J.
KAPOLCHOK LAND USE
PLANNING August 17, 1999 Hand Delivered Supervisor Michael Cale RE: Draft Sonoma County Outdoor Recreation Plan - Analysis of Section VI. Recommended Policies Dear Supervisor Cale: It is my understanding that the purpose of the public hearing scheduled before the Board of Supervisors for the evening of August 24, 1999 is for the Board to give direction in regards all or some of the policies found in the draft Outdoor Recreation Plan (ORP). I therefore wish to submit the following comments on the draft ORP policies for your consideration. GOAL 1: DEVELOP A LONG RANGE STRATEGY FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PARKS, PRESERVES, TRAILS, PUBLIC ACCESS, AND RELATED OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES I. Acquisition in Excess of
Demonstrated Need The plan states that land for outdoor recreation facilities should be acquired regardless of demonstrated need (Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1a). This also appears in a modified form under Goal #3 as Objective 3.2: "Encourage landbanking... ". Before the County engages in a plan to require (Policy 1.4 - ii paragraph 2) and acquire trails through agricultural property, should not the county ask for an accounting of all existing publicly owned lands? Of particular interest should be lands owned by Sonoma County Regional Parks and the Sonoma County Water Agency. Along with this inventory of land, the Board must be given a report which describes to what degree these lands have been developed, discusses what opportunities exist to develop these lands to meet the recreational needs of the county and estimates the budget necessary for developing and maintaining said public lands. One anticipates that this question will be answered in Section III. Parkland Classification and Inventory of the ORP. However, what we find on revised page 28 is an inventory which excludes land banked properties and trail acreage. Furthermore, nowhere in the plan is there any discussion as to the degree to which existing public lands are developed or what alternatives and opportunities exist for developing already acquired public lands to service future recreational needs. If the above was made available, then the stipulated primary purpose of the Outdoor Recreation Plan, namely:
would be met in a direct and constructive way. Furthermore, if the focus of the ORP shifted from a plan primarily interested in the direction and redirection of public moneys for the acquisition of discontinuous easements through agricultural properties to a plan that accounts for and creatively utilizes existing public lands and acquires lands for recreational facilities which are accessible to the most people then we would begin to have an Outdoor Recreational Plan that made sense. Additionally, the money generated from the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space tax would then be used to fulfill its primary purpose " ... the purchase of development rights to preserve agriculture and open space. In the area of open space, the clear focus is on protection of community separators and scenic and biotic resources." (p. 8 County Counsel Analysis of Measures A and C dated luly 7, 1999) II. Trail Locations When Policies 1.2a and 1.2b are read together, a case can be made that a trail located on any property within Sonoma County could be found to be consistent with the ORP. Stated another way, PRMD could require the dedication of a trail easement on any property whose owner submits an application for a subdivision (Policy 1.4). This position is based on the language in the plan which asserts that the map should be considered schematic only; that the intention of the trail symbol(s) is to reflect a point of departure and a point of arrival; and the purpose of the plan is to identify opportunities to link existing and proposed recreational facilities on publicly owned land. Included in the definition of public land is road right-of -way. Hence, if you can take a trail easement to a road right-of-way you are creating a linkage to public land. Policy 1.3b further establishes the ability of the Board of Supervisors to acquire trails anywhere in the County. III. Trail Easements in the LIA,
LEA and DA Policy 1.2c recommends that trail easements in agricultural zones be located in road rights-of-way until there is a willing seller/owner. However, policy 1.4c(ii) paragraph two recommends exacting trails as a condition of subdivision approval and policy 1.4c(ii) paragraph three recommends an improvement standard trade-off or density bonus in exchange for a trail easement. Any time there is a mandatory requirement for a discretionary entitlement the concept of "willing seller" cannot exist. Depending on the disparity of "choice", even in the case of an inducement, it is questionable how "willing" the seller/owner is. Furthermore, when applied to agriculturally designated lands, these recommended policies are in direct conflict with the Agricultural Resources and Open Space Elements of the 1989 General Plan. 1989 General Plan Agricultural Resources Element The introduction of non-agricultural use i.e., public recreation, trail heads, support facilities etc. on and adjacent to agriculturally designated lands raise questions of consistency as regards most of the Goals, Objectives and Policies found in the 1989 Agricultural Resources Element. A few examples are the following objectives/policies:
Likewise, the intensification of residential development in exchange for the introduction of a use that is not related to the primary use of the property i.e., the production of food and fiber runs contrary to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 1989 Agricultural Resources Element. A few select examples would be:
1989 General Plan Open Space Element The consistency of the proposed recommended policies with the 1989 General Plan Open Space Element cannot be understood unless the adopted 1989 General Plan Open Space Element is compared to the draft Open Space Element.
The main General Plan policies regarding trails are found in Section 6 of the Open Space Element in the draft (1986) General Plan and Section 4 of the Open Space Element in the adopted (1989) General Plan. The differences between the two are striking:
GOAL 2: PLAN NEW OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC RECREATION NEEDS, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE NEED FOR SAFETY, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I. Consideration of Impact on Agriculture After the Fact Most of the Objectives and Policies found under Goal #2 are positive. However, these goals and policies occur after the fact, after the easement has been acquired. What should occur is that these Objectives and Policies should be used to help establish a framework for developing the ORP recreation facilities map. II. County Offers to Indemnify Land Owners Against Injuries Sustained by Trail Users Objective/Policy 2.3 recommends that the County indemnify all grantors of trail easements and owners of adjacent properties from liability for injuries suffered by the trail users. The plan fails however, to address the liability incurred by the County when the trail user(s) damages the agricultural operation or the agricultural operation on adjacent property. For example, what if a trail user should carelessly dispose of a cigarette and unwittingly cause a wild fire. Is the Board willing to assume the liability in both cases and if so what would be the projected fiscal impact on the County? The fiscal analysis contained in the ORP does not address this issue. GOAL 3: ENSURE COORDINATION AND COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AMONG PUBLIC AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, STATE PARKS, SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURE PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY, AND CITIES INVOLVED IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND RECREATIONAL USE OF PUBLIC LAND I. The Stipulated Objectives of the ORP vs. the Main "Accomplishment" of the ORP Objective/Policy 3.2: Land banking has been addressed above. Objective/Policy 3.3 is a policy that should be supported. However, it is an objective/policy that is not reflected in the end results of the proposed ORP. The main thrust of the ORP is the acquisition of trails by fee or easement through non-public land. This is borne out by the fact that the main focus of the ORP is to acquire 269.7 miles of new multi-use trails. 201 miles are on nonpublic land and 68.7 miles are on existing public land (p. ii ORP). By contrast the ORP proposes the addition of only 10 additional acres in Community Parks (revised p. 118). By definition Cominunity Parks are "... parks that contain playfields and paved surfaces for court games such as tennis and basketball." (p. 24 ORP). GOAL 4: ENCOURAGE PRIVATE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE REGULAR PUBLIC ACCESS TO, AND RECREATIONAL USE OF LANDS ACQUIRED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS A partnership with non-profit agencies to assist in the management of public lands is a reasonable public policy. However, the public cost of recreational facilities management must be taken into consideration. On page 8-11 of the Appendices the plan proposes an annual cost of $341,700 to operate and maintain 201 miles of public trails on private land. Given the remoteness of many of the trails, the steepness of some of the terrain, the probable fire hazard and the inevitable conflict between agriculture and recreational use, that figure seems pitifully low. At the very least additional information which explains how this figure was arrived at should be made available. GOAL 5: DEVELOP LOCAL FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF PARK FACILITIES Objective/Policy 5.1: Development of community and neighborhood parks adjacent to schools is not what the plan is showing. The plan shows substituting school yards for community and neighborhood parks; adding only 10 acres of new community parks over a 10 year period and four new neighborhood parks in 10 years. Regardless of whether or not this is good public policy, if school yards are to be substituted for neighborhood parks, the feasibility of this must first be examined before bringing it forward as public policy. I do not believe that this issue has been reviewed and formally responded to by the affected agencies. Objective/Policy 5.2: The plan proposes to divert County money and development fees to acquire trails in rural agricultural areas. SCAPOSD money, which is funded primarily by persons living in urban areas, is earmarked to be used for the acquisition of trails. Objective/Policy 5.2 suggest that people living in the urban areas should pay yet again to fund recreational facilities. Not only is this highly questionable, the feasibility of passage is highly suspect. Conclusion After struggling with disparate policies and recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Plan and review of County counsel's opinion of Measures A and C, the following conclusions become inescapable:
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely,
|
