Design Review Committee recommends Alisal Event Farm design advance to Planning Commission

The Solvang Design Review Committee on Thursday recommended that the proposed Alisal Event Farm design move forward to the Planning Commission, while asking the applicant to provide more detailed materials, lighting and landscape specifications before the public hearing.

Staff described the project as a conditional use permit and development permit for a new event and meeting facility on roughly 30.78 acres at 1054 Alisal Road (APN 137-310). The proposal would add multiple new structures — a large event barn, a smaller event barn, a meeting barn with a bridal suite and an entry pavilion with restrooms, bar and storage — plus landscaping, courtyards, pedestrian pathways and site improvements. "The project is currently deemed incomplete," staff noted during the presentation. "Photometric plans have been requested by city staff and will be reviewed as part of the ongoing project review process." (Staff)

Applicant representatives said they have submitted technical reports for environmental review (noise, traffic, biology, geotechnical) and that the design aims to match the ranch’s agrarian character using vertical wood siding, local stone and corrugated metal roofing. Architect Dan Weber described the design intent as an assemblage of simple barn forms intended to "feel like it belongs on a ranch," with chimneys used to conceal mechanical and ventilation runs. The team said a commercial kitchen is planned inside the big barn and that a fully enclosed trash enclosure is sited west of the big barn and will be screened from view.

Committee members pressed for specifics. Multiple members said the submittal lacked clear, readable material callouts and a dedicated lighting plan; staff and the architect responded that lighting types are keyed on the architectural site plan (LT-1, LT-2, LT-3) and photometric calculations are available but acknowledged the shared PDF made details difficult to read. The landscape consultants said the planting palette emphasizes drought‑tolerant and native species and agreed to consider alternate shade trees and seasonal shrubs (suggestions included toyon and lemonade berry) to soften long wall planes and add color.

Members also discussed project process: the application is currently deemed incomplete, and the DRC has two main options — recommend the design to the Planning Commission (possibly with specific recommended conditions) or request the applicant return to DRC with more detailed submittals. The applicant asked the committee to move the project forward to the Planning Commission while continuing to refine details in subsequent submittals.

A motion to recommend the design to the Planning Commission carried on a roll-call vote, three in favor and two opposed. Roll-call recorded Member Gats, Member Johnson and Vice Chair Boyd voting to recommend the design; Member Melissa Bates and Chair Esther Jacobson Bates voted against the recommendation. The motion passed 3–2. (Maddie, clerk)

What the committee directed next: members who favored moving the project asked staff and the applicant to provide more explicit material samples (final stain/cut of cedar siding), a clearer lighting/photometric exhibit, and a more detailed landscape and hardscape plan for Planning Commission review or as part of the final package. Staff noted that the Planning Commission is the project review authority and that many finer engineering and working-drawing details will be completed during later permit stages.

The project file notes that the applicant has requested a parking modification through the conditional-use process; specific parking counts and many construction-level details (final light fixture lumen values, exact stone selection and finish samples, and mechanical unit locations) remain "not specified" in the record presented to DRC and were requested by the committee.

The committee’s recommendation sends the design to Planning Commission with the expectation that the applicant and staff incorporate the committee’s requested clarifications. The meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.