Background - Wildwood Project

---

On October 6, 2023, ALAMO PINTADO LOTS, LLC, owned by Oakland attorney and former Solvang resident Josh Richman and his family, submitted a preliminary application to Solvang for a 109-unit, 2- and 3-story development and requested a reduced on-site parking requirement. The project covers two lots totaling 5.48 acres at the corner of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive. Three acres of this site contain steep slopes, are zoned for low-density development (2 dwellings per acre), and fall within a designated viewshed meant to preserve Solvang’s scenic character. This area, known as Site C in Solvang’s General Plan Housing Element (HE), is located opposite The Merkantile shopping center on Old Mission Drive, across Alamo Pintado Road from Nielsen’s Shopping Center, and just 100 yards from the heavily trafficked gateway intersection of Alamo Pintado with Mission Drive/Route 246. If approved, the development is expected to have a significant negative impact on the town's infrastructure, safety, and small-town character.

For over two years, local residents worked closely with Solvang’s government to create a Housing Element that would balance the need for affordable housing with protections for Solvang's resources, gateways, traffic and pedestrian safety, and historical charm. Site C has been a focal point due to its prominence at Solvang’s main entrance and concerns about how an unlimited high-density development on both lots, including the steepest land, would affect drainage, erosion, traffic and pedestrian safety, emergency access, view sheds and neighborhood character.

Despite years of input from the community and the City's own recommendations in the Housing Element to limit high-density development to the flatter portions of Site C, the current proposal includes seven buildings—six of them substantial in size and one rising to three stories—and covers the steepest part of the site. The plan would reduce the required setback from Old Mission Drive to 10 feet, half the required 20-foot setback, thereby compromising future options for improving the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive heavily trafficked intersection. It also provides for reduced and inadequate on Site parking. Although State housing law is designed to promote affordable housing, only 20 of the 100 planned units would be affordable. 

The public is now being told that it’s too late for meaningful input to secure modifications to the proposal, even though the development poses serious concerns, including potential impacts to the historic Santa Ynez Mission Aqueduct.

This situation arose because Solvang missed the State’s deadline for certifying its Housing Element by eight months, leaving the City out of compliance with state law from June 15, 2023, to February 15, 2024. This allowed the developer to exploit a legal loophole known as the Builder’s Remedy, which bypasses local zoning laws, limits the review process, and disregards recommendations in the Housing Element for limited development on Site C.

How Did This Happen?

The failure to meet the Housing Element deadline can be traced to staffing and oversight issues within Solvang’s government. Crafting a new General Plan and Housing Element is a fundamental planning responsibility, and the State’s deadline for approval of Solvang's most recent Housing Element was February 15, 2023, with a 120-day grace period. However, as early as 2020, the City was failing to prepare to meet its obligation. In March 2020, the City laid off its Planning Manager, and the position remained unfilled by a permanent manager for over three and one half years. During this time, the City relied on inexperienced staff, temporary appointments of staff and retirees to management positions, and a part-time contract planner. The City Manager resigned in September 2022, with no permanent replacement made for over five months.

In October 2020, the City contracted with a Sacramento-based consultant at a cost of over $800,000 to assist with drafting the Housing Element. However, confusion over the Consultant's scope of work, fees and delays led to significant setbacks, with City/Consultant contract revisions occurring periodically, one as late as June 2023—well after the city was already out of compliance. Oversight of the Consultant’s work was assigned to the Public Works Engineer rather than the Planning Department, with minimal engagement from the City Council.

The Consultant's process for developing the Housing Element, which included public workshops, a website, and a General Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee (GPAC), dragged on for two years. No workshops were held between June 2021 and January 2022. Though concerns over COVID may have played some roll in 2020 and early 2021, no measures were taken to expedite the planning process once the Covid pandemic abated, and the City made no request to the State for extra time

The first draft of the Housing Element was finally released to the public in December 2022, just two months before the state approval deadline. Despite numerous errors identified by city staff and residents, the City did not demand their immediate correction and many were not corrected until just before the February, 2023 State submission. This compressed timeline left the City Council with little opportunity for meaningful review or revisions, particularly regarding Site C.

At the last minute, the Site C Developer requested that a 109-unit development be included as an alternate to the Housing Element’s recommendations for limited development of Site C. This inclusion request was approved without public notice and under the mistaken belief that the City was legally obligated to comply with the Developer's demands.

The Consequences of Non-Compliance

After the Housing Element was submitted to the State on February 15, 2023, the Developer immediately asked the State to deny its approval and substitute his 109 unit alternate as the plan for Site C. The City did not make the Developer's request public or challenge it. Nor did it engage in discussions with the Developer about the Housing Element’s recommendations for Site C.

In May, 2023, the State directed the City to provide additional information and revisions to its HE. One month remained in the grace period to be in compliance. However, the revisions were not completed in time, and by mid-June 2023, Solvang was officially out of compliance with state law.

In the meantime, the acting Planning Manager resigned in July 2023, citing understaffing and burnout, and it wasn’t until September 2023 that a new Planning Manager was hired. The revised Housing Element was finally submitted to the State in November 2023, but Solvang remained out of compliance until State certification on February 15, 2024.

While the City struggled with these delays, the Site C developer submitted his Builder’s Remedy application on October 6, 2023. This type of application, made possible by the city’s failure to meet its Housing Element deadline, bypasses local zoning laws and significantly limits the review process. The application included a proposal for a vehicle access road and parking on a 60-foot easement over property owned 18 Mission Oaks residents. The Developer failed to identify and secure the required signatures of these property owners on the Preliminary Application. Although the City initially requested a title report, this request was later withdrawn without confirming the underlying easement property ownership.

Lack of Action from the City Council

The City Council has failed to take meaningful action to protect Solvang. It has not challenged the state’s designation of the City as out of substantial compliance, nor has it denied the incomplete and illegal Builder’s Remedy Preliminary Application. The Council has not pursued mediation, despite offers of free assistance, nor has it adequately responded to the concerns of dozens of citizens regarding the development's negative impact. The Council has also failed to engage with the attorney hired by residents to address their concerns. Instead, the Council has expressed reluctance to take any steps that might lead to a lawsuit from the Developer.

Why did the City fail to protect Solvang? Why were key planning positions left unfilled, and why was there inadequate supervision of the Consultant? Why didn't the City take more steps to meet the State deadline, or ask for additional time? Why is it unwilling to challenge the illegal development application? These are questions that demand answers as Solvang faces permanent damage from its inaction.