Groundwater concerns in the Paso Robles basin and questions over the durability of a decade-old environmental review stalled final approval of a proposed housing project near San Miguel, even as county supervisors rejected an appeal challenging the development.
On May 5, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted to deny an appeal of the River’s Edge project, a 43-acre development planned along the Salinas River that would add 190 residential, commercial, and open-space lots near San Miguel. While the appeal was turned down, supervisors delayed final approval until June 2, directing staff to revise parts of the environmental record related to water supply and add new project conditions.
The appeal, filed by adjacent landowner Scott Raven, argued that the county improperly relied on a 2016 environmental impact report tied to the San Miguel Community Plan instead of requiring a new review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Raven contended that groundwater conditions and development assumptions have shifted significantly since the original analysis.
At the center of the dispute is the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, which remains classified as critically overdrafted. Raven’s attorney, Michael Noland, told the board the project’s environmental review does not adequately reflect those conditions.
“We believe that this analysis is incorrect because there are specific environmental effects that are subject to and generated by this project that should be considered as separate significant environmental effects,” Noland said.
He also pointed to what he described as a key change in groundwater policy since the 2016 report was certified, arguing the analysis relied on a now-expired offset requirement.
“At that point in time, there had to be the one-to-one ratio with regards to water capacity in order for the project to be approved,” Noland said.
Project applicant David Crabtree and his representatives rejected claims that the development would introduce new or unmitigated groundwater impacts, arguing instead that the project remains consistent with the assumptions already analyzed in the 2016 community plan environmental impact report [EIR].
“The project will not exceed the water demand estimate provided in the EIR,” planning consultant Pamela Giardini said.
She also noted that the project has received a conditional “will serve” letter from the San Miguel Community Services District and includes voluntary groundwater offset measures, including fallowing 65 acres of vineyard land.
Giardini said those measures would generate meaningful reductions in water use.
“That will give 73.55 acre-feet of offset and our maximum build-out would require 110 acre-feet of water per year and we’re at 281 residential units and—or I’m sorry—we are developing 181 residential units not 281,” she said. “And so the total savings offset would be approximately 92 acre-feet a year.”
County staff sided with the project, concluding it remains consistent with the 2016 environmental analysis and does not create new or more severe impacts under state environmental law.
Eric Hughes of the Planning and Building Department said the original environmental review already accounted for full build-out of the community plan.
“The 2016 EIR did evaluate groundwater supply based on the full build-out of the community plan and concluded sufficient water supplies would be available to accommodate development,” Hughes said. “There are no substantial changes to the project that would result in new or more severe water supply impacts.”
Still, some supervisors questioned whether reliance on the older document fully reflects current conditions in a basin still under stress.
Second District Supervisor Bruce Gibson said references in the environmental record to past offset requirements may need to be clarified to strengthen the project’s legal footing.
“I think you’ve got a significant problem in the EIR,” Gibson said. “I happen to agree with you that the total production of the San Miguel CSD relative to the production as the base of the basin as a whole is, is small. And I guess we could form an argument that it is an insignificant impact, but you still have a basin that as of right now is considered to be in overdraft and under the management of SGMA [Sustainable Groundwater Management Act].”
SLO County Groundwater Sustainability Director Blaine Reely provided broader context, noting that while the Paso Robles basin is designated critically overdrafted, conditions vary widely by location.
“We do track groundwater levels,” Reely said. “The groundwater levels have been relatively stable in that monitoring well for the last 15 years.”
He added that in the immediate project area, “We aren’t seeing a big indicator that water levels … are problematic.”
Supervisors opted to continue the item to June 2, directing staff to prepare an addendum addressing groundwater impacts, formalize proposed offset measures tied to vineyard fallowing, and include standard legal protections before a final vote. ∆
This article appears in Best of SLO County 2026.