San Luis Obispo County’s biggest development proposal in decades, the Dana Reserve in Nipomo, just cleared a major hurdle—but the new Dana Reserve plan is still a bad deal for both housing and the environment.

After a settlement with the developer, the project now promises only 78 deed-restricted affordable homes instead of the original 156—that’s half the number we were counting on. Even those units still need tens of millions in funding before a single wall goes up. Commissioner Anne Wyatt warned it feels like “missed opportunity and a bit of magical thinking.”

Here’s the big picture: We don’t need more luxury homes. According to an analysis in Yes on 33 (2024), much of California’s development today is aimed at the high end, leading to a luxury glut—many new units stay dark, even while people endure sky-high rents and homelessness. Building luxury homes doesn’t “trickle down”; it often pushes all housing costs upward.

That analysis reinforces what local numbers already show: San Luis Obispo County has met 98 percent of its goals for above-moderate housing. What we really lack are homes that teachers, service workers, and young families can afford. Yet the majority of Dana Reserve’s planned units are luxury homes—the very kind that help raise land values and lure out-of-area buyers.

And we must keep pointing out that the so-called “affordable” housing in this project does not match the county’s real need. Hardworking people deserve secure, quality housing, yet a large share of these homes will be built by Shea Homes—think Trilogy stock, priced around $1.2 million to $1.7 million—and another portion is being marketed as “workforce” housing. But a $650,000 “workforce” home with a 20 percent down payment and 6.5 percent interest requires an annual income of about $140,861. The mortgage payment would be around $3,287 per month—before HOA fees.

The average salary range for teachers in SLO County typically falls between $54,000 and $100,000. A firefighter earns between $60,000 and $100,000, and an entry-level registered nurse makes about $75,000. Even at the county’s current median household income of $125,600, these homes are far from attainable for the people who need them the most. That’s not affordability; that’s exclusion dressed up as inclusion.

The latest California Association of Realtors 2026 housing market forecast underscores this growing divide. California—including San Luis Obispo County’s so-called “impenetrable bubble”—is heading for another stagnant, top-heavy year. 

That gap is being driven by a record number of cash purchases, as wealthy buyers sidestep mortgage rates of 6.5 to 7 percent while middle-income families are priced out. Only 32 percent of home sales in 2025 went to first-time homebuyers—the lowest in six years—and California’s median home price is forecast to rise to $905,000 in 2026. Rising inflation, trade tariffs, and slower job growth (just 0.3 percent projected for 2026) will only make conditions harder for working families. In this environment, adding more high-end homes like those in the Dana Reserve doesn’t help affordability—it makes the divide worse.

Meanwhile, local rents keep rising. The new Arrive Paso Robles apartments opened in late 2024 with one- to three-bedroom units starting at $2,300 per month, showing how even rental prices are out of reach for many essential workers. When new construction doesn’t target affordability, it simply reinforces a market built by and for high-income earners.

Then, yes—there are the trees. The project destroys more than 3,000 mature oaks, many more than a century old. Ecologists estimate a 50-year-old oak forest can sequester roughly 30,000 pounds of CO2 per acre while emitting 22,000 pounds of oxygen. You don’t get that back. 

These oaks are more than just ecological assets—they are cultural ones too. Erasing them erases living history.

Some people frame it as housing versus nature. But it doesn’t have to be. We absolutely need housing everyone can afford, and we absolutely need to protect our oak woodlands—and the cultural heritage embedded in them.

And let’s be crystal clear: The cut to the needed affordable housing stock didn’t come from the community or environmental advocates.

Which brings me to Commissioner Mariam Shah’s claim that lawsuits against aspects of the project were actually “about keeping people out … keeping poor people out.” That’s a gross misread. Opposing the destruction of cultural and ecological treasures while demanding more truly affordable housing is not exclusion. It is inclusion—a demand that growth shouldn’t come at the expense of the most vulnerable or of our shared heritage.

Dana Reserve offers too few affordable homes and erases too much of what makes this place special. We deserve better—for our neighbors, our environment, and the next generation.

K. Rosa writes to the Sun from Nipomo. Send a letter for publication to letters@santamariasun.com.

This article appears in Nov 6 – Nov 13, 2025.