Why LandWatch Monterey County And The Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition Agree With The HYH/County Compromise on "Butterfly Village"

Something good happened last November, and another good thing happened recently. This memo explains those two good things -- but its bottom line message is that continued vigilance and public participation is vitally necessary!

Most recently, Monterey County and the HYH Corporation have agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by HYH against the County, in which HYH claimed that the County had treated it unfairly with respect to its proposed "Butterfly Village" development project. This settlement is likely to conclude a 20-year dispute over development in this area of the unincorporated county just north of the city of Salinas.

The announced settlement will require a major redesign of the proposed "Butterfly Village" project.

Both LandWatch Monterey County and the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition (RSJOC) have fought the inappropriate development of the Rancho San Juan area for years. Most notably, LandWatch and RSJOC have mounted two successful referendum campaigns against proposed developments in the Rancho San Juan area, to make sure that bad developments weren't allowed to go forward.

Both LandWatch and RSJOC agree that the recent County-HYH settlement is in the best interests of the community for TWO very important reasons:

1. The overhaul and redesign of the project plan, as proposed in the settlement, make it a much better development; and

2. Policies in the current draft County General Plan (GPU5), which is currently undergoing environmental review, accomplish the following:

• Restrict further subdivision in the non-coastal north county planning area.
• Restrict further subdivision in the "greater Rancho San Juan area," such that Butterfly Village will NOT be just the first phase of the larger Rancho San Juan project.
• Prohibit the subdivision of agricultural land of statewide importance for other than agricultural purposes.

Both of these elements are critical. Together, the improvements in the project and the General Plan policy language that will prohibit irresponsible development in North County, and protect productive farmland, will ensure that the water and traffic impacts of the earlier project design are significantly reduced. From the beginning, impacts to water supply, water quality, and traffic have been at the heart of public opposition to this project.

Changes to the "Butterfly Village" project include:

• Eliminating the golf course and replacing it with approximately 342 acres of combined public park and open space, which assures the project's net water savings and storm water detention on site;
  
  
• Replacing the golf clubhouse, time share units and incorporating adjacent multi-family dwellings to provide a community health and wellness center with senior living facilities;
  
  
• Providing a 10-acre elementary school site, which was not included in the previous plan;
  
  
• Doubling the size of the neighborhood commercial area within the project to increase job opportunities and reduce the traffic in and out of the project; and
  
  
• Increasing the affordable housing level to 32% from the 15% below market-rate housing requirement applicable to this project under the General Plan.

In a public statement announcing the settlement, County Supervisor Dave Potter, who voted against Butterfly Village and the earlier Rancho San Juan project, said "this compromise works because the project is much improved and because the policies in GPU5 put to rest the fear that Butterfly Village is just the first phase of a much larger development in the Rancho San Juan area."

"The policy language in the current GPU draft make a statement about the Rancho San Juan area that is integral to this compromise," Potter said.

The Californian noted that Supervisor Calcagno, whose district includes Butterfly Village, agreed that the settlement came as part of a broader shift in how the county will handle development, and that a lot of the foundation for the settlement of the Butterfly Village litigation is based on the current draft of the general plan.

All five Supervisors expressed their support for the settlement and they all had glowing words of praise for everyone who had worked over many months to reach the agreement, including county staff, the developer, and representatives of LandWatch and RSJOC.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Fernando Armenta also stated "this settlement is important to the County because it eliminates the potentially significant financial exposure that the County would have faced from ongoing litigation." However, Supervisor Armenta emphasized that "the Board of Supervisors maintains full discretion over the General Plan policies it will decide later this year."

Chairman Armenta underscores an important point: litigation and the settlement of litigation can not legally constrain the legislative discretion of elected officials. Indeed, the outcome of last year's ballot measures made it clear that the voters want their elected officials to make the important decisions concerning growth in the unincorporated county, and that the voters generally don't want to make key planning decisions at the ballot box. That said, the voters also made it very clear that they reject the expansive and irresponsible growth that the Supervisors' earlier plan would have allowed.

Fulfilling the Promise of Compromise

Monterey County is on the road to adopting a compromise General Plan. On November 6th of 2007, the Board of Supervisors gave their final direction to staff on the policy language for that compromise plan. They voted unanimously to issue that direction and they said that they would only consider further change on the basis of what the environmental analysis reveals. Final action can't legally occur until after an EIR is completed, but the compromise plan that can end the ballot box wars of the last five years is now moving ahead. LandWatch will participate in the review of the EIR and we will urge new policy language to restrict cultivation on steep slopes and other improvements that may be borne out by the environmental analysis.

What is most important, though, is that the Board members who voted for the compromise General Plan keep their promise concerning the strong policies in the current draft, and that the Board not "undo" the compromise they've initiated.

In addition to the important policies protecting North County and productive agricultural lands, the current draft includes policies restricting further subdivision in the Toro Planning Area on Highway 68, and a cap on the number of new lots created through further subdivision in Carmel Valley.

There will be a series of public meetings over the summer months to review the EIR for the compromise General Plan, followed by other public meetings for the ultimate approval of the plan by the Board of Supervisors. The importance of these public meetings cannot be overstated. It's urgently necessary that we achieve full participation by as many LandWatch members as possible.

The first opportunity to reinforce our support for the current General Plan will come in June, when the County will approve the modifications to the Butterfly Village project. LandWatch and the RSJOC will be urging our members to come to the public meeting to endorse the new project AND to remind everyone that the compromise on Butterfly Village is based on the promises made in the draft general plan. During this meeting we must urge the Board of Supervisors to honor that promise.

LandWatch and the RSJOC are cautiously optimistic that the Board of Supervisors will honor their promise to adopt the language in the current compromise plan. It will certainly be extremely difficult for them to do otherwise in light of our good faith participation in the Butterfly Village settlement BEFORE the General Plan's adoption. But as Yogi Berra so famously said, "It ain't over ‘til it's over!"

In the meantime, LandWatch will keep you posted as these important meetings are scheduled so that you can attend and urge our Board of Supervisors to fulfill the promise of compromise.

[Return to North County Issues and Actions]

posted 04.14.08