A North County subdivision—shot down by the California Coastal Commission late last year—may get a second look.

On Feb. 16, developer Steve Bradshaw asked the commission to reconsider his proposal for a 10-lot subdivision he wants to build on 25-acres on Maher Road, near the Elkhorn Slough.

At press time, the Coastal Commission panel had not voted on Bradshaw’s request for reconsideration. And although the panel’s staff has recommended denying the project—as well as the Feb. 16 appeal—sources close to the issue expected the vote to be close.

Last year, Monterey County Supervisors unanimously approved the development, called Sunridge Views. Shortly after the supes’ decision, LandWatch, along with the group called Friends, Artists, and Neighbors of Elkhorn Slough (FANS), appealed the decision to the Coastal Commission. The groups contended that the county’s General Plan and Local Coastal policies mandate that no new residential lots should be permitted in areas of significant groundwater overdraft—like North County—until there is a proven, sustainable water supply.

“When you have an overdrafted aquifer,” says LandWatch’s Gary Patton, “you don’t continue building new lots. The subdivision is not a horrible thing in and of itself. But where coastal agriculture is at risk, when seawater intrusion continues, and as we continue to draw water out of the aquifer, to us it’s a pretty clear case of when you’ve got a problem, you don’t make it worse.”

Bradshaw and his attorney, John Bridges, argued that converting the crops to houses would use less water. According to the EIR prepared by Bradshaw, residential lots could result in a net reduction of water use of up to 24-acre feet per year.

County Supervisor Dave Potter, who also sits on the Coastal Commission panel, supported the subdivision, as a supervisor and a commissioner.

“I advocated for Bradshaw going ahead and getting a full-blown EIR,” Potter says. “In hindsight, I wish I would have said, ‘We should have set policy direction on this topic.’ If you’re using a significant amount of water in crops, and some of that runoff is ending up in the Slough, and if houses use less water, is that bad?”

Yes, argued Commissioner Sara Wan, who pointed out that the EIR’s water saving analysis didn’t include landscaping irrigation or water for second units.

Ultimately, by a 5-5 vote, the commission said no to the project. (According to Coastal Commission rules, a tie vote is a no vote.)

On Feb. 16, Bradshaw and Bridges must convince the panel that there is “relevant new information…or that an error of fact or law occurred which was the potential of altering the initial decision,” according to state law.

“Reconsideration is a very hard bar to get over,” said Potter prior to the meeting, adding that he hadn’t decided how he would vote. “On the other hand, it appears to me that there may have been some factual inaccuracies that were presented to the Coastal Commission that need to be clarified.”

If the commission agrees to reconsider its decision, a new hearing for the Sunridge Views subdivision will be set for a later month.