Laetitia winery plan to build 101 homes facing opposition

August 14, 2015

LaetitiaThe San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission is reviewing a proposal to construct 101 homes at the Laetitia Vineyard and Winery in South County, which is drawing opposition from both members of the public and county planners. [Tribune]

Public speakers addressed the planning commission for several hours Thursday at a hearing about the Laetitia winery project. All members of the public who spoke opposed the project, and many based their opposition on low water levels in the area.

Laetitia winery is located on a 1,910-acre property between Arroyo Grande and Nipomo. The property is zoned for an agricultural cluster, meaning residential development can occur there, as long as the homes are clustered together and have minimal impact on surrounding farmland.

County planning staff has recommend that the commission reject the proposed development. The project violates numerous planning and development standards, including water demand and supply, residential density and traffic congestion, county planners say.

Planner Brian Pedrotti said county regulations only allow for the construction of 74 homes at the site, and the proposed homes are too spread out to classify as an agricultural cluster.

Representatives of the developer, Janneck Limited, say the project has been altered to meet all of the county’s concerns. Project manager Vic Montgomery said the development would not result in a net loss of irrigated agriculture, and it would offset water demands by recycling wastewater.

County planners, hydrologists and the project’s environmental impact report all state there should be enough water for the development. However, the county’s Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Advisory Council have said four fractured rock wells, on which the project relies, may not provide a long term water supply.

The planning commission has yet to vote on the project. Another planning commission hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10.

The commission’s ruling on the project is likely to be appealed to the board of supervisors.



  1. jana says:

    If they allowed to the developers will ruin this county by overbuilding it.

    Most of the developers are only interested in making as much money as they can from developing the best place in California that hasn’t been spoiled yet.

    The sad fact is that the winery will appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors and the board will overrule the Planning Commission.

    Between Frank Meacham, Debbie Arnold, Lynn Compton, and the developer’s darling, Adam Hill they will have 4 votes to clinch this development deal.

    Too bad… old SLO County was such a great place because of its open spaces and lack of development.

    (15) 17 Total Votes - 16 up - 1 down
    • kayaknut says:

      Don’t under estimate Mr. Hills’ hatred of Debbie and Lynn, it is well known in the public and especially since Lynn handily defeated his BFF, Ms. Ray. To assume Mr. Hill and his pro development position and with all the money he takes from developers will guarantee a vote in their favor is wrong. First, if the Laetitia developers didn’t donate to his re-election campaign he will not vote in favor of them, and hopefully second if this doesn’t come before the board until after the election and new members are sworn in Mr. Hill will no longer be a supervisor.

      (5) 7 Total Votes - 6 up - 1 down
  2. ANTELOPE says:

    According the their propaganda they value the homes at from $3 to $5 million for property tax purposes with the initial homes valued at 3 million then increasing with time to 5 million with a weighted average of 4.3 million. Their voodoo economic assumptions also include the creation of 531 full time equivalent jobs throughout the County. Google Reserve at Laetitia economics to see their claims. Workforce housing it is not!

    (14) 18 Total Votes - 16 up - 2 down
    • easymoney says:

      This is one of the big reason so many new hotels have been built in the last 5 years. The bait and switch tactic,” oh look at the shiny object over here”.
      Same technique the county has used to sell the over priced water projects, voodoo “water banking”.
      How’s that going for all the communities that bought in to the state water project or the few that bought into the Naci water project?

      (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
  3. Russ J says:

    I say hold this development and any other, hostage to bike lanes throughout south San Luis County. Can’t freeken ride my bike anywhere in south county without almost dying.
    -Los Berros/Thompson

    (-11) 23 Total Votes - 6 up - 17 down
  4. MajorityFan says:

    I wonder if Lynn Compton is buying a few.

    (7) 15 Total Votes - 11 up - 4 down
  5. Pelican1 says:

    What level of environmental review has been done for this project to date? NEPA? CEQA? Anything? Is it currently zoned for commercial / ag / residential?
    Good grief, the 101 corridor will soon become wall to wall houses from SSLO to Santa Maria.

    (4) 14 Total Votes - 9 up - 5 down
    • tomsquawk says:

      that concept is called San-San, San Diego to San Francisco, and I first heard it in the 60’s

      (9) 13 Total Votes - 11 up - 2 down
  6. ANTELOPE says:

    So they are going to meet project demand of 62+ Acre Feet Year (AFY) by recycling wastewater? If one looks at the minimum and maximum interior water duty factors you get 14 AFY at the minimum and 29 AFY at the maximum. Given the paucity of water I suspect most residents will install gray water systems which would reduce the output even further.

    Bottom line is more comes out of the wastewater system then goes in. Typical of Laetitia to play fast and loose with the numbers and expect people to accept their assertions at face value.

    (15) 21 Total Votes - 18 up - 3 down
  7. Jorge Estrada says:

    When I think about the unresolved issues between Santa Margarita and San Luis Obispo, I would object on the basis that the project would create additonal funding needs for State Highway mitigation projects, simular to what is not happening for the existing unmet needs at other section of the same Highway.

    (11) 13 Total Votes - 12 up - 1 down
  8. Rich in MB says:

    More housing….na….lets just keep the area small and rents high…you know, for the benefit of the Middle Class.

    (-16) 32 Total Votes - 8 up - 24 down
    • kayaknut says:

      Plus the “right” people from the big cities have already moved here, so lets not permit anymore from being able to move here. We only want developments by the right people.

      (-9) 25 Total Votes - 8 up - 17 down
    • catdude says:

      Oh yeah of course these would be “affordable” houses for, you know, middle class workforce…

      (-3) 19 Total Votes - 8 up - 11 down
    • tomsquawk says:

      what Middle Class?

      (20) 22 Total Votes - 21 up - 1 down
    • justbeware says:

      Don’t you want to know the asking prices for these homes?
      I’ve heard they’re anything BUT homes for the middle class.
      Word is they’re going to be mini-ranchettes $1,000,000 and up on 3 acre and up parcels.
      Perhaps what I’ve heard is incorrect…

      (11) 13 Total Votes - 12 up - 1 down
    • AmericaBeautiful says:

      The “middle class,” i.e., people who actually work and pay taxes, is most likely supporting YOU…and the illegals anchor babies.

      (2) 8 Total Votes - 5 up - 3 down

Comments are closed.