BONC has learned that a vocal minority has lobbied to make significant, 11th hour changes to the Western Nevada County Non-Motorized Recreational Trails Master Plan. As you may know, the board of supervisors will hold a hearing on this plan tomorrow (Tuesday) 9/21. These changes would undermine the intent and impact of the plan. As trail advocates and users, we need to speak out NOW to preserve the integrity of the plan and all the work the community has put into developing it.
Please do so by submitting the following sample letter or fashion your own. Send it to the following addresses ASAP (again, the meeting is tomorrow). Snail mail is best, but of course time is short. If you want to attend the meeting and speak out, even better:
WHEN: TUES SEPT 21 1:30 PM
WHERE: Board Chambers at the Eric Rood Administrative Center
Eric Rood Administrative Center
950 Maidu Avenue
Nevada City, CA 95959
SAMPLE LETTER
---------------------------------------------
Larkyn Feiler
Advance Planning Division
Nevada County CDA
950 Maidu Avenue, Suite 170
Nevada City, CA 95959
Fax: 530.265.9851
Email: Larkyn.Feiler@co.nevada.ca.us
SUBJECT: Conditional Support for Plan Draft September 8, 2010
RE: Western Nevada County Non-Motorized Recreational Trails Master Plan
REQUEST: This letter be entered into public record of this matter
I support (with important exceptions, detailed below) the Western Nevada County Non-Motorized Recreational Trails Master Plan Draft of September 8, 2010. I applaud the effort to create such a plan and believe the county has done sufficient due diligence in soliciting community input for this plan.
The aforementioned exceptions to my support include:
PLAN NOW, IMPLEMENT NEXT - I do not support inserting language into a planning document that seeks to specify, or restrict implementation of this plan. There is adequate process for public input available if and when a specific segment of trail becomes available for dedication to purposes specified in the plan.
TRAILS NEAR ROADS - Users prefer to use trails which are separated from roads and vehicle traffic by a margin sufficient for such users to be comfortable for their safety, and to derive enjoyment while using such trails. Trails are a desirable amenity, even when they are separated from roads by mere scores of feet, and even if the routes are roughly parallel. Thus, I do not support a proposed restriction on developing public trails on private property next to private roads.
PUBLIC USAGE - I do not support language in Western Nevada County Non-Motorized Recreational Trails Master Plan that seeks to discourage use of public easements, whether or not users are completely informed of their legal rights. Specifically, I do not support the placement of signs that attempt to scare lawful public users away from public easements. Thus I specifically oppose this language (or similar language) in the plan: "Public misuse of these easements constitutes trespassing and property-owners will be within their rights to take legal action against trespassers."
TEMPORARY CLOSURE - I do not support inserting language into a planning document that seeks to specify, or restrict implementation of the plan. Any request seeking to declare temporary closure of any public easements is not consistent with Nevada County's responsibility to facilitate the health and welfares of its residents, and to provide for public use of publically-held easements.
SIGNAGE - I do not support proposals for signs that attempt to discourage residents from lawful use of lawfully-permitted public easements, whatever the condition of such easements may be. Thus I oppose any signage similar to: "No Public Access. Resolution No. 10-XXX".
MANAGEMENT - I oppose any proposal similar to: "Public trails shall not be available for public use until land entitlement, funding, a responsible entity, and a trail-specific operations and management plan are established and improvements are made for public safety and enjoyment."
MAPS- I oppose the recommendation made by Agricultural Advisory Commission (AAC) that " Any line depicting a trail (any line on a map) on private land that is not supported by an easement should be removed".
AGRICULTURE - I oppose the assertion by the Agricultural Advisory Commission (AAC) that "The public benefit of agricultural lands supersedes the public benefit of recreational trails on agricultural land"
SUBDIVISIONS - I oppose the assertion by the Agricultural Advisory Commission (AAC) " The dedication of trail easements must be proportionate to the subdivision or proposed discretionary use".
Thank you for your consideration of these views
------------------------------------------
