Letter To The Editor: City Acted Improperly On RLP Issue

Editor, 

Recent posts on the Patch have attacked the people who filed the December

2011 lawsuit challenging Moraga’s claim that it was exempt from conducting an

environmental review before it transformed Rancho Laguna Park (RLP). They

claim the lawsuit improperly burdened the Town. In fact, the opposite is true.

The Town acted improperly when it ignored its obligation to conduct an

environmental review.

On December 15, 2011, the Town filed a notice claiming that a two-phase

development plan for RLP was exempt from any environmental review. Steve

Smith, a long time resident of Moraga, told Town officials that there were

protected species at RLP; they ignored him. Finally, as the 30-day period to

challenge the claimed exemption came close, Mr. Smith filed a lawsuit to stop the

planned development, and he received confirmation from two biologists that there

are protected species at RLP.

In response to the suit, the Town paid attorneys $58,237.28 to fight, rather

than conducting an inexpensive environmental review. Yet, after incurring those

legal fees, the Town withdrew its plan for RLP. It then spent $7000 on an

environmental review, which confirmed what Mr. Smith told the Town months

earlier – there are protected species at RLP. (The Staff Report for the May 9, 2012

Council meeting contains the report of the environmental consultants.) The

Council (voting 3-2) then adopted a plan proposed by a private soccer club

advocate to create a small enclosed dog park; the plan envisioned two soccer

fields. About 1800 Moraga voters signed a referendum to overturn that plan.

Despite this history, Ms. Mendonca still wants to create a fenced dog park

that would divide RLP. Phil Arth agrees with her.

Why? When she was a member of the Park & Recreation Commission in

2007, Ms. Mendonca advocated a plan to build multi-use sports fields at RLP, as

reflected in the Town’s Park and Recreation Department’s Master Plan, which

included installation of “synthetic turf sports fields in the existing turf areas,” and

a plan to “renovate the creekside as a natural area with restored vegetation.” (See

pages 17, 24 and 28 in the Master Plan at http://www.moraga.ca.us/dept/parkrec/

docs/masterplan111407.pdf )

It is misguided to attack Mr. Smith’s lawsuit, the lawyers who represented

him, and the candidates they support. The lawsuit did not burden the Town; it

vindicated the Town’s interests. If the Town and certain of the Council members,

including Ms. Mendonca, had acted responsibly, then the Town would not have

incurred legal and staff costs. Ms. Mendonca’s unequivocal rejection of any

compromise and her insistence on pushing Moraga citizens who have used RLP

for years out of RLP demonstrate that she is less concerned with representing all

Moraga citizens and more concerned with advancing the goals of the elite private

soccer clubs.

Everyone can share RLP now, while keeping the park as it is. The Town

has done a poor job of maintaining RLP’s turf, overwatering the lawn so that it is

muddy and unusable by people, ignoring the southeast corner that could be

cleaned up and used for a picnic or recreation area, and failing to provide adequate

signs and enforcement to make sure dog owners pick up after their dogs and

respect the limited dog hours. If those steps were implemented, the costs would be

low and the controversy would end.

Ms. Mendonca’s and Mr. Arth’s current position on RLP is inconsistent

with Moraga’s history and philosophy. If they are elected, we can expect

unnecessary expense and controversy.

David Shapiro

Moraga, CA