One last novel, then I'm done with lengthy replies.
Nancy,
You are great to talk with in person, but I have to say that your on-line rants hit below the belt. There were other options if our meeting time or location was inconvenient for you. I offered a couple of days and times that were ideal toddler times, as a way of starting the conversation, and said that we could come up with even more times if needed. You said nothing about your preference, other than afternoon vs morning and readily agreed to one of the days and times I suggested. To say nothing and then use the fact that you met me at a location and time I suggested as fuel for your flaming of another poster is not cool. Our meeting was far from convenient for me.
To have you put words in my mouth (so to speak) feels pretty nasty.
I am thinking that you hadn't arrived yet when I outlined the steps for developing trails. I will repeat them at the bottom of this post.
In the meantime . . .
Nancy wrote: "I left having only one thing made clearer.... that is, this is not a mere little foot path that we're talking about, but rather an ADA approved Class 1 trail so as to be eligible for untapped grant money, as most new trails are Class 2 and highly competitive. Other than that, there was no persuasive clarification made on anything, mainly because she didn't have answers to some very basic questions. I asked the exact questions I posted earlier here, about the minimum requirements for getting the trails adopted."
Maybe you were expecting me to be a salesperson, but I am not. I was there to answer questions and listen. I respect that each person has their own relationship to these trails and I am not interested in having one run through your property. I did not say that class 2 trails are highly competitive. I said that Class 1 trail funds are often untapped and funding for these trails would not interfere with funding for other city projects. I did not tell you why. The reason why is that most Cities are not implementing class 1 trail projects. Some Cities do have class 1 trails in their master plans, but are understaffed and do not have the staff hours to devote to writing grants. Our town does not have competing class 1 projects, and going after grant funding does not interfere with other bike/pedestrian/roadway projects.
About this: "Nobody ever knocked on her door to tell her about this proposal or ask her opinion!"
First of all: It is the City's responsibility to notify its residents if there is an item that requires public input. It is not responsibility of people bringing an idea to the Council. Nonetheless, we did go knocking on many doors. We had a HUGE booth with picture and large lettered signs out on the Joe Rodota trail many many times over the years. We have been at the farmer's market, in front of local grocery stores, AND knocking on doors. Maybe not the best, but at least not a bad effort at getting the word out. Not so many doors along public streets were knocked upon, since there would be no infringement on anyone's private property. But, I totally understand that it feels like an infringement and definitely would change the experience in a neighborhood if there is significant bike/ped traffic.
In fact, I did tell her about it a long time ago. I did not bring this up when she spoke of it because you arrived just at that time. I told her about the trail idea during a conversation while I was her next door neighbor. I am not surprised that she doesn't remember because it was not such an alarming idea at the time. She expressed interest and concern. She gestured to her son's bike that had been out in the front yard for a couple days, right by the sidewalk, and said she was concerned that her neighborhood would lose the sense of protection and safety it had if it was transversed by more of the public. Yes, that is a concern. Living on a corner and being required to have a low or transparent fence sucks. People look into your yard and are judgmental. . . outside items are more vulnerable to theft. It feels great to live in a town where your kid's bike doesn't get stolen even if it is left outside for two days.
I am not interested in having folks "take one for the greater good". I would like to see these trails as a win-win (win-win-win-win-win) project. What if we came together as a community, raised funds and had a work party to build her a fence that met legal requirements for traffic visibility AND offered a more protected back yard? What if the feasibility study determines another route alignment is preferable and all this stress only takes more days off our lives and gives us more wrinkles? We are really only at the beginning of this whole process and there are too many options to warrant anyone raising their blood pressure over any one of them yet. Stay vigilant, yes. Stressed? Please, no.
And, yes, I was not interested in knowing which exact property was yours (even though I could probably guess) because I think it was too far-reaching to add a scenic route through more private property - at the last minute!! - when Jewel to Leland seems just fine to me. As I said in the beginning of this post: I am not going to even try to persuade you to allow a class 1 trail through the middle of your property. You are welcome to invite one, but I am interested in a different route.
My answers to Nancy's questions from a previous post:
In the spirit of compromise, I have a few questions for the Trailmakers.
1) You state "This act declares the trail is a vision, goal, and objective for our town according to our Master Plan. Adoption comes down to adding a line on the map in the Master Plan and identifying the start and end points of the proposed trail." So, do the proposed and/or final paths have to seamlessly connected?
If we say that we want the path to start at JRT and end at Sparks Rd. (an ending that deserves some explanation), does that mean that grant funding would not be available because residents on Eleanor Ave. say they don't want a designated bike path on their street, but you can pick up at Walker? Basically, can there be "gaps" in the trail and still be eligible for funding?
I answered this for you in person but I happy to repeat. Yes, there can be gaps. We can implement parts of the trail as they become feasible if the City Council does not put an "all or nothing" restriction on the project. Explanation for Sparks Rd ending point: It doesn't really end there. The proposed Gravenstein trail is intended to connect with the Petaluma-Sebastopl trail envisioned by the County.
2) You state "The County Parks Department can then start planning County area extensions of the trail beyond the City limits (Like the trail along the old railroad path to Petaluma.)." Do you mean to say that the county intends to build on the old railroad, like the JRT, or along side it, leaving the railroad open for possible restoration? Because, see.... here again.... I would much rather have a commuter train that meets up with SMART. If a bike path can go along side the old RR tracks, leaving the options for an electric commuter train campaign... like that which use to actually exist (which will take another 20 years to possibly realize.... but hey, why not dream?), then I can be more supportive. Are we taking a multi-faceted approach to the bigger picture, locally and county-wide.
You did not ask me this question when we met. The old railroad no longer exists in that area, as far as I know. I wish it did. An electric commuter/freight train out of Sebastopol would be very useful, but it would need to be rebuilt from scratch. The old railroad right-of-way is what the County's proposed path runs along. The former right-of-way now has been absorbed into private properties.
3) What does the path physically look like in concept? How wide? What does it look like on Eleanor Ave. and Leland St. vs. out amid the scenic Laguna and along Atascadero Creek?
I answered the part that you asked in person, regarding width, as best I could. This question really needs to be answered by a qualified engineer, not me, and not by any of the other TrailMaker volunteers. When I joined Sebastopol TrailMakers the regulations for class 1 trails required pavement. Since then things have changed to allow for a variety of all-weather surfaces. We have no consensus about what the path looks like, other than knowing it must meet all the requirements for a class 1 trail. The requirements are applied in such a variety, depending on the needs of each segment, that the physical path is best designed when/if the trails actually become a project. Public input would need to be involved. I am particularly interested in a water-permeable surface and one that is relatively sustainable and in-expensive to repair/replace/maintain.
If I remember correctly, ADA requirements for sidewalks is around 5 feet. I think it is more like 8 feet for two-way multi-use trails. Class 3 bike routes, like on Eleanor or Leland, simply utilize the existing road. Pedestrians use the sidewalk. If there is no sidewalk or existing sidewalk is not ADA compliant, the pathway funds would be used to make it compliant. At least that is what I would consider. But, again, I am not the person to ask these questions of. Especially since I am the type of person to think more creatively than most City staff would want me too. For example, I was dreaming of a decomposed granite trail that would be maintained at least once a year by a trail festival that involved bicycles and goats pulling box graters. Yeah, I can jive with engineer specs, but I also think "waaaaay outside the box".
OK. Here are the steps, as I know them and as I outlined them on Tuesday:
1) Have a great idea. Yay!
The following also happened, but is not required: Do a bunch of research to see if it has potential. Identify a possible route and knock on doors to talk with property owners and get a sense of their interest. Consult with Sonoma County Regional Parks about the proper process for developing trails. Call some engineering firms that do these sorts of projects and get a senior engineer to volunteer his time to come walk the route (with property owner permission) and tell us if he sees any red flags. (no red flags) Research funding opportunities.
2) Bring your idea to the City Council and ask that they go through the process to include proposed trails in their Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.
3) City adopts vision of trails into master plan after conducting required public meetings.
4) Obtain funding for a feasibility study.
5) Conduct feasibility study.
I asked an engineer from a company that has done a trail much like this (crossing both public and private land) if volunteer efforts can reduce the cost of a feasibility study. He said yes. Much of this work is gathering already-existing information and the gathering can be done by volunteers. The analysis and recommendations must still be done by state-recognized engineers and meet all legal requirements.
According to my knowledge, the feasibility study requires public input meetings; meetings with each private property owner; gathering information on all the technical aspects of constructing the trail; identifying costs; identifying any environmental considerations, and studying the best route alignment.
Although we are bringing our idea of a route to the city council, the actual path the route takes is determined by the feasibility study.
6) If the feasibility study offers compelling evidence that the trail is do-able the City Council can then choose to declare it as a "project" and start the process of raising funds to implement the project.
7) Project implementation has a whole other set of steps and I haven't researched all those.
-Larkin