Financing and implementing the Bay Trail tools and strategies

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

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

The Bay Trail

February, 1989

OABi*
S DCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
868 )Center Mailing Address:
-S156 ) & Oak Streets P.O. Box 2050
F56 @nd, CA Oakland, CA 94604-2050
1989 464-7900 Fax: (415) 464-7979

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

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 & Oak Streets P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA Oakland, CA 94604-2050
(415) 464-7900 Fax: (415) 464-7979

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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).

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&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.)

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.

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 &J.
a ......
M pgwajor ........
. .......... .y
eve4o:*p*:m-:: -4:: 1 ltles:.const. dt n, III
en i@@Ii ru to, Z@@@-C& 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)

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

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 & Otheir Agencies 2 - -
(long term lease arrangements for recreational use -- B6)

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

....... ...
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&: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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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&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
> 0 :3 (D 0 0
'0 Cc 0 Cr > - rr >
a) -2 8 cc 0
Cd (a 'D 0 W
< CL < FE <
<

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B
Regional Trail Success Stories

Washington and Old Dominion Trail

1. Location and Descriplion

The Washington and Old Dominion (W&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&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

APPENDIX C
Membership Ligit of Bay Trail Finance Subcommittee
and Focus Group-a

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 & 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 & 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

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. & Park Hayward
District
Steele , Dwight Co-Chairman Citizens for an E. Shore State Walnut Creek
Park
Stone, Nancy Outdoor Recreation Rivers & Trails Technical San Francisco
Planner Assist. Prog
Williams, Susan Grants Coordinator EBRPD Oakland

Bay Trail Finance Workshops Roster

Name iffit Company
Alvarez, Michael Director of Parks & 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

Bay Trail Finance Workshops Roster

Name ilus Company
Havlik, Neil Executive Director Solano Co. Farmland & 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 & 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 & 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

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 & 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. & 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 & Trails Technical San Francisco
Planner Assist. Prog
Swan , Christopher Vice-President Speedlink Walnut Creek

Sweeny , Robin Mayor City of Sausalito Sausalito

Trudeau , Dick Parks & 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

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&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&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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

3 6668 14109 7024