The Trust for Public Land has dropped its appeal of a Marin Superior Court decision blocking the county’s purchase of San Geronimo Golf Course.

The county and the Trust for Public Land reached the out-of-court settlement with San Geronimo Advocates, the citizens’ group that sued the county to block it from acquiring the 157-acre golf course property. As part of the deal, the county has agreed to pay $308,391 in legal costs to the Advocates.

Marin County Counsel Brian Washington announced the settlement Tuesday afternoon after a closed-session meeting with the Board of Supervisors.

Related Articles Live updates: Marin supervisors meeting

“The county appreciates TPL’s partnership with the county in attempting to acquire the San Geronimo property for park and recreational uses,” Washington said in a statement. “This is a fair resolution that allows TPL to move forward.”

Amelia “Niz” Brown, one of the leaders of San Geronimo Advocates, said, “The Advocates are thrilled.”

Brown said the settlement agreement also requires TPL to enter into talks with the Advocates.

“They have to give us three dates to choose from within 45 days,” Brown said.

San Geronimo Advocates also collected more than 10,000 signatures to qualify an initiative for the March 2020 ballot that will allow Marin voters to decide whether golf should be the primary use of the property.

The measure proposes amending the San Geronimo Valley Community Plan to “prevent the Marin County Board of Supervisors, or any Marin County agency or officer, from allowing any change in the primary golf course use of the San Geronimo Golf Course land without the approval of a majority of Marin County voters.”

The county sought to acquire the golf course property for public recreational use and for repair and preservation of the wildlife and fish habitats at the site. At the urging of the county, the trust bought the property from the Lee Family Trust at the end of 2017 to keep the golf course from being purchased by a private entity.

The county contracted to purchase the golf course from the Trust for Public Land for $8.85 million by December 2018, or December 2019 at the latest if escrow were extended.

San Geronimo Advocates, a group of residents seeking to preserve the golf course, filed suit to block the purchase, asserting the county had failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and violated the San Geronimo Valley Community Plan. They asserted that the community plan required that the property continue to be used for golf.

Marin Superior Court Judge Paul Haakenson agreed with the first assertion and rejected the second. On Oct. 26, Haakenson ruled that the county would have to prepare an environmental analysis of its plans for the golf course before purchasing it from the trust.

The lawsuit prevented Marin County from securing state grant money it was counting on to help underwrite the purchase, and on Nov. 13 county supervisors rescinded the resolution authorizing the purchase.

The trust filed its appeal with the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco on Dec. 28. Subsequently, Riley Hurd, the attorney who represented San Geronimo Advocates, filed a cross-appeal of Haakenson’s ruling that the San Geronimo Valley Community Plan doesn’t require the property continue to be used for golf.

On Tuesday, Winter King, a trust attorney, wrote in an email that the organization’s appeal had been “motivated by a concern that the Marin Superior Court’s ruling in the case would set an unprecedented statewide standard that would be damaging to the conservation movement across all of California.”

Nevertheless, King continued, “The Trust for Public Land has concluded that on-going litigation is not the appropriate way to resolve this statewide public policy concern and will instead partner with the broader California conservation community to clarify the intention of the California Environmental Quality Act.

“The Trust for Public Land looks forward to continuing to engage with the community about the exciting opportunities for the San Geronimo Valley property through a separate process.”

Hurd said that had the trust continued with its appeal and lost there would have been a far greater likelihood that the case would have established a legal precedent.

“Superior Court decisions are not citable law; they are not precedential in any way,” Hurd said. “Appellate court decisions are.”

Hurd said the costs and fees associated with his legal representation of San Geronimo Advocates amounted to about $600,000 but he agreed to settle for less.

Editor’s note: This story was corrected to say the county has agreed to pay the legal expenses of San Geronimo Advocates.