There should be no ‘secret settlement’ of Dana Reserve lawsuit, supervisor says | Opinion

The SLO County Board of Supervisors will be asked Nov. 4 to bless seriously flawed changes to the controversial Dana Reserve project. A majority of the board appears eager to support this ill-conceived proposal.

The project revisions — and related secret payments totaling millions of dollars — raise serious questions about transparency in local government and our role in promoting the public good.

Some background on why I believe this is a bad deal: In 2024, the board approved the Dana Reserve project, acknowledging that 19 significant environmental impacts could not be completely mitigated. The board accepted those impacts by citing “overriding considerations,” most prominently that the project’s housing would be “affordable.”

Two groups, the Nipomo Action Committee (NAC) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), then sued to block the county’s approval, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA lawsuits are a big factor in our housing crisis — easy to file and effective in producing delays that stifle projects.

Last May, NAC, CNPS and the developer announced an agreement to settle the litigation. Here’s what we know about it:

• The developer protects 5 additional acres (1.7% of the 288-acre site) for open space by dropping 128 housing units (9% of 1,370 approved).

• The developer is excused from building 100 accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

• The developer also pays attorney fees plus another significant sum of cash to NAC/CNPS, to fund unspecified projects of their choosing.

A $2 million payout?

What we don’t know: The developer and NAC/CNPS refuse to disclose the amounts of those payments, nor what they’d be used for. The only available copy of the settlement agreement is heavily redacted on the money question.

The public has a right to that information. I’m told by people who should know that NAC and CNPS would receive a total of some $2 million. I’ve asked the parties to confirm that figure.

Their response: They find it “preferable” to keep that information private — although no one has told me the $2 million figure is wrong.

Clearly NAC, CNPS and the developer would like to see this settlement realized. That requires the Board of Supervisors to approve the reduced housing numbers. Once approved, NAC and CNPS would receive their big payoff, and the developer could start a profitable project.

The Board of Supervisors needs to consider what public benefit this revised projec toffers, and make a decision with full transparency on the facts. In my view, the proposed project agreement falls far short of serving the public good on several fronts.

First, the significant 9% loss of housing is unacceptable for the meager 5 acres (1.7% )of open space gained. The original approval was heavily justified by how much housing would be provided. If the 100 ADUs being cut are considered, the housing loss is actually 15% of the approved units (228 of 1,470).

Note that 78 of the units lost were guaranteed affordable and nearly all the rest were pitched as affordable by design. A Tribune editorial called the $2 million payment a “shakedown.” Whatever the exact amount, it’s apparently bought the agreement of NAC and CNPS.

The board’s job is to carefully weigh the tradeoffs here. After talking for years about housing affordability, we’re being asked here to give up half of the affordable housing we approved for little environmental gain.

Old version of project ‘far superior’

While we certainly care about environmental protection, approving the settlement would leave all 19 unmitigable impacts in place and weaken our case for the overriding considerations.

Certainly, the board should require full disclosure of the payment details and unspecified projects in this backroom deal. How else can we as assess the public benefits of the proposed settlement?

Unfortunately, a majority of supervisors aren’t interested in shedding light on that. At our Oct. 7 meeting, my motion to request an unredacted copy of the agreement was voted down by supervisors John Peschong, Dawn Ortiz-Legg and Heather Moreno.

Land use decisions are often challenging, as we have to balance public and private benefits. I did vote against the original approval of the Dana Reserve project — but it’s abundantly clear to me that the project as approved is far superior to the one we’ll consider on Nov. 4.

Bruce Gibson represents District 2 on the county Board of Supervisors.