Challenging Measure J ~ ECOSLO Viewpoint

The Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County (ECOSLO) has a long history of advocacy for smart land use planning, protection of open space and preservation of our rich agricultural heritage. In an effort to continue this important work, we have joined with the Citizens for Planning Responsibly to ask the Court to analyze the legality of Measure J.

We believe that the initiative was written to avoid the normal review process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA analysis and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify significant effects on the environment, to analyze alternatives and to mitigate or avoid significant impacts. The areas of analysis include impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, public services and utilities, traffic, water, land use, and wastewater. The City of San Luis Obispo prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a previously proposed Annexation Project on the same site. This EIR identified many significant environmental impacts including unacceptable traffic conditions, the conversion of 60 acres of prime agricultural land, and potential land use conflicts between the agricultural and non-agricultural uses. The City set forth many conditions for approval of the Annexation Project to mitigate the identified impacts. The project proposed under Measure J is more intensive in many ways, yet the conditions in the initiative are weakened or eliminated in comparison to those proposed by the City of San Luis Obispo.

In addition, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments has expressed serious concerns about the traffic impacts and the fact that the initiative is written in such a manner as to allow the developer to escape the responsibility to mitigate its traffic impacts. The $4 million developer contribution falls far short of the expected costs of necessary improvements if this land is developed and also places time limits on state, regional and local agencies that would allow the traffic mitigation funds to revert to the developers if their timeline is not met. This places an undue burden on the affected agencies and shifts the responsibility and cost for mitigation onto the public. Another concern is that the initiative does not dedicate 65.5 acres of agriculture/open space as required by the City’s 1994 General Plan.

The precedent for development without proper environmental review will inevitably lead to unintended consequences for all of us. We do not want developers to see the initiative process as an end run around full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as well as oversight of all appropriate agencies. We need to ensure that all projects are treated equally and subject to the same analysis and review. We simply ask that there be no change in the current planning and development process. The proposed initiative is a drastic departure from the current process that has the potential to allow significant, unmitigated environmental impacts.