From the archives of

::: COMMUNITY NEWS

County reschedules first development meeting and questions whether further meetings will occur

• Pop-up window: Click for a four-year archive of development coverage -- news, maps, photos and more

Published Wednesday, January 26, 2005 The first of a series of meetings about development issues has been postponed, and a meeting on Feb. 16 will determine if the talks will be held at all, the county announced Tuesday.

Previous coverage: Who will attend county meeting? (January 17, 2005)

"It seems that the process of conducting the dialogues is becoming as much an issue as development itself," wrote Senior Planner Rob Burness in an e-mail explaining the change in approach. (The full text of his memo follows.)

Last November, the county proposed holding a series of meetings led by a facilitator to help the community and developers find areas of agreement on open space, annexation, and other issues.

The county Board of Supervisors proposed having the talks after deciding not to act on the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee's petition calling for a moratorium on development until a new master plan could be developed. The RMDCCC is opposed to current plans for development and had gathered 2,000 signatures on the petition. According to a report prepared by county planning, the process for creating a new plan would be expensive and lengthy.

A controversy over who should participate in the proposed dialogue occurred after plans for a series of five, four-hour talks were released by the county earlier this month. Developers and four community groups were each invited to send two representatives to the table. The RMDCCC, the Community Services District, the Rancho Murieta Association and the Country Club were the four community organizations.

The RMDCCC lobbied the county to allow it to have six representatives, saying it would not participate if limited to two because each member represented a particular area of expertise. In addition, the RMDCCC contended it would be outnumbered by developer representatives at the table and accused the Planning Department of "stacking the deck" by limiting its representation to two members.

The group also took a public stance that the talks should be between the RMDCCC and the developers and other community groups should not be at the table.

The county has agreed to the RMDCCC's request for a contingent of six, and the three other local organizations have decided to attend as observers, not participants.

Further, Burness noted in his e-mail that individuals have asked to contribute to the talks as "'at large' representatives."

Burness wrote that the present situation for talks -- RMDCCC versus developers -- is what the RMDCCC wants, but it creates "serious concern" for others with a stake in the process. Further, he wrote, it reproduces the group dynamics that got everyone to this point in the first place.

"With the (Board of Supervisors') original objective of bringing all interests together to try to resolve issues thus compromised, the question becomes, is it worthwhile to proceed at all," Burness wrote.

The Feb. 16 meeting is an attempt to salvage the talks by taking an approach that begins with a review of the issues by the county and gives attention to "the limitations that narrowed participation impose on potentially resolving these issues." The role of the facilitator hired by the county will be to "identify important components of a mediated discussion that enhance the likelihood of a positive outcome," Burness wrote. There will be an opportunity for public comment at the meeting, which is scheduled from 1 to 5 p.m. at the Country Club.

In the end, the decision to proceed with three more meetings would rest with the county, Burness noted.

In any event, the planning process for projects that have been submitted to the county for approval will continue, the supervisors decided in November.

---

Here is the full text of Burness' e-mail memo:

Dear interested parties in Rancho Murieta,

As you are no doubt aware, a number of you have expressed various concerns with the proposed structure for the upcoming discussions regarding Rancho Murieta development issues. After discussion with our facilitator/mediator, Carolyn Penny, we have arrived at an alternative approach that seems to make sense. In brief, it involves extending the preparatory effort and convening a meeting on February 16 of the invited participants to determine if we can arrive at a collaborative process acceptable to the County. If so, then three more meetings would be held to discuss issues that the participating stakeholders can reasonably expect to resolve. The Feb 2 meeting would be cancelled.

The difficulty is that the participation of stakeholders has narrowed to essentially the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens' Committee (RMDCCC) vs the developers and recreates much of the dynamics of a long series of meetings between Rancho North developers and RMDCCC. While this is
acceptable to one group of stakeholders it creates serious concerns on the part of the others. Meanwhile, with defecting stakeholders occuring, other individuals are asking to be part of the process as "at large" representatives. It seems that the process of conducting the dialogues is becoming as much an issue as development itself. With the Board's original objective of bringing all interests together to try to resolve issues thus compromised, the question becomes, is it worthwhile to proceed at all. It would be injudicious to summarily conclude that it isn't worthwhile, yet potentially wasteful of time and resources to proceed under conditions that may severely constrain productive dialogue. Thus this alternative approach:

All invited stakeholders in the memorandum from Terry Schutten dated December 31, 2004 are with this letter asked to attend the February 16 meeting essentially as a design team to develop a process and discussion scope that would address their individual concerns. Those stakeholders who have elected
not to participate (the Rancho Murieta Association, the Rancho Murieta CSD and possibly the Rancho Murieta Country Club depending on the outcome of the RMCC Board meetings today) would be welcomed as observers at the meeting unless they reconsider their decision not to participate. All 6 of the core RMDCCC group would be asked to participate, as well as each of the separate development
companies.

At the outset of this meeting the County will briefly review the issues that we understand to be significant and the limitations that narrowed participation impose on potentially resolving these issues. For example, the design of development and its sensitivity to environment are much more resolvable in an RMDCCC vs developer context than is the question of total buildout units. Somewhere in between is the open space issue. In addition, our facilitator will identify important components of a mediated discussion that enhance the liklihood of a positive outcome. The ensuing discussion would be structured so that people would engage together to determine if there is a way to proceed that addresses everbody's needs. There will be an opportunity for public comment so that those requesting "at large" involvement would be able to state
their case for participating. It will be made clear that the final decision on whether to pursue further dialogue will be the County's, as convenor.

If there is obvious agreement on a process for continuing it may be appropriate to decide at the end of this meeting. If not, it may be appropriate for the County to take the "design team's" input under advisement and make a later determination..

Our facilitator will spend extra time prior to Feb 16 to confer with all invitees to develop a clearer understanding of the dynamics and underlying issues.

The February 16 meeting will be from 1 to 5 pm in the main meeting room of the Rancho Murieta Country Club in Rancho Cordova.

We do hope that this meeting will provide a means to address everyone's procedural concerns so that productive dialogue on the development issues can ensue.

I will follow up with a hard copy letter to all those for whom I have a mailing address. If you have any questions, please contact me. ...

Sincerely,
Rob Burness
Senior Planner