.

So Close, Yet So Far Away: Historic Lafferty Ranch Still Closed to Public Despite Being Owned by City

Advocates say park needs to be open to local residents; neighbors say more traffic on mountain will cause fire hazard and crime

For more than half a century, the city of Petaluma has owned a 270-acre property in East Petaluma that outdoor enthusiasts call a jewel. Situated on the western face of Sonoma Mountain, it has incredible ancient oak and bay tree groves, vernal pools and sweeping views of Mt. Tamalpais and the coast.

But there is one small problem. The property, called Lafferty Ranch, has been off limits to the public because of a dispute over the ownership of a tiny strip of land-- 20 feet to be precise— that provides access to the park.

“It’s a national treasure the city has owned for so long and it’s a shame that people of this town and the neighbors don’t have access to it, like they do to all the other peaks in the Bay Area,” said Bruce Hagen, an Eastside resident who has been spearheading the effort to open up Lafferty Ranch to the public for nearly two decades.

The battle began in 1992 when the city moved its water diversion facilities and looked to build a park at the former homestead off Sonoma Mountain Road. Quickly, the city council ran into opposition from local landowners, especially one by the name of Peter Pfendler, owner of Pfendler Vineyards, whose property abuts Lafferty Ranch.

Pdendler, who sources describe as “a steely gentleman rancher,” was a pilot and owner of an aircraft leasing company who purchased land near Lafferty Ranch in 1984. And he was adamantly opposed to the creation of a park, citing concerns that the county-owned road up to the property was dangerous and could not accommodate the additional traffic hikers and other visitors would bring. 

In the early '90s, city and county officials met with Pfendler to try to make a deal, including offering to swap Lafferty for another ranch lower on the mountain. But when it was discovered that in the swap the city would end up giving away many of its water rights, activists rejected the deal and it soon fell apart.

Meanwhile, land owners near the ranch formed their own group to acquire Lafferty from the city and began a drive to place an initiative on the ballot that would limit public access on Lafferty to docent-led tours to just a couple of times a year. But the idea was not popular with the public and in their desperation to gather enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot, several supporters forged thousands of signatures.

In 1996, five people were arrested and eventually convicted in what has been described as one of the biggest voter fraud cases in California. Those convicted included Martin McClure, a one-time Republican candidate for State Assembly and aide to former Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley, Marion Hodge, an aide to former Sonoma County Supervisor Jim Harberson, and Steve Henricksen, a member of the Sonoma County Republican Party.

“Pfendler’s money and influence had a long reach,” said Jerry Price, a Petaluma stock broker and a member of Friends of Lafferty Ranch, a group that has been fighting to open the park since 1992. “His arms extended to not only county officials, but big state politicians.”

Pfendler died of cancer in 2007, but his widow, Kimberly, still lives in their sprawling mansion in the hills of Sonoma Mountain. Kimberly Pfendler declined to comment for the story through her representative. But supporters of opening Lafferty Ranch believe she still controls a $1 million legal fund her husband left her to continue fighting public access to the land for years to come.

“This was a selfish guy living on top of the hill trying to misuse environmental laws to preclude the hoi poi from walking around on what had been their land since the inception of the city,” said Andrew Packard, an environmental attorney in Petaluma who is a supporter of opening the park to the public. “A lot of us thought the situation would change after he died, but it hasn’t.”

That’s because the issue of just who owns the small turnoff from the county road that leads to the entrance of Lafferty is still hotly disputed. Hagen, Price and other members of Friends of Lafferty Ranch say the disagreement over who owns the access easement is a red herring neighbors have used to keep their piece of paradise away from the public.

“There is a sense that increased access means increased danger of fire, theft, vandalism, but there is a lot of evidence, particularly in Marin County, that that’s not the case at all,” Hagen said.

Petaluma Patch reached out to various neighbors, including John Saemann, who owns Clouds Rest Vineyards and dairy owner Larry Cheda, to inquire about their position on the issue. Neither returned calls seeking comment.

In the past, opponents cited concerns that hikers would erode the sensitive soil at Lafferty Ranch, litter and have barbeques, creating a potential fire hazard. But others say they have a hard time believing the opponents' concern for erosion, considering that cattle have been seen grazing there.

Many believe that the future of Lafferty lies squarely in the hands of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors which oversees the Open Space District. But Supervisor David Rabbitt, who represents Petaluma on the board, said the supervisors will not be able to do anything until the dispute over the easement is resolved.

“Even if the supervisors want to make it a park, unless you have legal access to it, you can’t do it,” Rabbitt said, adding that the city has already spent more than $1 million in its attempt to open up the ranch. “There is political will there and if I am convinced that all those issues are taken care of and we can move forward and it’s going to be a park that we need in South County, I’m totally supportive. I think it’s beautiful up there and I appreciate it.”

Despite the stalement of nearly two decades, Lafferty Ranch supporters have not given up and are continuing to push to open the old homestead to the public. After all, they recall the ‘60s and ‘70s –before Pfendler moved in—when the park was frequented by school groups and outdoor enthusiasts, who would hike its trails, study its creeks and enjoy the serene beauty of the mountain.

They also bemoan the terrible precedent the battle over Lafferty Ranch has set for other communities trying to make its open spaces accessible to all.

"There is still no place for a Petaluma family to go and hike, despite all the land that has been acquired for public enjoyment elsewhere in the county,” says Larry Modell, another supporter. “Lafferty is right in the middle of this mountainside and would be an obvious place to start, since it’s already publicly owned.”

Frank Simpson April 07, 2011 at 11:21 PM
There have been countless articles and reports on Lafferty Rnch in the past and frankly they were so mired in the details of the fights of the moment that I could not make heads or tails of the dispute. This is an excellent recapping of the story in one place. Of course I have no idea as to how it will be resolved, if ever, but at least now wwe know why it is where it is...
jimmy cliff April 08, 2011 at 12:33 AM
if you can use eminate domain for the good of private development, why not the good of the people as it was intended? good time to buy property.
Guess Myname April 08, 2011 at 05:49 AM
Jimmy the answer is political will - it takes a strong political will to provide true amenities for the public like parks and access to the beautiful land we are surrounded by rather than the knee jerk approvals for shlock development that will erode our quality of life and take more than they give.
Bookworm April 08, 2011 at 06:50 AM
1) Couldn't LandPaths do an orientation and permit procedure for Lafferty? That way there would be some control over access. 2) A daily shuttle morning and evening would obviate the need for parking. 3) Once landowners saw that one of the two methods above did not result in negative outcomes, maybe they would be more willing to consider giving the public full access? 4) If the city could use the easement previously when the site was used for water, why is there a question now? 5) Lafferty is City of Petaluma property which was designated to be a park. The citizens of Petaluma should have access. If problems arise, then they get dealt with. We don't stop people from driving because some of them have accidents! We shouldn't keep people from Lafferty because some of them MIGHT misbehave.
Karina Ioffee April 08, 2011 at 04:03 PM
Bookworm, you raise some good points, but I think the fear is that the neighbors won't agree to any access because they want to keep the park quiet/private/theirs. However, we just don't know because none of them have talked to me about it. Anyone have any suggestions or thoughts? Please chime in.
Bill Fishman April 08, 2011 at 04:44 PM
Petaluma teenagers have used the contentious "strip of land" at the gate to Lafferty Ranch since before I got my driver's license -- a long time ago. It was a favorite place to "park" with your sweety after the football game on Friday night. It was a nice place to go because there were hardly any neighbors and no traffic. I suppose I could claim a "prescriptive right" to continue such use if I thought I'd be any good in the back seat of my wife's Volvo. Honestly, I think public access to Lafferty would be great. But proponents: Please deal with the real issue of traffic on that narrow and parking at the site and on the need for insfrastructure to accommodate it. Use has impacts. Deal with them -- honestly.
sadie April 08, 2011 at 05:04 PM
This report is so one sided. Many important pieces are missing from your story. You should speak with Steve Simmons from the water dept. He can tell you the real story of Lafferty, from how and why the city owns it, to the reasons the city deemed it surplus. I visited the property when the city sponsored two tours, it is a challenging and rewarding hike to the top, traversing open meadows, tree forests and steep hillsides. We lost a great opportunity when the trade for moon ranch was taken away. Petaluma completed an EIR, that is the roadmap to opening the property to the public. The city council which approved the EIR, did not have the money to open the property. The access is one of many conditions needed to have a park on Lafferty, all of which can only be satisfied with large amounts of money. So stop villainzing a dead man and his neighbors.
Karina Ioffee April 08, 2011 at 05:09 PM
Hi Sadie. Thanks for your feedback. Of course the story is one sided, because I tried contacting Kimberly and the other neighbors and no one would talk to me. If you can get any of them to call me back, I would love to incorporate their thoughts into the piece.
Patrick M. April 08, 2011 at 05:37 PM
Isn't it ironic that the city's approach to development has left it so broke that it cannot even consider making this property a working park.
Scott Hess April 08, 2011 at 08:20 PM
I hiked up there last year around this time- concentrating mainly on photographing the creek. The photos can be found here : http://bit.ly/aAR7Tr Scott Hess
John.Maher April 08, 2011 at 09:11 PM
Thanks Scott. Great photos as usual. :-)
Bookworm April 09, 2011 at 12:13 AM
Blaming the city is dishonest. It is the threat of costly lawsuits that is the reason Lafferty remains closed. Almost all cities are having financial problems since the bankers had their little party at our expense.
Petaluma Resident since birth April 09, 2011 at 09:26 PM
This sounds like the root of the problem, when the federal government almost collapsed last night. Share the wealth, become more open to those around you - you'll lead a less stressful & happier term of life.
Scott Hess April 10, 2011 at 04:47 AM
thank you John. Its a beautiful wild place. Adobe Creek looked clean and clear. For me, Lafferty really is a natural cathedral- narrow and high- with sparkling crystal water flowing down the center of the grey, red, amber and emerald nave. Expansive vistas at all levels. Another world on top.
Rick Pearce April 11, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Great brief overview of the Lafferty situation. Thanks for bringing it back up for discussion. During the previous debate I was denied permission by the city council to take a group of students from Bernard Elementary school for a field trip to Lafferty to help promote a song I had written about how many local people felt about the place. We were producing a CD and performing the song "Mountaintop Cathedral" at community events such as Earth Day and the River festival and wanted to produce a music video. I know without a doubt each of those kids would have been truly inspired to sing their song on their mountaintop.
Scott Stevens June 06, 2011 at 04:18 AM
There are numerous as yet unsettled issues around the Lafferty Ranch that should be included in any practical discussion about accessing or using the property. Perhaps this is the right time to settle those issues. Peter's death left seeming control of his properties in the hands of his family. To the best of my knowledge Peter's mother and father have both passed away. That would leave his widow, Kimberly and their young son with ownership. What is their position on public access to Lafferty? Ownership is really just a bundle of rights defining how you may use a property. Even if they were personally unopposed to access to Lafferty it very well may be that Peter, before his death, created a codicil preventing any owner or future owner of his property from providing any type of public access. I seem to recall reading an article saying Peter and a couple of his neighbors on Sonoma Mountain Road all agreed to stopping public access through this area of the mountains by placing easements or restrictions on their properties that were to run with the land and run in perpetuity. That would effectively "limit" any discussion or negotiation and leave legal action as the required option.
bibanon1 August 15, 2011 at 01:12 AM
It's a shame that no one from the other side of the story felt the need to comment. Without hearing their reasons for blocking public access to this land, it really makes it seem as if they are just being elitist. What a shame that there can't be some sort of resolution here. From Scott's photos, it looks like it would be a beautiful place for Petalumans to go hiking. And we have so few of them.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »