labor force participation rate for the county in 2014.
Figure 27 shows a variety of economic outcomes across Santa Barbara County. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified in the western and southern portions of the county, west of Lompoc and near the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria. Conversely, the cities of Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Lompoc, and rural areas in the central and eastern portions of the county had concentrations of census tracts with less positive economic outcomes. Estimates from the California Employment Development Department show that the average salary in Santa Barbara County in 2021 was $64,528. An overview of mean salary by occupation is provided in Table 14.
Table 14 Mean Salary by Occupation (Santa Barbara County) Occupation Average Salary
Management Occupations $128,272
Legal Occupations $124,371
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $111,152
10 MTC 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities 388
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-59 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $112,612 Architecture and Engineering Occupations $108,261
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $83,242
Business and Financial Operations Occupations $86,277
Construction and Extraction Occupations $62,859
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations $70,789
Protective Service Occupations $78,664
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $82,548 Community and Social Service Occupations $63,631
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $57,852 Sales and Related Occupations $48,551
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $50,389
Production Occupations $44,787
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $42,201
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations $40,659
Personal Care and Service Occupations $42,397
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $34,257
Healthcare Support Occupations $38,900
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $38,101 All Occupations $64,528
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage Data, 2022 389
H-A-60 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 27 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
390
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-61 Local Trends
Known for its rich culture in Danish tradition and architecture, Solvang is a nationwide tourist destination, providing the residents economic opportunity to offer arts and entertainment for tourists.
The largest occupational category in Solvang is arts/entertainment/recreation, followed by manufacturing. These two categories accounted for just under half of all the jobs in Solvang. According to ACS 2015-2019 estimates, education/health/social services and professional services are the next largest categories, which consist of 11.8 percent and 11.5 percent of all jobs, respectively. In contrast to the county, the smallest occupational category in Solvang is agriculture/forestry/hunting/ fishing/mining. Agriculture/forestry/hunting/fishing/mining is the third largest occupational category in Santa Barbara County, making up approximately, 10.3 percent of all jobs in the county. Table 15 summarizes employment characteristics by industry for Solvang and Santa Barbara County.
The Economic Development Strategic Plan for the City of Solvang, updated in 2016, outlined key initiatives for expanding Solvang’s retail and service economy to create year-round opportunity for retail and hospitality sectors in Solvang. The plan worked to complement Solvang’s commercial character while providing revenue for both Solvang and the Santa Ynez valley through regional attractions such as wine touring, cycling and outdoor recreation. Retail and hospitality jobs generally fall under the sales, food preparation and serving, and building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupational categories which typically have lower mean annual wages compared to the overall county mean salary. 391
H-A-62 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table 15 2014-2018 Employment Characteristics (Solvang and Santa Barbara County) Industry 2014-2018 ACS
% of City
Employment
% of County
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and hunting,
mining
0.8 10.3
Construction 3.4 6.7
Manufacturing 17.8 8.4
Wholesale Trade 1.7 2.5
Retail Trade 6.0 8.0
Transportation and warehousing, Utilities 1.3 3.6
Information 1.2 2.0
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 3.5 5.5
Professional Services 11.5 12.8
Education, health, and social services 11.8 20.9
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 25.0 9.1
Other Services, except Public Administration 10.0 4.8
Public Administration 6.1 5.4
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage Data, 2022 According to the TCAC opportunity map for economic outcomes, shown in Figure 28, the entire city has less positive economic outcomes.
As shown on Figure 29, access to jobs is highest in the center of Solvang, particularly along Mission Drive. This reflects the arts/entertainments/recreation job availability, as this area is central to the tourist downtown area. The index score of 60-80 is the highest jobs proximity for Solvang, where the very northern and southern portions have a score of 40-60. This is consistent with land uses throughout the city. The northern and west areas of Solvang primarily consist of low density residential development, and the southern area consists of low density residential development, Alisal Golf Course, and Alisal Ranch. The central area of the city along Mission Drive include uses with greater number of jobs, with a mix of lower and moderate density residential development and commercial, professional-office, and industrial development.
Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table 16. About 3.6 percent of the total employed, and 0.0 percent of total unemployed population had a disability, according to 2010-2014 392
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-63 ACS estimates. ACS estimates for 2015-2019 show those employed who had a disability increase to about 4.1 percent of total employed population and those unemployed who had a disability increased to 3.9 percent.
Table 16 Employment Status by Disability Status (Solvang) 2010-2014 2015-2019
% of Total
Employed
% of Total
Unemployed
% of Total
Employed
% of Total
Unemployed
No Disability 2,245 (96.4%) 293 (100%) 2,664 (95.9%) 148 (96.1%) With a Disability 84 (3.6%) 0 (0%) 113 (4.1%) 6 (3.9%)
Total 2,329 293 2,777 154
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
393
H-A-64 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
394
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-65 Figure 29 Job Proximity Index (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
395
H-A-66 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Healthy Environment
Access to a healthy environment is necessary for the communities found within the city to thrive.
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses patterns in the disparities found within the different neighborhoods and protected area groups. As previously mentioned, these disparities can vary from air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). High scoring census tracts tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and are most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status.
Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map shows the majority of Santa Barbara County has relatively low overall percentile scores, ranging from 1 to 50. Areas with higher CalEnviroScreen percentile scores, are generally located in urban centers, particularly within the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. These areas with higher percentile scores correspond with areas that have higher nonWhite populations, higher LMI populations, and higher poverty rates. Figure 30 shows that the Northern region within and west of the city of Santa Maria and parts of the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara have the highest scores of the region and are most impacted by/vulnerable to pollution. Rural areas of the county generally have low percentile scores. The highest score is shown in the areas of the county west of Santa Maria, which could be explained by the air quality impacts from the coastal dunes and activities occurring there.
396
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-67 Figure 30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Santa Barbara Region) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
397
H-A-68 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Local Trends
Solvang has relatively low CalEnviroScreen percentile scores, ranging from the 10th to 20th percentile, which indicates census tracts in Solvang have a healthier environment compared to 80 to 90 percent of census tracts in the state. Compared to other parts of the county, Solvang has a better CalEnviroScreen percentile score than western and northeastern parts of the county. Figure 31 shows CalEnviroScreen percentile scores for Solvang. The northern census tract in the city scores slightly higher than the southern census tract. CalEnviroScreen states the southern census tract contains or is nearby waterbodies containing nine impairments. However, this census tract is very large and primarily includes rural areas outside of Solvang, within the unincorporated areas of the county. Therefore, residents within Solvang are not necessarily exposed to contaminated waterbodies.
Solvang’s CalEnviroScreen scores are considered low, and no SB 535 disadvantaged communities are present in the city. Figure 32 shows TCAC environmental scores for Solvang and reinforces CalEnviroScreen data suggesting the northern area has more positive environmental outcomes compared to the southern area. However, when accounting for socioeconomic conditions and the presence sensitive populations, the southern tract has a healthier environmental outcome than the northern tract, as shown in Figure 31.
398
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-69 Figure 31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Solvang) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
399
H-A-70 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
400
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-71 Disproportionate Housing Needs,
Including Displacement
Disproportionate Housing Needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.
Cost Burden
Cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs.
Households spending a minimum of 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs are considered cost burdened, whereas households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low income households and persons in protected classes typically disproportionately experience housing cost burden.
Regional Trends
According to HUD CHAS 2014 – 2018 estimates, there are a total of 144,960 households throughout the Santa Barbara region. Of this total, about 15 percent of owner-occupied and 25 percent of renteroccupied households are cost burdened, respectively. According to the AI, the general trend shows that rent costs continue to increase. The City of Carpinteria saw the largest increase in average rent costs of 32 percent between 2010 and 2017. Table 17 breaks down costs between unit types in Santa Barbara County.
Table 17 Average Rent for Home or Apartment (2020)
Santa
Barbara,
County Buellton
Carpinteria Goleta LompocSanta
Maria Solvang
Studio Apartment $1,847 $1,722 $1,941 $1,884 $1,523 $1,552 $1,883 1 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$2,124 $1,981 $2,232 $2,166 $1,752 $1,784 $2,166
2 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$2,478 $2,311 $2,604 $2,527 $2,044 $2,082 $2,526
401
H-A-72 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 3 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$3,266 $3,046 $3,432 $3,331 $2,693 $2,744 $3,330
4 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$3,733 $3,500 $3,922 $3,807 $3,079 $3,136 $3,806
Source: bestplaces.net Data Engine, 2022
Figure 33 shows overpayment by renters throughout the region. Western and urban areas within the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Santa Barbara have between 60 and 80 percent of renter households paying 30 percent or more of household income on housing. Isla Vista has the highest percent of overpayment by renters in the county, with over 80 percent of renter households in some areas that are cost burdened, likely tied to the University of California Santa Barbara and the low levels of incomes of students.
402
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-73 Figure 33 Overpayment by Renters (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
403
H-A-74 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Local Trends
Housing cost burden affects a substantial portion of households in Solvang, as displayed in Table 18.
In most of the city, between 40 and 60 percent of renter households are overpaying for housing. The southern part of the city has the rate of lowest cost burden, with 20 to 40 percent of households overpaying for housing. However, most of the area consists of Alisal Ranch and Golf Course and the limited number of housing units in this area consist of large, single-family homes. As seen in Table 18, over half of renters and almost one third of homeowners in Solvang are cost burdened. Lower income households and renters are more likely to experience housing problems, including cost burden than owners or moderate/above-moderate income households.
Table 18 Housing Cost Burden (Solvang)
Household by Tenure,
Income, and Housing
Problem
Renters Owners Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely Low Income
(0-30% AMI)
115 145 260
With any housing
problem
115 100.0% 115 79.3% 230 88.5%
With cost burden >30% 115 100.0% 115 79.3% 230 88.5%
With cost burden >50% 115 100.0% 115 79.3% 230 88.5%
Very Low Income (31-
50% AMI)
125 45 170
With any housing
problem
115 92.0% 0 0.0% 115 67.7%
With cost burden >30% 110 88.0% 0 0.0% 110 64.7%
With cost burden >50% 30 24.0% 0 0.0% 30 17.7%
Low Income (51-80%
AMI)
510 1,115 1,625
With any housing
problem
200 39.2% 240 21.5% 440 27.1%
With cost burden >30% 120 23.5% 239 21.4% 359 22.1%
With cost burden >50% 0 0.0% 74 6.6% 74 4.6%
Moderate & AboveModerate Income (>80%
AMI)
900 1,480 2,380
404
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-75 With any housing
problem
550 61.1% 445 30.1% 995 41.7%
With cost burden >30% 465 51.7% 449 30.3% 914 38.4%
With cost burden >50% 250 27.8% 259 17.5% 509 21.4%
Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.
Cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30% of monthly income.
Severe cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release
405
H-A-76 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 34 Overpayment of Renters (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
406
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-77 Substandard Housing
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as a factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs.
Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.
Regional Trends
As of 2019, approximately 79 percent of all housing units in Santa Barbara County were built before 1990. These older units potentially require minor repairs and modernization improvements. Reflecting the housing boom that occurred during the 1980s, 15 percent of the County’s housing stock was constructed between 1980 and 1989.
Figure 35 Housing Stock Age (2014-2018)
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2019; Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2014-2018.
Local Trends
In Solvang approximately 80 percent of all housing units were built prior to 1990, which is comparable to Santa Barbara County. Almost half of the city’s housing stock was constructed in the 1970s and 1980s.
Built
2014 or
later
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1939 or
earlier
Santa Barbara 1.50% 2.00% 7.80% 9.90% 14.90% 18.60% 20.10% 12.80% 3.90% 8.60% Solvang 3.60% 1.30% 4.60% 11% 23% 23.10% 11.10% 12.30% 4.60% 5.50%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Santa Barbara Solvang
407
H-A-78 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table 19 summarizes the availability of plumbing and kitchen facilities for housing units in Solvang. In the past, lack of telephone service was also an indicator of housing conditions. Today, with the widespread availability of cell and internet phone services, many households have chosen not to install land line telephone services, and availability of telephone service is no longer considered an indicator of substandard housing conditions. As shown in Table 19, as little as 1.2 percent of housing lack plumbing and/or kitchen facilities.
Table 19 Substandard Units (2019)
Condition Number Percentage
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 10 <0.0%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 19 0.8%
Total occupied substandard units 29 1.2%
Total occupied units 2,380
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2019 Table B25053 and B25049 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is reflective of various living conditions; some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing but may instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home.
Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations:
(1) a family lives in a home that is too small; (2) a family chooses to house extended family members; or (3) unrelated individuals or families are doubling up to afford housing. However, cultural differences also contribute to the overcrowded conditions since some cultures tend to have a larger household size than others due to the preference of living with extended family members.
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger families, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.
408
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-79 Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 5-Year ACS estimates, 13.1 percent of households are overcrowded, and
6.3 percent of households are severely overcrowded throughout the county. Table 20 compares the levels of overcrowding of renters and owners in Solvang and Santa Barbara County. A higher proportion of renter households compared to owner households experienced overcrowding.
Table 20 Overcrowding by Tenure
Renter-Occupied
Households
Owner-Occupied
Households
Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Solvang
Overcrowded (1+ occupants
per room)
72 7.8% 7 0.5% 79 3.3%
Severely Overcrowded (1.5+
occupants per room)
60 6.5% 0 0.0% 60 2.5%
Santa Barbara County
Overcrowded (1+ occupants
per room)
11,837 17.1% 3,573 4.7% 15,410 10.6%
Severely Overcrowded (1.5+
occupants per room)
4,655 6.7% 1,034 1.37% 5,689 3.92%
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, Table B25014.
Figure 36 shows the percent of households that are overcrowded throughout Santa Barbara County.
The prevalence of overcrowding varies among jurisdictions, with the highest percentage of overall overcrowding occurring in northwestern areas in Santa Maria, and Lompoc, followed by areas in the City of Santa Barbara and areas of Carpentaria and Isla Vista. These areas with the highest percent of overcrowding in the North Coast overlap with high proportions of minority residents and lower median incomes.
Local Trends
Based on 2015-2019 5-Year ACS estimates, 2.5 percent of households are overcrowded in Solvang. A higher proportion of renter households (7.8 percent) are overcrowded compared to owner households (0.5 percent). Figure 37 shows the distribution of overcrowded households in Solvang. Overcrowding throughout Solvang is lower than the statewide average. 409
H-A-80 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 36 Overcrowding (Santa Barbara County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer 2022
410
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-81 Figure 37 Overcrowding (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
411
H-A-82 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Homelessness
California Government Code Section 65583(1)(6) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; or • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
• A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
• An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
• A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Regional Trends
According to the 2022 Santa Barbara County Point-In-Time Count, approximately 1,962 persons experiencing homelessness reside in the county, an increase from the previous count in 2020. Pointin-time estimates are generally accepted as an undercount of the total unhoused. The county’s pointin-time count found that 76 percent of the homeless population had been experiencing homelessness for over one year. Additionally, 39 percent of the homeless population had a mental health disability, 26 percent had a physical disability, and 10 percent had a developmental disability. The majority of homeless individuals identified as White (83 percent), followed by Black/African American (8 percent), multiple races (4 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (3 percent). An overview of homelessness in Solvang and surrounding cities is provided in Table 21. 412
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-83 Table 21 Homelessness in Solvang and Surrounding Cities (2022) Jurisdiction Count
% of Total Homeless
Population in Santa Barbara County
Carpinteria 22 1.1%
Goleta 91 4.6%
Santa Barbara 822 41.9%
Isla Vista 112 5.7%
Lompoc 290 14.8%
Buellton/Solvang /Santa Ynez Valley 12 0.6%
Santa Maria 457 23.3%
Guadalupe 2 0.1%
Unincorporated 155 7.9%
Santa Barbara County Total 1,962 100%
Source: 2022 Santa Barbara County Point-In-Time Count, Santa Barbara County, 2022 Local Trends
According to the 2022 Santa Barbara County Point-In-Time Count, there are an estimated 12 persons considered to be homeless in Buellton/Solvang/Santa Ynez Valley. This is fewer than many other parts of the County, including the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, Isla Vista and Santa Barbara.
Compared to areas with higher numbers of persons considered to be homeless, Buellton/Solvang/Santa Ynez Valley has a smaller overall population and are located in further from denser and populated urban areas that have better access to services for those who are homeless.
Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk of or experiencing homelessness.
413
H-A-84 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 To analyze displacement risk, the UDP has established categories that reflect varying levels of displacement vulnerability. Areas categorized as susceptible to displacement are predominately low income or mixed income neighborhoods that may have experienced displacement but exhibit characteristics of neighborhood stability and affordability and have the potential to develop an increasing risk of displacement in the future. Areas categorized as at-risk of or experiencing gentrification refer to neighborhoods that demonstrate characteristics of increasing housing costs, changes in housing supply, and are located near communities that have also experienced increasing housing costs and an increasing risk of displacement in the future. The stable moderate/mixed income category refers to neighborhoods that have moderate- to high income residents that are not at-risk of becoming neighborhoods that exclude all but wealthy households. The stable/advanced exclusive category refers to neighborhoods that have exhibited characteristics of exclusion for long periods of time.
Regional Trends
According to the AI, residents located in the central inland, and parts of the South Coast portions of the County are facing relatively less risk of displacement. Households with high cost burdened rates are found in the North Coast area of the county, especially around Santa Maria and Lompoc. Some communities in South Coast also are facing risk of displacement.
Sensitive communities, as shown in Figure 38, represent areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. Sensitive communities at risk of displacement are concentrated throughout the urban areas in the county. In the northwestern part of the county, census tracts in Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Guadalupe, experience a greater risk of displacement than in more affluent cities such as Buellton. In the southern half of the county, there are some vulnerable communities in the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria. These areas are correlated to tracts that experience higher rates of overcrowding, overpayment, and tracts with higher percentages of non-White populations.
Local Trends
As shown in Figure 39, residents in the northern census tract are at risk of displacement. In the southern census tract, there is lower displacement risk. According to the AI, Solvang is one of three cities in the county that had an increase of median income between 2010 and 2017. Meanwhile, the AI identified that Solvang also experienced one of the largest increases of poverty from 2010 to 2017, from 6 percent of the total population to 15 percent, indicating an increasing gap in income for residents in Solvang. However, 2016-202 ACS estimates show the poverty rate in Solvang decreased to 7 percent.
The poverty rate among children under the age of 18 also decreased from 2017 to 2020, but remained high at approximately 13 percent. In addition, the AI states home values decreased by 4.7 percent and median rent costs increased by 29.7 percent between 2010 and 2017. In 2010 median home values were $723,900 and median rent was $1,165 and in 2017 median home values were $689,700 and median rent was $1,511. According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, median home value increased value increased by 5.1 percent between 2017 and 2020 and median rent decreased 13.0 percent to $725,100 and $1,315 respectively. The increasing income gap and increasing housing costs indicate, low income residents in Solvang may be at risk of displacement. Furthermore, nearly half of all renters experience 414
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-85 housing cost burden compared to 30 percent of owners (Table 18), and if rent raises for these communities, it could leave them at risk of displacement. 415
H-A-86 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Figure 38 Sensitive Communities (Santa Barbara County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
416
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-87 Figure 39 Displacement Risk (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
417
H-A-88 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Contributing Factors
To inform the goals, policies, and actions in this Housing Element, the contributing factors are prioritized based on their impact on access to fair housing choice and access to opportunity in Solvang.
Enforcement and Outreach
Contributing factors to enforcement and outreach include:
• Limited information on fair housing rights and services: the City’s website provides minimal information on fair housing rights and services available to residents. There are no links to the County’s Housing Resources website or the Fair Housing Resource Guide for Santa Barbara County website (provided by Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County and Santa Barbara County). While the website does contain a brochure on fair housing and how to file a complaint, the brochure is an older, scanned document and some of the information may be out of date.
The brochure does not include contact information for Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County, which is contracted to provide fair housing services to the HOME Consortium.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Solvang include:
• High percentage of those living with disabilities when compared to the county: While there were no areas within Solvang identified with concentrations of residents living with a disability, there is a high percentage of the population with a disability indicating there is a need for affordable and accessible housing options for those with a disability. • Increasing rent costs: Rent cost has significantly increased in Solvang during the past decade, meaning single-parent households, persons on fixed incomes (seniors and persons with a disability), LMI populations, and single adults without a spouse are less likely to have access to affordable housing, afford housing, and could be at risk of displacement. • Dominance of single-family housing and location and type of affordable housing: Residential development in Solvang primarily consists of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family units. Slightly higher density residential development is located in the center of the city. There is one affordable housing development in Solvang, located in the center of the city.
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
While no R/ECAPs meeting HCD criteria were identified in Solvang, the AI recognizes multiple contributing factors to segregation patterns including:
• Concentration of higher density housing in the center of the city and single-family residential housing in other parts of the city: Single-family low-density patterns correlate to predominantly White and higher median household income areas located in northern and southern parts of 418
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-89 Solvang. The central area of the city has higher residential density zoning and more racial/ethnic diversity and lower median household income.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs are:
• Risk of displacement due to an increasing income gap: In addition, overall median household income has increased while the percentage of residents living below the poverty line has also increased. This indicates there is an increasing income gap that could lead to displacement of LMI populations.
• Rising rent costs and cost burden: Rent costs have increased significantly in Solvang over the past decade which causes increased cost burden among renters. Cost burden is prevalent throughout the city, especially in the northern census tract. • Older housing stock: About 80 percent of the city’s housing stock is over 30 years old, indicating there is a large proportion of the housing stock that may be in need of repairs or maintenance.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities were identified:
• Limited transit and limited connectivity to region: Transit access between Solvang and other parts of the County with larger urban centers and employment opportunity is limited. The Clean Air Express is a weekday commuter program that has a bus stop in Buellton and connects to Santa Maria, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. However, there is no stop in Solvang. Amtrack has bus service from Solvang to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. Dial-A-Ride services are primarily available to seniors (60+) and ADA registered customers who must apply for ridership eligibility.
• Limited access to high paying jobs: The largest employment sectors in Solvang are arts/entertainment/recreation and manufacturing which have lower median salaries. In addition, the Economic Development Strategic Plan for the City of Solvang focuses on adding retail and service jobs which also have lower median salaries. Higher paying jobs are concentrated outside of Solvang in larger employment opportunity areas, such as the city of Santa Barbara.
419
H-A-90 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Local Data and Knowledge
As shown throughout this AFFH analysis, the central portions of the city generally experience a higher number of fair housing issues than other areas in Solvang. Fair housing issues in this area include higher levels of minority populations, low and moderate median income, and higher rates of cost burden. The predominant population in this area is White, however, between 21 and 60 percent of the population is non-White.
Solvang primarily consists of low density, single-family housing which correlates with predominant wWhite populations and populations with higher median income, which is seen in the data. When compared to the region, Solvang has a higher percentage of wWhite residents. This can be tied to the city’s location and job opportunities. Solvang is located far from major job centers in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. Solvang’s major job sectors are arts and entertainment, which are tied to tourism. Arts and entertainment are unique job opportunities and the jobs related to the tourism industry are generally not high-paying. This tied with the high cost of housing keeps many lower income and more diverse people from being able to live in Solvang due to the limited amount of high-paying jobs in the city.
Additional fair housing information heard from the community and specific to Solvang is described below.
Stakeholder and Community Input
Community workshops were held on two occasions, March 11, 2022 and May 11, 2022. Common concerns raised by participants included the following:
Lack of access to services in Spanish
Traffic and parking issues indicating limited access to public transit and low walkability and bankability Limiting land use policies in the General Plan constrains available land, preventing development of multifamily housing (particularly regarding visual impacts of development) A Housing Needs Survey was conducted from April 20 to May 21, 2022, with 90 respondents (89 in English and one in Spanish). A Fair Housing Survey was with assisted living facilities, senior housing facilities, religious groups, and local non-profits from July 5 to August 22, 2022. This survey was distributed via email. The following comments regarding fair housing concerns were received:
• There is a large senior population with low to moderate income • Need for senior housing that is affordable
• Need for housing that is accessible for persons with disabilities • Lack of transit options for seniors and persons with disabilities • Desire for housing with access to commercial centers
420
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-91 • Residents are at risk of displacement due to economic hardships of landlords during the pandemic
• Lack of affordable housing options in the city
Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in Solvang that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include the following:
Farmworker Housing
The Santa Ynez Valley is well known for its wineries and vineyards. The city of Solvang is surrounded by working agricultural land, bringing seasonal and migrant farmworkers to the area during certain times of the year. Farmworkers have unique housing needs as they are often seasonal workers and living on low income. The number of farmworkers employed in or near Solvang is unknown and there are limited affordable housing options of farmworkers in Solvang.
Access to Transportation for Persons with Disabilities
Solvang has a high percentage of the populating living with one or more disabilities. Persons with disabilities often include older residents who may not be able to drive or who have medical or other needs that require access to services such as medical care. Residents with disabilities have limited transportation opportunities within the city and the region. As discussed earlier, transit connectivity between Solvang and other parts of the county is limited. In addition, while Dial-A-Ride service is available within the Santa Ynez Valley area, persons with disabilities are required to submit ADA certification or apply for eligibility, including information that is to be filled out by a physician. Residents do not all have access to adequate medical care and may not be able to complete the application.
City’s Danish History and Tourism
Solvang was founded by Danish immigrants in the early 20th century. Today, that history is considered an important part of the city’s character and is prominently featured in the architecture and culture of the city. Tourism related to the city’s Danish heritage helps support the economy and culture of the city. The tourism industry provides a number of employment opportunities in the city, however retail and service-related jobs are typically low income. Additionally, tourism drives up property values, increasing housing costs. Low-income jobs combined with increasing property values can lead to displacement for at risk populations.
Subsidized Housing
Figure 40 shows the percent of renter occupied housing units that are occupied by Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients. The southern census tract (89 HCV recipients total) had a higher percent of HCV recipients as renter occupied housing units compared to the northern census tract (16 HCV recipients total). However, both the northern and southern census tracts include unincorporated parts of the county, outside city limits. Therefore, some of the HCV recipients in these census tracts do not necessarily reside within Solvang. It is unknown how many HCV recipients reside within the city. The 421
H-A-92 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 southern part of the city within the southern census tract includes Alisal Golf Course and Alisal Ranch.
Housing in Alisal Ranch consists of low density, single-family homes that are more expensive than housing in other parts of the city. It is likely HCV recipients in the southern census tract were living in unincorporated parts of the county rather than within Alisal Ranch.
Potential sites that can accommodate lower income units in the Sites Inventory are focused along Alamo Pintado Road, in the northern census tract. This census tract contains fewer housing choice voucher recipients, which improves the balance of distribution of HCV recipients in the city. 422
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-93 Figure 40 Housing Choice Vouchers
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
423
H-A-94 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Sites Inventory
The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned for the development of housing for households sufficient to accommodate the number of new housing units needed at each income level as identified in the RHNA. In the context of AFFH, the site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.
Opportunity Areas
HCD and TCAC have created opportunity maps to identify areas throughout the state whose characteristics support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution) for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. The HCD/TCAC Opportunity Areas Map ranks census tracts from highest resource to low resource based on these outcomes. A census tract with a designation of High Resource would indicate that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities, meaning opportunity for current and future residents. Most of the city is considered moderate resource while a large area of the northern portion of the city is considered low resource.
The city limit partially encompasses 2 census tracts, which are categorized by the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map as entirely high resources areas. For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by the TCAC/HCD map report on access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. This categorization of the 2 census tracts in the city indicates that, across the city, residents have low, moderate, and high access to positive economic outcomes, and high access to educational and environmental outcomes. The 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map maps influenced the locations of potential lower income sites in the city.
The city’s residential neighborhoods are primarily built out with some residentially zoned vacant land available for development. Therefore, in addition to identifying available vacant sites, the City has identified vacant residential properties that can be rezoned to increase density to accommodate affordable housing development. The lower income sites identified in the Sites Inventory are concentrated along Alamo Pintado Road, north of Mission Drive. The entire city is designated high resource by TCAC and has high access to educational and environmental resources and low access to economic resources. A total of two vacant sites were identified to accommodate very low- and lowincome housing units, with a total capacity to accommodate 95 lower income units. An additional 23 vacant sites accommodating moderate- and above moderate-income housing units were identified and are spread throughout the city in high resource areas. Figure 41 shows the vacant parcels identified in the Sites Inventory in relation to the TCAC scores of each census tract. 424
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-95 Figure 41 Location of Sites to Meet RHNA
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
425
H-A-96 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
426
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-97 Improved Conditions
Spatial analysis shows that tracts with low- and moderate-income households, concentrated minorities, and housing problems are predominately located in the central areas of the city. All of the sites identified in the Sites Inventory are in high resource areas, with sites accommodating abovemoderate income housing units located throughout the city, including central areas of the city. Sites that accommodate lower income units in the low economic resource areas are concentrated along Alamo Pintado Road.
Exacerbated Conditions
The central area of the city contains census blocks with higher levels of concentrated minorities and cost burdened households. The city’s northern census block has the smallest non-White population and the highest household median income in the city. According to the TCAC opportunity map, the entire city has lower economic outcome scores. Vacant sites that could accommodate moderate and above-moderate units were identified throughout the city, including central areas. The Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city.
Integration and Segregation: Race and Income
Census tracts with the highest concentration of minority races and LMI populations are located in the central part of the city. As stated previously, moderate and above-moderate income sites are identified throughout these areas.
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence While Solvang has no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (per HUD’s definition), some census blocks with a high concentration of minorities and lower median income were found in the central part of the city. Several vacant sites are located in these vulnerable areas and could support moderate income units and above-moderate income units. In addition, sites accommodating lower income units are located outside of the central part of the city, in the northeast and southern areas of the city.
Access to Opportunity
The city is categorized into two census tracts, both of which are considered high resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas. Sites accommodating moderate and above-moderate income units are scattered on vacant parcels throughout the city.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
The site inventory focused sites on vacant areas of the city to reduce potential impacts and exacerbate displacement risks.
.
427
H-A-98 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Table 22 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions AFH Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
• Fair housing outreach and
housing mobility strategies
• Limited distribution of information on fair
housing rights and services
• Information on fair housing limited to
English
• Program HE-P: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Program HE-V: Housing Information Transparency
• Housing stock that is older
and lacks diversity
• Older housing stock
• Dominance of single-family housing
• Limiting local land use policies
• Program HE-A: Code Enforcement
• Program HE-B: Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Program • Program HE-H: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development • Program HE-J: Adequate Sites Program
• Program HE-K: Mixed-Use Development
• Program HE-O: Municipal Code Updates
• Program HE-U: Missing Middle Housing
• Lack of affordable housing • Dominance of single family housing • Location and type of affordable housing
• Lack of farmworker/workforce housing
• Program HE-C: Rental Assistance
• Program HE-F: Local Workforce Housing
• Program HE-G: Density Bonus Program
• Program HE-M: Lot Mergers
• Program HE-N: Affordable Housing Incentives Program
• Program HE-O: Municipal Code Updates
• Program HE-Q: Housing for Disabled Persons
• Residents vulnerable to
displacement
• Increasing income gap
• Rising rent costs
• High levels of cost burden among renter
households
• High percentage of residents with a
disability
• High percentage of senior residents
• Limited access to high paying jobs
• Program HE-F: Local Workforce Housing
• Program HE-G: Density Bonus Program
• Program HE-I: Application for Grants and Loans
• Program HE-J: Adequate Sites Program
• Program HE-K : Mixed-Use Development
• Program HE-M: Lot Consolidation
• Program HE-N: Affordable Housing Incentives Program
• Program HE-O: Municipal Code Updates
428
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-A-99 • Program HE-P: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Program HE-R: Universal Design
• Limited transit access • Limited transit options and poor connectivity to region
• High number of residents with a disability
and senior residents relying on public
transit
• Program HE-P: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
429
H-A-100 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
430
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-B-1 Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
1. Code Enforcement
Bring substandard
housing units into
compliance with codes.
(Policy 1.1, 1.4)
Planning, Building
Department
Continue to carry out code
enforcement activities.
Ongoing In 2018, the City created a half time
code compliance position and filled it
after interviewing candidates.
Continue; add actions
related to assisting lowincome household with
addressing code
violations through
technical assistance of
funding, if available.
General Fund
2. Housing Rehabilitation
Assistance Program
Assist residents in
repairing, upgrading, and
improving single-family
and multifamily housing.
(Policy 1.2, 1.3, 1.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Assist 5 homeowners and 3
renter families. Advertise
program.
2015-2023 Under the emPower (CHERP) County
program, 2 homeowners were
assisted in 2018 to upgrade and
improve their household energy
efficiency through this subsidized
program, for a total of 3 homeowners
and 30 energy coach visits.
Continue; identify potential
funding sources and
commit to a minimum
number of funding
pursuits in the planning
period.
HOME
3. Section 8 Rental
Assistance
Extend rental subsidies to
extremely low and very
low-income households.
(Policy 2.1)
County Housing
Authority
Continue to participate.
Encourage property owners to
list rentals with the Housing
Authority.
Ongoing Not completed.The City continues to
support the Section 8 (Housing
Choice Voucher) program
administered through the Housing
Authority. Due to staffing constraints
the City was not able to engage local
rental property owners during the 5th
cycle.
Continue; change to
reflect new name
“Housing Choice
Vouchers” and add
HUD specific actions.
431
H-B-2 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
4. Mobile Home and
Mobile Home Park
Preservation
Preserve mobile homes
and mobile home parks as
affordable housing
options.
(Policy 2.1, 3.1)
Planning / Community
Development
Maintain MHP designation
and continue to allow mobile
homes in single-family
residential zones ministerially.
Ongoing The Zoning Ordinance was amended
to remove the requirement for a
Conditional Use Permit for mobile
homes with permanent foundations
regardless of lot size.
Continue. Add actions that
meaningfully work
preserve existing mobile
home parks and
affordability.
None
5. Preservation of
Community Character
Administer design
standards in the TRC
zone.
(Policy 1.3, 3.3)
Planning / Community
Development, BAR
Preserve and maintain the
Danish/Northern European
design theme in the City's
Village area.
Ongoing In March 2019 the City issued an RFP
released to update the Design
Guidelines, Community Design
Element of the General Plan, and the
sign ordinance. The City is currently
undertaking the General Plan Update,
including an update to the Community
Design Element, with expected
adoption in late 2023 or early 2024.
An update to the city’s design
guidelines will be completed following
adoption of the General Plan.
Continue; potential to add
an action to establish
objective design
standards specific to the
General Fund TRC zone.
Housing Production
432
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-B-3 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
6. Local Workforce
Housing
Increase supply of
affordable housing for the
local workforce.
(Policy 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
Planning / Community
Development
Provide incentives to increase
the supply of housing
affordable to Solvang’s lowerincome workforce.
At least
annually,
2015-2023
The City has developed a list of
incentives to encourage more interest
in developing workforce housing
through the use of current State Law
and funding through the HOME
Consortium.
Continue; expand with
new actions and
objectives.
General Fund, HOME
7. Density Bonus
Ordinance
Provide incentives
required by State law.
(Policy 2.10, 3.5)
Planning / Community
Development
Amendment of Program 7:
Density Bonus Ordinance
2015 City Attorney determination that
deferring to State Law is adequate.
Continue; add action to
update Municipal Code to
reflect new State law
General Fund requirements.
8. Second Unit
Development
Facilitate development of
second units.
(Policy 2.9, 3.6)
Planning / Community
Development
Encourage the construction of
second units to meet the
needs of the very-low, low,
and moderate-income
households. Provide
information on the City’s
website, and with an
informational brochure.
Ongoing New State laws passed in 2016 (SB
1069 and AB 2299) and the new State
Laws in 2019 superseded previous
ordinance, Staff is following HCD's
guidance on approving ADUs
(Accessory Dwelling Units) as well as
their staff's comments and feedback.
Solvang's ADU ordinance will be
finalized and brought to Council in
2019. Staff is currently processing on
a case-by-case basis. the city has
issued 10 ADU's 2018-2019
Continue; add specific
actions to bring the
Municipal Code into
compliance with recent
State laws and to
incentivize development
General Fund (required).
9. N/A
Program 9 was eliminated
in the Fourth Cycle
Housing Element.
N/A N/A N/A Eliminated in the Fourth Cycle
Housing Element
Remove Program 9 from
enumeration.
N/A
433
H-B-4 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
10. Mortgage Credit
Certificate
Expand home ownership
opportunities.
(Policy 2.7, 2.8)
County Housing
Authority
Assist 20 households 2015-2023 County Housing Authority is responsible agencyThe City continues
to participate in the MCC program
administered through the County
Housing Authority. Due to staffing and
time constraints, the City was not able
to create or distribute informational
materials or hold any engagement
events in the 5th cycle.
Continue; add actions to
meet with Housing
Authority annually to
explore additional funding
and other opportunities to
expand the program.
Federal
11. Application for Grants
and Loans
Ensure that funds are
available to implement
proposed housing
programs.
(Policy 2.4, 2.5, 2.7)
Planning / Community
Development
Investigate funds available
annually under Proposition 46
and 1C as well as other
sources. Apply to meet City’s
housing needs.
Ongoing OngoingDuring the 5th cycle the City
applied for and was awarded funding
through REAP ($117,000), LEAP
($65,000) and SB1 ($160,000) funding
programs.
Continue; add actions
committing the City to
pursue funding, including
partnering with developers
and non-profits in the
pursuit of project-based
grants.
General Fund
Provision Of Adequate Sites For Housing
12. Adequate Sites
Program
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to inventory sites for
ongoing needs.
Ongoing 2018 evaluated inventory for accuracy
(size) and availability (many of the
vacant parcels currently are going
through entitlement process).The City
Continue; add actions
related to State law
compliance related to
rezone site requirements,
434
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-B-5 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Facilitate availability of
sufficient sites to meet
the City’s share of regional
housing needs.
(Policy 3.1, 3.2, 3.4)
General Fund monitored capacity to meet the RHNA
throughout the planning period. In
addition to providing capacity,
production in the 5th cycle exceeded
the housing need identified in the
RHNA.
no-net-loss provisions,
and to provide a publicfacing inventory on the
City website.
13. Mixed-use
Development
Continue to encourage
residential uses in the
Village & commercial
areas by implementing
and maintaining zoning
standards for residential
densities that encourage
pedestrian-oriented,
mixed-use development to
help meet the needs of
Solvang’s fair-share
housing needs.
(Policy 3.2, 3.4, 3.5)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to encourage
residential uses in the Village
Area that encourage
pedestrian-oriented, mixeduse development to help meet the needs of Solvang’s fairshare housing needs.
Ongoing OngoingThe City continues to
encourage residential uses in the
Village Area (TRC zone) and made
incentives available for affordable and
senior mixed use development,
including expanded floor area
maximums and reduced parking
requirements. During the 5th cycle,
there were no senior or affordable
projects proposed in the TRC or
commercial zones.
Continue; add actions as
needed; add action
encouraging mixed use
through the General Plan
Update process. This
program work to increase
housing mobility (an HCD
requirement).
General Fund
14. Infill Incentives
Ordinance
Planning / Community
Development
Develop an ordinance that
specifies flexible standards
2016 Planning staff changes delayed plan
making to achieve this goal. The
current goal is to review infill
435
H-B-6 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Facilitate development on
infill parcels.
(Policy 3.5)
General Fund and incentives for infill
development.
development as part of a larger
economic development goal to be set
for 20240 with funding from the
General Plan Update process. In 2023
the City began to review and evaluate
design objectives for residential
development projects.
Continue; add new actions
and incentives as
appropriate.
15. Lot Consolidation
Consolidate lots to
develop housing to lowerincome households.
(Policy 3.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Encourage non-profit
developers and owners of
small sites to identify and
consolidate parcels to
facilitate the development of
housing affordable to lowerincome households.
Ongoing Although not part of a formalized
lower-income housing program, small
sites are being reconfigured to
accommodate higher densities-i.e., a
lot under 5,000 SF was just approved
to construct a duplex in the DR-20
zoning district where a single-family
unit existed. To approve this, staff
supported several modifications as to
setbacks, as this project was the best
and highest use of this property and
was compatible with surrounding
uses.
Continue; Sites 1 and 2
and Sites 4 and 5 have
potential for lot
consolidation.
General Fund
Removal Of Governmental Constraints
16. Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
District
Provide flexibility in
developments and
facilitate creative housing
opportunities.
(Policy 4.1)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to use the PRD
designation.
Ongoing Although this is still a zoning district
designation in Solvang as an overlay,
the availability of large acreages in the
City at this time that could use this
designation for residential projects is
very limited.
Limited potential, not
required. Suggest delete.
General Fund
436
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-B-7 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
17. Affordable Housing
Incentives Program
Facilitate development of
affordable housing.
(Policy 4.2)
Planning / Community
Development
Provide regulatory
concessions and other
incentives, including a density
bonus to encourage
affordable housing.
2015-2023 Density bonus offerings follow State
law. Solvang participates in the HOME
program with a consortium of other
cities that allocate monies among
various jurisdictions. Solvang received
an allocation for the Solvang Senior
Apartment housing in 2016.
During the 5th cycle two projects were
approved with density bonuses and
height modifications as incentives for
providing lower income units on site.
Parking reductions were offered to
applicants as well, however these
applicants were willing and able to
meet typical parking standards.
Continue; add meaningful
actions and incentives.
General Fund
Equal Housing Opportunity
18. Fair Housing Program
Promote fair housing
practices.
(Policy 5.1, 5.3)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to support the State
Office of Fair Employment
and Housing, CLRA, and equal
opportunity lending programs.
The City will support efforts
by the County Housing
Authority.
Ongoing During the 5th cycle, the City provided
informational brochures at City Hall
and in the Planning Office.
Ongoing
Continue; add meaningful
actions and expand
program to includes AFFH
requirements and to add
any remaining meaningful
AFFH actions that do not
fall under another
program.
General Fund
19. Housing for Disabled
Persons
Planning / Community
Development
The City will conduct an
evaluation and if any
constraints are identified, will
2015 Solvang codified an ordinance in 2015
(11-12-25), Reasonable
Accommodation, to address the
Continue; add actions and
incentives to encourage
development; add a review
437
H-B-8 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Identify and remove
constraints affecting
persons with disabilities.
(Policy 2.4, 2.5, 5.3, 5.4)
General Fund take actions to address
constraints.
process for requesting modifications
or exceptions to rules to remove
regulatory barriers to housing or
housing related facilities with
disabilities.
and evaluation of the
Reasonable
Accommodation
ordinance in 2024; add an
action to engage with
developers and nonprofits to identify
constraints in 2024
20. Universal Design
Encourage design
features that enhance
accessibility and safety.
(Policy 2.4, 2.5, 5.3, 5.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Work with homebuilders to
offer universal design options
prior to constructions.
Consider State model
ordinance for universal
design, if feasible.
2015-2023 Will place on universal design features
and implementation on City
website.Due to staffing constraints,
this program was not implemented in
the 5th cycle. The Building Department
administers plan check based on the
State building code.
Continue; add actions
related to engagement
with homebuilders to
encourage this housing
type.
General Fund
21. Emergency &
Transitional Housing
Facilities and Services
Promote and facilitate
Emergency and
Transitional Housing
Facilities
(Policy 3.8, 3.9)
Planning / Community
Development
Meet with homeless service
providers periodically to
evaluate current and future
needs for a homeless or
transitional housing facility.
Ongoing Emergency and Transitional Housing
Facilities added as permitted uses in
R-1, E-1, DR, and PRD zoning districts
in 2015.
Continue; add actions
related to annual
engagement with
providers.
General Fund
438
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-B-9 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Energy Conservation
22. Energy Conservation
Alternatives
Incorporation of energy
saving features, energy
saving materials, and
energy efficient systems
and design for residential
development.
(Policy 4.4)
Planning / Community
Development
The City will develop a Green
Building Ordinance and public
outreach awareness.
Ongoing OngoingDue to staffing constraints,
the City did not develop a city-specific
Green Building Ordinance or produce
any informational materials in the 5th
cycle. The City defaults to State
standards outlined in CalGreen.
Continue; update with new
actions and objectives.
General Fund
439
H-B-10 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
440
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-C-1 Appendix C: Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Public Review Draft Housing Element
The City received a number of comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element. The vast majority of these comments were received from residents that live near sites with a proposed rezone. These comments indicated that the capacity assumptions for Site C were infeasible due to site constraints, traffic concerns, and drainage issues. In response to these comments, the realistic capacity for Site C has been reduced to assume that a smaller portion of the site will be developed for affordable housing due to environmental constraints, particularly steep slopes and drainage issues. HCD does not consider traffic concerns an appropriate reason to exclude a lower income site from the inventory.
Additionally, as documented below, the City has expanded affordable housing and infill development incentives to assist with the costs of constraints on sites developed for affordable housing.
Additionally, a number of public comments took issue with the City’s initial realistic capacity assumptions for sites A-C, but particularly on Site C. The capacity calculations were set as conservative goals, with only a portion of capacity being assumed for lower-income development. In response to these comments, the City has revised capacity calculations to identify lower income capacity on each site, without assuming additional moderate or above moderate capacity.
Public comments also noted calculation errors in the RHNA Summary Table, including an overcalculation of the RHNA buffer related to no-net-loss. These errors have been corrected and the Sites Inventory analysis and summary table have been revised accordingly.
A public comment from the owner of Site A asked the City to remove the site from consideration in the Housing Element.
The owner expressed that the ownership group is not interested in higher density development on the site. Due to this comment, Site A was removed from the Housing Element.
Multiple comments noted references to Southern California Edison assistance programs in the Public Review Draft. The City has removed these references, as these programs are not available in Solvang. Information related to SoCalGas programs, which are available to Solvang residents, has been revised to include two additional programs provided by the agency.
Finally, a comment from the property owner of Site C noted potential incentives to overcome non-governmental and governmental constraints to affordable housing development in the community. In response, the City has revised the Draft Element to further incentivize affordable housing development as follows:
• Program HE-I: as requested in the public comment, the City has committed to maintaining a mailing list of developers, property owners, and non-profit agencies and distributing information on funding opportunities to these parties directly.
• Program HE-J has been included to rezone properties for compliance with 65583.2 (h) and (i), which requires a minimum density of 20 du/ac. The City’s maximum density is currently 20 du/ac, lower-income development on these sites can incorporate additional units through use of State density bonus law. • Program HE-N has been revised to identify “parking reductions equivalent to the percentage of affordable units provided” and “additional building height” as potential incentives for affordable housing development. 441
H-C-2 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 o Ministerial review will be provided to project providing 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, or 100 percent of units affordable to moderate income households, in compliance with State law. Incentives will not be offered projects that do not meet the affordability thresholds. • Program HE-N mentions State and Federal funding to be used to incentivize affordable housing development and asks for greater specificity. The City has revised the action in question to, “Use state and federal funding to offset costs of governmental and non-governmental constraints to affordable housing development. As funds become available, the City shall immediately distribute information to property owners, developers, and local non-profits related to eligibility and application for direct financial assistance.” • Comment #7 related to discretionary development plans and design review for development at 20 dwelling units per acre: The City has revised the text to clarify that the city will adopt objective design standards and a ministerial review process for developments that meet affordability thresholds (20 percent lower-income or 100 percent moderate-income) and that no discretionary review will be applied to such projects. • Program HE-L: We have identified reduced setbacks and parking requirements for affordable infill projects as potential incentives for the City to explore. We have also move the timing of the program up from one years to one year.
• Program HE-U: The City has added specificity to the program, including engagement with local developers, property owners, and non-profit agencies to identify constraints and meaningful incentives to infill and missing middle housing development.
• Comment #9: The reference to Table H-38 was an error and has been corrected. Please see Table H-46, which documents housing types permitted by zone.
• Calculations in Table H-1 were revised to correct an error in the calculation of total units permitted in the 5th cycle.
HCD Review Draft Housing Element
Following the public review period and study session on the Public Review Draft, the City revised the Housing Element and submitted the HCD Draft to the City Council for review and authorization to submit to HCD. The City received a number of public comments at this time, which are also included below. The paragraphs below summarize comments received and the City’s response.
Most of the comments received called for further revisions to Site C and for additional details related to the City’s plan to consider a lot line adjustment for the site. In response to these comments the City has adjusted the acreage of Site C based on public input related to the environmental constraints on the site. The total acreage assumed feasible for affordable capacity was limited to the 1-acre corner parcel and approximately 1.5 acres of the larger 4.48 acre parcel.
The City has removed the adjustment factor related to environmental constraints and has instead based feasibility calculations on the 2.5 acres deemed feasible for affordable development rather than the total 5.48-acres.
For consistency, the City has applied the same methodology to Site D, which also has environmental constraints. In doing so, the City limited the capacity calculations to the acreage deemed feasible for affordable housing development (3.71 acres) after removing environmentally constrained acreage from the total acreage (5.83 acres). 442
9. HOUSING
Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 | H-C-3 Further, the City provided further details for Site C, as requested by public comments. The City has revised the site description to include details related to plans for a lot line adjustment between APN 139-530-001 and APN 139-530-002 prior to rezoning. This effort is intended to adjust the lot line to distinguish between acreage feasible for affordable construction on the southern end of the parcel and the environmentally constrained northern portion that was deemed more appropriate for low density market rate development. The City has included a new objective in Program HE-J committing the City to completing the lot line adjustment within one year of the adoption deadline. • Complete lot line adjustment for Site C (139-530-002) within one year of the adoption deadline The City Council had questions regarding the inclusion of additional allowed building height as a potential affordable housing incentive in Program HE-N, and they provided direction to remove this language. In response to the direction provided by the City Council, the City has removed “additional allowed building height” from the list of potential incentives.
443
H-C-4 | Public Hearing Draft Housing Needs Assessment, November 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
444
445
446
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
447
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 Slide 1
448
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
449
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
Slide 3
450
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
Slide 4
451
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 Slide 5 452
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 potential rezoning of her vacant property, located at 741 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang.
Can you make sure that this letter is included as public comment and is part of any packets for the Planning Commission or the City Council? Thank you!
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Brett Jones
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:46 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]> Subject: RE: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Thank you!
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Brett Jones <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]>; Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang I have added it to their folders. Thank you!
From: Brett Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:00 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Thank you Sophia.
Yes, please include this email as public comment.
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Brett Jones <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Hi Brett,
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 potential 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 after the completion 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.
453
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 until 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 ramifications in terms of having to state that the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan when we are writing the Planning Commission Staff Report. Additionally, we'd need to identify another site to allocate those units. I am curious what Laurie will say. She will be attending the meeting virtually.
Thank you,
Sophia
From: Brett Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]> 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 questions:
What is the City’s process and / or responsibility to inform a property owner of a potential 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 attending the Zoom meeting tonight and can ask these questions there, as well.
Thank you!
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
454
455
456
FW: housing element
Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Mon 1/23/2023 8:21 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Laura Ishikawa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:07 AM
To: City Hall <[email protected]>; Public City Council Group <[email protected]> Subject: housing element
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 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
457
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 458
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. 459
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. 460
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
461
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 462
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
463
FW: zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units;
Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Mon 1/23/2023 8:29 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Stephanie Statom <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units; 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 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 464
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
465
1 Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC
Joshua J. Richman, Manager
1111 Broadway, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
January 13, 2023
Submitted via www.plansolvang.com and by email to [email protected] City of Solvang
Planning Division
Attn: Sophia Checa, Planning Manager
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Re: Comments on Draft Housing Element
Dear Ms. Checa:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Solvang’s draft Housing Element which was circulated on December 15, 2022.
As a Solvang native, I appreciate the thorough approach the City has taken over the last year or more to address state Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) mandates and plan for future housing. This is clearly a complex endeavor that involves many stakeholders and brings local and regional planning issues to the fore.
The 5.48 acres of vacant land that my family owns at the northwest corner of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive have been subject to considerable comment over several public hearings.
The two legal parcels comprise the largest contiguous residentially zoned vacant parcels in the City’s limits and are ideally suited for housing. As I have previously explained to staff and in public hearings, I am committed to building housing on this site in a way that preserves and even enhances the character of Solvang. Housing on this infill site avoids urban sprawl (all neighboring parcels are developed or entitled for development) and helps regional traffic by placing new housing at the center of the Santa Ynez Valley and near existing amenities and services.
Some commenters have described development on this land as creating “unnecessary units.” In addition to being factually inaccurate, those comments dismiss the needs of all those people who commute to the area every day and make valuable economic, social, and cultural contributions to the City and greater region. Calling new housing “unnecessary” also dismisses the larger housing crisis in California. We hear about it all the time and see it in all parts of the state that there is not enough housing to meet demand. The RHNA quantifies that demand at the local level and based on that assessment, Solvang needs nearly 200 additional housing units.
Other commenters have argued that these parcels are not feasible for development. Given the size of the parcels and the number of units that staff has identified as being realistically possible for the site, I believe that with appropriate incentives from the City, there is an economically feasible path to getting some affordable units constructed on the parcels. For example, the Housing Element should consider fee waivers, density bonuses, grants, and greater streamlining of project approvals beyond those offered in recent housing statutes. 466
2 As the City revises its Housing Element, and prior to submission to HCD, please consider including the following clarifications and/or corrections:
1. In Program HE-I, the Housing Element states that the City is going to identify funding opportunities available to local developers. How will the City go about identifying these funding opportunities and how will it notify interested parties? Would the City create a mailing list for interested property owners to ensure these opportunities are effectively communicated?
2. In Program HE-J and Table H-54, the DR-20 zone is described as having a 20 unit per acre minimum density. In other parts of the draft Housing Element, it looks like the 20 units per acre is a maximum. Since there is a recommendation that our parcels be rezoned to DR-20, please clarify whether the DR-20 zone would impose a minimum or a maximum density. Please note that we are open to density beyond 20 units per acre, which would be reasonable for a city like Solvang and not inconsistent with the region. 1 3. Program HE-N describes affordable housing incentives, but I believe the City could do more to encourage affordable housing. Many of the units identified in the needs assessment are affordable units, but the economics of those units may be difficult to finance. Please consider adding additional regulatory incentives to encourage that enough affordable housing can be developed to meet the identified need. For example, the City should consider reductions in parking requirements for projects that include affordable units, allow for increases in building height, clustering, and density bonuses.
4. Section G of Program HE-N describes a ministerial process for residential projects in commercial zones. Would that ministerial process also apply to projects in the DR-20 zone? It is unclear whether multi-family projects require both a Land Use Permit and Development Plan, or just one but not the other. Please provide this clarification.
5. Section E of Program HE-N describes the use of state and federal funding to support affordable projects. Does the City have affordable housing funds available to developers or a referral program for affordable housing developers? If so, these resources should be identified in Program HE-N along with a description of how information about these resources will be publicized. Will the City commit to applying for grant funding through the department of Housing and Urban Development?
6. Table H-43 states in a footnote that the “Land Use Permit” fee applies to new single-family dwellings and second units. However, it is unclear whether this means that a Land Use Permit is all that is needed for those types of projects. Page 104 states, by contrast, that "The City uses various development permits to ensure quality housing while minimizing the costs associated with lengthy reviews. The City's permit process is codified in Title 11 of the Solvang Municipal Code and provides for three (3) levels of review: (1) conceptual, (2) ministerial, and (3) discretionary. All projects are to receive a Land Use Permit regardless of their level of review." (Emphasis added.) Does this mean that multi-family housing projects will also be subject to a Land Use Permit? This seems like a constraint 1 Some surrounding jurisdictions allow for residential zoning at a density higher than 20 units/acre:
- County of Santa Barbara (30 units/acre. SBCC 35.23.060.) - City of Santa Maria (22 units/acre. SMMC 12-8.08.)
- City of Lompoc (22 units/acre. LMC 17.208.040.)
- City of Buellton (16 units/acre. BMC 19.02.120.)
467
3 on these types of projects. I would encourage the City to remove barriers to housing development and avoid an onerous and costly approval process.
7. The Housing Element explains that "PRD [Planned Residential Development] projects are subject to a discretionary development plan." (Page 104). Pages 110-111 provide other scenarios in which a Development Plan is required. Like other sections of the Housing Element, the language could benefit from clarity. Page 118 states, "Multifamily projects in the DR zoning district reaching a density of 20 dwelling units per acre are additionally subject to review by the Design Review Committee. All projects in the DR zoning district, including multifamily projects, require a Development Plan to be submitted for review." Please explain whether multi-family approvals are subject to a discretionary Development Plan and, if so, why?
8. Parking. While the Housing Element states that our land does not qualify for the reduced parking standards set forth in AB 2097, the Housing Element should ensure that affordable projects are subject to reduced parking standards. The City currently allows a reduced parking standard for “mixed use” projects with an affordable component. Why not allow for a similar relaxation of parking standards for projects that contain affordable housing? The Housing Element should provide for a reduced parking standard for any multi-family project with affordable units, regardless of whether the project has commercial uses associated with it.
The City should add a new category of reduced parking standards for infill projects.
Throughout the General Plan and the Housing Element, it is noted that infill development is preferred to developing the outskirts of the City. Incentivizing infill development by reducing costly parking requirements would demonstrate the City is committed to providing needed housing.
A final note on parking requirements is that page H-62 states that Programs HE-L and HEV commit the City to reevaluating parking requirements for infill projects, but it is not clear how those programs will do that. Please provide more detail on how infill parking standards will be evaluated and a description of the specific the programs that will ensure compliance with Programs HE-L and HE-V.
9. Table H-38 “illustrates the land uses that require a CUP” but Table H-38 lists development standards and does not mention CUPs. The Housing Element should be clarified to explain the types of projects that require a CUP and specifically clarify whether multi-family projects require a CUP.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element. We remain committed to making meaningful contributions to the City’s housing needs and goals.
Sincerely,
Lots on Alamo Pintado, LLC
By:
Joshua J. Richman, Manager
468
TO: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 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 Very-Low and 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 Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR
DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
469
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. Very importantly, 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,
Robert Snyder
Valerie Morgan
728 Hillside Drive
Solvang, 93463
470
471
472
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 473
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 474
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
475
January 10, 2023
City of Solvang
Sophia Checa, Planning Manager
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Sent via email [email protected]
Subject: Comment Submittal, City of Solvang Housing Element Thank you for your excellent work in creating a clear vision for a cohesive, resilient, and vibrant community. The City’s Housing Element represents an important opportunity to continue efforts to use land use regulations as an effective response to climate change.
Please include these comments as a part of your public outreach:
1. To diversify housing availability, discourage auto trips, encourage walking and social interaction, allow multi-use and residential development within all land-use areas. This will allow hospitality, retail staff, school faculty, and lower-wage workers to live and work in the same location reducing auto trips and climate-changing pollution.
2. Develop robust design criteria for any higher-density development to conform to the City of Solvang’s ‘Approved Guiding Principles’.
3. Encourage employers to provide staff housing as a part of their employment package.
4. Vacant Site C’s steep, hill area will require mass grading, habitat loss, and historic resource destruction which cannot be mitigated.
a. Site C’s relatively level area likely represents a developable area and must include rigorous design standards to comply with the City’s Guiding Principles. b. If not already participating, it is imperative a representation from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians be involved in site C’s planning and design.
5. Continue efforts to densify development, create walkable, narrower streets, and encourage public transportation.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment and can be reached at my office at 805 693 4592.
Sincerely,
Denise Johns ASLA, Landscape Architect CA 4916
611 Aqueduct Way
Solvang, California 93463
476
477
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
[email protected]
478
Comments Regarding Site 3 of the Draft Housing Element update Lansing Duncan 11/9/22
At the March workshop introducing the Housing Element Update the professional planning consultants leading the update process showed a map of vacant parcels and specifically pointed out two parcels on Alamo Pintado Road (see accompanying graphic) as potential targets for upzoning to 20 units per acre. The parcel at the corner of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive is APN 139- 530-001 and is 1 acre in size. The parcel immediately north of it is APN 139-530- 002 and is 4.48 acres in size.
The out-of-town consultants pointed out that the combined acreage of 5.48 acres at 20 units per acre zoning, would allow 110 units. Amazingly no other parcels were used as examples, but these parcels were “low-hanging fruit” for those unfamiliar with our community, and readily visible at the center of a two dimensional map supplying no information about traffic, topography, drainage, views, etc.
These parcels are currently zoned 20-R-1 which would allow for approximately 2 units per acre without counting accessory dwelling units. The consultant’s proposal would multiply the allowed density at least tenfold, possibly more with a bonus density for affordable housing. There are numerous reasons why the current zoning on the site does not allow high density development such as that suggested.
Numerous past revisions to the Housing Element have studied these parcels and have not recommended increasing their development potential.
The larger parcel has steep slopes on the west side facing Alamo Pintado, the south side facing Old Mission, and the east side facing Mission Oaks. If both parcels are considered there is an elevation change of 64 feet in altitude, most of it occurring on the northern parcel. Developing the entire site at 20 units per acre would require extensive grading increasing the potential for soil erosion dramatically. It would also require immense expense to construct the access roads and build the necessary retaining walls, erosion control devices and drainage structures.
The USDA Soil Survey for this site indicates that most of the larger steep parcel is a combination of Diablo Silty Clay (DaE) and Terrace Escarpments (TdF). The smaller flatter parcel is shown as Santa Ynez soil (SnD). Diablo soil is notoriously expansive and the survey points out problems with permeability, surface runoff and erosion. The terrace escarpments are also characterized by rapid runoff and a high erosion hazard, with some areas “deeply gullied.”
479
An existing drainage directs runoff from developed parcels to the north and continues south over both parcels of Site 3. In some locations one can stand in this narrow drainage with the banks within arm’s reach but overhead. In wet years sheet flow from this deeply incised drainage impacts both Old Mission Road and Alamo Pintado Road and debris has been regularly deposited on both roads.
Because of the existing drainage flow, the steep slopes, permeability problems and soil erosion issues, development of 110 or more homes with their impermeable surfaces (roofs, roads, driveways, decks, patios, etc.) will certainly require a retention basin. Even with the inclusion of that basin, under certain conditions a “river” of water will still be flowing down Alamo Pintado Road across Highway 246. Runoff could be reduced by making some surfaces permeable, but that will require extra expense undercutting the affordability of the project. The retention basin would undoubtedly be located on the lower parcel decreasing the room for residences on the more easily developable, and therefore more likely to support affordable development, part of the site.
The problem soils on the larger steeper parcel will undoubtedly require extensive grading and soil excavation even without considering the steep slopes. The native soil may have to be entirely replaced before compaction occurs and foundations are poured.
These realities are reflected in comment LT 160 found on page H-90 of the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA). “The City does not agree with listing this whole project as very low and low. This should be at the most be (sic) 20 units in the low category with the rest at market rate. This is a challenging site ot (sic) develop and it would be very difficult to fund a 100% low income project. This (sic) talk about this before it goes out for review.”
This comment from someone familiar with the site, as compared to the out-of-town consultants, is an admission that only the 1-acre flatter parcel could be developed at a density of 20 units per acre to produce relatively affordable units. The expense of developing the rest of the site would require that the other units be sold at market rate. This rather obvious analysis can be made before any of the other constraints affecting development on this site, or the impacts to the community, are considered.
480
Although adjacent to Alamo Pintado Road, access to the two parcels is seriously constrained. Placement of an entry/exit on Alamo Pintado next to the Alamo Pintado / Old Mission intersection would be problematic. Most of the larger lot is at a much higher elevation than Alamo Pintado (from approx. 40 feet to as much as 64 feet) which has a median dividing south and northbound lanes. Southbound vehicles on Alamo Pintado could enter the southern end of the site directly but that may not be true for northbound vehicles. Northbound entering vehicles and exiting vehicles wishing to head north on Alamo Pintado, would have to use the Old Mission Drive / Alamo Pintado intersection, a 4-way stop with at least eight lanes.
Traffic regularly backs up at this intersection and into this intersection, from the Alamo Pintado Road/ Highway 246 intersection. Two large shopping centers take their primary access from it, along with large delivery vehicles and hundreds of residents. Very large delivery trucks including semis, regularly double park on Old Mission Drive immediately west of the intersection often reducing access to a single lane. Traffic at this intersection will only get worse once the units at the west end of Old Mission are rented out.
If the site is developed with 110 or more residences with a single point of ingress / egress it may present a safety hazard in the event of an emergency. Residents along Old Mission Road have been required to evacuate when construction at the Mercantile Shopping Center punctured a gas line. Their only exit was the oftencongested intersection at Alamo Pintado Road. In the event of an evacuation due to wildfire, adding additional traffic to this intersection will increase the hazard.
A dense development built well above Alamo Pintado on the larger lot would have very serious visual impacts for the entire community. Policy 7.e of the Community Design Element recognizes the need to “minimize adverse visual impacts” of “...development on sites with high visibility, such as hillsides or in the highway corridors.” This site is both on a highly visible hillside and in a highway corridor. Obviously the most direct way to minimize these impacts is to minimize the development on this site. In addition, the view from Mission Oaks towards the east and the south over these two parcels is identified as a Scenic Vista in the City of Solvang Community Design Element (See Exhibit 2/4) and should be protected.
Solvang residents might also question the wisdom of packing 110 “affordable” units all in one location, even if it were not severely constrained like this site. 481
During the May workshop for the Housing Element Update the consultants showed the same vacant lots (referred to as #4 and #5 then, now collectively referred to as #3) once again and solicited input from residents (See page H-17 of the HNA).
Numerous residents commented on some of the concerns listed above but the consultants seem to have seriously considered only a few, such as steep slopes and archeological sensitivity.
Figure H-7 on page H-97 of the HNA shows a somewhat exaggerated section (north to south) of the hill that makes up the site. The smaller 1 acre parcel next to Old Mission is obviously much flatter than the steeper larger parcel but this actually illustrates only one aspect of the steep topography. The larger parcel also shows immense variation in an east – west section, appearing like an upside down “U.” On the east side it starts at the much lower elevation of Alamo Pintado Road (40 – 60 feet lower) and climbs steeply up a slope to a very small level area before descending another steep slope to the drainage on the west side of the property.
The Archeological analysis on page H-97 regarding the Mission Aqueduct that connected Alamo Pintado Creek with Mission Santa Ines is noteworthy and the statement that it “needs to be investigated to ensure appropriate analysis and preservation” is correct. However, the suggestion that the currently underground sections of the aqueduct constitute “two tunnels” is misleading. Virtually all of the original aqueduct was built at grade for ease of construction, access and maintenance. The fact that much of it is now underground reflects both manmade disturbance and the steady erosion over time of the hill that makes up this site. Soil from higher elevations is continually migrating to lower elevations.
That part of the aqueduct that can be seen on the surface is definitely on the larger parcel and the balance of it on site can be expected to be found on that parcel since it follows a contour with minimal slope. Eliminating the larger parcel from higher density development is the simplest way to mitigate adverse impacts to this irreplaceable archeological resource.
The view from 30,000 feet may suggest this is a site suitable for developing relatively affordable “Low” and “Very Low” income housing, but on-the-ground analysis suggests otherwise. The larger steeper parcel, APN 139-530-002 should not be considered as part of Site 3 since Solvang does not need market rate housing and the impacts and costs to the community to develop this site are prohibitive.
The smaller flatter parcel, APN 139-530-001 is a far better candidate although it definitely has issues / constraints such as visibility, traffic, drainage, and access. 482
Hans and Wendy Gregersen
638 Aqueduct Way
Solvang, CA 93463
Telephone:1-805-693-1148; Mobile: 1-805-245-0771
January 8, 2023
Dear Mayor Infanti, Mayor pro tem Orona, Council Members Brown and Orona, We are writing to address continued concerns with the December 15, 2022, Public Review Draft of the Housing Element. We continue to feel strongly that Solvang must have greater numbers of affordable housing if it is to meet the needs of its residents and continue to flourish as an exemplary city. However, that can only be accomplished with a sound plan in which we all have confidence.
We have written and testified in the past on many aspects of the Housing Element, especially as it pertains to Site ‘C’. Thanks to City Staff the current draft has some important modifications. However, further critical changes must be made to avoid drastic long-term problems of traffic congestion, safety, insufficient water resources, all of which the current draft will create. The new draft does however contain the elements to solve some of those issues on Site ‘C.’
Alas, Site ‘C’ is still comprised of two very different parcels, one 1-acre and the other 4.8 acres. The 20 affordable units the site is now projected to produce will presumably be built on the flatter parcel that the report describes as “significantly less costly to develop.” The far steeper 4.8-acre hillside parcel will be difficult, if not impossible, to develop with Very Low or Low affordable housing. This is particularly true due to its steep slopes, propensity for erosion, expansive soil, water runoff, and need for access.
The 56 far less affordable Moderate and Above Moderate units will certainly be sited on the hillside parcel, destroying a designated Scenic Vista, unearthing sensitive historical resources, causing traffic congestion, and using precious water. Although the Housing Element does incorporate the ability to build Moderate and Above Moderate units, Table H-59 shows that these less affordable units are clearly not needed. The draft proposal envisions producing 233% (M) and 304% (AM) of what is needed.
Given the impacts of developing the larger 4.8-acre parcel of Site ‘C’ it seems irresponsible for the city to consider going forward with the draft proposal to rezone it to allow 20 units per acre. Especially prior to any development plan that is specific as to what can and will be built there. It is simply a ‘free pass’ with no protections for homeowners on adjoining lands, nor safeguards against any of the significant negative impacts to the community noted above.
There is however, one important remedy for solving Site ‘C’ issues in the Housing Element Plan. It is simply to NOT include the larger parcel in Site ‘C’. Keeping the parcels independent while changing the designation on the smaller flat site only, will provide what is needed to develop real affordable housing now, and allow the city to require a future developer to prove in advance of a zoning change, that in fact the larger site can be developed in a manner that won’t create long term unresolvable problems as has been noted throughout these deliberations.
This is a difficult task that has no easy answers. The challenge for the city is to meet a specific level of affordable housing for residents of Solvang over the next eight years. It is not a ‘hope to be able’ - it is a mandate that must be met. Penalties for failing to live up to any plan to which Solvang agrees will at some point, fall on the shoulders of all residents and businesses either directly or indirectly.
Solvang is an amazingly great city. We are aware of the time, effort and thinking that has gone into the report so far. Making changes that will ensure we’ve planned for the best possible outcome and against future ‘unintended consequences’ continues to be a worthy endeavor to seek on behalf of all Solvang residents.
Please keep up the good work and best intentions.
Thank you,
Hans and Wendy Gregersen
Cc: SCheca, City Clerk
483
484
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.
485
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.
486
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.
487
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
488
1/3/23, 12:56 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - [#20221221183054] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1752849405702858240&simpl=msg-f%3A1752849405… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
[#20221221183054] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang 2 messages
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:30 AM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20221221183054]
Name: Elaine Morris
e-mail: [email protected]
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
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 2:43 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20221221224314]
Name: Sophia Checa
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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!
Page title: PlanSolvang
489
!
"
#
$%&' "
#
$% ()*++,-* #
$%.
"
/01 2,3)454+67,6879:;,5+8;<,5-=>8)? @ABCD,5ECFGFH,6((IJKLM N*:;OP@8I+687)O+>)9-),4;=>8) @8I7O,5;9)4564*7A,754+A=>8)CQ7*569)4564*7A,754+A=>8)C:;,5545->85+B;6,569>46O8R+8;<,5-=>8)C78;3+9>46O8R+8;<,5-=>8) STUVWXYZ[\]\^]_]`_aba]cd efghYiXWjkWlmnoXTl hpgfqrY+687)O+>)9-),4;=>8) stgghuvwY xylyonz{Wmn|yo}~TX|~ylUT{nl{nllTl~yTTyl Xoyl{|oW|yXyWU{WXkWXWWjbbcnUjnoUW{oyiTXW~yoWo{|iTXW^TlXkWjoyjyWxyTl {WWlXx iy{nllWWXyWlUyonWUylXoUXTylynyonz{W}lyXkTkWoTlUyW}kyTlmnoVWXUylTXTylnlWTXTl ylTlknWkTXyoTUn{{|zWWlTUTWlXXyWnT{|WWXXkWlWWyokTkWoTlUyWkyTl kT{WXkWjoyjyWxyWWlUyonWnyonz{WkyTl}TXn{yllWUWnoT{|joyjyWkTkWlTX|ylTlTl noWnkWoWkTkWW{yjWlXUyXT{{{TVW{|WU{Wnyonz{WkyTlxTXyo|XW{{XknXXkTT{{Wj{nl TlyoWoXyWW{yjllWWWyWonXWnlkTkWoTlUyWkyWUUyoTlXyXkW\]_`Xy\]\^x`XkU|U{W j{nllTljWoTyoWjyoXnXjnWx\^}Xnz{Wx_}iy{nlWUWWWiXnXWWTyln{xyTlWWWWlX xoWToWWlXyonTXTyln{yWonXWnlnzyWyWonXWkyTlz|\\]nl_`^oWjWUXTW{| nWXTX{WY;,58;<,5- 490
1/10/23, 1:05 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - [#20230106224736] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754315106885832639&simpl=msg-f%3A1754315106… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
[#20230106224736] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang 1 message
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 2:47 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230106224736]
Name: Ester Smith
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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.
Page title: PlanSolvang
491
1/18/23, 7:56 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - [#20230113195938] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754938717742498175&simpl=msg-f%3A1754938717… 1/2 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
[#20230113195938] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang 5 messages
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:59 AM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230113195938]
Name: Gay Infanti
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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.
Page title: PlanSolvang
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:02 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230113200208]
Name: Gay Infanti
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
In he 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.
Page title: PlanSolvang
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:05 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230113200539]
Name: Gay Infanti
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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.
Page title: PlanSolvang
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:10 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230113201019]
Name: Gay Infanti
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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.
Page title: PlanSolvang
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230113221508]
Name: Josh Richman
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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
Page title: PlanSolvang
492
1/18/23, 8:06 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - [#20230115233738] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1755133627304339001&simpl=msg-f%3A1755133627… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
[#20230115233738] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang 1 message
Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 3:37 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Ticket: [#20230115233738]
Name: Sheri Noble
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:
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.
Page title: PlanSolvang
493
1/18/23, 8:05 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment on Housing Element, Public Review Draft https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754978669933439910&simpl=msg-f%3A1754978669… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Comment on Housing Element, Public Review Draft
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:34 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Patricia Hedrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 1:02 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on Housing Element, Public Review Draft To Solvang City Council and Staff,
We can all agree on the need for affordable housing. The question is how much and where it is cost-effective to build the necessary housing.
Site C on Alamo Pintado and Old Mission is the largest undeveloped site in Solvang, but it is undeveloped for good reasons. In fact Site C is actually 2 separate parcels, the more level corner parcel and the steep hillside parcel. The steep hillside parcel is an unrealistic site for high-density development.
Consider the topography:
Site C as illustrated shows both parcels as a flat rectangular shape. I am familiar with Site C as I walk near it almost daily. The northern parcel illustrated in the Draft Plan is referred to as a ‘U’ shaped contour when it is actually the opposite shape - a STEEP hill on both sides. City staff acknowledge that grading this parcel will be ‘especially difficult’, realistically it will require hill top removal and a total re-shaping to allow for the density desired by the city.
Removal of expansive soil and the importation of non-expansive soil would be expensive and disruptive to residents, businesses and visitors and all who use Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Rd and Hwy 246. Along with noise, air pollution and serious drainage issues (witness recent flooding) it would be expensive to mitigate.
Many residents, including the city’s own staff, have pointed out the impracticality of trying to build high-density, affordable housing on the steep hillside parcel. Access will be restricted and parking will be problematic as on street parking does not exist.
This steep parcel is the wrong site to achieve 20 affordable units, with 40-60 moderate to above moderate priced homes required to pay for the affordable units, though the city doesn’t need more above moderate priced homes. The city cannot afford this project, particularly the necessary infrastructure and services it will require to build and maintain.
I urge the city council to visit this site, to be aware of property lines and access limitations. Try to visualize how Site C can be realistically transformed into a densely packed development of 80-100 ‘units’ without destroying the character of a Solvang designated ‘Scenic Vista’ and avoiding adverse impact to adjacent neighborhoods.
This is NOT a cost-effective site. I urge the city to avert this potential planning disaster and eliminate the steep hillside parcel from Site C.
Sincerely,
Patricia Hedrick
Solvang Resident
494
1/18/23, 7:53 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment on Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754919889193587243&simpl=msg-f%3A1754919889… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Comment on Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 7:00 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: John Royce <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 1:58 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti, Councilmembers, and Housing Element Committee Staff, We are all aware of California’s acute housing crisis. To help tackle this crisis, we understand that Solvang is periodically required by the state of California to update its Housing Element. Kent and I believe we all share responsibility to mitigate this serious issue. To that end, we are not opposed to thoughtfully designed higher density housing as part of our workforce housing solution, and we do not protest having such a development near our own neighborhood.
In Solvang, many of our jobs simply do not accommodate our workforce’s ability to house themselves affordably. As one of the basic tenets of a healthy community, we believe we are obligated to provide reasonable opportunities to develop livable, affordable housing for the employees our city demands and attracts. Since we have extremely limited undeveloped space, it is imperative that we plan for our housing element carefully, thoughtfully, and creatively.
If the majority of our workforce must live and work outside of our city, we exacerbate the crush of traffic and parking issues, because every employee we require relies on personal transportation to get here, and requires a parking space for most of the day, often the same parking spaces provided for tourists and customers who spin our local economic engines. For these reasons, siting high density affordable housing close to local employment centers and amenities makes absolute sense, as it reduces the number of personal vehicle trips each resident must take to work, shop and play in our community.
However, the current proposal for the two parcels labeled as Site C goes far beyond our stated needs. While it does propose 18 Very Low and 2 Low income category units on the smaller, flatter parcel of Site C, it proposes an additional 20 Moderate and 36 Above Moderate units on the larger, steeper, 4.48-acre parcel. These additional units are not necessary to satisfy our RHNA goals. In fact, the city consistently over produces these high income categories. According to Table H-59 on page H-107 of the Housing Needs Assessment, there are already far more than enough credits for Moderate and Above Moderate units due to pending and or approved projects, ADU projections, and vacant sites that do not require rezoning. Thus, it is completely unnecessary to rezone the larger, steeper parcel of Site C. These additional proposed units will most certainly exacerbate traffic congestion and other population pressures, and threaten both a designated local view corridor and the historic Mission Santa Inez aqueduct, while serving no intended purpose from a community planning perspective. We won’t be able to blame this on Sacramento! If the crux of the argument for developing Site C is the urgent need for more affordable workforce housing, we should exclude the larger, upper parcel in the DR-20 rezoning process, as the lower, 1-acre parcel provides the opportunity to produce the affordable units we require, with close, often pedestrian access to local employment, shopping, and public transit amenities.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments.
Sincerely,
John Royce and Kent Lockart
687 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
John A Royce
[email protected]
CleanYourStoop on IG
562.208.9871 M Texts welcome
Volunteers make our world turn more kindly and gently. Support a volunteer by joining their effort or offering financial assistance. Your soul and the world we share will thank you. #WeNotMe
495
1/18/23, 8:06 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1755214262096702072&simpl=msg-f%3A1755214262… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 12:59 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Kathy Allain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 8:41 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 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
496
1/18/23, 7:51 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December, 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754919841574977474&simpl=msg-f%3A1754919841… 1/2 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December, 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 6:59 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Kent Lockart <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 2:44 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December, 2022 Dear Mayor Infanti, Mayor pro tem Orona, Council Members Brown and Orona, and Staff, In the “Summary of Capacity to Meet the RHNA”, page H-107, the “Site Inventory Table”, page H-58 is still confusing and continues to have an error in the calculation of the “% of RHNA Planned for Moderate”. This is the “Summary”.
Given that some people only read the “Summary”, that error alone would cause anyone reviewing the plan to question if there are more errors in the rest of the plan.
The Table H-58, “Summary of Capacity Table”, (see below) shows us that we do not need to rezone for Moderate and Above Moderate.
Solvang will achieve these naturally. Projects, ADU’s, and Vacant Sites already fulfill these two categories.
In the proposed rezoning that is included in this plan, Solvang is committing to the State more units than what they have asked for. I believe this is a mistake. It’s a waste. It gives the State too much control and triggers multiple regulations.
In fact, as you know, we must report to the State, DR-20 projects that are listed for affordable housing but not developed at the densities shown in our Housing Element.
Solvang has confined boarders, limited resources, and is almost built out. Our Housing Element for the next eight years needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid committing all our vacant parcels to producing more expensive units than is necessary.
One option to reduce the unnecessary over commitment of this plan is to separate the two parcels of Site C. The steep 4.48-acre parcel from Site C should be removed and not be rezoned DR-20 as part of this Housing Element submission. The 1-acre lower parcel is sufficient to produce the 20 Very Low and Low we need to meet our RHNA requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Housing Element Draft.
Kent Lockart
687 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
497
1/18/23, 7:51 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December, 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754919841574977474&simpl=msg-f%3A1754919841… 2/2 498
1/18/23, 8:39 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1755292958010937143&simpl=msg-f%3A1755292958… 1/2 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Comment Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 9:50 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Dave Fleishman <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Public City Council Group <[email protected]>
Cc: Dan Martin <[email protected]>; Steve Martin <[email protected]> Subject: Comment Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti, Councilmembers, City of Solvang:
Before I address the more technical issues regarding the proposed re-zoning and development of site C below, I want to make it clear that this site falls within the designated view corridor of our master plan, and it is an archeologically sensitive area. As such, I have reached out to the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation, and have shared photos of what I believe to be part of the original Mission Aqueduct which is located on Site C.
As I have stated previously in person in front of the Planning Commission, and in front of you all, this Site C requires extensive geological, environmental and archeological study prior to any type of re-zoning or development.
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 Very-Low and 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 Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
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 499
1/18/23, 8:39 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Comment Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1755292958010937143&simpl=msg-f%3A1755292958… 2/2 need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, 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 in advance for continuing to do more detailed due diligence prior to making any decisions.
Karen M. Waite
Former Councilmember
Solvang, Ca
Resident
500
! "
#$%
&'())*+( ,-./01(2*3245678)79:*;+<27'= >1?@A*;B@CDCE*5&&FGEHI >7FJ6*;K()5(L.L6*;K3'4;54(L1*L;4)1<27'=@ML(;5N4OO7;).OL(;53'4;54(L1*L;4)1<27'=@A4'P*L;4)1 .Q4'3'4;54(L1*L;4)1<27'= 02FJ7R+(LS9R).L79R)3245678)79:*;+<27'=@T9*;;4;+07;)?95*;5.U9*;;4;+27;)?95*;53245678)79:*;+<27'= VWXYZ[\]^_]`abcd`e)57L'6)2'3+'*49<27'f ghijZk_lcmnbopqb`lbcorpstsuvvwxtya zXZ{l|}~~\ol`~}cl^e27?;2493245678)79:*;+<27'f29(L3245678)79:*;+<27' e29(L3245678)79:*;+<27'f[^_~b_]be/01(2*3245678)79:*;+<27'f g
hjZ]`\m`{l|}~]~]cbvsstsslm~`}]]`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¡512629(U(L47R UL7Q(25)51*5(499*+*4;(2((R'7R(L*5(*;R*O7:( '7R(L*5(L(?4L('(;5)@O6CEE *;REDG L()U(254:(96< /7()((51*5/79:*;+4)7:(L)54'?9*54;+14+1(L4;27'( 17?)4;+<>14)7:(L)54'?9*547;)4'U962L(*5()?;;((R(R ?;45)1421*55L*25*RR4547;*9*889?(;5L()4R(;5)174;5?L; 49927;)?'()2*L2(*5(LL()7?L2()@2L(*5('7L(5L*8842 27;+()547;@*;R*RR5751(27)5)780456)(L:42()<>14) '*6O(*4;R8*9987LR(:(97U(L)O?5454);75+77R87L /79:*;+< 501
!
"
#
$
"
%
#&
'
#&
()'
"
*++,-./*+*#&
*+*
&0.-,.+1#& 2./*33,45*2+
/
6
7
6
8
6
8
6
9
'
'
'
:);$&
'
'
4
"
*33,45*2+
.,<..55
'
*
9
'
;:$6
6
#&
()'
6 =5
4.*
7
6
#&>'
6'
:$>
?)(; #&@#AB
'
#
(>
'
?## ; ()@$&B -
7
C .
6
D!
'
6
7
'
*
6
6
'
'
.,0..*4+124E,.53,4 /5.15<+,!F.
F
)$
5
*$( )( ,4F1FG/F*+
,F
502
1/4/23, 7:24 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Draft Housing Element comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754049964208953974&simpl=msg-f%3A1754049964… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Draft Housing Element comments
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:33 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>, Brent Gibbons <[email protected]>, Jim Harnish <[email protected]> Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Kief Adler <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft Housing Element comments
I've reviewed the draft housing element documents and found them to be thorough and well put together. That said, I do have the following comments:
1. While the state mandates many things, it does not mean that we, as citizens of Solvang, need to roll over and accept them. There are ways of fighting State laws in the courts and we can also reach out to our local representatives for help. I am not sure that a "one size fits all" approach by the State fits a small town like ours.
2. Yes there is an obvious need for housing, especially lower income housing. Solvang is a tourist town. It is our main source of revenue and jobs and should be respected for that. However, as we keep building high end hotels and restaurants instead of affordable housing, we are pushing our service workers further away from our City. For lower income employees, the cost of commuting can negate the benefits of working in our hotels, shops and restaurants further exacerbating our employee shortage.
3. I would like to see a common sense approach regarding housing in the City, with an emphasis on lower income needs. Further I would push back against the State and inquire where the water for these projects is supposed to come from. Finally, I would not allow any large projects to move forward, with an exemption for those close to permiting, until we solve our water issues.
Kief Adler
Solvang resident
503
1/18/23, 8:38 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: High Density Zoning for 100 units at AP and Old Mission https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1755214535042576082&simpl=msg-f%3A1755214535… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: High Density Zoning for 100 units at AP and Old Mission 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 1:03 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 9:22 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Public City Council Group <[email protected]> Subject: High Density Zoning for 100 units at AP and Old Mission 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.
T his 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
504
1/18/23, 8:01 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Housing element at Old Mission and Alamo Pintado https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754974305605519620&simpl=msg-f%3A1754974305… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Housing element at Old Mission and Alamo Pintado
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:25 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Barbara Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 9:03 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element at Old Mission and Alamo Pintado 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
505
1/4/23, 7:23 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Housing Element https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754049788849328079&simpl=msg-f%3A1754049788… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Housing Element
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM To: Brent Gibbons <[email protected]>, Ryan Lester <[email protected]>, Jim Harnish <[email protected]> Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Karry Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2022 11:53 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
1) Water and sewer hook ups for more housing? How can we accommodate more water use in a deepening draught? How can we hook up more units to a defunct sewer system?
Solvang should have a moratorium on building and hook ups! 2) TRAFFIC How can Solvang increase housing without creating an additional roadway bypass? Extending Fjord to 246 looks like the only viable option! 3) INFILL
506
1/4/23, 7:22 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Opposition to the re-zoning of 741 and 739 Alamo Pintado in the City of Solvang CA. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754049710503453218&simpl=msg-f%3A1754049710… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Opposition to the re-zoning of 741 and 739 Alamo Pintado in the City of Solvang CA. 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:29 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>, Brent Gibbons <[email protected]>, Jim Harnish <[email protected]> Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: L Woodall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Cc: Ben <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to the re-zoning of 741 and 739 Alamo Pintado in the City of Solvang CA. 12/20/2022
Dear City of Solvang and to whom it may concern,
We recently reviewed the Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment [December 2022] document and learned of the possible rezoning of lots 741 Alamo Pintado Road and 739 Alamo Pintado Road, also known as “Site A” in the Housing Needs Assessment Draft. It seems the City is proposing to rezone the two sites to accommodate high density, lower income housing.
The two sites are currently zoned 20-R-1 and allow for two dwelling units per acre. The City intends to rezone the parcels to DR-20 and apply the required minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre to meet the high-density designation.
We live at 2005 Kanin Hoj. Kanin Hoj is a small cul-de-sac serving five homes adjacent to the proposed “Site A”. We strongly oppose rezoning the lots adjacent to and near our street. Our neighborhood is not designed to support high-density housing. It is a quiet, single-family residential community desirable for the privacy and serenity provided by the large low-density lots.
Water, traffic, parking, noise, light, pollution and scale of such a development are all of great concern. The proposed zoning would be out of context and scale for the neighborhood. Kanin Hoj would not be able to withstand the additional traffic or parking created from the proposed high-density housing. The increased vehicular traffic on Kanin Hoj and Alamo Pintado could also pose a potential life safety hazard, as there is no access for pedestrians and limited access for first responders.
The proposed high-density housing located in a single-family residential neighborhood will also negatively affect the home values in the immediate vicinity as the homes in this single-family residential community are desirable for the privacy and serenity provided by the large low-density lots.
In addition, this will negatively impact the local wildlife, namely the deer families that live and reproduce here. We greatly appreciate your concern and thoughtfulness in regards to our effort to preserve the beauty of this single-family residential community.
Sincerely,
Ben and Lindsay Woodall
507
1/10/23, 1:05 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Richmond Property at Corner of Alamo PIntado and Old Mission Drive and Zoning Change https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754298272198846051&simpl=msg-f%3A1754298272… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Richmond Property at Corner of Alamo PIntado and Old Mission Drive and Zoning Change 2 messages
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 10:19 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>, Brent Gibbons <[email protected]>, Jim Harnish <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Thank you!
Sophia
From: Gabriel Rossetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 10:16 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Richmond Property at Corner of Alamo PIntado and Old Mission Drive and Zoning Change 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
[email protected]
Ryan Lester <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:05 PM To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Cc: Brent Gibbons <[email protected]>, Jim Harnish <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]>
Received.
We usually ask that the management team is included so everyone is on the same page. [Quoted text hidden]
--
Ryan Lester, Project Manager
---------------------------------------- Mintier Harnish 1415 20th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
P: (916) 446-0522
F: (916) 446-7520
www.mintierharnish.com
Mintier Harnish is now on a 4/10 work schedule, hours are 7:00 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Thursday, and closed on Fridays. 508
1/18/23, 7:57 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Solvang Draft Housing Element https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754971330451152444&simpl=msg-f%3A17549713304… 1/2 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Solvang Draft Housing Element
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 4:10 PM
To: Dan Martin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Thank you for your comments, they will be forwarded to the consultant for inclusion.
Annamarie Porter, CMC
City Clerk
City of Solvang
Phone: (805) 688-5575 x206
[email protected]
From: Dan Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 2:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Entered a "W" on your address originally.
Dan Martin
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dan Martin <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 1:29 PM
Subject: Solvang Draft Housing Element
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> 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 Low-cost 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
509
1/18/23, 7:57 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Solvang Draft Housing Element https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754971330451152444&simpl=msg-f%3A17549713304… 2/2 708 Hillside Drive
Solvang
[email protected]
510
1/18/23, 8:04 AM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fw: Solvang Draft Housing Element https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754978088432652814&simpl=msg-f%3A1754978088… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fw: Solvang Draft Housing Element
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:25 PM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Annamarie Porter, CMC
City Clerk
City of Solvang
Phone: (805) 688-5575 x206
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Story <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 9:28 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Solvang Draft Housing Element
City Officials,
I think that the plan to build low cost housing next to Mission Oaks was poorly conceived and will be disastrous on many levels.
There are people, far more knowledgeable than I, who will talk about elevation, soil, and runoff.
Where are you going to park another 200 cars?
The traffic is already congested and dangerous. My car has nearly been hit a couple of times, and pedestrians, literally have to dodge cars as the cross the road.
Drivers are looking at the traffic light and drive right through the stop sign You have three lanes of traffic on Alamo Pintado that arrive at the stop sign at different times.
Drivers make a U turn and then pull into the parking lot when the drivers behind them think that they are going to turn at the traffic light.
A woman was killed a couple of years ago. She was crossing 246 in a crosswalk with the light in her favor. A careless or frustrated driver turning left from Alamo Pintado didn’t see her. She was hit and killed.
You take your life in your hands when trying to cross Old Mission Oaks to enter the parking lot of New Frontiers. You have delivery trucks parked in the middle of the street and it’s on a corner making it impossible to see oncoming traffic. I have also seen a large RV, too big for the parking lot, parked in the red zone as they shop.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider the idea of low cost housing at this location.
Sincerely,
Diana Story
640 Hillside Drive
511
1/10/23, 1:11 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Alamo Pintado at Old Mission Drive https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563921220090969&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563921… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Alamo Pintado at Old Mission Drive
1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:42 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: john lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 4:50:25 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Alamo Pintado at Old Mission Drive
Valued Public Servants,
Our names are John and Dana Lee, we are married and have lived on the cul de sac at the end of Old Mission Drive for 3 years. Old Mission at Alamo Pintado is our only access to Nielsen’s, Merkantile, Solvang,Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, Los Olivos, and all other points in every compass direction. To say that traffic in this area is already congested is an understatement. Waited in a line of traffic coming to Alamo Pintado from Santa Barbara lately? Just wait for the new line coming to that intersection form town if the new residents work to the north!!
We can manage it now, but additional homes/traffic/residents will turn it into a nightmare. Imagine all this new chaos 5 houses down from you and blocking your only access to and from YOUR house and businesses that you have available.
The city is congested enough. Please don’t ruin it further.
The greed of developers and the sparkle of new tax revenue are formidable forces. What’s next? 246 thru town with a 4 lane highway running above it? Soon it’s BYE BYE SOLVANG!
Please find other land to develop with less impact on the people who love things the way they are. If you MUST!! get bigger, find some land near a quiet intersection where neighbors won’t notice or care!
There is a lot of land elsewhere for the State to enforce it’s unconscionable demand for new unit construction. It is my opinion that Solvang’s plan grows us to become something we are not. Slow down…..nobody says we have to get big! (Please respond with dates and times of the next meetings on this plan.) Very respectfully,
Happy Solvang residents,
John and Dana Lee
512
!"!! #$%&&'(% )*+,-%.'/.01234&356'7(8.3$9 :%;<='7#><?@?A'1>B?CDE F3BG2'7H%&1%I*I2'7H/$0710%I-'I70&-8.3$9<JI%71K0LL37&*LI%71/$0710%I-'I70&-8.3$9<=0$M'I70&- *N0$/$0710%I-'I70&-8.3$9 ,.BG3;(%IO5;&*I35;&/.01234&356'7(8.3$9<D5'7707(,37&P51'71*Q5'7707(.37&P51'71/.01234&356'7(8.3$9 RSTUVWUTXYZ[\]\TX^[_`aWbc]d^_aeS^V]f]_eg\^XhaaSTXigj^_VW_\]\Tak lmnopqW_rf^XX]ZWdW_ZT]_]s(1-@>/$'.8.3$t uvwxpq^X\WreyWX[W_rze{|{}~~~zq np[
ZTYTar^[XYTZ_^[ds.3P7.05/.01234&356'7(8.3$t`^dSTWS]YWs+,-%.'/.01234&356'7(8.3$tTar Z]_is.012.5%I/.01234&356'7(8.3$t uvxp^]Xa^Xd[
ZTY_]fT]V\_W^jS^[UTX]Z]]Xa]Y]
]_{|{{
¡¢£¤¤¥¦ §PI(%23P13I%$36%1-%&53Q07(C8C>'.I%Q'I.%5¨#A©ª«A@ª@@?4I3$+01%,071-%DPL50.G%60%¬I'4134 1-%M3P&07(®5%$%71I%5%'&%;07%.%$L%I?@??8 J%43I%%¯Q5'0707(1-%1%.-70.'5;0440.P510%&341-'1QI3N%.1<°±²±³²±´µ¶·¸·¹º»¹¼½¶¼¾¿À¹·¼´µÁ´ÂÃºÄ ¼¶¼½¼¿Á´¾¾Ã¼¾»¹µÅ·À¾Æ §;3PL11-'11-%;%6%53Q%I&¬055.'I%'L3P11-%¬'21-%LP05;07(&¬055533'7;.%I1'0752731L%071-% 35;'70&-&125%50%07;3¬713¬73I+Q'70&-Ç&31-'1¬3P5;(3'('07&11-%60&03734.-'I$07(13PI0&10. +356'7('7;¬%.3P5;-%'IÈ010&7311-%¬'201P&%;13L%ÉÊ ®6%71-%D350.%1-071-'107.I%'&%;1I'440.¬055L%'70(-1$'I%8 Ë..0;%71&-'6%'5I%';2-'QQ%7%;8:%¬017%&&%;'4%¬;'2&'(3'.'I&Q%%;07(I0(-11-I3P(-1-% &13Q&0(7'1Ì0%5&%7Í&ÎÎF-%I%¬055L%$'72$3I%Q%;%&1I0'7&8 Ë5&3¬%-%'I;'53134.3$Q5'071&'5I%';24I3$1-%L'.I3';&L%.'P&%34Q%3Q5%1'07(&-3I.P1&13 '630;1-%.37(%&10378 §$QI36%$%71&¬055;%4070106%527%%;13L%;37%L2,'51I'7&041-%QI3N%.1L%.3$%.37.I%1%8 P%13-0(-;%6%53Q$%71.3&1&<1-0&&1%%QQ'I.%50&731&P01'L5%43I.37&1IP.103734-0(-;%7&012'443I;'L5% -3P&07(8F-%?@'443I;'L5%P701&QI3Q3&%;43I+01%,¬05550%52L%LP051371-%';N'.%7145'11%I#'.I%Q'I.%58 ®6%71-3P(-«ÏM§KM®G§Ì,OE®P701&'I%QI3Q3&%;43I+01%,<I%Ð3707(1-%C8C>'.I%Q'I.%543I-0(- ;%7&012¬3P5;'.1P'552'553¬43I'15%'&1>#';;01037'5-0(-%I07.3$%P701&'L36%1-%©'553¬%;L2.PII%71 Ð3707(8 ÌOÌ®OÑFM®+®Ò̧F+ËG®Ì®®®13$%%11-%+1'1%Ó&GMÌË(3'5&43I$3;%I'1%'7;'L36% $3;%I'1%-3P&07(8JP05;07(1-%$¬3P5;P77%.%&&'I052.'P&%QI3L5%$&34%I3&037<4533;07(<&305'7;-05513Q I%$36'5<1I'440.&'4%12'7;.37(%&1037<;%&1I32'+356'7(;%&0(7'1%;&.%70.60&1''7;07.I%'&%1-%7%%;43I .3&1527%¬074I'&1IP.1PI%'7;&%I60.%&8Ô%I20$Q3I1'7152<01¬3P5;'5&307.I%'&%;%Q5%1037343PI&.'I.%¬'1%I I%&3PI.%&8 513
!" # $ %& %
514
1/10/23, 1:06 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563261290683812&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563261… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:31 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Albert Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 8:16:12 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 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 Very-Low and 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 Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
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. Very importantly, 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.
Albert Mills
621 Hillside Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
515
1/10/23, 1:06 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563341379180772&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563341… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:33 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Sandy Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 8:10:40 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 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 Very-Low and 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 Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
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. Very importantly, 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.
Sandra Mills
621 Hillside Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
516
1/10/23, 1:09 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563808725894389&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563808… 1/2 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:40 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: Jeff Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 7:17:27 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 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 Very-Low and 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 Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
517
1/10/23, 1:09 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563808725894389&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563808… 2/2 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. Very importantly, 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.
Jeff Nelson
634 Aqueduct Way,
Solvang, Ca. 93463
518
1/10/23, 1:10 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563890560086423&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563890… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:41 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Jane McGinty <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 4:05:35 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Dear Mayor Infanti and Council Members:
We moved to this lovely town of Solvang in 2000 and after living and golfing on the Alisal Ranch for six years, we moved to a home in Santa Ynez on Monteciello. Solvang drew us back, however, and by 2011 we bought our home in the beautiful community of Mission Oaks. We live at the top of historic Aqueduct Way where we have a lovely view and although we pay a premium price for it, we are close to the hospital, doctors, markets, banks etc. We feel safe here. It is what we worked a lifetime for.
We are very concerned about the rezoning proposal to allow more unnecessary housing and create even more congestion. The area already has a dangerous four way stop at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road and the expansion of the New Frontiers Market has increased traffic in the area tremendously. A more congested entrance to Solvang cannot be what you had in mind. Another consideration is that any new development will also increase the depletion of our scarce water resources. Already Mission Oaks has adapted to this scarcity with very strict rules about our use of the water here. I would hope that the city would tighten its belt as well and not add more unnecessary housing.
Sincerely yours,
Jane McGinty
646 Aqueduct Way Solvang CA 93463
519
1/10/23, 1:07 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563501862484735&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563501… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:35 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodger Olds <[email protected]>, Planning Consultant <[email protected]> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 6:15:15 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022
Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
My husband and I have been residents of Solvang for 47 years and for the past 9 years have resided in Mission Oaks HOA above the land along Alamo Pintado that the Richman family owns. We have seen many changes in our beautiful valley during that time, some good and some not so good.
Over the years we have seen some incredible increases in vehicular traffic throughout the Valley but most significantly two locations require some discussion. The intersections of State Route 246 (SR 246) and Alamo Pintado and another at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive. A few short years ago the increased traffic at Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado got so heavy that a 4-way stop was created. In recent years with the completion of the Mercantile Shopping Center and 16 new residences on Old Mission Drive, traffic in these two locations has mushroomed. With three separate entrances and exits for the shopping center, traffic is constantly entering or leaving which causes confusion for drivers and often requires driving in the opposing lane of traffic on Old Mission Drive. Large delivery trucks and an assortment of cars and trucks owned by employees of the various businesses line Old Mission Drive and occasionally block the entrance to Mission Oaks, our driveway.
If the property along Alamo Pintado owned by the Richman family is rezoned to accommodate more commercial businesses and innumerable low-cost housing, it can and will create significant safety concerns.
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 Very-Low and 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 Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
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. Very importantly, 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.
Respectfully Submitted,
SuziMatthies
682 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
Email: [email protected]
Home Phone: 805-688-8515
520
1/10/23, 1:07 PM Mintier Harnish Mail - Fwd: Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=9bde5d2892&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1754563609581822508&simpl=msg-f%3A1754563609… 1/1 Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Fwd: Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 1 message
Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:37 AM To: Ryan Lester <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Consultant <[email protected]>, Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Paul Matthies <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 3:26:14 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
My wife and I have been residents of Solvang for 47 years and for the past 9 years have resided in Mission Oaks HOA above the land along Alamo Pintado that the Richman family owns. We have seen many changes in our beautiful valley during that time, some good and some not so good.
Over the years we have seen some incredible increases in vehicular traffic throughout the Valley but most significantly two locations require some discussion. The intersections of State Route 246 (SR 246) and Alamo Pintado and another at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive. A few short years ago the increased traffic at Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado got so heavy that a 4-way stop was created. In recent years with the completion of the Mercantile Shopping Center and 16 new residences on Old Mission Drive, traffic in these two locations has mushroomed. With three separate entrances and exits for the shopping center, traffic is constantly entering or leaving which causes confusion for drivers and often requires driving in the opposing lane of traffic on Old Mission Drive. Large delivery trucks and an assortment of cars and trucks owned by employees of the various businesses line Old Mission Drive and occasionally block the entrance to Mission Oaks, our driveway.
If this property is rezoned to accommodate more commercial businesses and innumerable low-cost housing, it can and will create significant safety concerns.
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 Very-Low and 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 expensive units than is necessary. But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY 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 the 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.
REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER-INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
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. Very importantly, it would also increase the 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 the 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.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Matthies
682 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
Email: [email protected]
Home Phone: 805-688-8515
521
522
523
Drone Photo: North View
Drone Photo: South View
Drone Photo: North View of Aqueduct
3 524
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
[email protected]
525
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
[email protected]
526
527
Comments taken through PlanSolvang.com
Sandra Mills [email protected]
The upcoming rezoning to accommodate a large high density development for low income housing on 2 lots next to Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive is not a good idea for the surrounding area. For some reason, the Planning Commission chose only these 2 lots, one of 1 acre and one of 5.48 acres as the only choices for development of 110 units. Why were no other areas chosen? The larger lot has a 40 foot slope, which would make it difficult to build upon. It appears that the planners did not even look at the land before deciding this is the location to build upon, despite other vacant flat lots around the city that could be rezone for development. Be aware that the contiguous Mission Oaks area shows as high density zoning on the city map, even though it is actually low density. I think other areas in the city should be considered, and I wonder why they were excluded from the study. Is there a financial interest in using these 2 lots? Elaine Morris [email protected]
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.
Sophia Checa [email protected]
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!
Stephen Martin [email protected]
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
Ester Smith [email protected]
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.
Gay Infanti [email protected] 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.
Gay Infanti [email protected]
In he 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.
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. 528
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.
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
Sheri Noble [email protected]
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.
529
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 13, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested parties
FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: State Income Limits for 2022
Attached are briefing materials and Revised State Income Limits for 2022 that are now in effect, replacing the previous 2021 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low -, extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderateincome households for California’s 58 counties. The 2022 State Income Limits are on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml.
State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income), and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other income limits.
The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2022 Income Limits and were updated based on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released on April 19, 2022, for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202 and Section 811 programs and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy. Since 2013, HCD’s HH Policy has held State Income Limits harmless from any decreases in household income limits and median income levels that HUD may apply to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits. HUD determined its HH Policy was no longer necessary due to federal law changes in 2008 (Public Law 110-98) prohibiting rent decreases in federal or private activity bond funded projects.
For questions concerning State Income Limits, please see the Questions and Answers on page
5. You can also contact HCD staff at (916) 263-2911.
530
2022 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932