County Supervisor Lou Calcagno remembered quail-hunting with a buddy in the San Benancio Road area as a kid. Even then, he said, people didn’t have enough water to flush their toilets.
“Back in the ’50s they were running out of water,” he said during a May 13 Board of Supervisors appeal hearing. “Here we are, 50-60 years later, and we’ve got a problem.”
Calcagno cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 motion setting up the proposed Harper Canyon residential subdivision – a 17-lot, 164-acre project on the rolling hills off Highway 68 – for denial.
The applicant, Harper Canyon Realty, had appealed an earlier denial by the Planning Commission. Because county staff recommended project approval, the supes couldn’t reject it outright, instead asking staff to return Aug. 26 with evidence for denial.
“This was a great win,” says Amy White, executive director of project opponent LandWatch Monterey County, “but it’s not a complete win yet.”
During public comment, speakers were unanimously opposed to the project.
Mike Weaver of the Highway 68 Coalition said the development would exacerbate existing traffic congestion, and Rachel Saunders of Big Sur Land Trust said the subdivision would disrupt an essential wildlife corridor.
But the biggest hurdle was water – both supply and quality. Planning staff recommends an onsite treatment plant to deal with contaminants, including arsenic and chromium, detected in well water.
“WHAT PART OF THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED GOOD POLICY?”
Molly Erickson of The Open Monterey Project said it makes no sense to approve new large lots in an overdrafted groundwater basin. “What part of this could possibly be considered good policy?” she asked. “Have you noticed there is absolutely no support in this community?”
The applicant’s attorney, Salinas-based Michael Cling, downplayed the concerns. “Sure, there’s a big anti-development, anti-progress community, and they show up and they oppose,” he said. “If a project can’t be measured by the rules, there’s not much point to having the rules adopted in the first place.”
Supervisor Simon Salinas, who joined Fernando Armenta in opposing the motion, noted the developer has been pursuing the project since 2001. “The applicant has followed the rules that are in place,” he said. “If we don’t make that decision [to approve the project] here, then a court could make that decision.”
There was, however, a window for the developer’s hope. Calcagno invited the applicant to run another pump test on the property’s main well, and Cling agreed.