Residents urge Solvang to accept appeal, say Wildwood "Site C" application is incomplete

A coalition of residents and property owners urged the Solvang City Council on Jan. 13 to accept and act on appeals challenging the city staff’s completeness determination for the Wildwood development application (often referenced in the meeting as "Site C"). Speakers asked the council to reverse staff action or to accept the appeal for processing.

Multiple speakers — including Dennis Beebe, Craig Kent, Dan Martin, Lansing Duncan, Steve Martin and Al Cortesi — argued that the developer’s preliminary application failed to meet statutory requirements under Senate Bill 330 (builders’ remedy) and that notices or required title reports were not provided to owners of a key 60-foot easement owned by Mission Oaks property owners. Craig Kent told the council the city manager had refused to accept a putative appeal for filing and asked the council to "direct staff to receive the appeal and process it according to city code or alternatively to exercise your authority and accept the appeal for review and decision." Dan Martin and others said the easement area is common property owned by 18 Mission Oaks homeowners and that those owners were not included or notified as required.

Speakers further alleged the developer reduced the affordable-housing percentage during the submittal sequence — from the 20% often associated with SB 330 vesting to a later 13% figure reflected in AB 1893 — and that staff’s completeness determination allowed the developer to pursue a status that could circumvent the higher affordability requirement. Lansing Duncan and others asked the council to "pull its head out of the sand," accept the appeal and either process it or take jurisdiction to review the staff determination. Steve Martin and other speakers urged the council to follow applicable statutes in determining whether the developer had properly vested a builder’s remedy application.

City staff recorded the public comments and said they would make the related correspondence part of the record; attorneys for neighborhood groups had submitted a cease‑and‑desist letter and an appeal request earlier in late December 2024, according to public speakers and filings referenced during the meeting. Several speakers requested the council exercise its authority to accept and adjudicate the appeal if staff declines to do so.

Councilors did not take an immediate vote on the appeal requests during the Jan. 13 meeting. The item and related filings remain pending for council consideration in a future agenda. Residents and neighborhood representatives said they expect the council to accept the appeal and ensure the application complies with SB 330, relevant state guidance, and the city’s municipal code.