Tony, what do you think of the possibility of a countersuit against Cosden, Lewis and the unnamed others, charging them with pursuing frivolous and unnecessary litigation, and asking the courts to compel the group to cover any costs incurred by the Town of Moraga defending against the baseless lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer, so don't know if such an approach would fly, but it's pretty clear that the people who couldn't get their way through negotiation or Town Council deliberation are now seeking to impose their will on the Town through litigation. Seems to me to be a cowardly and costly approach. A countersuit would be neat way to discourage similar activity in the future.

My approach is to win and move on.

The Town made no effort to determine the impact of concentrating people and dogs into an area considered environmentally sensitive.

You do understand the irony of saying "the people have spoken" while staying cloaked? Incidentally, where were all these profound concerns for the environment when dogs were allowed to run all over that park for years? I hope the Town attorneys keep CCP 128.5 handy. Who's kidding who -- this is a ginned up CEQA claim to "keep the dogs free" (to roam all over the park, including the "habitat" that they will damage, unlike, say, a lawn). A solution that would moot the case, of course, would be to ban off-leash dog use entirely -- CEQA doesn't require towns to provide off-leash areas. Better that than to spend money defending this ridiculous case.

TR- I have yet to read a CEQA claim that wasn't "ginned up" to achieve a stated objective. The whole process is corrupt. Plaintiff has to generate their own CEQA and the the billable hours get added up. Sucking up more productive capital that could be used for something else.

Can't we all just get along..

How does litigation generated by one named Moragan, and other unnamed parties, represent the voice of the people? I thought we lived in a representative democracy, where the decision of Town Council represented the voice of the people. Instead, a small group of disgruntled people seeks to impose their will on the Town through litigation. I'd like to see freedom for the people.

The p[eopel may have spoken MF but the dogs have not. still waiting.

woot woot i second that

Well said Ed.
Most of these folks are too enamored of the sound of their own voices (or writ words).
Empty barrels make.........

Tina,
1. It is a common practice to have unnamed parties when an action is filed because additiional parties may be added if appropriate or necessary and that is the legal mechanism for doing so. It is not intended to be secretive.
2. Don't you think the spatial separation, if it were to come to pass, would need to be appropriate for its use? The one approved is not and would very likely lead to injuries to people and animals which contradicts your safety argument.
3. The approved plan includes no compromise at all.
4. You are incorrect that no parks or open space allow dogs to run off-leash at any time, and the "plan" that was passed would not be considered acceptable.
5. Have you considered the dangers of concentrating a sizeable number of people and a sizeable number of dogs in a narrow space on uneven ground surface with obstacles?
6. If you love dogs, how do you propose athletic dogs will be able to run fast, catch balls, etc. if there is no place for them to do it?
7. I hear you are opposed to dog owners and their pets getting to use the field a few hours a day to visit and play, but name calling and blaming doesn't help the process.

I see Karen has beaten me to the punch with this but rather than it being a secretive legal action, filing with unnamed John Does means more people are lining up to take part but that the attorney filed in the name of the lone, stated party. The pro dog folks have been very open and vocal about this issue so I don't see anyone hiding behind a lawsuit.

Karen: 1) won't argue law but it's decsptive 2) Of course it would be appropriate, there are guidelines/ models to follow. 3) Opinion, this is compromise. 4) Didn't even say what you note here, read again 5) Many arguments against fencing are based on dog owners attesting to the friendliness of their pet, therefore, being in a safe, well sized fenced area should pose no problem at all. If you truly believe your pet will behave differently due to being in what will be a rather large space, come back to the basics that all of our beloved dogs have bad days. Just ask the owner of the dog who was put down. He never thought his dog capable of such an attack, and he kept coming back to the park as if nothing happened. 6) Whoever said RLP must cator to dogs with more energy needs? Is this a design mandate? Owners need to do more with energetic dogs than claim catching a ball at RLP is the fix 7) Wrong again, think it's a great community activity, it just needs to be done responsibly, safely, and in a way that never prevents any one type of park user coming to the park, any time of day. Also wrong on name calling and blaming, I have a right to express my opinions (which pale compared to many here on Patch) but, really, how can a law suit help this process?

Karen, I'll just respond to your comment (7) below--most of the other issues you raise represent differences of opinion that aren't likely to be resolved in an online forum.
Tina and I wouldn't be opposed to dogs running off leash a few hours a day, except for three problems:
1) The poop doesn't get picked up.
2) Some owners stretch the hours aggressively.
3) The current offleash hours overlap with the time that others want to use the park.
One poster suggested that the park was available to others 20 hours a day. But that ignores the fact that on average, it's dark for 12 of those hours, and most of the remaining 8 are during the work/school day. The evening hours are the biggest problem--they conflict with when other users would want to use the park. But even if the off leash group were willing to just keep mornings, the current arrangement wouldn't work until the poop problem was fixed.

Tina,
I would appreciate it if you did your homework. Lamorinda dogs has provided information on a number of locations and community parks allowing dogs off leash.
East Bay regional Park system, Golden Gate National Recreation area, Walnut Creek has a number of similar situations. That you would have found if you did some fact checking.
Are there dangers with dogs, Yes. Case in point. In Point Isabel park, a 20 plus acre park with food service, there was one reported dog bite on a human requiring medical attention in the last three years. Point Isabel had over one million visitors last year, and probably just as many dogs. During the same time in Moraga 1700 dogs there were 4 reported incidents of a dog biting a person, the case most memorable happened at Safeway while the dog was tethered and could not escape. (it’s in Lamorinda weekly archives)
The President of Maddies Fund (ASPCA) and former Moraga Mayor Rich Avenzino, spoke at a meeting you were at about dogs saving lives.
I am not associated with the Lawsuit. I do represent Lamorinda Dogs as its president. Lamorinda Dogs is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Please make this distinction in the future.

Bill, on your comment to Tina, we would both agree that there are off leash areas that aren't fenced--we used to regularly take our dog off leash on the trails in Redwood Regional Park. But every land use planning resource we reviewed makes a distinction between large, regional parks, such as Redwood, and small, neighborhood parks such as RLP. There's also a clear distinction between dedicated dog parks, such as Ohlone or Point Pinole, and multi use parks such as RLP. The literature is clear that multi-use neighborhood parks that want to allow off leash dog play need good fencing to function effectively. Heather Farms in Walnut Creek is a perfect example--a one acre fenced in dog area in a much larger park complex. See http://www.walnut-creek.org/citygov/depts/ps/parks/dogpark/default.asp
A connection between Lamorinda Dogs and the current lawsuit against the Town might be possible, due to the "unnamed plaintiffs" specified in the story. As Karen noted, it's not unusual to have unnamed parties when an action is filed, but this strategy cuts both ways, because people make assumptions about who might be involved, and these assumptions may be wrong. I'd be very pleased to learn that you aren't part of the lawsuit, and hope you could intervene with the actual plaintiffs to advocate for a negotiated rather than litigated settlement--the litigation is really offending people, and may result in an outcome that Lamorinda Dogs would prefer to avoid.

I believe, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that no human has ever been 'mauled' by a canine at Rancho Laguna Park. To imply that is imminent is inflammatory, specious, irresponsible and downright unneighborly.

D&T, I'm coming around to your way of thinking--while I previously supported a compromise solution, the unreasonable and counterproductive approach taken by the dog faction leads me to conclude that the only change needed at the park is a sign requiring dogs to be on leash at all times. Almost no cost for the sign, no environmental impact, and we can be done with this mess. Doubt that this outcome is what the plaintiffs wanted, but it may be what they get. And I'm a dog owner--I can't help but wonder what those who don't own dogs may be thinking at this point.

D&T and Jon,
Don't for a minute think you will be "done with this mess" if all dogs are required to be on leash at all times. The dog-owners who enjoy RLP during off-leash time are not going away. I don't know what gives you the idea we will.

By "done with this mess", I simply meant the litigation. If the Town decides to end the off leash policy, I certainly hope that dog owners and their dogs will continue to use the park, with dogs on leash. Such a policy resolves virtually all my perceived issues--dogs would be under control, in a way that's not always true today, and poop is unlikely to be missed, due to the proximity of dog and owner while on leash. I haven't ever suggested that I'd like to see dogs banned from the park, and am not sure why you would read my comments that way. I've seen your other comments indicating that you think on leash dogs may also be banned at RLP. I don't know why you think this is a possibility, I haven't heard that proposal from anyone, and would join you in arguing that on leash dogs should be allowed at RLP if anyone where to argue otherwise.

Well said! Thank you Sally.

And thank you for reminding people of the wonderful community of people that has grown out of sharing the off-leash hours. That is the kind of thing a town ought to be proud of.

That was nicely said.

Except some dog owners don't follow the rules. Off-leash in the middle of the day, half-a$$ attempts to pick up the poop, etc. I said some, not all, but I see this stuff all the time at Rancho Laguna.

Nothing else to add to Tony and Tina's logical points. I think the Council is doing the best they can.

Sally, I don't think anyone that has advocated for spatial separation (fenced in area) at the park has argued for removing the picnic tables and barbeques. Rather, the dog proponents (see Karen Lewis' comments) have indicated that having picnic tables and barbeques inside a dedicated dog area makes the dog area less usable--less space for throwing balls, etc. (see Karen Lewis' comments)--and that a barbeque inside the dog area makes no sense at all (Town Council meeting). Consequently, the Town has agreed to move picnic tables and barbeques from the north end of the park to the south. I don't think anyone expects fewer facilities, just relocated facilities.

Time separation hasn't been working for many park users. I'm not going into why--that topic has been hashed out many times. As Tony and others have noted, dog use "externalities" spoil the park for other users, which is why the dog group represents the most consistent users of the park under today's structure. I generally agree that splitting up the park isn't the best idea overall, but thought that using the north end of the park as a dedicated dog area represented a reasonable compromise. But since the dog group has expressed no willingness to compromise, I now think we will be best served to simply end off leash time at the park, and give others a reasonable chance to enjoy the park--no fence, no environmental impact, just the same types of rules that apply at virtually every other community park in the area.

I support your Idea,
it will require Dog owners to Pick up Poop as John and Tina Chambers say.
It will require people with alternatives to look for them during off leash hours.
it will require dog owners to occasionally yield time.
it will require cooperation.

At the December Town Council meeting, Moraga Parks and Rec presented an estimate of up to $155,300 for new fencing and playground equipment in Rancho Laguna Park. Quotes of $70,000 of that figure were dedicated to dog area fencing. Parks and Rec has said they will have to spend an additional $30,000 to address brush and turf issues inside the dedicated dog area. That's pretty much $100,000--a large sum, I agree. My hope is that as a community we can figure out an amicable solution. I recognize this may require some compromises. It is important that we diligently explore the options before committing considerable financing without considering very carefully the future ramifications. Is a partitioned Rancho Laguna Park with a 24/7 dog run the ideal solution? I would hope the Town will be very careful in managing this valuable resource. This is a good thing that we are raising the awareness of the community so everyone can be heard and counted.

Per the Park and Rec. director, there is no plan to relocate the tables or bar-b-ques once removed. Though this has gone on for so long, almost no planning went into whether and how this whole thing would actually work.

Karen, at the October Town Council meeting, the architect indicated that the plan was to relocate most or all of the picnic tables and BBQs from the north end of the park to the south. I'll agree that he wasn't specific about the number to be moved. When a pro dog speaker talked about how silly it would be to BBQ and picnic inside an enclosed dog area, Councilman Metcalf called the architect up to confirm that the plan was to relocate most of the equipment to the south end of the park. He responded that this was in fact the plan. Through my volunteer work with Boy Scouts, I know that prior to the litigation, the Boy Scouts were contacted by Park and Rec to help with upgrading the designated dog area, at no cost to the Town. I understood that part of the project would include relocating tables and BBQs. The Scouts responded that they would be happy to help, and suggested other possible enhancements to the designated dog area as well. But until the litigation is resolved, we are unlikely to make any forward progress on the issue. The Town's top priority should be to get the plaintiffs to drop the litigation so that everyone can move forward.
Perhaps some of the equipment is too run down to be relocated, but I always understood that the plan was to relocate tables and BBQs, and not to simply remove them. Why would the Town want to eliminate facilities that are still useful and useable?

Agreed, an excellent point. I'm a Moragan that happens to live close to RLP, and who would like to use the park for purposes other than off leash dogs. I'm also a dog owner. Tony Rodriguez, another regular poster, that shares my opinion, is another Moragan who also lives near the park. Based on discussions with local friends and neighbors, most Moragans that I meet want better opportunities to use RLP. There is significant dissatisfaction with Councilman Trotter's decision to slow down the process of restoring the park to make it accessible for other users. Following this inane lawsuit by the dog faction, my opinion has shifted from supporting some type of reasonable land sharing arrangement, to simply ending off leash dog hours outright. No lawsuit, no fence, no new taxes, just a basic sign change, and we'll be done with this contentious issue. It's noteworthy that the lawsuit was filed by an Orinda lawyer.

Bill, you should be aware that lots of people have similar opinions to TMoraga--while his language is a little more blunt than mine, his sentiments are similar. Lamorinda Dogs' confrontational and litigious approach on this issue is turning off many Moragans. You are misreading how most of the public feels about this issue. It's time to give up on your lawsuit, and seriously consider compromise. The most likely alternative to compromise is the end to all off leash activity at RLP--hopefully not as a corporation yard, more likely converting RLP to a traditional park, with dogs permitted on leash only, during all hours the park is open.

MBlog, I encourage you and others to review the Sacramento County Off Leash Dog Task Force report. It's at:
http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/parks/Documents/Off-Leash-Dog-Task-Force-final-report.pdf
At this link, you will find properly researched information on how best to design and manage a dog park. Key takeaways include:
Off leash dog area should be one acre per 25,000 residents.
Fencing is generally necessary for neighborhood/developed parks (like RLP)
"Proper fencing, park rules and safety designs will enable a variety of recreational uses within the same park."
"...enclosed play areas permit [puppies and adult dogs to run] while preventing them from endangering themselves and others..."
As you've noted in the past, dog owners have not always managed their dogs responsibly at RLP. That's why we had the vicious mauling last October, with one dog put down, and the other in extended surgery. Thank god the victim wasn't a child. The choice today at RLP is between a dedicated, fenced off leash area, and no off leash at all. What we have currently isn't "well enough"--we have to change, and we will.

Mr. Chambers,
As you seem to be the self-appointed leader of the anti-dog advocates, I would like to remind you that condemning a whole class of animals for the bad behavior of one is exceedingly narrow minded. Moreover, these animals depend on their human keepers for food, shelter, training and supervision to coexist with humans in this world. Your vitriol should be aimed at the irresponsible dog owners and not the animals.
It becomes a different story when you have to chastise your neighbors instead a bunch of lower case animals. I'd join you in weeding out those bad apples!
The facts (sic) in your statical analysis are all based on bad human behavior, The über-educated and refined citizens of our fair town(s) frankly should know better!

MBlog, I don't consider myself to be the leader of any particular group. I'm just a Moraga citizen with an opinion, and I'm willing to share it. Since I became concerned about the "bad human behavior" you've noted at RLP, I've done some research to learn how other communities deal with similar problems. What I've learned tells me that virtually no other community tries to share a park as small as RLP through temporal separation--they use dedicated dog parks, or fenced areas in multi use parks. And the guidelines indicate that one acre of off leash space typically supports 25,000 residents. I understand the fencing plan provides for 1.1 acres of dedicated dog space--which, when combined with off leash areas at Mulholland Ridge, and just outside town in Redwood Park, should be more than sufficient off leash space for the 14,000 residents of Moraga.
Do I understand that the dog group perceives the planned changes to be a takeaway relative to the current arrangement? Yes. Do I agree that if ALL dog owners had used the park responsibly, we wouldn't be having these discussions? Yes. Do I agree that bad owners are the real problem, not bad dogs? Yes. Do I agree that we should leave well enough alone, and try to solve the bad owner problem? No, that hasn't worked, and we should do more. Do I want to police the park personally? No.
I'm not anti-dog, I'm pro people. As noted in the past, we take our dog off leash in appropriate areas, not at RLP. I direct no "vitriol" at the dogs.

MBlog: Do you really think that people who disagree with you want to regulate dogs and not people? That is a silly construct. Speeding laws do not regulate cars; drug laws don't regulate drugs. Laws bind PEOPLE. It seems that your central claim is that if ALL dog owners were good citizens, we wouldn't need rules. Although charming, this doesn't help much with policy formulation.

Based on personal experience, the poop of blameless dogs still stinks when you step in it....

Jeanne, I'm going to have to come back to Tony's original comment--give me a break. Bill Carman hasn't told me "over and over" that Lamorinda Dogs isn't involved in the lawsuit--he's told me once, and I accepted it. As I noted above, Cosden's suit included numerous unnamed parties, and I made the rational, but potentially erroneous assumption that at least some of the unnamed parties were affiliated with Lamorinda Dogs. Based on Carman's note, I asked him to help mediate with the plaintiffs, since the decision to file a lawsuit could cause a negative outcome for all, including Lamorinda Dogs. If none of the plaintiffs are involved with Lamorinda Dogs, I apologize for the term "litigious".
"Confrontational" is more subjective, and I'll stand by that term--your message above is a case in point. If I've got any facts wrong, I'm happy to have them corrected, but other than Bill's involvement in the suit, I've yet to see any specific facts challenged in a meaningful way. And I hear what you are saying about feeling that you weren't fairly listened to, because I and others feel exactly the same way--we've kept repeating that off leash dogs negatively impact our right to use the park, only to hear the dog faction claim that there have been no objections to the current structure. We'll make far more progress if we start listening to each other, instead of blaming the other side. I've tried hard to avoid blame, but it's getting increasingly difficult.

Karen, I might agree with your environmental claims under the version of the plan that extended the off leash area along the east side of the park. This would have required the removal of a significant amount of brush. But the Town decided to drop this plan, and simply fence the north end of the park, precisely because the latter configuration would have less potential environmental impact. The plaintiff's argument that simply putting up a fence requires environmental review seems specious. And I heard the elderly woman note she used the path while her dog ran off leash. But I fail to see why she couldn't use the path while her dog played in the off leash area. We aren't talking about a significant distance here, and I'd like to think that the community of friends she's made would help with any dog issues--which they would have had to do currently, given the woman's limited mobility. I also heard another elderly woman testify that she couldn't use the park for post-surgical recovery because of her concerns about being bumped or harassed by off leash dogs. She benefits from the change. The Council's job was to listen to testimony, and to reach a decision that balanced all views and opinions--which is what they did. You claim that the Town didn't hear or consider your arguments; it's more likely that they heard them, but felt that it was in the overall Town's best interest to separate off leash dogs from other park users, like almost all other similar communities.

Sage advice, King Solomon--- I mean T-Rod.

Tony, I understand your position.
To Karen, Bill, Jeanne, or anyone else monitoring this thread that may have any influence with Cosden or Lewis, I encourage you to use your influence to get them to proactively drop the lawsuit. If the suit proceeds, I expect we will see the end of all off-leash activity at RLP, as Tony, D&T, TMoraga and others have suggested. I don't think this outcome is what you intended or hoped for. If the suit is dropped, I believe that compromise is still possible.

MBlog, this proposal is just plain strange. I've yet to hear anyone advocate that the Council spend money unnecessarily. In fact, the opposite is true--most suggest the Town should avoid the cost of litigation by simply ending off leash hours.
Why doesn't the dog group purchase the southern property? I don't think anyone would be oppposed to a private dog park with whatever rules the group feels are appropriate. TMoraga suggested this earlier.
I'll come back to the basic premise--virtually every responsible dog organization suggests that shared parks with off leash areas need adequate fencing. This is not just my opinion. See ASPCA "Ideal Dog Park Features--Secure fencing and gates"
http://www.aspcabehavior.org/articles/58/Dog-Parks-.aspx, AKC "One acre or more of land surrounded by a four- to six-foot high chain-link fence." http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GLEG01.pdf, City of Sacramento "Dog Parks shall be designed with ... a 6 foot high fence enclosing the dog park" http://www.cityofsacramento.org/parksandrecreation/ppdd/advance-pdf/CAC-MaintainableParkDesignGuidelines.pdf, and many others. This information isn't hard to find. Why do you continue to argue that the status quo is not a problem? The Town has simply been trying to fix this longstanding problem, in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of off leash park users. If the fix is too costly, the obvious alternative is to end off leash completely.

MBlog, sorry for misreading your sarcasm. Sometimes it can be difficult to comprehend your intent. The idea of a separate area for off leash dogs isn't a bad one, but I think we both agree that they problem is who should pay for the separate area.

As I've said in the past, I'm not anti-dog--I know the real problem is with some of the owners, who don't behave responsibly. But I'd like to see outcomes change--and separating off leash dogs from other park users (read "fence") seems a terrific way to get better outcomes for all park users.

For example, from your Vancouver link, I see the following "Principles", which I strongly support--note in particular, Principle 3:

Principle 1: Off-leash areas are an important part of our park system.
Principle 2: Off-leash areas need to work for all park users.
Principle 3: Physical separation can create off-leash areas that work for all.
Principle 4: Good design will create places that work for people and dogs.
Principle 5: Off-leash areas need to be carefully placed within parks.
Principle 6: Off-leash areas need to be strategically located across the city.
Principle 7: There is a meaningful role for education and enforcement.
Principle 8: Off-leash areas part of standard park planning processes.

And while I don't support shooting dogs on sight, I do support shooting irresponsible owners (my tongue now in cheek)!

MBlog, I'm really pleased that you shared this Vancouver link. It seems that they've made lots of progress in figuring out how to share parks between off leash users and other park users. See the following presentation from July 2011:
http://vancouver.ca/parks/board/2011/pe110707/Off-LeashAreasPE07072011.pdf

In particular, note the explanation of Principle 3 on slide 36:

("Physical separation can create off‐leash areas that work for all.
o boundaries for dogs and dog owners
o comfortable observation points for other park users
o respond to park context")

Also note the example park layout on slide 40--a large lawn area with a perimeter path, and a separate fenced in dog park at one end of the park, with shade trees in the dog area. Does this look familiar to anyone? JD, perhaps you could post this graphic as an example of what RLP could become.

Thanks for your "principled" response(s), Jon. But it seems you've cherry-picked one small item in Vancouver's voluminous treatise on the Human/Canine dynamic. Their underlying philosophy is heavily weighted toward human responsibility (why am I not shocked by this?) and basically assumes: if your dog is a breed with agressive tendencies or has proved to be untrainable in the basic commands that accomplish solid verbal control, do not bring them to the off-lead parks. They insist that dogs be vaccinated, licensed, and most importantly trained in obedience before they should ever be let off a lead. Also emphasized in their Human/Canine dynamic philosophy is owner supervision of their animals.
If these principles were applied here (and dog owner's checked their egos at the gate and acted responsibly) we would never have reached this public safety crisis. This phenomenon of (let's be clear here: SOME not ALL) dog owners being essentially clueless about the nuances and serious responsibilities associated with taking a dog off-lead in public is epidemic in this country.
Frankly, the folks of these 'affluent, educated communities' should know better. I find it embarrassing that they feel the off-lead park is primarily a social vehicle for them and not a place to get some fresh air and exercise for their dogs and themselves. The social aspect has to be secondary to the primary reason for being there, their pets!

Pat - no one has a bigger reason to complain about the roads here than new home owners who have paid big money to purchase homes and also pay big tax bill associated to said home purchase. I have Family in the Development and Planning business the lack of Town Infrastructure planning ie funding when the Town Incorporated is what they view as a ROOKIE mistake during the Incorporation process. Now the town is full of older home owners who enjoy extremely low taxes and will fight to the end against any type of funding effort to properly fund a scheduled street care and sealing plan. We have already see these voters suggest that the new home owners be saddled with this cost based on one's property tax status. Again older home owners who have used the roads for 30+yrs who pay virtually zero in taxes want people who pay the most in taxes and have probably used the roads far less to nearly zero in comparison to shoulder the burden of fixing them.

The only fair solution is a standard parcel tax to all properties and for that parcel tax to be high enough to address all the needs so we don't see an issue like Lafayette where those who got their roads fixed now vote against any additional funding to fix the rest of the town. LOL