Mr. Will Stapp Dear Mr. Stapp: At your request, I have reviewed the draft "Recommended Policies of the Countywide Outdoor Recreation Plan" for Sonoma County (draft is dated August 21, 1998.) I have also reviewed the letter from Stephen K. Butler of the law offices of Clement, Fitzpatrick, and Kenworthy dated June 17, 1998. For others who may read this, I am putting on record that my comments come from my experience and knowledge as current General Manager of the Marin County Open Space District and the Director of the County of Marin's parks system. My department also includes the Marin County Convention and Visitors Bureau, which supports and promotes visitation to Marin. I write this, however, as a interested resident of the City of Petaluma. I offer the following comments: 1. Not having seen the County's Outdoor Recreation Plan, of which these draft policies would be a part, I assume, I must ask where is the material which recognizes the physical features of Sonoma County that are both environmental resources and possibilities for public outdoor recreation facilities? (for example, the coastline, the Bay shore, the Russian River, the mountains and ridges.) I believe it is important to highlight what assets Sonoma County has that are, or might become, meaningful opportunities for public outdoor recreation. These physical feature assets are key, as the issue is not providing outdoor recreation just anywhere in Sonoma County. People want to go to specific areas in Sonoma County. These assets then need to be considered together with information on where people live in Sonoma County and what outdoor recreation facilities they want. 2. The approach of focusing on the acquisition of land and other property interests for outdoor recreation purposes, and discouraging such uses within operating private farmland is a positive step toward meeting both the needs of the public and the needs of private landowners and the agricultural community. Policy
1.2 However, the policies as written then
make it very difficult for land to be purchased,
anywhere, and used for public outdoor recreation
purposes. The need to determine General Plan consistency
before acquisition, and, if the Outdoor Recreation Plan
becomes part of the General Plan (which I agree it
should), the need to amend the General Plan and to apply
appropriate General Plan Land Use and General Plan Open
Space Map designations before recreational facilities are
developed, is extremely burdensome. If you want to
accomplish acquisition and development of appropriate
lands for public outdoor recreation, the process has to
be less onerous. If a property is essentially going to be
used for public open space type uses, and there are
little to none improvements immediately Lastly, are the same burdensome requirements being applied to private properties intended to be developed for commercial use, for industrial use, for residential use? To public purchases of land to be developed for police stations or fire stations? If not, I strongly question the application of the same only to park and open space properties. 3. Policy 1.2c This discourages the development of trails along roads, even those that are public. Multi-use is discouraged, with the Sonoma County Department of Public Works and Transportation being given the final say. While the Public Works Department is certainly a professional and highly respected department, I question that they should have the only and final say. At the risk of stereotyping, Public Works are generally dominated by engineers, and engineers are geared to accommodating cars much more readily than trail users. Engineers generally are not knowledgeable about trail standards, trail maintenance needs, or the needs of different trail groups (what width is appropriate for equestrian use?). They sometimes view trail users more as a pain in the neck than as another segment of the public who wants to go from point A to point B without a car.Trail alignments along roads should certainly include the input of DPW, but knowledgeable trail professionals in Regional Parks and/or the Agricultural and Open Space District should have at least equal influence on final decisions. As written, this policy effectively guarantees there would be little to no trails developed along roads, including public roads. With these connecting links made impossible to accomplish, existing and planned outdoor recreational facilities could become fragmented and accessible only to those in cars. This contradicts Policy 1.2b and would be in conflict with Sonoma County's efforts to reduce and manage traffic. 4. Policy 1.3b Trail alignments that are not predetermined by a relationship to established publicly owned corridors (remember- the policies as written effectively write off trails along public roads) may be subject to a study or plan for the trail, taking into account an environmental assessment and otherfactors- again, this burdensome process could effectively eliminate the possibility of developing trails, even those on private land where the owner has voluntarily given or sold right of way for a public trail. If landowner X wants to sell a trail easement to a public agency, why should a study be required just for the acquisition? Environmental assessment, with public input as appropriate, can be done when the exact trail alignment is determined in more detail and its construction proposed. As before, does the same level of scrutiny apply to public purchases of land for a police or fire station? 5. Policy 1.3c The width of trail easements acquired should also allow for difficulty of terrain (grade limitations, the need for switchbacks, etc.), and needed access for maintenance of the trail. "Minimizing environmental damage" is a negative way of saying "maximizing ecologically sensitive siting of the trail". Why do these policies, which are supposed to address the outdoor recreation needs of the people of Sonoma County, regularly speak negatively of trails? 6. Policy 1.4iii If this addresses trail easements or the dedication of trail corridors in fee, it should say so. The wording is very vague. There is too much emphasis on "need" here- does every other land use in the County have to prove "need"? Perhaps "general location" or "general alignment" would work better, as the Plan Map should indicate planned general location of future facilities, including trails (but should not be property-specific). 7. Policy 1.5 Add "or will be accessed by" after in "locations that are accessed by" to allow for future possibilities. 8. Policy 2. l b Having to prepare design and management plans that ensure provision of services necessary to provide for the safety and support of trail users and affected landowners, prior to developing any new trail route for public use, is again, extremely burdensome. As written, this applies even to new trails to be constructed on existing public lands. Why should a planned trail, say in Helen Putnum Regional Park, have to have a design and management plan that addresses all that? The effect of this is that it will be too costly and too time consuming to pursue the building and opening of any public trail. What does support of affected landowners mean? In many trail cases, depending on location, terrain, parking availability, and accessibility by means other than cars, there is no impact on adjacent landowners. Is the County to become responsible well beyond what is reasonable ? Again, before a new road is built in Sonoma County, are "management plans that ensure provision of services necessary to provide for the safety of users and affected landowners" required? What about when fire and police stations are built (there are adjacent landowner issues for these, also)? Are trails being held to a higher standard of care than other Sonoma County facilities? Is it really more dangerous to walk on a trail than it is to drive Stony Point Road? In my experience I have found far more potential for injury on roads and some highly developed parks facilities (soccer fields, etc.) than I have on trails on natural property.The types of lawsuits I see reflect this. In addition, by state law, immunities are given for public properties left largely in their natural condition. 9. Policy 2.1 c Trails should meet chosen standards, but the County should watch out for setting trails standards that are not realistic and cannot be maintained. With tough enough standards, it may be impossible to build a trail. Again, is it really more dangerous to walk on a trail than to drive Sonoma County roads? Are there statistics to back this up? I don't believe you'd find this to be true. 10. Policy 2.2 At this point in time, I agree with limiting public trails in key agricultural areas to those acquired by landowner consent. However, I think it should be clear that when/if such lands are up for subdivision through the County, that this restriction is removed and that Policy 1.4iii be vigorously applied. 11. Policy 2.3 This indemnification of grantors of trail easements and adjoining landowners goes too far. I do not disagree with indemnification of grantors of trail easements. I would not expect many cases to come up. On indemnifying adjacent landowners, however, I think this is too much. Private landowners already are indemnified by State law for uninvited use of their lands (except in cases of obvious negligence). It should be checked out whether having the County indemnify them with a formal arrangement would negate the immunities landowners have for uninvited guests. As written, however, the County indemnification should also not apply to injuries caused by a landowners negligence. Overall, it appears that the County is bending over backwards much further than it needs to. However, if this is the only way landowner concerns can be addressed, and the County is willing to do this, so it is. I'd check out the above question though. 12. Policy 3.2 This refers to landbanking and that such lands may not be open to public use until the park and recreation departments develop master plans and resource management plans per CEQA and secure funding for development and operation and maintenance of the properties. Not all "improvement" to outdoor recreational lands is of such a scale and scope that it should require master and resource plans and CEQA review. Some things can be done to a property early on, even involving the public in work-days, etc., that have no negative impacts. Again, the policies are making it very difficult to get and open up lands for public outdoor recreation. Does the County want to develop this for the public, or not? 13. Policy 3.3 B.L.M. lands? If the County really wants to maximize potential links between public outdoor recreation lands, the schools and school districts should be approached also about utilizing those appropriate lands where needed. 14. Policy 3.4 This says the acquisition, planning, and development of County recreation properties will be coordinated in the Five Year Capital Project Plan. Does this apply both to lands to become part of Regional Parks and/or the Agricultural and Open Space District? Do these projects then have to compete with Public Works, Flood Control, the Sheriff and other departments for limited funds? The Ag and Open Space District has its own funding and so should not have to compete on this list. The same should apply to Parks projects with outside funding. 15. Policy 5.2 This addresses funding, but is extremely weak. Was something taken out? Funding can be from federal and state sources, local property taxes, the sales tax revenues of the Ag and Open Space District (where appropriate), public/private partnerships, landscape and lighting districts, Mello-Roos community facilities districts, city grants, private grants, fees and charges, leases, gifts and donations, etc. Why is this section so weak? This concludes my comments on the draft policies. My comments assume there are other materials comprising the Outdoor Recreation Plan and the Plan Map which I have not seen.
cc: Philip Sales, Sonoma Co. Regional Parks |
