Members: Please contact the webmaster with any communication items.

Tom:

Thanks for this nice note, responding to my earlier email. As you know, I heard from a couple of different persons that you had spoken before the Board of Supervisors and represented that  LandWatch is continuing to participate in what you and other participants are calling the "Refinement Group." I appreciated your suggestion that I should listen to your comments myself. I had only used the audio records on the County website once before, and I didn't think of that--but I did follow up on your suggestion.

I agree that you DID NOT, in fact, say that LandWatch was still involved with the "Refinement Group" (and thank you for that). Nonetheless, I can see why the people who contacted me were misled. Your statement that "only two or three groups have formally withdrawn" is more than disingenuous. In fact, the groups that remain in the "Refinement Group" are essentially the member groups of the 21st Century Solutions Group. As far as I know, every other group has either formally withdrawn (as we have), or has accepted the termination of the group by the Board of Supervisors as the "end" of the group, and is no longer participating.

As you know, the "Refinement Group" was initiated by the Board of Supervisors, and the Board has officially terminated it. I think it's fine for groups to get together and continue to meet, but it is dishonest to say that the continuing discussions are the "Refinement Group." It is particularly dishonest to put up a website, as you have, listing groups which participated with the Refinement Group established by the Board, making it seem that they are still participating. While I know that you are sending out information and materials about your meetings to some of the people who previously participated in the Refinement Group established by the Board, LandWatch is not on your distribution list--as we shouldn't be, because we're not part of your ongoing effort. Since we're not, please stop representing that we are by listing us on your website--or in any other way, direct or indirect.

For what it's worth, I think you do your efforts a disservice by dishonestly cloaking them in the name of the "Refinement Group," since the group that is meeting is emphatically NOT the Refinement Group that the Board established. Being candid about what happened is going to get your suggestions more credibility, in my opinion, than they will have coming in under a name that is intentionally misleading.

I would very much appreciate it if you and the other members of the group that is continuing to meet, would take our concerns into account. I really do urge you to stop using the former name, since I think it's intentionally misleading. At the very least, please expunge the names of LandWatch and other non-participating groups from your website list, so you are not making direct misrepresentations about who is involved.

PS: Since the Board of Supervisors has officially acted to terminate the Refinement Group, I don't know why they are continuing to make county facilities and staff available to you (at no cost, I gather), but the fact that the Board is allowing this is still no reason to misrepresent the group's composition, by continuing to use the name of a group that the Board has officially terminated.

Gary A. Patton, Executive Director
LandWatch Monterey County
Box 1876
Salinas, CA 93902
Telephone: 831-422-9390, Ext. 10
FAX: 831-422-9391
Email: gapatton@mclw.org
Website: www.landwatch.org

October 4, 2003

Gary,

Thanks for your e-mail of October 3, 2003, and for taking the time to listen to the audio record of the public comment session. We can now both agree that I didn’t say that LandWatch was still participating in the Refinement Group. As for my comment that only two or three groups have formally withdrawn, I was just stating the facts as I knew them.

As you know, the Refinement Group is distributing information in the form of minutes and agendas to all those who would like to have them. We would be glad to take the LandWatch name off the registration sheet that appears on the website; this was merely an oversight on my part for which I apologize. I didn’t mean to imply that LandWatch was still one of the participating groups. 

Concerning your suggestion that the group be renamed, I will pass your letter on to the other members of the group for their input.

You might also want to be added to the Refinement Group e-mail list. As you said in your letter of September 17, 2003, “When members of the former Refinement Group do have specific suggestions, on this or any other General Plan topic, I hope you will give LandWatch the chance to provide our thoughts and reactions.”

Sincerely,

Tom Carvey, Secretary

TO:      Mr. Tom Carvey, Acting Secretary

            The Refinement Group

FM:      John McCaull, California Regional Director, American Farmland Trust

DT:            September 24, 2003

Dear Tom and Refinement Group Members:

Per Tom’s email dated September 19^th, we are responding to the Group’s request to formally indicate whether or not we intend to participate in the Group’s deliberations.  The answer is yes and no.

As I indicated in an email to the Group dated September 12^th, American Farmland Trust (AFT) was committed to continuing as a member of the Refinement Group if the Monterey County Board of Supervisors endorsed the Group’s existence and mandate at their September 16^th Board Meeting.  As you all know, that did not occur. 

AFT has several constraints and concerns that will not enable us at this time to participate in what I understand to be a weekly meeting schedule that is set up through early November:

• Financial constraints:  We simply do not have the financial resources to participate in the weekly Refinement Group meetings at this time.  AFT staff traveled hundreds of miles to participate in the Refinement Group meetings this summer because we do not have a local staff person in Monterey County.  Due to a series of layoffs and restructuring that occurred in our organization in August, we are stretched even thinner.  We are actively working to raise funds to correct this situation, and if and when funds become available to continue our work on the Monterey GPU we will immediately revisit this decision.  In particular, we are seeking funds to hire Bill Yeates as a consultant to AFT to represent us in stakeholder deliberations that can lead to a better GPU.

• Strategic Concerns:  The Group’s decision to continue to meet and act “as if the Brown Act applied” is a perplexing decision.  We agree that the process should be open to all who want to participate in a positive and meaningful way.  We also agree that any recommendations produced should not appear to come out of a closed door process.  In fact, all recommendations will have to be submitted to the Planning Commission and be subject to public review and comment.   However, attempted compliance with the Brown Act will simply be a means for any naysayers to either disrupt or distract the process, or claims that the Group failed to comply with all the requirements of the Act.  So the focus will be on what the Group did not do, rather than what the Group accomplished.

• A Clean Start:  After the Board of Supervisors decided to remove its support for the Refinement Group, our recommendation to many of the Refinement Group members we spoke with was to disband and form a new dialogue group (or groups) of organizations who could meet in a collaborative and voluntary fashion to work on crafting language on key, unresolved issues such as affordable housing and agricultural viability. 

• Public Perception: The unfortunate withdrawal of many organizations from the Refinement Group leave the remaining representatives open to charges that the Group is nothing more than a slightly expanded meeting of the 21^st Century Solutions coalition.  It was very clear at the Group meetings that many organizations did not want to be around the table, nor were they interested in negotiating changes to the GPU.  We do not put ourselves in that category, yet we are concerned that continuing to meet as “The Refinement Group” just opens up the opportunity for public attacks in political forums and the media.  Again, the focus will be on the Group and not on the recommendations.

That being said, AFT is very interested in continuing the dialogue with all of the organizations around the table in order to improve the GPU, and create a plan that enjoys broad support in the community.  How we effectively participate is the question.  In the recent past, we were part of the “Agricultural Viability Working Group” that successfully developed proposed changes to initial GPU policies to enhance agricultural viability .  We agree with our friends in the agricultural industry that, based on recommended changes in the April 2003 Preliminary Discussion  Draft, we still have more work to do in this area. 

We were also heartened to see the creative dialogue that occurred around the whole issue of affordable housing, and believe that we can add to this discussion through our understanding of land conservation tools such as clustered development, TDR’s and other tools that achieve housing needs while protecting important farmland and open space resources.

Our request is that we stay on the email distribution list for meeting minutes and draft language that is developed, and that the Refinement Group consider a parallel process where “issue caucuses” can form like the Agricultural Viability Working Group that can bring proposals back to the larger Refinement Group for consideration.  It would be easier for us to find the time and resources to focus our energy where we can do the most good, and to work under a more flexible and creative timeline than once-a-week meetings.

I am sorry we cannot find a way to effectively participate in the Refinement Group as it is currently structured and we would ask that you distribute this letter at the September 25, 2003 meeting for other organizations to review our position and concerns.  We look forward to working on many of these issues through the Agricultural Viability Working Group.

Sincerely,

John McCaull

California Regional Director

Click Here to view pdf

Group Guidelines (pdf)

Schedule of Meetings (pdf)

Click Here to view pdf

MEMORANDUM

September 2, 2003

TO:                         Refinement Committee Members

FROM:   Jim Cook, Housing & Redevelopment

SUBJECT:                 HOUSING ELEMENT

The Monterey County Planning Commission will hold a workshop on September 10, 2003 at 9:45 A.M. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers to receive a presentation on the Housing Element.  I encourage the members of the Refinement Committee to attend this workshop to acquaint yourselves with the document and process. 

As of the end of 2002 the County’s Housing Element was no longer in compliance with State law because an update had not been prepared and adopted.  In April the Board of Supervisors directed staff to process the Housing Element separately from the rest of the General Plan Update with the aim of having a Housing Element certified by the State as soon as possible. 

A certified Housing Element is critical to the County’s ability to apply for housing related grants.  To date the County has lost out on potential funding on the order of $4 to 6 Million.  If the Housing Element is not certified by the end of this year, an additional amount of over $3.5 Million of potential housing grants will be lost as well.  The local non-profit housing developers and providers all depend on the County’s ability to access these funds to assist in their projects.  The loss of the current funding opportunities as a result of not having a certified Housing Element directly constrains the actual production of affordable housing in a major way.   

Copies of the (Draft) Housing Element and related documents are available at our office, 29 Bishop St. Ste. 203 Pajaro, CA 95076 or call Teresa Pabingwit (831) 786-1350 if you would like a hard copy, in addition we will be posting them on the County web page under the Housing and Redevelopment Office.

Click here to view pdf

Click here to view pdf