San Luis Obispo County 2nd District Supervisor Bruce Gibson called for more transparency in the Dana Reserve settlement agreement, ahead of the Board of Supervisors’ November hearing on the project’s revised plan.
“Beyond changes to the project itself, the agreement includes payments from the developer to those groups—I’ve been told those payments amount to over $2 million, plus attorneys’ fees to their counsel,” Gibson said in an email to New Times.
The proposed Dana Reserve development experienced stumbling blocks over the years, most recently with two rounds of lawsuits from the Nipomo Action Committee and the SLO chapter of the California Native Plant Society against the county, the Board of Supervisors, and Dana Reserve developer NKT Commercial over environmental impact concerns.
Both lawsuits came to a halt thanks to a settlement agreement between NKT, the Nipomo Action Committee, and the local California Native Plant Society chapter.
While the groups agreed to reduce affordable housing by half of what was originally proposed for the development, the settlement also includes two pages of redacted information.
According to the agreement, NKT’s proposed closure of Hetrick Avenue would require an undisclosed amount of payment to the county—if it approves the closure—for the construction of a cul-de-sac and striping at Ridge Road and Hetrick Avenue.
Gibson, who voted against the earlier iteration of the Dana Reserve housing development plan in 2024, told New Times that the settlement draws SLO County into it because of the money it could potentially receive to carry out the closure of Hetrick Avenue even though the county wasn’t involved in the agreement.
He declined to reveal who told him about the details of the agreement.
In a letter sent separately to NKT developer Nick Tompkins and Nipomo Action Committee and plant society attorney Babak Naficy, the supervisor requested that they make public an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement. He also asked them to send him a copy by Oct. 7.
“Unfortunately, the payment amounts cannot be verified because the only publicly available copy of the settlement agreement … is heavily redacted,” Gibson’s letter said. “The Dana Reserve project, as approved on April 24, 2024, has significant impacts of public interest. Any consideration of modifying that approval should be completely and transparently informed.”
As of Oct. 7, Gibson said he hadn’t receive an unredacted copy of the agreement. He added that Tompkins told him the Nipomo Action Committee and the SLO chapter of the California Native Plant Society prefer that the redacted portions of the agreement to kept private.
According to the settlement, if the county doesn’t approve the Hetrick Avenue closure, NKT would instead give that undisclosed amount of money to the Nipomo Action Committee for “other public benefit purposes within the Nipomo Mesa area.”
The Nipomo Action Committee didn’t specify the amount of money it could potentially receive and what projects it could fund.
“We would like to confirm that the settlement agreement with NKT Development regarding the Dana Reserve project will provide significant financial resources earmarked for community benefits to address the future priorities of the Nipomo community,” the committee said in a statement to New Times. “We have been actively engaging with residents through community workshops and have reviewed the results of the Nipomo Community Survey conducted by the county. These and future engagements will help us identify key projects to benefit our community.”
The SLO chapter of the California Native Plant Society confirmed that the agreement incorporates funds for biological mitigation to support long-term conservation of the manzanita, which it called a “keystone species” supporting a disproportionate amount of life in the ecosystems where it occurs.
Plant Communities Co-Chair Melissa Mooney said that the Nipomo Mesa is a very specialized natural community and includes a rare manzanita that occurs nowhere else on the planet.
“While those funds will be managed by the California Native Plant Society, it’s important to note that they are not for CNPS,” Mooney said. “All environmental mitigation funding will be directed back into the community for manzanita conservation on the Nipomo Mesa.”
She clarified that the plant society would direct all environmental mitigation funds to a third party for manzanita habitat conservation but didn’t specify the exact dollar amount.
The settlement agreement also redacted the sum NKT would pay Nipomo Action Committee and California Native Plant Society attorney Naficy in litigation fees.
NKT directed New Times’ to the two groups for response.
Fourth District Supervisor Jimmy Paulding, who represents Nipomo and voted against the Dana Reserve development last year, said it’s important that decision makers have access to all the information before voting on the new plan for the project.
“While I don’t believe the county can compel the release of the settlement amounts, I don’t see why that information should be kept confidential,” Paulding said.
First District Supervisor John Peschong and 5th District Supervisor Heather Moreno didn’t respond to New Times’ requests for comment.
Third District Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg said she didn’t see an issue with the settlement.
“Housing should never be controversial,” she said. “It’s between them what they’re doing. I hope this project can move forward. It’s been revealing that people’s real concerns are that they didn’t want affordable housing in their backyard.”
At the Oct. 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, Ortiz-Legg, Moreno, and Peschong voted against Gibson’s motion to direct county counsel to request an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement from the concerned parties. Paulding voted in favor of the motion.
“I think it all telegraphs to what we can expect on Nov. 4,” Gibson said. ∆
This article appears in Oct 9-19, 2025.
Per Dawn Ortiz Legg: “Housing should never be controversial,” she said. “It’s between them what they’re doing. I hope this project can move forward. It’s been revealing that people’s real concerns are that they didn’t want affordable housing in their backyard.”
It has nothing to do with the lack of infrastructure for influx of people they want to bring in. Here is a good example of someone who does not know what they are talking about.
Rose, what do you know about the related infrastructure? The interchange at 101 was built for housing development such as the Dana project; the developed is adding many enhancements to improve the area. Who doesn’t know what they are talking about?