VILLAGE: Approval

EIR | 40 Years


The Phelps Family purchased the Corral Village site over 40 years ago. Then and now, and at every moment in between, the site has been zoned for commercial development. The Phelps submitted a complete project application in 2004. Monterey County's expert consultants immediately started a six year study of how the village might affect traffic, groundwater supply, biology and other environmental impacts. In June 2010, the county published a 1500+ page Draft EIR. After the public had a chance to comment on the Draft EIR, the county’s consultants prepared a Final EIR released in November 2010.

The Phelps Family took the recommendation of the EIR and revised the project into a "hybrid LEED alternative" site plan. The county held numerous public hearings in 2011 to consider approving the revised Corral Village plan. The Toro Land Use Advisory Committee voted to approve it. The Planning Commission split its vote on the project with half of the commissioners finding that the hybrid LEED alternative was suitable for the site. The Phelps Family appealed the split vote to the Board of Supervisors and after several more public hearings in Spring 2011, revised the project once again to bring its size to below 100,000 square feet, lower building heights, establish a minimum 100' setback and create visual green screens along frontage roads.

click to enlarge

The final site plan was approved in concept by the supervisors on July 12, 2011. The supervisors requested additional clarification on removal of the existing gas station, more details on the rainwater harvesting and recharge system, and a couple of other modifications of the final conditions of approval. On February 7, 2012, the supervisors approved the project with a lengthy set of conditions. The Highway 68 Coalition filed suit on March 6, 2012 aiming to delay construction of the Corral Village. The Phelps Family is confident that the EIR and the comprehensive environmental review process was adequate, and will defend the project against the lawsuit.

40 years of county study

Approval of the Corral Village culminates 40 years of county and public review. The site has been zoned for commercial development in three county general plans starting in the 1960s. The most current Monterey County general plan (2010) also provides for the village development.

2004-10. Environmental Review. The Phelps submitted a completed Combined Development Application for the proposed village in 2004. County consultants published a 1500+ page Draft EIR in June 2010. In November, 2010, the county published a 450+ page Final EIR that responds to comments and concerns expressed during the public comment period. Click here to view the EIR.

July 2010. LUAC Approves Project. On July 26, 2010 members of the Toro LUAC voted 3-2 in favor of the project.

November 2010. Phelps Family Modifies Site Plan. The Corral Village site plan is revised to reflect the environmentally superior alternative discussed in the Final EIR. The Village would become the first ever, new construction green LEED commercial project in the county and one of the first in the state.

January 2011. Planning Commission Splits Vote on Project. After three public hearings on Corral Village EIR, the Planning Commission passed Resolution #11-004A on January 27, 2011, stating that “the Commission was unable to reach a majority decision on the project and finding that “the commission was split with half of the Commission finding that the Project Alternative proposed and modified by staff was suitable for the site...” The commission vote was appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

July 2011. County Supervisors Approve Project Concept. After three more public hearings and a fourth site plan revision to make the project smaller and less visible to passersby, three county supervisors voted to approve the project concept on July 12, 2011.

February 2012. County Supervisors Approve Project. Three supervisors cast the final vote to approve the Corral Village and a lengthy set of conditions on February 7, 2012. The final decision was challenged by a small group of opponents who contend that the environmental review process was inadequate.