Supervisor Paulding offered up a motion regarding the roughly $2.5 million in SB 1090 funds that the county currently has available for low-income housing projects. His motion was to direct staff to focus on projects in the unincorporated parts of SLO County. He mentioned two projects currently seeking gap funding, one on Cayucos and one in Templeton. Supervisor Peshong agreed and seconded the motion. Supervisor Ortiz Legg cautioned that she believes the county should not be spending funds at this time - or at least it needs to be very cautious about doing so, due to the projected state funding shortfalls.

The Board also passed a resolution declaring June 6 as Hunger Awareness Day. The day corresponds with an open House at the SLO Food Bank. And it proclaimed the second Saturday in June 2025 as “Juneteenth Day”.

The Board adopted the resolution to keep the Cannabis Tax at the current level of 6% as opposed to letting it incur an additional 2% that would otherwise be an automatic increase. The measure had a half dozen cannabis entrepreneurs testify in favor, citing challenging business conditions and expensive overhead.

The lone voice in opposition was from Mr. Murray Powell who said:

Supervisor Moreno pointed out the fact that this is one of only two taxes where the County Supervisors have discretion. The other is the Transit Occupancy Tax also known as the TOT or Bed Tax charged to guests staying in local hotels and motels.

Since 2009, the County of San Luis Obispo has had a County Unincorporated Area Tourism Business Improvement District (better known as a CBID) which charges a tax of 2% to guests at the 1,481 hotels, motels and vacation rentals throughout the county. That tax remains in effect until at least a simple majority of those taxed register a vote of protest.

Balloting is now open for such a vote, but only just over 8% have objected. Supervisor Ortiz Legg requested that the hotels being taxed get a survey inquiring about their priorities for how the CBID funds should be spent. She pointed out that some hotels aren’t getting the ballot and suggested the CBID needs more info from hotels regarding what sorts of projects would be most helpful to the tourism industry locally

Item 29? Was a simple appeal of a permit to replace a single-story house with a two story home. The original permit was granted on Nov 1, 2024, but has been in limbo since, awaiting the deliberations at this meeting. The agenda item read as follows:
Hearing to consider appeals by Jeff Kwansy of North Coast Advisory Council (NCAC)
(APPL2024-00031), Jeff Lentz (APPL2024-00032), and Christina Galloway
(APPL2024-00033) of the Planning Department Hearing Officer’s approval of a request by Peter and Beata Przybyslawski for a Minor Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit (C-DRC2023-00060) to allow the replacement of an existing, single-family residence with a new two-story, approximately 2,419 square foot, single-family residence with three bedrooms, three bathrooms, kitchen, dining and family room, a media room, and laundry room, exterior deck, a single car garage and one uncovered parking space. The project will result in the disturbance of approximately 5,929 square feet on a 0.10- acre parcel. The proposed project is within the Residential Single-Family land use category and is located at 2675 Sherwood Drive in the community of Cambria. The site is in the North Coast Area Plan. Also to be considered is the determination that the project qualifies for a General Rule or Common-Sense exemption from environmental review under CEQA. (Planning and Building)

The appeal was based upon several claims that the permit was granted despite the project not following the required specifications. County planning addressed each of those complaints in about four minutes, making it clear that the project met all requirements.

The appellants then proceeded to list in detail each of their objections, almost all of which were subjective, including one lady who was upset because she had built a gingerbread copy of the original house and didn’t want to see it demolished, and others worried about two trees that would be removed even though new healthier ones would be planted in their place.

The single item on the agenda took an hour to resolve, and never did the appellant group have a relevant point. It tied up staff from the planning department as well as countless other staff who were in support roles. It cost the homeowner to have a representative appear and it cost the homeowner over seven months in delays. Due process can be a time-consuming effort.

The photo above shows the house as it currently stands. The photo below illustrates the proposed new structure:

The last item on the agenda also proved to be a lengthy discussion about aligning SLO County Additional Dwelling and lot split standards with state SB 9 standards with a goal of producing more low and very low income housing. This data rich presentation called for adoption of recommended ordinances amending the Inland and Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinances and Local Coastal Program to update regulations relating to the Density Bonus Program; and Adopt the recommended resolution amending the Williamson Act Rules of Procedure to update regulations relating to accessory dwellings. The Ordinances if adopted would call for density bonuses of 15% for very low-income targeted projects. The possibility of an amnesty program for unpermitted units meeting minimum standards was included. Limits of 1200 square feet or less on ADUs were also explored.

It’s worth noting that the subject of parking did not come up. In practically every planning Department appeal in the Coastal Zone, parking is discussed in great detail. One recent project that met all criteria and was issued a permit got bogged down in the appeal process primarily because its off-street parking plan was deemed insufficient by some Board members. Front-yard setbacks did become a subject of concern and was addressed in proposed language.

Discussion of how a homeowner could create a lot split, add additional structures, how many and how large those structures would be, became very technical. At a couple points, Supervisors seemed befuddled by the various equations and options but ended up adopting standards recommended by staff with some minor revisions that are hoped to allow for some flexibility.

Despite an admirable presentation by staff, and voluminous discussion, this subject seemed a bit too detailed to be heard and codified in a 40ish minute session. One got the impression that there were a lot of fingers crossed when the vote was finally taken.

As to specific details of the measure that was adopted, it is recommended that anyone thinking about lot splits, ADUs, seeking amnesty or wondering exactly what can and cannot be done in this regard, consult the planning department with very specific questions early on. It could be a complicated process.
The following illustrates key data points used in configuring ADU regulations:

American Community Survey for San Luis Obispo County

The following graph illustrates the anticipated number of homes needed in four different categories, and compares those needs to actual dwellings built in those specific categories. The measurement, called the RHNA, is a standardized formula used by all counties in California to gauge progress towards housing goals. Farther below is a chart illustrating the number of ADUs built in SLO County by year, and the last graph illustrates the number of ADUs allowed on a lot.

SLO County budget hearings are scheduled for June 9-11 in Board chambers. It is possible that hearings could finish before June 11.

An audit being conducted by KPMG on county finances and effeciencies is due to be finished on June 17. Nothing is known of their findings to date, but the results could have an impact on budgetary priorities. Expect it to be a highly read document.