CORP Commentary on the Organizational Assessment Commissioned by Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District in December 1997

This organizational assessment was commissioned by the Open Space Authority in December 1997. Two outside consulting firms, Hood and Strong LLP and Management Analysis, Inc., worked together to gather information and produce the report in the fall of 1998. Shortly thereafter, the SCAPOSD's General Manager resigned. As of this writing (May 1999), the district is still managed by an interim General Manager brought in from another agency (Steve Sharpe, formerly of LAFCO).

For those who advocate public access to open space, the most important findings are in Chapter III (project selection and acquisition), examined in detail below. Other chapters deal with internal processes, information systems, and managerial style, sometimes in excruciating detail, and the District's labyrinthine, overlapping layers of managerial beaurocracy (Authority, Advisory Committee, District Board/Supervisors, GM and District Staff).

Chapter II, Stakeholder Perception of Program, provides an interesting synopsis of the positions of groups favoring and opposing public access to open space lands:

... [S]ome [farm group representatives] stated that they felt they were getting mixed messages from the staff about the issue of potential public access on their lands. While the District's public policy has been to not to pursue trails as a requirement for participation, there is an unconfirmed perception among Farm Bureau members that agreeing to allow a trail on an easement is one of the only ways to get your project moved up in the prioritization process...

Similarly, there is a faction that adheres to a very wide interpretation of the statutes. This group holds that the size of the original wording on recreation can and should be interpreted wide enough to support using "public access" and "recreational development opportunity" as a suitable marketing and/or negotiating tool, regardless of whether recreation activities were shown to be consistent with the property's 1989 General Plan designation. In addition, they believe that there are legal grounds to pursue recreational opportunities on easements as well as the District's fee-owned lands.

The group with the narrow interpretation of the legislation professes the opinion that the current tri-agency Recreation Plan Study is a backdoor attempt to change the rules of the game. This group believes that attempt to modify the General Plan to designate additional areas for potential recreational opportunities not only goes against the intent of the District's founders, but also provides "trails" supporters an unfair opportunity to promote recreation on private property without consulting neighboring land owners and without performing the otherwise required Environmental Impact Studies. At this point, parties on both sides of the issue seem willing to await the issuance of the Recreational Study.

Note that the "Recreational Study" (Outdoor Rec Plan) has now (summer 1999) been released in draft form. See our CORP commentary on the Draft ORP.

Chapter II also notes that

While all meetings of the Advisory Committee and Authority are open to the public, the number of citizens who attend varies greatly. There is no formal "public hearing" system built into the meeting structures.

By "'public hearing' system" we take them to mean giving formal advance notice of meetings.

Many of the recommendations in Chapter III (project selection and acquisition) address the need to streamline and professionalize acquisition procedures to speed up the process and save public money, goals which CORP certainly supports. The key items for public access are included in the SELECTION CRITERIA section, particularly the first three recommendations:

Rec III.1 Develop clear set of criteria and priorities for acquisitions

REC III.2 Clarify the role of the district with respect to environmental issues and public access.

REC III.3 Update the acquisition plan.

Astonishingly, District policy on such key issues as public access to open space has never been establihsed, much less publicized. This omission has had the predictible results of confusion, uncertainty, insider power struggles, and public suspicion and cynicism.

Chapter VI, Outreach/External Relations contains a few interesting points. Under "General Observations of Interviews, the consultants note that

6. The recreational plan needs to be finalized. The large majority of those interviewed indicated that if you queried the general public, they would believe that procuring open space for recreational purposes, including procurement of trail easements, is a favorable activity of the District...

Their recommendation VI.2 on public outreach contains the item

5. All properties protected under the District should have signs indicating that the District has protected it, if acceptable to the landowner...

While CORP supports this suggestion, we are not supprised it has not been implemented. In a context of widespread public anger at lack of public access to open space lands in Sonoma County, the display of hundreds of signs saying "Protected by SCAPOSD, your tax dollars at work" flanked by "No tresspassing" signs would not be smart public relations.