SLO Tribune readers strongly oppose battery storage plant planned for Morro Bay | Opinion
Illuminating read
“Buying a home is impossible for most young Californians. They have a right to be angry | Opinion,” (sanluisobispo.com, Sept. 3)
I read with great interest the editorial regarding housing and, specifically the Dana Reserve housing development. I had never heard of YIMBY SLO, so I looked them up.
Here are two quotes from their page: “End exclusionary zoning. Make it simpler to build multifamily housing, especially close to jobs and services. This alleviates traffic and lets everyone spend less money on commuting.”
“Our local graduates, families and small business owners are competing with retirees and remote workers from SF and LA. What does get built is typically single-family homes that our cities and most of our neighbors can’t afford.”
This development is packed with single-family homes, some priced at over a million dollars. The “lower cost” homes have a one time deed restriction, meaning homes can get flipped and their prices raised.
I have found the NAC group very welcoming, educational and willing to answer questions about this development. I’m looking forward to their next meeting on September 10. Consider checking them out.
Sue Shaleen
Nipomo
Get-out-of-jail free
“Buying a home is impossible for most young Californians. They have a right to be angry | Opinion,” (sanluisobispo.com, Sept. 3)
This editorial on Dana Reserve argues that it is mainly a NIMBY-YIMBY conflict, which is a gross distortion of the main issues. If a developer proposed to take out over 3,000 oaks to put in market-rate housing, the level of protest would have been extreme. The Planning Department would have denied the project on the many clear violations of the General Plan and Oak Protection Ordinance. But let the developer throw in some affordable housing, and place the market rate housing where the oaks used to be, and both the Planning Department and the Tribune Editorial Board roll right over on the basis that affordable housing is a get- out-of-jail-free-card for anything a developer might want to build.
The logic for this ecological vandalism is that it is demanded by Senate Bill 330, which forces local governments to set aside environmental concerns to encourage housing for very low, low- and moderate-income households. However, this does not apply if the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, the Framework for Planning (Inland), the South County Area Plan and the County Land Use Ordinance. This project also creates a precedent for gutting the Oak Protection Ordinance.
David Chipping
Los Osos
Opinion
Let’s have the conversation
“Buying a home is impossible for most young Californians. They have a right to be angry | Opinion,” (sanluisobispo.com, Sept. 3)
Your editorial regarding housing challenges for young people was well intentioned but got several things wrong with regard to the Dana Reserve project in Nipomo. You said the time to have turned the project down was in 2021, when the supervisors allowed an application to go forward. In fact, at that time, conservationists did recommend a smaller project to the supervisors — or at least one that required an “actionable alternative” with less environmental impact than what was being proposed, as had been done at the Froom Ranch development in San Luis Obispo.
Though the supervisors did not do that, they did place conditions in the memorandum of understanding with the developer that said there might be significant changes if environmental impacts dictated. Therefore, it can be reasonably stated that we are now having the discussion that could or should have happened in 2021. At Froom Ranch, the “actionable alternative” turned out to be the environmentally superior alternative and, in fact, was embraced by the developer.
The so-called YIMBYs are misstating the issues at Dana Reserve. Conservationists have never said to do nothing there; they have always argued for a project that respects the site’s environment, especially the oak woodlands.
Neil Havlik
San Luis Obispo
Save Morro Bay
“Massive battery storage plant planned for Morro Bay. Here’s how voters could stop it,” (sanluisobispo.com, Sept. 1)
I strongly encourage the citizens and friends of Morro Bay to become involved in protecting your beautiful and small fishing village by informing your friends and neighbors about the Vistra Corporation’s plan to build an enormous 24-acre, 600 megawatt energy storage facility on the Embarcadero where the three towering tanks still stand. Your town is such a refreshing place to visit. It would be dreadful if this greedy corporation were allowed to ruin Morro Bay’s loveliness.
Don’t allow this to happen. Organize and vote. Get these saboteurs out of your town.
Sandra Lakeman
San Luis Obispo
Different reason to oppose
“Massive battery storage plant planned for Morro Bay. Here’s how voters could stop it,” (sanluisobispo.com, Sept. 1)
I appreciate your article about the contentious battery plant in Morro Bay, but the headline is wrong. The reason to oppose the citizen ballot initiative is that it cannot stop the battery, but it would freeze land uses permanently pending another ballot vote, tying the hands of future councils if better land uses arise.
Assembly Bill 205 was signed into law in 2022 to extend a state-run permitting process to renewable energy projects that entirely bypasses local control, zoning included. Plant owner Vistra can choose this permitting route, and the Coastal Commission could oppose that permit, but given the state’s emphasis on renewable energy that’s a hazardous bet to make if you oppose the battery.
Better to work through the established process: citizen workshops, Planning Commission and City Council. Elected council members are highly attuned to what citizens want and it is very unlikely they would permit a battery if most of us opposed it. Using this process would put citizen opposition on the record so the California Energy Commission, which does the Environmental Impact Report for all AB 205 permits, would have to consider it.
Glenn Silloway
Morro Bay
Invest in clean power
“New state solutions to homelessness leave counties like SLO on the hook for the bill | Opinion,” (sanluisobispo.com, Sept. 3)
Regarding “Another purpose for Diablo,” I agree with Mr. Gloege that “we must do all we can to limit the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere,” but running a wire to the 101 from Diablo to charge electric vehicles would not be a great investment for a number of reasons. Besides the fact that Diablo is already connected to the grid that serves the 101 corridor, the power plant itself is antiquated and near the end of its useful life.
More importantly, we need to invest in clean power sources that do not rely on expensive-to-build-and-maintain transmission lines. The better alternative is rooftop solar combined with home battery storage, an investment every homeowner should consider. These systems not only power our homes and charge our EVs with clean energy, even during power outages, but use existing transmission lines to feed surplus energy back into the grid when it is needed most.
Now that there are zero upfront cost programs such as PoweredUp SLO in our county, we can all do our part, regardless of financial means.
Barry Rands
Green Transportation Specialist, SLO Climate Coalition
