Solvang City Council
July 8, 2024

4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Traffic Analysis Data Memorandum prepared by DKS Associates in December 2023 (Appendix G). VMT estimates were modeled using the SBCAG travel demand model released in July 2022. The travel demand model uses TransCAD 9.0 transportation planning software. The model consists of a 2015 base-year scenario (existing year scenario) using the most recent data available, and a 2050 future year scenario (future year scenario).

This land use-based model is consistent with SBCAG’s travel-demand model assumptions and inputs.

The 2015 existing year scenario was chosen consistent with the SBCAG travel demand model baseline. Given the negligible amount of development in Solvang between 2015 and 2022, no adjustment to the existing year scenario is warranted. Although the 2045 General Plan would facilitate development through the year 2045, the future year scenario (2050) from the SBCAG travel demand model is applied to the year 2045 as a conservative approach as it would assume all the potential development would occur by the year 2045 (the General Plan horizon year).

The proposed 2045 General Plan includes Policy MOB-1.5 and Mobility Element Program B which require the City to adopt and implement VMT thresholds for determining transportation impacts and streamlining opportunities for projects subject to CEQA. These VMT thresholds are not yet adopted.

Accordingly, for this EIR, the threshold used for VMT is based on the recommendations of the OPR’s Technical Advisory. The Technical Advisory provides methodologies and thresholds of significance that may be used for project-level analysis of VMT impacts, including recommended thresholds of significance applicable to individual residential projects. However, for land use plans such as general plans, area plans, or community plans, the Technical Advisory recommends analyzing VMT outcomes over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography. The Technical Advisory recommends that general plans, area plans, or community plans may have a significant impact on transportation if the VMT increases would exceed a threshold of 15 percent lower per capita or per employee VMT than existing regional development.

In addition, OPR recommends infrastructure projects that result in a net increase in total area VMT may have a significant transportation impact. The Technical Advisory includes evidence connecting this level of reduction to the State’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals including under SB 32 and SB 375 (OPR 2018).

Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the 2045 General Plan would be considered less than significant if the future year with project scenario VMT per capita and VMT per employee of Solvang would be 15 percent or more below the existing/base year SBCAG region average VMT per capita and VMT per employee (Appendix G).

While a 15 percent threshold is used in this Program EIR to analyze VMT impacts of the 2045 General Plan, this threshold may not necessarily be utilized by the City as lead agency for future projects. Lead agencies have the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4). 875
The City anticipates adoption and implementation of VMT thresholds after adopting the 2045 General Plan in compliance with Policy MOB-1.5 and Mobility Element Program B, discussed above.

Therefore, the 15 percent lower per capita and per employee VMT than existing regional development threshold used to analyze VMT of the 2045 General Plan in accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory may not necessarily be used for future individual projects in Solvang. As lead agency, the City may choose to adopt a lower threshold than OPR’s recommended threshold due to its geographical location relative to employment opportunities, topography, and other considerations. Until Implementation Policy MOB-1.5 and Mobility Element Program B are implemented, the City may continue to apply VMT significance thresholds on a case-by-case basis using OPR’s recommended thresholds.

Significance Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides the following significance thresholds to determine if a project would have a potentially significant impact on transportation. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the 2045 General Plan may have a significant adverse impact if it would:

Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b); Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or Result in inadequate emergency access.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONNECTED 2050

RTP/SCS, THE SANTA YNEZ VALLEY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, OR THE SANTA YNEZ RIVER TRAIL ALIGNMENT

STUDY, OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY RELEVANT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2045 General Plan would result in additional residential and commercial density, which would increase multimodal trips (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) onto the circulation network.

This increase in multiple modes of travel would be in conformance with the goals and policies contained in the following plans affecting the City’s circulation network:
 SBCAG Connected 2050 RTP/SCS
 Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan
 Santa Ynez River Trail Alignment Study
 Local Roadway Safety Plan
In addition, the 2045 General Plan’s consistency with the City’s draft Active Transportation Plan is provided. The draft Active Transportation Plan is subject to change prior to its adoption by the City Council. Accordingly, the discussion of the draft Active Transportation Plan is provided solely for 876
informational purposes because the document was not approved prior to the baseline date of the Notice of Preparation in June 2023.

A brief discussion of the 2045 General Plan’s consistency with SBCAG’s Connected 2050 RTP/SCS, the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan, Santa Ynez River Trail Alignment Study, the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan, and the City’s draft Active Transportation Plan is provided below.

Connected 2050 RTP/SCS
The 2045 General Plan includes policies in the Mobility Element that support facilitating development to promote regional transportation goals included in the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS to improve access to transit, improve access to alternative transportation, and reduce adverse environmental effects. These policies include:
 Policy MOB-1.11: Regional Coordination for Roadway Management. The City shall coordinate with SBCAG, the City of Buellton, the Chumash Tribe, Santa Barbara County, the California Department of Transportation, and other jurisdictions in the planning and funding of regional transportation alternatives. Mission Drive (SR 246) shall not be widened to four lanes through the Village Area instead, emphasis shall be placed on developing regional transportation alternatives.
 Policy MOB-2.7: New Facilities in Existing Neighborhoods. The City shall encourage the installation of sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bikeways, and wheelchair ramps in existing neighborhoods, where appropriate and support Safe Routes to Schools funding.  Policy MOB-4.1: Complete Streets. The City shall create guidelines to facilitate the installation of non-automobile serving infrastructure along its streets, including sidewalks and bike trails.  Policy MOB-5.1: VMT Management. The City shall work with SBCAG and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution District to identify trip and VMT reduction opportunities.  Policy MOB-5.2: TDM. The City shall encourage employers to promote carpooling, public transportation, and allow telecommuting.
 Policy MOB-6.2: Regional Transit Network. The City shall work with SBCAG and other nearby cities and jurisdictions to ensure that the regional transit network offers access for those with limited mobility options.
 Policy MOB-6.3: Transportation Access for Mobility Impaired. The City shall support the public transportation system to accommodate the mobility needs of residents, especially of transit dependent persons such as the elderly and disabled.

With implementation of the policies included in the proposed Mobility Element, the proposed project would encourage alternative travel, equitable access, and a reduction in vehicle trips, consistent with the regional transportation goals of the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS.

Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan
The Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan’s purpose is to create a cohesive vision for recreational and utilitarian bicycle travel in the Santa Ynez Valley. The primary goal of the plan is to promote connectivity for bicyclists (SBCAG 2019). The 2045 General Plan’s Mobility Element includes the following policies and programs that promote the goal of the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan:
 Policy MOB-2.1: Bicycle Master Plan. The City shall adopt a master plan of bikeways on public property and shall develop bikeways as needed and feasible. 877
 Policy MOB-2.2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes on New Roadways. The City shall incorporate bicycle routes or trails into the design of new or expanded roadways when feasible.  Policy MOB-2.3: Safe Bikeway System. The City shall allocate resources to maintain a safe bikeway system by ensuring pavement is of good quality, mode separation is implemented where feasible, and signs and markings are maintained.
 Policy MOB-3.5: Micro-Mobility Parking. The City shall review and consider the use of alternative transportation modes by providing adequate parking for small vehicles such as zero emission vehicles, scooters, and bicycles.
 Policy MOB-4.2: Street Closures. The City shall analyze the potential for streets to be closed to vehicular traffic or otherwise modified to improve travel routes available to pedestrians and bicyclists.
 Mobility Element Program C: Local and Regional Bicycle Network. The City shall coordinate with SBCAG and participating local jurisdictions to update the Santa Ynez Bicycle Master Bikeway Plan on a regular basis to maintain an adequate system for the safe and efficient movement of bicyclists.

The 2045 General Plan would ensure adequate bicycle facilities are provided to promote bicycle use.

The 2045 General Plan Mobility Element Program C would require the use and update of the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan which would promote regional connectivity in accordance with the primary goal of the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not conflict with the goals and policies of the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan.

Santa Ynez River Trail Alignment Study
The Santa Ynez River Trail Alignment Study is intended to amplify the goals of existing planning documents, including the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan, by providing planning guidance for a multimodal trail that would connect the cities of Solvang and Buellton (SBCAG 2020). As described in the discussion above, the 2045 General Plan’s Mobility Element would require coordination with SBCAG and participating jurisdictions to maintain an adequate regional system for bicyclists. The 2045 General Plan does not propose development that would interfere with the implementation of a multimodal trail to connect Solvang with Buellton. Furthermore, policies proposed within the 2045 General Plan Mobility Element, as described above, promote bicycle connectivity and safety.

Accordingly, the 2045 General Plan would not impede the development of the Santa Ynez River Trail identified in the Santa Ynez River Trail Alignment Study.

Solvang Local Roadway Safety Plan
The City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan is designed to provide a framework to improve traffic safety in Solvang through installation of design measures on local roadways. Implementation of the 2045 General Plan would not impede the installation of the design measures identified in the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan. Furthermore, the 2045 General Plan’s Mobility Element includes policies that promote safe transportation, such as the following:
 Policy MOB-1.9: Safe Speeds. The City shall enforce speed limits and consider lower posted speeds as warranted.
 Policy MOB-2.4: Pedestrian Facilities. The City shall provide a system of sidewalks or pathways that provides a safe environment for pedestrians.
878
 Policy MOB-4.3: Safe Streets. The City shall pursue and enact traffic calming measures as appropriate to meet the policy objectives, as conditions warrant.

With implementation of these measures, the 2045 General Plan would enhance the goal of the Local Roadway Safety Plan to improve traffic safety throughout Solvang. Accordingly, the 2045 General Plan would not conflict with the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Solvang Active Transportation Plan
Once adopted, the Active Transportation Plan would serve as a guidance document intended to support the provision of a connected bicycle and pedestrian network to provide safe, affordable, and accessible transportation choices in Solvang. The draft Active Transportation Plan includes recommendations for the installation of Class I, Class II, and multi-use trails. The following 2045 General Plan Mobility Element policies would support active transportation projects identified in the draft Active Transportation Plan:
 Policy MOB-2.2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes on New Roadways. The City shall incorporate bicycle routes or trails into the design of new or expanded roadways when feasible.  Policy MOB-2.3: Safe Bikeway System. The City shall allocate resources to maintain a safe bikeway system by ensuring pavement is of good quality, mode separation is implemented where feasible, and signs and markings are maintained.
 Policy MOB-2.7: New Facilities in Existing Neighborhoods. The City shall encourage the installation of sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bikeways, and wheelchair ramps in existing neighborhoods, where appropriate and support Safe Routes to Schools funding.

The 2045 General Plan would ensure adequate bicycle facilities are provided to promote bicycle use, and 2045 General Plan policies would be further supported by active transportation projects identified in the draft Active Transportation Plan. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not conflict with the draft Active Transportation Plan.

Conclusion
Overall, implementation of the above Mobility Element policies and programs would ensure consistency with circulation system plans discussed above in relation to roadways and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant. 879
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE FUTURE YEAR CITYWIDE VMT PER CAPITA AND VMT PER EMPLOYEE WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD NOT ACHIEVE AT LEAST A 15 PERCENT REDUCTION BELOW THE EXISTING REGIONAL AVERAGE. AS A RESULT, THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B). EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-1, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

As described in Appendix G, the VMT analysis prepared for the 2045 General Plan follows the methodology recommended by OPR in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018). The 2045 General Plan’s impact on VMT would be less than significant if the City’s future year VMT per capita and VMT per employee would be at least 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita for the SBCAG region. Table 4.14-2 and Table 4.14-3 summarize the daily citywide VMT per capita and VMT per employee, respectively, in the future year scenario.

Table 4.14-2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary – VMT Per Capita Area Scenario VMT Per Capita
SBCAG Region Existing (2015) 21.74
Threshold 85% of SBCAG Existing (2015) 18.48
City of Solvang Future Year With 2045 General Plan 22.18 Does the City of Solvang 2045 General Plan VMT Exceed the Threshold? Yes Source: Appendix G
Table 4.14-3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary – VMT Per Employee Area Scenario VMT Per Employee
SBCAG Region Existing (2015) 25.07
Threshold 85% of SBCAG Existing (2015) 21.31
City of Solvang Future Year With 2045 General Plan 21.52 Does the City of Solvang 2045 General Plan VMT Exceed the Threshold? Yes Source: Appendix G
Taking 85 percent of the countywide existing baseline VMT yields a threshold of 18.48 for VMT per capita and 21.31 for VMT per employee. As shown above, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would result in 22.18 VMT per capita and 21.52 VMT per employee which would exceed the thresholds of significance used in this analysis.

Potential future VMT impacts from individual developments in Solvang would be evaluated based on either OPR recommendations or local VMT thresholds established by the City. While the potential impacts of individual developments in Solvang are speculative, the overall potential impact of the increase in VMT in the Solvang area from implementation of the 2045 General Plan would be potentially significant.
880
Mitigation Measures
TRA-1 Achieve VMT Reductions for Development Projects
In the interim, prior to the City establishing VMT thresholds for determining transportation impacts for CEQA, per Policy MOB-1.4 of the 2045 General Plan, for individual projects that exceed the City’s recommended threshold below the VMT average based on project-specific VMT analysis, the City shall require the project applicant to implement project-level VMT reduction strategies. The City shall design strategies for the proposed project to reduce VMT from existing land uses, where feasible, and from new discretionary residential or employment land use projects. The design of programs and project-specific mitigation shall focus on VMT reduction strategies that increase travel choices and improve the comfort and convenience of sharing rides in private vehicles, using public transit, biking, or walking. VMT reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Provision of bus stop improvements
Pedestrian improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc. by paying in lieu fees.

Bicycle programs, including bike rentals, storage, maintenance programs, and on-site education programs
Enhancements to the citywide bicycle network by paying in lieu fees Parking reductions and/or fees set at levels sufficient to incentivize transit, active transportation, or shared modes
Cash allowances, passes, or other public transit subsidies Employee-based housing options
Following the City’s establishment of VMT thresholds, individual projects shall be evaluated and mitigated in accordance with the procedures outlined in the City’s VMT Program.

Significance After Mitigation
Although Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require project applicants of individual projects with potentially significant VMT impacts to implement VMT reduction strategies, because the uncertainty relating to the feasibility of implementing VMT reduction strategies and the timing that it would take to implement VMT reduction strategies for individual projects, the effectiveness of reducing an individual project’s VMT impact is speculative at this programmatic stage. As a result, because specific project-level details are unknown at this level of planning, individual developments facilitated by the 2045 General Plan may exceed VMT thresholds. Adoption and implementation of the City’s VMT thresholds in accordance with Policy MOB-1.4 would ensure that development facilitated by the project would generally be consistent with SB 743. However, individual projects that may occur would not be guaranteed to be below thresholds in the adopted VMT Program nor would feasible mitigation therein necessarily reduce VMT below thresholds. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable. 881
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD COMPLY WITH STATE,

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND CITY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION DESIGN SAFETY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. WITH ADHERENCE TO THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN

WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE OR RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS, AND THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As stated in Section 8-2-5(A) of the City’s Municipal Code, the City has prepared a set of standard construction details, which include, but are not limited to, general specifications, drainage details, curb, driveway, sidewalk and access ramp details, typical street section, water system details and sanitary sewer system details. As stated in Section 8-2-5(B), all improvement plans for projects within the city, including, but not limited to, grading, water, sewer, streets and other surface and subsurface structures, shall be prepared based upon and incorporate the standard construction details as prepared by the city. As individual developments are proposed, project applicants would be required to follow appropriate design guidelines in implementing roadway improvements that are necessary to alleviate transportation hazards. Therefore, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Construction activities facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could temporarily impair emergency access points used for emergency access vehicles. However, any construction on State highway systems (i.e. SR 246) would be required to create a temporary traffic control plan that adheres to the standards set forth in the most recent version of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans 2023). Construction within a public easement or right-of-way would be required to obtain an encroachment permit from the City’s Public Works Department. Pursuant to Section 8-2-10 of the City’s Municipal Code, any person who has received a street construction or excavation permit must maintain safe crossings for two lanes of vehicle traffic at all street intersections where possible and safe crossings for pedestrians at intervals of not more than three hundred feet. If any excavation is made across any street right-of-way, at least one safe crossing shall be maintained, when possible, for vehicles and pedestrians. Further, construction activities would be temporary and short-term in nature. Accordingly, construction activities would not result in substantial impairment of emergency access in Solvang.

Operation of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could result in alterations to existing transportation infrastructure, including, but not limited to, sidewalks and driveways. Future development would be required to adhere to applicable state and County Fire Department design standards for emergency vehicle access, such as California Code of Regulations Title 19, Article 3, Section 3.05 which requires access roads from every building to a public street to be all-weather hard-surfaced right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. The Santa Barbara County Fire Department maintains additional requirements for fire apparatus access, including angles of approach and departure, turnaround radius, and Fire Marshal approval (Santa Barbara County Fire Department 2023).

In addition to existing State and local requirements, the 2045 General Plan proposes policies that would ensure transportation safety and maintain adequate emergency access. These policies include the following:
882
 Policy MOB-1.5: New Development Access. The City shall require new development to be served by roads of adequate capacity and design standards to provide reasonable access in accordance with City standards.
 Policy MOB-1.6: Rights-of-way Preservation. The City shall reserve and protect adequate rightsof-way to accommodate future roadway widening projects.  Policy MOB-1.9: Safe Speeds. The City shall enforce speed limits and consider lower posted speeds as warranted.

In addition, future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would be reviewed by City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable City and State design standards, including standards for project access points, location, and design, sight lines, roadway modifications, provisions for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections, and emergency access. As a result, these impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
Regional cumulative impacts consider the City-wide impacts together with similar impacts of reasonably anticipated regional projects/programs. The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the determination of the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection 3.3, Baseline and Cumulative Project Setting.

Cumulative projects would be required to comply with local regulations and policies related to the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Cumulative development within Solvang would be required to comply with 2045 General Plan Mobility Element policies. Accordingly, cumulative projects would have a less than significant impact related to conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system.

Cumulative development could result in changes to SBCAG baseline VMT conditions that conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and therefore create a significant cumulative impact. Implementation of the 2045 General Plan would be inconsistent with OPR’s recommended VMT per capita and VMT per employment thresholds. Because the analysis for the 2045 General Plan is based on citywide VMT calculations in comparison to SBCAG regional VMT estimates, the 2045 General Plan’s project-level significant and unavoidable impact on VMT implies that the 2045 General Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution toward regional cumulative VMT impacts. Therefore, cumulative VMT impacts would be significant, and the 2045 General Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on VMT impacts.

Some types of transportation impacts are related to site- and project-specific characteristics, and conditions would not be significantly affected by other development outside Solvang. Compliance with applicable regulations and oversight, including Caltrans design guidelines, City design guidelines, and Santa Barbara County Fire Department standards would effectively reduce the potential for individual projects to create a cumulative transportation hazard or emergency access impacts within Solvang, as well as Santa Barbara County. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to transportation hazards and emergency access would be less than significant. 883

4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the proposed project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources as defined by PRC § 21074. Tribal cultural resources are those resources identified by California Native American Tribes in consultation with lead agencies during tribal consultation [also referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 52 / Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation].

4.15.1 Setting
Solvang lies within the Chumash traditional territory, which extends from the current city of Malibu, north beyond San Luis Obispo, and inland as far as 68 kilometers (42 miles). The Chumash also inhabited the northern Channel Islands. The Chumash spoke six closely related languages, divided into two broad groups – Northern Chumash, consisting of only Obispeño (Tilhini), and Southern Chumash, including Purisimeño, Ineseño (Samala), Barbareño (Šmuwič), Ventureño (Mitsqanaqa'n), and Island Chumash (Mithun 2001). The Chumash are divided broadly by anthropologists into three main environmental areas, including Interior, Coastal, and Northern Channel Islands Chumash.

Chumash villages along the mainland coast of the Santa Barbara Channel from Carpinteria to Goleta were of the highest population density, ranging from 500 to 800 individuals; though some claim population counts were into the thousands (Rawls 1984; Dartt-Newton and Erlandson 2006).

Interior villages were substantially smaller, with populations varying anywhere from 15 to 250 people (Glassow et al. 2007). Grant (1978) describes a typical Chumash village consisting of “several houses, a sweathouse, store houses, a ceremonial enclosure, gaming area, and a cemetery usually placed well away from the living area.” Each village was led by a hereditary chief with ceremonial leaders and specialists (Gamble 2008). Extensive trade routes and shared resources across environmental zones provided security in times of need (ibid). Chumash society was hierarchical and status differentiation can be noted in their dress, personal items, and responsibilities.

Networks extended along ridge lines, mountain passes, rivers, and along and across the Santa Barbara Channel. Watercraft assisted in these efforts such as tule balsa rafts and dug out canones, but they are well-known for their wooden plank canoe, or tomol. The tomol facilitated the procurement of marine resources such as nearshore fish caught with nets, lines and hooks, and deep-sea marine mammals that were hunted with harpoons (Arnold 1995). Tomols moved people and goods across the Santa Barbara Channel in what was considered a highly sophisticated trade network.

The Chumash typically buried their dead in cemeteries with abundant grave offerings of food, water, jewelry and their own personal tools and adornment (Erlandson 1999:107).

Spanish explorers first arrived in the Santa Barbara Channel region in 1542. The impact of foreign contact on Chumash lifeways accelerated in 1772 when Mission San Luis Obispo became the first mission established in Chumash territory, with five more to follow in subsequent years (DarttNewton and Erlandson 2006), including Mission Santa Inés. Mission Santa Inés was founded by Father Estévan Tapís on September 17, 1804, to teach the Chumash about Christianity, trade, and Spanish culture (Mission Santa Inés n.d.) The primary source of labor for the mission was from the Village of Kalawashaq, located along the Santa Ynez River. Mission life led to forced culture loss among the Chumash people, and disease decimated native populations. However, many Samala Chumash still live in the region and a cultural revitalization has been ongoing since the twentieth century (Glassow et al. 2007). Today, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (Samala Chumash), 884
whose reservation is approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) east of the Planning Area, is also the only federally recognized Chumash tribe.

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
California Assembly Bill 52
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was enacted and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “Tribal Cultural Resources.” AB 52 states, “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 further states that, when feasible, the CEQA lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Sections 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and that meets at least one of the following criteria, as summarized in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G:

Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); and/or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process with California Native American tribes that must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” California Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) of 2004 (California Government Code Section 65352.3) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” 885
Senate Bill 35 and Assembly Bill 168
Enacted on September 29, 2017, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) (California Government Code Section 65913.41) grants a ministerial approval process that expedites and facilitates construction of affordable housing projects without normal CEQA documentation. However, in May 2021, Assembly Bill 168 (AB 168), an act to amend Sections 65400, 65913.4, and 65941.1 of SB 35, was passed.

AB 168 requires a pre-consultation process with Native American Tribes to identify and protect tribal cultural resources prior to the submission of an SB 35 permit for a housing development. b. Local Regulations
City of Solvang Municipal Code
The Solvang Municipal Code Section 11-4-2 requires project design to avoid impacts to known archaeological and cultural sites, and where avoidance is infeasible, Section 11-4-2 requires mitigation to be implemented pursuant to State Office of Historic Preservation and the State Native American Heritage Commission. In addition, Section 11-4-2 requires Native American consultation when development proposals are submitted which could impact significant archaeological or cultural sites. The Solvang Municipal Code Section 11-4-6 states development should be prohibited in all cases on lands that are existing parks and recreation sites, historic sites, and archaeological sites.

City of Solvang General Plan
Policies included in the Environment and Sustainability Element of the 2045 General Plan that are applicable to archaeological resources in Solvang include the following:
 Goal ENV-4: To protect the historic and cultural resources in order to preserve the heritage of native peoples and the area’s earliest settlers.
 Policy ENV-4.1: Protect Archaeological Resources. The City shall provide for the protection of both known and potential archaeological resources citywide. To avoid significant damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required in accordance with the relevant provisions of federal and State laws.  Policy ENV-4.2: Collaboration with Chumash. The City shall continue a positive and collaborative working relationship with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians through continued consultation and collaboration with respect to the preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, specified Native American places, features, and objects.

4.15.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The City of Solvang prepared and mailed letters to local Native Americans who have requested notification under AB 52 and SB 18 on June 15, 2023. Under AB 52 tribes have 30 days and under SB 18 tribes have 90 days to respond and request consultation. The City received one response from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on June 21, 2023, in which the Tribe requested consultation for the project. No other tribes responded during the 30-day or 90-day period to request consultation, which elapsed in mid-July and mid-September, respectfully. 886
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources would be significant if the project would:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Impact TCR-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN MAY IMPACT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ADHERENCE TO STATE AND 2045 GENERAL PLAN REGULATIONS

WOULD ENSURE IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

As part of its tribal cultural resource identification process under AB 52 and SB 18, the City sent letters to six Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated Planning Area. The City sent letters to the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, the Chumash Council of Bakersfield, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, the San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council, and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on June 15, 2023. The City received one request for consultation under AB 52 and SB 18 from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians which concluded on February 15, 2024. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians provided the City with preferred mitigation measures regarding tribal cultural resources but did not identify specific tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area.

Adherence to the requirements of AB 52 would require Tribal consultation with local California Native American Tribes prior to implementation of any project activities which are subject to CEQA. 887
In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether project-specific substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources would occur along with identification of appropriate, project-specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Due to the programmatic nature of the 2045 General Plan, it is not possible to fully determine impacts; however, no specific tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation and no tribal cultural resources eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or local register were identified as being impacted by the 2045 General Plan; however, potential tribal cultural resources are likely to exist throughout the Planning Area. Any future project implementation would require project-specific tribal cultural resources identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be incorporated.

The following policy included in the Environment and Sustainability Element is applicable to tribal cultural resources in Solvang:
 ENV-4.2: Collaboration with Chumash. The City shall continue a positive and collaborative working relationship with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians through continued consultation and collaboration with respect to the preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, specified Native American places, features, and objects.

Development facilitated by 2045 General Plan would undergo project-specific tribal cultural resource consultation pursuant to the requirements of PRC Section 21084 and Policy ENV-4.2. There is always potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to exist throughout the Planning Area which could be damaged or destroyed during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan’s impact on tribal cultural resources is potentially significant. The following measures are included to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant, knowing that upon recognition avoidance would be the preferred treatment when feasible through consultation with consulting Chumash tribes.

Mitigation Measures
TCR-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program
The Applicant will invite a City-approved archaeologist to provide a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The City will invite consulting Chumash Tribe(s) to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP training shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP will include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and will outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP will emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and will discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Chumash tribal values. 888
TCR-2 Retain Chumash Tribal Monitors
For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation, prior to issuance of any City Grading or Construction Permit, the Applicant or its designee shall work with consulting Chumash Tribe(s) to retain Tribal Monitor(s) to assist in the monitoring, mitigation, and curation activities for the specific project.

Where multiple areas of work are concurrently permitted for grading or disturbance, or where multiple pieces of equipment are operating within the same work area, there shall be multiple monitors, at least one for each area, and a sufficient number of Tribal Monitors shall be onsite to ensure all concurrent activities are monitored. The tribal monitors may be rotated to ensure that consulting Chumash Tribe(s) can observe the work areas. The City shall be responsible for creating monitoring schedules for the Chumash Tribal Monitors, and specifying the locations where they will monitor in consultation with the consulting Chumash Tribe(s).

Any interference with monitoring activities, removal of a monitor from duties, or direction to a monitor to relocate or cease monitoring activities by anyone other than the City shall be considered a non-compliance event. In the event a Chumash Tribal Monitor is dismissed from monitoring and the City determines this to be in error, the Chumash Tribal Monitor will be compensated for time lost by the Applicant. Any disagreements between the Project Archaeologist and Chumash Tribal Monitors shall be brought to the City’s attention for resolution.

The Project Archaeologist or consulting Chumash Tribe(s) shall notify the Applicant and the City by telephone or email, of any incidents of non-compliance with any cultural resource mitigation measure or condition within 24 hours of becoming aware of the situation. The Project Archaeologist and consulting Chumash Tribe(s) shall also recommend corrective action(s) to resolve the problem or achieve compliance with the mitigation measure or project condition.

In the event of a non-compliance issue, the Project Archaeologist shall write a report within two weeks after resolution of the issue that describes the issue, resolution of the issue, and the effectiveness of resolution measures. The report shall be provided in the next Monthly Compliance Report, which is submitted to the City. The Applicant or its designee shall also provide a copy of the non-compliance report to the consulting Chumash Tribe(s) when issued to the City.

TCR-3 Retain a Project Osteologist
For any project with the potential to encounter human remains as determined through consultation and/or during the preparation of archaeological assessments carried out under CUL-2, prior to issuance of any City Grading or Construction Permit, a Project Osteologist shall be retained by the Applicant or its designee to assist in the identification of any human remains. The Project Osteologist shall have the following minimum qualifications:
 A graduate degree in archaeology, forensic anthropology, or related discipline, with four years’ experience working with archaeological and Tribal Cultural resources in California. If an Osteologist with four years’ experience is not available, a candidate with no less than two years' experience may be considered.
 A copy of the Project Osteologist’s qualifications shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The Project Osteologist’s qualifications shall be provided by the City to consulting Chumash Tribe(s) for review and comment prior to approval by the City. 889
TCR-4 Develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan For any project with the potential to encounter cultural and/or tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments carried out under CUL-2, prior to issuance of any City Grading or Construction Permit, the Project Archaeologist shall develop and submit a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) to the City for review and approval. No ground disturbing activities can occur until the CRMDP is approved by the City. A draft of the CRMDP shall be provided by the City to consulting Chumash Tribe(s) and an independent third-party City-qualified archaeologist for a 45-day review and comment period. No ground disturbance can occur before approval of any construction-related permits by the City.

At a minimum, the CRMDP shall include the following:
 An introduction outlining the project description, purpose for monitoring, summary of resources studies or description of known resources, anticipated construction schedule, anticipated impacts to cultural resources, curation and treatment options. Permanent curation of Tribal Cultural Resources will not take place unless approved in writing by consulting Chumash Tribe(s) in compliance with CalNAGPRA (if applicable) along with any other applicable state and federal laws.
 A description of the monitoring personnel involved with the Project (Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Monitors, and Chumash Tribal Monitors as appointed by consulting Chumash Tribe(s)) and their responsibilities, which shall include but are not limited to:
 A list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities and their availability;  A description of how the monitoring shall occur;
 A description of how the monitoring schedule will be developed and implemented given that different areas of ground disturbance may occur simultaneously;  A description of what resources are expected to be encountered and where they are expected to be encountered; and
 A description of monitoring reporting procedures.
 A description of the Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program training and Tribal Cultural Resources Worked Environmental Awareness Program Training as provided by consulting Chumash Tribe(s) (see MM CUL-5) and when and how that will take place.  Identification of the areas on the site, plus a buffer, where earthwork and site disturbance will be avoided. This should include the following:
 A description of the exclusion zone which shall be placed around each avoidance area and labeled as “Environmentally Sensitive Area” in all relevant project documents and engineering drawings, as needed. Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall exclude all construction equipment and personnel. Exclusion zone fencing shall be installed prior to any site disturbance (and later removed) under the direction of the Project Archaeologist in consultation with the City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s). The construction contractor will be responsible for maintaining the exclusion zone fencing throughout the duration of decommissioning.
 Definition and description of authorities, protocols, and procedures for halting and/or pausing work in order to record, evaluate, and identify any necessary treatment for any cultural resources encountered. This shall include protocols for ensuring all treatment or recovery of cultural resources is completed prior to work resuming in the area of the find. 890
 Information that the Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Monitor(s), and the Chumash Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt ground disturbing activities in the event previously unknown cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered or if known resources may be impacted in a previously unanticipated manner as a result of that ground disturbing activity.
 Details regarding the immediate cessation of ground disturbing activities within a minimum of 100 feet of the discovery of any cultural resources/tribal cultural resources or human remains and measures to delineate the area with clearly visible lath, flagging tape, or other marking. The City and the consulting Chumash Tribe(s) shall be consulted on a determination of significance.

If potential human remains are identified, the project archaeologist, the project osteologist, City designee(s), and the consulting Chumash Tribe(s) shall be invited to be present during determination and development of protective measures of find until the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) is notified as appropriate.
 Notification procedures of unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources/tribal cultural resources including human remains. The City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s) shall be notified of a discovery as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours of the find. If the discovery occurs on a Friday, the City can be notified the following Monday morning.  Specific in-field procedures for collecting, handling, and categorizing cultural resources, including human remains, encountered and a detailed process for evaluating unanticipated discoveries.
 Development of a preliminary treatment plan which shall, at a minimum, include:
 A description of the treatment options for each type of resource which include, in order of priority: 1) preservation in place, where feasible; 2) the development of a treatment plan, archaeological testing, or data recovery; 3) reburial as close as possible to the location where all artifacts, remains, and/or funerary objects were found; and 4) reburial in a predetermined area. Any Chumash cultural materials disinterred as a result of specific projects shall be curated or reinterred upon determination by the City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s).
 The location of a secured, on-site storage area for recovered cultural/tribal resources shall be identified before any ground disturbing activities occur by the City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s).
 In the event of a human remains discovery, the City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s), and Coroner’s office shall be notified no later than 24 hours of the find by the Applicant or their designee. The Coroner will contact the NAHC to identify the MLD of the human remains.

The Applicant or their designee must follow HSC § 7050.5 and proceed under PRC § 5097.98 within 48 hours. Once a MLD has been assigned, they and the applicant shall be given 48 hours from the time of notification to provide a proposed treatment option to the City. No photographs, removal of remains (unless already disinterred), nor further disturbance may take place without written approval of the MLD.
 For the predetermined area for reburial of human remains and cultural resources, the location must be surveyed in advance of its inclusion in the CRMDP, to determine if the location may be used (i.e., there are no biological and/or cultural/tribal resources sensitivities). The location must be under a deed restriction, protecting any reburials of human remains and artifacts in perpetuity.
891
 A commitment from the Applicant to pay all treatment costs for artifacts, funerary objects, and remains discovered, from discovery to reinternment, and for related documentation produced, if any, during cultural resources investigations conducted for the Project.  Procedures for the Project Archaeologist, the Applicant, or its contractors to provide immediate notification to the City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s) and immediately cease any earthwork conducted outside the limits of the approved grading plan or land use permit as these activities require prior approval by the City.
 Outline of reporting procedures, including monthly summary reports and an annual archaeological monitoring report to be submitted by the Project Archaeologist to the City and consulting Chumash Tribe(s) for review throughout the duration of Project disturbance activities. The City shall provide copies of the plan to the consulting Chumash Tribe(s) for review. Formal technical reports are required for any archaeological testing or data recovery conducted. Annual archaeological monitoring reports and any technical testing or data recovery reports shall be submitted to the City and Central Coast Information Center. Upon completion of all monitoring or treatment activities at Project completion, the Project Archaeologist shall submit a final report under confidentiality to the City summarizing all monitoring/treatment activities. The City shall provide copies of the confidential final report to the consulting Chumash Tribe(s).
 The Applicant or its designee(s) will consult with consulting Chumash Tribe(s) to develop measures for long term management of the resources including any routine operation and maintenance that may need to occur within culturally sensitive areas that retain resource integrity, including tribal cultural integrity, and including archaeological material, Traditional Cultural Properties, and cultural landscapes, in accordance with state and federal guidance including National Register Bulletin 30 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes), Bulletin 36 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties), and Bulletin 38 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.

TCR-5 Soil Remediation Activities Affecting Previously Known Cultural and/or Tribal Resources
The Applicant or its designee shall consult with the City prior to conducting any soil remediation activities which could affect native soils and provide the City with adequate information to determine compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162-15164 and PRC §21074. The City shall consult with locally affiliated Chumash Tribe(s) prior to approving any soil remediation activities affecting previously known cultural and/or tribal resources.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level by requiring the identification and evaluation of any tribal cultural resources that may be present prior to construction and by providing steps for the evaluation and protection of unanticipated finds encountered during construction. 892

4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
Tribal cultural resources have the potential to extend across the Planning Area; therefore, the appropriate geographic scope for cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts includes development projects adjacent to the project as well as within the surrounding region.

The proposed project, in conjunction with other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the region, would have the potential to adversely impact tribal cultural resources. Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain tribal cultural resources. Cumulative projects are reviewed separately by the appropriate jurisdiction and undergo environmental review when it is determined that the potential for significant impacts exists. In the event that future cumulative projects would result in impacts to known or unknown tribal cultural resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for this project as a result of the CEQA process. Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would therefore be potentially significant but mitigable.

As described in Impact TCR-1, compliance with AB 52 for future projects carried out under the 2045 General Plan would aid in determining if a specific project would have an adverse impact on known tribal cultural resources, and implement avoidance, minimization, or additional mitigation measures not included in the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 to reduce such impacts. Compliance with AB 52 and continued involvement with conducting Chumash Tribes in regional planning efforts would generally limit the destruction of tribal cultural resources such that cumulative impacts would not be considerable. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
893

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
This section evaluates potential effects on utilities related to adoption and implementation of the 2045 General Plan by identifying existing and planned service availability and anticipated demands and determining whether any necessary utility upgrades would result in adverse environmental effects. Potential impacts related to stormwater runoff are evaluated and discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Potential impacts related to the use of electricity and natural gas are evaluated and discussed in Section 4.5, Energy.

4.16.1 Setting
a. Water Supply and Demand
The City’s Water Division of the Utilities Department operates and maintains the City's water supply and distribution facilities and provides potable water for the community. Three water storage tanks, six production water wells, two pump stations, chlorination, and ammonia facilities, and 41 miles of water line are located throughout the City. Surface water supply is provided by the State Water Project, while groundwater is provided by River Wells, and Upland Wells. Backup/emergency water supply is provided through two interconnects with the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District – Improvement District #1 (ID#1).

Upland Wells
There are four Upland Wells. Well 4, near City Hall, produces approximately 225 gallons per minute (gpm). HCA South Well, located in Hans Christian Andersen Park, produces approximately 125 gpm.

Well 21, located next to the City’s Reservoir 2, produces approximately 125 gpm, and Well 23, located on the east side of the Creekside residential subdivision, produces approximately 225 gpm.

The City estimates a long-term supply of approximately 465 AFY from its Upland Wells (City of Solvang 2019a).

River Wells
There are three existing wells located on the banks of the Santa Ynez River, Well 3, Well 7A, and Well 5. Well 5 is currently inactive and has not produced water since 1993. Well 3 produces approximately 325 gpm and Well 7A produces approximately 275 gpm. The City estimates a longterm supply of approximately 600 AFY from its River Wells (City of Solvang 2019a).

State Water Project
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates the State Water Project, of which the City holds entitlement to 1,500 acre-feet per year (AFY). However, based on the rainfall, Sierra snowpack, and State reservoir levels each year the percentage allocation of State Water varies. In recent years the allocation of State Water has varied from 5 percent (during drought) to as much as 85 percent (City of Solvang 2021). The State Water allocation for 2023, a record wet year, was 100 percent. However, this is considered an anomaly. The City receives State Water through a turnout (service connection) from the Central Coast Water Authority (the regional State Water wholesaler).

As mentioned, the City has a contractual entitlement of 1,500 AFY of water from the State Water Project, and annual allocations vary based on rainfall, Sierra snowpack, and State reservoir levels. 894
For planning purposes, the City forecasts its annual allocation from the State Water Project will average around 40 percent, or 600 AFY.

ID#1 Interconnects
The City has two “on-demand” interconnects with ID#1. The interconnects have a combined maximum capacity of approximately 1,200 gpm (City of Solvang 2019a). The City is charged the high On-Demand water rate for any water received. Because of the high cost, the City only uses the ID#1 interconnects as a backup or emergency water supply source (City of Solvang 2011). The amount of water purchased from ID#1 varies from year to year based on several factors but is forecast to be approximately 20 AFY (City of Solvang 2019a).

Groundwater Basin and Groundwater Levels.

As described further in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, portions of Solvang overlie the Santa Ynez River Valley Basin, while areas in east Solvang and south of the Santa Ynez River do not overlie a designated groundwater basin. The Santa Ynez River Valley Basin is an approximately 319 square-mile basin that underlies the Santa Ynez Valley. Three Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) actively manage the Santa Ynez River Valley Basin: the Western Management Area (WMA) GSA, the Central Management Area (CMA) GSA, and the Eastern Management Area (EMA) GSA.

Solvang is located within the EMA. Based on historical groundwater inflow and outflow data from 1982 to 2018, the EMA has an average annual inflow of approximately 18,770 acre-feet per year (AFY) and an average annual outflow of 20,600 AFY, which results in an annual reduction in storage of approximately 1,830 AFY. The sustainable groundwater yield in the EMA was estimated by adding the average change of groundwater in storage (negative 1,830 AFY) to the estimated total average amount of groundwater pumping (14,700 AFY) from 1982 to 2018. The sustainable groundwater yield in the EMA is estimated to be approximately 12,870 AFY (EMA GSA 2023).

Water Quality
The City, Central Coast Water Authority, and ID#1 regularly monitor water quality in accordance with State Division of Drinking Water rules and regulations. Water quality is maintained to meet all applicable standards. The City, Central Coast Water Authority, and ID#1 annually publish water quality reports referred to as Consumer Confidence Reports (City of Solvang 2021).

Water Demand
Although the City has less water storage capacity than recommended, the City has historically had a water demand which has been met by existing supplies. Table 4.16-1 shows the City’s total water production compared to total consumption between 2010-2020. 895
Table 4.16-1 Historical Water Production and Consumption (AF) Year
Upland
Wells
River
Wells
ID#1
Interconnects
State Water
Project
Total
Production
Total
Consumption Surplus
2010 144 174 101 984 1,403 1,306 97
2011 113 46 64 1,190 1,413 1,284 129
2012 133 154 0 1,146 1,433 1,383 50
2013 246 189 120 1,040 1,595 1,453 142
2014 251 291 41 761 1,344 1,213 131
2015 256 335 11 471 1,073 983 90
2016 328 429 2 338 1,097 990 107
2017 178 183 2 818 1,181 1,107 74
2018 387 318 79 447 1,231 1,159 72
2019 156 125 58 838 1,177 1,114 63
2020 365 200 28 692 1,285 1,223 62
Source: van der Linden 2023
b. Sewer Collection and Wastewater Treatment
The City’s Wastewater Division of the Utilities Department operates and maintains a sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) under permits issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Sewer Collection
The City of Solvang sewer collection system consists of approximately 31 miles of gravity sewer mains, 645 manholes, 85 cleanouts, 0.56 miles of sewer force mains, and two lift stations (City of Solvang 2022). The City’s sewer collection system is operated in accordance with the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020 (RWQCB 2020). The Wastewater Division also operates and maintains two sewer lift (pumping) stations. The Wastewater Division implements and periodically updates the Sewer System Management Plan to ensure smooth operation of the sewer collection system (City of Solvang 2021).

Wastewater Treatment
Under a Waste Discharge Permit issued by the RWQCB, the City of Solvang operates a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) type Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that provides full secondary treatment, located south of the Santa Ynez River, outside of the Planning Area at 101 South Alisal Road. The WWTP had a design capacity of 1.5 MGD. However, as a result of more recent regulatory changes and the treatment process changes required to comply with the new regulations, the Solvang WWTP lost some of its capacity. The WWTP currently has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). The WWTP's current average daily wastewater flow is approximately

0.75 MGD. The WWTP currently receives and treats wastewater from the City of Solvang and the Santa Ynez Community Services District (SYCSD) which serves the town of Santa Ynez. The SYCSD owns 0.30 MGD capacity in the Solvang WWTP. The WWTP provides full secondary treatment of the wastewater received and discharges treated wastewater to percolation ponds located adjacent to the WWTP (City of Solvang 2021). The service area of the SYCSD is shown in Figure 4.16-1. 896
Figure 4.16-1 Santa Ynez Community Services District Boundary 897
c. Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater within Solvang that does not infiltrate into the ground becomes surface runoff, which either flows into surface waterways or is channeled into the City’s stormwater system. The City’s stormwater system is comprised of approximately ten miles of storm drain lines (City of Solvang 2019b). Discharges from the City’s storm drain system to the Santa Ynez River are permitted under the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), Order No. 2013-001-DWQ NPDES No. CAS000004 (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2013). Over the last twenty years, new development in the city have been designed to meet State law pertaining to basins and bio swales.
d. Solid Waste
The City of Solvang contracts with Waste Management to provide solid waste collection services to its residents. A portion of the solid waste generated by residents and businesses in Solvang is diverted from landfills through recycling and reuse. All municipal solid waste is transferred to the Tajiguas Landfill of Santa Barbara County. The Tajiguas Landfill has a maximum permitted daily throughput of 1,500 tons per day and a remaining capacity of approximately 4,336,335 cubic yards and is estimated to remain operational through 2038 (California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2023a). In addition, the Tajiguas Landfill includes the County of Santa Barbara’s ReSource Center with a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and anaerobic digester.

The MRF separates any excess recyclable and organic material delivered to Tajiguas. Organic materials are processed in the anaerobic digester (County of Santa Barbara 2023). All organic material is transferred to the Engle and Gray Composting Facility, a 40-acre composting site located at 745 Betteravia Road, Santa Maria (City of Solvang 2021).

Beyond 2038, it is anticipated Solvang would divert solid waste to the currently proposed Los Flores Ranch landfill in Santa Maria, approximately 25 miles north of Solvang. The Los Flores Ranch landfill is anticipated to be an alternate landfill to dispose of solid waste generated in Solvang once operations cease at the Tajiguas landfill, which is expected to occur in 2038.Los Flores Ranch landfill is anticipated to be an approximately 600-acre landfill that would provide approximately 14 years of landfill capacity (Santa Maria Sun 2020). In the event the Los Flores Ranch landfill is unable to receive solid waste from the City from 2038 to 2045, solid waste would be diverted to the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center and a maximum permitted throughput of 64,750 tons per week, and a remaining capacity of 82,954,873 cubic yards.

The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center has an expected cease operation date of 2063 (CalRecycle 2023b).
e. Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides transmission lines to convey electric power supply to Solvang. PG&E is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utility companies, and it maintains 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines (PG&E 2023a). Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) is a Community Choice Aggregator established by local communities to source clean and renewable electricity and is responsible for procuring power for Solvang. In 2022, 3CE’s power mix consisted of 35.8 percent 898
renewable resources, 5.9 percent large hydroelectric facilities, and 58.3 percent unspecified power (3CE 2023).

Southern California Gas Company
Solvang is in the natural gas service area of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) which spans central and southern California. SoCalGas’ service area is equipped with over 101,000 miles of gas transmission, distribution, and service pipelines (SoCalGas 2013). Natural gas supplied by SoCalGas is sourced from gas fields in several sedimentary basins in the western U.S. and Canada including supply basins located in New Mexico (San Juan Basin), West Texas (Permian Basin), Rocky Mountains, western Canada, and local California supplies (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2022).

Telecommunications
Telecommunication services, including broadband, cellular, and wireless services, are provided to residents and businesses from a variety of private companies, including national retailers Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile (City of Solvang 2021).

4.16.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria. b. State Regulations
Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill [SB] X7-7), effective November 9, 2009, requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets and agricultural water suppliers to implement efficient water management practices. Because of the small size of the City of Solvang, it has fewer than 3,000 service connections, and is therefore not considered an “urban” water supplier.

Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Section 10610 et seq.), which requires urban water suppliers to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies. Every 5 years, water suppliers are required to develop Urban Water Management Plans to identify short-term and long-term water demand management measures to meet growing water demands. Because of the small size of the City of Solvang, it has fewer than 3,000 service connections, and is therefore not considered an “urban” water supplier.
899
Assembly Bill 1881
Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 expanded previous legislation related to landscape water use efficiency. AB 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006, enacted landscape efficiency recommendations of the California Urban Water Conservation Council for improving the efficiency of water use in new and existing urban irrigated landscapes in California. AB 1881 required the California Department of Water Resources to update the existing Model Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and local agencies to adopt the updated model ordinance or an equivalent.

The law also requires the California Energy Commission to adopt performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements
The Central Coast RWQCB adopted the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region (Resolution R3-2013-0032) in July 2013, which outlines runoff reduction and treatment requirements. Specifically, Resolution R3-2013-0032 outlines post-construction requirements for development projects in the Central Coast Region. The post-construction requirements mandate that development projects use Low Impact Development to detain, retain, and treat runoff. Low Impact Development incorporates and conserves on-site natural features, together with constructed hydrologic controls to more closely mimic predevelopment hydrology and watershed processes.

Phase II Municipal Storm Water Permit
The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). The NPDES MS4 permits in California are issued in two phases by the SWRCB and RWQCBs. Phase I MS4 permits are issued by the RWQCBs to medium (i.e., serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (i.e., serving more than 250,000 people) municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The Phase II MS4 Permit is issued by the SWRCB and is applicable to smaller municipalities (i.e., populations of less than 100,000 people) and nontraditional small MS4s (e.g., military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes). The Phase II MS4 Permit (Waste Discharge Requirements [WDRs] for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems [MS4s] General Permit], Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000004) became effective on July 1, 2013 and covers Phase II permittees statewide, including the City of Solvang. The Phase I and Phase II MS4 Permits require the permittees to develop a storm water management program and individual dischargers to develop and implement Storm Water Management Plans to manage discharges to municipal storm drain systems.

Senate Bills 350 and 100
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. This act also requires doubling of the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030.

Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, last updated 900
by SB 350. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Senate Bill 1374
SB 1374 states that the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) must receive an annual report, including progress made by jurisdictions in regard to their advances on diverting construction and demolition waste material. The CIWMB specified that CalRecycle was required to adopt a model ordinance that would divert 50 percent to 75 percent of construction and demolition waste materials from landfills.

Assembly Bills 939 and 341
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939, implemented a specific plan for cities to submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to their corresponding county. The Source Reduction and Recycling Element includes measures of waste characterization source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facility capacity, education and public information, funding special waste (asbestos, sewage, sludge, etc.), and household hazardous waste. AB 939 requires cities to meet the Waste Diversion Mandates, which proposed a goal of reducing 25 percent of solid waste from landfills by January 1995, and a 50 percent reduction by January 2000. AB 341 was later passed with a goal of achieving a 75 percent solid waste reduction by January 2020. Waste Management is responsible for meeting these diversion goals.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383, which went into effect January 1, 2022, requires every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residences and businesses. Multifamily complexes of five or more units are required to provide organic waste collection services for employees and tenants, and must annually educate employees and tenants on how to properly sort organic waste into the correct bins and provide information to new tenants within 14 days of occupation of the premises.

California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as “CALGreen” originally went into effect on August 1, 2009 and outlines architectural design and engineering principles that are in synergy with environmental resources and public welfare. CALGreen sets minimum standards for buildings, and since 2016, applies to new building construction and some alterations/additions within certain parameters. CALGreen establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, including water conservation measures and requirements that new buildings reduce water consumption by 20 percent below a specified baseline. CALGreen requires installations of

1.28 gallons-per-flush toilets and 0.5-gallon-per flush urinals for all non-residential projects as part of the prescriptive method of reducing indoor water use by the required 20 percent.

CALGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and non-residential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. It also includes voluntary tiers to encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design. In addition, CALGreen includes several requirements related to solid waste diversion. Importantly, new non-residential construction is required to achieve at least 65 percent construction and demolition waste diversion and provide recycling areas for paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, metal, and organic waste. The 2022 CALGreen 901
update primarily includes new requirements for the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations and carbon dioxide monitoring and controls in classrooms. These requirements went into effect January 1, 2023.
c. Local Regulations
Solvang Water System Master Plan
The Solvang Water System Master Plan evaluates water supply and demand conditions in Solvang, forecasts future water supply and demand conditions, identifies water supply and water distribution system deficiencies, and provides recommendations and a capital improvement program to address deficiencies (City of Solvang 2011).

Integrated Water Supply Management Plan (2018)
The City’s Integrated Water Supply Management Plan is intended to provide framework to enable the City to optimize the use of its available water supply sources through a balance of maximizing supply reliability, maintaining wastewater stream quality, and minimizing capital and operational costs. The Integrated Water Supply Management Plan provides water supply and demand estimates for the City.

Sewer Master Plan Update (2021)
The City’s Sewer Master Plan Update is an update to the City’s 1988 Sewer Adequacy Study. The Sewer Master Plan Update is intended to assist the City with maintaining the integrity and capacity of existing and future wastewater collection facilities. The Sewer Master Plan Update provides an overview of the City’s sewer collection system capacity and identifies potential improvements to maintain reliability of the sewer collection system.

Solvang Municipal Code
Title 5, Chapter 2
Title 5, Chapter 2 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth regulations for solid waste, including requirements for single-family, multi-family, and commercial business generators pertaining to the provision of trash cans, subscription to the City’s trash collection service, and separation of recyclables and organics.

Title 9, Chapter 3
Title 9, Chapter 3 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s water code, including regulations for the installation of water infrastructure, water rates, water use, and water conservation. Article D provides specific measures that are enforced to conserve water at all times, with additional measures that can be enforced by the City Council during periods of drought.

Title 1, Chapter 1
The City enforces the waste diversion and recycling requirements of the California Green Building Standards in the Municipal Code Section 10-1-1 as a condition of approval for projects which must be agreed upon prior to issuance of permits.
902
Title 14, Chapter 3
Title 14, Chapter 3 of the City’s Municipal Code states development in Solvang must control stormwater flows from new development or redevelopment. Title 14, Chapter 3 provides the City with the authority to mandate post-construction requirements for new development and redevelopment. These post construction requirements are intended to control the volume and rate of stormwater and must comply with the Central Coast RWQCB Resolution No. R3-2013-0032, PostConstruction Storm Water Management Requirements for Developmental Projects in the Central Coast Region.

4.16.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
Impacts related to utilities and service systems were evaluated by forecasting utility demands associated with the 2045 General Plan and comparing estimated utility demands to current and planned service system capacity and availability. Utilities and service system demands of the 2045 General Plan have been quantified where possible, based on readily available information. Where insufficient data was able to quantify demands, such demands are discussed qualitatively in order to inform the impact analysis.

Significance Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides the following significance thresholds to determine if a project would have a potentially significant impact on utilities and service systems. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact if it would:

Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
903
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact UTIL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; HOWEVER, NO SUBSTANTIAL RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY FACILITIES OR SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE 2045 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT BEYOND EXISTING CONDITIONS. THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WOULD HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO SERVE 2045 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT. THEREFORE, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Water
Growth and development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would generally occur in developed areas of Solvang with existing water infrastructure; however, increased density in developed areas could require additional water infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure. Potential environmental impacts associated with developing new water supply connections would be evaluated and mitigated as necessary as part of the City’s review of individual development applications for consistency with applicable policies of the 2045 General Plan and City Municipal Code requirements. Water utility mains are often located beneath existing roadways, which are typically paved and previously disturbed. The 2045 General Plan encourages infill development and includes multiple policies intended to preserve existing open space areas, including Policy CD-1.36 which encourages cluster-style development to maximize open space preservation, and Policy ENV1.1 which requires the City manage City-owned open space as a preserve. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not result in the relocation or construction of water facilities such that significant environmental impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would occur on sites that are generally developed or surrounded by existing wastewater facilities. The potential environmental impacts of implementing new wastewater, such as sewer infrastructure, would be evaluated and mitigated as necessary as part of the City’s review of individual development applications for consistency with applicable policies of the 2045 General Plan and City Municipal Code requirements. The 2045 General Plan includes the following policy to ensure wastewater infrastructure would serve to protect groundwater quality:
 Policy PFS-2.4: Protect Groundwater Quality. The City shall preserve and protect groundwater quality through the implementation of best practices and innovative methods for modern wastewater disposal.

The development envisioned in the 2045 General Plan would generate wastewater that requires treatment before discharge or reuse. For example, the 2045 General Plan envisions development that would have bathrooms with toilets and showers that generate wastewater. The estimate of 904
additional wastewater that would be generated by development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan is based on 90 percent of the anticipated water demand. Based on an anticipated water demand of 363 AFY, calculated in Impact UTIL-2, wastewater generation from development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would be 0.29 MGD1 . Sewage generation would increase by
approximately 0.29 MGD per day. The WWTP previously had a design capacity of 1.5 MGD.

However, as a result of more recent regulatory changes and the treatment process changes required to comply with the new regulations, the Solvang WWTP lost some of its capacity. Currently, the WWTP has an estimated capacity of 0.90 MGD. The WWTP's current average daily wastewater flow is approximately 0.75 MGD. Buildout of the 2045 General Plan would increase wastewater flows to the WWTP to 1.04 MGD (City of Solvang 2019c), which would exceed the existing available capacity of the WWTP of 0.90 MGD. However, this wastewater flow is anticipated at full buildout in 2045. The City has already begun to make capacity improvements to the plant to restore the original

1.5 MGD capacity. The WWTP Water Quality Improvement Project, which is anticipated to be completed by October 2028, would restore the WWTP’s design capacity to 1.5 MGD, thereby providing additional wastewater treatment capacity for anticipated future growth. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not result in the relocation or construction of wastewater facilities such that significant environmental impacts would occur, and with the in-process improvements to the WWTP, the WWTP would have adequate capacity to serve the 2045 General Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would not result in a substantial increase in stormwater infrastructure because Solvang is developed and equipped with an existing stormwater drainage system. Potential environmental impacts of developing new connections to storm drains would be evaluated and mitigated as necessary as part of the City’s review of individual development applications.

Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could introduce new impervious surfaces through the construction of paved areas which could increase stormwater discharge to existing stormwater drainage facilities; however, as described in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, development would be required to comply with the provisions of California’s Phase II MS4 Permit, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the City’s Municipal Code, and RWQCB Central Coast Region Resolution No. R3-2013- 0032, which are designed to control the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects. Existing regulations would ensure development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in substantial additional runoff, necessitating the expansion of stormwater infrastructure.

Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not result in the relocation or construction of stormwater facilities such that significant environmental impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications/Broadband Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would occur on sites that are generally developed or surrounded by existing development served by existing natural gas and electrical infrastructure, and development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would generally have access to utility infrastructure and not require the installation of substantial electric or natural gas infrastructure to 1 324,336 gallons of water per person per day*0.90 = 291,902 gallons of wastewater per person per day 905
meet demands. Similar to electric and natural gas infrastructure, Solvang has existing infrastructure for cable television, landline services, internet, and cellular phone service.

Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would not require substantial telecommunications infrastructure to be constructed. The potential environmental impacts of implementing new electric, natural gas, and telecommunications connections to development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would be evaluated and mitigated as necessary as part of the City’s review of individual development applications for consistency with applicable policies of the 2045 General Plan and City Municipal Code requirements.

Although development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would require new or expanded electric, natural gas, and telecommunications connections, substantial new or expanded connections would not be required.

Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not result in the relocation or construction of natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications facilities such that significant environmental impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 THE OVERALL GROWTH ANTICIPATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD GENERATE ADDITIONAL WATER DEMAND IN SOLVANG THAT COULD EXCEED PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES. WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 2045 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, WHICH REQUIRE THE CITY TO RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT

UNTIL ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLIES ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would increase the population of Solvang, resulting in a corresponding increase in overall citywide water demand. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, and Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the 2045 General Plan could facilitate the growth of up to 497 residential units and 211 employees, which would result in a total overall growth of 1,398 people. The City relies on a water demand factor of 232 gallons per person per day, stated in the City’s 2018 Integrated Water Supply Management Plan, as a basis for projecting water demand in Solvang (City of Solvang 2018). Accordingly, the addition of 1,398 people would lead to a water demand of approximately 324,336 gallons per person per day, or 363 AFY2 . Based on an
average historical citywide consumption of 1,344 AFY, with full buildout of the 2045 General Plan, the City’s anticipated water consumption would be approximately 1,707 AFY in 2045.

Based on the City’s Water System Master Plan, the City anticipates its long-term average water supply in normal years (i.e. no drought) to be 4,374 AFY (City of Solvang 2018). The average water supply in drought years due to low SWP allocations is anticipated to be 3,378 AFY. The average water supply in drought years due to low local water supplies is anticipated to be 3,975 AFY. The average water supply in drought years with both low state and low local water supplies is 2 1,398 people * 232 gallons per person per day = 324,336 gallons per day * 365 days per year = 118,382,640 gallons per year / (325,851.43 gallons per 1 acre-foot) = 363 AFY.
906
anticipated to be 3,378 AFY. Accordingly, the anticipated water consumption of 1,707 AFY with full 2045 General Plan buildout would be adequately met by the City’s long-term water supply.

Future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would adhere to Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 3, Article D, which provides permanent water conservation requirements, such as limits on watering durations, limits on washing of hard surfaces, and requirements to remediate breaks or leaks in water pipes. Additional water conservation requirements in times of drought are applicable to development in Solvang if the City Council declares a drought emergency and implements additional mandatory restrictions. These include, but are not limited to, posting notice of drought conditions in commercial establishments, prohibiting vehicle washing unless done at a commercial car washing facility, and allotment of water use quantity (rationing) if necessary. Additionally, CALGreen requires a 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use that would lower potential water demand. The following policies included in the 2045 General Plan would also assist to maintain water supply and encourage efficient water use:
 Policy PFS-1.1: Water Supply Sources. The City shall continue to maintain a water supply program consisting of multiple sources of water, water conservation and groundwater management to accommodate projected water demand and provide for reliable water supply.  Policy PFS-1.3: Water Supply and Infrastructure. The City shall ensure there is adequate water supply and infrastructure in place or that will be available in place and prior to approving any new development. The City will consider existing and future water supply and demand prior to project approval.
 Policy PFS-1.6: Water Efficient Landscaping. The City shall require new development to comply with the State water efficient landscaping requirements.  Policy ENV-7.3: Water Conservation Measures. The City shall require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water demand through the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), relevant sections of Title 24 and LEED certification, and other conservation policies and programs.

Future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would adhere to the water reduction policies and requirements described above. As described above, the water demand anticipated through buildout of the 2045 General Plan would be adequately met by the City’s long-term water supplies. During drought years, the City is able to maximize production from the Upland and River wells, and, if necessary, is able to supplement the remaining water demand through purchase of up to 1,900 AFY water from ID #1 interconnects. Therefore, 2045 General Plan implementation would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant. 907
Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-3 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL STANDARDS OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOLID WASTE REDUCTION STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, and Section 4.12, Population and Housing, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would result in an additional 1,187 residents and 211 employees, which would result in a total overall growth of 1,398 people. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the 211 employees in Solvang are anticipated to work in commercial, professional/office, and public/institutional settings. As shown in Table 4.16-2, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan is anticipated to generate approximately 2,371 tons of solid waste per year.

Table 4.16-2 Anticipated Solid Waste Generation
Estimated Growth Solid Waste Generation Factor
Projected Annual Solid Waste
Generation (tons)
1,187 Residents 12 pounds/person/day 2,599.53
139 Employees – Commercial 10.53 pounds/employee/day 267.12 71 Employees – Professional/Office 1.24 pounds/employee/day 16.07 1 Employee – Public/Institutional 0.59 tons/employee/year 0.59 Total 2,883.31
Source: CalRecycle 2023c
In accordance with the requirements of AB 939 and AB 341, at least 75 percent of the solid waste generated would be diverted, leaving a remaining 1,442 tons of solid waste per year, or 0.72 tons per day, requiring a landfill. Solid waste generated by development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would be disposed of at the Tajiguas Landfill until it ceases operation. The County of Santa Barbara has proposed the Tajiguas Landfill Capacity Increase Project, which is currently undergoing the process of environmental review. When completed, the Tajiguas Landfill would have an increased landfill capacity to reach a projected refuse disposal filling date of approximately 2038 (Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division 2023; Noozhawk 2023).

Following closure of the Tajiguas Landfill anticipated in 2038, solid waste generated by development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan is anticipated to be disposed of at Los Flores Ranch landfill in Santa Maria. As described in Section 4.16.1, Solid Waste, Tajiguas Landfill is permitted to accept 1,500 tons of solid waste per day and has a remaining capacity of approximately 4.3 million cubic yards. The solid waste generation from development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would represent less than one percent of the Tajiguas Landfill’s permitted daily throughput. The remaining capacity of the Tajiguas Landfill and construction of Los Flores Ranch Landfill are anticipated to be able to accommodate this increase in solid waste generation. In the event the Los Flores Ranch landfill is unable to receive solid waste from the City from 2038 to 2045 following closure of the 908
Tajiguas Landfill, solid waste would be diverted to the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center and a maximum permitted throughput of 64,750 tons per week, and a remaining capacity of 82,954,873 cubic yards. The solid waste generation from development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would represent less than one percent of the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center’s permitted daily throughput. Furthermore, the 2045 General Plan includes the following policy to reduce solid waste generation:
 Policy ENV-14.1: Zero Waste. The City shall promote activities that reduce waste and increase waste diversion, including sourcing products with reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging; establishing food diversion programs; and promoting and educating on waste diversion and its importance.

For the reasons described above, the 2045 General Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because these impacts would be less than significant.

4.16.4 Cumulative Impacts
This cumulative impact analysis examines potential cumulative impacts in the service areas of water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste utilities.

These service areas vary depending on the utility; for example, water is provided to the residents and occupants of Solvang by the City while the service area for wastewater treatment includes Solvang and Santa Ynez. Cumulative development throughout the cumulative impact analysis area, in combination with the proposed 2045 General Plan, would gradually increase development and population growth and would therefore gradually increase the need for additional utilities and service systems. The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection 3.3, Baseline and Cumulative Project Setting.

Water
Cumulative growth would increase the demand for water in Solvang. Based on the analysis in Impact UTIL-2, the City’s long-term water supplies would be able to meet the demands of cumulative development in Solvang in normal and drought years. If necessary, the City is able to supplement the water demand during extended drought through purchase of up to 1,900 AFY water from ID #1 interconnects. Accordingly cumulative development would be adequately served by the City’s longterm water supplies.

Therefore, cumulative impacts to water would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Cumulative growth in Solvang and Santa Ynez would increase wastewater generation and demand on the WWTP. However, the WWTP Water Quality Improvement Project, which is anticipated to be 909
completed by October 2028, would restore the WWTP’s design capacity to 1.5 MGD, thereby providing additional wastewater treatment capacity for future cumulative growth.

As discussed in Impact UTIL-1, at full buildout, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan is anticipated to result in 0.29 MGD additional wastewater flows, which would bring the average daily wastewater flows at the WWTP to 1.04 MGD. Based on the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, the population of Santa Ynez is anticipated to increase by approximately 900 people in 2050 (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2019). According to the United States Census Bureau, Santa Ynez’s average household size is approximately 2.46 persons per household (United States Census Bureau 2021). Accordingly, the number of households in Santa Ynez that would be served by SYSCD, as shown in Figure 4.16-2, are expected to increase by 366 in 2050, which would result in an additional 65,880 gallons per day of wastewater generation, or approximately 0.07 MGD.

The addition of 0.07 MGD wastewater flows and the anticipated 0.29 MGD wastewater flows from 2045 General Plan buildout would put daily wastewater flows to the WWTP at approximately 1.11, which would not exceed the capacity of the WWTP of 1.5 MGD.

Therefore, cumulative wastewater impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
The City maintains an extensive stormwater drainage system permitted by the Phase II MS4 permit.

Cumulative development would introduce incremental increases in needs for stormwater conveyance; however, due to the existing built-out nature of Solvang, new residential development is not anticipated to introduce substantial new areas of impervious surfaces such that expansion of existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure would be necessary. Implementation of minor additions to stormwater conveyance infrastructure are reviewed by the City on a project-by-project basis in order to ensure consistency with the MS4 permit, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the City’s Municipal Code, and RWQCB Central Coast Region Resolution No. R3-2013-0032.

Therefore, potential cumulative stormwater infrastructure impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunications/ Broadband, Electricity, and Natural Gas Telecommunications services in the cumulative impact analysis area are provided by private vendors, and telecommunications facilities are available throughout the cumulative impact analysis area. Connections for new telecommunications services are implemented on an as-needed basis, in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Due to the developed nature of the cumulative impact analysis area, there are no anticipated limitations to the availability of telecommunications services that would require the development of substantial telecommunications infrastructure. Similar to telecommunications, electric and natural gas distribution systems provided by PG&E, 3CE, and SoCalGas, respectively, are available throughout the cumulative impact analysis area. Cumulative development would be required to adhere to energy efficiency standards established in Title 24 of the CCR, the California Energy Code, and applicable local building ordinances. Adherence to these requirements would further reduce the need for new electrical or natural gas infrastructure to accommodate cumulative demand.

Therefore, potential cumulative impacts concerning telecommunications, electric, and natural gas infrastructure would be less than significant.
910
Figure 4.16-2 Santa Ynez Community Services District Future Service Zone Boundary 911
Solid Waste
Cumulative growth would increase solid waste generation and increase the demand for landfill disposal, which could result in a potential cumulative impact on waste disposal services and facilities in the region. The County of Santa Barbara has proposed the Tajiguas Landfill Capacity Increase Project, which is currently undergoing the process of environmental review. When completed, the Tajiguas Landfill would have an increased landfill capacity to reach a projected refuse disposal filling date of approximately 2038 (Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division 2023; Noozhawk 2023). Following 2038, it is anticipated cumulative solid waste would be processed at Los Flores Ranch landfill in Santa Maria. In the event the Los Flores Ranch landfill is unable to receive cumulative solid waste from 2038 to 2045, solid waste would be diverted to the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center and a maximum permitted throughput of 64,750 tons per week, a remaining capacity of 82,954,873 cubic yards, and an expected closure date of 2063 (CalRecycle 2023b).

Buildout of the 2045 General Plan would result in an increase of solid waste disposal of approximately 0.72 tons per day, which would not substantially increase daily or annual waste disposal, or result in an exceedance of capacity at the Tajiguas Landfill. Solid waste is anticipated to be adequately served by Los Flores Ranch landfill. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to waste disposal services and facilities in the region.
912
This page intentionally left blank.
913

4.17 Wildfire
This section addresses impacts associated with the 2045 General Plan related to wildfires.

4.17.1 Setting
a. Wildland Fire Hazards
Wildfire Fundamentals
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of extensive combustible fuel, including vegetation and structures. Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland, woodlands, brushland, scrubland, peatland, and other wooded areas that act as a source of fuel, or combustible material. Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities.

The primary environmental factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to wildfire include slope and topography, vegetation type and condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions. Additional factors that increase an urban area’s susceptibility to wildfire are development patterns and density, building types, and building materials.

The indirect effects of wildland fires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways, and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capacity to absorb moisture and support life. Regions of dense dry vegetation, particularly in canyon areas and on hillsides, pose the greatest potential for wildfire risks.

Wildfire has three basic elements: how and where its ignition occurred, how and why it moves across a landscape from its point of origin, and the fire’s nature upon arrival at a location. In general, a fire’s nature is defined by eight characteristics:

1. Direction of the advance of the fire front

2. Speed of the advance of the fire front (rate of spread)

3. Mechanism causing the advance

4. Duration at any one location

5. Structure-related consumption of fuels

6. Flame length

7. Intensity

8. Gaining control
A fire front’s direction of travel is primarily determined by direction of prevailing winds, geographic aspect, and condition of the fuels in the advance direction. The speed of a fire front’s advance is a result of conditions at the site of the currently burning material and of lands in the advance direction of the fire. As a fire advances, the overriding influences determining its speed are prevailing wind speed, terrain slope gradient, dominant fuel size classes, and fuel continuity.

Wildfires advance by two principal mechanisms: combustion resulting from radiant heating, and remote ignition resulting from ember production. Fire stays at one location primarily due to the size class of the material being consumed. Grass formations are dominated by low volumes of very “fine” fuels and, depending on the level of dryness, can be consumed, with the fire advancing, in a 914
matter of minutes. On the other hand, tree-dominated vegetation communities have significantly greater volumes of available fuel and a far greater amount of larger-sized fuel components. Fires can remain at these locations for days, often weeks, and sometimes months (on heavily wooded conifer sites).

Fires burn where fuels are available. Fires in grasslands burn at a level set by the height of the grass, while fires in brushlands can burn surface fuels and typically consume the stems and leafy crowns to the full height of the plants. Fires in tree-dominated vegetation have a much more complex pattern of movement based primarily on the continuity (or “connectedness”) of the fuels. In these stands there are typically three distinct layers of fuels, arranged vertically: surface, stems and trunks, and the crown composed of branches, twigs and leaves. The continuity of fuels is important to consider in both horizontal and vertical directions. If a fire enters a stand and is advancing only as a surface fire it will continue this manner of advance if there is high horizontal fuel connectivity. However, if there is also a high degree of vertical continuity (provided by fuels referred to as “ladder fuels”) then a fire can move into the crown, as well as forward across the surface, and fuels in the entire stand structure become involved.

Flame lengths are generally determined by the volume of fuels burning, the amount of time to total consumption, and the height of the species in the composition. Grassland produces flame lengths typically ranging from 1 to 3 feet as they are composed of low volumes of fine materials that are consumed quickly. Flame lengths are at their maximum when the material is dry. Stands of brush can produce flame lengths from 4 to 10 feet. Native oak-dominated hardwood stands can generate 20- to 40-foot flame lengths and stands of exotics, such as Eucalyptus globulus or E. cinerea, or dense conifer stands, over 100 feet. Flame length is important as it sets the distance over which radiant heating-related combustion can occur.

The temperature achieved in a wildfire is directly related to the amount of cellulosic material available for consumption. Grasslands have very low amounts and attain lower temperatures but fires in woodlands, characterized by large amounts of highly concentrated cellulosic material, can attain temperatures on the order of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Gaining control over a wildfire’s behavioral character is the objective of response efforts. Grassland fires, burning in low-fuel volume, rapid consumption, and at a single level are the easiest to control.

On the other end, fires that are burning in high-fuel volumes, full-spectrum size classes, and entire stand structure involvement, can require days, weeks, even months, to control completely.

Wildfire-Conducive Conditions
Vegetation
Vegetation is fuel to a wildfire, and it changes over time with seasonal growth and die-back. The relationship between vegetation and wildfire is complex, but generally some vegetation is naturally fire resistant, while some vegetation is extremely flammable. For example, cured grass is much more flammable than standing trees (CAL FIRE 2018). Grass is considered an open fuel, in which oxygen has free access to promote the spread of fire. Additionally, weather and climate conditions, such as drought, can lead to increasingly dry vegetation with low-moisture content and, thus, higher flammability.

Plant communities within Solvang include annual grasslands, coastal oak woodlands, coastal scrub, deciduous orchards, mixed chapparal, valley foothill riparian, and valley oak woodlands. Steep 915
hillsides to the south and west, and in the eastern corner of the city, have dense oak woodland and chaparral vegetation (City of Solvang 2021).

Slope, Elevation, and Aspect
Slope can determine how quickly a fire spreads. Fire typically burns faster uphill, because it can preheat the fuels above with rising hot air, and upward drafts are more likely to create fire spots. (NPS 2017). Areas containing steep, rugged terrain can also hinder access and the use of heavy firefighting equipment, posing additional difficulties for firefighting efforts (CAL FIRE 2022a).

Following severe wildfires, sloping land is also more susceptible to landslide or flooding from increased runoff during substantial precipitation events. Landslides and surficial slope failure are most likely to occur in areas with more than 25 percent slope (hillside areas) and along steep bluffs.

Elevation affects fire behavior by influencing the timing and amount of precipitation, and exposure to prevailing winds. Aspect is the direction that a slope faces, which determines how much radiated heat the slope will receive from the sun. Slopes facing south to southwest will receive the most solar radiation; thus, they tend to be warmer and the vegetation drier than on slopes facing a northerly to northeasterly direction, creating a higher potential for wildfire ignition and spread (University of California Berkeley 2018).

The City of Solvang is situated primarily along an alluvial plain formed by the Santa Ynez River and on the southeastern edge of the Purisima Hills. Solvang is surrounded by the Purisima Hills to the north, the upper Santa Ynez Valley to the east, the Santa Ynez Mountains to the south, and the lower Santa Ynez Valley to the west. The steepest slopes in the vicinity are located adjacent to Adobe Canyon Creek (within the northern portion of the City), the eastern edge of the City near Alamo Pintado Creek, and within the southern portion of the City on the south side of the Santa Ynez River.

Climate and Weather
Wind, temperature, and relative humidity are the most influential weather elements in fire behavior and susceptibility (NPS 2017). Fire moves faster under hot, dry, and windy conditions. Wind may also blow embers ahead of a fire, causing its spread. Drought conditions also lead to extended periods of excessively dry vegetation, increasing the fuel load and ignition potential. Solvang has a semi-arid climate, which is subject to drought conditions (City of Solvang 2021). The local climate in Solvang is characterized by warm summers and cool, wet winters. Table 4.17-1 presents data that includes average monthly temperatures and humidity in Solvang, indicating how the summer months hold the greatest potential for fire risk.

Table 4.17-1 Solvang Temperature and Humidity Data
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Temperature (°F) 53 52.5 54.9 56.6 60.4 65.2 68.9 69.2 68.1 63.8 57.9 52.6 Humidity (%) 62 67 66 62 62 61 62 61 59 58 59 63
Source: Climate Data n.d.

Wind data is provided by weather stations at the Santa Ynez Airport, located approximately five miles east of city limits, and the Refugio Alert #2540 Station, located approximately 3.7 miles southeast of city limits. Table 4.17-2 presents data from the station and includes the primary wind source directions (PWD) and average wind speed (AWS). The data has been further broken-out into 916
two seasonal periods: March to October (which roughly corresponds to the fire season) and the wetter months between November and April.

Table 4.17-2 Solvang Wind Data
Seasonal Period
March – October November – April
Station PWD AWS (mph) PWD AWS (mph)
Santa Ynez Airport (IZA Santa Ynez) West-Southwest 5.7 Northwest to Southwest 4.6 Refugio Alert #2540 South 3.3 Southwest, East 6.1
PWD = wind source direction, AWS = average wind speed, mph = miles per hour Source: Iowa State University Iowa Environmental Mesonet 2023 Power Lines
Above-ground power lines have the potential to contribute to wildfire risk, especially when they are near or traverse wilderness areas. In some instances, high winds can blow nearby trees and branches into powerlines, sparking fires. Wind can also snap wooden poles, causing live wires to fall onto nearby grass or other fuel, igniting it. While the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) estimates only about 10 percent of California’s wildfires are triggered by power lines, the frequency and severity of these wildfires has spurred the agency to make new requirements for power line safety practices (Atkinson 2018).

Wildfire Hazard Designations
In California, State and local agencies share responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression and federal agencies take part as well. Federal agencies are responsible for federal lands in Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA). The State of California has determined that some non-federal lands in unincorporated areas with watershed value are of statewide interest and have classified those lands as State Responsibility Areas (SRA). CAL FIRE manages SRAs. All incorporated areas and unincorporated lands not in FRAs or SRAs are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).

While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors (PRC 4201-4204, California Government Code 51175-89). As described above, the primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition, and atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). There are three levels of severity: 1) Moderate FHSZs; 2) High FHSZs; and 3) Very High FHSZs.

Only the Very High FHSZs are mapped for LRAs in the currently adopted CAL FIRE FHSZ maps. As of January 2022, California State Law requires CAL FIRE to map the Moderate and High FHSZ in addition to the Very High FHSZ. Updates to the CAL FIRE FHSZ maps are in progress and are expected to be completed in early 2024.

Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. However, none of the fire zones specifically prohibit development or construction. To reduce fire risk under State regulations, areas in Very High FHSZs must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life in those areas.
917
The City of Solvang is an LRA and as illustrated in Figure 4.17-1, CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) has classified the areas surrounding Solvang as mostly Moderate and High FHSZ’s in an SRA, with Very High FHSZ to the northwest and southwest of the City (CAL FIRE 2023). As shown in Figure 4.17-1, all of the sites considered for future development under the 2045 General Plan are within the City’s LRA, and none of the sites are located within a Very High FHSZ. A majority of these sites are located within Moderate and High FHSZs, with the minority located within areas that are not a designated FHSZ.

Fire History
Since the 1950’s, the greater Santa Barbara area has averaged one large fire per decade, with large wildfires (in excess of 50,000 acres) occurring every 20 to 30 years (SB Fire Safe Council 2020). In 1917, an approximately 312-acre burned within city limits on the south side of Solvang, along the creek and South Alisal Road. Table 4.17-3 shows the details of fire history within Santa Barbara County.

Table 4.17-3 Santa Barbara County Fire History (1955-2017) Fire Name Date Acres Burned Miles from Solvang
Refugio Sep-55 79,428 10
Coyote Sep-64 65,338 35
Romero Oct-71 14,538 38
Sycamore Jul-77 806 35
Wheeler Jul-85 119,361 20
Painted Cave Jun-90 4,270 29
Marre Sep-93 43,822 20
Gaviota Jul-04 7,440 15
Perkins Jul-06 14,998 10
Zaca Jul-07 240,207 17
Gap Jul-08 9,443 20
Tea Nov-09 1,940 33
Jesusita May-09 8,773 33
La Brea Aug-09 91,622 10
Sherpa Jun-16 7,474 13
Rey Aug-16 32,606 18
Canyon Sep-16 12,742 21
Whittier Jul-17 18,430 3
Thomas Dec-17 281,893 4
Source: City of Solvang, 2021
918
Figure 4.17-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Proposed Development 919
Post-fire Slope Instability and Drainage Pattern Changes Fires in wildland areas can destroy vegetation and wildlife, and threaten urban areas located on the fringe of wildland areas. Wildland fires can also have serious impacts on downstream development and water supplies. Vegetation loss from wildfire scarring of the landscape can result in slope instability in the form of more intensive flooding and landslides. These post-fire slope soils and altered drainage patterns can result in soil creep on downslope sides of foundations and reduce lateral support. Consequently, mudslides and landslides can threaten downhill development as a result of wildland fires. Solvang, like much of Santa Barbara County, is at risk from wildland fires due to the combination of dry, windy conditions and woodlands, brushlands, chaparral, and grasslands that burn readily (City of Solvang 2021).

Fire Protection Services
The Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) provides fire protection services in Solvang.

Station 30, located at 1644 Oak Street, serves Solvang and portions of unincorporated Santa Ynez Valley. Station 30 is staffed by four personnel: one Captain, one Engineer, one Firefighter/Paramedic, and one Firefighter (SBCFD 2022). Additional firefighting support in the Santa Ynez Valley is provided by Station 31, located in Buellton, and Station 32, located in Santa Ynez.

Santa Barbara County is also a “Contract County” under CAL FIRE, meaning the County provides initial attack response to fires, while CAL FIRE provides funding for fire protection services, including salaries and wages, maintenance of firefighting facilities, pre-fire management positions, special repairs, and administrative services (CAL FIRE 2022a).

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provided a new set of mitigation plan requirements for State and local jurisdictions that encourage them to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. States are encouraged to complete a “Standard” or an “Enhanced” Natural Mitigation Plan. Enhanced plans demonstrate increased coordination of mitigation activities at the State level and, if completed and approved, increase the amount of funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP), as discussed below, complies with this act.

National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed under Executive Order 11246 in August 2000, following a historic wildland fire season. Its intent was to establish plans for active response to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities, while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability. The program promotes close coordination among local, State, Tribal, and federal firefighting resources by conducting training, purchasing equipment, and providing prevention activities on a cost-share basis. To help protect people and their property from potential catastrophic wildfire, the National Fire Plan directs funding to be provided for projects designed to reduce the fire risks to communities (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], United States Department of the Interior [DOI] 2000). High-risk communities identified in the wildland-urban 920
interface, the area where homes and wildlands intermix, were published in the Federal Register in 2001. At the request of Congress, the Federal Register notice only listed those communities neighboring federal lands (USDA, DOI 2002).
b. State Regulations
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is Chapter 9 of CCR Title 24 and is a fully integrated code based on the International Fire Code. The CFC establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structure, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The CFC uses a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to ensure fire safety and protect lives. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification.

More specifically, CFC Chapter 8 addresses fire related Interior finishes; CFC Chapter 9 addresses fire protection systems; and CFC Chapter 10 addresses fire-related means of egress. CFC Chapter 49 also contains regulations for vegetation and fuel management to maintain clearances around structures.

These requirements establish minimum standards to protect buildings in FHSZs in SRAs, LRAs, and wildland-urban interface fire areas.

California Strategic Fire Plan
The 2019 Strategic Plan prepared by CAL FIRE and the California Natural Resources Agency lays out central goals for reducing and preventing the impacts of fire in the state. The goals are meant to establish, through local, State, federal, and private partnerships, a natural environment that is more resilient and human-made assets that are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire.

In addition to the 2019 Strategic Plan for California, individual CAL FIRE units develop fire plans, which are strategic documents that establish a set of tools for each CAL FIRE unit for its local area.

Updated annually, unit fire plans identify wildfire protection areas, initial attack success, assets and infrastructure at risk, pre-fire management strategies, and accountability in their unit’s geographical boundaries. The unit fire plan identifies strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the people who live and work locally. The unit fire plans include contributions from local collaborators and stakeholders and are aligned with other plans applicable to the area.

California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) prepares the SHMP, which identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy (CalOES 2018). The SHMP is required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for the State to receive federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a SHMP as a condition of disaster assistance. The SHMP represents the State’s primary hazard mitigation guidance document, providing an updated analysis of the state’s historical and current hazards, hazard mitigation goals and objectives, and hazard mitigation strategies and actions. The SHMP represents the State’s overall commitment to supporting a comprehensive mitigation strategy to reduce or eliminate potential risks and impacts of disasters in order to promote faster recovery after disasters and, overall, a more resilient state. 921
SHMPs are required to meet the elements outlined in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) State Mitigation Plan Review Guide (revised March 2015, effective March 2016).

CalOES is responsible for the development and maintenance of the State’s plan for hazard mitigation. The State’s SHMP was last approved by FEMA as an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan in 2018. The plan is designed to reduce the effects of disasters caused by natural, technological, accidental, and adversarial/human-caused hazards. The SHMP sets the mitigation priorities, strategies, and actions for the state. The plan also describes how risk assessment and mitigation strategy information is coordinated and linked from local mitigation plans into the SHMP and provides a resource for local planners of risk information that may affect their planning area. The State of California is required to review and revise its mitigation plan and resubmit for FEMA approval at least every 5 years to ensure continued funding eligibility for certain federal grant programs.

State Emergency Plan
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a statewide mutual aid system, designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with an emergency situation.

The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (California Government Code Sections 8555–8561) requires signatories to the agreement to prepare operational plans to use in their jurisdiction and outside their area. These operational plans include fire and non-fire emergencies related to natural, technological, and war contingencies. The State of California, all State agencies, all political subdivisions, and all fire districts signed this agreement in 1950.

Section 8568 of the California Government Code, the California Emergency Services Act, states that “the State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political subdivision of the state, and the governing body of each political subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out the provisions thereof.” The act provides the basic authorities for conducting emergency operations following the proclamations of emergencies by the Governor or appropriate local authority, such as a City Manager. The provisions of the act are further reflected and expanded on by appropriate local emergency ordinances. The act further describes the function and operations of government at all levels during extraordinary emergencies, including war.

All local emergency plans are extensions of the State of California Emergency Plan. The State Emergency Plan conforms to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is the system required by Government Code 8607(a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination.

Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under State disaster assistance programs. The SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary, including: field response, local government, operational area, regional, and State. CalOES divides the state into several mutual aid regions (CalOES 2017). 922
California Building Code
Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards
On September 20, 2007, the building Standards Commission approved the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s emergency regulations amending the CCR, Title 24, Part 2, known as the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California. These codes include provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to ensure fire safety and protect lives.

Specifically, CBC (Part 2), Chapter 7A addresses materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure.

California Public Resource Code
The California Public Resource Code (PRC) includes fire safety regulations that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire, require the use of spark arrestors on construction equipment that use an internal combustion engine, specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas, and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas.

These regulations include the following:
 Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (PRC Section 4442)  Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger period—from April 1 to December 1 (PRC Section 4428)
 On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the construction contractor would maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment (PRC Section 4427)
 On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (PRC Section 4431)
California PRC Section 4290
The California PRC Section 4290 was adopted to establish minimum wildfire protection standards in conjunction with building, construction, and development in SRAs, and as of July 1, 2021 within the LRA Very High FHSZs. Under PRC Section 4290, the future design and construction of structures, subdivisions, and developments in SRAs must provide for basic emergency access and specified perimeter wildfire protection measures. These measures provide for road standards for emergency access, signing and building numbering, water supply reserves, and fuel breaks and greenbelts and are contained within California Government Code of Regulations, 14 CCR, Division 1.5, Chapter 7 Fire Protection, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, and known as the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations. 923
Executive Order N-05-19
On January 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-05-19 to address wildfire in California. Executive Order N-05-19 directs CAL FIRE, in consultation with other State agencies and departments, to recommend immediate-, medium-, and long-term actions to help prevent destructive wildfires. In response, CAL FIRE created the Community Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Report which contains recommendations to reduce the damage from wildfires across the state. Specifically, they focus on reducing wildfire fuel (such as vegetation clearing), long-term community protection (creating defensible space in communities), wildfire prevention, and forest health (CAL FIRE 2019).

Government Code Section 51182
According to Government Code Section 51182 (amended by AB 3074 and AB 63, which created a new 0- to 5-foot ember resistant zone and new definitions and requirements for defensible space, respectively), a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or occupied structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable material, or land that is in a Very High FHSZ shall at all times do all of the following:

1. Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure.

2. Remove that portion of a tree that extends within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe.

3. Maintain a tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or dying wood.

4. Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials.

5. Prior to constructing a new dwelling or structure that will be occupied or rebuilding an occupied dwelling or occupied structure damaged by a fire in that zone, the construction or rebuilding of which requires a building permit, obtain a certification from the local building official that the dwelling or structure, as proposed to be built, complies with all applicable State and local building standards.

SB 1241 (Kehoe) of 2012
SB 1241 requires cities and counties in SRAs and Very High FHSZs to address fire risk in the safety element of their general plans. The bill also resulted in amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to include questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects located in or near lands classified as SRAs and Very High FHSZs.

AB 2911 (2018)
Following the devastating 2017 fire season, AB 2911 was adopted to improve fire safety in subdivision developments. AB 2911 requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal, to survey local governments including counties, cities, and fire districts to identify existing subdivisions located in SRAs or Very High FHSZs that are without a secondary means of egress route and are at significant fire risk. Through this Subdivision Review Program, the Board, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal and local governments, would develop recommendations to create secondary access to the subdivision, improvements to existing access roads, and other fire safety measures.
924
California Public Utilities Commission General Orders
General Order 95
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95 applies to construction and reconstruction of overhead electric lines in California. The replacement of poles, towers, or other structures is considered reconstruction and requires adherence to all strength and clearance requirements of this order. The CPUC has promulgated various Rules to implement the fire safety requirements of General Order 95, including:
 Rule 18A requires utility companies take appropriate corrective action to remedy Safety Hazards.
 General Order 95 nonconformances requires that each utility company establish an auditable maintenance program.
 Rules 31.2 requires that lines be inspected frequently and thoroughly.  Rule 35 requires that vegetation management activities be performed in order to establish necessary and reasonable clearances. These requirements apply to all overhead electrical supply and communication facilities that are covered by General Order 95, including facilities on lands owned and maintained by California State and local agencies.  Rule 38 establishes minimum vertical, horizontal, and radial clearances of wires from other wires.
 Rule 43.2.A.2 requires that for lines located within Tier 2 or Tier 3 zones, the wind loads required in Rule 43.2.A.1 be multiplied by a wind load factor of 1.1. (CPUC 2018) General Order 165
General Order 165 establishes requirements for the inspection of electric distribution and transmission facilities that are not contained in a substation. Utilities must perform “Patrol” inspections, defined as a simple visual inspection of utility equipment and structures and designed to identify obvious structural problems and hazards, at least once per year for each piece of equipment and structure. “Detailed” inspections, where individual pieces of equipment and structures are carefully examined, are required every 5 years for all overhead conductor and cables, transformers, switching/protective devices, and regulators/capacitors. By July 1 of each year, each utility subject to this General Order must submit an annual report of its inspections for the previous year under penalty of perjury (CPUC 2017a).

General Order 166
General Order 166 Standard 1.E requires that investor-owned utilities develop a fire prevention plan that describes measures that the electric utility will implement to mitigate the threat of power-line fires generally. Additionally, this standard requires that investor-owned utilities outline a plan to mitigate power-line fires when wind conditions exceed the structural design standards of the line during a Red Flag Warning in a high fire threat area. Fire prevention plans created by investorowned utilities are required to identify specific parts of the utility’s service territory where the conditions described above may occur simultaneously. Standard 11 requires that utilities report annually to the CPUC regarding compliance with General Order 166 (CPUC 2017b). 925
SB 1028
SB 1028 (2016) requires each electrical corporation to construct, maintain, and operate its electrical lines and equipment in a manner that will minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire posed by those components, and makes a violation of these provisions by an electrical corporation a crime under State law. The bill also requires each electrical corporation to annually prepare a wildfire mitigation plan submitted to CPUC for review. The plan must include a statement of objectives, a description of preventive strategies and programs that are focused on minimizing risk associated with electric facilities, and a description of the metrics that the electric corporation uses to evaluate the overall wildfire mitigation plan performance and assumptions that underlie the use of the metrics. c. Local Regulations
Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) contains goals and objectives that are intended to reduce loss of life and property from natural disasters. The HMP was comprehensively updated in 2023, and the City is a participating agency. During the planning process, this plan used FEMA tools to determine the most likely possible threats would be wildfire, earthquakes, drought and water shortage, pandemic/public health emergency, energy shortage and resiliency, extreme heat and freeze, and flooding. The HMP identifies mitigation action items that aim to meet objectives and reduce the impacts of these hazards. The Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management leads the responsibility for overseeing the Plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the mitigation action plans.

City of Solvang Emergency Management Plan
The City’s Emergency Management Plan (EMP) addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological and intentional incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City. The EMP addresses emergency management coordination, procedures required to protect the health and safety of the residents and property within Solvang, and emergency management organization required to respond to and mitigate emergencies or disasters within Solvang. The EMP integrates with Santa Barbara County’s Operational Area response for area wide emergencies such as fire (City of Solvang 2013).

4.17.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
This section describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project relevant to wildfire. The impact analysis is based on an assessment of baseline conditions in Solvang, including the risk of exposure to wildland fires and wildfire hazards. This analysis identifies potential impacts based on the predicted interaction between the affected environment and construction, operation, and maintenance activities related to the predicted development that would occur under the proposed project. This section describes wildfire impacts in terms of location, context, duration, and intensity.
926
Significance Thresholds
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G provides the following significance thresholds to determine if a project would have a potentially significant impact on wildfires. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact if it would be located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and:

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;

3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact W-1 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN INCLUDES POLICES TO ADDRESS EMERGENCY ACCESS, RESPONSE, AND PREPAREDNESS. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Solvang, due to its rural surroundings, is a wildland-urban interface, which includes areas where homes or other structures are built near or among lands prone to wildland fire. The majority of Solvang is within a FHSZ, including the portion of the city south of the Santa Ynez River, as well as the perimeter of the City limits. In addition, Solvang’s SOI is within a FHSZ. The central portion of Solvang with concentrated development, as shown in Figure 4.17-1, is not designated as a FHSZ.

Development within a FHSZ is unsafe when fire suppression activities would be impeded by lack of water, rugged terrain, or delayed response times. One SBCFD fire station, Station 30, serves Solvang and portions of unincorporated Santa Ynez Valley. In Solvang, the average response times from SBCFD are between three to five minutes (City of Solvang 2021).

The 2045 General Plan includes the following policies and programs to ensure safe and efficient evacuation and emergency response:
 Policy PFS-5.2: Defensible Space. The City shall coordinate with County Fire Department to work with residents and businesses to provide “defensible space” around structures to provide fire fighters with sufficient room to defend structures and maneuver.  Policy SAF-1.2: Community Education and Organization. The City shall develop and support preparedness programs that educate and organize the community, especially vulnerable populations, to respond appropriately to disasters.
927
 Policy SAF-1.4: Law Enforcement and Fire Protection Services. The City shall continue to work with Santa Barbara County to maintain local law enforcement and fire protection services in a state of readiness to ensure adequate protection for the citizens of Solvang.  Policy SAF-1.5: Standardized Emergency Management System. The City shall continue to support efforts to ensure local agency compliance with the State’s Standardized Emergency Management System.
 Policy SAF-1.9: Communication and Media Protocols. The City shall continue to maintain emergency communication resources, protocols, and improve information transfer to the media and public during emergencies.
 Policy SAF-6.2: Mutual Aid Agreements. The City shall continue to maintain mutual aid agreements among fire protection and emergency service providers to ensure residents and property are adequately served and to facilitate the efficient use of available resources.  Safety Element Program U: Evacuation Plan and Emergency Response Procedures. The City shall prepare and regularly update an evacuation plan and emergency response procedures, including evacuation routes, for different types of disasters, including dam failure, within the Emergency Management Plan.
 Safety Element Program V: Roadway Capacity Evaluation. The City shall periodically evaluate existing roadways, particularly along evacuation and emergency access routes, to ensure roads will have adequate capacity during times of emergency.

The City’s EMP helps maintain the City’s ability to prepare, respond, and recover from a variety of emergency incidents. The 2045 General Plan would not conflict with the EMP or otherwise impair evacuation; implementation of 2045 General Plan policies would enhance SBCFD’s ability to respond to emergencies and existing evacuation routes through implementation of policies listed above.

Additionally, development impact fees, as required under AB 1600, would fund the provision of fire protection services in Solvang so that the city may accommodate increased development without a subsequent decrease in fire protection efficiency or emergency response. Any development proposed in FHSZs would be subject to site plan review of the Solvang Emergency Services Coordinator and Fire Marshal during the City’s site plan review process (City of Solvang 2021).

During this process, the City would be required to confirm that individual development site plans adequately provide emergency access. Because the Solvang Emergency Services Coordinator and Fire Marshal would review development facilitated by the proposed project to ensure emergency access meets City standards, impacts related to impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 2: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Impact W-2 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN INCLUDES POLICIES TO MINIMIZE WILDFIRE RISK.

DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ADHERE TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND 928

BE REVIEWED BY THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT TO ENSURE WILDFIRE RISK WOULD NOT BE EXACERBATED. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would occur in urbanized areas of Solvang, as well as more rural areas where fire fuels (i.e., vegetation) are more continuous and abundant. These areas are susceptible to wildfire. Solvang contains a combination of dry, windy conditions, woodlands, brushlands, chaparral, and grasslands that burn readily (City of Solvang 2021).

Plant communities within Solvang include annual grasslands, coastal oak woodlands, coastal scrub, deciduous orchards, mixed chapparal, valley foothill riparian, and valley oak woodlands. Steep hillsides to the south and west, and in the eastern corner of the city, have dense oak woodland and chaparral vegetation (City of Solvang 2021).

Grasslands are capable of generating dangerous fuel behavior, while woody fuel types, such as tree and brush formations, are generally associated with rapid fire front advance, high burn intensities, longer duration at a given location, and generation of airborne embers, especially under extreme fire weather conditions. While existing urban development provides a barrier to the uncontrolled spread of wildfire, undeveloped and open space areas would be susceptible to exacerbated fire conditions. These conditions provide the potential to push wildfire and wildfire smoke through areas of low-fuel volumes and to areas of substantial development, thereby exposing residents to pollutant concentrations associated with wildfire. However, the 2045 General Plan includes policies to enhance the City’s ability to respond to wildfire risk listed in Impact W-1. In addition, the 2045 General Plan includes policies that would minimize risk to project occupants, including:
 Policy SAF-5.1: Protect New Development. The City shall require new development be designed to protect life and property from the effects of wildfires and structural fires relative to the identified level of risk.
 Policy SAF-5.5: Fire Safety Improvements. The City shall encourage fire safety improvements for existing homes and commercial buildings.

SBCFD enforces fire and building codes related to development in FHSZs. Development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with SBCFD development standards that reduce wildfire risk. Standards include, but are not limited to, implementation of a 100-foot minimum defensible space barriers around all buildings or structures, removal of combustible vegetation within 30 feet of a building or structure, prohibition of trees located within 10 feet of a chimney or stovepipe, and removal of combustible vegetation at a minimum of 10 feet from both shoulders of a roadway or driveway. (SBCFD 2010).

Development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to adhere to State and federal regulations related to reducing wildfire risk. This includes approval of site-specific design plans to verify compliance with applicable codes including, but not limited to, the following:
 Title 24, CCR, Building Regulations
 Uniform Fire Code
 National Fire Codes of the National Fire Protection Association  Title 19, CCR, Public Safety
 Title 8, CCR, Occupational Safety
 California Health and Safety Code
929
The CFC includes safety measures that minimize the threat of fire, including ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Development would also be required to meet California Building Code requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. CCR Title 14 sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards risk. Compliance with these regulations and building standards would reduce the potential for development facilitated by the proposed project to contribute to the exposure to pollutants of persons in or near these developments. Additionally, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would include policies intended to minimize potential wildfire risks. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 3: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact W-3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION

OR MAINTENANCE OF SUBSTANTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MAY EXACERBATE FIRE RISK OR RESULT IN TEMPORARY OR ONGOING IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATED WITH FIRE RISK. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Minimal additional infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities, would be required to accommodate development facilitated by the proposed project. Primarily, development facilitated by the proposed project would require lateral infrastructure connection to existing utilities, resulting in negligible temporary or ongoing environmental impacts. Electrical lines pose the greatest potential wildfire risk. Existing electrical lines are maintained in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requirements.

In accordance with Title 8, Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code, in the event the City determines an overhead electric line(s) pose a risk to public safety, the City Council can mandate the overhead electric lines be replaced with underground electric infrastructure. Accordingly, development facilitated by the proposed project would not exacerbate fire risk from electric line installation.

To minimize risks associated with emergency water sources and availability, the 2045 General Plan includes the following policies and programs:
 Policy PFS-1.1: Water Supply Sources. The City shall continue to maintain a water supply program consisting of multiple sources of water, water conservation and groundwater management to accommodate projected water demand and provide for reliable water supply.  Policy PFS-1.2: Adequate Fire Flows. The City shall insure the provision of water supply, storage, and adequately sized pipelines to provide fire flows to meet the recommendations of the Fire Chief, City Engineer, and Utilities Director.
 Policy PFS-1.3: Water Supply and Infrastructure. The City shall ensure there is adequate water supply and infrastructure in place or that will be available in place and prior to approving any 930
new development. The City will consider existing and future water supply and demand prior to project approval.
 Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Element Program A: Water System Master Plan.

The City shall update every five-years or as needed the Water System Master Plan to address the development of multiple sources of water, water conservation and groundwater management to accommodate projected water demand and provide for water supply security.  Policy SAF-6.3: Peak Fire-Flow. The City shall continue to ensure that adequate peak load water fire-flows are maintained throughout the city and shall regularly monitor fire-flows to ensure adequacy.
 Safety Element Program X: Fire Flow Evaluation. The City shall continue to regularly evaluate fire-flows to ensure they are adequate to serve the community.

Applicable 2045 General Plan policies and SBCFD requirements would ensure development would minimize fire risk through adherence to defensive space requirements, development standards, fire management best practices, and wildfire resilience standards. During site plan review of individual projects, the City’s Emergency Services Coordinator and the Fire Marshal would ensure new development provides adequate fuel breaks or buffer zones that minimize fire risk. The creation of fuel breaks or buffer zones would reduce the potential for severe or catastrophic wildfires, rather than exacerbate them.

Development impact fees, as required under AB 1600, would fund the provision of fire protection services in Solvang. Development facilitated by the proposed project would generally require minimal additional utility infrastructure, and CPUC and SBCFD requirements and policies included in the 2045 General Plan would ensure development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in substantial fire risk or temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 4: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impact W-4 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN INCLUDES POLICIES TO ENSURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT EXACERBATE RISKS FROM FLOODING OR LANDSLIDES DUE TO WILDFIRE. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Vegetation on hillsides helps stabilize soil, slow water flow, and support percolation into the soil.

Severe wildfires damage trees, the shrub canopy, vegetation, and soil. Once vegetation burns, a greater surface area of soil is exposed to the elements, and the lack of roots decreases the structural integrity of the soil. As a result, wildfire burn areas typically experience increased runoff after intense rainfall, which can put residences and structures downslope of a burned area at risk of localized floods and landslides. Landslide risk in Solvang is highest adjacent to Adobe Canyon Creek.

This area as well as others concentrated throughout the eastern and southern portions of Solvang, are classified as a very high landslide risk. There are several flood-prone areas in Solvang, which are 931
generally located adjacent to the Santa Ynez River, Alamo Pintado Creek, Alisal Creek, and Adobe Creek. These areas are primarily adjacent to open space and residential uses.

As described in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, development would be required to adhere to the standards of the California Building Code to minimize the potential development to result in a landslide. The 2045 General Plan includes the following policies to minimize potential for landslides:
 Policy SAF-2.3: Geotechnical Reports. The City shall continue to require the preparation of geotechnical reports and impose appropriate mitigation measures for new development in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards to ensure, within the limits of technical and economic feasibility, that new structures are able to withstand the effects of seismic activity, including liquefaction, slope instability, expansive soils or other geologic hazards.  Policy SAF-3.1: Landslide and Slope Instability Hazard Mitigation. The City shall continue to require development to avoid and/or mitigate any potential impacts a project contributes to landslides and slope instability hazards on neighboring property, appurtenant structures, utilities, and roads.
 Policy SAF-3.2: Expansion of Development in Areas of Landslide Activity. The City shall prohibit the expansion of existing structures or developments in areas of known landslide activity except when the project will incorporate measures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property.  Policy SAF-3.3: New Development in Areas of Landslide Activity. The City shall prohibit new development in areas of known landslide activity unless development plans indicate that the hazard can be reduced to a less than significant level prior to beginning development.

As described in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, development in a flood hazard zone would be required to adhere to the standards of the California Building Code and Municipal Code which provide design guidelines, construction standards, and encroachments. Development would also be required to comply with State and City regulations for controlling stormwater, including implementation of BMPs to minimize stormwater flows and adverse impacts of flooding following a wildfire. The 2045 General Plan includes the following policies to minimize flood-related impacts:
 Policy SAF-4.1: Development in Floodplains. The City shall not approve new development in areas subject to a 100-year flood event, based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping or on other updated mapping acceptable to the City, unless and until the flood hazard has been mitigated.
 Policy SAF-4.2: Mitigate Flooding. The City shall require new development and redevelopment to incorporate flood reduction measures into the project design in areas known to be prone to flooding.
 Policy SAF-4.4: Reducing Flood Impacts. The City shall require mitigation to less than significant levels for new development with the potential to increase flooding impacts.  Policy SAF-4.5: 100-Year Flood Plains. The City shall require development on land subject to a 100- year flood event, based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping or on other updated mapping acceptable to the City, to conform to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to adhere to these State and City regulations and 2045 General Plan policies, which would ensure the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. This impact would be less than significant. 932
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

4.17.4 Cumulative Impacts
The analysis in this section examines cumulative impacts involving wildfires throughout the cumulative impact analysis area, and the 2045 General Plan’s potential contribution to cumulative wildfire impacts.

A combination of federal, State, and local regulations limit or minimize the potential for exposure to wildfires by reducing the amount of development in wildland urban interface areas, ensuring new development is developed according to California Building Code and California Fire Code, and incorporating requirements for fire-safe construction into the land use planning. Cumulative development may occur in designated FHSZs; however, project construction would adhere to respective SBCFD fire codes designed to provide minimum standards to increase fire-resiliency in buildings, prevent the occurrence of fires, and to provide adequate fire-protection facilities to control the spread of fire which might be caused by recreational, residential, commercial, industrial or other activities conducted in a wildland urban interface area. Adherence to the SBCFD regulations would ensure that California Fire Code standards including automatic sprinkler systems are incorporated into project design and permit requirements. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to wildfire exposure risk would be less than significant.

For the reasons stated above, potential impacts associated with wildfires would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 933

4.18 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) briefly describe any possible effects that were determined not to be significant. The environmental factors discussed below are in response to the checklist questions listed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G that were not discussed in the impact sections of the EIR.

4.18.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Thresholds of Significance
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, potentially significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]); Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; and/or Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use.

Assessment of Impacts
Currently, there are no active, commercial agricultural uses in Solvang. Of the total 1,968 acres within the Planning Area, 6.1 acres (0.3 percent) have existing agricultural land use designations under the current General Plan. The 2045 General Plan Land Use Element would remove the Agriculture land use designation included in the current General Plan because there are no properties in the Planning Area that are primarily used for agriculture. The 2045 General Plan would redesignate most of these properties from Agriculture to Open Space/Recreation, except the Alisal Guest Ranch which would be designated Guest Ranch (as discussed further below). The Open Space/Recreation designation would allow public parks, indoor and outdoor recreation and entertainment uses, and open space. Redesignation would more closely fit the existing uses of these properties, which are primarily characterized by recreational uses and open space. Because there is no active, commercial agriculture within the city, redesignation of these properties would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, nearly all of the land in Solvang is considered Urban and Built-Up Land, with the exception of the southernmost part of the Planning Area, which contains the Alisal Guest Ranch, which is identified as Prime Farmland (California Department of Conservation 2023). The Alisal Guest Ranch, located at 1054 Alisal Road, is a hotel and resort, is not currently used for agriculture, and is associated with an existing horse and cattle operation located outside of City limits. The 2045 General Plan would add a new designation, Guest Ranch, to recognize the approximately 30 acres of the Alisal Guest Ranch located within the city. 934
Allowable uses in the Guest Ranch land use designation would include guest lodging, employee housing, restaurants, and recreation and entertainment. Therefore, because the Alisal Guest Ranch cottages and associated buildings are not used for agriculture, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Mission Santa Inés, located at 1760 Mission Drive, is the only property in the Planning Area that is currently used for limited agriculture. Mission Santa Inés consists of the Mission buildings, a parking lot, and an open field in front of the Mission. Agriculture activities occurring at Mission Santa Inés are not for commercial purposes, but instead are complementary to the recreational uses occurring at the Mission and the surrounding open space. Although the property would be redesignated to Open Space/Recreation under the 2045 General Plan, current agricultural activities at Mission Santa Inés would not change. The proposed land use designation of Open Space/Recreation would more closely fit the existing use of this property and would not result in a physical change to any existing agriculture uses. Therefore, because agriculture activities at Mission Santa Inés are limited and would not change as a result of 2045 General Plan implementation, the 2045 General Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

The 2045 General Plan would implement the following policies designed to protect existing agricultural uses within Solvang, as well as surrounding agricultural land in unincorporated Santa Barbara County:
 Policy LU-7.6: Mission Santa Inés . The City shall support religious, cultural, educational, community oriented, and agricultural uses at Mission Santa Inés that are compatible with existing land uses.
 Policy LU-8.1: Community Separators. The City shall work with Santa Barbara County and the City of Buellton to protect the agricultural areas surrounding the city boundaries and Sphere of Influence to serve as "greenbelt" open space to separate communities in the Santa Ynez Valley.  Policy ENV-1.3: Maintain Agricultural Lands. The City shall support Santa Barbara County to retain the Agriculture designation in viable farming units on lands surrounding the City and support implementation of the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan.

Policy LU-7.6 would ensure that implementation of the 2045 General Plan would not interfere with the limited existing agricultural activities at Mission Santa Inés. Policies LU-8.1 and ENV-1.3 would protect the agricultural areas surrounding the Planning Area within unincorporated Santa Barbara County. As such, 2045 General Plan policies would preserve the limited non-commercial agricultural uses in Solvang and encourage the conservation of adjacent agricultural lands in unincorporated Santa Barbara County.

As part of approval of the 2045 General Plan, current agricultural zoning designations would undergo zone changes to be consistent with the proposed land use designations and the existing non-agricultural uses on the redesignated parcels. As such, the 2045 General Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. As discussed previously, because there is no active, commercial agriculture within the city, the zone change would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Furthermore, the Planning Area does not contain land under a Williamson Act contract (County of Santa Barbara Department of Planning and Development 2015).

Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or an existing Williamson Act contract.

The City’s Planning Area has a wide diversity of forest habitats, including coastal oak woodland, deciduous orchard, and valley oak woodland. However, the City does not contain any lands zoned 935
for forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production (City of Solvang 2021). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause the rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The project would not result in the loss of forest land, or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The project would not involve changes in the existing environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. Although the 2045 General Plan would eliminate the Agriculture land use designation, it is not reasonably foreseeable that any of these properties would be converted from their current uses to agriculture because agriculture uses do not fit with the existing uses or envisioned growth and projected uses in Solvang.

No impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources would occur as a result of the proposed 2045 General Plan.

4.18.2 Mineral Resources
Thresholds of Significance
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G checklist, potentially significant impacts to mineral resources would occur if the proposed 2045 General Plan would result in any of the following:

Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; and/or
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Assessment of Impacts
Mineral resources occurring in the Solvang area include sand and gravel, limited oil and gas resources used for fuels, and diatomaceous earth that is used as filtering material and for insulation.

However, there are no sand and gravel extraction activities, oil and gas fields, or diatomite mining activities within the Planning Area itself (City of Solvang 2016). Neither the current General Plan nor the 2045 General Plan delineate sites containing mineral resources.

The 2045 General Plan would implement the following goal and policies, which are designed to encourage continued accessibility to native minerals while avoiding significant harm to the environment or human health from their extraction:
 Goal ENV-6: To achieve environmentally responsible reclamation of mineral extraction sites.  Policy ENV-6.1: Mineral Extraction Site Reclamation. The City shall require the environmentally responsible reclamation of mineral extraction sites within the City and shall work with other agencies in the area to do the same.
 Policy ENV-6.2: Prohibit Mineral Extraction in Open Space. The City shall prohibit mineral extraction within open space owned by the City in fee or as an easement.  Policy ENV-6.3: Mineral Extraction. The City shall work with existing mineral extraction operations to minimize impacts to human health and the environment.

With the implementation of the above goal and policies form the 2045 General Plan, the project would have no impact related to mineral resources.
936
This page intentionally left blank.
937
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses other issues as required by CEQA, in addition to the specific issue area discussed in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

5.1 Growth Inducement
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.

However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

5.1.1 Population and Economic Growth
As described in Table 2-1 of Section 2, Project Description, 2045 General Plan buildout is anticipated to enable an additional 497 residential units and 211 employees. As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, based on Solvang’s average household size of 2.39 persons per household, implementation of the 2045 General Plan could lead to an increase of approximately 1,187 residents in the city, increasing Solvang’s total population to 7,042, which is above the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ (SBCAG) 2045 population forecast of 6,300 residents in Solvang (a difference of 747 people or approximately 11.1 percent) (SBCAG 2019). Therefore, the 2045 General Plan could facilitate population growth in the area. However, implementation of the policies and associated programs included in the 2045 General Plan would assist in managing growth and infill development such that development and redevelopment would occur in an orderly manner. These policies include the following:
 Policy LU-1.2: Infill Development. The City shall support and promote infill development that is compact, mixed-use, and pedestrian-friendly.
 Policy LU-1.3: Residential Land Use. Although most of the city is built out, the City shall designate a full range of residential land uses that provide for a variety of housing types, locations, and densities, including accessory dwelling units.  Policy LU-1.4: Commercial Land Use. The City shall designate a mix of commercial uses, including retail, general, and tourist commercial, to promote both the tourist economy and the needs of residents of Solvang and the Santa Ynez valley.  Policy LU-1.6: Mixed-use. The City shall encourage mixed-use developments with a residential component to further enhance the range of housing opportunities provided to residents.  Policy LU-2.3: Neighborhood Infill. The City shall allow infill development as required by State Law include ADU’s, JADU and density bonus.
 Policy LU-2.4: High-density Residential Development. The City shall encourage new highdensity residential development located in areas close to services and transit with appropriate site planning, and comply with objective design standards, and landscape criteria.  Policy LU-5.3: Pedestrian Orientation. The City shall require new mixed-use development to include amenities that create a comfortable environment for walking, sitting, and socializing. 938
 Policy MOB-1.2: Transportation System Capacity. The City shall use its discretionary authority over land use development to ensure that development levels do not exceed the capacity of the City’s transportation systems.
 Policy MOB-1.5: New Development Access. The City shall require new development to be served by roads of adequate capacity and design standards to provide reasonable access in accordance with City standards.
 Policy MOB-1.15: Roadway Capacity. The City shall require roads to be of adequate width for use in times of emergency.
 Policy MOB-3.4: Parking for New Development. The City shall require new or expanded development to provide adequate off-street parking or offer the financial means for parking to be provided.
 Policy H-1.2: Residential Rehabilitation. The City shall encourage homeowners and landlords to maintain properties in sound condition through code enforcement efforts and by implementing a residential rehabilitation assistance program.
 Policy H-2.1: Housing for All Residents. The City shall encourage the production of housing that meets the needs of all economic segments, including homeless and extremely low, lower, moderate, and above moderate-income households, to achieve a balanced community.  Policy H-2.2: Expanding Workforce Housing. The City shall encourage housing opportunities for the city’s workforce, including seasonal and part-time workers in the tourism sector and public service employees. The City will encourage housing opportunities and assistance to address the needs of local workers.
 Policy H-2.3: Affordable Senior Housing. The City shall continue to facilitate the provision of affordable housing for the city’s growing senior population, including senior housing with supportive services, assisted living facilities, and second units.  Policy H-2.4: Support Special Housing Needs. The City shall support, as feasible, non-profit and for-profit agencies who provide supportive services and alternative housing options for the homeless and other persons with special housing needs in Solvang.  Policy H-2.6: Home Ownership Assistance. The City shall work with local organizations that identify and pursue State, Federal, and other funding sources to enable home ownership for low- and moderate-income households.
 Policy H-2.7: Home Ownership Education. The City shall work with local organizations to encourage first time homebuyers from low- and moderate- income households to participate in home ownership assistance programs available from public agencies and in the private market.  Policy H-2.8: Encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). The City shall allow ADUs and JADUs as a means of providing additional housing opportunities in existing neighborhoods as provided by state law.  Policy H-2.9: Rental Assistance. The City shall continue to support local organizations that provide rental assistance to extremely low and lower-income households and encourage property-owners to list units with the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority.  Policy H-2.10: Special Needs Housing. The City shall support the development and conservation of housing that meets the special needs of large families, families with children, seasonal workers, persons with disabilities, elderly persons, homeless, and agricultural workers.

Growth in Solvang would occur regardless of implementation of the 2045 General Plan. While growth is anticipated by the 2045 General Plan that would exceed current projections by SBCAG, the 939
growth would not be unplanned since it is contemplated by the 2045 General Plan. As described in the 2045 General Plan, the proposed project’s vision for Solvang was developed with extensive community input and in recognition of the State’s planning and housing priorities. The 2045 General Plan identifies major strategies and physical improvements for Solvang through 2045, including, but not limited to, use of mixed-use areas, strengthening locally owned business and communitysupported tourism, enhancing existing neighborhoods, and maintaining adequate public facilities and services for anticipated growth. Because the 2045 General Plan is designed for orderly growth, as mandated by the state, the 2045 General Plan would not result in substantial impacts related to population and economic growth.

5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would require new utility connections, including connections to water, hydrants, sewers, electricity, telecommunications, or other utilities like stormwater facilities. The 2045 General Plan promotes mixed-use and infill development where existing infrastructure, including roads, water mains, and sewer mains, are present. Utility connections would generally occur within individual footprints or rights-of-way that were previously disturbed, minimizing the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. The policies and programs of the 2045 General Plan would facilitate development in the Planning Area, thereby providing a roadmap for sustainable growth in Solvang. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan would not result in significant growth inducement due to the removal of an obstacle to growth.

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from a project, should a project be implemented. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, environmental accidents, and irreversible impacts associated with the 2045 General Plan.

Implementation of the 2045 General Plan could irreversibly increase local demand for nonrenewable energy resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of future development. As described in Section 4.5, Energy, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated buildings, and CALGreen requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. New and existing development in Solvang is provided electricity procured by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), which emphasizes the use of renewable energy resources. In accordance with Senate Bill 100, new and existing development will eventually be powered entirely by renewable energy procured by 3CE. Furthermore, the 2045 General Plan would implement several policies which would require efficient energy use and promote renewable energy programs. Consequently, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes related to energy use.
940
Growth facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could require an irreversible commitment of fire protection, law enforcement, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, potential impacts to public services and utilities and service systems would be less than significant following implementation of policies included in the 2045 General Plan, as well as future project-specific environmental review that would be required for any future public service or utility facility constructed in accordance with the 2045 General Plan.

The anticipated increase in buildout associated with the 2045 General Plan could contribute to air quality. As described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the 2045 General Plan has the potential to result in the irreversible emission of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, which require use of emission reduction measures, Tier 3 or higher emission standard equipment, and Level 3 diesel particulate filters during construction of future development projects, construction of those projects could result in an irreversible environmental effect in the Planning Area with regards to air quality emissions.

Demolition and ground-disturbing activities facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Even with implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure CUL-1, damage to or destruction of a known or previously unknown historical resource could occur because of the proposed project.

Therefore, the 2045 General Plan could irreversibly impact historical resources in the Planning Area.

5.2.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels, as a result of implementation of the project. The following environmental issues were determined to result in potential significant and unavoidable impacts:
 Impact AQ-2: Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could generate construction emissions above applicable thresholds of significance.
 Impact AQ-3: Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could result in construction activity that could produce toxic air contaminant emissions in proximity to residential receptors.  Impact CUL-1: Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could cause adverse changes to the significance of historical resources.
 Impact NOI-1: Short term Construction noise generated by development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan could exceed applicable City noise standards.  Impact TRA-2: VMT per capita and per employee with the 2045 General Plan would likely not achieve a reduction of at least 15 percent below the existing regional average. 941
6 Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives for the 2045 General Plan are as follows:
 Support strategic land uses. Strategically accommodate future growth and change while preserving and enhancing the qualities that make Solvang a desirable place to live and work through strategic land use designations and zoning.
 Foster a distinct community character. Maintain Solvang’s urban form and architectural style in order to maintain the city’s distinct community character.  Promote economic diversity and sustainability. Promote a vibrant business mix, supportive workforce development, 21st century communications infrastructure, and regional collaboration to connect Solvang to the broader economy and enhance the fiscal health of the community.  Improve mobility. Improve the mobility of people and goods within and through Solvang while emphasizing improving accessibility for visitors to park and move around Solvang.  Provide adequate facilities. Ensure the provision of adequate public facilities, including water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste and recycling, emergency response, community health, parks and recreation, education, and medical services.
 Conserve open space. Conserve and protect open space to preserve the scenic beauty of Solvang’s natural surroundings.
 Ensure public safety. Provide a safe community through public safety services, resilient infrastructure, public awareness, preparedness, and action plans for both human-caused and natural disasters.
 Support diverse housing options. Conserve and improve the quality of existing housing while facilitating the development of a range of housing types, densities, and affordability levels to meet the diverse needs of the community.

Included in this analysis are four alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. Alternatives that were considered, but rejected from further analysis, include increasing the density of the High Density Residential land use designation and the Tourist Commercial land use designation. These alternatives are further discussed in Section 6.6, Alternatives Considered but Rejected.

The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project/No 2045 General Plan
 Alternative 2: No Old Lumberyard Project
 Alternative 3: No Alamo Pintado Project
 Alternative 4: Neither Project Implemented (No Old Lumberyard Project and No Alamo Pintado Project)
942
Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of the 2045 General Plan and each of the alternatives considered. Appendix B provides renderings for the Old Lumberyard Project and the Alamo Pintado Project. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 through 6.4.

Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics Feature
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
2045 General Plan
Alternative 2:

No Old
Lumberyard
Project
Alternative 3:

No Alamo
Pintado
Project
Alternative 4:

Neither
Project
2045 Population 7,253 6,3001 7,251 6,997 6,995
2045 Housing Units 3,019 2,7001 3,018 2,912 2,911
1 Source: SBCAG 2019

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

6.1.1 Description
The No Project Alternative involves continued implementation of the City’s current General Plan, originally adopted in 1988. The No Project Alternative assumes the 2045 General Plan would not be adopted and therefore future development would be carried out in accordance with the City’s existing General Plan policies and land use designations through the horizon year of 2045. Thus, while growth in the region and in the Planning Area would still occur, any new development in Solvang would occur consistent with the existing land use designations and the allowed uses in each designation. Similarly, any new infrastructure would occur as envisioned in the existing General Plan. The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) has projected Solvang would have a population of approximately 6,300 and a housing stock of approximately 2,700 units in 2045 (SBCAG 2019). The No Project Alternative’s build out would occur in accordance with SBCAG’s population and housing projections.

In comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, the No Project Alternative would result in 953 fewer additional residents and 319 fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang under the No Project Alternative would be less than under 2045 General Plan.

This alternative would not remove the Agriculture Land Use designation, focus on affordable housing, or result in other updates to comply with current State law, or updates to address preservation of natural resources. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing zoning would not provide adequate residential zones and capacity necessary to meet the housing needs identified under the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 6th Cycle. This could result in inconsistency between the 2045 General Plan and the adopted Housing Element, which was adopted in December 2023. Considering the 2045 General Plan would guide development through 2045, land use decisions made now would impact the City’s ability not only to meet the State’s current 6th Cycle RHNA, but also future RHNA cycles through 2045.

The proposed 2045 General Plan includes specific new land use policies that will lead to 497 potential new housing units, which allows the ability to plan for RHNA housing cycles out to 2045.

Under the No Project Alternative, proposed 2045 General Plan policies would not be implemented. 943

6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would introduce less development with the potential to cause a substantial impact related to aesthetics. Growth envisioned in the 2045 General Plan encourages mixed uses through Solvang, focuses on affordability, and would facilitate development for housing and mixed uses on existing vacant and underutilized parcels. In comparison, the No Project Alternative would continue the currently planned development pattern throughout Solvang. For example, the No Project Alternative would not provide a focus on conserving the existing housing stock and character or improving the commercial and pedestrian environment of Solvang, as well as supporting uses such as commercial, mixed-use, high-density residential, and recreation. Thus, under the No Project Alternative, visibility from and of scenic vistas, the city’s visual character, and light and glare conditions would not be changed to the extent anticipated under the 2045 General Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not create substantial changes to the existing pattern of development for Solvang as would the 2045 General Plan, impacting fewer aesthetic resources, and reducing the potential change in visual character. Overall, impacts to aesthetic resources would be reduced under the No Project Alternative when compared to the 2045 General Plan. Aesthetic impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. b. Air Quality
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would involve fewer residents compared to the 2045 General Plan. While the proposed project’s exceed SBCAG’s 2045 Regional Growth Forecast which would require SBCAG to update their growth projections, the No Project Alternative would be consistent with the growth projections in the SBCAG’s 2045 Regional Growth Forecast for the City of Solvang. Therefore, growth under the No Project Alternative would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan. Impacts involving conflict with an air quality management plan under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, compared to the proposed project’s less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

The No Project Alternative would result in fewer construction emissions, compared to the 2045 General Plan, as there would be less overall development under the No Project Alternative.

SBCAPCD does not have quantitative thresholds of significance for plan-level activity that would apply to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, construction impacts for the 2045 General Plan are discussed qualitatively. As described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, there is not sufficient data to allow project-level construction analysis. Therefore, the No Project Alternative, with adherence to SBCAPCD’s fugitive dust control measures, may still exceed SBCAPCD’s threshold and construction air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.

Using methodology described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate approximate emissions during No Project Alternative operations.

As shown in Appendix C, the No Project Alternative would result in an approximate six to eighteen percent decrease in ROC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions compared to the proposed project as a result of the reduced buildout. Therefore, similar to the 2045 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would not result in a cumulatively conservable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
944
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the form of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction. Considering the No Project Alternative would involve reduced buildout when compared to the 2045 General Plan, impacts would be lesser than the 2045 General Plan. However, construction impacts from TAC emissions would likely be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project. The buildout of the No Project Alternative would not include land uses that would emit substantial amount of operational TAC emissions, and stationary sources would be required to be permitted by SBCPACD. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational TAC emissions and impacts would be the similar to the 2045 General Plan. Operational impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, construction-related odors would be short-term and temporary, and the No Project Alternative would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Considering the No Project Alternative would involve reduced buildout when compared to the 2045 General Plan, construction-related odor impacts would be lesser than the 2045 General Plan. Odor impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Overall, impacts related to air quality would be reduced under No Project Alternative compared to the 2045 General Plan; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
c. Biological Resources
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would involve less overall new development as compared to the 2045 General Plan. While the existing General Plan includes objectives and policies aimed towards reducing potential impacts to sensitive biological resources from development, several new goals and policies in the proposed 2045 General Plan would minimize, and often avoid, impacts from potential direct and indirect effects to biological resources, such as Policy ENV-3.3, Minimize Impacts of Development. Development under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be subject to the provisions of federal and State natural resources regulations and their respective permitting processes and would comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts to biological resources as compared to the 2045 General Plan because overall development under this alternative is anticipated to be reduced compared to the 2045 General Plan. Additionally, each individual project under the No Project Alternative would be required to implement mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to biological resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.
d. Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would involve less overall new development as compared to the 2045 General Plan. The goals, policies, and actions in the 2045 General Plan that would protect archaeological and historic resources would not be implemented under the No Project Alternative. Although 2045 General Plan updated goals and policies would not be implemented, existing regulations would still be in effect. Development under both the No Project 945
Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with federal and State regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code, which would require identification, evaluation, and protection of historic resources throughout the City. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts to archaeological and historic resources compared to the 2045 General Plan because development under this alternative is anticipated to be reduced compared to the 2045 General Plan. Additionally, each individual project under the No Project Alternative would be required to implement mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project. e. Energy
Overall energy usage would be reduced under the No Project Alternative as compared to the 2045 General Plan because less overall new development would be constructed. Due to the overall reduction in development, the No Project Alternative would result in a reduction in energy usage during construction and operation of new development in Solvang. The No Project Alternative would retain the existing General Plan, and thus would not implement 2045 General Plan updated goals and policies that would reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Although 2045 General Plan updated goals and policies would not be implemented, existing regulations, such as the California Energy Code and Building Code, would still be in effect. Development under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with federal and State regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code.

Overall, impacts related to energy consumption under the No Project Alternative would be slightly lower than the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in overall development. Energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. f. Geology and Soils
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Reduced construction activities under the No Project Alternative would include a reduction in stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth-disturbing activities that could result in loose and disturbed soils in Solvang, decreasing the potential for erosion, loss of topsoil, and disturbance to paleontological resources. However, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would, in some cases, replace older buildings that are subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with requirements outlined by the California Building Code and the Solvang Municipal Code and would require compliance with existing State and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development, which would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Because the No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential, it would result in less ground disturbance. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer potential impacts to paleontological resources than the 2045 General Plan. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, mitigation 946
may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to identify and reduce impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, when compared to the 2045 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would generate fewer temporary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction and longterm increases in GHG emissions associated with operation. As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, there is no quantitative threshold to assess the impacts of a plan-level documentation such as the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts associated with the implementation of the 2045 General Plan and alternatives are discussed qualitatively by comparing to statewide emission reduction targets established in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Although the No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would not implement new policies to reduce GHG emissions, such as prioritizing GHG reduction in development (Policy ENV-10.5) and renewable energy for homes (Policy ENV-13.2). Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan goal to achieve carbon neutrality by excluding strategies that would reduce fossil fuel use and building decarbonization. In addition, new polices from the 2045 General Plan Mobility Element, such as complete streets (Policy MOB-4.1) and Regional Transit Network (Policy MOB-6.2) would not be implemented in the No Project Alternative; therefore, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Thus, the No Project Alternative impacts would be significant and unavoidable, which would be a greater level of impact than the proposed project’s less than significant impact.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Full buildout of both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could involve the routine use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additional development in Solvang could also increase the transport of hazardous materials along the transportation corridors within the City. Therefore, the additional development that would occur under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan could result in an increased risk of accidental release of hazardous materials on a transportation route and exposure of hazardous materials to existing development within Solvang. However, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Additionally, the 2045 General Plan would increase mixed-use development in Solvang, which could result in new residential units adjacent to commercial land uses. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced under the No Project Alternative as compared to the 2045 General Plan. Both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California, Santa Barbara County, and the City of Solvang related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan, compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the 2045 General Plan. Impacts 947
related to hazards and hazardous materials under the No Project Alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the 2045 General Plan.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Full buildout of both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could result in long-term alterations of existing drainage patterns, such as changes in ground surface permeability, and increased soil erosion due to new paving, earth-moving activities, and changes in topography that would result from excavation, cut and fill activities, and grading. However, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the No Project Alternative would involve a reduced amount of construction as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under the No Project Alternative as compared to the proposed project, as the No Project Alternative would involve less ground disturbance and less addition of impervious surfaces. Under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan, individual construction activities that disturb one or more acres would be subject to the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs), good housekeeping BMPs, runoff water quality monitoring, BMP inspections, means of waste disposal, maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls to be implemented during construction. The No Project Alternative would also require compliance with existing local, State, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Solvang Municipal Code, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality during construction and operation through implementation of water quality BMPs, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the 2045 General Plan. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the 2045 General Plan. j. Land Use and Planning
Development facilitated by the No Project Alternative would be guided by the existing General Plan, which is the basis for SBCAG’s growth projections, and new or updated policies included in the 2045 General Plan, such as those that would promote mixed-use design and complete streets that would increase connectivity throughout Solvang, would not be implemented. Under the 2045 General Plan, connectivity would be provided through equitable access for residents, employees, and tourists to address daily needs, strategic land use planning for new development and redevelopment, and reduction in conflict between land uses. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts related to long-term land use and planning compared to the 2045 General Plan, although impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the 2045 General Plan. k. Noise
Buildout under the No Project Alternative would result in reduced development compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from the No Project Alternative, compared to the 2045 General Plan. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, construction noise under the No Project Alternative could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, mitigation may be applied to individual 948
projects that require CEQA review to implement construction noise reduction measures. However, while construction noise impacts would be less than the proposed project, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the proposed project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to Solvang Municipal Code noise limits for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under the No Project Alternative is less than significant. However, the No Project Alternative would not include 2045 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce operational noise impacts such as proposed SAF11.3, which includes requirements for considering noise in land use compatibility.  SAF-11.3: Sensitive Areas. The City shall ensure acceptable noise levels are maintained near schools, hospitals and other noise sensitive areas through proper land use decisions and site plan review.

The No Project Alternative would slightly reduce operational noise sources since the No Project Alternative would have reduced buildout potential. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to implement operational noise reduction measures. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than the proposed project, but operational noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the proposed project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise. Estimated traffic noise levels under the No Project Alternative are included in Appendix G.

Considering the No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout when compared to the 2045 General Plan, and thus fewer new vehicle trips, the No Project Alternative would have lesser impacts than the 2045 General Plan. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have a less than significant traffic noise impact, similar to the proposed project.

Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to prepare a construction vibration control plan. However, the No Project Alternative would not include 2045 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce groundborne vibration noise impacts such as proposed Policies SAF-11.4, which includes requirements for considering vibration impacts during construction activity.
 SAF-11.4: Vibration Impacts. For projects involving the use of major vibration generating equipment (e.g. pile drivers, vibratory rollers) that could generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of 0.2 in/sec PPV, the City may require a project-specific vibration impact assessment to analyze potential groundborne vibrational impacts and may require measures to reduce ground vibration levels.

Operation of future development under the No Project Alternative would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the 2045 General Plan.

Overall, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
949
The Planning Area is not in a 65 CNEL or higher noise contour of any nearby airport and continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Santa Ynez Airport. Similar to the 2045 General Plan there would be no impact.

The No Project Alternative would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2045 General Plan. However, when considering the reduced buildout and consequent reduction in construction and operational noise, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be lesser than the 2045 General Plan.
l. Population and Housing
Growth facilitated by the No Project Alternative is anticipated to be less than the 2045 General Plan, consistent with SBCAG’s 2045 growth projections for Solvang. Growth would be guided by the policies in the existing General Plan rather than the 2045 General Plan. Because the No Project Alternative’s anticipated growth is consistent with SBCAG projections, the No Project Alternative would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, and the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on population and housing than the 2045 General Plan. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. m. Public Services and Recreation
The No Project Alternative would have a reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Consequently, the increase in demand for public services under the No Project Alternative would be less than the 2045 General Plan due to the smaller increase in population growth. Both the No Project Alternative and growth under the 2045 General Plan are subject to policies that would ensure that public services continue to be provided to the city commensurate with population growth and need. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, buildout of the No Project Alternative would occur in areas served by existing public service facilities and, rather than requiring new facilities, would instead be expected to require the expansion of personnel or improvements to existing facilities, if needed to serve future development. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would not include specific development proposals for parks and recreational facilities. Due to the No Project Alternative’s reduced buildout, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the construction of public service and recreational facilities, and these impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. n. Transportation
The No Project Alternative would have a reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would generate less vehicle trips; however, the No Project Alternative would not implement the 2045 General Plan policies and implementation actions to reduce VMT. Unlike the 2045 General Plan, the No Project Alternative would not place an emphasis on mixed-use and infill development in Solvang. Without policies to guide mixed-use and infill development, it is anticipated that regional VMT would increase as residents and employees commute at longer distances. Based on the Traffic Analysis Data Memorandum prepared by DKS Associates in December 2023 (Appendix G), the No Project Alternative would result in a VMT per capita of 22.49 and a VMT per employee of 22.14. These VMT values are greater than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee of Solvang with implementation of the 2045 General Plan, which would be 22.18 and

21.52, respectively. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts on 950
transportation, including VMT, and these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
o. Tribal Cultural Resources
Development under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be subject to laws and regulations requiring Native American consultation and protection of tribal cultural resources. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts to tribal cultural resources compared to the 2045 General Plan because development under this alternative is anticipated to be reduced compared to the 2045 General Plan. Additionally, each individual project under the No Project Alternative would be required to implement mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.
p. Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the 2045 General Plan’s potential impacts related to the provision of utilities and service systems would be less than significant. The No Project Alternative would generate less demand for utilities and service systems than the 2045 General Plan due to the No Project Alternative’s reduced buildout potential. In addition, the No Project Alternative would facilitate a decrease in anticipated population growth compared to the 2045 General Plan. As a result, the No Project Alternative would result in a reduced demand for water, wastewater treatment capacity, and other utilities. Overall, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced in comparison to the 2045 General Plan. Impacts to utilities and service systems would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. q. Wildfire
The No Project Alternative would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. However, the No Project Alternative would not implement the 2045 General Plan’s goals and policies, which include additional fire-safety requirements designed to minimize wildfire risks, achieve wildfire resilience, and adequately prepare for wildfire response in Solvang, such as implementation of Policy SAF-5.5, Fire Safety Improvements. Although 2045 General Plan updated goals and policies would not be implemented, existing regulations, such as the California Fire Code and Building Code, would still be in effect. Development under both the No Project Alternative and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with federal and State regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code. As a result, the No Project Alternative would have a greater impact related to wildfire than the 2045 General Plan, and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable, in contrast to the proposed project’s less-than-significant impact.

6.2 Alternative 2: No Old Lumberyard Project

6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2, No Old Lumberyard Project, involves implementation of the 2045 General Plan and exclusion of the Old Lumberyard site as an area of potential growth. As described in Section 2, Project Description, Subsection 2.6.1, Land Use Allowance, the proposed Old Lumberyard Project is a mixed-use development on an approximately 2.5-acre site located at 1783 and 1793 Mission Drive 951
and 533 Pine Street in Solvang. The existing zoning for the Old Lumberyard Project site is Design Residential (DR-20), which allows for 20 units per acre, for a total potential of 50 residential units.

Although the Old Lumberyard Project would not be included under Alternative 2, this would not preclude development from occurring on the site in the future.

As part of the Old Lumberyard Project, three existing parcels would be merged into one lot. The Old Lumberyard Project includes demolition of the existing uses on site, including the Solvang Mill and Lumberyard building and several accessory structures. The existing single-family home at 1793 Mission Drive would not be demolished, but instead would be relocated to a different location. The six proposed hotel buildings on the site would include a total of 50 guest rooms. One, three-story, multiple-family residential building would be constructed along Maple Avenue and would include 51 micro-studio apartments. The Old Lumberyard Project would include amenities, a courtyard, a trash enclosure, and 107 parking spaces, and the project site would have a land use designation of Tourist Commercial.

Under Alternative 2, the proposed Old Lumberyard Project would not be implemented, and the zoning and General Plan designations would not change from the existing designations. However, housing could still be built on the Old Lumberyard Project site, for a total of 50 units and 120 new residents. Therefore, in comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, and assuming the Old Lumberyard site would be developed under existing conditions, Alternative 2 would result in 2 fewer residents and 1 fewer housing unit in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not fulfill the Project Objectives of supporting strategic land uses and diverse housing options.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would introduce less development with the potential to cause a substantial impact related to aesthetics, specifically through the exclusion of the proposed multi-story hotel buildings and residential apartments on the Old Lumberyard site. The Old Lumberyard site is currently developed with single-story buildings, and the addition of multi-story hotel buildings and residential apartments, as proposed in the 2045 General Plan, may detract from northward scenic views experienced by travelers on SR 246. Under Alternative 2, these buildings would not be constructed, and the existing views would be preserved. Although the Old Lumberyard Project would not be included under Alternative 2, this would not preclude development from occurring on the site in the future. Both the 2045 General Plan and Alternative 2 would include policies that could facilitate the enhancement of visual gateways, preserve hillsides and scenic views, expand the network of parks and trails, and maintain Solvang’s urban form and architectural style to preserve the city’s distinct community character. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on aesthetics would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
b. Air Quality
Alternative 2 would result in reduced residential buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 2 would not include the Old Lumberyard development project, which would include 50 hotel rooms, 51 micro-apartment units, and 107 parking spaces; therefore, growth under 952
Alternative 2 would be less than under the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 2 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan since the 2045 General Plan is designed for planned and orderly growth, as mandated by the State, and SBCAG would update their growth projections to be consistent with the 2045 General Plan during the next planning cycle. In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, SBCAPCD’s fugitive dust control measures; therefore, growth from the Alternative 2 would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

SBCAPCD does not have quantitative thresholds of significance for plan-level activity that would apply to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, construction impacts for the 2045 General Plan are discussed qualitatively. As described in 4.2, Air Quality, there is not sufficient data to allow projectlevel construction analysis. Therefore, Alternative 2, with adherence to SBCAPCD fugitive dust control measures, may still exceed SBCAPCD’s threshold and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Although, due to the reduced buildout potential, Alternative 2 would result in a minor emissions reduction compared to the 2045 General Plan. Using methodology described in Section

4.2, Air Quality, CalEEMod was used to estimate approximate emissions during Alternative 2 operations. As shown in Appendix C, Alternative 2 would result in an approximate two percent decrease in ROC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions compared to the proposed project because of a reduction of area and energy consumption, due to a reduced residential buildout. Therefore, similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would not result in a cumulatively conservable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the form of TACs during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would still be required under Alternative 2 and DPM and TAC emissions would be substantially reduced at sensitive receptors. However, Tier 3 or higher engine tiers or Level 3 diesel particulate filters cannot be guaranteed to be commercially available. Therefore, impacts are conservatively assessed as significant and unavoidable. Although, due to the reduced buildout potential, Alternative 2 would result in a minor TAC emission reduction, specifically near single-family residences that are north and east of the Old Lumberyard site, compared to the 2045 General Plan.

The buildout of Alternative 2 would not include land uses that would emit substantial amount of operational TAC emissions, and stationary sources would be required to be permitted by SBCPACD.

Therefore, the Alternative 2 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational TAC emissions. As with the 2045 General Plan, construction-related odors would be short-term and temporary, and the Alternative 2 would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Overall, impacts related to air quality would be reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the 2045 General Plan; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
c. Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan, and would implement policies to enhance the protection of biological resources, such as development review (Policy ENV-3.3) and creek protection (Policy ENV-3.5). Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys and subsequent implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Therefore, 953
Alternative 2 would have similar impacts as the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. d. Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have similar potential as the proposed project to affect historical resources substantially and adversely since this alternative could still facilitate development on parcels containing historic structures. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would implement policies to protect historical and culturally significant resources and would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to identify historic-age features that an individual development would alter or demolish. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts as the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

As Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential, this alternative would therefore have less potential to disturb subsurface archaeological resources, as development and ground-disturbing activities would not occur on the Old Lumberyard site. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 and would require archaeological resources assessments, archaeological resources monitoring, or implementation of unanticipated discovery procedures for development involving ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
e. Energy
Overall energy usage would be reduced under Alternative 2 as compared to the 2045 General Plan because less overall new development would be constructed. Due to the overall reduction in development, Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in energy usage during construction and operation of new development in Solvang. Additionally, Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Overall, impacts related to energy consumption under Alternative 2 would be lower than the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in overall development and decrease in energy consumption related to reduced VMT. Energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. f. Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Reduced construction activities under Alternative 2 would include a reduction in stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth-disturbing activities that could result in loose and disturbed soils in Solvang, decreasing the potential for erosion, loss of topsoil, and disturbance to paleontological resources. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, implementation of Alternative 2 would, in some cases, replace older buildings that are subject to seismic damage with newer structures 954
built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Additionally, Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would further reduce the potential for loss, injury, or death from seismic hazards by prohibiting development in areas of landslide risk or liquefaction without site-specific analysis, or minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City. Both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with requirements outlined by the California Building Code and the Solvang Municipal Code, and would require compliance with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development, which would reduce potential impacts. Overall, as Alternative 2 would involve reduced buildout potential, and less construction, grading, and stockpiling that may affect erosion or loss of topsoil, this alternative would have fewer impacts to geology and soils than the proposed project.

Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, related to protection of paleontological resources. However, Alternative 2 would not develop the Old Lumberyard site to the extent as the proposed project, and would thus involve fewer grounddisturbing activities that may impact subsurface paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on geology and soils, including paleontological resources, would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would generate temporary GHG emissions during construction and long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with operation. As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, there is no quantitative threshold to assess the impacts of a plan-level documentation such as the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts associated with the implementation of the 2045 General Plan and alternatives are discussed qualitatively by comparing to statewide emission reduction targets established in CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and would implement policies to reduce GHG emissions, such as electric vehicle infrastructure (Policy ENV-9.4), prioritize GHG reduction in development (Policy ENV-10.5), and renewable energy for homes (Policy ENV-13.2). Therefore, development facilitated by the Alternative 2 would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan to reduce fossil fuel use and building carbonization. In addition, Alternative 2 would implement polices from the Mobility Element, such as Bicycle Master Plan (Policy-MOB 2.1), complete streets (Policy MOB-4.1), TDM (Policy MOB-5.2), and Regional Transit Network (Policy MOB-6.2) which would be consistent with SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 2 would emit less GHG during construction and operational activity, due to less overall buildout compared to the 2045 General Plan. h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Full buildout of both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could involve the routine use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additional development in Solvang could also increase the transport of hazardous materials along the transportation corridors within the City. Therefore, the additional development that would occur under both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan could result in an increased risk of accidental release of hazardous materials on a transportation route and exposure of 955
hazardous materials to existing development within Solvang. However, Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 2 would not result in the demolition of structures on the Old Lumberyard site, and would thus result in less potential for demolition-related hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced under Alternative 2 as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Overall impacts would remain less than significant.

Both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan would increase mixed-use development in Solvang, which could result in new residential units adjacent to existing commercial and industrial land uses.

Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies developed to minimize impacts related to the use, storage, transport, and release of hazardous materials in the City. Both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California, Santa Barbara County, and the City of Solvang related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Under both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan, compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Overall, as Alternative 2 would result in less buildout than the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would result in reduced potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 2 would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Full buildout of both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could result in long-term alterations of existing drainage patterns, such as changes in ground surface permeability, and increased soil erosion due to new paving, earth-moving activities, and changes in topography that would result from excavation, cut and fill activities, and grading. Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would involve a reduced amount of construction as compared to the 2045 General Plan. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under Alternative 2 as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Additionally, Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; and reduce the risk of pollutant release in areas of flood hazard. Under both Alternative 2 and the 2045 General Plan, individual construction activities that disturb one or more acres would be subject to the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs), good housekeeping BMPS, runoff water quality monitoring, BMP inspections, means of waste disposal, maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls to be implemented during construction and operation. Alternative 2 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Solvang Municipal Code, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to 956
the 2045 General Plan. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. j. Land Use and Planning
Development facilitated by Alternative 2 would be guided by the updated policies of the 2045 General Plan, which would provide a framework for the orderly development of Solvang. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2’s policies would exceed SBCAG’s growth projections, but would assist in meeting the housing needs of Solvang. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts on land use and planning would be similar to the 2045 General Plan, and these impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
k. Noise
Buildout under Alternative 2 would result in reduced development compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from Alternative 2, compared to the 2045 General Plan, as construction-related noise would not occur in the vicinity of single-family residences that surround the Old Lumberyard site. Like the 2045 General Plan, construction noise under Alternative 2 could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact.

Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Include And Implement Construction Noise Reduction Measures), which would reduce construction noise. Although Alternative 2 would entail less construction than the 2045 General Plan, and would thus have fewer impacts to noise than the 2045 General Plan, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the 2045 General Plan. Under Alternative 2, the Old Lumberyard site would not be developed with a hotel land use, and thus, would not result in the potential for on-site noise sources from the proposed hotel use to affect residential receptors in the vicinity of the site.

Therefore, operational noise impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.

Adherence to Solvang Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 2 is less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise.

Although Alternative 2 would result in reduced overall operational noise, shown in Appendix F, there would still be an increase in noise compared to existing conditions. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan policies and actions that would reduce roadway vehicle noise. Under Alternative 2, impacts involving roadway vehicle noise would be less than the 2045 General Plan due to the reduced buildout and population increase, and less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Development facilitated under Alternative 2 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to reduce Construction Vibration) would require implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 2 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise.

However, Alternative 2 would not result in development of the Old Lumberyard site, and 957
groundborne vibration during construction on the Old Lumberyard site would not affect residential receptors in the vicinity of the site. Thus, Alternative 2 would ultimately result in fewer impacts involving groundborne vibration than the proposed project. However, overall impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.

Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 2 would not be served by the Santa Ynez Airport.

The Planning Area is not in a 65 CNEL or higher noise contour of any nearby airport and continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Santa Ynez Airport. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, there would be no impact. Therefore, impacts would be similar under this alternative as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be reduced compared to the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in buildout.
l. Population and Housing
In comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,109 units, Alternative 2 would result in 2 fewer additional residents and 1 fewer housing unit in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not result in full development of the Old Lumberyard site, including the relocation of the existing single-family residence at 1793 Mission Drive. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, growth under Alternative 2 would be guided by the policies in the 2045 General Plan, and such growth would exceed SBCAG’s projections. However, this growth would occur in an orderly and controlled manner, such that Alternative 2 would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As Alternative 2 would result in less growth in Solvang and would not involve the temporary displacement of an existing residence, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts involving population and housing than the 2045 General Plan. Under Alternative 2, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. m. Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 2 would generate less demand for public services and recreational opportunities compared to the 2045 General Plan due to Alternative 2’s reduced buildout potential. Additionally, Alternative 2 would implement policies included in the 2045 General Plan that ensure adequate public services are provided in Solvang. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, buildout of Alternative 2 would occur in areas served by existing public service facilities and, rather than requiring new facilities, would instead be expected to require the expansion of personnel or improvements to existing facilities, if needed to accommodate this future development. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would not include specific development proposals for parks and recreational facilities. Due to the Alternative 2’s reduced buildout, Alternative 2 would result in fewer impacts related to the construction of public service and recreational facilities, and these impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. n. Transportation
Alternative 2 would have a reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would generate less overall vehicle trips. However, Alternative 2 would result in reduced density, as the proposed hotel use on the Old Lumberyard site would not be implemented. This reduced density would result in visitors and residents of Solvang traveling greater lengths to reach 958
destinations, as the Old Lumberyard site is located in close proximity to several commercial areas to which visitors and residents would be expected to travel. Based on the Traffic Analysis Data Memorandum prepared by DKS Associates in December 2023 (Appendix G), Alternative 2 would result in a VMT per capita of 22.19 and a VMT per employee of 21.54. These VMT values are greater than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee of Solvang with implementation of the 2045 General Plan, which would be 22.18 and 21.52, respectively. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have greater impacts to transportation, including VMT, and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
o. Tribal Cultural Resources
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, development facilitated by Alternative 2 would be subject to the requirements of AB 52. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5, and thus would ensure project-specific tribal cultural resource identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation. Alternative 2 would not result in full development of the Old Lumberyard site, and thus would involve less ground-disturbing activities that may have the potential to affect subsurface tribal cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. p. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would generate demand for utilities and service systems similar to the 2045 General Plan due to Alternative 2’s reduced buildout potential. Additionally, similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan policies to ensure citywide utility infrastructure supports development. Alternative 2’s anticipated growth would exceed SBCAG’s growth projections that function as the basis for water providers serving Solvang to project future water demand; however, similar to the 2045 General Plan, implementation of 2045 General Plan policies, which require the City to restrict development until adequate water supplies are available to serve additional development, would reduce impact to water supplies. In addition, development facilitated by Alternative 2 would comply with existing State and local water conservation and water efficiency requirements, including drought resilience measures. As a result, Alternative 2 would not place additional burdens on water purveyors serving the city in comparison to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on utilities and service systems. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. q. Wildfire
Alternative 2 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 2 would implement 2045 General Plan policies that provide necessary prevention services to reduce loss and damage due to wildfire. Accordingly, development facilitated by Alternative 2 would meet the 2045 General Plan’s additional fire-safety requirements designed to minimize wildfire risks, achieve wildfire resilience, and adequately prepare for wildfire response in Solvang. However, the Old Lumberyard site is located in a moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as identified by the 2045 General Plan. As Alternative 2 would not result in redevelopment of this site with high-density hotel use, Alternative 2 would result in fewer potential impacts involving wildfire when compared to the 2045 General Plan, as less exposure to wildfire hazards would occur.

Under Alternative 2, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. 959

6.3 Alternative 3: No Alamo Pintado Project

6.3.1 Description
Alternative 3, No Alamo Pintado Project, involves implementation of the 2045 General Plan and exclusion of the Alamo Pintado site as an area of potential growth. As described in Section 2, Project Description, Subsection 2.6.1, Land Use Allowance, the proposed Alamo Pintado Project is a multiple-family residential development on an approximately 5.5-acre site located at the northwestern corner of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive. The Alamo Pintado Project site is currently vacant. The Alamo Pintado Project involves construction of three, three-story apartment buildings featuring one- and two-bedroom units. Building A would include 25 units, Building B would include 38 units, and Building C would include 46 units (for a total of 109 units). The project would include amenities, an open space/drainage basin area, trash enclosures, and 143 parking spaces including 24 private garages. The project site is currently zoned Residential, 20,000 square feet (20- R-1), which allows for single-family residential development, and has a General Plan land use designation of Low/Medium Residential (2 dwelling units per acre). The project would involve a zone change to Design Residential 20 (DR-20). Under the proposed General Plan Update, the project site would have a land use designation of High Density Residential. Although the Alamo Pintado Project would not be included under Alternative 3, this would not preclude development from occurring on the site in the future.

Under Alternative 3, the proposed Alamo Pintado Project would not be implemented, and the zoning and General Plan designations would not change from the existing designations. However, housing could still be built on the Alamo Pintado Project site, for a total of 2 units and 5 new residents. Therefore, in comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, Alternative 3 would result in 256 fewer additional residents and 107 fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would not fulfill the Project Objectives of supporting strategic land uses and diverse housing options.

6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would introduce less development with the potential to cause a substantial impact related to aesthetics, specifically through the exclusion of the proposed multi-story residential buildings on the Alamo Pintado site. The Alamo Pintado site is currently vacant, and the addition of multi-story residential apartments, as proposed in the 2045 General Plan, may detract from westward scenic views of vegetation experienced by travelers on Alamo Pintado Road and northward scenic views of vegetation and mountains experienced by travelers on Old Mission Drive.

Under Alternative 3, these buildings would not be constructed, and the existing views would be preserved. Although the Alamo Pintado Project would not be included under Alternative 3, this would not preclude development from occurring on the site in the future. Both the 2045 General Plan and Alternative 3 would include policies that could facilitate the enhancement of visual gateways, preserve hillsides and scenic views, expand the network of parks and trails, and maintain Solvang’s urban form and architectural style to preserve the city’s distinct community character.

Therefore, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on aesthetics would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. 960
b. Air Quality
Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Alternative 3 would not include the Alamo Pintado development project, which would include 109- apartment units, 119 parking lot spaces, and 24 enclosed parking spaces; therefore, growth under Alternative 3 would be less than under the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 3 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan since the 2045 General Plan is designed for planned and orderly growth, as mandated by the State, and SBCAG would update their growth projections to be consistent with the 2045 General Plan during the next planning cycle. In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, SBCAPCD’s fugitive dust control measures; therefore, growth from Alternative 3 would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

SBCAPCD does not have quantitative thresholds of significance for plan-level activity that would apply to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, construction impacts for the 2045 General Plan are discussed qualitatively. As described in 4.2, Air Quality, there is not sufficient data to allow projectlevel construction analysis. Therefore, Alternative 3, with adherence to SBCAPCD fugitive dust control measures, may still exceed SBCAPCD’s threshold and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Although, due to the reduced buildout potential, Alternative 3 would result in a minor emissions reduction compared to the 2045 General Plan. Using methodology described in Section

4.2, Air Quality, CalEEMod was used to estimate approximate emissions during Alternative 3 operations. As shown in Appendix C, Alternative 3 would result in an approximate one to six percent decrease in ROC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions compared to the proposed project because of a reduction of area and energy consumption, due to a reduced residential buildout. Therefore, similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would not result in a cumulatively conservable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the form of TACs during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would still be required under Alternative 3 and DPM and TAC emissions would be substantially reduced at sensitive receptors. However, Tier 3 or higher engine tiers or Level 3 diesel particulate filters cannot be guaranteed to be commercially available. Therefore, impacts are conservatively assessed as significant and unavoidable. Although, due to the reduced buildout potential, Alternative 3 would result in a minor TAC emission reduction, specifically near single-family residences that are north, west, and southwest of the Alamo Pintado site, compared to the 2045 General Plan. The buildout of Alternative 3 would not include land uses that would emit substantial amount of operational TAC emissions, and stationary sources would be required to be permitted by SBCPACD. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational TAC emissions. As with the proposed project, construction-related odors would be short-term and temporary, and the Alternative 3 would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Overall, impacts related to air quality would be reduced under Alternative 3 compared to the 2045 General Plan; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
961
c. Biological Resources
Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan, and would implement policies to enhance the protection of biological resources, such as development review (Policy ENV-3.3) and creek protection (Policy ENV-3.5). Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys and subsequent implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. The Alamo Pintado site is vacant, are several mature trees on the site, which may provide habitat for nesting birds. Under Alternative 3, this site would not be developed, and the removal of mature trees during development (and subsequent, potential impacts to nesting birds) would not occur. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. d. Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan; however, the Alamo Pintado site is currently vacant and therefore does not contain historical resources. Therefore, both the 2045 General Plan and Alternative 3 would have a similar potential impact on historical resources, as development that could impact pre-existing historical resources would be identical in location. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would implement policies to protect historical and culturally significant resources, and would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to identify historic-age features that an individual development would alter or demolish. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a similar level of impact when compared to the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

As Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential, this alternative would therefore have less potential to disturb subsurface archaeological resources, as development and ground-disturbing activities would not occur on the Alamo Pintado site. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 and would require archaeological resources assessments, archaeological resources monitoring, or implementation of unanticipated discovery procedures for development involving ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
e. Energy
Overall energy usage would be reduced under Alternative 3 as compared to the 2045 General Plan because less overall new development would be constructed. Due to the overall reduction in development, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in energy usage during construction and operation of new development in Solvang. Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Overall, impacts related to energy consumption under Alternative 3 would be lower than the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in overall 962
development and decrease in energy consumption related to reduced VMT. Energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the 2045 General Plan. f. Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Reduced construction activities under Alternative 3 would include a reduction in stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth-disturbing activities that could result in loose and disturbed soils in Solvang, decreasing the potential for erosion, loss of topsoil, and disturbance to paleontological resources. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, implementation of Alternative 3 would, in some cases, replace older buildings that are subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would further reduce the potential for loss, injury, or death from seismic hazards by prohibiting development in areas of landslide risk or liquefaction without site-specific analysis, or minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City. Both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with requirements outlined by the California Building Code and the Solvang Municipal Code, and would require compliance with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development, which would reduce potential impacts. Overall, as Alternative 3 would involve reduced buildout potential, and less construction, grading, and stockpiling that may affect erosion or loss of topsoil, this alternative would have fewer impacts to geology and soils than the proposed project.

Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, related to protection of paleontological resources. However, Alternative 3 would not develop the Alamo Pintado site, and would thus involve fewer ground-disturbing activities that may impact subsurface paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on geology and soils, including paleontological resources, would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would generate temporary GHG emissions during construction and long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with operation. As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, there is no quantitative threshold to assess the impacts of a plan-level documentation such as the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts associated with the implementation of the 2045 General Plan and alternatives are discussed qualitatively by comparing to statewide emission reduction targets established in CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and would implement policies to reduce GHG emissions, such as electric vehicle infrastructure (Policy ENV-9.4), prioritize GHG reduction in development (Policy ENV-10.5), and renewable energy for homes (Policy ENV-13.2). Therefore, development facilitated by Alternative 3 would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan to reduce fossil fuel use and building carbonization.

In addition, Alternative 3 would implement polices from the new Mobility Element, such as Bicycle Master Plan (Policy-MOB 2.1), complete streets (Policy MOB-4.1), TDM (Policy MOB-5.2), and Regional Transit Network (Policy MOB-6.2) which would be consistent with SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS.

Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. In 963
addition, Alternative 3 would emit less GHG during construction and operational activity, due to less overall buildout compared to the 2045 General Plan.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Full buildout of both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could involve the routine use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additional development in Solvang could also increase the transport of hazardous materials along the transportation corridors within the City. Therefore, the additional development that would occur under both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan could result in an increased risk of accidental release of hazardous materials on a transportation route and exposure of hazardous materials to existing development within Solvang. However, Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced under Alternative 3 as compared to the 2045 General Plan. Overall impacts would remain less than significant.

Both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan would increase mixed-use development in Solvang, which could result in new residential units adjacent to existing commercial and industrial land uses.

Alternative 3 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies developed to minimize impacts related to the use, storage, transport, and release of hazardous materials in the City. Both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California, Santa Barbara County, and the City of Solvang related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Under both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan, compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in reduced potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the 2045 General Plan. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 3 would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Full buildout of both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could result in long-term alterations of existing drainage patterns, such as changes in ground surface permeability, and increased soil erosion due to new paving, earth-moving activities, and changes in topography that would result from excavation, cut and fill activities, and grading. Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would involve a reduced amount of construction as compared to the 2045 General Plan. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under Alternative 3 as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; and reduce the risk of pollutant release in areas of flood hazard. Under both Alternative 3 and the 2045 General Plan, individual construction activities that disturb one or more acres would be subject to the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including the 964
development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs), good housekeeping BMPS, runoff water quality monitoring, BMP inspections, means of waste disposal, maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls to be implemented during construction and operation. Alternative 3 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Solvang Municipal Code, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in reduced potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the 2045 General Plan. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. j. Land Use and Planning
Development facilitated by Alternative 3 would be guided by the updated policies of the 2045 General Plan, which would provide a framework for the orderly development of Solvang. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3’s policies would exceed SBCAG’s growth projections, but would assist in meeting the housing needs of Solvang. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impacts on land use and planning would be similar to the 2045 General Plan, and these impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
k. Noise
Buildout under Alternative 3 would result in reduced development compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from Alternative 3, compared to the 2045 General Plan, as construction-related noise would not occur in the vicinity of single-family residences that border the Alamo Pintado site to the north, west, and southwest. Like the 2045 General Plan, construction noise under Alternative 3 could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Include And Implement Construction Noise Reduction Measures), which would reduce construction noise. Although Alternative 3 would entail less construction than the 2045 General Plan, and would thus have fewer impacts to noise than the 2045 General Plan, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the 2045 General Plan. Under Alternative 3, the Alamo Pintado site would not be developed with a high-density residential land use, and thus, would not result in the potential for on-site noise sources from the proposed residential use to affect single-family residential receptors in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, operational noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than the proposed project. Adherence to Solvang Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 3 is less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise.

Although Alternative 3 would result in reduced overall operational noise, shown in Appendix F, there would still be an increase in noise compared to existing conditions and a less than significant traffic noise impact would occur.
965
Development facilitated under Alternative 3 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to reduce Construction Vibration) would require implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 3 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise.

However, Alternative 3 would not result in development of the Alamo Pintado site, and groundborne vibration during construction on the Alamo Pintado site would not affect residential receptors in the vicinity of the site. Thus, Alternative 3 would ultimately result in fewer impacts involving groundborne vibration than the proposed project. However, overall impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.

Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 3 would not be served by the Santa Ynez Airport.

The Planning Area is not in a 65 CNEL or higher noise contour of any nearby airport and continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Santa Ynez Airport. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, there would be no impact. Therefore, impacts would be similar under this alternative as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in buildout.
l. Population and Housing
In comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, Alternative 3 would result in 256 fewer additional residents and 107 fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, growth under Alternative 3 would be guided by the policies in the 2045 General Plan, and such growth would exceed SBCAG’s projections. However, this growth would occur in an orderly and controlled manner, such that Alternative 3 would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As growth in Solvang would be lesser under Alternative 3 than the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on population and housing than the 2045 General Plan, and these impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
m. Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 3 would generate less demand for public services and recreational opportunities compared to the 2045 General Plan due to Alternative 3’s reduced buildout potential. Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement policies included in the 2045 General Plan that ensure adequate public services are provided in Solvang. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, buildout of Alternative 3 would occur in areas served by existing public service facilities and, rather than requiring new facilities, would instead be expected to require the expansion of personnel or improvements to existing facilities, if needed to accommodate this future development. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would not include specific development proposals for parks and recreational facilities. Due to the Alternative 3’s reduced buildout, Alternative 3 would result in fewer impacts related to the construction of public service and recreational facilities, and these impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. 966
n. Transportation
Alternative 3 would have a reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would generate less overall vehicle trips. However, Alternative 3 would result in reduced density, as the proposed high-density residential land use on the Alamo Pintado site would not be implemented. This reduced density would result in residents of Solvang traveling greater lengths to reach destinations, as the Alamo Pintado site is located in close proximity to several commercial areas to which residents would be expected to travel. Based on the Traffic Analysis Data Memorandum prepared by DKS Associates in December 2023 (Appendix G), Alternative 3 would result in a VMT per capita of 22.21 and a VMT per employee of 21.55. These VMT values are greater than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee of Solvang with implementation of the 2045 General Plan, which would be 22.18 and 21.52, respectively. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have greater impacts to transportation, including VMT, and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
o. Tribal Cultural Resources
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, development facilitated by Alternative 3 would be subject to the requirements of AB 52. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5, and thus would ensure project-specific tribal cultural resource identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation. Alternative 3 would not result in redevelopment of the Alamo Pintado site, and thus would involve less ground-disturbing activities that may have the potential to affect subsurface tribal cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. p. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would generate less demand for utilities and service systems than the 2045 General Plan due to Alternative 3’s reduced buildout potential. Additionally, similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would implement 2045 General Plan policies to ensure citywide utility infrastructure supports development. Alternative 3’s anticipated growth would exceed SBCAG’s growth projections that function as the basis for water providers serving Solvang to project future water demand; however, similar to the 2045 General Plan, implementation of 2045 General Plan policies, which require the City to restrict development until adequate water supplies are available to serve additional development, would reduce impact to water supplies. In addition, development facilitated by Alternative 3 would comply with existing State and local water conservation and water efficiency requirements, including drought resilience measures. As a result, Alternative 3 would not place additional burdens on water purveyors serving the city in comparison to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on utilities and service systems. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. q. Wildfire
Alternative 3 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 3 would implement 2045 General Plan policies that provide necessary prevention services to reduce loss and damage due to wildfire. Accordingly, development facilitated by Alternative 3 would meet the 2045 General Plan’s additional fire-safety requirements designed to minimize wildfire risks, achieve wildfire resilience, and adequately prepare for wildfire response in Solvang. However, the Alamo Pintado site is located in a moderate Fire Hazard Severity 967
Zone, as identified by the 2045 General Plan. As Alternative 3 would not result in redevelopment of this site with high-density land uses, Alternative 3 would result in fewer potential impacts involving wildfire when compared to the 2045 General Plan, as less exposure to wildfire hazards would occur.

Under Alternative 3, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

6.4 Alternative 4: Neither Project Implemented

6.4.1 Description
Under Alternative 4, both the proposed Old Lumberyard Project and the Alamo Pintado Project would not be implemented, and the zoning and General Plan designations would not change from the existing designations. Although the Old Lumberyard Project and the Alamo Pintado Project would not be included under Alternative 4, this would not preclude development from occurring on these sites in the future. Therefore, in comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, Alternative 4 would result in 258 fewer additional residents and 108 fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. Furthermore, Alternative 4 would not fulfill the Project Objectives of supporting strategic land uses and diverse housing options.

6.5 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would introduce less development with the potential to cause a substantial impact related to aesthetics, specifically through the exclusion of the proposed multi-story hotel and residential buildings on the Old Lumberyard site, and the proposed multi-story residential buildings on the Alamo Pintado site. Development of multi-story buildings on both of these sites, as proposed under the 2045 General Plan, would potentially detract from scenic views experienced by travelers on adjacent roadways. Under Alternative 4, these buildings would not be constructed, and the existing views would be preserved. Both the 2045 General Plan and Alternative 4 would include policies that could facilitate the enhancement of visual gateways, preserve hillsides and scenic views, expand the network of parks and trails, and maintain Solvang’s urban form and architectural style to preserve the city’s distinct community character. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on aesthetics would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
b. Air Quality
Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Alternative 4 would not include the Alamo Pintado and Old Lumberyard development projects, which would include 160-apartment units, 50 hotel rooms, 226 parking lot spaces, and 24 enclosed parking spaces; therefore, growth under Alternative 4 would be less than under the 2045 General Plan. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan since the 2045 General Plan is designed for planned and orderly growth, as mandated by the State, and SBCAG would update their growth projections to be consistent with the 2045 General Plan during the next planning cycle. In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, SBCAPCD’s fugitive dust control measures; therefore, growth 968
from Alternative 4 would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

SBCAPCD does not have quantitative thresholds of significance for plan-level activity that would apply to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, construction impacts for the 2045 General Plan are discussed qualitatively. As described in 4.2, Air Quality, there is not sufficient data to allow projectlevel construction analysis. Therefore, Alternative 4, with adherence to SBCAPCD fugitive dust control measures, may still exceed SBCAPCD’s threshold and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Although, due to the reduced buildout potential, Alternative 4 would result in a minor emissions reduction compared to the 2045 General Plan. Using methodology described in Section

4.2, Air Quality, CalEEMod was used to estimate approximate emissions during Alternative 4 operations. As shown in Appendix C, Alternative 4 would result in an approximate one to seven percent decrease in ROC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions compared to the proposed project because of a reduction of area and energy consumption, due to a reduced residential buildout.

Therefore, similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would not result in a cumulatively conservable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the form of TACs during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would still be required under Alternative 4 and DPM and TAC emissions would be substantially reduced at sensitive receptors. However, Tier 3 or higher engine tiers or Level 3 diesel particulate filters cannot be guaranteed to be commercially available. Therefore, impacts are conservatively assessed as significant and unavoidable. Although, due to the reduced buildout potential, Alternative 4 would result in a minor TAC emission reduction, specifically near single-family residences that are adjacent to the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites, compared to the 2045 General Plan. The buildout of Alternative 4 would not include land uses that would emit substantial amount of TAC emissions, and stationary sources would be required to be permitted by SBCPACD.

Therefore, Alternative 4 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions. As with the 2045 General Plan, construction-related odors would be short-term and temporary, and the Alternative 4 would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Overall, impacts related to air quality would be reduced under Alternative 4 compared to the 2045 General Plan; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
c. Biological Resources
Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan, and would implement policies to enhance the protection of biological resources, such as development review (Policy ENV-3.3) and creek protection (Policy ENV-3.5). Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys and subsequent implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. However, there are several mature trees on both the Old Lumberyard site and the Alamo Pintado site, which may provide habitat for nesting birds. Under Alternative 4, these sites would not be developed, and the removal of mature trees during development (and subsequent, potential impacts to nesting birds) would not occur. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
969
d. Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Additionally, the existing Solvang Mill, Lumberyard building, and single-family residence located on the Old Lumberyard site would not be demolished or relocated. These buildings are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources (See Section 4.4, Cultural Resources); however, these structures could meet the age threshold (45 years or older) for potential historical resources, pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, the Alamo Pintado site is vacant and does not contain historical resources. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have similar potential as the proposed project to affect historical resources substantially and adversely since this alternative could still facilitate development on parcels containing historic structures. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would implement policies to protect historical and culturally significant resources, and would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to identify historic-age features that an individual development would alter or demolish. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a similar level of impact when compared to the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

As Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential, this alternative would therefore have less potential to disturb subsurface archaeological resources, as development and ground-disturbing activities would not occur on the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 and would require archaeological resources assessments, archaeological resources monitoring, or implementation of unanticipated discovery procedures for development involving ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
e. Energy
Overall energy usage would be reduced under Alternative 4 as compared to the 2045 General Plan because less overall new development would be constructed. Due to the overall reduction in development, Alternative 4 would result in a reduction in energy usage during construction and operation of new development in Solvang. Additionally, Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Overall, impacts related to energy consumption under Alternative 4 would be lower than the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in overall development and decrease in energy consumption related to reduced VMT. Energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the 2045 General Plan. f. Geology and Soils
Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Reduced construction activities under Alternative 4 would include a reduction in stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth-disturbing activities that could result in loose and disturbed soils in Solvang, decreasing the potential for erosion, loss of topsoil, and disturbance to 970
paleontological resources. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, implementation of Alternative 4 would, in some cases, replace older buildings that are subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Additionally, Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would further reduce the potential for loss, injury, or death from seismic hazards by prohibiting development in areas of landslide risk or liquefaction without site-specific analysis, or minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City. Both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with requirements outlined by the California Building Code and the Solvang Municipal Code, and would require compliance with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development, which would reduce potential impacts. Overall, as Alternative 4 would involve reduced buildout potential, and less construction, grading, and stockpiling that may affect erosion or loss of topsoil, this alternative would have fewer impacts to geology and soils than the proposed project.

Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, related to protection of paleontological resources. However, Alternative 4 would not develop the Old Lumberyard site and the Alamo Pintado site, and would thus involve fewer ground-disturbing activities that may impact subsurface paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on geology and soils, including paleontological resources, would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would generate temporary GHG emissions during construction and long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with operation. As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, there is no quantitative threshold to assess the impacts of a plan-level documentation such as the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts associated with the implementation of the 2045 General Plan and alternatives are discussed qualitatively by comparing to statewide emission reduction targets established in CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and would implement policies to reduce GHG emissions, such as electric vehicle infrastructure (Policy ENV-9.4), prioritize GHG reduction in development (Policy ENV-10.5), and renewable energy for homes (Policy ENV-13.2). Therefore, development facilitated by Alternative 4 would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan to reduce fossil fuel use and building carbonization.

In addition, Alternative 4 would implement polices from the new Mobility Element, such as Bicycle Master Plan (Policy-MOB 2.1), complete streets (Policy MOB-4.1), TDM (Policy MOB-5.2), and Regional Transit Network (Policy MOB-6.2) which would be consistent with SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS.

Therefore, the Alternative 4 impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

In addition, Alternative 4 would emit less GHG during construction and operational activity, due to less overall buildout compared to the 2045 General Plan. h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Full buildout of both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could involve the routine use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additional development in Solvang could also increase the transport of hazardous materials along the transportation corridors within the City. Therefore, the additional development 971
that would occur under both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan could result in an increased risk of accidental release of hazardous materials on a transportation route and exposure of hazardous materials to existing development within Solvang. However, Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 4 would not result in the demolition of structures on the Old Lumberyard site, and would thus result in less potential for demolition-related hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced under Alternative 4 as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Overall impacts would remain less than significant.

Both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan would increase mixed-use development in Solvang, which could result in new residential units adjacent to existing commercial and industrial land uses.

Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies developed to minimize impacts related to the use, storage, transport, and release of hazardous materials in the City. Both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California, Santa Barbara County, and the City of Solvang related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Under both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan, compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Overall, as Alternative 4 would result in less buildout than the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would result in reduced potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 4 would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Full buildout of both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan would facilitate an increase in development in Solvang, which could result in long-term alterations of existing drainage patterns, such as changes in ground surface permeability, and increased soil erosion due to new paving, earth-moving activities, and changes in topography that would result from excavation, cut and fill activities, and grading. Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 4 would involve a reduced amount of construction as compared to the 2045 General Plan. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under Alternative 4 as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Additionally, Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan goals and policies that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; and reduce the risk of pollutant release in areas of flood hazard. Under both Alternative 4 and the 2045 General Plan, individual construction activities that disturb one or more acres would be subject to the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs), good housekeeping BMPS, runoff water quality monitoring, BMP inspections, means of waste disposal, maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls to be implemented during construction and operation. Alternative 4 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Solvang Municipal Code, which would reduce 972
potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the 2045 General Plan. Overall, Alternative 4 would result in reduced potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the 2045 General Plan. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. j. Land Use and Planning
Development facilitated by Alternative 4 would be guided by the updated policies of the 2045 General Plan, which would provide a framework for the orderly development of Solvang. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4’s policies would exceed SBCAG’s growth projections, but would assist in meeting the housing needs of Solvang. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impacts on land use and planning would be similar to the 2045 General Plan, and these impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
k. Noise
Buildout under Alternative 4 would result in reduced development compared to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from the Alternative 4, compared to the 2045 General Plan, as construction-related noise would not occur in the vicinity of single-family residences adjacent to the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites. Like the 2045 General Plan, construction noise under Alternative 4 could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Include And Implement Construction Noise Reduction Measures), which would reduce construction noise.

Although Alternative 4 would entail less construction than the 2045 General Plan, and would thus have fewer impacts to noise than the 2045 General Plan, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the 2045 General Plan. Under Alternative 4, the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites would not be developed with high-density land uses, and thus, would not result in the potential for on-site noise sources from the proposed high-density uses to affect residential receptors in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, operational noise impacts under Alternative 4 would be less than the proposed project. Adherence to Solvang Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 4 is less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise.

Although Alternative 4 would result in reduced overall operational noise, shown in Appendix F, there would still be an increase in noise compared to existing conditions. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan policies and actions that would reduce roadway vehicle noise. Under Alternative 4, impacts involving roadway vehicle noise would be less than the 2045 General Plan due to the reduced buildout and population increase, and less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Development facilitated under Alternative 4 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to reduce Construction Vibration) would require 973
implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 4 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise.

However, Alternative 4 would not result in development of the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites, and groundborne vibration during construction on these sites would not affect residential receptors in the vicinity of the sites. Thus, Alternative 4 would ultimately result in fewer impacts involving groundborne vibration than the proposed project. However, overall impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.

Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 4 would not be served by the Santa Ynez Airport.

The Planning Area is not in a 65 CNEL or higher noise contour of any nearby airport and continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Santa Ynez Airport. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, there would be no impact. Therefore, impacts would be similar under this alternative as compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 4 would be reduced, compared to the 2045 General Plan due to the reduction in buildout.
l. Population and Housing
In comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, Alternative 4 would result in 258 fewer additional residents and 108 fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. Additionally, Alternative 4 would not result in redevelopment of the Old Lumberyard site, including the relocation of the existing single-family residence at 1793 Mission Drive. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, growth under Alternative 4 would be guided by the policies in the 2045 General Plan, and such growth would exceed SBCAG’s projections. However, this growth would occur in an orderly and controlled manner, such that Alternative 4 would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As Alternative 4 would result in less growth in Solvang and would not involve the temporary displacement of an existing residence, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts involving population and housing than the 2045 General Plan. Under Alternative 4, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. m. Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 4 would generate less demand for public services and recreational opportunities compared to the 2045 General Plan due to Alternative 4’s reduced buildout potential. Additionally, Alternative 4 would implement policies included in the 2045 General Plan that ensure adequate public services are provided in Solvang. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, buildout of Alternative 4 would occur in areas served by existing public service facilities and, rather than requiring new facilities, would instead be expected to require the expansion of personnel or improvements to existing facilities, if needed to accommodate this future development. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would not include specific development proposals for parks and recreational facilities. Due to the Alternative 4’s reduced buildout, Alternative 4 would result in fewer impacts related to the construction of public service and recreational facilities, and these impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. n. Transportation
Alternative 4 would have a reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan and therefore would generate less overall vehicle trips. However, Alternative 4 would result in reduced 974
density, as the proposed hotel and high-density residential land uses on the Old Lumberyard site and Alamo Pintado site would not be implemented. This reduced density would result in visitors and residents of Solvang traveling greater lengths to reach destinations, as the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites are located in close proximity to several commercial areas to which visitors and residents would be expected to travel. Based on the Traffic Analysis Data Memorandum prepared by DKS Associates in December 2023 (Appendix G), Alternative 4 would result in a VMT per capita of

22.21 and a VMT per employee of 21.55. These VMT values are greater than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee of Solvang with implementation of the 2045 General Plan, which would be 22.18 and 21.52, respectively. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have greater impacts to transportation, including VMT, and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
o. Tribal Cultural Resources
Similar to the 2045 General Plan, development facilitated by Alternative 4 would be subject to the requirements of AB 52. Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5, and thus would ensure project-specific tribal cultural resource identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation. Alternative 4 would not result in redevelopment of the Old Lumberyard site and development of the Alamo Pintado site, and thus would involve less ground-disturbing activities that may have the potential to affect subsurface tribal cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts than the 2045 General Plan, and this alternative’s impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
p. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 4 would generate less demand for utilities and service systems than the 2045 General Plan due to Alternative 4’s reduced buildout potential. Additionally, similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan policies to ensure citywide utility infrastructure supports development. Alternative 4’s anticipated growth would exceed SBCAG’s growth projections that function as the basis for water providers serving Solvang to project future water demand; however, similar to the 2045 General Plan, implementation of 2045 General Plan policies, which require the City to restrict development until adequate water supplies are available to serve additional development, would reduce impact to water supplies. In addition, development facilitated by Alternative 4 would comply with existing State and local water conservation and water efficiency requirements, including drought resilience measures. As a result, Alternative 4 would not place additional burdens on water purveyors serving the city in comparison to the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts on utilities and service systems. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. q. Wildfire
Alternative 4 would result in reduced buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan. Similar to the 2045 General Plan, Alternative 4 would implement 2045 General Plan policies that provide necessary prevention services to reduce loss and damage due to wildfire. Accordingly, development facilitated by Alternative 4 would meet the 2045 General Plan’s additional fire-safety requirements designed to minimize wildfire risks, achieve wildfire resilience, and adequately prepare for wildfire response in Solvang. However, both the Old Lumberyard site and the Alamo Pintado site are located in a moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as identified by the 2045 General Plan. As Alternative 4 975
would not result in development of these sites with high-density land uses, Alternative 4 would result in fewer potential impacts involving wildfire when compared to the 2045 General Plan, as less exposure to wildfire hazards would occur. Under Alternative 4, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

6.6 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Another alternative considered would involve increasing the density of the High Density Residential land use designation from 20 dwelling units per acre to 24 dwelling units per acre. This alternative would increase infill and medium-density housing throughout Solvang. An additional alternative considered would involve increasing the density of the High Density Residential land use designation from 20 dwelling units per acre to 32 dwelling units per acre, allowing multi-family residential development in the Tourist Commercial land use designation at a maximum density of 32 dwelling units per acre, and increasing the maximum allowable height of buildings designated as Tourist Commercial to 45 feet. This alternative would also increase infill, and would emphasize high-density housing throughout Solvang.

These alternatives were considered but ultimately rejected during the public outreach process, due to public opposition to the proposed degree of increased density.

6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 6-2 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the 2045 General Plan for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 4 would be the environmentally superior alternative.

The No Project Alternative assumes development in Solvang would occur under the City’s current General Plan. Under this alternative, the City would experience reduced buildout when compared to the 2045 General Plan, and population and housing growth would be within SBCAG’s anticipated projections. However, this alternative would not implement 2045 General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1 through CUL-4, GEO-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-5, and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, transportation, and wildfire. The No Project Alternative would fulfill Project Objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed 2045 General Plan. Specifically, while the No Project Alternative would foster a distinct community character, promote economic diversity and sustainability, provide adequate facilities, conserve open space, ensure public safety, improve mobility, support strategic land uses, and support diverse housing options, this alternative would not include new 2045 goals and policies designed to specifically further these objectives in Solvang.

Alternative 2 would involve implementation of the 2045 General Plan and exclusion of the Old Lumberyard site as an area of potential growth. Although the Old Lumberyard Project would not be included under Alternative 2, this would not preclude development from occurring on the site in the future. Under Alternative 2, the proposed Old Lumberyard Project would not be implemented, and the zoning and General Plan designations would not change from the existing designations.

However, housing could still be built on the Old Lumberyard Project site, for a total of 50 units and 120 new residents. Therefore, in comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, and assuming the Old Lumberyard site would be developed under existing conditions, Alternative 2 would result in 2 fewer residents and 1 fewer 976
housing unit in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. This alternative would implement both 2045 General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1 through CUL-4, GEO-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-5, and would result in fewer impacts to all environmental issue areas, except for land use and planning, where impacts would be comparable to the 2045 General Plan, and transportation, where impacts would be greater than the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 2 would fulfill Project Objectives of fostering a distinct community character, promoting economic diversity and sustainability, providing adequate facilities, conserving open space, and ensuring public safety. As Alternative 2 would not involve high-density development on the Old Lumberyard site, it would fulfill Project Objectives of supporting strategic land uses, improving mobility, and supporting diverse housing options, to a lesser extent than the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 2 would fulfill these Project Objectives to a lesser extent as the exclusion of the Old Lumberyard site would result in a decreased emphasis on the provision of housing units, an increase in VMT per capita, and less strategic land use decisionmaking, when compared to the 2045 General Plan.

Alternative 3 would involve implementation of the 2045 General Plan and exclusion of the Alamo Pintado site as an area of potential growth. Although the Alamo Pintado Project would not be included under Alternative 3, this would not preclude development from occurring on the site in the future. Under Alternative 3, the proposed Alamo Pintado Project would not be implemented, and the zoning and General Plan designations would not change from the existing designations.

However, housing could still be built on the Alamo Pintado Project site, for a total of 2 units and 5 new residents. Therefore, in comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, Alternative 3 would result in 256 fewer additional residents and 107 fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. This alternative would implement both 2045 General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1 through CUL-4, GEO-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-5, and would result in fewer impacts to all environmental issue areas, except for land use and planning, where impacts would be comparable to the 2045 General Plan, and transportation, where impacts would be greater than the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 3 would fulfill Project Objectives of fostering a distinct community character, promoting economic diversity and sustainability, providing adequate facilities, conserving open space, and ensuring public safety. As Alternative 3 would not involve high-density development on the Alamo Pintado site, it would fulfill Project Objectives of supporting strategic land uses, improving mobility, and supporting diverse housing options, to a lesser extent than the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 3 would fulfill these Project Objectives to a lesser extent as the exclusion of the Alamo Pintado site would result in a decreased emphasis on the provision of housing units, an increase in VMT per capita, and less strategic land use decisionmaking, when compared to the 2045 General Plan. However, Alternative 3 would fulfill the Project Objective of conserving open space to a greater extent than the 2045 General Plan, as the Alamo Pintado site is currently vacant and consists of a grassy field with mature trees that would be preserved.

Alternative 4 would involve implementation of the 2045 General Plan and exclusion of both the Old Lumberyard site and the Alamo Pintado site as areas of potential growth. Under Alternative 4, both the proposed Old Lumberyard Project and the Alamo Pintado Project would not be implemented, and the zoning and General Plan designations would not change from the existing designations.

Although the Old Lumberyard Project and the Alamo Pintado Project would not be included under Alternative 4, this would not preclude development from occurring on these sites in the future.

Therefore, in comparison to the 2045 General Plan’s anticipated 2045 population of 7,253 and housing stock of 3,019 units, Alternative 4 would result in 258 fewer additional residents and 108 977
fewer housing units in Solvang in 2045. As a result, the anticipated growth in Solvang would be less than the 2045 General Plan. This alternative would implement both 2045 General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1 through CUL-4, GEO-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-5, and would result in fewer impacts to all environmental issue areas, except for land use and planning, where impacts would be comparable to the 2045 General Plan, and transportation, where impacts would be greater than the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 4 would fulfill Project Objectives of fostering a distinct community character, promoting economic diversity and sustainability, providing adequate facilities, conserving open space, and ensuring public safety. As Alternative 4 would not involve high-density development on the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites, it would fulfill Project Objectives of supporting strategic land uses, improving mobility, and supporting diverse housing options, to a lesser extent than the 2045 General Plan. Alternative 4 would fulfill these Project Objectives to a lesser extent as the exclusion of the Old Lumberyard and Alamo Pintado sites would result in a decreased emphasis on the provision of housing units, an increase in VMT per capita, and less strategic land use decision-making, when compared to the 2045 General Plan. However, Alternative 4 would fulfill the Project Objective of conserving open space to a greater extent than the 2045 General Plan, as the Alamo Pintado site is currently vacant and consists of a grassy field with mature trees that would be preserved.

While Alternative 4 would not fulfill Project Objectives to the same extent as the 2045 General Plan, the decreased buildout associated with Alternative 4, when paired with general furtherance of Project Objectives, would result in Alternative 4 being the environmentally superior alternative.

Specifically, Alternative 4 would not involve development to the same extent on the Old Lumberyard site and Alamo Pintado site, and thus would involve a reduced buildout when compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. This reduced buildout would result in lesser impacts to all environmental issue areas except land use and planning (where impacts would be similar) and transportation (where impacts would be greater). Considering Alternative 4 would have fewer overall impacts than the proposed project, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, and would fulfill Project Objectives to a similar extent as both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, this alternative would be environmentally superior. 978
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact
Classification
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
2045 General
Plan
Alternative 2: No
Old Lumberyard
Project
Alternative 3:

No Alamo
Pintado Project
Alternative 4:

Neither
Project
Aesthetics Less than Significant + + + +
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
+ + + +
Biological
Resources
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
+ + + +
Cultural Resources Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
+ + + +
Energy Less than Significant + + + +
Geology and Soils Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
+ + + +
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than Significant - + + +
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Less than Significant + + + +
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Less than Significant + + + +
Land Use and
Planning
Less than Significant - = = =
Noise Significant and
Unavoidable
+ + + +
Population and
Housing
Less than Significant + + + +
Public Services
and Recreation
Less than Significant + + + +
Transportation Significant and
Unavoidable
- - - -
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
+ + + +
Utilities and
Service Systems
Less than Significant + + + +
Wildfire Less than Significant - + + +
Overall 13 Superior,
4 Inferior,
0 Similar
15 Superior,
1 Inferior,
1 Similar
15 Superior,
1 Inferior,
1 Similar
15 Superior,
1 Inferior,
1 Similar
+ Superior to the 2045 General Plan (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the 2045 General Plan (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the 2045 General Plan
979
7 References

7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
None.

Section 1, Introduction
None.

Section 2, Project Description
Mintier Harnish. 2023. Preferred Alternative Summary and Population and Dwelling Units.

Solvang, City of. 2008. Land Use Element
https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/185/Land-Use-Element-PDF (accessed July 2023).

Section 3, Environmental Setting
Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2019. Forecast 2050. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf (accessed July 2023).

United States Census Bureau (Census). 2020a. 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables S0101. https://data.census.gov/table?g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06083_160XX00US0672576&d= ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0101 (accessed July 2023). ______. 2020b. 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates DP04.
https://data.census.gov/table?g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06083_160XX00US0672576&d= ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Data+Profiles&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.DP04 (accessed July 2023).

Section 4.1, Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines04-12-2012.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023. State Scenic Highway System Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/laplandscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed July 2023).

Section 4.2, Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.

November 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/State_2022_O3.pdf (accessed May 2023).
980
_____. 2023a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. [website] N.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed April 2023).
_____. 2023b. “Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/JVR/AdminRecord/Incorpora tedByReference/Appendices/Appendix-C---Air-Quality-Report/CARB%202020.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023c. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards” [webpage]. N.d. (accessed February 2023). _____. 2023d. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” (accessed February 2023).

DKS 2023. Solvang GPU – EIR Traffic Analysis Data. December 1, 2023.

Natelson Paper. 2023. Employee to SF per Employee spreadsheets.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2002. 2001 Clean Air Plan. December 2002. (accessed February 2023).
______. 2022a. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. January 2022.
______. 2022b. 2022 Ozone Plan. December 2022. https://www.ourair.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022-Ozone-Plan.pdf ______. 2023. “Meeting Air Quality Standards” [website] N.d. (accessed February 2023).

U.S. Climate Data. 2023. Climate Santa Ynez – California. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/santa-ynez/california/united-states/usca1526 (accessed November 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 2014. _____. 2023a. Health Effect of Ozone Pollution. Last Modified: May 24,2023 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023b. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Last Modified:

July 13,2023 (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023c. Basic Information about NO2. Last Modified: July 25, 2023 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023d. Sulfur Dioxide Basics. Last Modified: February 16, 2023 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023e. Basic Information about Lead Air Pollution. Last Modified: July 5, 2023 (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023f. Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Last Modified: March 27, 2023. (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023g. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Last modified: September 30, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (accessed October 2023). _____. 2023h. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). December 1, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/green-book (accessed December 2023). 981
Section 4.3, Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. Wildlife Habitats – California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023b. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V (accessed September 2023). ______. 2023c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS (accessed September 2023). ______. 2023d. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. July 2023. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline. (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023e. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. July 2023. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023f. California Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023g. BIOS – Conservation Plan Boundaries – HCP and HCCP. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?al=ds760 (accessed September 2023).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08cInterim 8-22-02. September 7, 2023. www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed September 2023).

Mayer, K.E. and Laudenslayer, W.F. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 166 pp.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.

Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

Solvang, City of. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook. May 2021.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Critical Habitat Portal. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html (accessed September 2023). ______. 2023b. National Wetlands Inventory.
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed September 2023).
______. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register. January 2013. ______. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-legged Frog. Federal Register. March 2010.

Section 4.4, Cultural Resources
Bickel, P. McW. 1978. Changing Sea Levels along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications.

Journal of California Anthropology 5:6-20.
982
Boone, Cristie. 2012. Integrating Zooarchaeology and Modeling: Trans-Holocene Fishing in Monterey Bay, California. University of California Santa Cruz Unpublished Dissertation.

Cartier, Robert. 1989. Scotts Valley Chronology and Temporal Stratigraphy. SCA Proceedings 2:81- 111.

Fitzgerald, Richard, and Judith Porcasi. 2003. The Metcalf Site (CA-SCL-178) and its Place in Early Holocene California Prehistory. SCA Newsletter 37(4):27-31.

Glassow, Michael A., Lynn. H Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Hildebrandt, William. 1997. The Relative Importance of Lacustrine and Estuarine Resources to Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Populations: A View from Southern Santa Clara Valley, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19(2):197-225.

Jones, Terry L. Douglas Kennett, and Steven Moffitt. 2003. Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Big Sur Coast, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 61, Berkeley, California.

Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau. 2002. Deintensification along the Central California Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M.

Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 205-232. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6.

Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Jones, Terry and Deborah Jones. 1992. Elkhorn Slough Revisited: Reassessing the Chronology of CAMNT-229. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 14(2):159-179.

Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp, and Jon M. Erlandson. 2002. The Cross Creek Site and Its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67:213–230.

Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema. 2007. The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 125–146. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh. 1995. Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
______. 1997. Climatic Consequences of Population Pragmatism? A Middle Holocene Prehistory of the Central Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 111–128. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Justice, Noel. 2002. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

King, Chester D. 1990. Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Revised Ph.D. dissertation with a new preface and updated bibliography. In The Evolution of North American Indians, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Garland Publishing, New York. 983
Lebow, C., M.C. Baloian, D.R. Harro, R.L. Mckim, C. Denardo, J. Onken, E. Romanski, and B.A. Price. 2001. Final Report of Archaeological Investigations for Reaches 5B and 6 Coastal Branch Aqueduct, Phase II. Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Report on file, Central Coast Water Authority, Buellton, California.

McLaren, Duncan, Daryl Fedje, Quentin Mackie, Loren Davis, Jon Erlandson, Alisha Gauvreau, and Colton Vogelaar. 2019. Late Pleistocene Archaeological Discovery Models on the Pacific Coast of North America. PaleoAmerica 6(1):43-63.

Mills, Wayne, Michael F. Rondeau, and Terry L. Jones. 2005. A Fluted Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 25(2): 68-74.

National Park Service. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated].
______. 2022. National Register Database and Research, National Register of Historic Places. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm (accessed June 2023).

State Office of Historic Preservation 2022. California Historical Resources, Santa Barbara County. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=42 (accessed June 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook. May 2021.

Wallace, William. 1955. Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
______. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 BCE In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Wohlgemuth, Eric. 1996. Resource Intensification in Prehistoric Central California: Evidence from Archaeobotanical Data. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(1):81-103.

Section 4.5, Energy
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2023a. Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023b. 2012 Annual Report of State Oil and Gas Supervisor. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/pubs_stats/annual_reports/Pages/annual_report s.aspx (accessed October 2023).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/ (accessed June 2023).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023a. Annual Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleummarket/annual-oil-supply-sources-california (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023b. Electricity Generation Capacity and Energy. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/electric-generation-capacity-and-energy (accessed June 2023).
984
______. 2023c. Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. February 2023. file:///C:/Users/eknox/Downloads/TN250084_20230510T144742_Final%202022%20Integra ted%20Energy%20Policy%20Report%20Update%20with%20corrected%20typo.pdf (accessed June 2023).
______. 2023d. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gascalifornia (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023e. 2010-2022 CEC-A15 Results and Analysis. August 16, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 (accessed October 2023). ______. 2023f. Electricity Consumption by County.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). ______. 2023g. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed October 2023).
______. 2023h. Gas Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023).

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022. 2022 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Califor nia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf (accessed June 2023).

Central Coast Community Energy (3CE). 2023. 2022 Power Content Label. https://3cenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/09/PCL-Postcard-2023Sep-final-web.pdf (accessed October 2023). ______. 2022. 2017-2021 Impact Report. https://3cenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CCCEImpact-AnnualReport2021_FINAL.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2023a. Company Profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page (accessed June 2023).
______. 2023b. 2022 Power Content Label. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/youraccount/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2023/1023-Power-Content-Label.pdf (accessed October 2023).
______. 2022. Integrated Resource Plan. November 1, 2022. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/for-our-business-partners/energysupply/integrated-resource-planning/2022-PGE-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf (accessed June 2023).

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2013. Pipeline Basics. https://www.socalgas.com/documents/news-room/fact-sheets/PipelineBasics.pdf (accessed October 2023).

United States Department of Energy. 2023. Alternative Fuels Data Center. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=BD&location=So lvang (accessed June 2023).

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2023. California Field Production of Crude Oil. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPCA1&f=M (accessed June 2023).
985
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils
California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note36.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed July 2023).

Dudek. 2020. Land Subsidence, West and Central Management Areas – Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin.
https://www.santaynezwater.org/files/3b3f3f25b/Appendix+B_SYGSP+Land+Subsidence+M emo+-+Dec+2020.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.

Paleobiology Database. 2023. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara, County of. 2015, Comprehensive Plan Seismic Safety and Safety Element. https://www.countyofsb.org/974/Seismic-Safety-Safety (accessed August 2023).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2016. Safety Element.
https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/183/Safety-Element-PDF (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook.
https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Sweetkind, D.S., V.E. Langenheim, K. McDougall-Reid, C.C. Sorlien, S.C. Demas, M.E. Tennyson, and S.Y. Johnson. 2021. Geologic and geophysical maps of the Santa Maria and part of the Point Conception 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California [map.] United States Geological Survey.

Scientific Investigations Map SIM-3472, scale 1:100,000.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed July 2023).

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. Back to the Future on the San Andreas Fault. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/back-future-san-andreasfault (accessed November 2023). ______. 2016. The San Andreas Fault. https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/safaultgip.html (accessed November 2023).

University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2023. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed July 2023).

Woodring, W.P. and M.N. Bramlette. 1950. Geology and paleontology of the Santa Maria District, California. United States Geological Survey, Geological Survey Professional Paper 222, pp. 1- 185.
986
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) 2024. “Clean Energy”. https://3cenergy.org/aboutus/understanding-clean-energy/ (accessed January 2024).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Associations. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide Version 2022.1. April 2022. https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA.

December 2008.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scopi ng_plan.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Website. Updated June 2014. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2013-scoping-plan-documents (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2022a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. October 26, 2022.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000- 2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf
_____. 2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Climate Change Center. 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March 2006. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptationlibrary/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2022. California Agricultural Production Statistics.

September 1, 2022. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climatechange/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed December 2022). ______. 2023. California’s Snowpack is Now One of the Largest Ever, Bringing Drought Relief, Flooding Concerns. April 3. https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2023/April-23/SnowSurvey-April2023#:~:text=The%20manual%20survey%20recorded%20126.5,of%20DWR's%20water%20s upply%20forecast. (accessed August 2023).

California Natural Resource Agency. 2019. “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report.” January 16, 2019.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4- 2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed August 2023). 987
_____ 2021. “Draft California Climate Adaptation Strategy.” October 2021. https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Climate-Resilience/SASWorkshops/Draft-CA-Climate-Adaptation-Strategy-ada.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2014. “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report.” Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2018. “Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C.” An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SPM_version_report_LR.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.

Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.

Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf (accessed August 2023).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2023. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” Last modified: January 12, 2023. https://climate.nasa.gov/vitalsigns/sea-level/ (accessed August 2023).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed December 2022).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2022. Climate Change: Global Sea Level. April 19, 2022. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-changeglobal-sea-level (accessed August 2023). ______. 2023. Annual 2022 Global Climate Report. January 2023. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthlyreport/global/202213/supplemental/page-1 (accessed August 2023).

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. August 2006. https://courses.washington.edu/cfr590/climatechange/Parmesan%202006.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2021. Connected 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. August 2021. 988
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. Climate Change Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last Modified: July 21, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/climateindicators/climate-change-indicators-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed August 2023).
______. 2023b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2021. April 15, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/US-GHG-Inventory-2023-MainText.pdf. (accessed August 2023).

World Meteorological Organization. 2013. “ A Decade of Extremes.” July 2013. https://public.wmo.int/en/meteoworld/decade-extremes (accessed August 2023).

Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC). 2023. Evaluating & Cleaning-Up School Sites. https://dtsc.ca.gov/evaluating-cleaning-up-school-sites/ (accessed July 2023).

Caltrans. 2023. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. March 10, 2023. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd (accessed July 2023).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023a. List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023b. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program Overview. https://calepa.ca.gov/hazardous-materials-business-plan-program/ (accessed July 2023).

California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2018. 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. September 2018. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/002-2018- SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE-PLAN.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2017. State of California Emergency Plan. October 2017. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/California_State_Emergency_Plan_2017.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Public Utilities Commission. 2017a. General Order Number 165. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/159182.htm (accessed December 2023).

Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2023. Santa Ynez Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/santaynez_alucp_final.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara, County of. 2023. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. February 2023. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ebc26205-512c-48d7-bca7-cfa0a18faa24 (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara County Fire District (SBCFD). 2010. Defensible Space Standards. https://sbcfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/6-Defensible-Space-2.pdf (accessed July 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023a. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Solvang (accessed July 2023).
989
______. 2023b. List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (PDF). https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2023. City of Solvang Community Cleanup. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=276#:~:text=Residents%20may%20dis pose%20of%20household%20hazardous%20waste%20such,%28HSS%29%20located%20at% 2097%20Commerce%20Drive%20in%20Buellton (accessed July 2023). ______. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook.
https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2013a. Emergency Management Plan. June 2013.
https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/441/Emergency-ManagementPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed July 2023). ______. 2013b. Encroachment Permit Checklist. August 12, 2013. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/251/Checklist-for-EncroachmentPermit-PDF (accessed July 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. SEMS Search. https://enviro.epa.gov/envirofacts/sems/search/results?q=N4Ig7glgJg5gpgFwMIEMA2aQC4 Bm6DOcANCHgMYDKcacZCEA9gHbagMAO9zVKATmQAsAKgE92cbCABGcGBCYB1CAgEgAviX gMYvFOwEieVVlAooUXnHz5WIAF4R2SBlAlYQIEucvX8AGXl3TxIyZRFJCgY0ADcUJhgvEDIGAFcmBAiPCniEFA ACACE%2BKT4UJPw8hHdQFLdJJABBJLd8Ml4nLhYPVDQIHAZeJghyjRAfXiNBUXFJGTlFZVUxpn ZMD3VQ5jyAW3lcyXUgA (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023b. Overview of the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/overview-asbestos-national-emission-standardshazardous-air-pollutants-neshap (accessed July 2023).

Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2015. California’s Groundwater Update 2013 Central Coast Hydrologic Region. https://cawaterlibrary.net/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/GWU2013_Ch5_CentralCoast_Final.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023a. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bpdashboard/final/ (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023b. Division of Safety of Dams. https://water.ca.gov/damsafety/ (accessed July 2023).

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin. June 2019.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan /docs/2019_basin_plan_r3_complete_webaccess.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette #06083C1059G. Effective December 4, 2012. (accessed December 2023). 990
Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency (EMA GSA). 2022. Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin – Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

January 2022.
https://www.santaynezwater.org/files/a73ea159d/Santa+Ynez+EMA+Final+GSPcompressed.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023. Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin - Eastern Management Area Annual Report Water Year 2022. March 21, 2023.
https://www.santaynezwater.org/files/b8338a5ab/AR2-3-015_EMA_WY_2022.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Noozhawk. 2023. Photos and Videos of the Storm Flooding in Santa Barbara County. https://www.noozhawk.com/photos-and-videos-of-the-storm-flooding-in-santa-barbaracounty/ (accessed November 2023).

Santa Barbara, County of. 2017. Stormwater Technical Guide for Low Impact Development. February 3, 2017. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/408/New-and-Redevelopment-Projects (accessed July 2023).

Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin. 2023a. WMA About. https://www.santaynezwater.org/wma-about (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023b. CMA About. https://www.santaynezwater.org/cma-about (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023c. EMA About. https://www.santaynezwater.org/ema-about (accessed July 2023).

Santa Ynez Valley News. 2023. Flooding closes roads in Santa Maria, Orcutt, Solvang. https://syvnews.com/news/local/flooding-closes-roads-in-santa-maria-orcuttsolvang/article_14286fd1-c6e0-5fcc-8dd1-5af219cfdfaa.html (accessed November 2023).

Santa Ynez Valley Star. 2023. Another Storm Brings Flooding, Road Closures in SYV and Beyond. https://santaynezvalleystar.com/another-storm-brings-flooding-road-closures-in-syv-andbeyond/ (accessed November 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018.
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e2def63cc ef54eedbee4ad726ab1552c (accessed July 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook. May 2021. https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed July 2023).

United States Climate Data. 2023. Climate Santa Ynez.
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/santa-ynez/california/united-states/usca1526 (accessed July 2023).

United States Geological Survey. 2023. Locate Your Watershed. https://water.usgs.gov/wsc/cat/18060010.html (accessed July 2023).

Van der Linden, Matt. 2023. Civil Senior Principal Engineer, Cannon. Personal communication via email regarding Solvang’s current water supply and sewer infrastructure with the Planning Consultant for the City of Solvang. November 9, 2023.
991
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning
Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2021. Connected 2050: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. August 2021. https://www.sbcag.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Connected-2050-Final.pdf Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2021. 2021 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update: Agencies Providing Fire Protection, Law Enforcement, Crime & Safety and Emergency Medical Services In Santa Barbara County.

Adopted December 9, 2021.
https://www.sblafco.org/files/aa6f92935/Final+Adopted+FIRE+EMS+MSR.pdf (accessed November 2023).
______. 2023. 2022 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update: Agencies Providing Water, Wastewater, Recycled Water, and Stormwater Services In Santa Barbara County.

Adopted May 4, 2023.
https://www.sblafco.org/files/fb2a29670/Final+Adopted+WATER+SEWER+MSR.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Section 4.11, Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed December 2023).
_____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01. April. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed December 2023).

Crocker, Malcom. 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471-39599-7, WileyVCH, October.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. (FHWAHEP-10-025). December. Available at:
https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/noise/assets/fhwa-noise-guidance-dec2011 (accessed December 2023).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. November.

Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2023).

Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Aus�n and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. 1999.

Fundamentals of Acous�cs, 4th Edi�on. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.

DKS Associates, 2023. Solvang GPU – EIR Traffic Analysis Data. December 1, 2023.

Santa Barbara County Land Use Commission, 2023. Santa Ynez Airport Land Use Plan. https://www.sbcag.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/santa-ynez_alucp_final.pdf (sbcag.org) (accessed December 2023).
992
Solvang, City of. 2013. City of Solvang General Plan Noise Element, March 2013. (Accessed December 2023).

Section 4.12, Population and Housing
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-202 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2021. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2023. Regional Housing Needs Allocation. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/regional-housing-needs-allocation (accessed August 2023).

Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2021a. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 6th Cycle 2023-2031. July 15, 2021.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/item_5_attach_a_-_rhna_plan.pdf (accessed September 2022).
______. 2021b. Connected 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy.

August 2021. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/connected_2050_final.pdf (accessed September 2022).
______. 2019. Regional Growth Forecast 2050 Santa Barbara County. January 2019. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf (accessed July 2023).

United States Census Bureau (Census). 2021. Subject Definitions. December 16, 2021. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subjectdefinitions.html#household (accessed July 2023). ______. 2020a. 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables S0101. https://data.census.gov/table?g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06083_160XX00US0672576&d= ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0101 (accessed July 2023). ______. 2020b. 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates DP04.
https://data.census.gov/table?g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06083_160XX00US0672576&d= ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Data+Profiles&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.DP04 (accessed July 2023). ______. 2010a. 2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables S0101. https://data.census.gov/table?g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06083_160XX00US0672576&d= ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&tid=ACSST5Y2010.S0101 (accessed July 2023). ______. 2010b. 2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates DP04.
https://data.census.gov/table?g=040XX00US06_050XX00US06083_160XX00US0672576&d= ACS+5-Year+Estimates+Data+Profiles&tid=ACSDP5Y2010.DP04 (accessed July 2023).

Zillow. 2023. Search Engine. https://www.zillow.com/ (accessed August 2023). 993
Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation
Education Data Partnership. 2023a. Solvang Elementary. http://www.ed-data.org/school/SantaBarbara/Solvang-Elementary/Solvang-Elementary (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023b. Santa Ynez Valley Union High School. http://www.ed-data.org/school/SantaBarbara/Santa-Ynez-Valley-Union-High/Santa-Ynez-Valley-Union-High (accessed August 2023).

Goleta and Santa Ynez Valley Libraries. 2023. “Events”. https://www.goletavalleylibrary.org/homelibrary (accessed August 2023).

Santa Barbara County Fire District (SBCFD). 2023. County Station 30. https://sbcfire.com/project/county-station-30/ (accessed June 2023).

Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff’s Office). 2023. Law Enforcement Operations. https://www.sbsheriff.org/command-and-divisions/law-enforcement-operations/ (accessed June 2023).

Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District. 2023. “Developer’s Fee Rates”. https://www.syvuhsd.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1052495&type=d&pREC_ID=135 0549 (accessed November 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook. May 2021. https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed June 2023).

Solvang School District. 2023a. Staff. https://www.solvangschool.org/k-5 (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023b. “Developer Fees”. https://www.solvangschool.org/page/developer-fees/ (accessed July 2023).
______. 2024. Email correspondence from Dawn Stewart, Chief Business Official, dated January 24, 2024.

United States Census Bureau. 2022. QuickFacts: Solvang, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/solvangcitycalifornia/PST045222 (accessed July 2023).

U.S. News and World Report. 2023. Santa Ynez Valley Union High School. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/santa-ynezvalley-union-high/santa-ynez-valley-union-high-school-3410 (accessed August 2023).

Section 4.14, Transportation
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd (accessed November 2023).

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed November 2023).
994
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2021. Connected 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/connected_2050_final.pdf (accessed November 2023).
______. 2020. Santa Ynez River Trail Alignment Study.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/santa_ynez_river_trail_alignment_study _-_september_2020.pdf (accessed November 2023).
______. 2019. Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/reduced_final_santa_ynez_valley_bicycl e_master_plan.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Santa Barbara County Fire Department. 2023. Development Standard #1. https://sbcfire.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/07/Fire-Apparatus-Access.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2021a. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook. May 2021. https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed November 2023).
______. 2021b. Local Roadway Safety Plan.
https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/3181/Solvang-Local-Road-SafetyPlan-2021---Draft-for-public-review?bidId= (accessed December 2023).

Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources
Arnold, Jeanne E. 1995. Transportation Innovation and Social Complexity among Maritime HunterGatherer Societies. American Anthropologist 97(4):733-747.

Dartt-Newton, Deana and Jon M. Erlandson. 2006. Little Choice for the Chumash: Colonialism, Cattle, and Coercion in Mission Period California. American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4):416- 460
Erlandson, Jon M. 1999. The Evolution of “Barbareño” Chumash. Proceedings of the California Society for Archaeology 12:106-113.

Gamble, Lynn H. 2008. The Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade, and Feasting Among Complex Hunter-Gatherers. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges in California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 191-213.

Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Grant, Campbell. 1978. Eastern Coastal Chumash in California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 509-519.

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Mission Santa Ines. N.D. Old Mission Santa Ines, “The Hidden Gem” of the Missions, History Summary. https://missionsantaines.org/history-summary (accessed December 2023).

Mithun, Marianne. 2001. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.

Rawls, James J. 1984. Indians of California: The Changing Image. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
995
Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023a. SWIS Facility/Site Summary (42-AA-0015).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1252?siteID=3283 (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023b. SWIS Facility/Site Summary (56-AA-0007). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/608?siteID=3954 (accessed October 2023).
______. 2023c. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed July 2023).

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022. 2022 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Califor nia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Central Coast Community Energy (3CE). 2023. 2022 Power Content Label. https://3cenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/09/PCL-Postcard-2023Sep-final-web.pdf (accessed October 2023).

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2020. General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2020/r32 020_0020.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency (EMA GSA). 2023. Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin - Eastern Management Area Annual Report Water Year 2022.

March 21, 2023. https://www.santaynezwater.org/files/b8338a5ab/AR2-3- 015_EMA_WY_2022.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Noozhawk. 2023. Tajiguas Landfill Proposing Expansion Projects, New ReSource Center Operators.

November 13, 2023. https://www.noozhawk.com/tajiguas-landfill-proposing-expansionprojects-new-resource-center-operators/ (accessed November 2023).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Company Profile. 2023a. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/companyinformation/profile/profile.page#:~:text=Pacific%20Gas%20and%20Electric%20Company%2 C%20incorporated%20in%20California,the%20company%20is%20a%20subsidiary%20of%20 PG%26E%20Corporation (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara, County of. 2023. ReSource Center. https://lessismore.org/material_categories/9- trrp/ (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2019. Regional Growth Forecast 2050.

January 2019.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division. 2023. Notice of Preparation Public Notice of Scoping Meeting and Request for Comments on Tajiguas Landfill Capacity Increase Project. March 23, 2023. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/286393- 1/attachment/xIfNHv8TRt7Ny8X4xzV_VA0r6DKYmv211hy3RglyIPmAFBMwsJLyQd8Se8fYIyU MHXBWT5-M1iqKGEjj0 (accessed September 2023).
996
Santa Maria Sun. 2020. Santa Maria moves forward with plans for Los Flores Ranch landfill. https://www.santamariasun.com/news/santa-maria-moves-forward-with-plans-for-losflores-ranch-landfill-14802106 (accessed November 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2022. Special Closed Session and Regular Meeting of the Solvang City Council Chamber. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01242022-672 (accessed November 2023).
______. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook.
https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2019a. Regular Meeting of the Solvang City Council. February 11, 2019. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02112019-407 (accessed November 2023).
______. 2019b. Solvang Stormwater System Master Plan. June 28, 2019. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/2596/Stormwater-System-MasterPlan?bidId= (accessed September 2023). ______. 2019c. Special Meeting of the Solvang City Council. April 15, 2019. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04152019- 419#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Solvang%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plant%20%28 WWTP%29,and%20comply%20with%20State%20waste%20discharge%20permit%20require ments. (accessed July 2023).
______. 2011. Water System Master Plan Update. April 2011. http://web.archive.org/web/20211130051432/https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentC enter/View/439/Water-System-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId= (accessed September 2023).

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2013. Pipeline Basics. https://www.socalgas.com/documents/news-room/fact-sheets/PipelineBasics.pdf (accessed October 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2013. NPDES No. CAS000004 Order No. 2013-0001- DWQ Attachment A.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/phase_ii_muni cipal/att_a_tradsmallms4list.pdf (accessed July 2023).

United States Census Bureau. 2021. DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/table?g=160XX00US0670182&d=ACS+5- Year+Estimates+Data+Profiles&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP04 (accessed September 2023).

Van der Linden, Matt. 2023. Civil Senior Principal Engineer, Cannon. Personal communication via email regarding Solvang’s current water supply and sewer infrastructure with the Planning Consultant for the City of Solvang. November 9, 2023.
997
Section 4.17, Wildfire
Atkinson, William. 2018. “The Link Between Power Lines and Wildfire.” Electrical Contractor. https://www.ecmag.com/magazine/articles/article-detail/systems-link-between-powerlines-and-wildfires (accessed December 2023).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2018. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved08_22_18.pdf (accessed August 2023). ______. 2019. Community Wildfire Prevention & Mitigation Report. February 22, 2019. https://wildfiretoday.com/documents/CALFIRE-Mitigation-Report.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2022a. 2022 Strategic Fire Plan, Amador El Dorado Unit. Adopted May 5, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/irefprho/2022-amador-el-dorado-alpine-sacramento-unitfire-plan.pdf.

California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2018. 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. September 2018. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/002-2018- SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE-PLAN.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2017. State of California Emergency Plan. October 2017. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/California_State_Emergency_Plan_2017.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Public Utilities Commission. 2017a. General Order Number 165. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/159182.htm (accessed December 2023).
______. 2017b. General Order Number 166.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/159184.htm (accessed December 2023).
______. 2018. General Order Number 95.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M338/K730/338730245.pdf (accessed December 2023).

Climate Data. N.d. “Data and Graphs for Weather and Climate in Solvang”. https://en.climatedata.org/north-america/united-states-of-america/california/solvang-871529/#climate-table (accessed November 2023).

Iowa State University. Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM). Custom Wind Rose Plots. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/locate.php?network=CA_ASOS (accessed August 2023).

National Park Service. 2017. Wildland Fire Behavior. Last updated February 16, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildland-fire-behavior.htm (accessed August 2023).

Santa Barbara, County of. 2023. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. February 2023. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ebc26205-512c-48d7-bca7-cfa0a18faa24 (accessed July 2023).
998
Santa Barbara County Fire District (SBCFD). 2010. Defensible Space Standards. https://sbcfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/6-Defensible-Space-2.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2022. County Station 30 Webpage. Available at: https://sbcfire.com/project/county-station30/ (accessed August 2023).

Santa Barbara (SB) Fire Safe Council. 2020. Fire History of Santa Barbara County. Available at:
https://sbfiresafecouncil.org/fire-history-of-santa-barbara-county/ (accessed August 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2013. Emergency Management Plan. June 2013. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/441/Emergency-ManagementPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed July 2023). ______. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook.
https://plansolvang.com/images/docs/SovGPU_ECTW_2021_08_web.pdf (accessed July 2023).

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 2000. Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000.
https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/CEQ/firereport.pdf (accessed August 2023). ______. 2002. FY 2001 Performance Report – National Fire Plan. https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/resources/reports/2001/6-16-en.pdf (accessed August 2023).

University of California. 2018. Wildland Fire Safety, Field Operations Manual. Berkeley, CA. Last updated November 2018.

Section 4.18, Effects Found Not to be Significant
California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Important Farmland Data Viewer. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/DataViewer/index.html (accessed August 2023).

County of Santa Barbara Department of Planning and Development. 2015. Agricultural Preserve (Williamson Act) of Santa Barbara County, 2015.
https://sbcblueprint.databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=293bb2006edc4c8986d6b564d45 02527 (accessed August 2023).

Solvang, City of. 2016. City of Solvang Conservation and Open Space Element. May 2016. https://www.cityofsolvang.com/DocumentCenter/View/182/Conservation-and-OpenSpace-Element-PDF (accessed August 2023). ______. 2021. Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook. May 2021. (accessed August 2023).

Section 5, Other CEQA Related Discussions
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2019. Regional Growth Forecast 2050.

January 2019.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf (accessed September 2023).
999
Section 6, Alternatives
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2019. Regional Growth Forecast 2050.

January 2019.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf (accessed September 2023).

7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Solvang, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

City of Solvang
Rafael Castillo, Planning and Building Manager
Rodger Olds, Director of Public Works
Laurie Tamura, Planning Consultant
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Matt Maddox, Principal-in-Charge
Shelby Cramton, Project Manager
Nicole West, Senior Supervising Planner
Chris Bersbach, Senior Supervising Planner
Ethan Knox, Environmental Planner
Nicholas Carter, Environmental Planner
Aaron Rojas, Jr., Air Quality and GHG Specialist
Jesse McCandless, Noise Specialist
Bill Vosti, Program Manager of Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Noise Josh Carman, Director of Noise, Air Quality & GHG
Courtney Montgomery, Archaeologist
Hannah Haas, Senior Archaeologist
Steven Treffers, Cultural Resources Director
Thea Benson, Senior Biologist
Kendra Bonsall, Biologist
Adam Sachs, Biologist
Mintier Harnish
Jim Harnish, Principal/Owner
Brent Gibbons, Principal Planner
DKS, Associates
Jim Damkowitch, Managing Director
1000
This page intentionally left blank.
1001

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

City Council Meeting
July 8, 2024
Item 7a
Public Hearing to consider:
1) Adoption of Resolution No. 24-1253 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopting Findings of Fact Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Solvang 2045 General Plan Consisting of the Following Elements: Land Use, Community Design, Economic Development, Mobility, Environment and Sustainability, Safety, and Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure (SCH#2023060448); and 2) Adopting Resolution No. 24-1254 Adopting the City of Solvang 2045 General Plan Consisting of the Following Elements: Land Use, Community Design, Economic Development, Mobility, Environment and Sustainability, Safety, and Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure.

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA
1002
From:

Date: Friday, July 5, 2024 4:33:39 PM
Attachments: Traffic and commensurate safety impacts of Delelopments on AP and Old Mission Juy 5 2024.docx Annamarie Porter, CMC
City Clerk
City of Solvang
Phone: (805) 688-5575 x206
[email protected]
From:

Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 3:54 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Re: Draft General Plan and Draft GEneral Plan comments on traffic Corrected error in email address for council and resending On Friday, July 5, 2024 at 03:52:04 PM PDT, Craig wrote: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Solvang City Council, Please find my letter attached r Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend
Corrected error in email address for council and resending On Friday, July 5, 2024 at 03:52:04 PM PDT, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Mayor and Members of the Solvang City Council,
Please find my letter attached relative to the for July 8, 2024 City Council meeting agenda item 7,
1) Adoption of Resolution No. 24-1253 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopting Findings of Fact Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Solvang 2045 General Plan Consisting of the Following Elements: Land Use, Community Design, Economic Development, Mobility, Environment and Sustainability, Safety, and Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure (SCH#2023060448); and
2) Adopting Resolution No. 24-1254 Adopting the City of Solvang 2045 General Plan Consisting of the Following Elements: Land Use, Community Design, Economic Development, Mobility, Environment and Sustainability, Safety, and Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure.
1003
Respectfully,
Craig Kent
1004
July 5, 2024
Solvang City Council
1644 Oak St.

Solvang, CA 93463
Traffic Safety Impacts from High Density Projects on the Alamo Pintado Raoad/Old Mission Drive Intersection Mayor Infanti and Council Members,
As has been identified in the General Plan 2045 and associated EIR, Alamo Pintado Road is one of the three main traffic arteries connecting Solvang to the rest of the Santa Ynez Valley as well as Santa Barbara County and beyond. It is also a gateway corridor which presents a pleasant an scenic rural entry to the City of Solvang.

Alamo Pintado Raod is also the primary and fastest vehicle route to the Cottage Hospital Emergency room on Viborg Road from nearly all locations south, east and west of Viborg Road.

The consequences of land use and associated zoning changes to high density for several properties along the Alamo Pintado corridor, coupled with the longer term consequences of SB-9, will add significant vehicular as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the Alamo Pintado/Old Mission Drive/Nielsen’s Shopping Center intersection and to the Alamo Pintao Road/Highway 246 intersection.

Oral and written testimony about the traffic concerns has previously been presented to the Solvang City Council. Specifically, that this intersection experiences heavy traffic at peak hours and not infrequently experiences temporary gridlock for several minutes at a time when traffic backs up from the stoplight at the Intersection of Alamo Pintado Road and Hwy 246.

I, and others, are aware that the State is now requiring Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) analysis for development project impacts in lieu of previously required Level of Service (LOS) analysis that required traffic count data. Unfortunately, this change to VMT, while useful for determining environmental impacts related to vehicle use, does not inform the safety risks of congested roads and intersections relative to emergency vehicle response times and critical time access to the Cottage Hostpital Emergency Room. Nor does it inform the risk to pedestrians resulting from higher traffic and pedestrian volume.

Recently a few local citizens, concerned that there is no recent LOS data for the Alamo Pintado Road/Old Mission Drive intersection, individually took the initiative to make bulk traffic counts during peak traffic hours and on different days at the intersection of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive. These counts, which were conducted before the school year ended, revealed traffic volumes of 1100 to 1200 vehicles per hour during peak periods. The counts also revealed an average of 12 pedestrian crossings per hour during 1005
the count periods.

It was noted that the traffic flow was significantly reduced each time a pedestrian crossed Alamo Pintado Road. The typical time a pedestrian took to cross Alamo Pintado was 20 to 30 seconds. This resulted in reducing the traffic flow from 10 cars every 30 seconds, during these peak traffic flow times, to only 5 cars or less (those turning left of right and not going through the crosswalk while the pedestrian was in it). This is a reduction in traffic flow of at least 50% for short periods of time.

We note that proposed developments are now presenting designs that they claim will encourage less vehicular use per resident and more pedestrian and bicycle travel. From the perspective of pollution impacts that is a good trend. However, for intersections that are controlled by or roundabouts stop signs rather than signals, it appears clear that more pedestrian and bicycle traffic present a probable reduction in the peak traffic capacity of these types of intersections.

It also seems clear that the periodic gridlocks at Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive will become more frequent and longer in duration with the hundreds of added vehicle trips and increased pedestrian and bicycle crossings produced by high density developments on the properties along the Alamo Pintado Road corridor.

There is perhaps nowhere else in Solvang where the volume of traffic is as high and the width of the street is as wide while being controlled by only 4-way stop signs as Alamo Pintado Road.

It has previously been pointed out, in my letter dated April 22, 2024 related to a proposed large development project, that safety impacts resulting from the significant increase on vehicular traffic produced by these high density projects in conjuction with impeded traffic flow and more frequent gridlock created by higher pedestrian crossings, is slowed emergency response to victims north of the this intersection and critical time access to the Emergency room at Cottage hospital for victims being transported from south of this intersection during periods of heavy traffic, particularly during gridlock.

The importance of rapid ambulance response to emergency medical crises has been welldocumented by many studies which have determined that a response time of less than 5 – 8 minutes is correlated with myocardial survival rate and that the survival rate decreases by 2.15% per minute, without intervention by advanced cardiac life support.

In addition, the response time and transport time are correlated with survival rates for abdominal gunshot wound victims, and that the overall total emergency medical services (EMS) pre-hospital time interval was significantly lower for trauma survivors than for nonsurvivors.

Relative to pedestrian and bicyclist safety, pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Alamo Pintado Road have to cross 5 lanes of traffic (both Southbound and Northbound have 2 through lanes and a left turn lane). It is not uncommon to see cars crossing in front of and 1006
behind the pedestrians in the crosswalk. Many of us have frequently observed drivers who roll the stop (pausing but not completely stopping) or even slowing a bit on approach and then running through the stop.

It was observed that some bicyclists walk their bikes across, some ride across in the crosswalk and many make left turns from the left turn traffic lanes. All of these movements are slower than vehicular movements and slow the traffic trying to cross or turn in the intersection.

These actions can distract drivers and can cause them to not appropriately notice pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly after dark because this intersection is poorly illuminated at night due to the only teo light poles being on the south side of Alamo Pintado Road at this intersection whereas the pedestrian crosswalk is on the north.

It is true that some of these observed driver actions are not legal but that does not change the reality that drivers make these actions. Adding significantly more vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to the Alamo Pintado Road/Old Mission Drive intersection will significantly increase the safety risk to bicyclists and pedestrians.

I urge the City to continue to require the assessment of the Level of Service and pedestrian counts of this and other intersections to inform the significant impacts these projects will create to emergency response times as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety as well as inform mitigation efforts to reduce the risks.

In the meantime I am seeking volunteers to conduct traffic counts of all intersection turn and crossing motions, by vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. These counts will be conducted at multiple peak hour periods over several different weekdays.

Thank you reading and considering what I have said.

Respectfully,
Craig Kent
1901 Old Mission Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
1007
Referance material
A study performed in King County, Washington determined the survival rate to decrease by

2.1% per minute without intervention by advanced cardiac life support (ACLS).4 When urban response time was correlated with myocardial infarction survival rate in a Southwestern metropolitan county with a population of 620,000 a response time of under five minutes was found to have a beneficial impact on survival.5 Similarly, studies have shown that response time and transport time are correlated with survival rates for abdominal gunshot wound victims, and that the overall total emergency medical services (EMS) pre-hospital time interval was significantly lower for trauma survivors than for nonsurvivors.6,7

4. Larsen MP, Eisenberg MS, Cummins RO, Hallstrom AP. Predicting survival from out-ofhospital cardiac arrest: a graphic model. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1993;22:1652– 1658. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Blackwell TH, Kaufman JS. Response time effectiveness: comparison of response time and survival in an urban emergency medical services system. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2002;9:288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar

6. Fiedler MD, Jones LM, Miller SF, Finley RK. A correlation of response time and results of abdominal gunshot wounds. Archives of Surgery. 1986;121:902–904. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Feero S, Hedges JR, Simmons E, Irwin L. Does out-of-hospital EMS time affect trauma survival? . American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 1995;13:133 135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
1008
“areas in central Santa Barbara County, such as Solvang and Santa Ynez, may represent areas where ambulance response time appears to be signi�icantly more sensitive to system load than elsewhere. Ref: “A Statistical Analysis of Santa Barbara Ambulance Response in 2006: Performance Under Load”
Joshua C. Chang, MS and Frederic P. Schoenberg, ScB, PhD, 2009 The importance of rapid ambulance response to emergency medical crises has been welldocumented. Indeed, according to the American Heart Association, early access to advanced care is a crucial link in the Cardiac Chain of Survival1 . A study in Ontario, Canada concluded that in order to improve survival rates after cardiac arrest, ambulance response times must be reduced and the frequency of bystander-initiated CPR increased2 . A study performed in King County, Washington determined survival rate to decrease by 2.1% per minute without intervention by Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) 3 . Urban response time in a Southwestern metropolitan county of population 620,000 was correlated with myocardial infarction survival rate, and it was found that a response time of under 5 minutes would have a beneficial impact on survival4 . Similarly, studies have shown that response time and transport time are correlated with survival rates for abdominal gunshot wound victims, and that the overall total Emergency Medical Services (EMS) pre-hospital time interval was significantly lower for trauma survivors than for non-survivors5,6 .
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~frederic/papers/joshchang2.pdf The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) NFPA Standard 1710 establishes a 300 second or 5 minute first “response time” goal for not less than 90% of these type incidents.

NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, defines levels of service, staffing, deployment capabilities, and other critical requirements for career fire departments. 1009
1010

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 8.a
Meeting Date: July 8, 2024
SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to Approve the City of Solvang Active Transportation Plan.

PREPARED BY: Rodger A. Olds, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer DISCUSSION:

Staff is seeking review and approval of the City of Solvang Active Transportation Plan (ATP), attached to this staff report as Attachment A. The ATP has been developed to promote a connected bicycle and pedestrian network to provide safe, affordable, and accessible transportation choices within the City of Solvang and to neighboring communities.

The plan seeks to establish a vision for non-motorized transportation and inform future active transportation improvements by providing planning-level concepts, which will require further evaluation, including consideration of local, County, and California Department of Transportation standards, further study, design, and funding. The plan promotes a more sustainable and equitable community by improving safety, mobility, and access while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and supporting public health for its residents.

The primary intent of this plan is to establish the City’s priorities for Active Transportation facilities which will guide future grant applications for funding trail projects and thus greatly enhance the City’s competitiveness for local, state and federal grants that are becoming increasingly competitive. Lacking this type of initial planning level study makes it virtually impossible for a city such has Solvang to obtain Active Transportation Grant funding.

The ATP development was completed in parallel with the greater effort of the General Plan development, which takes advantage of the full public outreach effort that was undertaken as part of the General Plan update. This plan was also reviewed by staff from the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

The development of this plan begins to meet the goals of the Solvang General Plan set forth in the Mobility Element, specifically Goal MOB-2 which is “To promote safe alternatives to motorized transportation that meet the needs of all city residents.” As well as Goal MOB-4.1 by promoting “Complete Streets”.

The ATP, once approved by City Council, will serve a guidance document for the development of the City’s short and long-term Capital Improvement Plan. This will facilitate Public Works and Planning staff to condition future development projects to provide right of way for, and potentially construct these improvements, through the planning project approval process as well as funding of Active Transportation Plan projects to future mitigation fee updates.

ALTERNATIVES:

Review the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback to staff. Council may take the following actions:

1. Approve the ATP as is.

2. Approve the ATP with changes provided to staff.

3. Request staff to make changes to the plan or perform additional study and bring the ATP back for review and approval at a future Council meeting.
1011
FISCAL IMPACT:

If further study and changes to the plan are requested by Council, there will likely be additional costs to complete the ATP. The implementation of projects detailed in the ATP will have future fiscal impacts for project development and implementation.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – Solvang Active Transportation Plan
1012

CITY OF SOLVANG

ACTVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
JUNE 2024
PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF SOLVANG
1013

PREPARED FOR CITY OF SOLVANG
Rodger Olds, Public Works Director, City of Solvang
Bridget Elliott, Tetra Tech

PREPARED BY DKS ASSOCIATES
Jim Damkowitch, Project Manager
Josh Pilachowski, Deputy Project Manager
Connor Wolff, Transportation Planner
1014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN .................................................................................... 7 PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................... 7 GUIDELINES AND DESIGN STANDARDS ......................................................................... 7 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 1 0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .................................................................................... 1 0 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS ............................................................................ 1 2 GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 17 INVENTORY OF EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................. 1 7 TRANSIT ACCESS .................................................................................................. 1 7 COLLISION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 1 8 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ............................................................................................... 22 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 2 3 POINTS-OF-INTEREST NETWORK....................................................................................... 27 IDENTIFICATION OF POINTS OF INTEREST (POI ) ........................................................... 2 7 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY AND UNDUE DETOUR ANALYSIS ............................................... 2 9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 32 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................... 3 2 WALKING ............................................................................................................. 3 3 BIKING ............................................................................................................... 3 4 GENERAL TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................... 3 4 TRAFFIC .............................................................................................................. 3 5 PARKING ............................................................................................................. 3 6 DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................ 3 6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................... 36 INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 3 7 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 4 1 FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................... 47 COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................................. 4 7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................................................................... 4 8 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................... 5 1 1015

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................. 19 FIGURE 2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ............................................................. 20 FIGURE 3: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED CRASH LOCATIONS (2017 -2021) ................ 21 FIGURE 4: EXISTING CROSSINGS BY LTS SCORE ......................................................... 24 FIGURE 5: EXISTING SEGMENTS BY LTS SCORE .......................................................... 25 FIGURE 6: HIGH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS - SEGMENTS AND CROSSINGS......................... 26 FIGURE 7: EXISTING NETWORK CONNECTIVITY RESULTS ............................................... 30 FIGURE 8: EXISTING NETWORK CONNECTIVITY RESULTS WITH UNDUE DETOURS REMOVED ..... 31 FIGURE 9. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS ......................................................... 32 FIGURE 10. TRANSPORTATION COMMENT DISTRIBUTION ................................................ 33 FIGURE 11. COMMUNITY COMMENT WORLD CLOUD ....................................................... 34 FIGURE 12. TOPIC FREQUENCY FROM COMMUNITY COMMENTS ......................................... 35 FIGURE 13. PROPOSED PROJECTS TO PRIORITIZE INCREASED LOW LTS NETWORK CONNECTIVITY ..................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 14: BUILD CONDITION CROSSINGS BY LTS SCORE ............................................. 42 FIGURE 15: BUILD CONDITION SEGMENTS BY LTS SCORE .............................................. 43 FIGURE 16: BUILD CONDITION: HIGH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS NETWORK ....................... 44 FIGURE 17. BUILD CONDITION: NETWORK CONNECTIVITY .............................................. 45 FIGURE 18. BUILD CONDITION: NETWORK CONNECTIVITY (UNDUE DETOURS REMOVED) ........ 46 1016

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................... 17 TABLE 2: KEY RESIDENTIAL NODES ......................................................................... 27 TABLE 3: EXISTING AND CURRENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BICYCLE FACILITIES ..... 37 TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECTS ............................................................................... 38 TABLE 5: UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................... 47 TABLE 6: RECOMMENDED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES .................................................... 49 TABLE 7: COMPLETED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CIP .......... 50 LIST OF APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 1: SOLVANG ATP DESIGN TOOLKIT

INTRODUCTION

SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS

INTERSECTION TREATMENTS

BICYCLE FACILITY TREATMENTS
APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX 3: PLAN CONSISTENCY

POLICY FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX 4: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 5: CLASS I PATH RENDERINGS
APPENDIX 6: MULTIJURISDICTIONAL ASPIRATIONAL BIKEWAY NETWORK

OF TABLES
1017

INTRODUCTION
The City of Solvang Active Transportation
Plan (ATP) is intended to support provision
of a connected bicycle and pedestrian
network to provide safe, affordable, and
accessible transportation choices within the
City and its sphere of influence. The plan
seeks to inform future active transportation
improvements by providing planning-level
concepts, which will require further
evaluation, including consideration of local,
County, and California Department of
Transportation standards, further study,
design, and funding. By developing this
plan, the City of Solvang is promoting a
more sustainable and equitable community by improving safety, mobility, and access while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and supporting public health for its residents.

As a dual purpose, this plan demonstrates compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 99 and SB 101, which established the Active Transportation Program guidelines and scoring rubrics. This ATP incorporates a performance-based planning approach to quantify the societal benefits of the plan recommended improvements. It provides the City of Solvang a resource document to inform future funding applications to state and federal competitive grant programs for funding bicycle infrastructure improvements.

The development of this ATP began with the analysis of current conditions coupled with the gathering of input from the community to fully understand existing and future transportation needs in Solvang.

This understanding informed the creation of a list of recommended projects and programs. The Solvang ATP presents a strategic plan for implementation of these projects and programs to achieve citywide connectivity for people bicycling and walking, including safe routes to schools and equitable access for disadvantaged community members.

Specifically, the City of Solvang 2023 Active Transportation Plan accomplishes the following:
• updates the City’s existing bicycle network;
• updates the City’s bicycle facility design guidelines to reflect the latest national/regional guidance;
• determines the efficacy of the current bicycle capital improvement program and revises these recommendations based on input from the public combined with a comprehensive assessment of bicycle connectivity relative to existing and future development patterns;
• establishes a future bicycle network that connects all areas of significance in the city with facilities and routes that are more in line with most potential bicyclists’ comfort levels;
PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2023
1018
• establishes planning level cost opinions to inform bicycle capital improvement costeffectiveness for funding prioritization; and, • establishes a one-stop data source to facilitate the development of future state/federal grant funding applications for bicycle improvements by the City of Solvang.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN
The Solvang ATP is organized in the following chapters:
• Planning and Design Standards – Current design standards associated with bicycle infrastructure, state/regional/local plans related to active transportation planning, and Federal/State legislative requirements and guidelines that govern active transportation planning in California are described.
• Goals, Policies, and Programs – Bicycle and pedestrian related goals, policies and programs currently included in the City’s draft General Plan Update Mobility Element. • Existing Conditions – Current bicycle and pedestrian facilities, crash history, methodologies, and identified needs related to improving walking and bicycling in Solvang.
• Community Engagement – Documentation of recent outreach and community engagement related to walking and bicycling needs in Solvang. • Recommended Improvements – Identified projects, programs, and policies that will improve active transportation in Solvang.
• Funding and Implementation – Strategic approach to ensure that recommendations from this Plan are funded and implemented, including project prioritization and upcoming grant opportunities.

PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS

GUIDELINES AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Bikeway planning and design in California rely on the guidelines and design standards established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and supporting guides as documented in:
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012, Fourth Edition • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition, Revision 7 • Caltrans, Design Information Bulletin Number 89, Class IV Bikeway Guidance • Chapter 1000; Bicycle Transportation Design, contained in the Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition (California Department of Transportation, 2017) with supporting Chapters 200, 300, and 400.
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2015
• Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MDOT), Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2015
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014
Cities may desire to exceed the minimum standards. These guidelines cover basic concepts. The HDM Chapter 1000 contains more detailed standards and guidance and should be followed. Cities may 1019
also reference the AASHTO Guide, and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Caltrans has supported the NACTO from a memorandum dated August 20, 2013 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility. The NACTO addresses more recently developed bicycle design treatments and techniques. It provides options that can help create “complete streets” that better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Many treatments in the NACTO guide are compatible with Caltrans HDM policies and demonstrate new and innovative solutions for the varied urban settings across the country. The vast majority of treatments illustrated in the NACTO guide are either allowed or not precluded from the CA-MUTCD. In addition, non-compliant traffic control devices may be piloted through the CA-MUTCD experimentation process.

Given that they are not currently adopted by the FHWA MUTCD or CA MUTCD, a number of recommended devices currently being implemented in California are considered experimental.

Recommended devices that are currently not adopted by the MUTCD or Caltrans appear to be promising improvements in bicycle and pedestrian access and safety as they have been widely used in Europe and experimented within the US. Any jurisdiction wishing to use these treatments should follow the appropriate experimental procedures. Some of the more commonly used devices, such as colored bike lanes, have been given blanket interim approval for use in California. For these, the City only needs to notify Caltrans that it will use these. Bike boxes and colored treatments of shared lane markings are approved for experimentation by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). To conduct these experiments, the City would need to follow the guidelines set forth by the FHWA here:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm and to the California Traffic Control Device Committee following their guidelines set forth in Section 1A.10 of the CA MUTCD.

Bicycle facilities are categorized based on the four classifications recognized by Caltrans, along with three subclassifications. These include:

Class I Shared Use Paths: Dedicated paths
exclusively for walking and bicycling
completely separate from the roadway
with cross-flow minimized. Caltrans
standards call for Class I bikeways to have
a minimum of 8 feet of pavement (10 feet
preferred) with 2 food graded shoulders
on either side. These bikeways must also
be at least 5 feet from the edge of a paved
roadway. City of Solvang bicycle facilities
with a Class I classification include SR246/Mission Drive (north side) between Alamo Pintado Creek Bridge and Refugio
Road.

Trails: Paths for walking and bicycling that may be unpaved or not meet standards for Class I paths.

Class II Bicycle Lanes: Striped lanes for bicyclists. Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Caltrans’ standards require a six-inch striped lane with a 4-5-foot paved shoulder for PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2023
1020
one-way bike travel on a street or highway. A regional Class II facility within Solvang is Alamo Pintado Road from Solvang to Los Olivos (Dan Henry Bike Route).

Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes that include a striped buffer area either between the bicycle lane and the travel lane or between the bicycle lane and parked cars.

Class III Bicycle Routes: Signed routes for bicyclists where adequate paved shoulders exist for cyclists or where posted speeds are at or below 25 mph for cyclists to share the travel lane.

Provides for shared use with pedestrians and/or motor vehicle traffic within the same right-of-way and is designated with signs only indicating “Bike Route”. Class III bike routes are appropriate where restricted right-of-way would make a Class II facility infeasible.

Class III Bicycle Boulevards: Class III bicycle routes that are further enhanced with traffic calming features (e.g., 10-foot or less travel lanes, 25 mph or lower speed limits, speed humps, bulbouts) or other treatments to prioritize bicyclist comfort.

Class IV Separated Bikeways: On-street bicycle facilities with a physical barrier between the bicycle space and motor vehicle lanes, including bollards, curbs, or parking. Provides a separated bike lane, or “protected bike lane”, with a physical barrier between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. Class IV bike lanes may be one-way or two-way.

Separated bike lanes can be separated from motor vehicle traffic by raised medians, concrete curbs, landscaping, on-street parking, bollards, flexible delineator posts, or by a change in elevation between the bike lane and travel lane. No class IV bikeways currently exist in Solvang.

The following facilities or treatments were considered due to the potential for increasing bicyclist visibility, safety, and comfort along bicycle facilities:
• Buffered Bike Lanes (Without On-Street Parking): Provides additional protection and can provide comfort levels and function similarly as a Class IV facility. Providing pavement treatments and/or painted buffers at least 2-feet in width can be used to narrow travel lanes, which slows traffic, and are most appropriate on wide, busy streets, where physically separating the bike lanes with protected vertical separation is undesirable for cost, operations, or maintenance reasons. Buffered bike lanes are useful in providing additional separation between cyclists and motor vehicles where traditional Class IV facilities are not feasible, and where Class II facilities are not adequate.
• Buffered Bike Lanes (With On-Street Parking): Provides a painted divider between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane. Buffers at least 3-feet in width can be used to narrow travel lanes, which slows traffic, and are most appropriate on wide, busy streets, where physically separating the bike lanes with protected vertical separation is undesirable for cost, operations, or maintenance reasons. Double buffered bike lanes provide a painted divider on both the travel lane and the parking lane.
• Colored Bike Lanes: Provides increased visibility for cyclists through the use of green paint on the width of the bike lane. Colored bike lanes can be implemented at intersections to enhanced bicycle visibility at points of conflict with vehicles or can be used as a continuous treatment spanning the extended length of a bike lane corridor.

The following bicycles facilities were also considered due to the potential for increasing bicyclist visibility, safety, and comfort at intersections.
1021
• Bikeway Markings: Continuing marked bicycle facilities at intersections (up to the crosswalk) ensures that separation, guidance on proper positioning, and awareness by motorists are maintained through these potential conflict areas. Colored bike lanes can be implemented at intersections to enhanced bicycle visibility at points of conflict with vehicles. • Bike Pockets and Boxes: Provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.

Appendix 1 provides Design Elements Toolkit that provides examples of each of these bicycle facility types.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Active transportation planning, funding and implementation is governed by Federal/State laws. This includes compliance with the California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1358), Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Caltrans Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) as well as environmental justice and social equity initiatives to provide healthier mobility choices to disadvantaged communities. Specific to the development of this plan, adherence to SB 99 and SB 101 was followed as these bills establish the Active Transportation Program guidelines and scoring rubrics (for active transportation projects submitted for competitive grant funding). A complete listing and description of the various Federal/State laws governing active transportation planning including the many State Assembly (AB) and Senate (SB) bills and Executive Orders (EO) are provided in Appendix 2.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A key requirement of ATPs is that it must be informed through community engagement. Community participation is a vital component of this plan for obtaining input on existing bicycling facilities, potential roadways for improvement to accommodate bicycles, and the type of support facilities or programs needed to improve bicycling within the City of Solvang. The public outreach approach of this plan includes the following:
• To avoid “meeting fatigue” the ATP public engagement was integrated with the City’s comprehensive General Plan community engagement process. As part of the Circulation Element update, six public workshops were held for the General Plan update by the City of Solvang (February 2021, April 2021, January 2022, March 2022, May 2022 and July 2022). Numerous noticed public hearings for Planning Commission and City Council meetings were also performed and will continue to be performed as part of the plan’s approval process. Community participation is discussed in more detail in a following “Community Participation” section.
• Direct input from the City staff about what development is planned for the future and what will be needed to accommodate that growth.
• Public presentations and workshops to incorporate citizen and community input. • A refinement process that takes into account the following bikeway planning criteria:
o Safety – The system should provide the highest level of safety feasible. o Coverage – The system should provide balanced access from the City’s activity centers for commuting and recreation purposes.
1022
o Connectivity – The system should provide “low-stress” bikeway connections to major points of interest in and outside the city (i.e., activity centers, commercial centers, recreational activities, transit stops, regional attractions). o Use – The proposed system should reflect use levels that are commensurate with the intended level of investment.
o Standards – The system should reflect the
appropriate Class of bicycle facility
consistent with Caltrans’ design standards
(described previously).

PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2023
1023

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS
This Plan ensures consistency with the following state/regional/local planning documents:
• California Transportation Plan 2050
(2021)
• Caltrans 2020-2024 Strategic Plan (2020)
• Climate Action Plan for Transportation
Infrastructure (2021)
• Caltrans Director's Policy 37
• Caltrans District 5 ATP (2021) • SBCAG RTP & SCS: Connected 2050 (2022) • SBCAG Regional ATP (2015) • Santa Ynez Bicycle Master Plan (SBCAG, 2019)
• Santa Ynez Valley Traffic Circulation &
Safety Study (SBCAG, 2020)
• Mission Drive Corridor Study (2014)
• City of Solvang Local Roadway Safety Plan
(2021)
• City of Solvang General Plan – Circulation
Element
• City of Solvang Sidewalk Master Plan
(2016)
A complete list and description of relevant planning documents is provided in Appendix 3.

GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
For the City’s General Plan Update, the City of Solvang formed the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC’s role is to guide and facilitate development of the plan and serve as a sounding board for the discussion of issues and opportunities affecting the community. As part of the update process, the GPAC adopted Guiding Principles for elements of the update. For mobility and access, the adopted guiding principal is as follows:
“Safe and accessible streets, multi-purpose trails, and sustainable multimodal transportation options conveniently connect people and places throughout town and to surrounding destinations in the broader Santa Ynez Valley while reducing the impacts of traffic on the community.” PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2021
1024
The following select Goals, Policies and Programs apply to provision of active transportation are currently included in the draft Mobility Element.

Goal MOBILITY-2:

Promote safe alternatives to motorized transportation that meets the needs of all city residents. (Source: Existing General Plan, Goal 3)
Policies
MOB-2.1 Support Local and Regional Bicycle Planning. The City shall coordinate with SBCAG and participating local jurisdictions to update the Santa Ynez Bicycle Master Bikeway Plan every 5 years to maintain an adequate system for the safe and efficient movement of cyclists.

MOB-2.2 Improve Bicycle Access. The City shall adopt a master plan of bikeways on public property and shall develop trails as needed and feasible. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.1.A) MOB-2.3 Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes. The City shall incorporate bicycle routes or trails into the design of new or expanded roadways when feasible. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.1.B) MOB-2.4 Bicycle Network Maintenance. The City shall allocate resources to maintain a safe bikeway system by ensuring pavement is of good quality, mode separation is implemented where feasible, and signs and markings are maintained. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.1.C) MOB-2.5 Bicycle Route Prioritization. The City may consider removal of on-street parking to facilitate bikeways as increased bike use decreases the need for parking. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.1.D)
MOB-2.6 Pedestrian Infrastructure. The City shall provide a system of sidewalks or pathways that provides a safe environment for pedestrians. (Source: Existing General Plan, Policy 3.2) MOB-2.7 New Development Pedestrian Infrastructure Provision. The City shall require the provision of adequate pedestrian access for new development projects through its Standards and its site plan review process. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.2.A) MOB-2.8 New Development Wheelchair Access. The City shall require the installation of wheelchair ramps on all new sidewalks. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.2.B) MOB-2.9 Wheelchair Access Expansion. The City shall encourage the installation of sidewalks and wheelchair ramps in existing neighborhoods, where appropriate. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.2.C)
MOB-2.10 Pedestrian Network Improvement. The City shall support the installation of improved pedestrian paths and connections throughout the community. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 3.2.D) 1025
Goal MOBILITY-3
To provide an adequate supply of public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the city. (Source:

Existing General Plan, Goal 4)
MOB-3.7 Accommodate Increased Bicycle Use. The City may consider removal of on-street parking to facilitate bikeways as increased bike use decreases the need for parking. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 4.2.A)
MOB-3.9 Creation of Micro-Mobility Infrastructure. The City shall encourage the use of alternative transportation modes by providing adequate parking for small vehicles such as zero emission vehicles, scooters, “segways” and bicycles. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 4.3.A, modified) Goal MOBILITY-4
Provide a safe network of streets that reduced automobile dependence without sacrificing mobility by providing context-sensitive streets that feel safe for all users (Source: TBD) MOB-4.1 Complete Streets. The City shall create context-sensitive guidelines to facilitate the installation of non-automobile serving infrastructure along its streets.

MOB-4.2 Street Inclusion Assessment. The City shall examine streets to be closed to vehicular traffic or otherwise modified to improve the network of routes available to other modes.

MOB-4.3 Safe Streets. The City shall pursue and enact traffic calming measures as appropriate to meet the policy objectives, as conditions warrant. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 1.2.E) MOB-4.4 Safe Systems Approach. The City shall regularly assess its outreach programs, roadway design guidelines, and accessibility of nearby medical facilities to facilitate the Safe Road Users, Safe Roads, Post-Crash Care sections of the Safe System Approach. (Source: New Policy) MOB-4.5 Safe Vehicles. The City shall support regional efforts to examine the safety of new vehicle technologies to reduce the rate of collisions and fatalities within Solvang. (Source: New Policy) MOB-4.6 Safe Speeds. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans and neighborhood stakeholders to revise speed limits on roadways serving residential and commercial areas pursuant to AB 43. (Source:

New Policy)
MOB-4.7 Pedestrian Only Streets. The City shall reserve the right to close or restrict streets to automobile traffic and allow access only to non-auto modes. (Source: New Policy) MOB-4.8 Curbside Management. The City shall assess access to high-use curb space to facilitate curbside pick-up and drop-off for transportation network and delivery companies without unduly limiting clear path and access for pedestrians and bicycles.

MOB-4.9 Non-prioritization of Scooters. The City shall not support the implementation of scooters unless community concerns, including those about sidewalk obstruction and vandalism, are addressed. 1026
Goal MOBILITY-5
To reduce traffic congestion and vehicle trips through more efficient infrastructure and support for trip reduction programs. (Source: Existing General Plan, Goal 5.3)
MOB-5.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Management. The City shall work with SBCAG and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution District to identify trip and VMT reduction opportunities. (Source:

Existing General Plan, Action 5.2.C)
MOB-5.2 Promotion of Automobile Alternatives. The City shall work with employers and developers to provide employees and residents with attractive, affordable transportation alternatives. (Source:

Existing General Plan, Action 5.3.A)
MOB-5.3 TDM. The City shall encourage employers to promote carpooling, public transportation, active transportation, and allow telecommuting. (Source: Existing General Plan, Action 5.1.C) Programs
Mobility Element Programs
Implements
Which
Mobility
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting Department(s)
A Capital Improvements and Network
Management.

The City shall establish and maintain through
regular updates a prioritized capital improvement
program (CIP) that prioritizes projects that
improve safety, maintain network efficiency and
quality of life, minimize the impact of the
transportation network on the natural
environment, and facilitates alternatives to
Mission Drive. As part of regular reviews of the
existing network under this program, the futurereadiness of the transportation system will be addressed.
(Source: Existing General Plan, Policy 1.3 & 1.3A)
MOB-1.1
MOB-1.2
MOB-1.3
MOB-1.5
MOB-1.6
MOB-1.7
MOB-1.8
MOB-1.9
MOB-1.0
MOB-1.11
MOB-1.12
MOB-1.13
MOB-1.14
MOB-1.15
MOB-1.16
MOB-1.20
Planning
Public Works
1027
B Local and Regional Active Transportation
Network
The City of Solvang shall work to improve bicycle
connectivity and access, pursuant to City goals
and the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan.

This bicycle network will, in conjunction with safe
and complete sidewalk networks, allow accessible
mobility throughout Solvang.
(Source: New Program)
MOB-2.1
MOB-2.2
MOB-2.3
MOB-2.4
MOB-2.5
MOB-2.6
MOB-2.7
MOB-2.8
MOB-2.9
MOB-2.10
MOB-3.7
Public Works
D Complete Streets.

The City shall create guidelines to assist with the
improvement of the non-automobile
transportation network that integrates the FHWA
Safe System Approach. Possible solutions can
range from traffic calming to closing streets to
automotive traffic.
(Source: New Program)
MOB-4 Planning
Public Works
I Transit Provision and Travel
Demand/System Management
The City shall provide alternatives to automobile
use, including public transportation, that offer
equitable access to mobility and access, while
supporting infrastructure to reduce VMT and
increase system efficiency, such as broadband to
support working from home and traveller
information systems.

MOB-5
MOB-6 Planning
1028

EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter summarizes the existing conditions related to active transportation in the City of Solvang, including an inventory of existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, collision history, a level of traffic stress analysis of existing bicycle facilities, and an origins-destinations analysis to identify existing gaps in the active transportation network.

INVENTORY OF EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
An infrastructure inventory was conducted of bicycle facilities, shared use paths and trails, curb ramps, and crosswalks within the City of Solvang. Facilities data was obtained from City staff and online resources. The facilities presented in this data were verified using Google Earth aerial imagery.

Verification of all bicycle facilities and marked crosswalks in the city was performed. Existing bicycle facilities are summarized by type in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. Existing pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks) are shown in Figure 2.

TABLE 1: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES

BIKEWAY CLASS EXISTING MILES
CLASS I SHARED USE PATHS 1.64
TRAILS Not inventoried
CLASS II BICYCLE LANES 5.8
CLASS II BUFFERED BIKE LANES 0
CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTES 1.7
CLASS III BICYCLE BOULEVARDS 0
CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAYS 0
TOTAL 9.14
Source: City of Solvang, DKS Associates 2023
There are currently 9.14 centerline miles of bike paths in Solvang. Excluding Class I shared use paths, which are typically separate from roadways, there are a total of 7.5 miles of on-street bicycle facilities in Solvang.

TRANSIT ACCESS
Local transit service in Solvang is provided by Santa Ynez Valley Transit, with Fixed-Route services that transport riders to, from, and around Solvang, Buellton, Santa Ynez, and Los Olivos. Dial-A-Ride service for seniors (60+ years) and ADA-certified patrons (regardless of age) is also offered within ¾ of a mile of fixed routes. Solvang is served by two routes: the Express Route, which provides buses every 30 minutes and connects to Buellton and Santa Ynez, and the Los Olivos Loop, which provides buses every 60 minutes and connects to Santa Ynez and Los Olivos. 1029
Regional services such as the COLT Wine Country Express (a cooperative service provided by the Cities of Lompoc,
Buellton, and Solvang, as well as Santa Barbara County), the Santa Maria Regional Transit and Santa Ynez Valley Transit (SYVT) all stop at the Solvang Park Transit Center.

There are 16 transit stops across both routes within the City of Solvang, most stops are located along Mission Drive (SR 246), with three stops serving the Los Olivos Loop located along Alamo Pintado Road. Many bicyclists and pedestrians use transit for a portion of their trip, making access to transit stops and stations vital to a safe and connected active transportation network.

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Collision data was pulled from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The crash data analyzed for this project included all crashes recorded in SWITRS and/or TIMS during the five-year period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. During this five-year period, 11 pedestrian and one bicycle injury crashes were reported1.

COLLISION SEVERITY
Of the total pedestrian collisions reported, 18 percent resulted in severe injuries and 82 percent resulted in non-severe injuries. There were no pedestrian-involved fatal collisions reported. The one bicycle collision reported did not result in severe injuries.

LOCATION
Pedestrian and bicycle related collisions are shown in Figure 3. As shown, all but two of the crashes involving pedestrians or bicycles occurred on Mission Boulevard (SR 246) between 4th Place and Alisal Road and 75% of the crashes occurred at intersections. Among all the crashes, 82% of the pedestrian-involved crashes were attributed to a driver failing to yield when the pedestrian had the right of way, with the remaining two crashes resulting from an improper turning and a DUI. Based on this data, treatments that improve pedestrian visibility within crosswalks and increase driver yielding may be recommended. The single bicycle crash had no primary factor identified. 1 Bicycle and pedestrian collisions are likely under-reported due to a misconception that they are not “real” collisions, minimal injuries or damage, lack of insurance involvement, or concerns about interacting with law enforcement. Data in this section is based on reported collisions; the actual number of collisions is likely higher.

PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2023
1030
FIGURE 1: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
1031
FIGURE 2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
1032
FIGURE 3: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED CRASH LOCATIONS (2017-2021) 1033

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Based on the methodologies described in the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Report 11-19 Lowstress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012), Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) quantifies the stress level of a given roadway segment by considering a variety of criteria. These criteria include street width (number of lanes), speed limit or prevailing speed, presence and width of bike lanes, and the presence and width of parking lanes. Mineta suggests using street width as a surrogate for traffic volume when volume data is not available for the study area. In Solvang, potential traffic volume data was incorporated into LTS scoring using the number of vehicle lanes on each road segment analyzed as an accepted proxy.

LTS is designated with a score of 1 through 4, with 1 providing the most comfort and 4 providing the least comfort. Generally, an LTS score of 1 indicates that the roadway provides a stress level tolerable by small children, and an LTS score of 4 indicates a stress level tolerable only to strong and fearless bicyclists.

For purposes of this analysis, LTS scores of 1-2 denote a low-stress experience while LTS scores of 3-4 denote a high-stress experience. As such, it is desirable to achieve connectivity of the low-stress network among all points of interest within the city. By maximizing connectivity of the low-stress network, a greater proportion of the population who are willing and open to biking (estimated to be approximately 60% of people) may consider using a bike for a given trip rather than driving.

The Bicycle LTS methodology is broken into three categories: segments (bike paths, lanes, or routes), intersection approaches (turn lanes), and intersection crossings (unsignalized intersections). Criteria are applied separately for each category using the “worst case principle,” meaning the worst (or highest) score among the criteria considered governs the overall LTS score for that facility. 1034
Depending on the community context and the detail level desired, the overall methodology may be simplified based on the general consistency of facility types, as certain elements (e.g., turn lanes, bike lanes, speed limits, etc.) may not exist in a particular community. If there are no turn lanes on an approach, then this portion of the methodology is skipped. Signalized intersections do not receive an LTS score. Signalized crossings usually do not create a barrier, as the signal provides a protected crossing, and are therefore not considered in the methodology.

The Mineta Transportation Institute’s LTS methodology is described in greater detail in Appendix 4.

RESULTS
The existing roadway network in the City of Solvang consists of 25.34 centerline miles of local roadway infrastructure, and approximately 2.15 centerline miles of state-owned facilities that traverse the city (i.e., SR 246). Of the city’s existing roadway network, 21% provides Class II bike lanes (5.8/27.49). There is a 1.64 centerline miles of Class I bike path that is owned and maintained by Santa Barbara County. This path is within the City's sphere of influence but outside the city limits.

These facilities provide alternatives paths of travel for cyclists and pedestrians throughout the city.

The City of Solvang’s existing roadway network level of traffic stress is presented for crossings and segments in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. Stress level is coded by color: blue being lowstress (LTS 1‐2) and red denoting high-stress (LTS 3‐4). There is a large proportion of low-stress facilities within the city given that the majority of the city’s road‐miles are residential streets with speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less. While these streets generally do not have bicycle facilities, they are considered low-stress routes due to the low vehicular speed and low volumes.

Figure 6 isolates just those segments and crossings that based on the Mineta methodology are considered high-stress facilities for bicyclists (LTS 3-4). These facilities act as barriers to low-stress bicycle connectivity within the city. Note that for a bicyclist to have a low-stress experience, he or she must not traverse a high-stress segment or crossing for any portion of the route. In other words, for any two locations to be considered connected via the low-stress network no portion of the route between the two can traverse a high-stress segment or crossing. If it does, it is considered a highstress route and not viable for a majority of people who would consider riding a bike. The low-stress network identified in the LTS analysis of existing infrastructure was used in the connectivity analysis described in the following section.
1035
FIGURE 4: EXISTING CROSSINGS BY LTS SCORE
1036
FIGURE 5: EXISTING SEGMENTS BY LTS SCORE
1037
FIGURE 6: HIGH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS - SEGMENTS AND CROSSINGS 1038

POINTS-OF-INTEREST NETWORK
To identify origins and destinations that are likely to generate bicycle and pedestrian trips, a network analysis was performed. The analysis included identifying key residential and non-residential points of interest within the community.

IDENTIFICATION OF POINTS OF INTEREST (POI)
A point of interest (POI) is a point representing the geographic center of a polygon shape or cluster of points of interest. POIs were classified as residential or non-residential and then used to analyze the level of connectivity between points of interest within the city.

RESIDENTIAL KEY NODES
Land use data from SBCAG’s Travel Demand Model was used as the basis for identifying residential POIs to complete the network. All model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are represented by a centroid or node. The geospatial location of the centroid within each TAZ is influenced by the actual distribution of development within the zone. TAZs that contain no residential units were removed from consideration. TAZs that include residential units (single-family dwelling units, apartment units, condominiums) are shown in Table 2. For reference, a prominent residential development located within a given model TAZ is listed but should not be construed as the only residential development within the TAZ.

TABLE 2: KEY RESIDENTIAL NODES

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SBCAG TAZ
RANCHO SANTA YNEZ ESTATES 101001

VILLAGE COLLECTION RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
103101
SKYTT MESA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 100702

WINDMILL LN/OLD MILL RD RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
101203, 100801
3RD STREET/WILLOW DR RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
103102
NYBORG ESTATES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 101002
ALISAL GLEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 103102
VIKING HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 100701
MISSION OAKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 101204
1039

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SBCAG TAZ
ALISAL HEIGHTS / ALISAL RD RESIDENTIAL 100903, 101204
NYBORG ESTATES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 101205, 101202
CREEKSIDE PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 101201

ALISAL RANCH ESTATES RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
103103
5TH STREET RESIDENTIAL, OAK PARK

APARTMENTS
100805, 101003, 100803
Source: DKS Associates, 2023

NON-RESIDENTIAL POINTS OF INTEREST (POI)
Non-residential POIs were selected based on a review of land use and key locations in Solvang. Given the spatial clustering of similar POIs, some points were aggregated to reduce the number of nodes to a more manageable
number without losing information. Non-residential POIs incorporated in this analysis include:
• Transit Stops
• Schools
• Parks
• Trail Access Points
• Health-related Facilities
• Shopping Destinations
• Hotels
• Grocery Stores
• Community/Recreation Centers
• Places of Worship
• Sports Facilities
• Municipal Facilities (such as government
buildings serving as job centers)
• City Hall
• Libraries
• Police Stations
• Fire Stations
PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2021
1040

NETWORK CONNECTIVITY AND UNDUE DETOUR ANALYSIS
To estimate the effect that the presence of moderate to high-stress routes have on bicycle connectivity, network connectivity analysis was conducted to calculate the shortest bicycle trip distance between the identified POIs.

Measuring bicycle trip length is critical to determining network connectivity for the following reasons:
• While POIs may be physically connected by the network, barriers and gaps within the network can substantially increase bicycle trip distances, resulting in significant detour. • Based on research by the Mineta Institute, circuitous routing of greater than 25% of the baseline distance is considered “undue detour”.
• Additionally, barriers and gaps can completely separate POIs from the surrounding network, making it difficult and unsafe to travel by bicycle.

Initial network analysis was conducted using the full roadway and bicycle network (LTS‐1 – LTS‐4).

The resulting bicycle trip distances between these locations provided the baseline for the City of Solvang’s bicycle connectivity (in terms of trip lengths between POIs) assuming the full existing roadway and bicycle network, regardless of level of traffic stress. This represents the ideal condition for the City of Solvang in which the entire roadway network is considered low-stress. Subsequent network analysis was conducted to calculate the shortest path between these locations using only the low-stress roadway network (LTS‐1 – LTS‐2). In effect, all moderate to high-stress routes were considered barriers to bicycle travel and not considered as viable bicycle routes for a large percentage of the population.

Figure 7 provides a visual of the degree of low-stress connectivity within the city. POI pairs that are connected via the low-stress network are shown with a blue connector (as the crow flies). These connections are performed for all POI pairs. The resulting pattern delineates areas that are well connected via the low-stress network and areas that are isolated (i.e., cut off by the high-stress facilities). As shown, total connectivity via the low-stress network is 36 percent. Hence, the presence of high-stress routes results in an approximately 64% reduction in overall connectivity between POIs (i.e., approximately 64% of trips between POIs are no longer possible unless high-stress routes are utilized).

Given that bicycle travel using only the low-stress network results in an average increase in bicycle trip lengths of approximately 60% (i.e., bicycle trip distances between POIs increase by almost two times from baseline conditions), consideration of “undue detour” on the viability of some low-stress connections is warranted. Based on the Mineta methodology, detours resulting in a baseline trip increase of 25% or more in length (i.e., shortest distance between POIs) are considered “undue detour”. This represents trips not likely taken by bike if avoiding high-stress routes results in a trip length 25% greater than the most direct and shortest route. Figure 8 visually shows connections between POIs after removing those connections associated with “undue detour”. As shown, this reduces the overall connectivity from 36% to 19%. Due to the scale of the study area undue detours should not be generally viewed as a significant barrier for many bicycle trips within the city. The longest trip contained in the routing analysis for the final proposed network is 3.5 miles which would take a person riding 15-20 minutes to traverse depending on the terrain. 1041
FIGURE 7: EXISTING NETWORK CONNECTIVITY RESULTS
1042
FIGURE 8: EXISTING NETWORK CONNECTIVITY RESULTS WITH UNDUE DETOURS REMOVED 1043

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The lived experiences of the residents of Solvang are critical to understanding transportation issues, needs, and opportunities in the town. There is a level of intimacy developed through interacting with a place one lives that cannot be captured through quantitative data. The community outreach consisted of stakeholder interviews, workshops, and online engagement. This section presents a summary of the transportation related feedback gathered from these activities.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
The main interests of residents in relation to active transportation were the bike-ability and walkability of the town. There were 31 comments that addressed walking or pedestrian infrastructure and 11 comments mentioned biking (Figure 9) consisting of 16.9% of the total comments (Figure 10).

FIGURE 9. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
“I love Solvang because… Of its vibrant, quaint downtown, walkability, access to excellent cycling possibilities and the diversity of groups that seem to want to visit that make it a cool place to hang out.”
1044
FIGURE 10. TRANSPORTATION COMMENT DISTRIBUTION

WALKING
Residents enjoyed the closure of streets such as Copenhagen Drive in the commercial area of Solvang, but were concerned with how business access, parking, traffic, and tourism would be affected. Of the 20 times the closure of Copenhagen Drive was mentioned three comments advocated for conversion back to vehicle right of way while the rest welcomed continued pedestrian space. “Keep Copenhagen car free please!”
The connectivity of the pedestrian network was brought up in several comments citing a desire to make Solvang more pedestrian accessible and build sidewalks where they are currently missing. “It is not easy to walk from some areas due to missing sidewalks or sidewalks not being well maintained.”
Overall, the outreach feedback indicated a desire to make Solvang a more walkable and pedestrian friendly community.
1045
BIKING
Residents of Solvang voiced a desire to enhance the bike-ability of Solvang through improvements to the current bike network. The two main actions addressed in the comments are to add more bike lanes and enhance the safety of current infrastructure. “There is a need to enhance bike lanes in the community.” Current hindrances to biking in the town include unsafe traffic levels and the connectivity of the existing network.

GENERAL TRANSPORTATION
Much of the feedback gathered focused on the parking and traffic effects from continued development of Solvang through programmatic and land use changes. Residents expressed concern and interest in how their mobility has been and will be affected by commercial developments, increased active transportation, changing right of way, and higher residential density. These themes are reflected in the most prominent words from the outreach comments which are summarized in the world cloud below (Figure 11).

FIGURE 11. COMMUNITY COMMENT WORLD CLOUD
Through analysis of the other transportation comments three major topics emerged: parking, traffic, development and infrastructure (Figure 12).
1046
FIGURE 12. TOPIC FREQUENCY FROM COMMUNITY COMMENTS

TRAFFIC
Traffic had the highest frequency of mentions within the outreach comments with 93 instances of the word. Most of the comments related to traffic on Mission Drive (State Route 246) and circulation of traffic volume within the town with some addressing effects on traffic from increasing focus on active transportation. Residents expressed concern over the volume of traffic along Mission Drive citing safety issues and congestion. Traffic
leaving Mission Drive to avoid
congestion and access amenities have
caused issues in other parts of
Solvang. In particular, the intersection
at Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado
Road was mentioned 19 times and is a
safety concern due to the confluence
of truck and vehicle traffic accessing
the shopping center and other
commercial businesses. The traffic
volumes are a concern for both
pedestrian and bike traffic traveling
through the corridor. A traffic
mitigation plan that considers the
quiet residential nature of Solvang PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2023 1047
was highlighted over concerns of the Fjord Drive Extension improvement concept was mentioned several times. Regarding active transportation, the closure of streets such as Copenhagen Drive was both praised and criticized. In response, the City commissioned an independent standalone community outreach effort to gauge the level of interest in a permanent downtown street closure including several alternatives and the potential implications on traffic circulation and loss of on-street parking. Ultimately, the City chose not to include this concept as part of its General Plan update.

Nonetheless, residents appreciated increasing the walkability of Solvang and expanded pedestrian right of way but were concerned with how changes could negatively affect traffic in the town.

PARKING
Parking was highlighted 50 times throughout the comments and focused on the current constraints in the commercial areas and how they related to mobility and overflow into residential zones. Many of the comments on parking were divided. The closure of Copenhagen Drive to cars received mixed reviews with some residents advocating for its continued closure and others requesting vehicle right of way for parking. The increased walkability and freedom from traffic noise and pollution was a highlight for many. However, there is concern that parking around the commercial areas along Mission Drive is inadequate and that businesses could be negatively affected. Some residents requested more free parking in the area and others advocated for less parking and metering. The overflow of tourist parking into residential areas was cited as an issue making it difficult for residents to navigate the town during peak times.

DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Development and infrastructure were often mentioned together as many residents expressed concern over residential density, parking minimums, commercial development, and induced demand. There were concerns over the suitability of the current transportation infrastructure in handling increased traffic from planned residential development. Some residents saw the current transit and active transportation network as inadequate to serve new buildings with parking minimums that are less than 1 car per unit. Further, there was uncertainty on whether the current circulation network could handle more commercial development and the associated truck and vehicle volumes. Throughout the comments related to this theme residents expressed a desire to maintain a balance between Solvang’s bucolic small-town character and increasing tourism to the area. Creating a more walkable and bikeable town was seen as one way to do this as increasing vehicle traffic volumes have been mentioned as a barrier to walking and biking in the town.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Built on the needs and opportunities identified through the technical analysis and community engagement, as well as bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified through previous planning efforts, this chapter presents recommended infrastructure improvements and programmatic efforts to improve active transportation in Solvang. The network, crossing, and other improvements are intended to provide Solvang residents with convenient, safe, and healthy transportation choices. All recommendations have been developed within the framework of a planning-level analysis and will 1048
require further analysis prior to implementation. Typically, the process to advance recommendations such as those in this Plan would include an engineering study to understand any relevant site-specific issues and develop a design in compliance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and local design standards (if applicable), public review if required by local process, and securing funding.

INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended improvements are summarized in this section. The term “project” is used to represent a recommendation or set of recommendations that could be pursued for future development by the City and any applicable partners, including development of any required studies, designs, securing funding, and other steps required by the agency prior to implementation. Network projects are described separately for bicyclists and pedestrians, with the exception of Class I shared use paths which are included for both users. Crossing improvements for people bicycling and walking are mapped in combination with network improvements. Some crossing improvements address both bicycle and pedestrian needs and are included in both sections. Others address only one mode of transportation and are only included in the appropriate section.

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
As described previously, bicycle network projects are categorized based on the four classifications recognized by Caltrans and described in the Highway Design Manual, along with three subclassifications. A summation of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian centerline miles is provided in Table 3. The recommended improvements are provided in Table 4 and mapped in Figure 13. Sources of the recommended improvements include the City’s current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list of bicycle facility improvements, additional projects identified by the City from previously completed local and regional studies, and lastly, improvements identified to improve low-stress connectivity.

TABLE 3: EXISTING AND CURRENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BICYCLE FACILITIES

BIKEWAY CLASS

EXISTING

CENTERLINE
MILES

CITY CIP

PROJECTS
TOTAL
EXISTING +

PROPOSED

CENTERLINE
MILES

CENTERLINE
MILES
CLASS I SHARED USE PATHS 1.641 6.99 8.63
CLASS II BICYCLE LANES 3.19 2.03 4.53
CLASS II BUFFERED BIKE LANES 0 0 0
CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTES 1.7 0 1.7
CLASS III BICYCLE BOULEVARDS 0 0 0
CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAYS 0 0 0

TRAILS - - -
TOTAL 6.54 9.02 14.86
1 This path is in the City's sphere of influence, but outside the City limits. The path is maintained by the County. 1049
TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECTS

PROPOSED PROJECTS DESCRIPTION
ALISAL RD. CLASS II BIKE LANES Painted bike lanes from Mission Dr. to Fjord Dr.

HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN (HCA) PARK

CLASS I PATH
Formalized path connecting Skytt Mesa Dr. to Chalkhill Rd. via HCA Park
MISSION DR. CLASS II BIKE LANES &

PARKING MANAGEMENT
Class II bike lanes from Nykobing to Pine St. Removal of parking along Mission Dr.

ALAMO PINTADO RD. CLASS II BIKE LANES
Class II bike lanes North of Alamo Pintado Rd. to Old
Mission Dr. (Coyote Creek Rd. to Viborg Rd, Mission Dr. to Old Mission Dr., and Windmill Ln. to Mission Dr.)
FREDENSBORG CYN RD CLASS II BIKE LANE Class II Bike Lane from Chalk Hill Rd. to Viborg Rd.

S/E SOLVANG CLASS I PATH Class I Path from Mission Dr. to Alamo Pintado Rd via Old Mill Rd. and Windmill Ln.

ALAMO PINTADO BIKE/PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE
Multi-Use Facility where Mission Dr. crosses Alamo Pintado Creek
COYOTE CREEK RD. CLASS I PATH Class I Path connecting Alamo Pintado Rd. to existing Santa Barbara County Class I Path north of SR 246.

CHALK HILL RD. SPEED REDUCTION Reduction of speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph from Eucalyptus Dr to Solvang Mesa Dr.

CHALK HILL RD. CLASS II BIKE LANES 6 ft. wide Class II Bike Lanes from Eucalyptus Dr to Solvang Mesa Dr.

CHALK HILL RD. VEHICLE LANE REDUCTION Reduce vehicle through lane widths to 11 ft. to accommodate 6 ft. wide bike lanes both directions.

ALAMO PINTADO RD. SPEED REDUCTION Reduction of the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph from Viborg Rd. to Coyote Creek Rd.

ALISAL RD. SPEED REDUCTION Reduction of the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph from Valhalla Dr. to Fjord Dr.

ALISAL RD. SIGNALIZED CROSSING Installation of a beacon crossing at Fjord Dr. and Alisal Rd.

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH ON VIBORG RD.

Class I Path starting on Viborg Rd. & Alamo Pintado Rd. to Fredensborg Canyon Rd. to complete the Multi-Use loop
around the City and make it consistent with the potential “River Trail”.

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH ON FJORD RD.

Class I Path starting on West end of Fjord Rd. to Alisal Rd. to complete the Multi-Use loop around the City and make it consistent with the potential “River Trail”.
1050

PROPOSED PROJECTS DESCRIPTION
CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH ON ALISAL RD.

Class I Path starting on Fjord Rd. & Alisal Rd. to Alisa Mesa Rd. tp complete the Multi-Use loop around the City and
make it consistent with the potential “River Trail”.

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH ON ALAMO
PINTADO RD.

Class I Path starting on Alamo Pintado Rd & Mission Dr. to Viborg Rd. to complete the Multi-Use loop around the City and make it consistent with the potential “River Trail”.

CLASS I PATH CONNECTION TO HCA CLASS
I PATH
Creation of a Class I Path connecting Pistache Ave to the proposed to Hans Christian Andersen Class I Path
ALISAL MESA RD. TO OLD MILL RD CLASS I
PATH
Class I Path loop connecting Alisal Mesa Rd. to Alamo
Pintado Dr.

MISSION BLVD TO FJORD DR CLASS I PATH Class I Path connecting SR 246 to Fjord Dr at Skytt Mesa Dr. south of Mission Blvd.
1051
FIGURE 13. PROPOSED PROJECTS TO PRIORITIZE INCREASED LOW LTS NETWORK CONNECTIVITY 1052

LOW-STRESS CONNECTIVITY RESULTS
The resulting roadway network level of traffic stress is presented for crossings and segments in Figure 14 and Figure 15 respectively. As shown in Figure 16, implementation of the recommended improvements will significantly reduce the amount of high-stress network in the City of Solvang relative to the existing condition. Although high-stress facilities will remain, the proposed improvements would connect 84.9% of the POIs (Figure 17). Adjusting for “undue detours” the POI percent connected remains high at 74% (Figure 18). These results represent a significant improvement in low-stress connectivity relative to existing conditions. As shown prior, the existing network resulted in a POI percent connected of 36% and just 19% connected when adjusting for “undue detour”. The proposed network allows nearly every identified POI in Solvang to the lowstress network to comfortably access residential and non-residential POIs.

PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS
This section describes recommended bicycle and pedestrian related programs for the City of Solvang.

The recommendations are organized in three Es:
• Education programs are designed to improve safety and awareness. They can include programs that teach students how to safely cross the street, drivers where to anticipate bicyclists, and how to share the road safely.
• Encouragement programs provide incentives and support to help people leave their car at home and try walking or bicycling instead.
• Evaluation programs are an important component of any investment. They help measure success of the implementation of the recommendations in the Solvang ATP and identify any adjustments that may be necessary.

The final “E” commonly included in discussions of active transportation is Engineering, which is reflected by the infrastructure recommendations listed in this chapter.

The City’s upcoming General Plan update includes goals and objectives that support active transportation and complete streets, as well as land use policies, development regulations, and design guidelines that promote walkable and accessible neighborhoods. Given limited staff time and resources available, programs should be implemented or continued as funding and resources allow.

Partnering with local organizations and other agencies is a key strategy for maintaining sustainable program activities.

EVALUATION
An annual report card assesses the City’s progress toward implementation of the projects and programs in the Solvang ATP and success in increasing active transportation trips in the community.

Annual report cards can also incorporate a review of effectiveness to evaluate costs and benefits of various efforts and adjust investments to maximize results. It is recommended that the City develop an annual report card that tracks progress toward implementing the Solvang ATP and incorporates annual collision data, Safe Routes to School Program participation, and other relevant information to highlight successes and challenges each year. Specific performance measures identified by the City and community should be included in the card on an annual basis to track key metrics over time to better understand successes and shortcomings.
1053
FIGURE 14: BUILD CONDITION CROSSINGS BY LTS SCORE
1054
FIGURE 15: BUILD CONDITION SEGMENTS BY LTS SCORE
1055
FIGURE 16: BUILD CONDITION: HIGH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS NETWORK 1056
FIGURE 17. BUILD CONDITION: NETWORK CONNECTIVITY
1057
FIGURE 18. BUILD CONDITION: NETWORK CONNECTIVITY (UNDUE DETOURS REMOVED) 1058

FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION

COST ESTIMATES

UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Table 5 presents planning level unit cost assumptions used to develop project construction cost estimates. For linear projects, the unit cost method uses a single functional unit (mile or linear foot) that serves as a multiplier. The appropriate unit cost is multiplied by the length of the improvement to develop a planning-level project cost estimate.

Cost estimates were developed based on recent local project costs. Estimates include assumed costs for mobilization, traffic control, earthwork, utility coordination, and grading. In addition, estimates include 30 percent soft costs including engineering design, administration, and construction management, as well as a 20 percent contingency. Cost estimates in this plan are in 2022 dollars which do not include cost escalation and have been rounded to the nearest $100.

At the planning level, cost assumptions do not consider project-specific or location-specific factors that may affect actual costs, including acquisition of right-of-way or road widening. For some projects, actual costs may differ significantly from the planning-level estimates. Signal timing/phase adjustments are assumed to be staff time only. If additional infrastructure or equipment is needed, that would be an additional cost.

TABLE 5: UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS

IMPROVEMENT UNIT ESTIMATED

UNIT COST NOTES
CLASS I SHARED USE PATH MI $1,000,000 Assumes 12’ wide path and minor grading CLASS II BICYCLE LANES MI $75,000 Both sides of street
CLASS II BUFFERED BICYCLE LANES MI $175,000 Both sides of street CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTE MI $10,000
CLASS III BICYCLE BOULEVARD MI $75,000 Assumes speed tables, sharrows and curb extensions
CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAY MI $750,000 One- or two-way facility with small curb separation
SIDEWALK LF $130 Assumes 6’ wide sidewalk with curb and gutter
TRANSVERSE MARKED CROSSWALK EA $450 White or yellow
HIGH VISIBILITY MARKED CROSSWALK EA $1,800 White or yellow ADVANCED STOP OR YIELD LINE EA $750 Includes sign and pavement marking CURB STRIPING LF $7.50 Red curb
CURB RAMP EA $7,500 ADA Compliant
CURB EXTENSION EA $4,500 Includes two
PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND EA $3,000 Assume two 6’ by 4’ islands 1059

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This section presents a phased implementation approach for infrastructure projects recommended in the Solvang ATP. Improvements are divided into a short-term list of grant-ready projects to be prioritized, and a longer-term list to be implemented as opportunities arise or once the short-term list is completed. The total dollar cost of the recommended improvements amounts to approximately $8.5 million. For the recommendations provided in the following pages, further study will be required to advance the improvements from the planning concepts presented to implementable projects.

Study required may include engineering study, traffic volume analysis, and study required by City standards as well as Caltrans standards for Caltrans roadways.

PARTNERSHIPS
Some recommended improvements described below involve right-of-way maintained by entities other than the City of Solvang. For example, SR 246 (Mission Drive) is maintained by Caltrans; any projects involving those facilities would be pursued in partnership with Caltrans. Improvements may also involve additional outreach and engagement with stakeholders, such as transit providers, regional agencies such as SBCAG, school communities, neighborhood associations, non-profits, and other stakeholders. As the recommended improvements in this Plan advance from planning to design and implementation, the City of Solvang will undertake partnerships necessary to advance implementation.

RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
The recommended capital improvement projects listed previously in Table 4 are now shown in Table 6 with each project’s length (expressed in centerline miles) and planning level cost estimates. Active transportation related improvements currently listed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that have been completed are listed in Table 7. Those that were reflected in the LTS connectivity assessment are indicated. Renderings and additional information of the proposed Class I Path alignments are provided in Appendix 5.

MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PROJECTS
Whereas this ATP focusses on local projects within the City of Solvang and its sphere of influence, the Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Master Plan (SBCAG, 2019) identifies three multijurisdictional projects that in part involves the City of Solvang. The Santa Ynez River Trail extends from Buellton to Solvang and includes the two cities and the County. It remains to be determined where exactly this trail would connect within Solvang. A second multijurisdictional project is to formalize the shoulders of SR 246 as bike lanes. This project would begin at the eastern Buellton city limits and continue to SR 154, involving the County and Solvang. The project primarily entails formalizing the highway’s shoulders as bike lanes outside of the downtown area. Finally, a third project would require coordination with Caltrans in the extension of the existing Class I path to reach Alamo Pintado Road. A map of these aspirational regional bike projects is provided in Appendix 6. 1060
TABLE 6: RECOMMENDED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
CENTER
LINE
LENGTH
(MILES)

ESTIMATED
COST
ALISAL RD. CLASS II BIKE
LANES
Painted bike lanes from Mission Dr. to Fjord
Dr.

0.59 $45,000

HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN
(HCA) PARK CLASS I PATH
Formalized path connecting Skytt Mesa Dr. to
Chalkhill Rd. via HCA Park 1.0 $1,034,500
MISSION DR. CLASS II BIKE

LANES & PARKING

MANAGEMENT
Class II bike lanes from Nykobing to Pine St.

Removal of parking along Mission Dr. 0.84 $65,200
ALAMO PINTADO RD. CLASS

II BIKE LANES
Class II bike lanes North of Alamo Pintado Rd.
to Old Mission Dr. (Coyote Creek Rd. to Viborg
Rd, Mission Dr. to Old Mission Dr., and
Windmill Ln. to Mission Dr.)

0.065 $5,100

FREDENSBORG CYN RD

CLASS II BIKE PATH
Class II bike Path from Chalk Hill Rd. to Viborg
Rd.

0.41 $32,000
S/E SOLVANG CLASS I PATH Class I Path from Mission Dr. to Alamo Pintado Rd via Old Mill Rd. and Windmill Ln. 0.39 $403,500

ALAMO PINTADO

BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
Multi-Use Facility where Mission Dr. crosses
Alamo Pintado Creek

0.026 TBD
COYOTE CREEK RD. CLASS I
PATH
Class I Path connecting Alamo Pintado Rd. to
existing SB Co Class I Path north of SR 246.

Includes a new pedestrian bridge over Alamo
Pintado Creek would be required plus access
easements from property owners.

0.55 $2,069,000
CHALK HILL RD. SPEED

REDUCTION
Reduction of speed limit from 35 mph to 30
mph from Eucalyptus Dr to Solvang Mesa Dr.

N/A
CHALK HILL RD. CLASS II

BIKE LANES
6 ft. wide Class II Bike Lanes from Eucalyptus
Dr to Solvang Mesa Dr.

0.53 $41,110
CHALK HILL RD. VEHICLE

LANE REDUCTION
Reduce vehicle through lane widths to 11 ft. to
accommodate 6 ft. wide bike lanes

0.53 $40,900
ALAMO PINTADO RD. SPEED

REDUCTION
Reduction of the speed limit from 35 mph to
30 mph from Viborg Rd. to Coyote Creek Rd.

N/A
ALISAL RD. SPEED

REDUCTION
Reduction of the speed limit from 35 mph to
30 mph from Valhalla Dr. to Fjord Dr.

N/A
ALISAL RD. SIGNALIZED

CROSSING
Installation of a beacon crossing at Fjord Dr.
and Alisal Rd.

N/A

CLASS I PATH CONNECTION

TO HCA CLASS I PATH
Creation of a Class I Path connecting Pistache
Ave to the proposed to Hans Christian

0.088 $91,040
1061

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION
CENTER
LINE
LENGTH
(MILES)

ESTIMATED
COST
ALISAL MESA RD. TO OLD

MILL RD CLASS I PATH
Class I Path loop connecting Alisal Mesa Rd. to
Alamo Pintado Dr. 2.22 $2,297,000

MISSION BLVD TO FJORD DR

CLASS I PATH
Class I Path connecting SR 246 to Fjord Dr at
Skytt Mesa Dr. south of Mission Blvd.

0.42 $434,500

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH
ON VIBORG RD.

Class I Path starting on Viborg Rd. & Alamo
Pintado Rd. to Fredensborg Canyon Rd. to
complete the Multi-Use loop around the City
and make it consistent with the potential
“River Trail”.

0.62 $620,000

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH
ON FJORD RD.

Class I Path starting on West end of Fjord Rd.
to Alisal Rd. to complete the Multi-Use loop
around the City and make it consistent with
the potential “River Trail”.

0.61 $610,000

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH
ON ALISAL RD.

Class I Path starting on Fjord Rd. & Alisal Rd.
to Alisa Mesa Rd. to complete the Multi-Use
loop around the City and make it consistent
with the potential “River Trail”.

0.41 $410,000

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH
ON ALAMO PINTADO RD.

Class I Path starting on Alamo Pintado Rd &
Mission Dr. to Viborg Rd. to complete the
Multi-Use loop around the City and make it
consistent with the potential “River Trail”.

0.27 $270,000
TABLE 7: COMPLETED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RELATED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CIP

PROJECT ID DESCRIPTION
ATP

CONNECTIVITY

ANALYSIS
NOTES
PW 010 PTMISEA Transit Stop Upgrades Project (Various
Locations) No Transit Improvement
PW 020 Old Mission 4-Way Stop Project Yes Circulation
PW 034 Mission Drive Corridor Traffic Circ. Study No Plan PW 046 Traffic Signal Preemption Device Study No Emergency/Tr ansit Vehicles
PW 047 Santa Ynez Valley Transit Security Lighting
& Bus Stop Imps-Upgrades (Phase 2) No Study Transit Improvement 1062

PROJECT ID DESCRIPTION
ATP

CONNECTIVITY

ANALYSIS
NOTES
PW 053 Solvang School Sidewalk Project No Pedestrian
Improvement
PW 061 Fifth Street Sidewalk Project No Pedestrian
Improvement
PW 062 Mission Drive Priority Project Planning No Pedestrian Improvement
PW 087 Mission Drive Intersection and Crosswalk
Improvements
Yes Pedestrian
Improvement
PW 088 Alisal Road Sidewalk Improvements No Pedestrian
Improvement
PW 136 Mission Drive Bus Stop 8 Improvements No Transit Improvement
PW 153 Local Road Safety Plan No Plan
PW 172 Laurel Speed Humps No Traffic
Calming

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
A variety of bicycle and pedestrian funding sources exist. Many are limited to new construction, though some may also offer funds for maintenance of existing facilities. Funding sources are described on the following section.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS
City General Funds
Per Government Code Section 16300, the General Fund is used to budget for revenues not specifically designated to be accounted for by any other fund. The primary sources of revenues are personal income tax, sales and use tax, and corporation tax.

Local Gas Tax Subvention Funds
Revenues from the gas tax deposited into the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund are apportioned by the California State Controller to cities and counties (Streets and Highways Code Sections 2104 to 2122). The City of Solvang receives its apportionment of local gas tax subvention funds which may be spent on capital improvement projects including pedestrian and bikeway improvements.
1063
Developer Mitigation Funds
Pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code, Sections 66000-66025), the City of Solvang collects developer fees for funding capital improvements. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes their fair share of transportation improvements so that the City’s quality of life can be maintained.

Measure A
Measure A was approved by Santa Barbara County voters in 2008, authorizing a half-cent sales tax in the County. It is anticipated to provide more than $1 billion for transportation projects over 30 years. Funds are administered by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) and will support improvements to Highway 101 as well as eligible transportation projects in local communities. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible for Measure A funding, as are improvements to transit access.

STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The ATP was created by SB 99 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. ATP consolidated various transportation programs into a single program and was originally funded at about $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal funds. SB 1 directed an additional $100 million annually to the ATP (see SB 1 Road Repair and Accountability Act, below). The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities. Application cycles occur approximately every two years, typically in late spring or summer.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) The Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce GHG emissions. The program assists project areas by providing grants and/or loans, or any combination thereof, that will achieve GHG emissions reductions and benefit Disadvantaged Communities through increasing accessibility of affordable housing, employment centers, and key destinations via low-carbon transportation resulting in fewer vehicle miles traveled through shortened or reduced trip length or mode shift from single occupancy vehicle use to transit, bicycling, or walking. The three Project Area types include:
• Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project Areas
• Integrated Connectivity Project (ICP) Project Areas
• Rural Innovation Project Areas (RIPA)
1064
SB 1 – Road Repair and Accountability Act
The “Road Repair and Accountability Act” of 2017 (SB 1) invests $54 billion over a decade to repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments. SB 1 directs $100 million annually to the ATP to fund infrastructure projects, program implementation, and plan development to increase bicycling and walking.

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
The Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG) provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any federal-aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any public road; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects including intercity bus terminals.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads with a focus on performance.

Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
The Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP) replaces or rehabilitates public highway bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, other highways, or railroads when the State and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determine that a bridge is significantly important and qualifies under the HBP program guidelines. Reimbursable scopes of work include replacement, rehabilitation, painting, scour countermeasures, and preventative maintenance activities.

Transportation Planning Grants
Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants are available to communities for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or improving pilot projects.

Communities are typically required to provide an 11.47 percent local match, with staff time or inkind donations eligible to be used towards the match.

Office of Traffic Safety Grants
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants are supported by federal funding. They can be used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing programs, or address deficiencies in current programs.

Eligible grantees include government agencies, state colleges and universities, local agencies, school districts, fire departments, and public emergency services providers. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and priority is given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess need include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on past OTS grants.
1065

APPENDIX
1066

CONTENTS
APPENDIX 1. SOLVANG ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN DESIGN TOOLKIT APPENDIX 2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX 3. PLAN CONSISTENCY
APPENDIX 4. MINETA LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 5. CLASS I PATH RENDERINGS
APPENDIX 6. MULTIJURISDICTIONAL ASPIRATIONAL BIKEWAY NETWORK 1067
APPENDIX 1: SOLVANG ATP DESIGN TOOLKIT
1068

SOLVANG ATP PLAN DESIGN TOOLKIT

INTRODUCTION
The Solvang Active Transportation Plan Design Toolkit includes safety treatments that may be incorporated into future roadway safety projects to improve active transportation within the City of Solvang.

This Toolkit is organized into the following categories:
• Signal Modifications
• Intersection Treatments
• Bicycle Facility Treatments
Some of the tools may overlap categories. For example, Signal Modifications may also be considered Intersection Treatments.

Relevant design resources and guides referenced include:
• Caltrans Complete Streets Elements Toolbox v2.0
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Guidance to Improve Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety at Intersections
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide • FHWA Guide for Improving Safety at Uncontrolled Intersection Each tool includes a brief description of the safety treatment, including:
• Design Contexts – Applicable location and additional factors to consider for implementing. • Rating – A Crash Modification Factor (CMF) is a measure or rating of effectiveness of a design element. A CMF of less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes.

A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is the percentage crash reduction that might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. The Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual Version 1.4 provides CRF for projects that are HSIP funded. The CRF/CMF listed for each tool will cite the research authors when applicable. • Estimated Cost – A cost range is provided for each tool as of the time of writing. Estimated costs will vary according to several factors.

SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS
1069

EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE
An exclusive pedestrian phase, also known as a
“Barnes Dance,” pedestrian scramble, or all-walk
phase, is a phase at signalized intersections that
allows pedestrians to cross in any direction. Vehicles
at all approaches to the intersection are stopped
while pedestrians are given the “WALK” signal. This
low-cost treatment can increase pedestrian safety
by separating pedestrians in time from vehicles and
may improve the efficiency of intersections with
heavy pedestrian volumes. It is particularly
advantageous in situations where other intersection
treatments are cost prohibitive or unable to be
implemented due to insufficient right of way.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Densely populated urban areas, often in downtowns.
• Signalized intersections with high instances of turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. • High pedestrian volumes and either: 1) low to moderate vehicle volumes, or 2) high turning vehicle volumes.

CMF RATING

0.66 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (ITE 2004).

ESTIMATED COST
<$3,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG, LA DOT
1070

LEADING BICYCLE INTERVAL
Leading Bicycle Intervals (LBIs) provide bicyclists
an opportunity to enter an intersection before
vehicles are given a green indication. LBIs can be
easily programmed into existing signals to give
bicyclists an advanced green signal a minimum of
three to seven seconds before motorists can
proceed through the intersection. This extra time
provides through-bicyclists with an opportunity to
establish their presence in, or to clear an
intersection before motorists start turning. This
“head start” increases the percentage of motorists
who yield the right of way to bicyclists and can
minimize conflicts between bicyclists crossing a
roadway and turning motorists. If this treatment is
used with a bicycle signal, an agency should request
permission to experiment from FHWA. Leading
bicycle intervals can be provided automatically with
each phase or provided only when actuated
(actively or passively). Active detection requires bicyclists to use a pushbutton. Pushbuttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to dismount or leave the roadway to activate the signal. Passive bicycle detection is the preferred option (see passive bicycle signal detection).

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Intersections with high bicycle volumes and high turning vehicle volumes. • Locations where a highly- used bicycle route (including shared-use path) must cross a major, signalized intersection.
• Intersections connecting users to the rest of the route. • Intersections with contraflow bike lanes or separated bike lanes. • Intersections where a bicycle facility transitions from a protected bike lane (cycle track) to an unprotected bicycle lane.

CMF RATING
A CMF rating has not yet been determined; initial research indicates this treatment is promising (Kading 2016).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
1071

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) provide pedestrians an opportunity to enter an intersection before vehicles are given a green indication. LPIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give pedestrians the WALK signal a minimum of three to seven seconds before motorists are allowed to proceed through the intersection. This extra time provides pedestrians with an opportunity to establish their presence in the crosswalk before motorists start turning and provides additional crossing time for those who need it. This head start increases the percentage of motorists who yield the right of way to pedestrians and can minimize conflicts between pedestrians crossing a roadway and turning vehicles. Leading pedestrian intervals can be provided automatically with each phase (i.e., set to “recall”) or provided only when actuated (actively or passively).

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections
• Medium to high turning vehicle volumes and pedestrian volumes

CMF RATING

0.41 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (Fayish and Gross 2010). A leading pedestrian interval is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure.

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000

NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
In most communities, right-turn-on-red is a default condition of existing laws. To restrict it, a sign must be posted at the signalized intersection for each approach where the restriction is desired. The purpose of this treatment is to eliminate conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians and/or bicyclists during a concurrent walk (or bike signal) phase. Motorists are advised of this restriction with the posting of “No Turn on Red” signs (MUTCD R10-11 series) which may be static or dynamic. Dynamic signs can be used to restrict turns during certain times of day or during certain signal phases; for example, vehicle right turns may be restricted during a bike signal phase. Preliminary research indicates that dynamic signs may be more effective than static ones at inducing motorists to stop before turning right on red (Thomas et al. 2016).

SOURCE: CA MUTCD, R10-11
SOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY

COUNTERMEASURES
1072

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections
• High volumes of right-turning vehicles and high volumes of bicyclists and/or pedestrians

CMF RATING

0.97 for all crashes (Harkey et al. 2008). This treatment is not well-studied; it is possible that it would result in safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000

PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS
Pedestrian signals and countdown signals provide
guidance to pedestrians regarding the permitted signal
interval to cross a street and prohibit pedestrian
crossings when conflicting traffic may impact
pedestrian safety. Ideally, every signalized intersection should have a pedestrian signal head. Countdown
signals are indications designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clearance interval (flashing
“DON’T WALK”) and can be set to fixed-time, push
button operation, or passive pedestrian detection. They indicate to the pedestrian how much time is left in the crossing phase. The MUTCD requires countdown
pedestrian indications for all newly installed traffic
signals where pedestrian signals are installed.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Any time a new pedestrian signal is installed.
• Crossings with exclusive pedestrian phases.
• Signalized intersections spanning wide streets.
• Crossings with medium to high volumes of pedestrians.

CMF RATING

0.30 (Van Houten et al. 2012)–0.75 (Markowitz et al. 2006) for vehicle pedestrian crashes; some research has shown no effect or a slightly negative effect (Camden et al. 2012).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: FHWA, ITE PEDESTRIAN BIKE

COUNCIL
1073

PROTECTED SIGNAL PHASES
Protected signal phases at intersections provide a way to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements in time and space, particularly for left turns when concurrent phasing would result in a conflict with crossing pedestrians and left-turning vehicles, and right-turns when concurrent phasing would result in a conflict with through bicyclists and right-turning vehicles.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Urban areas, particularly in downtown locations.
• Intersections with high volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists and turning vehicles. • Intersections with low to medium vehicle volumes.

CMF RATING

0.64 for exclusive pedestrian phase for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (ITE 2004).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000

INTERSECTION TREATMENTS

CURB EXTENSIONS /BULB OUTS
Curb extensions (also known as “bulb-outs” or “neck
downs”) decrease the width of a roadway through the
physical extension of a curb line or sidewalk. Curb
extensions may enhance pedestrian safety in several
ways: by making pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists
more visible to each other; by keeping motor vehicles
from parking too close to crossings and blocking sight
lines; by reducing crossing distance and thereby
exposure; and by narrowing radii at intersections, which may slow right-turning traffic. Curb extensions also tend to allow for better placement of curb ramps and prevent ramps from being blocked by vehicles that park at the
corner (Thomas et al. 2016). At signalized locations, it is possible that curb extensions may reduce motorist
delay by reducing the amount of signal time that must
be devoted to the pedestrian phase due to the shorter
crossing distance. Consideration for concrete curb extensions include the presence of storm water inlets and adequate drainage around the curb extension. Detached concrete curb extensions can also be applied which leave existing drainage in place. Detached curb extensions should consider the installation of grates to prevent tripping hazards within the gutter pan gap. Temporary curb extensions SOURCE: CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
1074
can also be installed using low-cost materials (paint, bollards, or even rubberized platforms) for demonstration and evaluation purposes.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Locations with permanent on-street parking.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined; initial research indicates this treatment may be effective at increasing driver yielding and improving pedestrian safety (Johnson et al. 2005).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000

CONTINUOUS RAISED MEDIANS OR HARDENED CENTERLINES
Continuous raised medians or hardened
centerlines (vertical elements) are roadway
design treatments designed to provide access
management and to separate opposing directions
of motor vehicle travel at intersections and
midblock locations. They can be extended across
an intersection or a driveway, creating a
continuous median to provide access
management restricting motorists’ turning or
crossing movements. Where crosswalks are
provided, they must be at least 6 feet in width to
provide a pedestrian refuge (see crossing
islands) or 8 feet to provide a bicycle refuge.

Where used as an access management strategy,
they can simplify and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating motorist left turns.

When used at intersections and the hardened centerline or median extends up to or beyond crosswalks, they reduce left turning motorist speeds.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Locations with permanent on-street parking.

CMF RATING

0.54 for all crashes (Bahar et al. 2007); 0.69 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes for raised medians (Zegeer et al. 2017). A raised median is recognized by FHWA as a proven Safety Countermeasure.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE:

HTTPS://ACCESSPLANNING.CA/IDEASBLOG/2023/3/
28/BARRIERS-TO-ACTIVE-TRANSPORTATIONHIGHWAY-CROSSINGS
1075

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS
High-visibility crosswalk markings, such as continental or ladder-style, are preferred over parallel line markings to improve visibility to approaching motorists. Highvisibility crosswalk markings reinforce legal crosswalks at intersections and create legal crossings at nonintersection locations. These crosswalk markings warn motorists to expect pedestrian crossings and clarify that motorists are expected to yield right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. At uncontrolled locations, high-visibility crosswalk markings identify a preferred crossing location for pedestrians.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Uncontrolled locations that meet the
requirements listed in MUTCD Section 3B.18
(2009)

CMF RATING

0.52 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (Chen et al. 2012).

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000

IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS
This treatment involves placing Yield to Pedestrian signs (MUTCD R1-6) in the roadway at the centerline of an uncontrolled crosswalk.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
Uncontrolled crossings of multi-lane roadways.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined; however initial evidence indicates this treatment is promising. This treatment is associated with increased driver yielding and slight reductions in vehicle travel speeds when placed at marked crosswalks (Zegeer et al. 2017).

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000
SOURCE: CA MUTCD
SOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
1076

MINI TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Mini traffic circles are a traffic-calming device
that can take the place of, or supplement, an
all-way stop controlled intersection. They
may also be installed at intersections with no
control or with all-way or 2-way stop or yield
control. Mini-circles are raised circular islands
constructed in the \center of residential street
intersections which require motorists to slow
down to maneuver around them. They can
eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit
to the right of the circles. Due to the lowvolume nature of the intersections where these are installed, mini traffic circles may be
designed to allow larger vehicles to turn left in front of the circle to allow the circle to remain larger in size to provide the desired traffic calming benefits. Mini traffic circles are commonly landscaped, most often at locations where the neighborhood has agreed to maintain the plants. The islands in the center of the circle may be completely mountable for emergency vehicles to better navigate through the intersection.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Roadways with 30 mph or lower posted speeds.
• Residential streets.
• Neighborhood bikeways.
• Stop-controlled intersections with high delay.
• Intersections with one lane in each direction.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been developed; however, existing studies indicate that mini-traffic circles can reduce vehicle speeds (Ewing 1999) and crashes (Thomas et al. 2015), improving safety for all road users.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
1077

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also called HAWKs (high intensity activated crosswalk), are signals installed at unsignalized major street crossing locations to help
pedestrians cross the street safely. PHBs may be used in locations where side-street volumes do not warrant a
conventional traffic signal, or in situations where there are concerns that a conventional signal may encourage additional motor vehicle traffic on the minor street. PHBs may be
effective at reducing multiple threat crashes. PHBs typically include the following elements:
• Overhead beacons with three sections (circular yellow signal indication centered below two horizontally aligned circular red signals) facing both directions on the major street.
• Overhead signs labeled “CROSSWALK STOP ON RED” to indicate that the location is associated with a pedestrian crosswalk.
• A marked crosswalk on the major street.
• Countdown pedestrian signal heads to control pedestrian crossings at the crosswalk.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Urban or suburban multi-lane roadways
• Higher speed roadways (particularly at or above 35 mph) • Locations with high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles (AADT > 9,000); if higher volumes, 30 mph locations may be appropriate. (Blackburn et al. 2017)

CMF RATING

0.70 for total crashes (Fitzpatrick et al. 2010); 0.31–0.45 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al. 2017). A pedestrian hybrid beacon is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure.

ESTIMATED COST
$50,000–$175,000
SOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY

COUNTERMEASURES
1078

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS
Pedestrian Refuge Islands (also known as Crossing
Islands) are roadway treatments designed to
provide refuge for pedestrians and bicyclists
between motor vehicle travel lanes at intersections
and midblock locations. To provide pedestrian
refuge, they must be a minimum width of 6 feet to
meet pedestrian accessibility requirements. To
provide bicyclists refuge and to accommodate larger
groups of pedestrians, the minimum should be
increased to 8 feet.

They can improve safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists by reducing crossing distances and
creating a place of refuge to allow multiple-stage
crossings. They are particularly beneficial at uncontrolled crossings, large signalized crossings, or complex intersections where people may have difficulty completing crossings, and they may be especially helpful for pedestrians who are unable to judge gaps in traffic accurately or who travel slower than the design pedestrian (typically walking at least 3.5 ft/s). Crossing islands can be designed with a Z-crossing to require people to face oncoming traffic which may increase visibility and eye contact. Crossing islands that extend up to or beyond crosswalks can also slow left turning motorists, providing the same benefit as hardened centerlines or medians. Temporary pedestrian refuge islands can be installed using low-cost materials (paint, bollards, or even rubberized platforms) for demonstration and evaluation purposes.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Midblock or intersection crossing locations.
• Preferable on all roadways with 2 or more lanes of through traffic in each direction and operating speeds over 30 mph.
• Should be considered on all roadways where space is available to provide refuge, and particularly on roadways with medium to high speeds and medium to high vehicle volumes.

CMF RATING

0.54 for all crashes (Bahar et al. 2007); 0.69 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes for raised medians (Zegeer et al. 2017). A crossing island is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
1079

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACON
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
placed on both sides of an uncontrolled crosswalk
and are paired with a pedestrian crossing sign as
well as an arrow pointing at the crosswalk. The
beacons differ from standard flashing beacons by
using a rapid flash frequency (approximately 190
times per minute), brighter light intensity, and
ability to aim the LED flash. RRFBs can be actuated
or pedestrian actuated, and feature an irregular,
eye-catching flash pattern to call attention to the
presence of pedestrians.

Rectangular rapid flash beacons have been
shown to significantly increase motorist yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks, with motorist yield rates ranging from 34 percent to over 90 percent. Studies have also demonstrated reduced pedestrian- vehicle conflicts, increased stopping distance, and reductions in pedestrians trapped in the roadway while crossing (Thomas et al. 2016). These safety benefits likely extend to bicyclists crossing at RRFB locations as well.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Roadways with low to medium vehicle volumes.
• Roadways with posted speeds less than 40 mph.

CMF RATING

0.53 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al. 2017).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000

ROUNDABOUT
Roundabouts are circular intersections
designed to eliminate left turns by
requiring traffic to circulate around a
central island. Roundabouts are typically
installed in place of traffic signals to
reduce vehicular speeds, improve safety
at intersections by eliminating angle and
higher-speed collisions, to allow more
efficient traffic operations, and to reduce
operation costs associated with signalized
intersections. Further detail on potential
SOURCE: CALTRANS MAIN STREET, CALIFORNIA, 2013
SOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
1080
applications are discussed in NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition (Rodegerdts et al. 2010). NCHRP Report 834, Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook, provides vital information on roundabout design for all pedestrians, including those with vision impairment (Schroeder et al. 2017).

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Intersections where signals are not warranted or are unable to be installed. • Intersections of local, collector, or arterial roadways. • Intersections with high left- turning vehicle volumes. • Intersections that are part of a corridor treatment that. • includes access management and motor vehicle travel lane reductions. • Along corridors characterized by high vehicular speeds that are out of context with the area type.

CMF RATING
A CMF for vehicle-pedestrian crashes based on U.S. data has not been developed due to low incidence of reported pedestrian crashes (Ferguson et al. 2019). Roundabouts reduce motor vehicle speeds, which can create a safer environment for all road users (Rodegerdts et al. 2010, Ariniello 2005). The benefit of this tool is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The crash reduction factor is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/ Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

ESTIMATED COST
> $175,000

ADVANCED YIELD LINES
Advanced yield lines are pavement markings
placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of an uncontrolled
and unsignalized pedestrian or bicycle crossing.

This treatment increases the distance between
where drivers have stopped or yielded and the
crosswalk or bicycle crossing, which improves the
visibility of crossing pedestrians and bicyclists to
motorists and helps to reduce multiple-threat
crashes. Advanced yield lines also discourage
drivers from encroaching into the crosswalk.

DESIGN CONTEXTS SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.PEDBIKESAFE.ORG
1081
• Uncontrolled multi-lane crossings (at least two lanes in one direction) (Blackburn et al. 2017).

CMF RATING

0.75 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al., 2017). The safety benefits of advance stop/yield lines at unsignalized bicycle crossings have not yet been studied.

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000

BICYCLE FACILITY TREATMENTS

BICYCLE LANE EXTENSION THROUGH INTERSECTION
Bicycle lane extension pavement markings through
intersections are intended to provide bicyclists with a clear, highly visible pathway through an intersection.

They also help to alert motorists to the presence of
bicycle through-traffic and encourage turning
motorists to yield to through moving bicyclists. The
pavement within the bicycle lane extension can
include green color. The color may be applied with
paint, Durable Liquid Pavement Markings (DLPM),
thermoplastic, or colored asphalt.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Locations with bicycle lanes or separated bike lanes where it is desired to delineate the bicycle crossing through an intersection.
• Locations where right- or left- turning vehicles cross through moving bicyclists, especially at intersections along major bike routes.
• At wide or complex intersections where the bicyclist path is unclear (NACTO 2012).

CMF RATING
CMFs for this treatment have not been developed for the US context. Existing studies indicate that when used to highlight key conflict points this treatment may improve bicyclist safety via increased motorist yielding, reduced conflicts with turning vehicles, and increased predictability of bicyclist location (Hunter et al. 2000; Brady et al. 2010; Jensen 2008).

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000
SOURCE:

HTTPS://WWW.MIKEONTRAFFIC.COM/BIKELANE-CONFLICT-ZONE-MARKINGS/ 1082

BICYCLE SIGNAL
A bicycle signal is a traffic signal with a green,
yellow, and red display intended to control bicycle
movements. The display may include arrows or a
bicycle symbol shape. Bicycle signals are necessary
to indicate a leading or protected phase for bicycle
movements. This may sometimes require an
additional phase be added to the traffic signal cycle.

Initial studies of bicycle signals indicate that their
presence may increase signal compliance and
improve safety. This treatment has been given
interim approval to use by FHWA if used for
protected bicycle phases but is not included in the
2009 MUTCD. FHWA requires an agency to request
permission to experiment if using a bicycle signal to
apply a leading phase.

Bicycle signals can be activated actively or
passively. Active detection requires bicyclists to use
a pushbutton. Pushbuttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to leave the roadway to activate the signal.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections with high bicycle volumes and high turning vehicle volumes. • Locations where a highly- used bicycle route (including shared-use path) must cross a major, signalized intersection to connect users to the rest of the route (sometimes requiring bicyclists to cross diagonally).
• Intersections with contraflow bike lanes or separated bike lanes. • Intersections where a bicycle facility transitions from a cycle track to a bicycle lane. • Complex intersections that may otherwise be difficult for bicyclists to navigate.

CMF RATING

0.75 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al., 2017). The safety benefits of advance stop/yield lines at unsignalized bicycle crossings have not yet been studied.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
1083

BIKE BOXES
Bike boxes provide space for bicyclists to position
themselves in front of vehicles while stopped at a
signalized intersection. This treatment provides a
predictable place for bicyclists to stop and wait at a
signal, allowing them to get out ahead of traffic at the onset of a green signal. Bike boxes are intended to
reduce the likelihood of a right- or left-hook collision at the on-set of a green signal. In addition to
increasing the visibility and predictability of bicyclists, bike boxes provide priority for bicyclists by allowing
them to come to the front of the queue. A “No Right
Turn on Red” sign can be installed to prevent vehicles
from entering the bike box. Bike boxes can also be helpful for bicyclists making left turns who are uncomfortable or unable to merge to a left turn lane. This treatment has been given interim approval to use by FHWA but is not included in the 2009 MUTCD.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections with medium to high volumes of bicyclists and motor vehicles. • Intersections where large vehicles are common.
• Intersections with high volumes of queuing bicyclists. • Intersections with high volumes of turning vehicles and bicyclists going straight.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined; initial evidence indicates this treatment can improve bicyclist safety through improved visibility of bicyclists, increased awareness of bicyclists by motorists, increased motorist yielding, and a reduction in right-hook conflicts (Allen et al. 2005; Brady et al. 2010; Dill et al. 2012).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
1084

CLASS I BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class I bikeways (also known as bike paths or shareduse paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway
and with minimized cross flows by vehicle traffic.

These facilities support both recreational and
commuting opportunities, especially along rivers,
shorelines, canals, utility rights-of-way, railroad
rights-of-way, within school campuses, or within and
between parks.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Rural settings to provide access to users of all
ages and abilities.
• Along active and/or abandoned rail easements.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined.

ESTIMATED COST
The cost per mile depends on several factors including facility width, materials used, etc.

SOURCE: FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE

PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE
1085

CLASS II BICYCLE FACILITIES
Also known as bike lanes, Class II Bicycle Facilities are established along streets, defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for
bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities, typically striped adjacent to vehicle traffic traveling in the same direction. Buffered bike lanes provide greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane or on-street parking by
using painted chevrons or diagonal markings. Buffered
bike lanes may be desirable on streets with higher
vehicle speeds or volumes.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Bike lanes are most helpful on streets with ≥
3,000 motor vehicle average daily traffic.
• Bike lanes are most helpful on streets with a
posted speed ≥ 25 mph.
• On streets with high transit vehicle volume.
• On streets with high traffic volume, regular truck
traffic, high parking turnover, or a speed limit >
35 mph, consider treatments that provide greater
separation between bicycles and motor traffic
such as:
o Left-side bike lanes on one- way streets.
o Buffered bike lanes.
o Separated bikeways.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE

PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE
1086

CLASS III BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class III Bicycle Facilities, also known as bike
routes, are designated routes shared with vehicles
but not served by dedicated bikeways. Bike routes
are established by placing signage and/or shared
lane (sharrow) markings along roadways, and are
therefore generally not appropriate for roadways
with high vehicle speeds or volumes. A Bicycle
Boulevard or a Neighborhood Greenway is a type
of bike route where bicycle travel is prioritized.

These facilities are typically placed on residential
streets where biking or walking is the primary
mode of transportation. Traffic speed and non-local
vehicle access is reduced for the safety of bicyclists
and pedestrians.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Streets with speeds at 25 mph or less.
• Streets with traffic volumes less than 3,000 vehicles per day. • Streets with lower vehicle volumes and speeds that are parallel and near major streets, which have a similar level of connectivity and travel demand function. • Streets where a continuous route for bicyclists exists and where people are already bicycling. • Streets where bicyclists have right-of-way at intersections or where right-of-way can be established.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING

AND DESIGN GUIDE
1087

CLASS IV BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class IV Bicycle Facilities (also known as separated
bikeways, protected bikeways, or cycle tracks) are
for the exclusive use of bicycles and are physically
separated from vehicle traffic, parking lanes, and
sidewalks with a vertical and/or horizontal feature.

These features include flexible posts, inflexible
physical barriers, planters, parked vehicles, and
curbs. Separated bikeways may be one-way or
two-way and may be at street level or sidewalk
level. The separation width can vary for these
facilities according to roadway geometry. Near
transit stops, separated facilities can be
incorporated with the use of transit boarding
islands.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Streets with high demand for double parking, and high parking turnover. • Streets with multiple lanes.
• Streets with conflicts at intersections.
• Streets with high bicycle volumes.
• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes.
• Streets with high vehicle speeds.

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined.

ESTIMATED COST
The cost per mile depends on several factors including facility width, vertical elements used, etc.

SOURCE: FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING

AND DESIGN GUIDE, PEOPLEFORBIKES
1088

PASSIVE BICYCLE SIGNAL DETECTION
Properly designed detection can deter unsafe behaviors, such as disregarding red signal indications, by reducing delay at signalized intersections. Bicycle signal detection also increases the convenience of bicycling. Passive
detection (i.e., when the signal system automatically
detects the presence of the user), is considered best
practice where feasible. Loop detectors, commonly used
for motor vehicle detection, can also be used to detect bicyclists. Other passive detection devices include video and microwave detection. Bicycle detection devices can be used to call a phase or to prolong the phase to allow a bicyclist to clear an intersection. This is particularly important at locations where the minimum green has
been established to serve motorists and may not be long enough to serve bicyclists, especially older bicyclists, children, or those towing bicycle trailers. Pavement markings and/or signs should be used to notify bicyclists of the proper bicycle detection location. Combining passive bicycle detection with detection confirmation lights or active detection (push buttons) may improve compliance by assuring bicyclists that they have been detected.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections that require users to be detected to actuate a signal for one or more movement.
• Intersections with bicycle signals and/or bicycle- specific phasing. • Bike lanes approaching intersections with bicycle signals. • Left turn lanes with left-turn signals where bicyclists also turn left (NACTO 2012).

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined; initial use of this treatment indicate that it is promising.

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
SOURCE: HTTP://PEDBIKESAFE.ORG/
1089

ROAD DIET / ROAD RECONFIGURATION
The number of lanes on a roadway
determines how far pedestrians or
bicyclists must cross at an intersection
and how many conflict points might
exist between turning traffic and
bicyclists or pedestrians. Efforts have
been made to reduce the number and
width of lanes through ‘road diets’ that
not only reduce the number of lanes
but provide space to implement
additional pedestrian and bicyclist
safety treatments such as adding bike
lanes, median crossing islands, and reducing travel speed. Road diets are often completed to improve access management, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, and to enhance roadway safety. The most common road diet configuration involves converting a four-lane roadway into three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane, and bike lanes in each direction, often supplemented with painted or raised center islands.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Priority bicycle and pedestrian routes.
• Urban and rural areas.
• Multi-lane roads.

CMF RATING

0.71 for total crashes (Harkey et al. 2008). Safety benefits may vary depending on the type of treatments implemented, however studies suggest that road diets are associated with increased pedestrian safety and reduced vehicle speeds (Thomas et al. 2016).

ESTIMATED COST
$3,000–$50,000
FSOURCE: FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
1090

TWO-STAGE BICYCLE TURN QUEUE BOXES
A two‐stage left turn queue box (also
known as a Copenhagen‐Left or jug‐
handle turn) designates an area outside
of vehicle conflicts for bicyclists to wait
for traffic to clear before proceeding in a
different direction of travel. It may be
used for left or right turns. They may be
useful at locations where bicyclists
would have to merge across multiple
lanes of traffic, would have to wait in a
shared travel lane with motorists to
turn, or at locations with separated bike
lanes or side paths where it is not
possible for bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle lanes in advance of the intersection. This can be advantageous on roadways with higher volumes of traffic or operating speeds to reduce conflicts between motorists and turning bicyclists. Bicycle symbol and turn arrow pavement markings indicating the appropriate direction for bicyclists to turn and wait within the box are recommended, as well as the prohibition of right turns on red if turning vehicles would travel through the area of the two-stage bicycle turn box.

An agency should request permission to experiment from FHWA to use this treatment as it is not currently approved for use.

DESIGN CONTEXTS
• Signalized intersections that require users to be detected to actuate a signal for one or more movement.
• Multi-lane intersections where bicyclists frequently turn left from a facility on the right side of the roadway.
• Cycle tracks or bike lanes with multiple adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes with high traffic speeds and/or traffic volumes (NACTO 2012).

CMF RATING
A CMF has not yet been determined; initial evidence indicates the safety benefits of this treatment are promising (Xiaomin and Shao 2014).

ESTIMATED COST
< $3,000
SOURCE: HTTPS://NACTO.ORG/
1091
APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

LIST OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS
1092

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL LAWS

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 guarantees people with disabilities equal opportunities, serving as the basis of enforceable regulations for accessible design. In 2010, the US Department of Justice adopted (revised) enforceable standards, implementing Titles II and III of the ADA, for the design of government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to enable them to be accessible for people with disabilities. The ADA Standards mandate accessibility for some parts of the public realm, such as curb ramps and bus stops. The US Access Board has proposed guidelines -- the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) -- that more comprehensively address accessibility in the public realm, including dimensional specifications for sidewalk width and slope, curb ramps and driveways, tactile warning surfaces at roadway edges, and other accessibility features. While the PROWAG have yet to be adopted as enforceable standards, many state and local agencies reference them as guidelines or best practices for transportation projects. See the section below on Caltrans DIB 82-06.

ADA STANDARDS
Title II, Section 35.151- New Construction and Alterations The ADA requires the installation of curb ramps or other modifications when a project alters a roadway. The reconstruction of a roadway, the upgrading of a sidewalk, or the installation of other elements are considered when they affect usability, temporarily or permanently, for pedestrians or vehicles. For ADA purposes, the resurfacing of a roadway is an alteration with respect to the special Title II obligation and therefore requires the installation of curb ramps.

STATE LAWS
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE: SUMMARY OF SELECTED LAWS REGARDING BICYCLING The California Vehicle Code (CVC) contains the state laws that specify where and how bicycles riders must operate. For the most part, bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers, but the CVC provides specific language for the following:
• Use of the bicycle lane- On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling slower than traffic must use the bike lane except when making a left turn, passing, avoiding hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. • Riding on the right hand side of the roadway- Bicyclists riding slower than traffic moving in the same direction must travel as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when passing, preparing for and making a legal left turn, approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, riding on a one-way street, riding on a road that is too 1093
narrow, avoiding hazardous conditions, or when the right side of the road is closed due to road construction.
• Mopeds and high-speed electric bikes- Gas-powered bicycles and type 3 electric bicycles (with top assisted speeds of 28 mph) may not be used on trails or bike paths or lanes unless allowed by local authorities. They may be used in bike lanes or separated bikeways adjacent to the roadway. They require helmets and may not be operated by people under age 16. • Low-speed electric bicycles- Type 1 and 2 electric bicycles (with top assisted speeds of 20 mph) are allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed unless a sign specifically prohibits electric bicycles.
• Bike path obstructions- No one may stop on or park a bicycle on a bicycle path. • Sidewalks- Individual cities and counties control whether bicyclists may ride on sidewalks. • Freeways- Bicycles (including motorized bicycles) may not be ridden on freeways and expressways where doing so is prohibited by Caltrans and local authorities.

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE: SUMMARY OF SELECTED LAWS REGARDING

PEDESTRIANS
• Crosswalks- Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, including a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Unmarked crosswalks are defined by the prolongation of the (imaginary) boundary lines of sidewalks at right-angle or near-right angle intersections. Marked crosswalks are defined by distinct crosswalk lines or other markings on the road. It is unlawful for a driver to pass another vehicle stopped to permit a pedestrian to cross at a crosswalk. Pedestrians must cross the roadway at a crosswalk when between adjacent intersections are controlled by traffic signal devices or police officers. • Sidewalks- Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians when crossing over sidewalks, e.g. at a driveway.
• Blind pedestrians- Drivers must yield the right-of-way to blind pedestrians using a cane or guide dog and must take all reasonably necessary precautions to avoid injury to these pedestrians. Drivers who do not are guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a prison sentence and fine.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
As described by the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. For the purposes of CEQA, the “environment” is defined as “the physical conditions that exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Transportation is a typical impact category in CEQA analyses, which have narrowly defined transportation as “traffic”. In 2018, Senate Bill 743 directed the Office of 1094
Public Research (OPR) to revise the CEQA guidelines to phase out Level of Service (LOS) and instead consider vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when evaluating impacts of a transportation project. In 2021, Senate Bill 288 exempts pedestrian and bicycle projects from the environmental review requirements of CEQA.

STATE ASSEMBLY BILLS
AB 32 – GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT (2006)
The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) established a mandate for the state to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Scoping plans prepared by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to meet the mandate have included strategies for reducing transportation related GHG emissions from motor vehicles, recommendations to encourage walking and bicycling, and recommended GHG emission reduction targets for local government.

AB 1358 – COMPLETE STREETS (2008)
Under this law, all California cities and counties must include policies for safe accommodations for all street users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, children, persons with disabilities, and elderly persons) in circulation element updates.

AB 1371 - VEHICLES: BICYCLES: PASSING DISTANCE (2013)
AB 1371 requires that motor vehicles leave three feet of space between a bicycle and motor vehicle, when the driver of the motor vehicle is overtaking a bicyclist traveling in the same direction.

AB 1193 – PROTECTED BIKEWAYS (2014)
AB 1193 adds a fourth classification of bikeway to the Caltrans bikeway classifications. The new designation, Class IV bikeways, applies to cycle tracks or separated bikeways.

AB 2245 – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: CEQA: EXEMPTION: BICYCLE LANES (2015) This bill exempts the restriping of roadways for bicycle lanes, provided the roadways are within an urban area and the restriping is consistent with a prepared bicycle transportation plan. A lead agency would be required to conduct a traffic assessment and safety impact study, as well as conduct hearings, before determining if a project is exempt.

AB 43 TRAFFIC SAFETY (2021)
This bill aims to improve traffic safety by authorizing local authorities to consider the safety of vulnerable road user groups when setting speed limits. The bill establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on state highways located in any business or residence district and authorizes Caltrans to change the speed limit on any such highway. AB 43 authorizes a lowered speed limit on a section of highway contiguous to a business activity district and extends the period that a speed limit remains valid for speed enforcement from 7 to 14 years if evaluated by a registered engineer.

Additionally, Caltrans and local authorities are authorized to declare a speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour on certain highways. The bill allows local agencies greater flexibility in adjusting roadway speeds through minimizing the role of speed surveys in establishing speed limits.

AB 1909 BICYCLE LANE CHANGE LAW (2023)
This bill took effect on January 1, 2023, across all of California requiring drivers to change into another available lane, when possible, to pass cyclists, building on the current requirement for drivers 1095
to give cyclists at least three feet of space when passing. The law also permits Class 3 e-bike riders to use approved bicycle paths and trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes.

SENATE BILLS
SB 375 (2008)
SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to plan for meeting GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). An MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS) must show how the region will meet the target through land use planning strategies and transportation system recommendations.

SB 391 (2010)
SB 391 requires the California Transportation Plan to support a statewide reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

SB 535 - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES (2012)
SB 535 requires that 25 percent of the proceeds from the AB 32 GHG Reduction Fund go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities.

SB 743 (2013)
SB 743 requires changes to the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to transportation impact analysis. OPR subsequently proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, revisions to the guidelines to phase out automobile LOS as a metric for evaluating the transportation impacts of a project. VMT is now recognized as the most appropriate metric.

SB 99 - ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ACT (2013)
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) distributes federal and state funds for local and regional efforts to increase walking and bicycling. The funding is intended to increase the number of walking and bicycling trips, increase safety for those modes, and provide support for disadvantaged communities to achieve transportation equity.

SB 32 (2016)
SB 32 updates the targets in AB 32 by mandating a statewide GHG reduction of 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.

SB 1 – ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (2017)
The “Road Repair and Accountability Act” of 2017 (SB 1) invests $54 billion over a decade to repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments.

SB 288 - CEQA: EXEMPTIONS: TRANSPORTATION-RELATED PROJECTS (2020) Expands the list of transit and transportation projects statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The expanded exemption list includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
1096
SB 932 - TRAFFIC CALMING AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS (2022) Requires cities to incorporate the Safe System – aka Vision Zero – principles within their general plans.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05 (2005)
Sets a target for reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-16-12 (2012)
Sets a target for reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15 (2015)
Sets a target for reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18 (2018)
Sets a goal of achieving statewide carbon neutrality by 2045.

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-19-19 (2019)
Redoubled the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change while building a sustainable, inclusive economy. Caltrans was directed to leverage over $5 billion toward transportation construction, operations, and maintenance to lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. This includes strategies for lowering vehicle miles traveled, such as supporting housing development near available jobs, and supporting active modes of transportation such as biking and walking that also benefit public health.

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-79-20 (2020)
Sets a goal of ending the sale of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. The executive order called for Caltrans to identify near term actions and investment strategies to improve clean transportation, sustainable freight, and transit options. This included supporting bicycle, pedestrian, and micro-mobility options, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities in the State, by incorporating safe and accessible infrastructure into projects where appropriate. 1097
APPENDIX 3: PLAN CONSISTENCY

LIST OF PLANS
1098

POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following is a review of state, regional, and local policies/plans that are applicable to the advancement of the City of Solvang’s Active Transportation Plan.

STATE PLANS AND POLICIES
Main Street, California (2013)
This document is a guide, produced by Caltrans for communities that consolidates recent updates for improving multimodal access, livability, and sustainability. It summarizes standards, procedures, and guidelines from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM). A section titled, “Design for Bicyclists”, describes a suite of state-approved bicycle facilities, such as shared traffic lanes, sharrows, bike lanes, colored pavement, etc., and offers examples of where it is appropriate to use such infrastructure as well as the guidance from which they are drawn.

Caltrans 2020-2024 Strategic Plan (2020)
This plan provides a strategic direction for Caltrans that integrates sustainability principles across all agency goals. The plan calls for reducing user fatalities and injuries, promoting community health through active transportation, and improving the quality of life for all Californians by increasing accessibility to all modes of transportation.

California Transportation Plan 2050 (2021)
The California Transportation Plan’s Vision Statement calls for California’s transportation system to “be high-tech, high-quality, and more efficient at moving people and goods. The transportation system will be resilient to natural hazards including flooding, earthquakes, pandemics, and other disruptions, and ensure protection of our invaluable natural and cultural resources. It will power the expansion and diversification of California’s world-class economy, with a modernized and sustainable freight system that supports local economic growth. Our future transportation system will be carbonneutral, enhancing public health and quality of life for all Californians, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, age, gender, sexual orientation, or ability. Our future system will advance quality of life and economic opportunity for disadvantaged and low-income communities, who have long endured the greatest burdens of the transportation system, building economic opportunity and mobility for those who need it most.” The plan aims to have zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries by 2050 and plans to expand access to safe and convenient transit, shared mobility, and active transportation options.

California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy (2020) The California Air Resources Board (ARB) released a Mobile Source Strategy that demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next thirty years. The Mobile Source Strategy focuses on the widespread use of cleaner vehicle 1099
technologies, cleaner fuels, and efficiency improvements to the freight transport system to make communities more sustainable and enhance the benefits of investments in cleaner technologies by reducing growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

ARB Climate Change Plan Scoping Update (2022)
The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve: significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.

The plan recognizes the multiple benefits of promoting active transportation public health benefits of reduced criteria pollutants due to VMT reduction and increased physical activity. To expand and complete networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure, the plan sets out to require complete street enhancements, including minimum space allocations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, in all State-funded transportation investments.

Toward an Active California: State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2017) The California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a visionary and comprehensive policy to support active modes of transportation. Policies that stem from this plan will guide decisions about future bicycle and pedestrian investments and support local governments in creating a safe active transportation network.

The plan’s vision states that “by 2040, people in California of all ages, abilities, and incomes can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk and bicycle for their transportation needs.” The plan identifies policies and strategies that will get Caltrans to this goal focusing on safety, mobility, preservation of the transportation system, and social equity.

Caltrans District 5 Active Transportation Plan (2021)
The Caltrans District 5 Active Transportation Plan (Plan) advances the vision statement and goals in Toward an Active California, the statewide bicycle and pedestrian plan, and is part of a comprehensive planning process to identify locations with walking and bicycling needs in each Caltrans district across California. Caltrans staff and regional and agency partners will use the Plan to address high priority needs on, along, and across the State Highway System (SHS).

A key action of Toward an Active California is the development of Active Transportation Plans for each of the twelve local Caltrans districts. Part of this effort includes developing an overarching statewide framework and methodology for collecting, storing, and using active transportation data.

The statewide framework and methodology will inform each District Plan and will be flexible enough that each District can customize its study process to meet local contexts and needs. Each plan will be data-driven and will focus on developing context-appropriate recommendations within and adjacent to the Caltrans SHS right of way.
1100
This plan places a high priority on meeting needs for people in communities that face significant and disproportionate environmental, public health, and economic disadvantages. The SHS may sometimes act as a barrier to walking and biking in the communities it passes through, compounding challenges those communities already face. The plan uses disadvantaged community definitions from CalEnviroScreen and from local and regional planning agencies. The maps shown here use only the local and regional data.

Smart Mobility Framework
The California Smart Mobility Call to Action provides new approaches to implementation and lays the groundwork for an expanded State Transportation Planning Program. It enhances the scope of the existing California Transportation Plan by analyzing the benefits of multi-modal, interregional transportation projects. The Smart Mobility Framework emphasizes travel choices and safety for all users, supporting the goals of social equity, climate change intervention, energy security, and a sustainable economy.

CalEPA Environmental Justice Program / CalEnviroScreen
The principles of environmental justice call for fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community’s natural surroundings, and the places people live, work, play and learn.

California was one of the first states in the nation to codify environmental justice in statute. Beyond the fair treatment called for in code, leaders in the environmental justice movement work to include those individuals disproportionately impacted by pollution in decision making processes. The aim is to lift the unfair burden of pollution from those most vulnerable to its effects.

CalEnviroScreen is a screening methodology and mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and is an important tool in meeting the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) commitment to environmental justice for all.

Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (2021) The Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), produced by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), details how the state recommends investing billions of discretionary transportation dollars annually to aggressively combat and adapt to climate change while supporting public health, safety and equity. CAPTI builds on executive orders signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019 and 2020 targeted at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transportation, which account for more than 40 percent of all emissions, to reach the state's ambitious climate goals.

CalSTA developed the draft CAPTI through collaboration with many different state agencies, along with extensive outreach and engagement with hundreds of stakeholders.

CAPTI supports improving multimodal connectivity in local street networks (including overcrossing opportunities of Caltrans facilities) in order to enable more direct routing and efficient access to destinations for short trips, thereby removing trips from the state highway system. Additionally, 1101
adding and improving connected facilities for walking and bicycling in the corridor and for first/lastmile connections to local, interregional, and regional transit routes is also supported.

Caltrans System Investment Strategy (CSIS)
Caltrans is in a significant leadership role to carry out meaningful measures that advance state’s goals and priorities through the development and implementation of the Caltrans System Investment Strategy (CSIS). The CSIS, which implements one of CAPTI’s key actions, is envisioned to be an investment framework through a data and performance-driven approach that guides transportation investments and decisions. This framework includes methodologies and processes for how Caltrans should invest billions of dollars of highly competitive fund programs that will address transportation deficiencies while also achieving the CAPTI Guiding Principles.

Caltrans Director's Policy 37
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to their vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces. Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director.

REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
SBCAG Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Plan (2022) The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ (SBCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities’ Strategy (RTP-SCS) “Connected 2050,” explores the region’s land use and travel patterns, accounts for the demographic growth that will force new demands on both and presents a vision for how they can work together to satisfy the goals important to the region while also meeting the State’s GHG reduction targets.

The RTP-SCS regional objectives include reducing GHG and criteria pollutant emissions, promoting transit and alternative transportation, reducing VMT and congestion, reducing the frequency and severity of crashes, and increasing the bike, walk, and transit mode share.

SBCAG Regional Active Transportation Plan (2015)
The SBCAG Regional Active Transportation Plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) 2014 ATP Guidelines. It provides an overview of the existing conditions as related to the bicycle and pedestrian modes in the region and highlights current and future needs and improvements. The purpose of this plan is to create a regional vision for improving the bicycle and pedestrian network by integrating the bicycle and pedestrian planning of the region’s nine-member governments. The plan is also intended to establish a base level of 1102
eligibility for funding through ATP grants for specific projects in the plan area. Four goals were developed for the plan to guide its development, as well as to shape the future of the bicycle and pedestrian environments in the region:
• Enhance Mobility
• Increase Connectivity
• Promote Equity for all Users in all Communities
• Improve Safety and Public Health
Santa Ynez Bicycle Master Plan (SBCAG, 2019)
The purpose of this plan is to create a cohesive vision for recreational and utilitarian bicycle travel in the Santa Ynez Valley. The Santa Ynez Valley is governed by four jurisdictions: The County of Santa Barbara, the City of Buellton, the City of Solvang, and the Chumash Nation. In addition, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the owner/operator of State Routes 154 and 246, as well as US 101 in the study area. Each of these jurisdictions has their own goals and vision for bicycling, yet a cohesive vision is lacking. Travel by bicycle frequently involves crossing a political boundary and without a consistent vision, a disjointed and uncoordinated bicycle network can be expected.

This plan is intended to fill the sub-regional gap in bicycle planning. This plan has been prepared in a manner to allow for adoption by the cities of Buellton and Solvang, and the County of Santa Barbara. The final product of this plan is a project list pertaining to each jurisdiction that has been prioritized by the public. Identifying priority projects informs jurisdictions of the projects most wanted by the community.

Santa Ynez Valley Traffic Circulation & Safety Study (SBCAG, 2020) The Santa Ynez Valley Traffic Circulation & Safety Study was conducted by SBCAG, in partnership with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The Study aims to comprehensively assess and identify needed current and forecasted future circulation and safety improvements for the multimodal transportation of the Santa Ynez Valley. The Study offers both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of current travel conditions on the network, as well as potential short and long-term improvements to support growing travel demand, improved safety, increased connectivity, and increased quality of life and sustainability for residents.

SBCAG Measure A Program
SBCAG administers The Road Repair, Traffic Relief and Transportation Safety Measure, referred to by its ballot designation "Measure A" to implement needed transportation improvement projects and programs in Santa Barbara County from 2010 to 2040. It will generate approximately $1.050 billion over its life and will help leverage and match an estimated $0.5 billion in state and federal funds.

Funds will be spent on high priority transportation projects and programs that advisory committees in the North County and South Coast regions of the county have selected to address the current and future needs of each region. The measure calls for North County and the South Coast of the county to each receive 43.4 percent of revenues, or an estimated $455 million, generated over the 30 years.

The measure is in effect for high priority transportation projects and programs. 1103
As part the Measure A Program, SBCAG implements the Measure A North County Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program and Safe Routes to School Program with the goal of improving safety at school crossings and providing safe routes to schools, and increasing senior and disabled accessibility to public transit. SBCAG administers a call for active transportation project applications every five years that the North County jurisdictions to compete for. The first and second cycles occurred in 2015 and 2021 respectively. The third cycle is anticipated to occur in the 2024-25 timeframe.

LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES
Mission Drive Corridor Study (2014)
The Mission Drive Corridor Study analyzes traffic data, evaluates infrastructure, and provides recommendations for improvements to Mission Drive. The study analyzes intersections along Mission Drive, from Skytt Mesa Drive to Alamo Pintado Road. Collision data was utilized as well as community input via a public workshop in 2013. The study also explores street lighting, through traffic impacts, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activity. The study makes several recommendations for improvements to Mission Drive, including intersection improvements, curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian traffic signal equipment, etc. The analysis and recommendations in this study were used as guidance in addressing emphasis areas on Mission Drive, such as Mission Drive at Fifth Street, Mission Drive at Atterdag Road, Mission Drive at First Street, Mission Drive at Alisal Road, and Mission Drive at Alamo Pintado.

City of Solvang Local Roadway Safety Plan (2021)
The City of Solvang is committed to improving transportation safety. The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) addresses traffic safety needs and strategies, laying the groundwork to improve the health and safety of all residents and visitors. The City of Solvang aims to advance roadway safety through implementing a Vision Zero strategy and reducing the number of fatal and severe traffic incidents to zero by 2030. The installation and/or upgrade of bike and pedestrian infrastructure was included in the list of systemic countermeasures needed for East Mission Dr and Chalk Hill Rd.

General Plan – Circulation Element
The Circulation Element is the guide for the City to provide a balanced circulation system that addresses existing deficiencies and provides adequate capacity to support the travel demands of future development. To achieve this, the Circulation Element establishes acceptable roadway service levels and identifies improvements required to maintain the service levels. The Circulation Element promotes alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, walking, and bicycling to reduce the demand for transportation system improvements and to improve air quality. The Circulation Element contains policies to facilitate the development of more detailed circulation system implementation programs for the future.

City of Solvang Municipal Code
The City of Solvang’s municipal code contains local ordinances and regulations specifically pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians.
1104
APPENDIX 4: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS METHODOLOGY

MINETA INSTITUTE
1105

METHODOLOGY
The Bicycle LTS methodology is broken into three categories: segments (bike paths, lanes, or routes), intersection approaches (turn lanes), and intersection crossings (unsignalized intersections). Tablebased criteria are applied separately for each category using the “worst case principle,” meaning the worst (or highest) score among the criteria considered governs the overall LTS score for that facility.

Depending on the community context and the detail level desired, the overall methodology may be simplified based on the general consistency of facility types, as certain elements (e.g., turn lanes, bike lanes, speed limits, etc.) may not exist in a particular community. If there are no turn lanes on an approach, then this portion of the methodology is skipped. Signalized intersections do not receive an LTS score. Signalized crossings usually do not create a barrier, as the signal provides a protected crossing, and are not considered in the methodology.

SEGMENTS
Table 4.1 through Table 4.3 display the LTS scoring criteria utilized for analyzing the level of traffic stress for the various types of roadway segments, including segments within mixed traffic, segments with bicycle lanes alongside a parking lane, and segments with bicycle lanes not alongside a parking lane. Class I shared-use paths and Class IV separated bikeways, not shown in these tables, automatically receive an LTS score of 1, because of the increased level of comfort a facility separated from vehicular traffic provides a bicyclist. These table were adapted from the criteria tables presented in the Mineta methodology, incorporating vehicle lanes as a surrogate for street width.

Bicycle LTS for roadway segments accounts for traffic volumes, speed, presence and width of a bicycle lane, presence, width of a parking lane, and bicycle lane blockage, which denotes the frequency at which a bicycle lane is blocked. However, in the Solvang LTS analysis, there was no known data available suggesting frequent blockage of bicycle lanes in the city. As such, bicycle lane blockage was assumed rare, which is consistent with the Mineta methodological approach.

Bicycle LTS criteria for analyzing segments in mixed traffic are shown in Table 4.2. Mixed traffic segments are roadway segments that do not have Class II bicycle lanes. Roadway segments with Class III bicycle routes are analyzed as mixed traffic segments.

Table 4.3 presents the LTS analysis criteria for segments with bicycle lanes. As shown, some criteria result in “no effect.” No effect denotes that when other variables are accounted for there is no impact, or no effect, on the LTS score at that traffic stress level. For example, Table 4.3 shows “no effect” for two of the four criteria considered at LTS 4—the combined width of the adjacent bicycle and parking lanes and bicycle lane blockage. In this example, this means that a roadway segment featuring a bicycle lane alongside a parking lane, two or more through lanes per direction, and/or speeds at or higher than 40 mph, the width of the bicycle and parking lane will have no impact on the LTS score. If the sum of the bicycle and parking lane width is below 14 feet, considering only these criteria would result in LTS 3 score. When through lanes per direction and speeds are also considered and surpass two or more lanes and 40 mph speed thresholds shown in Table 4.3, the overall traffic stress of the segment would result in LTS 4. In this case, the combined bicycle/parking lane width and bicycle lane blockage would have no bearing on the overall score. 1106
TABLE 4.1: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA FOR SEGMENTS WITHIN MIXED TRAFFIC

BIKEWAY CLASS

EXISTING MILES
2-3 lanes 4-5 lanes 6+
UP TO 25 MPH LTS 1 or 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
30 MPH LTS 2 or 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
35 MPH OR MORE LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
TABLE 4.2: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA: SEGMENTS (BIKE LANES ALONGSIDE A PARKING LANE) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4

THROUGH LANES PER
DIRECTION 1 No effect 2 or more No effect

SUM OF BICYCLE LANE

WIDTH AND PARKING
LANE WIDTH1
15 feet or
more
14 to 15 feet Less than 14 feet No effect

SPEED LIMIT OR
PREVAILING SPEED Up to 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph or more

BICYCLE LANE
BLOCKAGE Rare No Effect Frequent No Effect
TABLE 4.3: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA: SEGMENTS (BIKE LANES NOT ALONGSIDE A PARKING LANE) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4

THROUGH LANES PER
DIRECTION 1 No effect 2 or more No effect

SUM OF BICYCLE LANE

WIDTH AND PARKING
LANE WIDTH1
6 feet or more Less than 6 feet No effect No effect

SPEED LIMIT OR
PREVAILING SPEED Up to 30 mph No effect 35 mph 40 mph or more

BICYCLE LANE
BLOCKAGE Rare No Effect Frequent No Effect
1107

APPROACHES
Based on the Mineta methodology, only approaches with right turn markings were included in the LTS analysis. Right turn lanes at intersection approaches can “challenge a cyclist’s normal position and create a weaving conflict” (Mineta 2012). Intersection approach scoring criteria for approaches are displayed in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5.

Table 4.4 presents the scoring criteria for right-turn approaches to an intersection that are adjacent to a bicycle lane, and Table 4.5 presents the scoring criteria for approaches adjacent to mixed traffic segments (i.e., travel lanes that include Class III or Sharrows).

These criteria include length of the right turn lane, configuration of the bicycle lane in relation to the right turn lane, and the estimated speed associated with the curb radius at the intersection turn.

The length of the turn lane accounts for the time a bicyclist is exposed to right-turning vehicles—longer turn lanes result in greater exposure and increased traffic stress. The curb radius accounts for the speed of a turning vehicle. A smaller curb radius will result in a tighter turn and slower turning speeds, while a larger curb radius will allow a vehicle to make a turn at greater speeds and result in higher traffic stress.

The bicycle lane configuration at an intersection approach also greatly influences traffic stress. At approaches where bicycle lanes exist along the adjacent roadway segment and a right turn lane is introduced, bicycle lanes are often configured to shift to the left so the bicycle lane is configured to the left of the right turn pocket. In these cases, either the bicycle lane abruptly veers to the left, or the bicycle lane disappears for roughly 100 feet then reappears closer to the intersection at the left of the right turn lane. Both of these scenarios require a bicyclist to merge to the left against vehicles entering the right turn lane. This increases traffic stress given that bicyclists must look over their shoulder to navigate the potential conflict with right-turning vehicles potentially traveling at high speeds and increases user priority ambiguity.

An approach featuring a free right movement, more than one turn lane, a trapped bicycle lane or a through-right lane will also result in increased traffic stress. According to the Mineta methodology, an approach configuration where the bicycle lane continues straight will result in the lowest traffic stress, because this type of configuration will result in an unambiguous priority placed on the bicyclist and cars merge across the bicycle lane rather than vice versa.

PHOTO CREDIT: DKS, 2021
1108
TABLE 4.4: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA FOR APPROACHES ALONGSIDE BICYCLE LANES

CONFIGURATION LTS
SINGLE RIGHT-TURN LANE UP TO 150 FT LONG STARTING ABRUPTLY WHILE BICYCLE

LANE CONTINUES STRAIGHT AND INTERSECTION ANGLE/CURB RADIUS SUCH THAT TURNING SPEED IS ≤15 MPH
LTS≥2
SINGLE RIGHT-TURN LANE LONGER THAN 150 FT STARTING ABRUPTLY WHILE

BICYCLE LANE CONTINUES STRAIGHT AND INTERSECTION ANGLE/CURB RADIUS SUCH THAT TURNING SPEED IS ≤15 MPH
LTS≥3

SINGLE RIGHT-TURN LANE WITH BICYCLE LANE THAT SHIFTS TO THE LEFT AND INTERSECTION ANGLE/CURB RADIUS SUCH THAT TURNING SPEED IS ≤15 MPH LTS≥3 SINGLE RIGHT-TURN LANE WITH ANY OTHER CONFIGURATION OR DUAL RIGHTTURN LANES OR RIGHT-TURN LANE ALONG WITH A COMBINED THROUGH/RIGHT LANE
LTS≥4
TABLE 4.5: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA FOR APPROACHES ALONG MIXED TRAFFIC SEGMENTS

CONFIGURATION LTS
SINGLE RIGHT-TURN LANE UP TO 75 FT LONG AND INTERSECTION ANGLE/CURB RADIUS SUCH THAT TURNING SPEED IS ≤15 MPH No effect
SINGLE RIGHT-TURN LANE BETWEEN 75 FT AND 150 FT LONG AND INTERSECTION ANGLE/CURB RADIUS SUCH THAT TURNING SPEED IS ≤15 MPH LTS≥3 ANY OTHER CONFIGURATION LTS≥4
1109

CROSSINGS
Only crossings at unsignalized intersections were considered in the LTS analysis. Unsignalized intersections with median refuges of at least six feet and those without a median refuge are analyzed separately, as shown in Table 4.6 and Table 4.7.

According to the Mineta methodology, signalized crossings are generally not analyzed as these crossing control types generally do not create a barrier to connectivity. In most cases, signalization provides adequate protection when crossing an intersection. An exception to this scoring criteria is roadways that are exceptionally wide (i.e., more than eight travel lanes), or where data exists to suggest that signal timings do not provide adequate crossing time for cyclists.

Crossings at intersections between two roadways classified as local/residential that received LTS 1 (low-stress) scores, were also assumed to be low-stress due to low volumes and speed.

TABLE 4.6: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA FOR CROSSINGS WITH A MEDIAN REFUGE OF AT LEAST 6 FEET

SPEED LIMIT OF STREET BEING

CROSSED

EXISTING MILES
Up to 3 Lanes 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes
UP TO 25 MPH LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
30 MPH LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3
35 MPH LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
40 MPH OR MORE LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
TABLE 4.7: BICYCLE LTS CRITERIA FOR CROSSINGS WITHOUT A MEDIAN

SPEED LIMIT OF STREET BEING

CROSSED

EXISTING MILES
Up to 3 Lanes 4-5 Lanes 6+ Lanes
UP TO 25 MPH LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
30 MPH LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3
35 MPH LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
40 MPH OR MORE LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1110
APPENDIX 5: CLASS I PATH RENDERINGS

1111
Mission Drive (SR 246) Parallel Bike Trail
Total Distance +- .57 miles
1112
Mission Drive (SR 246) Parallel Bike Trail
1113
Mission Drive (SR 246) Parallel Bike Trail
Paramedics
1114
Mission Drive (SR 246) Parallel Bike Trail
Possible
Drainage
Issue
1115
Mission Drive (SR 246) Parallel Bike Trail
+- 33 ft +-33 ft
1116
Open Space Trail
Mission Drive (SR 246) to Chalk Hill Road
Total Trail Length; Approximately 0.81 Miles
1117
Open Space Trail
Mission Drive (SR 246) to Chalk Hill road
1118
Open Space Trail
Mission Drive (SR 246) to Chalk Hill Road
1119
Open Space Trail
Mission Drive (SR 246) to Chalk Hill Road
1120
Open Space Trail
Mission Drive (SR 246) to Chalk Hill road
1121
Open Space Trail
Mission Drive (SR 246) to Chalk Hill Road
1122
Trail : SR 246 to Chalk Hill Road
Segment 1: SR 246 (0.39 miles N)
1123
Trail : SR 246 to Chalk Hill Road
Segment 2: (0.39 miles N) of SR 246 to 0.39 miles W to Chalk Hill Road 1124
1125
1126