BAY
AREA June 4, 1998 Mr. Dennis Murphy, Chairman Re: Proposed Draft Alignment for Sonoma Mountain Trail Dear Chairman Murphy: We are writing to express deep concern over the portion of the draft Sonoma County Outdoor Recreation Plan which proposes a trail alignment for Sonoma Mountain. While we support and are appreciative of the efforts of this volunteer committee, we feel strongly that a discoutinuous trail plan is no plan at all. We urge you to reconsider going public with a proposal which shows a break in the alignment and instead reflect on the map the goal of a trail across Sonoma Mountain so as to create a legacy for current and future residents of Sonoma County and the Bay Area region. It is our understanding that as part of the planning process a resident telephone survey was conducted to assess priorities for outdoor recreation in Sonoma County. Apparently 86% of those surveyed indicated that regional trails were a medium to high priority. Further, during the numerous public workshops held throughout the county in 1996 a Sonoma Mountain Trail emerged as the number one trail priority. Subsequent to receiving this clear public input regarding trails a map was drawn for a trail which showed a continuous alignment across Sonoma Mountain. This map was intact until some time earlier this year. But it appears that a portion of the trail (specifically the link between property owned by the Galvins and the Freibergs, properties within close proximity to the controversial Lafferty Ranch) was recently removed from the Sonoma Mountain trail map and that a new map (dated May 6) has been prepared which reflects this break in the trail. We understand that the reasons the committee, at the recommendation of County staff, changed the map are as follows:
For a variety of reasons, the decision by staff and the committee simply to delete from this map this critical component of the trail corridor is both perplexing and troubling. First, the glaring physical issue. Five of the eleven criteria in your own proposed criteria for prioritizing regional trail corridors speak to the importance of seeking opportunities where trails will create connections and links to other important resources in the county. By erasing this section of the Sonoma Mountain corridor, you interrupt the connection between county resources and defeat your own defined objective. A broker trail is of relatively little use. Perhaps more disturbing are the issues of process: staff and the committee seem to have yielded to the current private views of a very few participants. Yours is an exercise in planning on behalf of all the consituencies of the county -- including a definition of where and how trails would best be aligned for the county. By its own terms, your identification of alignments is only "schematic" -- no outcome is certain, action mandated or landowner harmed. It is only aspirational. If, ultimately, any element of an aspirational plan proves not feasible in any individual section or detail or an alternative continuous alignment proves superior or even easier to achieve, so be it. But the planning stage is not the time or place to conceded defeat to implementation challenges. In fact over the years in which your plan will be implemented, what seems an insurmountable challenge may prove to be none at all -- circumstances, landowner attitudes and even landowner identities themselves change over time. An adversary today may be an advocate tomorrow. It would be a great disservice to the county's long-term planning process to bow to the views of a few current owners and assumptions about what can and can not be done. Comprehensive open space, recreation, and trail planning such as Sonoma is currently undertaking is an extraordinary event. This is a rare opportunity to express a vision of what you want for the county -- assuming that you are able to implement all that you set forth. It is inconceivable that your vision would express the status quo, or a compromise so inconsistent with your own defined objectives and the public's articulated needs. For these reasons, we strongly urge that the committee either reinstate the trail link across Sonoma Mountain as contemplated or find a suitable alternative. Until this is done and so long as you leave a dramatic blank on the map, you have no meaningful plan. We understand there are challenges to realizing a bold vision. We feel confident that you will address the desire of your constituents to have real access to Sonoma Mountain -- no doubt they will when you hold your next round of public meetings. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input and ask that our letter be agendized for the upcoming June 17th meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Please call me if you would like to discuss this issue further. We hope to continue to work cooperatively with the Citizens Advisory Committee and all interested parties on this matter in the future.
|
