Solvang council asks staff to study urban growth boundary and annexation options amid housing, water and emergency-access concerns

Rafael Castillo, planning staff, presented a staff report on March 10 outlining how Solvang’s urban growth boundary (UGB) limits annexation and could constrain the city’s ability to address housing needs, water security and emergency access. Castillo told the council the ordinance was adopted following a 2020 initiative and that its language is ambiguous on key points such as what qualifies as "immediately adjacent" for annexation purposes.

Why it matters: Council members and staff said the city faces a midterm challenge: the state’s housing‑planning cycles require the city to accommodate more housing yet Solvang’s small footprint, UGB and limited developable land complicate meeting those targets without annexation, increased density or long-range planning. Council members also raised public-safety concerns about limited ingress and egress during wildfires.

Castillo described three staff options for council direction: do nothing and retain the UGB; direct staff to study ways to amend or appeal the ordinance; or direct staff to codify an urban growth management plan that would interpret the UGB and prescribe findings and procedures for annexation, master planning and infrastructure phasing.

Council discussion touched on the practical implications. City Manager Murphy said annexation and master‑planning processes typically take years, require LAFCO approval, and can be costly; they also can include tax‑sharing and other negotiations. "If the answer is does it give us more control? Yes, it does," Castillo said, describing how a planned approach could tie annexation to infrastructure phasing, financing and responsibility for road and utility improvements.

Council members expressed broad support for a directed study. Multiple members said the council needed to understand what findings would allow annexation under the existing ordinance and whether modest changes could secure water supply, better emergency routes and development sites to meet future regional housing needs. A member of the public, Dennis Beebe, urged the council to ensure public involvement, noting the 2020 petition that led to the UGB.

The council did not vote to repeal the UGB; rather, members directed staff to study options and return with analysis and recommended next steps. Staff said the study would include consultation with the city attorney and noted that any repeal would require a vote of the electorate and further public process.

Ending: Council members asked staff to return with a timeline and scope for study, including opportunities for public outreach and the extent to which annexation options align with water‑supply, emergency‑access and long‑range planning needs.