#3: January 1, 1999
A cynic is one who
knows the cost of everything, and the value of nothing. So say the wise.
In my next two
columns, I present the case against cynicism about our quest to create a
wilderness park at Lafferty Ranch.
First, let’s examine
the cost. In 1959, the City of Petaluma bought Lafferty, including its water
supply infrastructure, for a little over three million dollars. In 1962,
recognizing its recreation potential, Lafferty was designated a “community
park” site in our General Plan.
In 1996, with
overwhelming community support, the City Council voted unanimously to create
Lafferty Park, and since then has spent or committed about $272,000. Recently,
an additional $110,000 was budgeted to
complete the process, bringing the total to open Lafferty Park to
$382,000.
Only $70,000 of this
total is actually required for park development. Most of the total ($312,000)
is being spent for the process of planning and impact analysis. Normally, Petaluma
could have done this work quite well for about $50,000 (based on the costs for
comparable parks in the North Bay.) The
reason for the six-fold increase is clear: the threat of litigation from
neighbors who don’t want a park in their neighborhood.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
(VIP) #1: the Lafferty Park plan was developed by local environmentalists to
allow daylight-hour hiking on spectacular watershed/grazing land. Not a
shopping mall on a flood plain, or an urban fringe subdivision, clearly demand a full Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). Not a BMX park on a vernal pool. Not even an estate home (all the
homes on Sonoma Mountain were built without EIRs.) Just a 15-car parking lot
and a few miles of carefully placed single-track trails. With prohibitions on
anything but pedestrian travel, it will be the lowest impact rural park in the
Bay Area.
The City’s Lafferty
Access Committee, of which I was a member, had high hopes for an economical
process. We developed the plan with donated labor. We lined up volunteer
experts from public agencies and wildlife organizations to do much of the
impact analysis. We were prepared to do a “mitigated negative declaration,” a
streamlined process used for low impact projects.
I remember the
turning point. In a meeting with the lead city planner, we found language in the State’s EIR
guidelines that required a full EIR whenever there was “significant
controversy” over the potential impacts. The City’s legal staff believed that
the well-funded opposition would surely convince a judge that there was
significant controversy, even if there wasn’t significant environmental impact.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
#2: We knew all along that, barring some breakthrough in neighbor relations,
the City would be sued if we pursued the park plan. Our strategy has always
been to enter the court under terms most favorable to the City (i.e. most
likely to succeed at the least expense.)
Unfortunately, that
strategy required us to abandon the mitigated negative declaration and spend an
extra $50,000 to do a full EIR. When
the opposition got the County to set unprecedented standards for the access
road, we added $14,000 for additional traffic studies (for “traffic” averaging
6 cars per hour!) $32,000 was added for additional fishery studies. Ring up an
extra $40,000 to respond to the barrage of comments on the draft EIR by the
opposition. Add $21,000 for property boundary surveys. Last but not least:
$105,000 for legal services. (These figures were taken from the most current
City records.)
So instead of a $50,000
process, we have a $310,000 process. Take it from someone who truly loves the
Earth: this additional money does nothing
to protect the environment (see VIP #1 above.) It’s simply the price of getting
over the obstructions put in our way by our neighbors, the cost of protecting
our 40-year-old investment in this unique property.
Is it worth it? Tune
in to next week’s edition and find out how, if the park dies, everyone loses, including the neighbors.
And hear about a better way to proceed.