As published in the San Francisco Chronicle, September 28, 2000 Greenbelt Gaining Ground in Sonoma County Janet Wells, Chronicle Staff Writer URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/09/28/MN9975.DTL
SONOMA -- With a palette of sun-splashed vineyards, oak-studded rolling hills, redwood groves and streams meandering to a craggy coastline, the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District would seem to have an enviable task. After all, similar land preservation districts in the East Bay, Silicon Valley and Marin County enjoy considerable popular support in their mission of saving open space from encroaching urbanization. Yet for Sonoma County's district -- just two months shy of its 10th anniversary -- the road to preservation has been a minefield of trouble. Two recent changes in the district have mollified many of the harshest critics. But the changes also indicate a significant shift away from catering to the agricultural community -- a bitter pill to swallow for what was once the county's most powerful constituency. ``Agriculture is being dropped down in priority to be mixed with greenbelt and recreation,'' Judy James, executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, said of the district's new direction. ``We feel ag(riculture) should be the top priority.'' Although the Bay Area's land preservation districts face similar pressures -- booming population, wildly escalating real estate prices and aggressive development -- agriculture sets Sonoma County apart. It is no accident that the word ``agriculture,'' as a significant part of the county's heritage and economic base, was placed first in the district's title. It was an explicit signal of priorities, and it is unlikely that the 1990 ballot measures that formed the district and levied a 20-year, quarter-cent sales tax to fund it would have passed without it. The district has been wildly successful implementing the first part of its mandate, ranking as one of the top in the nation for preserving farmland. But it has taken a beating for its dismal record in negotiating for public access to its open space. Instead of purchasing land outright, the district relies heavily on buying conservation easements as a preservation tool. Just 10 percent of the district's 32,000 acres are open to the public --compared with almost 100 percent public accessibility in the East Bay and on the Peninsula. With the high-tech boom reaching into Sonoma County, the demographics of the region have changed considerably in the decade since the district was formed. An increasingly vocal group of residents wants more than a scenic agricultural corridor for their money. ``The people in the community, they want access to the land they can see from their windows,'' said Carol Vellutini, a Sierra Club activist who has long pushed for trails on district lands. ``People move here from the Bay Area, and they're used to going wherever they want. I've had people come to me and ask about it. They were shocked that you couldn't walk to the ridge tops.'' Until recently, critics predicted that when the district's 20-year sales tax revenue agreement ran out, voters would be unlikely to pony up again for an agency that has done so little to enhance public recreational opportunities. Then the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors made two long-awaited decisions that yielded an abrupt shift in attitude. First, in midsummer, the five- member board gave final approval to an acquisition plan that had been in the works for almost two years. The plan -- for the first time -- provides funding specifically to preserve recreational land. Then, 18 months after unceremoniously firing the district's general manager, David Hansen, the supervisors chose a successor. Their decision surprised nearly everyone -- veering from the status quo choice of the interim general manager, Steve Sharpe, and opting instead for the district's senior open space planner, 40-year-old Andrea Mackenzie. ``With the acquisition plan, plus picking Andrea, it really shows that (the supervisors) are thinking differently about the district,'' said Caryl Hart, a member of the district's Open Space Advisory Committee. ``It's really in line with the district making a new start.'' Significantly, Mackenzie was the project manager on the Acquisition Plan 2000. Now that she has taken over the reins of the district, her main agenda is to put it into action, she said. The 25-page plan breaks the county into four categories -- agriculture, greenbelt, natural resources, recreation -- and used sophisticated mapping technology to identify acreage that is critical to conserving the region's animal and plant habitat, farmlands, community separators and recreational opportunities. The five-member district authority committed $10 million for each of the categories over the next three years. ``People need to be able to see and experience what their sales tax money has gone toward,'' said Mackenzie. ``If they know their money is being equally spent on agriculture, recreation, greenbelt and resources, it addresses the `what have you done for me?' question.'' Although the acquisition plan does not open the door any wider to public access of lands preserved through conservation easements, the commitment of equal funds to a specific recreation category was enough to satisfy many trail advocates. The hope is that the plan will also help take politics out of the decision-making, said the acquisition plan's lead scientist, Adina Merenlender, a landscape ecologist at the University of California at Berkeley. The district has a history of falling prey to political bickering, which hampered the 17-member advisory board and impeded numerous negotiations. As a result, the district lost out on several plum properties -- including the west county's pristine Bohemia Ranch -- even though the coffers are flush with $47 million for land acquisition. The district has been sharply criticized for stockpiling so much money while allowing prime acreage to go into private hands. In 10 years, the district has spent $55 million of the public's money to preserve 32,500 acres of land. The bulk of the funds went to farmers and ranchers, who received up to 80 percent of their property's market value in exchange for giving up future development rights. In such a transaction, the district holds title to a conservation easement, while the farmer or rancher retains ownership and use of the property. Consequently, ``no trespassing'' applies to 90 percent of the district's lands. To sweeten the deals for the public, district staff members pushed for trail access to the land -- until the farm community balked, citing a laundry list of concerns about trespassing and liability. ``Trails are an incompatible use in and adjacent to agricultural areas,'' former Farm Bureau President Richard Mounts wrote in a 1997 memo to the supervisors. The fight over public access took on an increasingly vitriolic and political tone in the past few years. Sonoma Mountain -- with its sweeping views and air scented by wild fennel -- became a lightning rod for the issue. On the one side are outdoor enthusiasts who want a trail that would allow public access to Petaluma- owned land at the top of the mountain. On the other side is the Sonoma Mountain Conservancy, a group of well-connected, wealthy anti-trail landowners led by rancher Peter Pfendler. According to one source, the 50 or so publicity-shy landowners control 16,000 acres on Sonoma Mountain -- and they have tried a variety of ways to deep-six the proposed trail. Most recently, Sonoma County Supervisor Tim Smith -- buddies with at least two people who work for the Sonoma Mountain Conservancy, Santa Rosa attorney Steve Butler and political consultant Nick Tibbetts -- made a motion to dump Sonoma Mountain from the newly approved acquisition plan's ``priority greenbelt'' designation. Realizing he didn't have the votes, he abruptly changed his mind a week later, agreeing with board members Mike Reilly, Mike Kerns and Mike Cale to put Sonoma Mountain back on the map. Although public access through Sonoma Mountain is a long way off, trail advocates saw the turnabout as a clear victory. Even more important, the trail advocates say, is the acquisition plan itself. ``It's a course correction midstream, and it's called for,'' longtime environmental activist and former Sonoma County Supervisor Bill Kortum said. Even Supervisor Paul Kelley -- who has been lukewarm about trails and was the lone vote against including Sonoma Mountain as a priority greenbelt -- approved the acquisition plan, calling it ``a good road map for the district.'' Not everyone, however, thinks that the plan is a winner. Sonoma County's agricultural community maintains that the district's voter-approved mandate was to preserve farmland, not to provide public parks. ``Trail advocates have been doing a good job in being a squeaky wheel and prevailing,'' said James. ``The whole purpose (of the ballot measures) was to protect farms and ranches.'' Yet if the pendulum keeps swinging toward public access to open space, the agricultural community stands to lose even more when the sales tax measure comes up again in 10 years. Larry Modell is one of many staunch trail advocates who are likely to be pushing for an agency in Sonoma County that focuses on open space, rather than on agriculture. ``We need to have a more standard-type open space district that understands public money should go to public lands,'' Modell said. E-mail Janet Wells at jwells@sfchronicle.com PROTECTING OPEN LAND: PUBLIC AGENCIES
*Includes acreage currently open to the public, as well as lands that will become accessible in the future. **Includes tax revenues, as well as grant funding. |
