SAN MIGUEL, CA -- STOP URBAN SPRAWL IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

Join SMART and help preserve agricultural & rural lands

"The bottom line is that the proposed project is classic sprawl development."

[As quoted from the City of Paso Robles Comment Letter for the

San Miguel Ranch Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, pg 34]

This classic urban sprawl development is being marketed as the "San Miguel Ranch" by a Southern California developer, Brent Grizzle of Grizzle Land and Development Corporation. The proposed project site is located northwest of the community of San Miguel, on the west side of U.S. Highway 101. Because the proposal is inconsistent with the County's General Plan, the developer has requested an amendment to the General Plan land uses to convert 600 acres from agriculture to the above-stated urban uses.

The aerial photo below is an example of Southern California urban sprawl replacing local agriculture and natural hillsides in a setting similar to beautiful San Miguel, California. Numerous public agencies agree with SMART's position in opposing the proposed "San Miguel Ranch" urban sprawl development project.

We are also noting that developer Brent Grizzle has publicly stated he wants to be a part of the San Miguel Community and is "just a farmer 1." SMART remains unconvinced as our research exposes Mr. Grizzle as a savy real estate developer with a track record of producing residential subdivision maps that result in a pattern of urban sprawl in agricultural areas of California.

In addition to a growing number of San Miguel residents against this development, the following is a list of Government Officials and Public Agencies that have expressed concerns:

SLO County Supervisor Bianchi: "...sprawl doesn't occur all at once. Sprawl occurs one project at a time."2

SLO County Supervisor Patterson: "...I think this is too big, too soon..."3

City of Paso Robles: "The location of the site is disconnected and separated from the San Miguel community. The design does not support transit, bicycle or pedestrian transportation. With the limited types of land use categories and the lack of connectivity, the layout will likely result in the need for residents to drive to meet any of their commercial, service, or civic needs. This in turn will also likely result in congestion at the two access pinch-points for circulation and increased air pollution. The bottom line is that the proposed project is classic sprawl development [emphasis ours]."4

Air Pollution Control Board: "We do not support the General Plan Amendment request and recommend denial of this proposal to change agriculture land to other zoning categories."5

Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards: Grizzle's proposed project is not consistent with the Department's policy AGP25 that states: "Conversion of Agricultural Land - Proposal should protect lands with established or potential production agriculture. Conversion should not occur on lands that are capable of supporting production agriculture or create additional pressure for conversion of nearby agricultural lands. Conversion should not occur until urban areas are largely built-out"6

SLO County Department of Planning, Environmental Division: "Potential water supply impacts are considered significant"7

The County's initial assessment of the proposed project identifies 55 "Potentially Significant" or "Inconsistent with the General Plan" environmental impact categories out of 73 standard categories analyzed. The negative impacts of this development on the San Miguel community and the North County are cited below.

WATER

Impact on water quality and potential drawdown of adjacent wells

Cleath & Associates reported that wells at the site tap into the Paso Robles Ground Water Basin and, "The proposed project would utilize a substantial quantity of groundwater - which has the potential to result in (exceeding) the safe annual yield of drawdown of aquifirs in the surrounding areas as well as long term cumulative impacts to Paso Robles Groundwater basin, resulting in potential water supply impacts to surrounding property owners." In addition, "The project site is in close proximity to the Salinas River and could result in surface water impacts...such as pesticides and petroleum bi-products."8 (Also refer to our FAQ page)

SCHOOLS

No provision to build additional schools in the development

Based on the national average of two children per household multiplied by 389 homes, there would be 778 eligible school children. Lillian Larsen School in San Miguel apparently has room for 200 additional students but leaves a void of 589 students. A bond issue would be needed to compensate and to build more schools that we will have to pay for long after the developer has departed.

TRAFFIC

Safety and congestion concerns

The developer plans to have a north entrance/exit at Camp Roberts and from southbound traffic, an easement has been purchased to enter and exit the development onto Tenth Street on a blind corner and a steep road. Since there is not much to the north of this development most of the traffic will exit and enter from the south end towards Paso Robles and beyond where the shopping and jobs are located. This can amount to over 4,000 driving trips per day on the narrow two-lane Tenth Street and Cemetery Road on/off ramps. It would be regrettable to have traffic congestion comparable to the 46 West/101 off ramp.9

POLLUTION

Placement of proposed development will result in continued reliance of private auto use

The entire San Miguel Ranch development will be separated from the core downtown commercial district of San Miguel due to its location entirely on the west side of the 101 freeway. There are no current plans for any direct connecting roads, sidewalks or bike paths, as each would have to be designed as a 101 freeway overpass or underpass. Therefore, any San Miguel Ranch resident wishing to visit the downtown area to dine, shop, work, or reach school or civic events via car, bike or on foot would have to do so using either the development's north entrance/exit and then the north Mission Street exit or the south entrance/exit and then use the Tenth Street underpass.

In a letter dated September 9, 2004, the Air Pollution Control Board voiced its concerns and disapproval of this development. Quoting the district, "We are very concerned with the cumulative effects resulting from the ongoing fracturing of rural and agricultural lands and the increased residential development in areas far removed from commercial services and employment centers." They go on to say, "This is inconsistent with the land use planning strategies recommended in the CAP (Clean Air Plan) which promotes the concept of compact development by directing growth to areas within existing urban and village reserve lines". "Such development fosters continued dependency of private auto use as the only viable means of access to essential services and other destinations."10

AGRICULTURE

"Potentially significant agricultural resource impact."

"The County Agricultural Commissioner's Office has reviewed the proposed project..." and considered it to have a,"...potentially significant agricultural impact." The office states that the project site contains productive soils that "...can support a variety of crops including grains, wine grapes, orchards, pasture and grazing." Also, "The proposed project would utilize over 450,000 gallons per day of ground water during periods of peak use which could potentially effect agricultural production on surrounding properties due to lowered groundwater levels.11

In addition, the drawdown does not take into consideration the potentially significant amount of ground water sent to the community of San Miguel, compounding the ground water depletion potential.

"...the proposed project is premature and inconsistent with the Agricultural and Open Space Element of the General Plan."12

From the Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards: Preliminary evaluation of the San Miguel Ranch proposal raises several questions and concerns regarding potential impacts to agricultural resources. The proposal appears to be premature as there are 766 acres of underdeveloped area within the existing San Miguel Community Services District area of which 686 acres are within the agriculture land use category. With this amount of underdeveloped area already within the existing urban service area, is there a need at this time to further expand urban boundaries and identify additional agricultural lands for future urban uses?..."13

SOIL QUALITY: In a letter dated 6-5-05, Mr. Grizzle states that the soil types in the San Miguel ranch are class IV.14 What Mr. Grizzle fails to mention is that according to SLO Planning and Building Environmental Division, the soils are class I and class II when irrigated and therefore viable agricultural land.15

Footnotes/Sources References

1 At the 8/23/06 San Miguel Advisory Council meeting, Mr. Grizzle stated: "We're not some big company; it's just me and my dad. Yes, we've done a couple of projects here and there, but we're just a family business...we're just farmers. It's not like we're on Wilshire Boulevard, for gosh sakes."

2 EIR Authorization Hearing June 7, 2005, Item C-5, page 23, near bottom.

3 EIR Authorization Hearing June 7, 2005, Item C-5, page 22, near top.

4 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, upper page 34.

5 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, center of page 48.

6 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, center of page 43.

7 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, center of page 27.

8 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, page 26.

9 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, page 24, lower center right/re: "4,000 driving trips".

10 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, begins just below center of page 47 in second paragraph, then goes to last paragraph, then back to the second paragraph.

11 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, page 11, portions of second paragraph.

12 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, page 11.

13 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, page 41, first paragraph.

14 June 5th 2005 unsigned letter from Brent Grizzle.

15 Initial Study Summary - Environmental Checklist, page 9.