County board taking steps to encourage more multi-family dwellings

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY — The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors took a step toward its effort to reach its state affordable housing requirement by forwarding, with some modifications, an Ad Hoc Committee’s and the county Planning Commission’s recommendations at its Tuesday, Aug. 19, regular meeting.

The item stemmed from an effort that started March 12, 2024, when the board directed the county’s Department of Planning and Building to prioritize nine key Housing Element implementation actions by establishing the 2020-2028 Housing Element Implementation Framework, which contains near-term and long-term actions aimed at achieving the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the unincorporated county. On Sept. 10, 2024, the board formed an Ad Hoc 2020-2028 Housing Element Implementation Steering Committee, led by Supervisors Dawn Ortiz-Legg and Jimmy Paulding, to provide guidance on stakeholder engagement and key implementation decision points relating to the Implementation Framework. Other members include representatives from the home builder industry and nonprofit affordable housing builders.

The main focus of the Aug. 19 meeting was giving first approval on the staff and committee’s Implementation Action 01, which was to Encourage Multi-Family Dwelling Development (like apartment buildings and mixed-use complexes) and Implementation Action 02, which established a Regional Housing Incentive Program. The recommended ordinances and resolutions were proposed to update current regulations for multi-family dwellings to increase flexibility for housing development in the county, while protecting the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The item Aug. 19 was for tentative action and authorization of the use of alternative publication procedures for Action 01. A second public hearing for final action is scheduled for the meeting Sept. 23.

The staff presentation, given by Cory Hanh and Schani Siong of the County Planning Department, outlined the amendments for the Implementation Action 01 and 02:

Modify the exception for residential use in commerical land-use, to allow 100% residential use in commercial land use categories to require dedication of 16% instead of 8% of total dwelling units as guaranteed affordable units for very low- or low- income categories.
In increasing dwelling units per acre, to consider three site factors: [1] development status (developed or undeveloped), [2] parcel size, and [3] developability to provide required number of residential units
Increase the maximum floor area, depending on site intensity (referring to proximity of paved road and sewer system)
Reduce minimum off-street parking
Increase maximum building height to up to 45 feet
Reduce minimum setbacks for residential use
Reduce minimum open area

During public comment on the item, a numbers of representatives from local housing authorities and nonprofits praised the item and the proposed amendments and urged the board to approve them.

“We’re big proponents of the multi-family developements, and the demand is there for that,” said Ken Trigueiro of the People’s Self-Help Housing. “I’d just like to thank Supervisors Ortiz-Legg and Paulding for rolling up their sleeves and putting in the work.”

Lenny Grant, a local architect involved with the REACH coalition agreed.

“I’m heartened by the effort to encourage apartment buildings and multi-family complexes,” he said. “Just be cautious about fine-turning too much. This is fine.”

As the item returned to council, Paulding proposed some modificiations to the amendments on the table. He raised the question about whether setting a minimum density was necessary as it was rare to have a developer build less than what was allowed. Fellow Supervisor Heather Moreno was skeptical about that also.

“In the past, have we had builders who build less than we allow,” she asked. “The challenge has been not being allowed to build more. I feel like we’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

However, Supervisor Bruce Gibson believed the minimum requirements had a purpose.

I think it’s important to retain minimum densities. My experiences was that I saw a few where single-family homes were put on multi-family lots,” he said. “I suggest we stick with it, and catalog that times that was a problem, and we can revisit in a year.” Paulding said that idea sounded reasonable to him.

Paulding touched upon a couple of topics he brought up earlier: Minimum density for mixed-use projects which was proposed to go from 8% to 16%, and building height, which he thought was too high for the max. He proposed to meet in the middle for the minimum density, suggesting the standared be 10%, and said he could back the staff suggestion of 45 feet for high intensity and 40 for low and medium intensity areas.

“I want to make sure requirement aren’t too onerous, and we’ll actually build units,” he said.

Ultimately, the board voted 4-0 with the following modifications: Lowering maximum height (to be reviewed for the Sept. 23 meeting), change the minimum density for mixed-use to 10%, keeping the overal minimum density while tracking it over the year, removing the interim residential use requirement, and emphasizing that cities maintain downtown character.

The Board of Supervisors will next meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 9