Nov. 14 was a triumphant day for Dana Reserve developer Nick Tompkins, as the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) gave his housing project one of the last go-aheads it needed despite the Nipomo Action Committee’s final attempts to stall it.
“Reaching this stage is incredibly gratifying for everyone who has been part of this five-year process,” Jocelyn Brennan said via email on behalf of Tompkins. “This project will provide much-needed opportunities across the housing ladder, from affordable, workforce, to missing middle housing, creating options for families at every stage of life.”
The Dana Reserve aims to build 1,370 housing units in Nipomo as well as a village shopping center, a California Fresh Market grocery store, a South County Cuesta College campus, and 203,000 square feet of recreational space inside a 288-acre plot of land.
After receiving the green light from the SLO County Board of Supervisors on May 2, the project went before the Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD) to get approval to be annexed into its service area. In October, the county and NCSD resolved their dispute over potential property tax revenue generated by the project.
And on Nov. 14, LAFCO approved the project’s annexation into the NCSD 6-1, with 4th District SLO County Supervisor Jimmy Paulding dissenting.
Paulding said that his main concern was that the unincorporated area of Nipomo doesn’t have the infrastructure to support the project’s eventual demands.
“I think this board is tasked with looking at the quality of life of the residents of Nipomo who live there juxtaposed against the need for affordable workforce housing, and I think that it’s a balancing act that we have to achieve,” he said during the Nov. 14 LAFCO meeting. “In this one case, I just think it’s out of balance.”
Paulding added that the 19 class 1 impacts laid out in the project’s environmental impact report (EIR) are unprecedented.
“We’re talking traffic, water, air quality, [cutting down] 3,000 native oak trees. I think that list is too long,” he said.
Fellow Supervisor and LAFCO commissioner Debbie Arnold disagreed with Paulding, saying that the county already approved the EIR.
In fact, Arnold said, the county struck a great balance with the 2 million acres of land it encompasses, having conservation easements on 700,000 to 800,000 acres of private land while also having a state park and other areas that are zoned for no development.
“I do believe that there’s no reason for this LAFCO commission to not grant the Nipomo Community Services District’s request to annex this property into their jurisdiction,” she said.
In a letter sent to LAFCO, the Nipomo Action Committee, which opposes the Dana Reserve, claimed that a new type of manzanita plant species specific to Nipomo was discovered within the project area.
“The letter concludes that a supplemental EIR is required by LAFCO because this is new information that could not or was not known at the time the EIR was prepared and certified,” LAFCO’s Executive Officer Rob Fitzroy said during the meeting.
Fitzroy said that while manzanita was identified on the project site, it’s staff’s opinion that a brand-new type of manzanita is speculative as the information hasn’t yet been validated or peer-reviewed.
“This species is not on any list, and it also has not been recognized by any state or federal resource agency,” he said. “The information at this point is preliminary. There’s no site-specific data that it does occur on-site.”
Brennan with the Dana Reserve said the team still has outstanding legal issuess to attend to such as resolving the Nipomo Action Committee’s lawsuit against the project.
On May 28, the Nipomo Action Committee sued the Dana Reserve, the county, and the Board of Supervisors claiming that the project would stress local resources and burden local emergency services from agencies like Cal Fire and the SLO County Sheriff’s Office.
The lawsuit also states that the project would result in several unavoidable significant impacts.
“We are optimistic about resolving this so that we can proceed with delivering the much-needed housing and community benefits,” Brennan said. “Throughout this process, we will continue to engage with community stakeholders and neighbors.”
Brennan said there isn’t a date yet for when the project will break ground. Δ
This article appears in Holiday Guide 2024.
When are the headlines going to switch to focusing on how a group of home-owning neighbors have sued to stop a development that brings tons of housing and even down payment assistance?
It has the support of peoples self help housing and dignity health (who shares housing is the number one reason doctors don’t move here!). It brings a new place for Cuesta. It has tons of people coming to speak in support at every meeting (more than those who oppose). It’s very much wanted.
Why aren’t these neighbors being painted as anything but selfish? Why isn’t the one politician encouraging them being shamed?
Generation Build is thrilled with this project! No more delays, stop the lawsuit, let’s build! Every delay just hurts families and the middle class more and more, they will be the ones who will have to deal with the financial consequences that neighbors and elected officials are putting on them. We won’t forget. Let’s Build Some Homes!
This is nothing more than a group of existing property owners fighting to stop neighboring development. I’m sure people weren’t pleased when these folks built their homes, but property rights are property rights. They knew the property was zoned for development. Maybe they should have purchased it to keep it as open space? And the 4th District Supervisor who has a rather large portion of the county to represent is micro-focused on this project. It begs the question as to “why?” Does Paulding hold a grudge against the developer? It’s time to build homes that support our workforce on land properly zoned for it. As my mother would say to these neighbors, “get over yourselves.” Change is inevitable, whether focused on property rights and development or elected representation…