OFFICE OF THE
Board of Directors Board of Directors
Dear Directors: During the initial public hearing on the District's Acquisition Plan 2000 on May 23, 2000, testimony often turned to the District's acquisition of recreational lands. At the end of that public hearing, you asked for a brief review of the scope of the District's ability to acquire lands for recreational purposes, so as to ensure that the District complies with current law as it moves forward in its consideration of the new acquisition plan. This review is based on our prior letters of May 19, 1997 and July 7, 1999, copies of which are attached for your convenience. [1] Summary As we have outlined in our prior letters, sales tax revenues may be used by the District only for acquisitions which are consistent with the Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in 1990, and with the 1989 Sonoma County General Plan. The determination of consistency with the Expenditure Plan is to be made by the Authority and consistency with the General Plan by the District Board of Direetors. Each proposed acquisition must be evaluated on its own merits. District acquisitions of land for public recreation, including parks and trails, must meet the same test of consistency with the voter-approved Expenditure Plan and the 1989 General Plan. As discussed below, this means that the District cannot purchase recreational lands unless those lands support preservation of agriculture or open space as provided in the Plans. Discussion I. Consistency with Exnenditure Plan Every acquisition made with tax revenues must be consistent with the Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in 1990. [2] The determination of consistency with the Expenditure Plan begins with the Plan's opening statement:
The Plan designates five open space categories: (i) community separators; (ii) scenic landscape units and scenic corridors; (iii) critical habitat areas and riparian corridors; (iv) other areas of biotic significance including the Petaluma River, Laguna de Santa Rosa, and San Pablo Bay margin; and (v) other open space projects which meet the requirements for matching grant programs, such as the restoration of the Petaluma River and the Santa Rosa Creek. From these opening provisions, we can draw some general guidelines: A. Recreation as Secondary Use The Expenditure Plan has, historically, been interpreted by the Authority and the District to require that each individual acquisition have, as its primary purpose, the preservation of agriculture or protection of one of the five designated open space categories. Lands within those categories may be purchased by the District for public recreational purposes, but only if, the recreational use is compatible with the underlying agricultural or open space use. The recreational use may be authorized on District lands if it is found to be "not inconsistent" with the underlying open space purpose, i.e. preservation of agriculture or one of the five open space categories. B. Scope of Recreational Uses The Expenditure Plan is silent as to the scope of recreational uses allowed within District acquisitions. The Expenditure Plan, however, implements the 1989 General Plan. The Open Space Element of the 1989 General Plan describes outdoor recreation to include parks, equestrian and hiking trails, and bikeways. Therefore, any of these recreational uses could be considered as possible secondary uses on District lands, provided that they do not interfere with the underlying agricultural or open space use for which the property was acquired. Thus, for example, lands acquired by the District as a "community separator" could, under appropriate circumstances, be used for ball fields. Lands within "scenic landscape units" could, under appropriate circumstances, be used for undeveloped parks. The recreational use may encompass all or only a part of the property. There is a question, however, as to the ability of the District to use tax revenues to acquire separate trails -- trails not associated with a larger open space acquisition. As set forth in Counsel letter of May 19, 1997, a fair argument can be made to support acquisition of separate trails, provided that the trail serves one of the five open space categories in the Expenditure Plan and is consistent with the 1989 General Plan. The District and the Open Space Authority, as the bodies charged with administration of the Expenditure Plan, must determine the best reading of the Plan on these issues. II. Consistency with General Plan Every acquisition must be consistent with not only the Expenditure Plan, but also with the General Plan. As explained in our earlier letters, Measures A and C, approved by the voters in 1990, both specifically reference the "1989 Sonoma County General Plan". Because the citation is specific, General Plan consistency must be measured against the 1989 General Plan as it appeared at the time of the election. Amendments to the General Plan adopted after passage of Measures A and C can be considered only if they are found to be consistent with the 1989 General Plan. A. Consistency with Open Space Element of the General Plan The Open Space Element of the 1989 Sonoma County General Plan includes provisions for parks, equestrian and hiking trails, and bikeways. (Sections 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 6.0 of the Open Space Element and Section 3.1 of the Public Facilities and Services Element.) 1. Parks The 1989 General Plan's provisions for parkland are set forth in Sections 4.0 and 4.1 of the Open Space Element and Section 3.1 of the Public Facilities and Services Element. A map of existing and proposed parks and public lands is set forth in Figure OS-4a. The locations shown on that map are not parcel-specific. To be consistent with the 1989 General Plan, District acquisitions for parklands should fall within the general areas set forth on the map or be designated by the County Board of Supervisors in accordance with section 4.1 of the Open Space Element and section 3.1 of the Public Facilities and Services Element. 2. Hiking and Equestrian Trails Designated areas for hiking and equestrian trails are shown on the map (Figure OS4a) and are described in the policy text (Policy OS-7d). As explained in my letter of July 7, 1999, there are some differences between the map and the text. The significance of those differences is not altogether clear. The text states that "the trails on Figure OS-4a on page 187 make up the County's designated plan for trails" (emphasis added). The text describes a series of fourteen specific trails, with approximate locations, that correspond to the map on Figure OS-4a. Because the 1989 General Plan expressly identifies this series of fourteen trails as the County's designated trail system, an argument can be made to limit District trail acquisitions to the specific trails identified therein. But the 1989 General Plan does not stop there. The text of Policy OS-7d also lists three categories for the classification of "potential trails": (i) trails to provide access to designated waterways, (ii) hiking and equestrian trails along the Sonoma County/Napa County boundary and those linking state and county parks adjacent to urban areas, and (iii) multi-use trails that make use of other publicly owned land. Relying on this language, it is possible to consider additional trail acquisitions provided (a) the trail falls within these three additional categories, (b) the Board of Supervisors, by General Plan Amendment, designates such trails for inclusion in the County's designated trail system, and (c) the District Board of Directors determines that such acquisitions are consistent with the 1989 General Plan. [3] 3. Bikeways The 1989 General Plan's policies for bikeways are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Open Space Element. Areas designated for bikeways are set forth on the map in Figure OS-4b. To be consistent with the General Plan, any lands intended to be used for bikeways should fall within the bikeways identified on this map. B. Consistency with Agricultural Element of the General Plan Public access and recreational uses of agricultural lands under District protection has also been discussed in public hearings. Section 2.6 of the Agricultural Element of the 1989 General Plan recognizes the possibility of outdoor recreational uses on agricultural lands, but cautions for careful regulation of the location and intensity of such nonagricultural uses, so as to ensure that the use will not hinder the primary agricultural use of the land. When and if recreational uses are proposed in agricultural areas, general plan consistency will very much depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular property and the particular proposed use. III. Process Under the current contract between the Open Space Authority and the District, the Authority holds responsibility for making the factual determination of whether an acquisition is consistent with the Expenditure Plan. Under that same contract, the District holds responsibility for making the factual determination of General Plan consistency. We hope that this review will be helpful as the District moves forward with consideration of the Acquisition Plan 2000. If you have further questions or concerns, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
Attachments cc: Steven Sharpe (1) The letter of May 19, 1997 concerned issues surrounding irrevocable trail offers and acquisition of trails by the District. The letter of July 7, 1999, provided a broad analysis of Measures A and C approved by the voters in 1990. (2) Lands donated to the District or acquired with funds other than tax revenues are not subject to the restrictions of the Expenditure Plan. (3) It would not, however, be consistent with the 1989 General Plan to acquire a trail alignment which had been specifically mapped and proposed for inclusion in the county's designated plan for trails, but expressly deleted by the Board of Supervisors during the course of the plan's adoption. |
