Ignored Measure D may have big impact
County could have to pay up to $100 million for Butterfly Village delays

Posted June 3, 2007

By JIM JOHNSON
Herald Salinas Bureau

Amid the super-heated debate over the future of growth in the county during the next quarter century, the Rancho San Juan-area Butterfly Village project
north of Salinas has flown just under the radar. The project appears on the June 5 ballot as Measure D, which asks voters if they want to affirm the
supervisors' approval of the controversial development. But with most of the campaigning focused on the citizen-authored general plan initiative and the supervisor-approved general plan update, Measure D has been left largely undebated despite its indirect association with both the initiative and the update.

Passage of the slow-growth initiative embodied in Measure A would ban development in the Rancho San Juan area, while approval of the pro-growth update embodied in Measure C would designate Rancho San Juan as a
"community area" appropriate for development. And while Measure A backers have urged a "no" vote on Measure D, opponents of the initiative have refused to take a position on the project, citing its controversial nature and a split among its own supporters. But the 671-acre, 1,147-home, golf-course subdivision could actually have a more immediate impact on Monterey County than the outcome of the rival general plan measures, depending on whether Measure D passes. That's because the county could potentially be liable for millions of dollars in damages to developer Moe Nobari and his HYH Corp. as a
result of delays in processing project applications for his Rancho San Juan property. $100 million liability Nobari won a 2001 court ruling that said the county had improperly delayed processing his development application and directed the county to adopt a specific plan for development of the area. Project backers have estimated that the county's potential liability could run as high as $100 million.

Supervisors approved a much larger, 2,500-acre project in the area, but it was rejected by voters in November 2005. The supervisors approved a smaller version of the project, Butterfly Village, a day before voters turned down the larger development. The county's legal exposure is a major issue for Supervisor Lou Calcagno, who voted against the earlier version of the
project but supports Butterfly Village, but he said the new project is much more appropriate. "If we go through a lawsuit, it would really cost the county,"
Calcagno said. "(The first project) was, in my  estimation, too big. This one is a hell of a lot smaller." Attorney Mark Blum, who represents HYH
Corp., said he doesn't believe voters have the authority to reject Measure D because it essentially involves attempting to overturn a court order, which
he said voters can't do any more than the supervisors could. Blum said the failure of Measure D might not actually cancel the specific plan for the area,
either. Even if Measure D fails, Blum said he believes the courts will agree with HYH Corp.'s position and negate the impact of the vote. That would make it unnecessary to sue the county, he said.

Benefits, drawbacks| Project backers have focused on what they call Butterfly Village's benefits, including its use of "green" building principles, reduction of existing water use through mitigation efforts and millions of dollars of contributions toward traffic abatement efforts. They also point to the projected $530,000 median home price and a provision for 30 percent affordable housing, as well as the creation of more than 200 jobs. Opponents, led by a group of Prunedale residents, claim the project is merely the first phase of the largest development in county history. They said Butterfly Village will be full of upscale homes too expensive for most local residents and will result in massive traffic congestion and stress dwindling water supplies. Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, said those impacts are much more real and immediate than potential legal damages.

"No judge has determined what damages, if any, the county is liable for," Engell said. "However, we have a real clear idea of what Rancho San Juan will cost us in terms of our quality of life." Engell said the project would immediately use up the capacity of a new Prunedale Bypass with many of its additional 70,000 new car trips per day. She said the project was approved using "paper water" from the delayed Salinas Valley Water Project, which is becoming more and more costly every year. Back on ballot

Jan Mitchell, chairwoman of the Prunedale Neighbors Group, which also opposes the project, said Nobari has reason to sue the county over its delaying tactics. But she suggested the damages would probably be significantly less than predicted by project backers. "The supervisors dragged their feet," Mitchell said. "On the other hand, why should we suffer?" After
supervisors approved Butterfly Village, Engell and fellow opponents of the project circulated a petition to place a referendum before voters, and supervisors originally approved placing it on the June 2006 ballot. But in March 2006, supervisors removed the referendum from the ballot because the petition had not been translated into Spanish after a federal court
ruling and a lawsuit by Latino voting-rights advocates. Project opponents then sued the county seeking to place the referendum back on the ballot.
U.S. District Judge James Ware ordered the county to place the issue back on the ballot earlier this year. Blum said the Butterfly Village project has been
unfairly portrayed by opponents. "If this project were sitting in Fort Ord it would be receiving medals," he said. "It's every bit as green and walkable as anything else there. Unfortunately, Rancho San Juan has become the poster child for Measure A."

Jim Johnson can be reached at 753-6753 or jjohnson@montereyherald.com.