LAW
OFFICES OF June 17, 1998 HAND DELIVERED Re: June 17, 1998, Recommended Draft Policies Dear Chairman Murphy and Members of the Committee: We are writing to suggest changes to the recommended policies which are to be presented to you by staff at your meeting of June 17, 1998. In connection with your deliberations, would you please consider the following:
Sonoma County has a General Plan which directs urban growth to incorporated cities and established public service areas. The purpose of these policies is to minimize the impacts of urbanization on agricultural and resource areas of the County. The same policy should be considered to accommodate outdoor recreational needs which are an outgrowth of increased urbanization. Specifically, we suggest that the primary emphasis of the plan should be the in-fee public acquisition of additional regional parkland and the development of public recreational trails and amenities on such parklands. There are a number of advantages which would be associated with this policy emphasis. First, parkland could be acquired in areas which are conveniently adjacent to urban areas which would maximize the use and benefit of such parks for all members of the urban community, not just wilderness trail hikers. Second, recreational trail uses on lands held in fee by the public will mitigate liability concerns associated with trail easements through private property. Third, by concentrating public recreational uses on in-fee regional parkland, the impacts of trails on agricultural and resource lands in the County can be minimized. Fourth, a concentration of trail uses in this fashion is consistent with the underlying philosophy of the 1989 General Plan which is to minimize the intrusion of urban generated land uses on agricultural and resource areas. Fifth, concentration of' recreational uses will better enable public entities to adequately control and maintain outdoor recreational facilities. In formulating the draft policies, we believe that a fundamental error has been made that the perceived need for public trails can only be accommodated throughout the County on private agricultural and resource lands. We urge the Committee to examine this fundamental assumption and ask itself whether the needs of the public can be better served and potential impacts better mitigated through concentrated recreational facilities in proximity to the County's urban communities.
Another fundamental precept of the proposed policies which should be examined is whether it is necessary or desireable to divert a significant portion of the income stream of the Sonoma County Open Space District to the acquisition and development of public trails in agricultural and resource areas. In adopting the 1989 General Plan, the Board of Supervisors resolved the then existing debate over public trails in private agricultural areas in favor of the agricultural community. Trails were deleted in agricultural areas and draft open space policies were modified to reflect the then existing community sentiment that agriculture is the lifeblood of Sonoma County and its stability should not be undermined by inconsistent land uses. The Open Space District was formed to implement the policies set forth in the 1989 General Plan Open Space and Agricultural Resources Elements and to provide a mechanism for the preservation of community separators and the protection of agricultural and resource lands in the County. Measure C, the expenditure plan. states in part;
Proponents of.the proposed recreation plan seek to exponentially expand the concept of District acquisition of "in fee" recreational lands by providing a mechanism to divert, we think inappropriately, the income stream of the Open Space District to the funding of a trails plan in the County which is neither consistent with the General Plan's open space or agricultural resources elements. We implore the Committee to ask itself, is this right? In the event that the Committee determines that any portion of the District's funds should be utilized for purposes of acquiring and developing trails, we would ask the Committee to consider policies which would:
The proposed policies would allow the County and Open Space District to generally embark on a largely unfettered land grab for trails throughout the County, The Committee should ask itself the fundamental question of whether this is necessary or appropriate. Currently there is a lack of public money for the development or maintenance of existing trails in the County. While trail proponents continue to state that the money will come, the question is from where, absent the wholesale goring of the Open Space District's budget. Rather than engage in !and grabbing, euphemistically called "land banking," wouldn't it be more reasonable to direct the staff to present a more modest five year plan with a greater emphasis on realistic and practical funding mechanisms. At the end of that time, if the test trails have been acquired, developed and properly maintained with minimal conflict to affected agricultural and resource areas, then the County could consider further expansion of the plan if an urban recreational need exists. Not only will a "test" plan provide the County with a yardstick on the feasibility of developing and maintaining an expanded trail system, this course of action will also avoid potentially significant land use impacts. What many people fail to acknowledge is that an offer of a perpetual trail easement on agricultural or resource lands has an immediate land use impact. A potential buyer of agricultural or resource land encumbered by an offer of a trail easement will think long and hard about whether to purchase and expend the capital to develop the property for agricultural uses given the inherent land use conflicts associated with agricultural and trail uses. Accordingly, the land banking of trail easements in agricultural or resource areas has an immediate impact on the continued viability of that land for agricultural uses, as well as an impact on adjacent agricultural or resource properties. This impact is not benign and it should be factored into this Committee's recommendations on land banking policies.
Goal 5 and its objectives are very perverse. Essentially, these policies, which speak to the funding mechanism for community and neighborhood parks, require that local property owners or schools shoulder the burden for the financing of these facilities. It is ironic that facilities which will serve a larger segment of the urban populous will have to be financed by either a school district or property owners in the immediate area while, on the other hand, far flung trails which will be used by a much smaller segment of the populous will be funded by general tax dollars and the Open Space District's coffers? Something is terribly wrong here.
The maps presented to you continue to reflect existing water agency easements as trails under the plan. In the past, we have requested copies of these easements to determine whether in fact trail uses are allowed. We request that the Committee direct staff to provide copies of all the water agency easements which are to be utilized as trails so that we may make an independent determination on the consistency of trail uses with such easements.
The May 6, 1998, trail map which was adopted by the Committee contained a total of 200.49 miles of new proposed trails. The maps which are being presented to the Committee on June 17, 1998, reflect 229.4 miles of proposed trails, including the insertion of a new trail on lower Sonoma Mountain. Did the Committee give any direction to staff to expand the May 6, 1998, trail map?
The draft policies contain 2 variations of policy 2.2 which deal with trails in agricultural areas. We request that the Committee consider the following iteration of policy 2.2.
a. Policy 1. l(a) allows the acquisition of property without the demonstration of need. We suggest that a qualifier be added requiring a finding of demonstrated need. b. Policy 1. l(b) should not be included in the proposed plan unless it can be demonstrated that the acquisition of trails through agricultural property will not diminish the value and future viability of agriculture and visitor serving uses dependent on agriculture. c. Policy 1.2(a) is overbroad. The policy can be construed to allow the acquisition of property for trails in broad areas of the County. Some definition of "general vicinity" should be included to prevent the overbroad interpretation of this policy. d. As previously stated, the language in policy 1.2(b), speaking to the ability to use maintenance roads along flood control channels, Sonoma County Water Agency lands along creeks, or other publically held lands for trails, is an assumption that must be investigated. If any of these links cannot be used, this may in turn effect the Committee's decision on whether to fill "gaps" between such trails. e. When the language of policy 1.3(a) is read with that set forth in policy 1.2(a), the acquisition or exaction of lands for trails in broad areas of the County could be considered to be consistent with the General Plan. Limitations need to be included in the policies to prevent the overbroad interpretation of lands available for trail uses. Policy 1.3(b) speaks to the preparation of a study or plan for a trail which will take into account costs, a preliminary environmental assessment and any other factors the Board of Supervisors deems relevant to alignment and feasibility. We respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate to conduct this type of analysis at this time in connection with the adoption of a more modest "test plan" for the next five years. g. Policy 1.3(c) states that trail easements shculd be wide enough to allow for creating buffer spaces between neighbors and the trail and to allow trails to meander within topography. This overbroad language further encroaches on agricultural lands, If this is to be implemented through the exaction process, how does someone assess what is "wide enough"? Specific width limitations need to be included. h. Policy 1.4(i) encourages seeking out landowners to sell land or interests in land for outdoor recreation facilities. How and when would the analysis of the impact of the acquisition on adjacent agricultural lands and resources be done? i. Policy 1.4(ii) requires land dedication in preference over park mitigation fees. What are the budgetary implications of the policy? Doesn't the Parks Department have more land than it can improve or maintain? j. Policy 1.4(iii) requires dedication of easemen;s for trails as a condition of subdivision approval. This policy negates the concept of a willing seller set forth elsewhere in the plan. k. Policy 1.4(iv) provides that the Board of Supervisors may consider the dedication of property for outdoor recreation facilities in exchange for density bonuses, clustering and other optional design and improvement standards. This concept is expressly contrary and inimical to policy 2.3 of the General Plan's agricultural resources element which specifically limits the intrusion of new residential uses into agricultural areas. Additionally, General Plan policy AR3f states:
Again, the policies presented to you seek to stand the current General Plan on its head in favor of an overly ambitious trails plan. l. Objective 2.l and subsequent policies call for a variety of trail development plans. All of these plans will occur after the fact. This type of analysis should occur now in connection with a five year "test plan" which sets forth a reasonably achievable recreational goal. m. Objective 2.3 is probably worthless. First, I am unaware of any situation in which the County has granted this type of indemnity. Accordingly, the policy may not be achievable at all. Second, even if it is achievable, the indemnification does not cover property or personal damage suffered by the private landowners. For instance, if a careless hiker starts a fire by smoking on a public trail with the result that a neighboring ranch is destroyed, no indemnification applies. n. Policy 3.1 states that the County will coordinate efforts with other public agencies and private organizations for the acquisition of new outdoor recreation facities "consistent with adopted plans and policies." What "adopted plans and policies?" Do these include agricultural preservation policies as set forth in the agricultural resources element and elsewhere in the General Plan? o. Objective 3.2 dealing with land banking has been discussed elsewhere herein. p. Policy 3.2 is overbroad. Any banking of property needs to be based on an actual and demonstrated need. q. Is policy 3.3 true? What procedural and budgetary steps will be necessary before the water agency can open these areas for public access? r. Goal 4 is a significant policy issue that needs to be addressed by the Board of Supervisors. There have been a number of well publicized problems associated with the interaction of the Open Space District and private non-profit organizations in the past. I believe that the Open Space District staff was given direction to prepare a policy relating to these matters. This is a complicated and troublesome issue which does not need to be addressed in the plan.
To conclude, since the recreation policies are to be made as a general recommendation to the County, we urge that this Committee fundamentally examine the basic structure of the plan now before it. While trail advocates' generally assert that there is sat overwhelming consensus in Sonoma County to develop trails in agricultural and resource areas, this has not been demonstrated. The validity of any survey depends on how the question is asked. The percentage of affirmative responses to the question "are you in favor of more public trails in the County," as opposed to, "would you favor trails in agricultural areas even if such trails conflict with County agricultural policies" would no doubt be much different. We urge that this Committee reject an exclusive trails plan and direct the drafting of policies which present a more balanced reflection of community need for additional recreational facilities. These facilities should include an emphasis on regional parks as well as provisions for active recreational sports fields and facilities to serve the urban population. By presenting a more balanced plan, we believe that the Committee will truly respond to community needs. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
SKB:cg |
