<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<doc callnum="S868.S156 F56 1989">
<metadata>
	<titleStmt>
		<mainTitle nfc="0"><title>Financing and implementing the Bay Trail</title>:<titleExt>tools and strategies</titleExt>/<respStmt>report preparation, John Steere, Kathleen Grady, Hing Wong.</respStmt></mainTitle>
	</titleStmt>
	<authorStmt>
		<persAuthor><name type="surname">Grady,  Kathleen.</name></persAuthor>
		<persAuthor><name type="surname">Wong, Hing.</name></persAuthor>
		<corpAuthor><name>Association of Bay Area Governments.</name></corpAuthor>
	</authorStmt>
	<imprint><pubPlace>Oakland, Ca.</pubPlace>:<pubName>Association of Bay Area Governments</pubName>,<pubDate>1989.</pubDate></imprint>
	<classStmt>
		<locClass>
			<subject cat="geo">Bay Trail (Calif.)</subject>
		</locClass>
		<locClass>
			<subject cat="top">Trails</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">California</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">San Francisco Bay Area.</subject>
		</locClass>
	</classStmt>
</metadata>

<text xml:space="preserve">
<pb n="1" />

                    Bay Trail Technical Report #1
                    Financing and Implementing the Bay Trail:
                    Tools and Strategies

                                                                                    The Bay Trail

     X

                    February, 1989

                    OABi*
               S         DCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
               868       )Center                                  Mailing Address:
               -S156     ) &amp; Oak Streets                          P.O. Box 2050
               F56       @nd, CA                                  Oakland, CA 94604-2050
               1989      464-7900                                 Fax: (415) 464-7979
<pb n="2" />

            Bay Trail Technical Report #1
            Financing and Implementing the Bay Trail:
            Tools and Strategies

            Report Preparation

            John Steere, Report Author

            Technical Assistance

                    Kathleen Grady
                    Hing Wong

         V)

            Project Management

            Susan P. Phillips, Project Manager

            ABAG Management

            Revan A. F. Tranter, Executive Director
            Eugene Y. Leong, Deputy Executive Director
            Gary D. Binger, Planning Director

            February, 1989

            OABPG
            ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

            MetroCenter                                                 Mailing Address:
            Eighth &amp; Oak Streets                                        P.O. Box 2050
            Oakland, CA                                                 Oakland, CA 94604-2050
            (415) 464-7900                                              Fax: (415) 464-7979
<pb n="3" />

             Acknowledgements:

             The author would like to extend his appreciation to all the members of the Bay Trail's financing
             advisory groups -- the subcommittee and focus groups; to Hing Wong for his able technical
             assistance; to Gary Binger and Richard Trudeau for their leads and suggestions; and to Nancy
             Stone and Henry Rowlan of the National Park Service for their support, especially in the
             preparation of several of the "Regional Trail Success Stories" that appear in Appendix B.
<pb n="4" />

              Table of Contents

              Chapter                                                                 Page

              1. The Financing Challenge                                                1

              2. Conclusions and Cost Issues

                      Recommendations and Bay Trail Policies                            2
                      Cost Issues                                                       4

              3. Defining and Assigning the Tools

                      Government Revenue Tools                                          6
                      Regulatory Measures                                               11
                      Partnership Tools                                                 13

              4. Implementing the Bay Trail: Vehicles and Examples

                      A Comparison of Implementation Strategies                         19
                      Readily-Initiated Trail Segments                                  25

              5. Process and Methodology                                                29

              References                                                                30

              APPENDICES

                      A. Contact Agencies and Procedures for Selected Financing Tools
                      B. Regional Trail Success Stories
                      C. Membership List of Bay Trail Finance Subcommittee and Focus Groups
                      D. Summary of Finance Subcommittee Sessions and Focus Group Workshops

              LIST OF TABLES                                                        Page(s)

              Table 1: Trail Construction Cost Estimates                                5
              Table 2: Potential Means of Financing the Bay Trail                    15-18
              Table 3: Implementation Strategies for the Bay Trail                      24
<pb n="5" />

              Chapter I
              Introduction: The Financing Challenge

              The Bay Trail has great potential to be a multiple connector: of people with the San Francisco Bay and with
              one another; of parks and open spaces; of other trails; and of waterfront activities. However, the process
              of moving it from vision to plan to reality will take extensive cooperation and coordination among the many
              participants who will be implementing it. Key to the successful implementation are the methods and
              strategies of financing the trail's completion and management. Without adequate analysis and harnessing
              of the revenue sources, there will be neither the means nor the will to realize the Bay Trail plan.

              This study summarizes information which was prepared for the Bay Trail Advisory Committee and its
              Financing Subcommittee. It seeks to identify, describe, and match potential financing options for realizing
              the Bay Trail. Several implementation frameworks are also proposed and analyzed. Relevant illustrations
              of the financing methods and implementation vehicles are provided, and potential funding combinations
              for sample Bay Trail segments are posed. A number of successful regional trails are also profiled as case
              studies. It should be stressed that the comments and recommendations of the Bay Trail's Financing
              Subcommittee and Focus Groups have helped to shape the direction and content of this study.

              In framing the discussions of the financing of the Bay Trail, the challenges and opportunities posed by the
              trail plan need to be addressed. The constraints or challenges to the trail's implementation include: 1)
              overcoming the perspective of the trail as a competitor for scarce recreational funds; and 2) establishing a
              cooperative framework for implementing the trail in the midst of the fragmentary political context of the Bay
              Area. By the same token, the proposed trail system poses several financing opportunities, among them:
              1) creating linkages with other public programs, including economic development and wetlands
              restoration; 2) capitalizing on the broad-based appeal and multiple benefits of such a trail; 3) tying the
              project in with significant recreational/park financing measures like Proposition 70; and 4) recognizing the
              trail as enhancing the value of and demand for parks it serves to connect.

              The challenges presented are, in large part, the basis for this study. The constraint that the trail might be a
              competitor for locaffunds can be met by tapping a wide variety of funding tools that do not require or
              interfere with local park and recreation budgets. The range of financing mechanisms examined in Chapter
              Three demonstrate that the trail can and will attract a myriad of "outside" and innovative funding. The
              second challenge of a cooperative framework can be overcome by creating an implementation vehicle that
              is, among other qualities, flexible, pro-active, and non-threatening to governmental budgets and powers.
              This is fulfilled in part by the recommendation to establish a non-profit vehicle, "Friends of the Bay Trail," to
              serve as an advocate for the Trail's implementation.

              Meeting the challenge of financing the Bay Trail will require an approach that is at once multi-layered,
              innovative, and strategic. The diverse nature of the political and geographic setting along the Bay's edge,
              the considerable cost of the trail, and the value of using fundraising as a means to build the trail's
              constituency are additional reasons for such an approach. A "Multi-layered" approach means
              incorporating public, private, and non-profit tools, as well as combining regulatory measures and revenue
              options; building on both state and local initiatives. An innovative approach suggests that those who
              implement it look for occasions where segments could be combined with redevelopment project
              programs as an amenity, or as part of the planning of commercial waterfronts, sewage treatment plants or
              marinas. Portions of the trail might also be developed in part through cooperative agreements with flood
              control districts or other agencies. Being innovative also means creating opportunities for joint public and
              private enterprise. Taking a strategic approach indicates that different funding packages be assembled for
              different segments of the Bay Trail, depending on the land use and political circumstances. It also
              requires making distinctions among potential financing methods, i.e. determining those most appropriate
              for acquisition versus development versus management phases of the trail building process. This study
              has adopted such a three-fold approach as a foundation upon which future action can be taken.
<pb n="6" />

               Chapter 2
               Conclusions and Cost Issues

               Recommendations and Bay Trail Policies

               The options and resources for financing the Bay Trail are diverse and complex. In this initial phase of
               planning the trail alignment and proposing the basic policies, it is premature to set detailed guidelines for
               this aspect of the trail program. However, through the assistance of the Bay Trail Finance Subcommittee
               and separate "Focus Groups" for the East, North and South Bays, several policy recommendations were
               prepared for the Bay Trail Plan. (The work and the process of these advisory groups are discussed in
               Chapter Five.) The Financing Subcommittee, which was organized to explore the potential implementing
               and financing tools and to comment on the framework for the trail's implementation, identified three basic
               requirements for the Plan's successful implementation. They are: 1) advocacy at both the local and
               regional levels; 2) coordination and oversight of the trail's implementation; and 3) management,
               with cities, counties and open space districts taking lead roles where possible in the maintenance and
               patrolling functions, as well as establishing a "management authority" to provide trail management
               alternatives for agencies unable to commit to long term trail management, parlicularly in the area of liability
               coverage. Three policies in the Bay Trail were derived, in part, from their discussions. These policies
               include:

                   1 .    Establish "Friends of the Bay Trail." Investigate afternatives and develop details of operation
                          and structure prior to July 1, 1989, to enable the organization to be operational as soon as
                          feasible after the adoption of the final Bay Trail Plan.

                    2.    Continue trail oversight, using the framework provided by the Regional Planning Committee.

                   3.     Explore the establishment of a management authority to coordinate maintenance, patrolling and
                          liability functions for the portions of the Bay Trail.

               The concept of "Friends of the Bay Trail," a non-profit entity along the lines of a trust or foundation, to
               advocate for the trail's completion and provide financial assistance to agencies toward this end has
               widespread appeal and significant precedent. Its role as a "neutral" ground of operation among
               governments, of being responsive and flexible, and its ability to attract donations and foster partnerships
               between the public and private sectors give it many advantages as an appropriate implementation vehicle.
               A "Friends of the Bay Trail" would be particularly valuable in the promoting and coordination of financing
               and development of the overall trail. A closer comparison of this vehicle relative to other implementation
               alternatives can be found in Chapter Four.

               Management issues, notably trail maintenance, patrolling, and liability exposure, may be impediments to
               the successful implementation of the Bay Trail. Management monies can be the hardest ones to secure
               from sources outside the immediate political jurisdiction, a factor that is complicated by the Bay Trail's inter-
               jurisdictional nature. In addition, cities and counties are reluctant to adopt more "operations and
               maintenance" responsibilities unless there is considerable local support for the trail project in their area
               and an absence of controversy. A management authority can help to overcome these obstacles by
               fulfilling several functions:
               1) facilitating cooperative agreements between jurisdictions for trail maintenance and patrolling;
               2) contracting for enforcement of trail maintenance requirements of private landowners, as through Bay
               Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) enforcement programs; and
               3) providing a trail management alternative for agencies that are reluctant to commit to long-term trail
               management and who need the assistance especially in the area of liability coverage, (where the
               management authority's ability to off er a pooled or group policy would alleviate that concern).

                                                                       2
<pb n="7" />

                In some parts of the Bay Area, particularly where regional open space or park districts operate, cooperative
                agreements and contracts between local agencies may be needed only to coordinate trail management
                responsibilities at their boundades or in areas of overlapping judscliction. The management authority
                would function where needed: if certain existing jurisdictions preferred, they should retain management
                responsibilities. In other vicinities - where open space distdcts do not exist, more active assistance will be
                required to provide similar opportunities for cooperative action and cost-sharing programs.

                The types of financing mechanisms that can be employed to develop and maintain the trail will depend, in
                part, on the implementation structure(s) adopted to carry it out. The financing of the trail should be
                directed within a framework of a few implementation phases: acquisition; development, and management.
                There are a diverse array of funding tools available to fulfill one or more of these phases. They can be
                grouped according to three types: government revenues, including local, state and federal sources;
                regulatory measures; and "partnership" tools that elicit the cooperation of public, pdvate and/or non-profit
                sectors. These tools, including those referred to below, are addressed in greater detail in Chapter Three,
                "Defining and Assigning the Tools."

                Govemment revenues comprise the greatest range and number among the categodes. At least 18
                applicable instruments have been identified. Among the most promising sets of revenue tools for the
                trail's development generally require voter approval and consist of local/regional bond issues, like the East
                Bay Regional Park District's Measure AA, as well as a state park or trail bond that could incorporate Bay Trail
                development. Looking to the recently passed Proposition 70 and the environmental provisions of
                Proposition 99 are valuable existing means, but a new bond issue that provides a specific designation for
                the trail system will likely be needed. Attention should also be focused on State Coastal Conservancy
                grants. Transportation Development Act, Article 3 funds for bicycle paths offers a reliable, if limited source
                of funds.

                Many regulatory tools will be applicable to the Bay Trail only after its alignment has been amended to the
                relevant cities'general plans. Once incorporated, however, they can fumish acquisition and development
                mechanisms without direct public outlays. Development fees and dedications would be the most
                common means of using these measures. Less customary, but still promising are State Lands
                Commission public trust easement negotiations to provide trail segments under certain conditions, and
                cooperative agreements with some flood control distdcts, that could result in connector system trail access
                along particular dver or creek channels that are part of flood control projects.

                Last, there are about seven "partnership" tools that can provide innovative and creative ways for involving
                the pdvate and non-profit sectors in trail development and management. Central to this arena is the
                establishment of a "Fdends of the Bay Trail." Avenues to be strongly considered include foundation
                support, easement leasing, in-kind donations and publictpdvate public enterpdse.

                How these financing tools will be organized remains to be determined. Nevertheless, the mulfi-objective
                quality of the trail gives it a high potential for attracting the kind and array of funding necessary for its
                realization. The Bay Trail will be mufti-objective for the millions of people it will serve, in the vadety of
                recreational needs it will satisfy from place to place, in its ability to connect many parks and provide
                incentives for local economic development -- piggybacking with other projects, and in its capacity to serve
                as a catalyst for conducting environmental restoration, especially of wetlands along the Bayshore.

                Vital to the financing plan of the Bay Trail is taking a strategIc approach. Such an approach recognizes
                that the Bay Trail will be implemented not as a single system but as a series of smaller links completed at
                different times. Strategic means developing financing programs that are responsive to the political and
                circumstances and land use conditions surrounding each segment within the North, East or South Bay
                reaches of the trail. It requires assembling funding packages that are keyed to particular phases of the
                project. Making site-specific funding decisions will facilitate the implementation process. A strategic
                approach also means to set acquisition and development priodties, with criteda that should include the
                visibility of and potential demand for the trail segment, the relative ease of implementation, a minimum of
                land use complications, the availability of local funding and/or specified corridor for development, and the
                readiness of the implementing agents to initiate construction. Finally, a strategic approach involves taking
                steps at several levels; a combination of of local and state actions will be most effective in carrying out the

                                                                        3
<pb n="8" />

               project, given its large, complex scale. Local efforts to construct trail segments will serve to build
               momentum and a greater case toward more coordinated, comprehensive state funding aimed at the
               completing of the trail. State-sponsored funding would be particularly instrumental in assisting those
               sections of trail where local tools are infeasible or not readily available.

               Cost Issues

               There are too many variables to permit the calculation of acquisition and development estimates at this
               time. Of the almost 400 miles of the proposed alignment, better than 130 already exist and roughly 270
               miles remain. In terms of land acquisition for the unbuil't portions of the alignment, it in unclear to what
               extent the trail will be carTied out as class I (separate path) versus class 11 (bicycle lane). Acquisition cost
               would only be an issue for class I portions of the trail. For Class 11 portions, even if a road should require
               widening to accommodate the trail, the trail would almost always still be in the original public right-of-way.
               Even if the mileage of class I segments were known, the width of the trail alignment to be acquired would
               need to be determined. It may vary according to the type of adjacent land use and the dimensions of
               available properties. It should be noted that regional trail projects surveyed for this project range in
               corridor width f rorn 50 to 100 feet, (see Appendix B). Another variable is the diversity of land cost
               estimates. around the Bayshore. This is further complicated by the issue of whether implementing
               agencies should acquire the land in fee simple in every instance, or to acquire use easements on some
               occasions, as have been applied as part of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
               permit process. While fee acquisition is generally the most desirable and permanent means of securing
               open space, there may be conditions under which permanent, access easements --particularly for spur
               trails - could be secured (with relatively little, if any, public expense) with the assistance of BCDC or the
               State Lands Commission.

               Development costs are equally variable and dependent on the extent to which the trail is implemented as
               costs to construct while a mile of class I path could cost upwards to $ 126,700. Extremely rough estimates
               of total development costs would place the Bay Trail construction price tag at somewhere between $ 5
               million and $34 million. Cost figures will inevitably be refined once the alignment has be analyzed,
               adjusted and approved. Even then, determining the acquisition and development costs of individual trail
               segments may be more important than framing the total cost estimates.

                                                                        4
<pb n="9" />

          Table I                                                           Trail Construction Cost Estimates
                                                                                          (Per Unit Measure)

          The following current cost estimates for Class I and 11 path segments represent a combination of labor and material costs per unit measure of trail feature.

                                  Trail Feature                                         Specifications                            Unit                     Low        Cost        High

               Class I (Path): 8' wide

               Asphalt path                                                   2" on 4" asphalt base                        per mile                    $ 95,000               $126,700

               Decomposed granite path                                        without headers                              per mile                    $ 42,240               $ 63,360
                                                                              with headers                                 per mile                    $ 75,000               $ 90,000

               Bridge                                                         without installation                         60' long                    $     6,000            $ 21,500
                                                                              with installation                            60' long                    $ 14,000               $ 36,500

               Class H (Bike Lane): 8' wide

               Signing, striping, and legends                                                                              per mile                                 $ 19,000
                   * Traffic post and sign                                    -                                            each                                     $        160
                   * 4" solid white line                                      2 coats                                      linear foot                              $         .30
                   * Legend                                                   2 coats                                      each                                     $         30

               Grate modification                                             -                                            per mile                                 $      1,900

          Sources: Cities of Martinez and Sacramento; Contra Costa County; Shoreline at Mountain View; Continental Bridge, Inc.
<pb n="10" />

               Chapter 3
               Defining and Assigning the Tools

               The Bay Trait's complex political and geographical setting, a combination of trail classes and circumstances
               and the various phases of the trail building program infer that a wide variety of financing tools need to be
               explored and selectively applied. In addition, with the trail's implementation over a several year period and
               the diverse sources of local participation, it is essential that the trail's funding mechanisms be appropriate
               for the timing of construction and the particular funding situation. This strategic approach should maxiryfize
               the funding opportunities, as previously discussed in Chapter Two.

               What follows is a brief examination of the financing tools that could be employed by the implementing
               agencies. They are grouped by three categories, "Government Revenue Tools," which include
               local, state and federal grants and appropriations, "Regulatory Measures," that regard actions taken
               through agency or governmental powers, and "Partnership Tools," which refer to more innovative or
               fundraising-type instruments displaying the interaction of private, public and /or non-profit sectors. Each
               mechanism is defined and justified as to its applicability to the Bay Trail. They are roughly organized in a
               descending order of priority based on familiarity and/or likelihood of use. The relative likelihood of any
               given tool being applied for a given phase of the trail implementation program is summarized in Table 2
               following this discussion.

               A. GOVERNMENT REVENUE TOOLS

               LOCAL

               1 .   General Revenues. Such funds are typically line items in the annual budgets of city and county
                     parks and recreation programs. These are largely drawn from property taxes and are usually for
                     operational and maintenance costs rather than new capital financing. Special districts, like the East
                     Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), have annual budgets that are derived in large part from a
                     percentage of property tax revenues from throughout the district's boundaries. It is more likely that
                     the trail's operational costs would be partially met by this source than construction or acquisition
                     requirements.

               2.    Local/State Bonds and Initiatives. Locally applied bond issues or land use control
                     propositions can be used to further the goals of open space and parkland development. These
                     instruments may take the form of ballot measures that are drafted by agencies and/or citizenry, or
                     alternatively as bond acts drafted by state legislators for passage in the California State Assembly
                     and Senate. Their purposes include financing acquisition, designating specific land areas for
                     conservation, or setting basic land use policies. One example of a successful land acquisition or
                     preservation proposition is "Measure AA," a parkland acquisition bond issue passed by voters within
                     the EBRPD's limits in November 1988. The success of any local bond measure depends on active
                     local backing. In addition, if it requires levying additional property taxes, as did Measure AA, voters
                     must approve it by a two-thirds majority.

                     A bond act initiated by the State legislature for the implementation of the Bay Trail could coordinate
                     and combine other revenue sources. Funding for implementation could also be a part of a larger
                     bond act for statewide parks and trail development, as is currently contemplated. Co-sponsorship of
                     such a bill by legislators from most, if not all of the Bay Area counties would expedite its passage. A
                     local or state bond for financing corridor acquisition or trail segment construction would be a
                     significant boost in the process of realizing the Bay Trail. An important step was recently made in
                     that direction with the passage of Measure AA which allocates $4.3 million for acquisition and
                     construction of trail projects that will be links in the Bay Trail. This includes a five mile segment of the
                     Carquinez Strait Trail, a three mile section from Point Isabel to Miller/Knox Regional Park, a six mile
                     trail from Point Pinole to to Lone Tree Point and a three mile link from San Leandro Bay to Oyster
                     Bay.

                                                                       6
<pb n="11" />

                STATE

               3.     Proposition 70, formally known as the the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land
                      Conservation Act of 1988, is a $776 million bond act passed by the voters in June of 1988. It
                      earmarks a major share of its funding for specified park and open space acquisition projects. In the
                      Bay Area, there are 19 stipulated projects, with a total funding base of $115,600,000.

                      There are four categories of funding available through Proposition 70 bond monies. They are Per
                      Capita Grants, Roberti-ZBerg-Harris Funds, Specified Local Agency Grants, and Competitive
                      Statewide Programs. The first three represent block grant programs to specific cities, counties and
                      agencies. The fourth is a thematically-based competitive grant process. Sections of the Bay Trail
                      would be eligible for Prop 70 funding. A number of programs are possible candidates. Acquisition
                      agencies would need to be consulted with and planning for the trail segments coordinated.
                      Possible sources of funding for the trail include the following grant categories:

                      Trails. There is five $5 million in this pool to be allocated over a two-year period for the acquisition
                      and development of trails with $2.5 million will be available in each of the fiscal years 1989/90 and
                      1990/91. Potential projects are looked on more favorably that show a high degree of community
                      support, have joint participation and can be completed in a timely manner. (See Appendix A for a
                      summary of pointers and application procedures.)

                      Per Capita Grants represent $120 million that will be distributed to designated city, county and
                      recreation and park districts throughout the state. Grants are to be spent on each jurisdiction's
                      highest priority park or recreational need as each characterizes it. Funds may be used for
                      acquisition, development, rehabilitation or restoration of land for parks, beaches, wildlife habitat
                      and/or recreation.

                      Robetti-OBerg-Haffis Funds. There are $20 million in block grants available only to urbanized areas
                      for acquisition and development of park and recreation lands. This is a matching grant program
                      (70% state; 30% local funding), that has a one year funding horizon, beginning July 1989.

                      State Coastal Conservancy. $30 million has been made available to the Coastal Conservancy to
                      award grants to agencies and non-profit organizations. The purpose of these grants is to acquire
                      natural lands on the coast and in the San Francisco Bay, along with providing access and/or helping
                      to restore or enhance these resources. (See also #4 below.)

                      East Bay Regional Park Distfict. $10 million has been set aside for the park district, with relevant
                      funding for the "Urban Shoreline Acquisition Project" and the "Carquinez Strait Project," both of
                      which pertain to the Bay Trail. The district has been appropriated $1.5 million for Carquinez
                      Shoreline Park to expand this existing park in Port Costa.

                      East Shore State Park. $25 million has been earmarked to acquire and develop a shorelands park
                      from Emeryville to Richmond. The trail corridor passes through most of it.

                      State Park Development and Acquisition. Relevant parks for the Bay Trail would include Candlestick
                      and China Camp State Parks.

               4.     State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) Grants. The Conservancy is a State agency that awards
                      block grants annually to public agencies and appropriate non-profit organizations (with 501-3C
                      status) to enhance coastal/bay access and to restore wetland resources. Relevant programs
                      include "Coastal Restoration Projects", "Coastal Resource Enhancement Projects", "Urban
                      Waterfront Restoration" and "Public Accessways". The SCC prefers to be a partner in financing
                      projects, thus the availability of other, supplemental funding sources is vital to obtaining the
                      Conservancy's participation. Last year $1.2 million was appropriated for 15 Bay Area projects. The
                      implementation of the Bay Trail is emerging as one of the agency's major funding interests. The

                                                                        7
<pb n="12" />

                     SCC will give funding priority in the Bay Area to projects that will serve as links in the completion of
                     the Bay Trail, and for this purpose $1.1 million has been allocated for 1969.

                     The Bay Trail could serve as a unifying theme and framework to justify Bay access-associated
                     Conservancy projects over the next the five to ten years. By the same token, SCC grants could play
                     a significant role in financing the right-of-way acquisitions and development costs of the Bay Trail.
                     Conservancy grants for access and wetlands restoration can provide rinks with the trail alignment.
                     For example, Propositions 18 (1984) and 19 (1986) allocated $15 million and $5 million respectively
                     for San Francisco Bay shore enhancement, access and waterfront restoration projects. These
                     funds are administered by the SCC. About two-thirds of Proposition 18 funding are still available,
                     with over $3 million to be spent on San Francisco Bay "urban waterfront projects." Legislative
                     restrictions discourage allocations of these proposition funds for development of waterfront parks,
                     per se. However, because of the Bay Trail's potentially instrumental role in enhancing urban
                     waterfront projects, it could be a focal point for these unspent Conservancy monies. (See also
                     Appendix A.)

               5.    Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3. These are state block grants awarded
                     annually to local jurisdictions for the implementation of pedestrian/bicycle path or lane projects.
                     They are administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for all cities and counties in
                     the Bay Area. Priority is given to those projects that provide a spectrum of participation of officials
                     and the public, as well as ample comment and review by walking and/or bicycling interests. Last year
                     about $2.7 million was awarded to the Bay Area Counties. In the 1988-1989 fiscal year, $3,635,724
                     has been allocated to the Bay Region.

                     These block grants are currently the major funding source for city and county bicycle lanes. Many
                     cities look to TDA grants rather than to parks and recreation or public works capital budgets for
                     financing trail development. Almost all of the grants are awarded for trail or lane construction and not
                     for easement acquisition.

                     The local jurisdictions must apply for TDA grants through the counties. Each county has its own
                     bicycle masterplan that is generally a composite of the respective cities' plans. The application must
                     describe the locality's trail priorities and how the funding request fits into them; these priorities tend
                     to include the potential demand for the trail and degree of public support. The Bay Trail can
                     capitalize on its region-wide benefits, capacity to connect numerous trails, and high use potential as
                     incentives to counties to apply for TDA funds for its development. (See also Appendix A.)

               6.    Revenue Dedications. These represent earmarked taxes or state fees. Two pertinent sources
                     for the Bay Trail are the recently passed Proposition 99 -- the Cigarette Tax Initiative and the
                     Environmental License Plate Fund that can be used for land acquisition, particularly where
                     endangered species are concerned. Other states have created special funds to buy and develop
                     parklands from such sources as a soft drinks tax (Illinois, 1984), a cigarette tax, (Nebraska, 1984), a
                     parks and soils tax (Missouri, 1984), and a lottery (Colorado, 1983). The State of Oregon mandates
                     that a portion of the state gasoline tax returned to its cities be used for bicycle facilities
                     development. With the passage of California's Proposition 99, 5% of the collected tax revenues will
                     be set aside for as yet unspecified environmental projects. It is estimated by the Planning and
                     Conservation League that the 2.5% available for parks and recreation purposes represents $15
                     million annually. A portion of these funds could be tapped for trail development purposes through
                     sponsoring state legislation or via the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Program. (See also 'Trust Funds," A-
                     12, below.)

               7.    General Funds from the State Budget. A line item in the annual State Budget for "Bay Trail
                     Implementation" would have to be sponsored by one or more legislators and preferably with
                     bipartisan representation. This tool has been occasionally used in the past for specific land
                     acquisitions by the EBRPD and other special districts. This source would be inappropriate for
                     funding operational costs.

                                                                       8
<pb n="13" />

              8.     Offshore Oil Lease Funds. Otherwise referred to as Outer Continental Shelf Funds or Special
                     Account for Capital Outlay (SAFECO), these are Federal tax revenues that are returned to the State.
                     There are no established criteria or formula for receiving them. Distdbution is entirely dependent on
                     individual legislator sponsorship in a bill or a line Rem. These, like the "General Funds from the State
                     Budget," should be seen as strictly acquisition and development tools, not for operations and
                     management. Both are unpredictable and highly political funding sources.

              9.     Bicycle Lane Account (BLA). The Califomia State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
                     annually sets aside $360,000 - 500,000 for bicycle projects throughout the state. Available as
                     grants to those cites or counties who currently have bike plans, the emphasis tends to be on
                     projects which benefit bicycling for commute purposes. The criteria for projects is somewhat
                     flexible, and monies have been appropdated for bicycle education, as well as lane construction.
                     This would be a marginal source of funds for the Bay Trail, riot only for the relatively small
                     appropriations, but for its commute purpose priority. The Bay Trail, while it could serve bicycle
                     commuters in some areas, has a pdmarily recreational orientation.

              10.    Caltrans Corridor Improvement Mitigation Funds. The California Transportation
                     Commission can appropriate up to 10 percent of the budget for a Caltrans freeway or highway
                     improvement project for facilities to mitigate the impacts of road construction. These funds are not
                     applicable for all Caltrans projects, but where they are they are intended to support actions that will
                     help relieve congestion during the construction pedod. If bicycle facilities, particularly lanes, can be
                     demonstrated to be cost-effective solutions to mitigating traffic delays and related impacts, then
                     Caltrans will incorporate them at the design stage of the freeway project. Bicycle coalitions or other
                     organizations need to get involved at the local level with the appropriate corridor improvement
                     steering committee dudng the design phase of the project. Benefits of implementing such
                     solutions extend well beyond the construction period, and could be cumulative.

                     Mitigation funds will likely be allocated for bicycle lanes in conjunction with the Interstate 80
                     expansion within the Richmond to Emeryville Corridor. The lanes, to be built on some parallel
                     surface roads, would almost certainly become part of the Bay Trail. The exact locations and lengths
                     of the segments to be constructed through the mitigation monies has not been established.
                     Significant portions of the Bay Trail's development adjacent Interstates 80 and 880 may be eligible
                     for mitigation funds dudng highway expansion, particularly if the commute alternative potential of the
                     trail can be demonstrated.

              11.    Revolving Local Funds (RLFs)/Local User Fees. RLFs provide state-sponsored, long-
                     term, low-interest loans to localities for major capital investments. In addition, they may provide other
                     forms of financial assistance such as credit enhancements or, to a limited extent, grants. In a state
                     revolving fund, a state agency receives an initial infusion of capital, typically appropriations from
                     general revenue, federal grants, or the proceeds from a bond issue. Local user fees would be
                     set to cover operation and maintenance costs and to repay the loan. This tool may have a narrow
                     application to the Bay Trail, but could be derived from a percentage of revenues collected from user
                     fees associated with bay shore recreation, such as marinas, launches, and fishing piers.
                     Establishing a user fee for trail access itself does have precedent, but would probably not be
                     advisable, as it might discourage trail use and would be difficult to collect in many locales. A more
                     reasonable direct source of user fees would be to charge parking fees at selected staging areas of
                     the trail.

                                                                   9
<pb n="14" />

              12.    Trust Funds. Trust funds are similar to revenue dedications, but represent a permanent account
                     or "set-aside" for a program. If they are created from sources other than user fees, they generally
                     require the establishment of a nexus between the source of revenue and the proposed
                     expenditures, i.e. a set-aside from properly taxes in areas affected by intensive growth pressures;
                     cigarette taxes to mitigate environmental harm, and the like. The State legislature would formally
                     determine the source(s) and the level of the trust fund.

                     A novel, yet potentially fiffing application of the concept would be to establish a trust fund for Bay
                     Trail maintenance based on revenues collected from a fraction of license fees derived from horse
                     racing at Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Meadows. (License fees are based on a percentage of the
                     pari-mutuel pool wagers at each race track, the breakage of winning ticket amounts and the
                     unclaimed pari-mutuel tickets.) Currently, $750,000 in race track revenues are set aside annually to
                     the Wildlife Conservation Board for the "Wildlife Restoration Fund." The Bay Trail may be a viable
                     contender for a fraction of these revenues as it is adjacent the noted race tracks, and would be an
                     amenity in the vicinity and to the Bayshore in general.

                     A trust fund, once established, would provide a secure base upon which officials could plan and
                     invest in the trail corridor for years to come. Advocates would need to make alliances to build and
                     maintain support for this "nexus." (See also "Revenue Dedications," A-6.)

              FEDERAL

              13.    Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Under Sections 201 and 208 of this law, also known as
                     Clean Water Act grants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows the inclusion of trail
                     development in conjunction with the planning of federally funded grants for the construction of
                     sewage treatment plants and transport/storage facilities. Many of these plants lie along the
                     Bayshore, and at least one, San Francisco's Sunnydale project, has included a trail segment in its
                     EPA grant application that will become part of the Bay Trail alignment. It is important that local or
                     regional jurisdictions who intend to incorporate trail features, do so during the planning stages of
                     the plant design.

              14.    Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). A U.S. Department of the Interior
                     administered grant program for outdoor recreational facilities development and open space
                     acquisition, the LWCF is funnelled through the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Once a
                     $25 million per year revenue source for the State from federal off shore oil leasing fees, it is currently
                     a minor funding instrument, with only $1.2 million available for all California last year. This year there
                     is $222,000 available for Northern California. Grant money in the program is primarily designated to
                     projects that stress mufti-use and have high use potential. It may include development of bicycle
                     trails, particularly where there are few developed trails or where a trail could be built to connect
                     several parks. If HR 4127 (Udall) passes the U.S. Congress, a $900 million/year "Heritage Trust" will
                     be established from the interest of the LWCF for urban park "greenway" acquisition. The Bay Trail
                     as envisioned already matches many of the LWCF funding criteria. However, to help ensure future
                     LWCF funds, it would be valuable for the Bay Trail to be designated as a "National Recreational Trail"
                     within the National Trails System.

              15.    Federal Highway Trust Funds. Two alternatives are available here for funding bicycling
                     facilities: 1) constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of any Federal Highway Aid project,
                     as long as they are within the public right-of-way; and 2) constructing such facilities independently of
                     highway projects, but serving the highway corridors. These funds are difficult to obtain, as they are
                     very limited and the applicant must clearly show that the proposed bicycle facilities provide a viable
                     commute alternative for automobile commuters.

                                                                      10
<pb n="15" />

               16.    Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) Administered by the U.S. Department of
                      Housing and Urban Development, CDBGs are competitive, broad-purpose grants available to
                      municipalities for projects of community-wide benefits. They can be used in a variety of ways, from
                      financing new infrastructure, to co-funding urban redevelopment, to supporting community non-
                      profit organizations. The Bay Trail could be eligible for development funds from CDBGsyvhere there
                      is potential for incorporating the trail into the local grantmaking process as a cultural amenity, or
                      where the project can be linked with urban renewal or economic development programs. Several
                      rail-trails have shown documentable economic, historic and/or cultural merit and have been awarded
                      CDBG funding. These include Seattle's Burke-Gilman Trail and a portion of the Baltimore and
                      Annapolis Trail. (See also "Redevelopment Agencies, " C-6.)

               B. REGULATORY MEASURES

               1.     Development or Impact Fees. These exactions are assessed against developers and are paid
                      prior to construction of "land improvements". They can be a significant source of local revenues for
                      development of recreational facilities which are ordinarily within or adjacent to the candidate site.
                      While they would be valuable means of tying private commitments to the trail, where applicable and
                      would relieve local governments of up-front financing pressure, they would be a one-time revenue
                      source and are only pertinent for new developments.

               2.     Development Dedications. A substitute for impact fees, mandatory land dedications are
                      enabled under the Quimby Act to be used by municipalities and counties to secure park and
                      recreation benefits associated with a given development. For either development fees or
                      dedications to be used for Bay Trail acquisition/development, amendments incorporating the Trail
                      into local general or masterplans should be secured.

               3.     Flexible Zoning. Otherwise known as "density zoning", this tool can work with development
                      dedications to provide a trail corridor for class I segments of the Bay Trail. It could also be used for
                      protecting wetland and open space resources in relation to development projects near the Bay.
                      The types of flexible zoning include: 1) cluster zoning, which would group units in one portion of
                      the site and allow for the remainder to be used as common open space; 2) planned unit
                      development; and 3) incentive zoning which allow an increase in density of development greater
                      than would normally be permitted in exchange for the provision of public recreation lands and the
                      retention of the scenic or environmental values. This package of regulatory techniques would be
                      best used in conjunction with dedications for securing public rights to traverse the property were
                      the trail to cross the parcel in question. Here, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
                      would play a major role in administering an access program as part of their permit-granting process
                      for all Bay shoreline development.

               4.     State Lands Commission (SLC), Public Trust Easements and Mitigation Funds.
                      The Commission governs state lands, including present and historic tidelands and submerged
                      areas. The SLC represents a relatively unknown source, but could be a great potential resource for
                      enabling the establishment of class 1 trail easements for the Bay Trail, particularly within its scope of
                      interest over filled tidelands. That is, the State retains a public trust interest across all tidelands,
                      including those that have been filled (with the exception of tidelands sold through the defunct Bay
                      Tidelands Commission). Thus, whenever the SLC settles a boundary line agreement with any
                      owner of bayfill lands, it has the right to require public access as a way of fulfilling the public trust.
                      Since 1973, the SLC has been negotiating trail easements as part of its public trust settlements.
<pb n="16" />

                     As much of the Bay Trail would be located on existing bay fill, the SLC could essentially provide a
                     state-authorized land dedication process. It has negotiated trail easements on the Bayshore
                     already, including one at Redwood Shores in Redwood City. The SLC's Kapiloff Land Bank
                     (established in 1983 to create a pool.of mitigation funds) could be used for obtaining use
                     easements from private owners or buying fee interest in shoreline trails. While the State would
                     generally retain title to such easements, public agencies could obtain free, 66 year leases on them.

              5.     Assessment Districts. An assessment district is created within a municipality when
                     infrastructure improvements or recreational facilities are needed within the bounds of a specified
                     area. Residents within an assessment district are annually assessed for a fee that is attached to their
                     property taxes. Assessment Districts can be set up by city councils to finance most public
                     improvements, including trafli s, so long as they provide a benefit to the affected property owners.
                     They can incorporate both commercial (e.g. office parks, and marinas) and residential areas.
                     Arrangements for establishing and financing an assessment district can be flexible, and afford
                     opportunities for mufti-jurisdictional projects. Roads are the typical example of this, but the concept
                     could be extended to the Bay Trail. It is conceivable that an assessment district be established
                     among several cities in a county and the county itself to pay for recreational improvements
                     represented by the Bay Trail. The designation of a lead agency and the definition of district
                     boundaries are critical to the success of the process. Other essential ingredients are. a well-defined
                     plan and a strategy for implementation, cooperation from all affected agencies, a clearly determined
                     public purpose and broad-based support in the community for the goals of the district.

                     Similar to an assessment district in its taxing mode and framework is a "street light and landscape
                     maintenance district." A maintenance type of assessment district would have greater applicability to
                     the Bay Trail in selected locations than an improvements-oriented district, since a maintenance
                     district is easier to formally establish and the criteria of benefit to local property owners would be
                     more demonstrable.

              6.     Cooperative Agreements with Flood Control Districts and Other Agencies. These
                     are excellent regulatory tools for realizing multiple public benefits. They are negotiated between
                     public agencies, and represent agreements about joint land use. Typical examples pertinent to the
                     Bay Trail include Alameda Creek Trail and sections of the Hayward Area Shoreline, representing a
                     cooperative agreement between the owner of the land--Alameda Flood Control District and the
                     EBRPD for recreational use. No annual fee is paid, and the lease is a ten year renewable. The major
                     issues that need to settled in advance are trail maintenance and liability; these are responsibilities by
                     and large assumed by the agency receiving the recreation license. Numerous opportunities may
                     exist along the Bay for other types of cooperative agreements or additional locations for agreements
                     between county flood control agencies and park districts.

                     Another more innovative avenue for cooperative agreements in conjunction with the trail is with
                     sanitation districts for multiple land use purposes within their Bayfront flood basins. Wetlands,
                     among other functions, serve to filter pollutants and distribute floodwaters. The restoration of
                     marshland designed specifically to offer "tertiary" treatment capacity for sewage is another
                     opportunity to combine public access with a public safety benefits and creates an economic
                     justification for financing certain trail segments and restoration projects. An integrated wastewater
                     treatment demonstration project already exists in Martinez, while the City of Arcata has restored
                     extensive acreages of its coastal marshlands as a major component of its citywide sewage treatment
                     facilities. Both sites have popular interpretive trails. These could provide prototypes for similarly
                     designed interpretive spur paths off the Bay Trail. Funding for trail construction in conjunction with
                     sewage treatment is available through EPA Clean Water Act grants (see also "Federal Water
                     Pollution Control Act," A-13).

                                                                      12
<pb n="17" />

               C. PARTNERSHIP TOOLS

               1.     Corporate Grants. Seeking corporate grants can bean appropriate, if. largely untapped source
                      of revenues for assisting in the financing of a community-odented project. Grant requests should
                      be targeted to those companies whose employees could benefit from Bay access for recreational
                      and physical conditioning purposes and whose operation is near the proposed corridor of the trail.

               2.     Establishing a Non-profit Advocacy Organization. A coalition of trail advocates should
                      organize a non-profit group along the lines of a "Bay Trail Fund" or the "Friends of the Bay Trail" that
                      would support the trail's realization and solicit donations for its development and management. For
                      the sake of fund-raising legitimacy, the organization would need to have a 501 -C3 tax status. Land
                      conservation groups play an important constituency-building and watchdogging role as well.
                      Related models are the Sempervirens Fund with respect to Big Basin State Park, or Save Mount
                      Diablo in association with Mount Diablo State Park. Such a group could play a vital and ongoing role
                      in raising funds for acquisition along with facilitating corresponding state participation, e.g. the
                      Department of Parks and Recreation, by providing matching funds that are an incentive for the State
                      to meet. This organization could play a pivotal role in coordinating the trail's implementation. Its
                      potential roles and structure are discussed in Chapter Four.

               3.     Foundation Support. Selected foundations have shown increasing interest over the last
                      decade in supporting the acquisition and development of recreational facilities and programs.
                      Awards are given to both governments and non-profit groups, in amounts ranging from $5000 to
                      several million dollars. Grants are best sought for particular funding of a segment of the trail;
                      operational and management costs would not be viable justifications.

               4.     In-kind Donations. Service, community and fraternal organizations can offer volunteer workers
                      for trail construction and maintenance, as well as solicit free or wholesale materials and construction
                      equipment for trail construction (wood, asphalt, etc.) Parks and Recreation departments and special
                      districts could create and underwrite"trail adoption" programs, that enable service, hiking/biking
                      clubs to maintain particular reaches of the trail. Corporations and businesses tend to look favorably
                      on in-kind donations and employee volunteer activity. Given the proximity of the Bay Trail alignment
                      to many Bay Area businesses, there would be considerable opportunities for creating in-kind
                      support for the trail's construction and maintenance.

               5.     Easement Leasing. The leasing of unused or underground portions of a trail corridor for
                      storage or utilities has great potential for helping to meet operational revenue requirements for the
                      Bay Trail. A prime example of creative and lucrative easement leasing is that of fiber optics lines
                      be'neath a trail alignment. Administrators of a number of trails, notably rail-trails, have negotiated
                      leases with communication companies for fiber optics installation along their trail corridors. For
                      example, AT&amp;T pays the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority $250,000 per year for an
                      easement of 35 miles beneath the Washington and Old Dominion Trail (see Appendix B).

               6.     Redevelopment Agencies. While under the authority of the respective city councils,
                      redevelopment agencies have their own staffing and budgets. They can offer a variety of
                      government assistance and incentive programs to facilitate commercial and economic development
                      in designated redevelopment or enterprise zones. Urban sections of the trail that fall in the
                      boundaries of a redevelopment agency may be eligible for special funds and underwriting not
                      available elsewhere in the city limits, if the trail can be linked with economic development plans
                      within the redevelopment or enterprise zone. In such instances, that portion of the trail may also be
                      eligible for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance. (See also "CDBG,"A-16.)

                                                                      13
<pb n="18" />

             7.    Public/Private Enterprise. The joint financing of trail facilities using public and private capital
                   would be appropriate where the trail can be integrated with proposed or existing waterfront and
                   marina plans. Again, a nexus must be shown between regional trail use and the attraction or benefit
                   it would provide for associated commercial ventures like restaurants, stores, and the like. The
                   tourism-associated benefits of the trail is another venue worth examining for leveraging private
                   capital. Revenues from taxes or fees in related businesses could be then retained in an "enterprise
                   fund" to provide debt service on the trail improvements and pay for operation and maintenance.

             As this portrayal of revenue and regulatory tools demonstrates, there are a myriad of ways to carry out the
             intent of the project. Many of the tools are more readily available or work best when used in concert, as
             with revolving local funds and user fees, or Coastal Conservancy Grants and public/private partnerships,
             among other revenue tools. What priority and-co mbi nations of tools should or could be employed to
             finance the three trail implementation phases is beyond the scope of this study. The framework of
             funding mechanisms to be adopted depends on the framework of implementation for the trail. The
             relative likelihood of use and pertinent applications for these tools has been identified in a preliminary
             manner and is summarized in Table 2.

                                                                  14
<pb n="19" />

       Table 2                                         Potential Means for Financing the Bay Trail:
                                                Preferred Acquisition/Development/Operation Measures
       The following table of financing sources for the Bay Trail is grouped by three categories of financing tools, alongside their potential application(s) among the three
       phases of the trail building process. The numbers in the trail phases columns refer to the "rating" or the anticipated, relative likelihood of applying that funding
       mechanism.

                                                                                                                                                 .......... ..... ..
                                                                                                                                            1w:...
                                                -on                                                     -I bi    d-
                                                                                                                                t
                                    lpon,@ e 1catl'
               q    10 L d           ti    d           a      n fttlfi§§*@:@@i:f@:@i@i
                                                                                          hworlea iy4vaia &amp;J.
                                                                                         a                                            ......
                                                                              M                                             pgwajor          ........
                                                  . ..........                                                                    .y
              eve4o:*p*:m-:: -4::     1 ltles:.const. dt n,                                 III
                      en i@@Ii                  ru  to,                    Z@@@-C&amp; itiona @10..e                  @J,a Pore         rse
                                                                                                                  li`k:
                                                                                                           ... .....              0.-.-OWObOV@.' tai, orth
                  'e-
                                                                                       .... I I . .... .........
                                                                                                                           0@0-01; i@: . ....
                                                                                                                              'p
             ............a                                                     k
                                                                              L           unprediclablei,r
                                                                             .........                                                        ........ . XXX:

                            m
                                                                                                                       pp-0   Op..
              reach.f. p..,1                                                                   d   t
         (Uncle        din   0**hahism!lsAi@ ne @i@                      d*b   0, W t h                        h, s* thata
                                          b   f de'scriptiob @1 ft, fi we. Va@i   4@: at:
                                                                                                                                              X. . ...... ...

         Financing Tool Category                               Financing Mechanism                                            Phases/Rating
                                                                                                                 Acquisition Development Management

          Government Revenue            State Coastal Conservancy Grants                                               1              1
                                        (restoration and access grants -- A4)

                                        Proposition 70                                                                 2              1              -
                                        (1988 Park Bond Act - State block grants -- A3)

                                        Transportation Development Act, Article 3                                      3              1              3
                                        (pedestrian1bicycle project block grants -- A5)

                                        Cattrans Corridor Improvement Mitigation Funds                                 -
                                        (bike lane construction to mitigate highway expansion A 10)

                                        Federal, State and Local Recreation Budgets                                    2
                                        (line items from annual budgets -- A 1, A 7)

                                        Revolving Local Funds/User Fees                                                -              -              2
                                        (State revolving loans coupled with facility use fees -- A 11)

                                        Revenue Dedications                                                            2              2              -
                                        (earmarked taxes or State fees, e.g. environmental license plate fees A6)

                                        Local/State Bonds and Initiatives                                              2              2
                                        (locally applied bond measures -- A2)
<pb n="20" />

             Table 2 (Continued)                                                          Potential Means for Financing the Bay Trail:
                                                                               Preferred Acquisition/DevelopmenVOperation Measures

                                                                                                                                                                                                  ................                             .. .....
                                                                                                                                                                       .....                   ..... ...............
                                           .... .........
                                                                                                                          ............ ..........
                                                                                                                          ........   ......
                                                                                                                                                                           ................
                                ...........                                                                                                                                   ...........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ........ .. ...            ..
                                                                                                                                                                         .....................                                                      ....
                                                                                              ........ ....
                                                                                              ........ ....                                ...                          .........  ......                    ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ........ ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..        ......
                   ...                                              ...                                                                                                                                       . ......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .....                   .....
                                                                                                                                       1'k                                                                              W
                                              pd c isil n'd*e'd'*                           s                                                                              a . a. @..up  J
                    ..A                                 U..               v. tiomvrlva        ome.f.                                                                        b f
                         qp   . ......                q J. to              a                                                                                 d'W:J:-                    !r
                                                                                     .............                                                                                                            0:  4w, s         ...
                            ...................  Xff ......  .......
                                              T                           .......        ......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ....... ........
                                      -efit*:::Vaq:.an      acl Iteizons.M...        ................... ...                                                                                                                                        X
                                                        0
                                                                          ..............                                                                                                                                 ......... ......
                                                                               ....... .                                  ........ ........
                                                                                                                                                                         s.@ft W                                                                    ;..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .... .. .....

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ..................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 la
                  ...     nagamem                                                                                                                          idtAbldli@   i icu_@l                    Ina
                    ...................
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .......... ........
                                                                    ............. ..........                                                                                : :
                                              ::.,.:a1nienqnqq an vatrOllim                                                                       no..                                            ..:
                                                                    d                                                                                  red                                     of-104
                                                                    ... .......  ........ ...                                                            . . .......
                                                                                                                                       :t
              @IU*i    Ott=                                                f   escrip. lo..   :iK4ta#q      o owe         VA:codd.:: h        9;:   eyooj@
                    ld          h fu                           @16@:qbne :d*                               f 11      -d b                  atl             t kit                       h'a*t':* pe            a         ::::::16
                                           -qb p.. 04 M
                                                            .................                                                                                           FAWA                   p .. ......
                                                                                                                                              ...... ....       ...              00::                         ::.:.
                                                                                                          .............                    ............                                                                 ............
                             ................                                                                                                                                                      X:::X::@:@:.:: .. ...  ........
                                                                                                                                                                                      .. .....                             ....-....

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Phases/Rating
                 Financing Tool Category                                                              Financing Mechanism
                                                                                                                                                                                      Acquisition Development Management

                   Government Revenue                               Trust Funds                                                                                                                -                     2                         2
                                                                    ("permanent" State funds or set asides, e.g. Cigarette Tax Fees                               A 12)

                                                                    Offshore Oil Lease Funds (SAFECO)                                                                                          2                     2                         -
                                                                    (Federal oil tax revenues returned to State -- A8)

                                                                    Bicycle Lane Account                                                                                                       3                     2                         -
                                                                    (Caltrans sponsored grants for bicycle projects -- A9)

                                                                    Federal Highway Trust Funds                                                                                                -                     3                         -
                                                                    (construction of bicycle path in conjunction with Federal Project                             A 15)

                                                                    Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)                                                                                  3                     3                         -
                                                                    (U S. HUD grants to municipalities for financing public benefits -- A 16)

                                                                    Land and Water Conservation Funds                                                                                          3                     3                         -
                                                                    (U. S. Department of the Interior sponsored grant program -- A 14)

                                                                    Federal Water Pollution Control Act                                                                                        3                     3
                                                                    (funds available as part of EPA grants for treatment plants                            A 13)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Wvw

                                                                                                      .. . ..... .. .....X
<pb n="21" />

          Table 2 (continued)                                             Potential Means for Financing the Bay Trail:
                                                                Preferred Acquisition/DevelopmenVOperation Measures

                                                                                                                                                                 ..........

                   tqu $1 lori-                                                                                                                                                              ......
                 'A
                                                                                                                       n                                                                     ....    ....-
                                 'Lan. ic
                                       d    q                                     @ht
                                                                                                                                                e.:i un in
                           t                                             6       6                                                 di                     qzn i:iegu aid: Addl§:.
                                                                       ...... :.                                                     .1       bI I
                                                                                                          0 7NO1 iA                  Y
                                                                                                                   y
                                                                                                             OWQ... 'b ... V
                                                                                                                       'k  Hh''
                                                                 ... ....  .....                            n  i i nal I                                V.Wi@*  di!*, ft
                                                                                                                         eq....'oodAs  i           w;                  ..Od                U.
                                                                                                                                                                                               ...............
                                                                                                                                               6ii@!io:@oDtain,:@or@:in@approp,ri.a
                             e   V@@ ... Ainteriano @Andpat oiling
                          ..m n                            , r.,.
                                                                                                                  6t
                               ..........
                           A    d'
                  e                                                                      O.,,owe      w                                                                        es..
             U*                                                                                                                                    h
                                        ec   a0isn):J6                                                                                 ..1,p        F

                                                                                                                                                                       Phases/Rating
             Financing Tool Category                                                Financing Mechanism
                                                                                                                                                      Acquisition Development                Management

               Regulatory/Fee                         Development Dedications                                                                                 1                   1
                                                      (land or fee dedications -- B2)

                                                      Development or Impact Fees                                                                              I                   I
                                                      (exactions for recreational facilities -- B 1)

                                                      Flexible Zoning                                                                                         1                   2
                                                      (cluster, incentive zoning -- B3)

                                                      State Lands Commission - Mitigation Funds                                                               1                   1                 -
                                                      (public trust easements in boundafy line agreements                B4)

                                                      Assessment Districts                                                                                    -                   2                 2
                                                      (property tax assessment for public goods -- B5)

                                                      Cooperative Agreements With Flood Control Districts &amp; Otheir Agencies                                   2                   -                 -
                                                      (long term lease arrangements for recreational use -- B6)
<pb n="22" />

            Table 2 (continued)                                                   Potential Means for Financing the Bay Trail:
                                                                       Preferred Acquisition/DevelopmenVOperation Measures

                                                                                                                                        ....................
                                                                                                   .............................................................. . ......
                                                                                 .... . ....   ................................................................. ...... .............-
                LIE                                           ........... .............. ... ... . ..
                                                                                                          ............                        ......
                                                               .. .........

                                                                                             .......                                                                                                                             ...
                                                                                                                                           ba ... 1, yl@gy  bl  J- d'
                                                                                                                      0 'k I         dl        W       wal
                                                                                                                                       orr
                                                                                                                                                              W, un
                                                                                                   .. .............  ......
                                                                  ...........                                                                                         _J
                      eve
                                                                                .... ........                  .. . .... ... ... .. ....
                                                                                                      ...........  ......... X..                                t
                                                                                                         ...........
                                   n                         d qlrollin                                                                                           00    i
                   ...... . ... .me ti:    aintenand.0p....p                                                      i@@16h         -      redic a e:::,:
                                                       .....     . . ....                                              . ........  unpre ... Jc
                               .. ....... ...                  .. ....     ......          . ..... ..             ... ............
                                                              ........... .                       ...............  .............. ......
                                                                                                 41
                                                                                                                                             olex. 1
                     eue                     e'. h n           b     f*d                               we                                                                                                           . . ......
               .W. h.d    aplh.f              c. a is J&amp;:g r % eschOtibrt ihWal'                           d b'          e't  atis" eyed t
                                On ... in                                                                 ..... .. y::.a:c
                                                                            .................                       ........                                                                                          ........
                                                                            .................                  ..........I......    ....... ............

                                                                                                                                                                                        Phases/Rating
                Financing Tool Category                                                      Financing Mechanism
                                                                                                                                                                     Acquisition Development                   Management

                  Partnerships                              Establish a Non-prof it Advocacy Organization                                                                    2                     1                     2
                                                            (create a Bay Trail Fund or "Friends of the Bay Trail" -- C2)

                                                            In-kind Donations                                                                                                -                     1                     1
                                                            (materials donations and volunteer labor -- C4)

                                                            Foundation Support                                                                                               2                     2                     -
                                                            (grant awards from foundations and funds -- W)

                                                            Corporate Grants                                                                                                 -                     2                     -
                                                            (business support -- Cl)

                                                            Easement Leasing                                                                                                 -                     -                     2
                                                            (leasing unused portions of alignment, e.g. utility corridor                  C5)

                                                            Redevelopment Agencies                                                                                           -                     2                     -
                                                            (link trail with local economic development plans -- C6)

                                                            PubliclPrivate Enterprise                                                                                        -                     2
                                                            (joint financing as part of commercial development -- C7)
                                                                                                                                                                                       f
<pb n="23" />

              Chapter 4
              Implementing the Bay Trail: Vehicles and
              Examples

              A Comparison of Implementation Strate"e

              Probably the most important element in the financing equation is the implementation framework for the trail.
              Will existing jurisdictions carry out the trail building program at their own paces? Will a new entity be created
              along the lines of a trust or a joint powers authority to coordinate the overall development process? On the
              other hand, will local governments and special districts enter into ad hoc cooperative agreements for sharing
              development costs and/or management responsibilities? Clearly efforts will need to be coordinated and
              guided. Any of these means is feasible, and the eventual implementation framework adopted will likely be a
              combination of at least three of the options. As previously outlined in Chapter Two, a "Friends of the Bay
              Trail" or similar advocacy organization is a preliminary recommendation of the Bay Trail Plan, as is a
              management authority for Bay Trail "gaps." At the same time, some individual jurisdictions like the EBRPD and
              a number of cities will inevitably develop Bay Trail segments on their own. A strategic approach to
              implementation suggests that timing and circumstance will, in large measure, determine the most appropriate
              implementation vehicle(s). No one choice is fitting for every situation. How other regional trails have been
              implemented can also provide some precedents and guidance for the Bay Trail, (see Appendix B).

              Several implementation vehicles have been identified and analyzed with the assistance of the Trail's Finance
              Subcommittee. They include: 1) a Bay Trail Trust or "Friends of the Bay Trail"; 2) a management authority or
              other form of inter-jurisdictional cooperation; 3) a joint powers authority; and 4) a Bay Trail Open Space District.
              In the following four pages they are compared according to their respective advantages and disadvantages,
              legal considerations and other criteria. Concluding this evaluation, the relative utility of these and related
              implementation vehicles are "rated" in Table 3 in relation to their application to the particular stages or phase of
              implementation.

                                                                  19
<pb n="24" />

              Bay Trail Trust, "Friends of the Bay Trail"

              Definition                A trust or foundation for the Bay Trail would be a non-profit entity established to advocate
                                        for the trail, raise funds for its implementation, provide financial support to public agencies
                                        and cities, furnish public information and possibly to own and/or manage portions of the
                                        trail corridor (if established as a Trust).

              Examples                  American River Parkway Foundation, Sacramento (raises funds for the Parkway's
                                        development and operation); Yakima River Greenway Foundation in Yakima, Washington;
                                        Trust for Public Land; Solano County Farmland and Open Space Foundation.

              Relevant Issues           The purpose should be clearly defined, not duplicating the roles, areas or interests of
                                        existing trusts. The possibility exists of making such a trust a division or fund within
                                        another non-profit organization, although this arrangement may carry certain expectations
                                        and preconceptions. The bylaws should be written so that the Trust would have
                                        representation on its board from public agencies, cities, selected environmental and
                                        bicycle advocacy organizations and "at large" members of the public.

              Advantages                     Can accept private donations, along with both state block and corporate grants.
                                             Promotes cooperation among jurisdictions without being another regulatory body.
                                             Could be attractive to public and private sectors alike as a neutral ground of
                                             operation.
                                             Capable of tapping governmental funds and receiving dedications and impact fees.
                                             Can negotiate trail easements with more flexibility than government agencies and
                                             offer tax benefits that they cannot.
                                             Fosters pdvate/publiC partnerships; forum for getting adversarial parties to participate.
                                             Could be a catalyst for getting local jurisdictions to be active in the Bay Trail's
                                             realization.
                                             Avoids the onus of creating another source of taxation.

              Disadvantages                  Lacks police and condemnation power typical of local jurisdictions.
                                             Must limit its state government lobbying activities.
                                             Would take up to a year to establish.
                                             Could lack visibility without a strong mandate and adequate funding base.

              Applicability             A Trust could be engaged in acquisition, development and operations and management
                                        (0 and M), although it is more likely that 0 and M would be handled by open space
                                        districts and recreation functions departments. All financing tools could be tapped, too;
                                        regulatory measures like development fees or land dedications could be donated to a
                                        trust if a city has a cooperative agreement with it. The trust would be most effective by
                                        funding local jurisdictions to complete trail segments and in coordinating the trail plan
                                        during implementation. It could establish an endowment fund and contract conservation
                                        corps and/or volunteers for maintenance of those trail segments where parks and open
                                        space districts could not manage the trail; it could even contract out patrolling through
                                        "rent-a-ranger' arrangements.

              Legal                     The board of directors would serve as a policy making board and would likely be made
              Considerations            up of public and environmental group representatives from each of the nine Bay Area
                                        counties and governed by trust agreement and bylaws. (A larger advisory committee
                                        could include industry and corporate leaders.) Liability would be moot and dependant on
                                        whether or not the trust held onto land or merely did pre-acquisition or provided funding.

              BCDC                      Permits can be issued to a trust, so long as it held the lease or owned the
              Coordination              land. Otherwise, it could be a co-applicant with the property owner, like a redevelopment
                                        agency.

                                                                     20
<pb n="25" />

               Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation, Management Authority

               Definition                 This is an informal governmental partnership or committee, created through a cooperative
                                          agreement of participating cities, counties and/or open space districts who have a shared
                                          interest in seeing a particular project, completed or managed adequately.

               Examples                   Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency, (City of Hayward and four special districts);
                                          Central Contra Costa County Transportation and Land Use Partnership; Tijuana River
                                          National Estuaries Research Reserve Management Authority (San Diego).

               Relevant Issues            It would be selectively initiated, i.e. in those areas where no existing open space districts
                                          operate; it would not provide a comprehensive level of continuity for design and
                                          implementation of the trail. This is the least formal of the four financing vehicles and is
                                          best applied for cities seeking to share trail segment development or 0 and M through the
                                          establishment of a "management authority".

               Advantages                 9   Fosters cooperation among cities, agencies, counties, and possibly private parties in
                                              interest.
                                          0   Permits limited sharing and leveraging of local revenues and addressing of inter-
                                              jurisdictional issues.
                                              Goal-directed, focused on the implementation or management of a particular segment
                                              of the trail.
                                              Allows for greater flexibility in applying standards and/or in incorporating local input.
                                              Can be an effective vehicle for ensuring community involvement and agency
                                              cooperation (as occurred with the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency).
                                              Permits informal pooling of expertise in funding and operating the trail.

               Disadvantages                  Requires visible and continual political support to ensure success.
                                              Better suited for short-term, locally-directed projects rather than ongoing operations.
                                              Suggests a piecemeal approach to a regional planning issue.
                                              Would likely increase the time needed for implementation of the Bay Trail Plan, for
                                              lack of more formal coordination among participating communities.
                                              Lacks the sovereignty powers of a joint powers authority or an open space district.
                                              No legal authority over individual jurisdictions.
                                              Often underbudgeted, as its financing may depend largely on capital budgets of the
                                              supporting jurisdictions, each of whom may not see it as a priority item.
                                              May lack clear direction and ability to attract the range of funding possibilities.
                                              May be perceived as a competitor for scarce local revenues.

               Applicability              This vehicle could be used for all phases of trail implementation and management, but
                                          would be ill-suited for acquisition and less appropriate for long term operations and
                                          maintenance. This is due to its often informal and temporary nature. While most financing
                                          tools could be applied through an inter-jurisdictional cooperation, it would likely turn to the
                                          participating governmental bodies to administer regulatory tools. This partnership
                                          arrangement would be best used for implementing smaller segments of the trail, perhaps
                                          involving up to four or five cities. It would not apply well for doing a phased
                                          implementation of the Bay Trail, as this vehicle lacks the capacity to do formal
                                          coordination.

               Legal                      A cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding would be drawn up between
               Considerations             interested parties, with clear assignment of roles and responsibilities for each. The
                                          agreement would be binding, and were one to violate or ignore the agreement, other
                                          participating members could withdraw. The partnership would serve in a planning and
                                          coordinating capacity, leaving operations and management functions to the "parent"
                                          agencies. Such bodies usually lack legal powers.

               BCDC                       Permits would likely not be issued to the partnership (unless it were the
               Coordination               legal project sponsor), but rather to the individual agencies composing it.

                                                                      21
<pb n="26" />

               Joint Powers Authority (JPA)

               Definition                 A JPA is an agency set up to fund and/or administer a specific purpose that is shared by
                                          cooperating governmental bodies. It may exercise powers common to all members of the
                                          organization.

               Examples                   Solid waste authorities (composed of the participating cities and county governments);
                                          Richardson Bay JPA, (organized to administer the Richardson Bay Management Plan).

               Relevant    Issues         Were it set up to implement the Bay Trail, it would be likely operate in those areas without
                                          an open space district to carry out the trail mandate. There would be the question of
                                          whether to set up a temporary agency (With a "sunset clause") or a permanent one.
                                          There would also be conflicts over the extent of its authority relative to other jurisdictions.

               Advantages                    Has limited police powers and sovereignty (depending on how its charter is written).
                                          *  Would facilitate a number of governments to work together to develop and potentially
                                             operate a trail.
                                          *  Proven method of building continuity and agreement on design and implementation
                                             process; can readily prioritize trail acquisition and development phases.
                                             Could exercise power of condemnation.
                                             Could have appointed or elected board representing the interests of cities and
                                             counties.
                                             Way of fairly distributing the responsibility for trail acquisition and development.
                                             May issue debt and lobby for legislation.

               Disadvantages                 Resistance of jurisdictions to another governmental entity dictating policy (particularly
                                             if the JPA were a permanent agency rather than a temporary commission).
                                             Questions of accountability and credibility, particularly if the JPA board of directors is
                                             answerable to the city councils and boards of supervisors who appoint them.
                                             Potential for becoming too dependent on political circumstances, with a consequent
                                             loss of program consistency and direction.
                                             Governance could be complicated by multiple levels (city, county, and open space
                                             district) or by diff ering agendas among these governmental bodies.
                                             Fear by existing jurisdictions of the JPA duplicating other agencies' authority.
                                             Would be viewed as a competitor for local funding.

               Applicability              Could be engaged in acquisition, development and operations and management,
                                          although it is more likely that 0 and M would be handled by open space districts and
                                          recreation districts/departments. All financing tools could be tapped, too; the "bedroom
                                          tax" of Quimby Act fees could be used by a JPA along with a corresponding city's levying
                                          of this fee. A JPA would be best applied for "closing gaps" of trail segments between
                                          cities where they would have difficulty implementing the trail and for coordinating the trail
                                          plan among jurisdictions.

               Legal                      The JPA is formally constituted body with a board of directors. It can
               Considerations             exercise those powers that are common to any participating member; the limits of its
                                          powers are defined by those of the "named jurisdiction." Its meetings must be open and
                                          have posted agendas (per the Ralph and Brown Act). Establishment requirements
                                          include a JPA agreement and bylaws that must be approved by each represented
                                          agency.

               BCDC                       Permits can be issued to a JPA as to any governmental body or requesting
               Coordination               landowner. Applications for a particular segment of trail is preferred to a system or
                                          countywide permit.

                                                                      22
<pb n="27" />

           Bay Trail Open    Space District (OSD)

           Definition         An OSD is a special purpose district established to preserve, protect, develop and
                              operate open space areas, which in this instance, would be the Bay Trail corridor. It would
                              seek to carry out the purposes for which it is created as set forth in its master plan.

           Examples           East Bay Regional Park District, Marin Open Space District, Midpeninsula Regional Open
                              Space District.

           Relevant Issues    Were an open space district established for the Bay Trail, it would only operate in those
                              areas without an open space or recreation district to manage and maintain the trail
                              segment. (This includes portions of Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano Counties.)
                              This would be the most difficult vehicle to apply politically, due to likely authority conflicts.

           Advantages            Has police powers and sovereignty, with power to administer, operate and prosecute.
                                 Could provide a logical organi7ing tool for those areas without existing ability.
                                 Proven method of building continuity and agreement on design and implementation
                                 process; can readily prioritize trail acquisition and development phases
                                 Could exercise power of condemnation.
                                 Would have appointed or elected board representing all "precincts" within the district.
                                 Way of fairly distributing the responsibility for trail acquisition and development.
                                 May issue debt and lobby for legislation.
                                 Professional staff, with expertise in recreational planning and management.

           Disadvantages         Potential for conflict with local jurisdictions and other OSDs over authority issues.
                                 "Territorial" concerns would limit range of the open space district's physical
                                 jurisdiction.
                                 Difficulty in establishing the districVs legal boundaries.
                                 Would not be able to develop or administer trail segments outside its geographic
                                 boundaries, potentially leaving large gaps in implementation of the Bay Trail.
                                 Less flexibility than trusts in arranging partnerships and negotiating for acquisition.
                                 Likelihood of using property tax assessments to provide the district's basic budget
                                 makes the concept less desirable, given the public's resistance to new taxes.
                                 Could be viewed as a competition for local funding.

           Applicability      An OSD could be used for all phases of trail implementation and management, and would
                              be especially well suited for operations and maintenance functions. While most financing
                              tools could be applied by the OSD, it could not administer regulatory tools (like
                              development fees or dedications) but only be the recipient of them by cities willing to
                              donate the land or fees. An OSD would be most applicable for implementing the Bay Trail
                              in the North Bay, especially within Napa and Sonoma Counties.

           Legal              Governed by an elected or appointed board of directors, the OSD exercises
           Considerations     police powers on all property over which it holds title. Its meetings must be open and
                              have posted agendas (per the Ralph and Brown Act). As a land owning and operating
                              agency, it would have management responsibilities and potential liability for the trail
                              corridor it controls. Enabling legislation, preferably at the state level, would be needed to
                              establish it.

           BCDC               Permits can be issued to an OSD as to any governmental body or
           Coordination       requesting landowner. Applications for a particular segment of trail is preferred to a
                              system or counlywide permit.

                                                  23
<pb n="28" />

            Table 3                                                                       Implementation Strategies for the Bay Trail
                                                                      (Roles and relationships of implementing organizations to phases of the Bay Trail)

            Note: This matrix represents a composite of preferred roles                                                                                                            H abl
                                                                                                                                                     i@mos  @appro                                              @i     licabi
                                                                                                                                                                      t                              .. .... h t
                                                                                                                                                                pna.e@@orljpp. 10C
                                                                                                                     ..........                                                                                              ..........
                       identified by the Bay Trail Financing Subcommittee on                                                                                                                                                                  . ... ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ..........
                                                                                                                          ...                        ...                                                     .....                   ... ..    ....
                                                                                                                                    S                        s*1a.5h:..me*an:          pd&amp;ogffi6@
                       October 27 and 28, 1988.
                                                                                                                                                                                     ..... .... ..... . .. .......       ......

                                                                                                          Unbuilt Trail Segment                                                                   Built Trail Segment
                                                                                                                          t@          4)                                               C                     Z           Q
                                     Implementing                                                                         (D                                                                                 W
                                                                                                              r-                                                                       0          C
                                                                                                              0           E                                                                       0          E
                              Agency/Organization                                                                                     (0             co                                lu
                                                                                                                          CL
                                                                                          0                   M                       W                                   0                       Ma         0
                                                                                          0
                                                                                          &gt;            0      :3          (D                         0                    0
                                                                                          '0    Cc 0          Cr          &gt;                          -                                            rr         &gt;
                                                                                                                          a)                                 -2           8         cc 0
                                                                                                                                      Cd             (a                   'D           0                     W
                                                                                                              &lt;                                      CL                   &lt;        FE             &lt;
                                                                                          &lt;

                  m Government Agencies
                  1.   Open Spac       e Districts                                        ++           +      +           +           +              +       +            ++         +            +          +           +           +            +
                  2.   Cities/Counties                                                    +/01         ++2    ++3         +           ++             ++      +            +/01       ++2          ++3        +           ++          ++           +
                  3.   State:            State Parks                                      +            0    +4/0          +/o      +5/0              +5/0    +            +          0            +4/0       +/o       +5/0       +5/0            +
                                         Coastal Conservancy                              0            +6     ++          ++          0              0       0            0          +6           ++         ++          0           0            0
                                         B.C.D.C.                                         +7/0         +8     0           0           0              0       0            07         +8           0          0           0           0            0

                  N    Multi Government
                  4.   Regional Agency (ABAG)                                             ++           ++     0           0           0              0       +9           +/o        +/o          0          0           0           0         +/o
                  5.   Joint Powers Authority                                             -            +/0    0           +/o         +              +       0            -          0            0          0           0           0            0
                  6.   Management/Cooperative Agreements                                  0            +/o    0           0           +              ++10    0            0          0            0          0           +           ++10         0
                  1111 Quasi/Non-Government Sector
                  7.   Bay Trail Fund (Friends of the Bay Trail)                          ++           +      +           +           +/o            +/o   +11/0          ++         +            +          +           0           0            +
                  8.   Private Sector (Corporations)                                      40           - 1    +12         +12    1 +13/0     1       +10 1   +                                    0 -L       0           0           0            +
            Footnotes:             1.    Cities inapplicable if maintenance sources aren't identified.                                       8.      Plans to meet B.C.D.C. standards.
                                   2.    Exisiting local recreation and trail plans; but lacks coordination.                                 9.      Pooled liability program (to be investigated).
                                   3.    Through dedications or exactions only.                                                              10.     Share a ranger or "rent a ranger."
                                   4.    Through legislation, grants; acquisition within park system.                                        11.     Limited liability protection through agreement with Coastal Conservancy.
                                   5.    H within existing state parks.                                                                      12.     If required through B.C.D.C. dedications.
                                   6.    Providing supportlexpertise to localities.                                                          13.     Through "adopt a trail" program.
                                   7.    In capacity of requiring public access.
<pb n="29" />

              Read i ly-In Mated Irail Segments

              Developing momentum for implementing the Bay Trail begins with identifying "pilot projects," links that
              could be readily initiated because they have already been considered, planned and/or programmed. The
              following trail segments are among the potential pilot projects; they have been grouped by geographic
              location. Each was examined at the workshops of the respective focus groups in relation to the sites'
              conditions and funding opportunities. Some of the potential tools listed are responsive to these
              circumstances.

              East Bay

                       San Leandro Bay to Oyster Bay Trail.
                       City: Oakland and San Leandro
                       Length: 3 miles
                       Cost: $700,000+
                       Implementing Agency: East Bay Regional Park District

              Existing Conditions: The alignment of the trail would connect San Leandro Bay (at the base of Arrowhead
              Marsh) and Oyster Bay, both EBRPD parks; it runs adjacent Doolittle and Davis Streets, in the Cities of
              Oakland and San Leandro. The trail would most likely be a class 11 trail entirely, unless it were to parallel the
              Lew Gailbraith Golf Course, in which case it could become a class I trail in this stretch. Most of the
              surrounding area has been developed, largely in an industrial pattern. The City of San Leandro is
              contemplating commercial office redevelopment in the Eden Road and Davis Street area, (including parts
              of Doolittle Dr.rive) In fact, it has initiated study for creating a redevelopment zone here. Truck traffic is
              heavy in along Davis and Doolittle Roads due to salvage yards and the transfer station at the end of Davis.
              The trail would also adjoin the San Leandro Sewage Plant and the City rifle range. The Port of Oakland
              owns the property to the west of Doolittle in Oakland. Airport commercial and service uses predominate
              on the east side.

              Potential toola: State Coastal Conservancy, corporate support, redevelopment agency, and Measure AA

              2.       Pt. Isabel to Miller Knox Regional Park.
                       City: Richmond:
                       Length: 5 miles
                       Cost: $1 million
                       Implementing Agency: EBRPD

              Existing Conditions: The trail alignment passes through a re-developing waterfront area in the City of
              Richmond. It would connect two regional parks, pass through the major new Marina Bay residential
              /commercial complex, and link to the BART line by utilizing the abandoned railroad right-of-way north of
              Ohio Avenue.

              Potential tools: State Coastal Conservancy, Prop. 70 , Fees and dedications, maintenance district,
              private/public enterprise, Measure AA

                                                                     25
<pb n="30" />

              3.      Carquinez Scenic Trail (Crockett to Martinez)
                      Jurisdiction: Crockett, Martinez, Contra Costa County
                      Length: 5+ miles
                      Cost: $600,000
                      Implementing Agency: EBRPD

              F.xisting Conditions: The trail would connect the town of Crockett with the Martinez Regional Shoreline.
              Most of the region through which the trail alignment passes is unincorporated land of Contra Costa
              County. Consequently, much of the land use is rural residential and grazing along the bluffs of the
              Carquinez strait. Notable exceptions are in the western end of the alignment where the trail adjoins the C
              and H sugar plant and passes through the residential areas of Crockett. EBRPD currently has 190 acres
              of shoreline and bluffs of parkland midway, known as the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. The East
              Bay Regional Park District is seeking to expand this park west to Crockett. While a class 11 trail would be
              dangerous if located on Carquinez Drive, a class I trail would be more expensive and require considerable
              engineering, in view of the steep slopes and high landslide potential in some sections of Carquinez Strait.

              Potential Tools: State Coastal Conservancy, Proposition 70, Measure AA

                                                                 26
<pb n="31" />

              North    Bay

              1.       Marin Civic Center to McNears Beach Trail.
                       Jurisdiction: Marin County
                       Length: 6 miles
                       Cost: approximately $1.1 million ($600,000 - trail; $500,000 - grading)
                       Implementing Agencies: County of Marin; California Parks and Recreation Dept.

              Existing Conditions: The alignment of the trail would begin at the North end of the Marin Civic Center,
              adjacent Civic Center Drive, then turn east and parallel North San Pedro Road. Running through China
              Camp State Park, it would connect with an existing trail at McNears Beach County Park. In order to improve
              the trail experience and avoid traffic hazards a class I trail would be advocated. A half mile segment of class
              11 trail in the town of Santa Venetia already exists.

              Land uses in the surrounding area vary. The trail begins in county institutional land use, and passes
              through neighborhood commercial and residential uses until it reaches China Camp State Park. At this
              point, the- north side of San Pedro Road becomes a marsh area adjacent Gallinas Creek, while the south
              side adjoins a meadow before entering a steeply sloping section in the vicinity of the former town of China
              Camp.

              Potential Tools: State Recreation Budget, Foundation Support (Buck Trust, TDA Article 3, assessment
              district, State Coastal Conservancy

              2.       Vallejo Shoreline Trail.
                       City: Vallejo
                       Length: 8 miles:
                       Cost: $500,000+ (depending on acquisition needs)
                       Implementing Agency: City of Vallejo

              Existing Conditions: Connecting the City's municipal dock on the northern end and Benicia State Park on
              the Southern terminus of the Trail, the route would be a combination of Class 11, (primarily along Route 29
              and Class 1 (from the Maritime Academy to the State Park. The area has a variety of existing land uses,
              including industrial particularly in the vicinity of the Southern Pacific RR right of way, (e.g. the Kaiser
              Property ), built-out residential areas fronting on Route 29, the California Maritime Academy and the
              currently developing residential subdivisions at Glen Cove to the east of Route 80. There are a number of
              steep ravines in the Glen Cove area that will require careful engineering for establishing the trail.
              Development dedications will be used to finance much of the development of the Glen Cove section of
              trail.

              Potential tools: Development fees, dedications, State Lands Commission - public trust easements, State
              Waterways Grants (California Department of Parks and Recreation), redevelopment agency support.

                                                                     27
<pb n="32" />

                South    Bay

                1.       Redwood Shores Trail.
                         Cities: Redwood City, San Carlos
                         Length: 5 miles
                         Cost: $450,000
                         Implementing Agencies: Cities of San Carlos and Redwood City

                Existina Conditions: The alignment of the trail would connect San Carlos Airport to the north and Bayfront
                Park to the south, filling a trail gap between the Dumbarton Bridge and Redwood Shores and paralleling
                Routel0l. The southern section of Redwood Shores (below the San Carlos Airport) has not been
                subdivided yet and is zone tidal plane from Whipple Avenue north. A BCDC permit has been granted to
                improve the existing levee that borders existing saft ponds and abuts the highway. Throughout most of its
                length the trail would be next to a mixture of residential and commercial land uses.to its west. Traffic
                conflicts at Whipple Ave and Bayshore would have to be resolved, as does the question of residential
                development on the southshore section of Redwood Shores. There is a sewage treatment plant at the
                end of Maple Street and a health club off Whipple near the proposed alignment. Currently, many joggers
                (some associated with the health club) use A "vemacular'trail on Bair Island

                Potential tools: Coastal Conservancy, Proposition 70, development dedications

                2.       Guadalupe River Trail
                         Cities: San Jose, Santa Clara
                         Length: 7 miles
                         Cost: $700,000+
                         Implementing Agencies: City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara

                Existina Conditions: This trail would connect the Alviso Marina with the San Jose Airport to the south
                where there is currently an existing trail that runs almost to the Civic Center. Most of the trail alignment is
                currently in public ownership, (i.e. the Santa Clara Water District), so there would be minimum acquisition
                requirements. As the trail alignment borders both the Cities of Santa Clara to the west of the Guadalupe
                River and San Jose to the east, it would probably prove to be a joint project, unless the Cities wanted to
                defer to the County. It would have high use by white collar workers in the "Golden Triangle" (commercial
                and industrial parks scattered between Routes 237., 101 and 880). Land use around the proposed
                alignment.is mixed. From the Alviso Marina to Route 237 there are landfill sites, salvage yards, scattered
                residential units and vacant land. South of Route 237 to 101, the pattern is mostly residential on the
                Santa Clara side (including mobile home parks) and industrial parks on the San Jose side of the River.
                About midway between the trail termuni, is the west campus of the Agnew State Hospital. One of the
                major challenges to trail development includes getting the trail under Routes 237 and the Bayshore
                Freeway.

                Potential toola: Cooperative agreement (with the Santa Clara Water District), Proposition 70, corporate
                grants

                                                                       28
<pb n="33" />

              Chapter 5
              Process and Methodology

              Considerable public involvement has helped to shape the direction and substance of the financing
              and implementation recommendations for the Bay Trail Plan. This study reflects the participation of
              two sets of advisory groups, the Trail's Finance Subcommittee and three regional "focus groups."
              The subcommittee was formed with the goals of evaluating the proposed funding mechanisms,
              suggesting and assessing potential implementation vehicles, establishing the format for the financing
              workshops of the focus groups, and making implementation recommendations to the Bay Trail
              Advisory Committee. The 39 member group was split between an evening and following day session.
              (The two sessions were offered to accommodate differing work schedules and maximize participation
              potential.) The three focus groups corresponded to each major reach of the Bay: East Bay, North Bay
              and Peninsula/South Bay. They were formed to evaluate the most appropriate implementation means
              for their side of the Bay, to examine the financing tools according to their suitability, and to match them
              with selected "readily-initiated trail segments," (as described in Chapter Four). Three evening
              workshops for the focus groups were scheduled, one in each reach of the Bay. There were 63 who
              agreed to participate in one or more of the three focus groups. (See Appendix C for a list of both
              subcommittee and focus group members and their affiliations.) Both sets of groups were composed
              principally of community leaders and park professionals, a cross-section of representatives from
              public, private and non-profit sectors, ranging from councilmembers to developers to environmental
              and bicycling activists.

              Each of the two sessions of the subcommittee met twice. The first meeting was to review the
              structure and role of the financing plan, to evaluate and broadly rate the financing tools, to set up the
              structure for the subsequent focus group workshops, and to discuss possible implementation
              vehicles. The second pair of meetings took place shortly after the workshop sequence. Members
              proposed elements of an implementation strategy, based on the project's phases and the relative
              strengths and weaknesses of different implementing agents, (Table 2). Summaries of each of the
              focus group's workshops and of the final subcommittee meetings are given in Appendix D.

              In addition to the work of the two advisory groups, a phone survey of 18 park and public works
              personnel from around the Bay Area was conducted. Its intent was to assess cost estimates for
              acquisition, development and operational phases of the project and to poll the types and terms of
              regulatory measures as applied to financing recreational facilities.

              The significance of incorporating a diversity of social and professional perspectives in the public
              involvement process for the project's financing and implementation is that it is a microcosm of the
              diverse constituency that the Bay Trail will ultimately serve. Furthermore, it is a reflection of the kind of
              cooperation among public, non-profit and business interests that will be needed in the future to
              effectively realize the vision of the Bay Trail.

                                                                    29
<pb n="34" />

           References

           The following resources are grouped in four categories to assist the reader who wishes to
           further explore public financing for recreational facilities.

           1. Planning Guides and Reports

           Association of Bay Area Governments. San Francisco Bay Area Regional Wetlands Plan for Urban
           Runoff Treatment. Volume 1 April 1983.

           Bicycle Federation. Pro Bike 80: Proceedings of the First Conference for BiQycle Program
           Specialists. November 9-12, 1980.

           Brenneman, Russell et al. Land Saying Action. Island Press. 1984

           Brooks, Mary. Planning for Urban Trails. Planning Advisory Service. December 1969.

           California Department of Parks and Recreation. Bigyclina in California: A Recreation
           Perspective. May 1978.

           Gold, Seymour. Recreation Planning and Design. McGraw-Hill: New York. 1980.

                          Urban Recreation Plaanin. Lea and Febinger: Philadelphia. 1973.

           Hart, Krivatsy, Stubbe. BART/Traft: A Study of the Commuter and Recreational Trail
           Potential to the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. February 1974.

           Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. The Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation
           Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, D.C. 1979.

           Hernandez, Marcel and Oke, David. The Department of Parks and Recreation Urban Services
           Program: California Study on Urban Open Space and Recreational Needs. Preliminary Report.
           Prepared for the Department of Parks and Recreation. March 1976.

           President's Commission on America's Outdoors. Bepgrt and Recommendations to the President of
           the Uaited States. December 1986

           Trudeau, Richard. Draft Repgrl on ABAG Land Trust/Foundation Prepared for the Association of
           Bay Area Governments. February 1987.

           2. Revenue Source Reports and Studies.

           California Department of Parks and Recreation. State Funding Sources Related to Parks and
           Recreation. August 1983.

           California Horse Racing Board. Horse Racing in California: 16th Annual Rep!Qrt. 1986.

           Horler, Virginia. Guide to Public Debt Financing in California. Packard Press: San Francisco.
           1987.

                                                        30
<pb n="35" />

             3.    Innovative and Creative Financing Techniques

             Alterman, Rachelle, ed. Private Supply of Public Services: Evaluation of Exactions. Linkage
             and Alternative Land Policies. New York University Press: New York. 1988.

             Hoel, Lester, ed. Innovative Financing for Transportation: Practical Solutions and Experieum.
             Final Report 1986. Prepared for the Office of Technology and Planning Assistance, Washington,
             D.C.

             Kaiser, Ronald and Mertes, James. Acquiring Parks and Recreation Facilities through
             Mandatoty Dedicatione A Comprehensive Guide. Venture Press. 1986.

             Peterson, John and Forbes, Ronald. Innovative Capital Finawj= Planning Advisory Service
             (Report No. 392) 1988.

             MacDonald, Stuart. "Building Support for Urban Trails." M November 1987.

             Magnuson, Anne. "City Park Departments Search for New Funding." American Cily and Counly.
             October 1988.

             4.    Other Regional Trails

             Nevel, Bonnie, et. al, ed. A Guide to America's Rail-Trails. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy:
             Washington, D.C. May 1988.

             City of Portland, Metropolitan Service District. Begional Uicycle Plan. August 1983.

             Sacramento City-County Bikeway Task Force. Sacramento Bieways Masterplan. January 1977.

                                                         31
<pb n="36" />

             APPENDIX A
             Contact AcIencies and Procedures for Selected Financina Tools

             Proposition 70

             This grant program is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).
             Processing for grant applications will be expedited if the name of the project officer assigned to the
             applicant's area is included on all mail. All inquiries and correspondence should be addressed to:

                                                      Project Officer (name)
                                             California Dept. of Parks and Recreation
                                                     Local Assistance Section
                                                  1416 Ninth St., Room 1449-1
                                                        P.O. Box 942896
                                                  Sacramento, CA 94296-4441

                                                   Telephone: (916) 445-4441
                                                       FAX: 916-323-6586

             Additional pointers for applicants:

             1 .     The DPR is looking for projects that can be completed in a timely manner, therefore it is to the
             applicant's advantage to focus on discreet, readily completed trail segments.

             2.      Applicants should apply first for acquisition funds, later for development dollars.

             3.      A project is regarded more favorably relative to the degree of volunteer participation it has;
             community support is a key criteria for selection.

             4.      Innovative projects are desirable, as are joint applications.

             5.      Where a special district qualifies for Per Capita Grants, it may not be eligible for trail grants.

             6.      Photos should be included with any grant request.

             7.      Final plans for the proposed recreational facility do not need to be prepared for the grant request,
             although CEQA requirements do have to be complied with.

             State Coastal Conservancy: San Francisco Say Access Program

             The Coast Conservancy gives highest priority in this program to the allocations of funds to complete the
             trail system encircling the Bay. This gives Bay Trail related applications a high probability of being funded.
             Procedures are informal and initiated by a letter of inquiry. Allow three to five months to process. All
             inquiries and correspondence should be addressed to:

                                                         Reed Holderman
                                                    State Coastal Conservancy
                                                   1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
                                                       Oakland, CA 94610

                                                   Telephone: (415) 464-1015
<pb n="37" />

              Transportation Development Act JDA), Article 3

              The TDA of 1972 provides for funds for local transportation purposes. S13 821 provides that 2 % of these
              funds may be used for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In the Bay Area, these funds are administered by
              the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and can be applied for on an annual basis. Cities can
              apply through their county public works departments. The county should forward to MTC a copy of the
              following by April I of each year: 1) a cover letter stating the amount of funding being requested; 2) the
              complete priority list of projects, preferably categorized by those that are expected to be funded and
              those considered high priority but for which funding is not available; 3) an indication of how the projects
              were reviewed by city representatives and what methods were used to contact bicycle users and other
              interested members of the public; and 4) a Board of Supervisors' resolution approving the priority list and
              authorizing the claim. All inquiries and correspondence should be addressed to:

                                                           Doug Kimsey
                                              Metropolitan Transportation Commission
                                                           101 8th Street
                                                        Oakland, CA 94607

                                                    Telephone: (415) 464-7700
<pb n="38" />

          APPENDIX B
          Regional Irail Success Stodes

          American River Parkway

          1. Location and Descriplion

          The American River Parkway is an open space greenbelt which extends for 29 miles along the American River from
          Folsom Dam at the northeast to the American River's confluence with the Sacramento River at the southwest. The
          Parkway has regional as well as local significance and is located in the heart of California's Central Valley near
          Sacramento. It offers recreational activities and educational opportunities as well as special natural resources
          related to the river. The Lower American River is classified as a "Recreation" river within the State and Federal Wild
          and Scenic River Systems. The parkway crosses jurisdictional boundaries that include the county and city of
          Sacramento and a portion of the Folsom State Recreation Area. The concept for the parkway was initiated in the
          early 1960's and incorporated into the Sacramento County General Plan. Public involvement has been a
          consistent force in developing the recreational opportunities of the Parkway and in protecting the natural qualities
          of this river resource.

          2. Issues a0d Benefits

          The 1985 American River Parkway Plan of the City of Sacramento, Department of Planning and Development
          provides a guide to land-use decisions affecting the Parkway and seeks to balance preservation of the natural
          open space and protection of the environmental quality while continuing to provide recreational opportunities in
          the Sacramento area. Concern for protecting the natural environment of the Parkway has emerged with greater
          strength as recreational and educational use has increased and as community pride in the parkway has matured. A
          county zoning ordinance regulates uses in and around the American River Parkway. Five general categories
          determine land-use suitabilities within the Parkway: Open Space Preserve; Nature Study Area; Protected Area;
          Limited Recreation; and Developed Recreation. A sixth category, Recreation Reserve, sets aside certain
          agricultural lands for future recreational use. The American River Parkway has substantially contributed to the
          "quality of life" in the Sacramento region. Recreational, cultural and educational activities within the Parkway and
          facilities supporting these opportunities are seen as key to the area's economic health.

          3. Sources of Sugl2ort

          Funds for the Parkway are generally budgeted for capital outlay and operations. For capital outlay, dollars come
          from the County General Fund, the Transient Occupancy Tax, State and Federal
          grants, State and local bond issues and private donations. Operating funds come from the General Fund through
          property taxes, park use fees, reimbursements from other departments, rent or lease fees and occasionally from
          grants or donations. The American River Parkway Foundation exists as non-profit corporation to assist in
          fundraising and land acquisition in cooperation with Sacramento County Department of Parks and Recreation, the
          managing agency for operations and maintenance. The foundation involves corporate sponsorship in "Down
          River Days", an annual and very successful fund-raising event.

          4. Why it Works

          The American River Parkway is an established corridor which continues to be guided by a strong set of planning
          documents and policies, a successful park and recreation agency responsible for implementation and
          maintenance, a successful non-profit for fundraising and support through citizen involvement at all levels of
          operation.

          5. Contacts

          American River Parkway Foundation                          Lois W. Woodruff
          P.O. Box 26566                                             Community Relations Officer
          Sacramento, CA 95826                                       Sacramento Department of Parks and Recreation
          Tel.: (916) 456-7423                                       3711 Branch Center Road
                                                                     Sacramento, CA 95827
                                                                     Tel.: (916) 366-2672
<pb n="39" />

           APPENDIX B
           Regional Trail Surcess Stories

           Yakima Greenway

           1. Lgcafion and Descriplion

           The Yakima Greenway is a 1 O-mile, 3600 acre greenway near the city of Yakima, Washington. The Greenway
           includes a series of parks, lakes, picnic areas, riverside pathways, river access points for boaters, and handicapped
           fishing facilities. Major natural areas have also been protected within the Greenway.

           2. Issues and Benefits

           The Greenway concept began as a citizen effort which became a campaign issue. Funds from the state legislature
           led to a feasibility and desirability study which in turn led to a Master Plan which was adopted into the county plan.
           The plan recommended the formation of a protection group, the Greenway Foundation, a non-profit, tax-exempt
           land trust to acquire property opportunistically, to solicit and receive donations and to coordinate agency
           acquisition and management of the Yakima Greenway. The establishment of the non-profit land trust early in the
           project development was critical to the success of this corridor. The land trust allows for overall coordination and
           active promotion of the Greenway within the community of Yakima. The foundation has organized successful fund
           raising events including relay runs, park concerts, wine tasting events and an art auction. Funds and equipment
           have also been secured through endowments, memorial gifts, and a"Wishbook" distributed for equipment
           donations. Their newsletter markets the greenway attractions and accomplishments and recognizes individual
           citizen contributions.

           3. Sources of Supl2ort

           Implementation of the Greenway master plan is carried out by the Greenway Foundation. The Greenway land is still
           owned by the city and county of Yakima, but administrative, maintenance and security staff are funded through the
           Foundation. Individual and corporate sponsors have funded various facilities which are often then named for the
           sponsor. Sources of community support have also been recognized and utilized in this manner throughout the
           project. Currently, a campaign is being conducted to establish a major endowment fund generating interest to
           fund operation and maintenance of the Greenway.

           4. Why A Works

           As a mechanism for Yakima Greenway promotion, information distribution, citizen involvement, volunteer
           recognition and corporate and individual financing of facilities, the foundation has been very successful.

           5. Contact

           Barbara Feasey
           Yakima Greenway
           103 South Third Street
           Yakima, WA 98901
           Tel.: (509) 453-8280
<pb n="40" />

          APPENDIX B
          Regional Trail Success Stolies

          Willamette River Greenway

          1. Location and Descriploon

          The Willamette River Greenway in the State of Oregon, is 255 miles in length, starting at St. Helens and running
          through Portland, Corvallis, and Eugene to Cottage Grove. The purpose of the Greenway is to maintain natural,
          scenic, and recreational values. Although fifty thousand acres are included in the Greenway plan, less than half
          are expected to be put into public ownership in a process that will take twenty to thirty years. Forty three sites have
          been developed for public use including hiking, fishing, boat launching, and primitive camping for boating groups.
          Much of the Portland riverfront is in public ownership, and the waterfront activities can be watched from Portland's
          Old Town. In Eugene, the Greenway has linear parks on both sides of the river. With extensive pedestrian paths
          paralleling the river and five pedestrian/bicycle bridges over the river, the Greenway in Eugene receives heavy
          walking, jogging, and bicycle use including commute use.

          2. Issues and Benefits

          The original protection goals grew out of a successful river clean-up effort of the 1950's and 1960's when the
          polluted condition of the river was very unpopular. In 1967, both gubernatorial candidates championed the
          greenway idea, originally conceived by a University of Oregon professor. Increased recreational use of the river
          has helped to create new businesses along the river including rafting ouff itters and bicycle rental concessions. To
          involve property owners along the Greenway, landowners were surveyed to document acts of vandalism. The
          results of the questionnaire demonstrated that the vandalism was minor and was generally caused by local children
          and not Greenway users.

          3. Sources of Support

          The Greenway was initiated through the political process. The Greenway law, passed in 1973 by the Oregon
          Legislature, directed the Oregon Department of Transportation to prepare a State Greenway Plan which
          designated the Greenway boundary and targeted lands for acquisition by the state. Land and Water Conservation
          funds were also used to acquire land. These actions were coordinated by Oregon's Land Conservation and
          Development Commission. Each political jurisdiction has its own comprehensive plan which must comply with
          Statewide Planning Goal 15 which was enacted to ensure that future generations will be able to continue to enjoy
          the Greenway. The Goal requires that local comprehensive plans and ordinances be enacted and recognized by
          the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Realization and implementation of the Greenway is thus
          based on the Oregon Department of Transportation's Greenway Program, Statewide Planning Goal 15, and local
          comprehensive plans and ordinances. During the planning process, river surveys were completed by university
          students in order to engage local experience and minirnize early expenditure of funds. In Eugene, the cost of a
          pedestrian bridge was offset by the installation of a sewer line below the bridge walkway.

          4. Why A Works

          The original protection goals were realistic; all existing land uses were continued. Strong initial landowner
          opposition was overcome, because the greenway concept allows continued private ownership. Lands in private
          ownership remain so; there is no condemnation. Legislative criteria regulates land use by requiring new
          developments to include landscaping and setbacks, protect the natural habitats and be compatible with their
          surroundings. An excellent brochure, the "Willamette River Recreation Guide" is a colorful and easy-to-use map of
          the river containing information on natural-and historic resources, safety and a description of the legislation which
          created the Greenway.

          5. Contacts

          John Lilly                                                   Oregon Historical Society (For copies of the brochure)
          Oregon Department of Transportation                          1230 S.W. Parks Avenue
          Division of State Parks                                      Portland, OR 97205
          525 S.E. Trade Street                                        Portland, OR 97205
          Salem, OR 97310
          Tel.: (503) 378-5019
<pb n="41" />

                APPENDIX B
                Regional Trail Success Stories

                Washington and Old Dominion Trail

                1. Location and Descriplion

                The Washington and Old Dominion (W&amp;OD) Trail is a 45 mile trail, that runs between Arlington/Alexandria
                and the town of Purceliville, in northeast Virginia. Operated by the Northern Virginia Regional Park
                Authority, the W&amp;OD Trail was developed beginning in 1978 over a former rail road right-of-way of the
                same name. The trail corridor is generally 100 feet wide; the path consists of an 8-foot-wide paved path
                with a parallel 1 0-foot wide rock dust bridle trail/jogging path. The design does not restrict horse,
                pedestrians or bicycles to any particular path. The trail is very popular throughout the year, drawing
                regional use; it was recently named a "National Historic Trail" by the Department of the Interior. The Park
                Authority board of directors consists of twelve members, with two appointed by each of the six
                participating jurisdictions which includes five cities and the County of Fairfax Within'two years, it is
                anticipated to connect with the Appalachian Trail.

                2. Issues and Benefits.

                In the mid sixties, the Northern Virginia Park Authority (NVPA) undertook trail negotiations to acquire
                easements from the Virginia Electric and Power Company who had purchased the former railroad right-of-
                way. The Power Company was unwilling to allow use easements without the NVPA actually purchasing
                the land, a process it finally initiated plans to do in 1978.

                Major issues in trail management consist of motorized vehicle trespassing, litter and unauthorized
                encroachment from neighboring homes and businesses. To cope with the first, "no motorized vehicles"
                signage are posted at every road intersection and a Trail crew patrols the path on motorcycles and
                prosecutes violators. Trash receptacles are placed at every intersection and near convenience stores
                and restaurants serving the trail.

                Serving a growing suburban region, the Trail allows all non-motorized trail uses Because it is located in the
                Washington D.C. metropolitan area and permits multiple use, it has become so popular that the NVPA has
                painted a yellow line down the center of the paved path to separate traffic into lanes.

                3. Sources of Support

                The trail has cost $3.6 million to date for land acquisition and $5 million for development (consisting of 35
                miles of paved trail and 22.5 miles of crushed rock path). It has received Federal and state funding,
                including a Rails to Trail grant from the the Heritage Conservation Recreation Service (Department of the
                Interior), a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant, and revenues from the Virginia Commission of
                Outdoor Recreation.

                The annual operating expenses of $150,000 are met by fiber optics licensing fees ($275,000 per year) for
                an underground easement on the. trail corridor. Property rentals for homeowner gardens, and to
                businesses for vehicle and equipment storage contributes another $63,000 annually. Other easement
                and license fees provide $50,000 per year, including an access fee for developers who wish to connect
                their subdivisions with the trail. As a final source of operating funds the NVPA sells a trail guide that
                provides notes on historical features of as well as orientation to the trail

                4. Why it Works

                The trail is in a burgeoning suburban area and is valued especially for it fitness-prornoting features. It also
                connects a number of parks and serves other recreational activities like baseball and picnicking.

                5. Contacts

                Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority
                5400 Ox Road
                Fairfax Station, VA 22039
                Tel: (703) 437-1910
<pb n="42" />

          APPENDIX C
          Membership Ligit of Bay Trail Finance Subcommittee
          and Focus Group-a
<pb n="43" />

             Bay Traii Finance Committee Roster

             Name                                    IIHI                            Cam2any
             Besser     Irving                                                       REBAC                                Palo Alto

             Britton   Jennifer                      Park Planner                    City of Sunnyvale                    Sunnyvale

             Chun, Eu Rim                            Legislative Aide                Sen. Bill Lockyer                    Hayward

             Cipriani , Maria                        Planner                         Sonoma County Planning               Santa Rosa

             Corbin , Rosemary                       Councilmember                   City of Richmond                     Richmond

             Curtis , Detlef                                                         City of San Ramon Public             San Ramon
                                                                                     Works
             Davoran , Bill                          Executive Director              Bay Institute of SF                  Sauasalito

             Dedrick , Kent                          Research Program                State Lands Commission               Sacramento
                                                     Specialist
             Dempsey, Bill                           Calffomia Field                 Nature Conservancy                   San Francisco
                                                     Representative
             Dorsey, Cameron                         Planning Commissioner           Marin County                         Sausalito

             Fenton , Frank                          Management Analyst              Santa Clara County Parks and         Los Gatos
                                                                                     Recreation
             Fertig , Walter                         Councilmember                   City of Emeryville                   Emeryville

             Gold , Seymour                          Professor                       Davis

             Gravanis , Ruth                         Director                        Mission Greek Conservancy            San Francisco

             Groundwater , Lorna                     Chairwoman                      Brisbane Parks, Beaches &amp;            Brisbane
                                                                                     Rec. Cmssn
             Harper , Greg                           Councilmember                   City of Emeryville                   Emeryville

             Haug , Wayne                            Project Specialist              CA Dept of Parks and                 Sacramento
                                                                                     Recreation
             Hearne, Stana                                                           ABAG Regional Planning               Oakland
                                                                                     committee
             Hibben , Barry                          President                       Southern Marin Land Trust            Mill Valley

             Holmes , Marc                           Asst. Program Director          Save S.F. Bay Assn                   Berkeley

             Hornbeck , Hulet                        Principal                       Hulet Hornbeck Land                  Martinez
                                                                                     Negotiator
             Howell , Dennis                         Park Planner                    Sunnyvale Parks and                  Sunnyvale
                                                                                     Recreation Dept.
             Ingram , Peter                          Parks &amp; Landscaping             Richmond Public Works Dept           Richmond
                                                     Section
             Khanna, T.S.                            Transportation Engineer         Contra Costa Co. Transp. Plg.        Martinez
                                                                                     Divis.
             Kimsey , Doug                                                           Um                                   Oakland

             Korman , Michael                        Partner                         Korman-Ng                            Berkeley
<pb n="44" />

                Bay Trail Finance Committee Rgster

                Narno                                    IIU                              ComRany
               Kulka, Ron                                Assistant Director               Coastal Conservancy                   Oakland

               Kunofsky , Judith                         Assoc. Exec. Director            POS/Greenbelt Congress                San Francisco

               Lewis, Chuck                              President                        EBRPD Park Advisory                   El Cerrito
                                                                                          Committee
               Long , Charles                            City Manager                     City of Fairfield                     Fairfield

               Lyles, Glen                               Shoreline Manager                City of Mountain View                 Mountain View

               Marrioti , Joseph                         Councilmember                    City of Pinola                        Pinola

               Matarrese , Martin                        Parkland Resources               Oakland Park Services Dept.           Oakland
                                                         Supervisor
               Nino , Rubin                              Assistant City Engineer          City of Menlo Park                    Menlo Park

               Peskin , Aron                             Project Associate                Trust for Public Land                 San Francisco

               Roberts , Chuck                                                            Public Works Dept,                    Berkeley
                                                                                          Parks/Marina
               Rust, Karen                               Coastal Program Devt.            Coastal Conservancy                   Oakland
                                                         Analyst
               Sakamoto , Wes                            Superintendent of Parks          Hayward Area Rec. &amp; Park              Hayward
                                                                                          District
               Steele , Dwight                           Co-Chairman                      Citizens for an E. Shore State        Walnut Creek
                                                                                          Park
               Stone, Nancy                              Outdoor Recreation               Rivers &amp; Trails Technical             San Francisco
                                                         Planner                          Assist. Prog
               Williams, Susan                           Grants Coordinator               EBRPD                                 Oakland
<pb n="45" />

               Bay Trail Finance Workshops Roster

               Name                                     iffit                            Company
               Alvarez, Michael                         Director of Parks &amp;              City of Benicia                       Benicia
                                                        Recreation
               Beardsley , Dennis                       Asst. General Manager            Greater Vallejo Recreation            Vallejo
                                                                                         District
               Berman , Robed                                                            Marin Agrigultural Trust              Benicia

               Besser , Irving                                                           REBAC                                 Palo Alto

               Britton , Craig                          Land Acquisition Manager         MROSD                                 Mountain View

               Britton , Jennifer                       Park Planner                     City of Sunnyvale                     Sunnyvale

               Carlson , Robert                         Director                         City of Napa Parks and                Napa
                                                                                         Recreation Dept.
               Chaplick, Joan                           Outdoor Recreation               National Park Service                 San Francicso
                                                        Planner

               Conzelman , Richard                      General Manager                  Greater Vallejo Recreation            Vallejo
                                                                                         District

               Costa , Steve                            Director                         Bay Area Partnership                  Oakland

               Davoran , Bill                           Executive Director               Bay Institute of SF                   Sauasalito

               Dedrick , Kent                           Research Program                 State Lands Commission                Sacramento
                                                        Specialist
               Dempsey , Bill                           California Field                 Nature Conservancy                    San Francisco
                                                        Representative
               Dorsey , Cameron                         Planning Commissioner            Marin County                          Sausalito

               Easterbrook , Jack                       Vice-President                   Wells Fargo Bank                      Burlingame

               Esserlieu , Martha                       Chair                            Citizens for Open Space in            Union City
                                                                                         Alvarado

               Evanoff , Mark                           Field Coordinator                People for Open Space                 San Francisco

               Fenton, Frank                            Management Analyst               Santa Clara County Parks and          Los Gatos
                                                                                         Recreation

               Fiala, Steve                             Trails Coordinator               EBRPD                                 Oakland

               Friend , Gil                             President                        Global Advantage Corp                 Berkeley

               Fruitman , Morris                        Parks Director                   Solano County                         Vacaville

               Gee , Adam                               Traffic Engineer                 City of Redwood City                  Redwood City

               Gravanis , Ruth                          Director                         Mission Creek Conservancy             San Francisco

               Haug , Wayne                             Project Specialist               CA Dept of Parks and                  Sacramento
                                                                                         Recreation
<pb n="46" />

                 Bay Trail Finance Workshops Roster

                 Name                                     ilus                             Company
                Havlik, Neil                              Executive Director               Solano Co. Farmland &amp; Open            Fairfield
                                                                                           Space Trust
                Henshaw ,      Teena                                                       Midponinsula Regional Open            Sunnyvale
                                                                                           Space Dist.
                Hibben , Barry                            President                        Southern Marin Land Trust             Mill Valley

                Holan , Jon                               Associate Planner                City of Union City                    Union City

                Holmes , Marc                             Asst. Program Director           Save S.F. Bay Assn                    Berkeley

                Hornbeck, Hulet                           Principal                        Hulot Hornbeck Land                   Martinez
                                                                                           Negotiator
                Howell , Dennis                           Park Planner                     Sunnyvale Parks and                   Sunnyvale
                                                                                           Recreation Dept.
                Huebsch , Nina                                                             Hewlett Packard                       Palo Alto

                Ingram , Peter                            Parks &amp; Landscaping              Richmond Public Works Dept            Richmond
                                                          Section

                Janoff , Clifford                         Director                         Friends of the Urban Forest           San Francisco

                Khanna , T.S.                             Transportation Engineer          Contra Costa Co. Transp. PIg.         Martinez
                                                                                           Divis.
                Korman , Michael                          Partner                          Korman-Ng                             Berkeley

                Kulka, Ron                                Assistant Director               Coastal Conservancy                   Oakland

                LaPointe , Alan                           President                        Friends of Wildcat Canyon             Richmond

                LaRiviere , Florence                      President                        Citizens Comm. to Complete            Palo Alto
                                                                                           the Refuge
                Larson , Larry                                                             Alameda County Parks &amp; Rec            Piedmont
                                                                                           Cmssn

                LeGrant , Matt                            Planner                          Oakland Planning Dept.                Oakland

                Lewis, Chuck                              President                        EBRPD Park Advisory                   El Cerrito
                                                                                           committee

                Look, Tony                                Consultant for Land              Calif St. Parks Recreational          Los Altos
                                                          Affairs                          Trails Com.

                Lyles , Glen                              Shoreline Manager                City of Mountain View                 Mountain View

                Matarrese , Martin                        Parkland Resources               Oakland Park Services Dept.           Oakland
                                                          Supervisor

                Mikkelsen, Tom                            Assistant General                E.B.R.P.D.                            Oakland
                                                          Manager
                Oliver, Michael                           Assistant City Manager           City of San Leandro                   San Leandro

                Peskin , Aron                             Project Associate                Trust for Public Land                 San Francisco
<pb n="47" />

               Bay Trail Finance Workshops Roster

               NaMe                                     IlUt                              Company                               aft
               Radigonda , Donna                        Project Specialist                Ga. Dept. of Parks and                Sacramento
                                                                                          Recreation

               Rice , Barbara                           Ridge Trail Director              Greenbelt Alliance                    San Francisco

               Rowlan , Henry                           Outdoor Recreation                Rivers &amp; Trails Technical             San Francisco
                                                        Planner                           Assist. Prog
               Rusmore , Jean                                                             Trails Guide Author                   Portola Valley

               Rust, Audrey                             Director                          Peninsula Open Space Trust            Menlo Park

               Rust, Karen                              Coastal Program Devt.             Coastal Conservancy                   Oakland
                                                        Analyst
               Ryan , James                             Civil Engineer Assistant          City of Petaluma                      Petaluma

               Sakamoto, Wes                            Superintendent of Parks           Hayward Area Rec. &amp; Park              Hayward
                                                                                          District

               Saltzer , Susan                                                            Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corp          San Francisco

               Siri, Will                               Board Member                      Save SF Bay Association/Bay           El Cerrito
                                                                                          Institute

               Spangler, Nita R.                        Chair                             San Mateo Parks and Rec               Redwood City
                                                                                          Comm.

               Steele , Dwight                          Co-Chairman                       Citizens for an E. Shore State        Walnut Creek
                                                                                          Park

               Stone, Nancy                             Outdoor Recreation                Rivers &amp; Trails Technical             San Francisco
                                                        Planner                           Assist. Prog
               Swan , Christopher                       Vice-President                    Speedlink                             Walnut Creek

               Sweeny , Robin                           Mayor                             City of Sausalito                     Sausalito

               Trudeau , Dick                           Parks &amp; Recreation                Lafayette
                                                        Consultant

               Vincent , Barbara                                                          Save SF Bay Association               Richmond

               Vincent , Jay                                                              Harbor Develoment Citizens            Richmond
                                                                                          Advis. Com.

               Vorhaus , Michael                        Director, Corporate and           UC Berkeley, Development              Berkeley
                                                        Fdn. Relations                    Office

               Weden , Don                                                                Santa Clara Co. Advance               San Jose
                                                                                          Planning
               Wells , Ken                              Project Manager                   Browning Ferris Industries            San Jose

               Williams, Susan                          Grants Coordinator                EBRPD                                 Oakland

               Wilson , Carl                            Public Works Dept.                Solano County                         Fairfield

               Zentner , John                           Principal                         Zentner and Zentner                   San Francisco
<pb n="48" />

              APPENDIX D
              Summary of Finance Subcommittee Sessions
              October 27 and 28.

              Members present: Irving Besser (REBAC), Karen Rust (Coastal Conservancy), Nancy Stone, (National
              Park Service - Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance), Henry Rowlan (National Park Service), Janice
              Barbary (Trust for Public Land), Stana Hearne (Citizens for an Eastshore State Park), Martin Matarrese
              (Oakland Parks and Recreation Dept.), Chuck Roberts (Berkeley Parks and Recreation Dept.), Dennis
              Howell (City of Sunnyvale), Peter Ingram (City of Richmond), Eu Rim Chun (Senator Bill Lockyer's Office,
              John Steere, Susan Phillips (ABAG).

              1. Review of Regional Trail Case Studies and Financing Workshops

              The Bay Trail Financing Subcommittee met on Thursday evening, October 27 and Friday morning,
              October 28. John Steere opened the meetings with a highlighting of the four regional trail case studies as
              to their potential lessons for the Bay Trafl. These trails included the Washington and Old Dominion
              (W&amp;OD) Trail; the Yakima Greenway (in Washington State); the Willamette River Greenway and the
              American River Parkway. Each provides some useful lessons for planning of the Bay Trail. The Yakima
              and American River examples are both extensive trail projects that are largely supported by foundations
              established to provide forums for citizen advocacy and to raise revenues for trail development and
              maintenance. The Willamette Greenway was particularly notable for the Greenway planning coordinating
              role played by Oregon's Land Conservation and Development Commission, which has set acquisition
              targets and design compliance standards. The W&amp;OD Trail is overseen by a multi-jurisdictional park
              authority, and its operating costs are met by fiber optics licensing fees for underground easements.
              Property rentals to businesses and homeowners are also a source of income for maintenance costs.

              Results of the financing workshops were then summarized. See the "Workshop Summary" memorandum
              included in this package for further details.

              2. Evaluating the Implementation Strategies

              The subcommittee members were asked to identify and relate the potential roles of organizations to the
              implementation phases of the Bay Trail. Members present at both sessions were in general agreement
              about the appropriate roles for the identified organizations as implementation vehicles; in fact, each
              session reached similar conclusions independently. What follows is a synopsis of the subcommittees'
              implementation strategy discussions; the recommendations made by participants refer to the values
              identified in the attached implementation strategy matrix.

              2.1 The Roles of Governmental Agencies in thp, Iml2lementation of the Bay Trail

              Those present at the October 27 meeting envisioned the roles of cities and counties as largely
              focused in the maintenance and patrolling end of the implementation scenario. They would be important
              players in acquisition and development when exactions or dedications are involved. In fact, a principle role
              identified for cities and counties was to determine where they could use dedications for the securing of
              the Bay Trail easement. Other areas of preferred involvement identified included: 1) incorporating the
              Bay Trail into the local planning process through general plan amendments; 2) providing technical and
              planning assistance for particular segments of the Bay Trail; and 3) distributing maps and/or brochures for
              promoting the trail in their locality. Participants at both meetings noted two limiting factors for cities and
              counties that call for outside involvement or "pressure," i.e. local government avoidance of controversial
              projects and their traditional lack of coordinating plans and policies with other localities and to consistently
              communicate their intentions with them. At the same time, it was indicated that cities would need a clear
              direction to proceed with implementation. These limitations underscore the compensatory role of a third
              party, an advocacy organization like a Bay Trail Fund . It was further rioted that cities and counties planning
              role would likely be limited to local implementation largely via their bicycle and trail plans, some of which
              already accommodate the Bay Trail and others that would require amendments.
<pb n="49" />

               Participants suggested that local government initiative in developing the trail would be improved by a
               "pooling of resources and expertise." Without this, cities would have to independently contract out the
               planning and construction of their trail segments, at great duplication of effort and unnecessary expense.
               In order to prevent this and to "reduce the learning curve," members urged that existing regional
               organizations and agencies (that might include BCDC and the Coastal Conservancy) be tapped to provide
               technical assistance, contract and design standards, and grant coordination.

               Members remarked that the State's role in implementation depends on the agencies involved. BCDC
               and the Coastal Conservancy can serve in a planning and limited coordination capacity as technical
               support organizations to local jurisdictions. State Parks and Recreation, like the State legislature would
               play a major role in funding (e.g. issuing grants). Caltrans could only be looked to for trail development
               support for segments associated with their transportation improvement projects. Members felt that state
               laws and the courts will influence implementation as well.

               Subcommittee members remarked that existing Open Space and Park Districts (OSPDs) like
               EBRPD would be important players in all phases of trail implementation, so long as the segments under
               consideration were within or adjoining their established boundaries. Regional coordination remains an
               important consideration at all levels. OSPI)s would be lead in development and acquisition, but were
               seen as slightly less favorable for operations and patrolling functions relative to local governments.
               Participants ruled out the viability of creating a "Bay Trail Open Space District" to control the entire Bay
               Trail system, due to: 1) the multiplicity of jurisdictions and private land owners.which already operate
               segments of the trail; and 2) the diverse nature of the trail system, which includes bike lanes as well as
               separate trails.

               2.2 The Bay Trail "Fund"as an Iml2lementation Vehigle

               Members were in consensus that a Bay Trail 'Trust" or Fund would be ideally suited for advocacy,
               community outreach and attracting short term financing for acquisition and development. The name of a
               Bay Trail "Trust" may need to be modified , members agreed, to a1und" or "Friends of the Bay Trail,"
               since the "trust" concept implies a more passive entity that engages in land conservation rather than an
               advocacy organization that assists in the funding and development of a recreational corridor. Its role as a
               third party to assist in coordinating individual city plans and in resolving stalemates was also stressed by
               participants. While all felt that a new non-profit vehicle was needed to focus on the Bay Trail , existing
               organizations should be tapped for their expertise and support. Folding the functions of a Bay Trail Fund
               into an existing organization however, was generally seen as inappropriate, since their own purposes and
               agendas would likely supersede that of the trust's primary charge of funding the implementing of the Bay
               Trail and coordinating existing organizations around this task

               The Bay Trail Fund was regarded as an excellent source for financing small trail segments and other short
               term improvements, while local government agencies were seen as being in a better position to provide
               long term funding (particularly for trail maintenance).

               Participants recognized that the variety of political and geographic conditions called for a varied
               implementation strategy. The absence of a single solution for trail implementation requires that there be
               significant coordination not only among municipalities but among the other support organizations. Many
               members felt that a "quasi-governmental" body like a "Bay Trail Management Authority might be in a better
               position to coordinate agency and city plans than would a non-profit organization. The key question then
               is the terms of the relationship between such a management authority (described below) and a Bay Trail
               Fund.

               The fund was not perceived as the organization best suited to carry out the maintenance and patrolling
               functions of the trail. It could contract these out or set up a "rent a ranger" program, but members were
               generally agreed that the OSDs and cities were the more logical administrators. The suggestion was made
               to promote private sector involvement in maintenance or development through the Bay Trail Fund
               sponsoring an "adopt a trail" program, which would be largely applied to segments of the Bay Trail
               adjacent or on corporate property.
<pb n="50" />

             2.3 The Perceived Need for a "Management Authorily"

             A number of participants echoed the suggestion first made at the East Bay Financing Workshop, that a
             Bay Trail "Management Authority" be established through an MOU. This would be a mufti-governmental
             regional trail coalition and would serve as the trail standard setter, the principle coordinator of agency
             planning and policy making and the clearinghouse for identifying where funds are available. It would have
             minimal staffing requirements; it would be governed by a board composed of a various local and agency
             representatives. Members pointed to the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) of ABAG as a logical basis
             for the board of directors -- constituted of local government representation from the nine counties, adding
             one representative from each applicable state or federal agency, and lead environmental organizations. It
             was proposed that the RPC's charge could be extended to include those of the recommended
             management "authority

             A Bay Trail maintenance fund was posed as a possible long term solution for meeting operational costs,
             particularly when management agencies are unable to assume additional responsibilities. A state-seeded
             revolving fund was offered as one means to initiate it, but there was little time remaining for discussion of
             this proposal. Where and how the funds would be generated and distributed are important topics for
             further discussion.
<pb n="51" />

             October 26, 1988

             To: Bay Trail Finance Subcommittee and Focus Groups
             From: John Steere, Bay Trail Project Analyst

             Subject: Summary of Bay Trail Financing Workshops for the
             East, North and South Bay Focus Groups

             October 18 - 20 1988

             The following represents highlights of the issues discussed at each of the financing workshops.
             A. East Bay (October 18)
             1 .     Many participants advocated the creation of a Bay Trail Management "Authorily" to administer the
             building and maintenance of the trail. This was defined as a cooperative agreement among all affected
             jurisdictions with duties spelled out through an MOU (memorandum of understanding), for the purpose
             of: a) fostering cooperation among existing levels of government; b) pooling expertise in funding and
             operating of the Val ; and c) implementing and managing planned segments of the trail if the
             corresponding cities or special districts were unable. This last role could be achieved through "mutual aid"
             agreements among neighboring jurisdictions. Example: Tijuana River National Estuarine Research
             Reserve Management Authority.

             2.      There was consensus that implementation vehicles should be flexible, responsive, and be able to
             easily harness financing tools that involve public/private/non-profit partnerships. There was strong
             support for the concept of a Bay Trail Trust.

             3.      The question was raised as to whether to form a new trust or use existing trusts. Two participants
             suggested that it might be more desirable to "keep it simple" by adding Bay Trail acquisition and
             development to existing trusts' project lists.

             4.      Implementation and fundraising would be facilitated if more of the trail could be made class 1. This
             would ensure a better identity and "imageability" for the trail as well.

             B. North Bay (October 19)
             1 .     Participants felt that there was no one implementation vehicle that would be most appropriate for
             every circumstance. Applications would vary from subregion to subregion. They pointed out that in the
             East Bay the EBRPD would be the most logical means, while in the Bay much of the trail might be best
             implemented through a trust.

             2.      The principle question was which of the proposed means would best "complete the gaps" in the
             proposed trail system. The trust concept was preferred as a vehicle to either a joint powers authority
             (JPA) or interjurisdictional cooperation (IC). A JPA was seen as being too plodding and having too much
             control while an IC was not thought to be strong or binding enough to guarantee timely completion of the
             trail. A trust was especially appreciated for its flexibility, its ability to serve as a unifying principle and to act
             quickly and in the capacity of an intermediary between property owners, developers and governmental
             bodies.

             3.      The trust concept was seen as best applied to acquisition and development phases of the
             project. In these phases it would allow for greater innovation and creativity in pursuit of the goals of the trail
             plan than could corresponding governments and special districts. The trust was also desirable because of
             its capacity to receive private donations that would not be available to cities.

             4.      Several participants noted that a trust could evolve to take on management functions of the trail
             system through contracting out maintenance and/or patrolling to appropriate outside labor pools (e.g., the
             California Conservation Corps).

             5.      Participants indicated that a trust or JPA could use any of the financing tools with the exception of
             the regulatory ones.
<pb n="52" />

                C. South Bay (October 20)
                1 .      It was noted that implementation should be divided into at least two distinct phases of
                acquisition/development and ongoing operation. This distinction was also seen as important to the
                determination of the most suitable vehicle(s) for implementation. Participants pointed out that funding for
                trail acquisition and construction would not be available without operation mechanisms and responsibilities
                in place.

                2.       Again, a Bay Trail Trust was seen as the most desirable vehicle, capable of tapping individual
                initiative and attracting greater private sector participation and "partnerships." However, before the non-
                profit gets underway, the trail's potential operating agencies need to be identified and willing to accept
                responsibility for trail maintenance (see #11, above).

                3.       Members agreed that a Bay Trail trust or fund could raise revenues for maintenance and contract
                out the work; however, this might prove difficult since the public perceive the "management functions" as
                governmental responsibilities. The Yakima Greenway in Washington, for instance, does all fundraising
                and contracts for maintenance through its foundation, but the foundation is finding it far harder to raise
                funds for operation than for trail development.

                4.       Participants liked the idea of calling the trust or non-profit group the "Friends of the Bay Trail" so it
                could be more easily recognized for its important advocacy and coordination role. Advocacy was seen as a
                critical charge for the organization, since a principle hurdle is anticipated to be reluctance of some cities to
                join in the implementation effort. It would also help in maintaining the regional visibility of the trail during its
                development phases. Participants added that local lobbying by the trust should also include advocating
                that cities amend their general plans to include the Bay Trail.

                5.       A JPA was seen as both more formal and difficult to establish. Participants indicated that most
                cites wouldn't buy into a regional authority, particularly since it would likely mean giving up some power to
                another governmental body. The perceived threat of a JPA to local control would only be diminished if the
                JPNs role was closely defined a[ld if its sources of funding were independent of the participating
                localities'.

                6.       No master administering organization was seen as needed, since certain cities and districts will
                implement trail on their own; a new open space district or JPA would be perceived as interfering with local
                initiative. Also, implementation will take place segment by segment.

                7.       The trust could also serve as the coordinating and monitoring organization, particularly for the
                management agreements and ad hoc interjurisdictional coordination that would likely occur in the trail
                segments being built between jurisdictions, (as in the Alviso vicinity in the South Bay).

                8.       Prop 70 "Special District" grants could potentially be tapped by Santa Clara Water District for trail
                sections on the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, if it were indemnified and willing to enter into a
                cooperative agreement with the managing jurisdictions (e.g the City of San Jose).

                9.       Participants indicated that a trust was crucial in implementing the Bay Trail Plan. They urged ABAG
                to play a principle role in establishing the trust and in providing it at the least with technical support, as it
                was seen as the most logical organization to sponsor the trust.
<pb n="53" />

                                                                             3 6668 14109 7024
</text>
</doc>
