Who Is Mr. Moynihan Representing?

#76, September 19, 2001

In 1992, Petaluma's City Council proposed turning their spectacular Sonoma Mountain Lafferty Ranch watershed property into a nature park. Dozens of Bay Area communities had nature parks on their mountaintops--it should have been easy. But privacy-loving Mountain newcomer Peter Pfendler wanted Lafferty under his control. After the City rejected his offer to buy it, Pfendler brought in lawyers and consultants who made claims of accident liability and ecological sensitivity. The frightened Council retreated from their modest initial plan, and called for a public committee of park opponents and proponents to work out a compromise.

Over the winter of 92-93, while Petalumans waited for the Council to launch this committee, City and County officials met in private and made a deal with Pfendler. They offered him Lafferty plus $1.4 million of Open Space District (OSD) funds in trade for his horse ranch lower on the mountain. This deal unraveled over the winter of 95-96, as Petalumans learned of the treasure they were giving up at Lafferty. In the spring of 96, with a majority of the Council still unwilling to abandon the trade, Lafferty Park supporters in six weeks gathered 6000 signatures on the "Keep Lafferty" initiative. This initiative would prevent privatization of Lafferty, and directed the creation of a nature park based on "best management practices for public open space and recreational lands in the San Francisco Bay Area." The clear intent of this language, now reflected in the City's Lafferty Park Management Plan, is unsupervised, unregistered public access.

As a countermeasure, the opposition launched two initiatives. One of them (dubbed the "Keep Off Lafferty" initiative) would have left Lafferty in City ownership but limited its used to docent-led tours during restricted times of the year. These two measures were disqualified because their desperate organizers, including staff members of two County supervisors, forged hundreds of signatures in California's largest-ever voter fraud. The City Council subsequently enacted, by unanimous vote, the Keep Lafferty Initiative as Ordinance 2022. Pfendler still got the $1.4 million from the OSD.

Unable to purchase or swap, Pfendler and Co. shifted to a strategy of delay. They used processes under the California Environmental Quality Act to drive up the costs of the City's Lafferty Environmental Impact Report (EIR.) But their concerns for Lafferty's wildlife reeked of hypocrisy. Just one example: they decry the impact of hikers' boots, but for years said nothing when dozens of steer belonging to a neighbor mucked around in "sensitive" wetlands and triggered landslides into Adobe Creek.

Nonetheless, the City's costs mounted, forcing the City to seek financial help from the OSD. Enter Council Member Bryant Moynihan. This September 4^th, he wrote Mayor Clark Thompson asking the City Council to consider a "compromise" plan for Lafferty. Moynihan's plan would require all visitors to register for limited docent-led tours. He writes that he's had "conversations with various stakeholders who have indicated that this compromise could be acceptable to all parties."

Whoa, Mr. Moynihan! First of all, this violates Ordinance 2022-- nowhere in the Bay Area (or in the country!) do public lands require day-use hiker registration, much less supervision. Such restrictions are not supported by Lafferty's EIR. Second, this "compromise" is virtually identical to the restrictions in Pfendler's failed "Keep Off Lafferty" initiative. The City's plan, created in a two year public process by a committee which included Park opponents, already contains significant concessions to the neighbors (e.g. an onsite water tank, no unsupervised night time use.) Third: just who are these "stakeholders?"

Does Moynihan support Pfendler's plan because Pfendler can outspend the City? Then why didn't Moynihan join a Council majority in asking the OSD to return sales tax dollars to Petaluma, to help the City open Lafferty without unworkable, unnecessary restrictions? And why did he propose an alternative that wasn't evaluated in the EIR, which risks opening up the process to another expensive round of public reviews? For someone claiming concern about City finances, he's being either sloppy or hypocritical.

Come to the Council's upcoming meeting on Lafferty and tell Messrs. Moynihan and Pfendler what you think of their plan. (check www.laffertypark.org or call 793-2244 for updates.)