Minutes October 20, 1999

Meeting brought to order at 5:35 pm by Wade Leschyn. Members present: Richard Izmirian, Keith Mangold, Jerry Hearn, Wade Leschyn, Carroll Anne Hodges, Gloria Purcell, Mary Paglieri. Members Absent: Tim Fram. Members on Leave: Peggy Becket & Tom Forest. Ann Moser attending.

Wade volunteered to be interim secretary.

No minutes from the previous meeting were submitted. No changes to the agenda.

Steve Kennedy addressed the group telling us about running into a bat while riding his bicycle.

Keith Mangold lead the discussion on the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan. Jerry spoke about asking the Park Commission for an extension of time to comment, as soon as feasible after this meeting. This request was approved. An impromptu Fitzgerald subcommittee was formed consisting of Richard, Keith, Gloria and Ann. The group met once and also took a field trip to look at area 9. The subcommittee prepared a series of eight points for discussion:

Comment # 1: Fishing Closure - As we were advised in our aquaculture deliberations, it is a requirement that data be presented to make a case for closure and that closure must be addressed to the proper state agency. It was felt that the current attempt for legislative closure is preemptive of the Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction, that data to justify closure has not been submitted, and that the County has an obligation to the public to provide a publicized hearing allowing those in opposition to express their views prior to endorsing the recommendation. It was the feeling of some that the recommendation should be struck from the document. The fishing issue is particularly sensitive in that Fitzgerald encompasses arguably the best of the very few rock fishing access points that exist between the Golden Gate and Pescadero. The fishing is enhanced by the complex geologic structures related to the Hosgri-Seal Cove fault, which provide cracks and crevices for the fish. Personally, I find it difficult to believe, based upon personal observation, both on land and in the water, that shore fisherman have had a detrimental effect on any species other than (potentially) the rock blennies. Any closure to fishing should be conducted through the Department of Fish and Game investigation rather than by legislative fiat, and that the County should not endorse a fishing closure which is in direct conflict with the Local Coastal Plan, 'Section 7.23 Permitted Uses in Marine and Estuarine Habitats' as quoted in Page 132 of the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan (FMRMP).

There was extensive discussion over this item. There is the procedural legislative process that the county asked us to endorse just a few months ago concerning our kelp harvest recommendation that seems to be passed over here in the master plan concerning the much more impacting and controversial issue of banning rock fishing in the Fitzgerald reserve. It was commented that Fitzgerald is one of the few, and one of the best rock fishing places on the county coast. Several points in the report seem to say that fishing damages the reef, but the accuracy of these items were questioned. Fishing is regulated under the local coastal plan, and not by the county. Two issues are then that a fishing closure is in conflict with the local coastal plan section 7.23. and that the master plan seems to presume existing fishing damage, without presenting any evidence. Sam commented that the fish and game has designated Fitzgerald as one of 104 areas of marine significance and that there is a state proposal (the Shelly bill) in place to change the designation of these areas. If the state classification changes then the county recommendation would not be in conflict. Previous attempts to reclassify the area have failed, but now the county is working through its master plan to coordinate with the state marine resources agency to designate the area (page 46 #4) to change the status of the area to a marine preserve. This would include a scientific review and public process. There would be a partnership with fish and game and a 10 year closure / recovery period. This appears to be working backward. Paul Riley and Becky Ota, the fish and game review people, have not commented. The Master Plan seems to reflect the Friends of Fitzgerald, preservationists point of view.

Mary Paglieri arrived.

It seemed already a foregone conclusion that the recommendation in the plan is to recommend closure.

Ann Moser made a recommendation, and Jerry made a motion, and Keith seconded, that data collection and monitoring should be instituted to justify policy number 9 page 29. Motion passed by a 4 to 3 vote. Committee split on subsequent discussion on whether fishing should be allowed during data collection or not.

Comment # 2: Pillar Point Marsh - The recommended policy (Policy 5 - page 22) that a study be performed to introduce tidal action into the marsh above West Point Road should be withdrawn until a legal opinion and policy decision is made that loss of habitat for birds, red legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes is justified by increasing a saltwater marsh whose tidal pool dries up for a significant portion of the late summer and fall (see current photos 8,9,10,11). If the freshwater marsh becomes tidal (brackish or saltwater) the freshwater habitat currently used by migratory birds, red legged frogs, and San Francisco Garter snakes will be damaged or destroyed. Currently willow area has a variety of warblers in migration.

After a short discussion, Keith made a motion that this be recommended for deletion as a policy item in the report, and Jerry seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Comment # 3: The subcommittee recommendation submitted to the full committee concerning the Pillar Point Marsh facilities is as follows:

Pillar Point Marsh Facilities - The proposed parking site (photo 11, figure 4 - page 19 FMRMP) may be too far from beach for family access, which may encourage visitors to enter marsh to get to beach. The Pillar Point spur trail any access to the marsh invites "casual trail making" by visitors and impacts a very fragile small marsh area. "Improvements" in the area should be minimal to avoid drawing increased use of the most sensitive (pristine, listed species) areas of the reserve.

Discussion focused on the possibility that the proposed parking lot placement might actually encourage foot traffic across the marsh during times of lower than high tide. A recommendation to recommend investigating another location for parking passed unanimously.

Comment # 4: Pillar Point Reef - Area 9 - Based upon the "outing" of October X, Zoe Kersteen Tucker (Chair of Committee for Green Foothills and Fitzgerald Docent) and Keith Mangold agreed that there was no apparent damage to the area labeled "Area 9" in the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Master Plan(Figure 9, page 62), which is described as heavily impacted. The numbers and variety of flora and fauna exceed those of any other area of the preserve. The surface area of the reef contains blankets of anemones protecting themselves with shell fragments, urchins, mussels, starfish, turban snails, barnacles, and chitons, all above mean low tide and in areas exposed to damage by any foot traffic (Photos 3,4,5,6-7. Any increased traffic or enhanced trails to this area should be discouraged to avoid damage to this particularly fragile habitat.

Committee recommended that the subcommittee's recommendation to discourage the creation of trails into Area 9 be passed on as written.

Comment # 5: Invasive Plants - The priority and schedule for ridding the area of invasive plants is inadequate. New pampas grass growth is reaching epidemic proportions and immediate action is required if the native vegetation is to be preserved in these areas (Photos 18-21).

Full committee's recommendation was that the subcommittee's recommendation on Pillar Point Reef be passed on, except that discussion centered around the terminology "immediate action". Sam asked and the committee agreed, that for the purposes of conforming with the plan terminology, that the recommendation be reworded to say to increase the ranking of the pampas grass removal from phase 2 to phase 1. However there was some continued discussion that phase 1 was still not as strong a recommendation as the subcommittee wished, and that immediate action was what is really needed for the removal of the pampas grass in the area.

Comment # 6: Preservation and enhancement - First management objective - Local Coastal Plan - In some instances, there appears to be a failure in the FMRMP to follow the provisions and implementation priorities of the Local Coastal Plan as outlined in Appendix 11.A on page 138 of the plan. There appears to be an emphasis upon improved infrastructure in some sensitive areas rather than protection and preservation particularly in "Area 9" and the marsh. As was quoted in the local MCCC meeting - "Build it and they will come!"

Committee recommended that the subcommittee's recommendation for prioritization of protection and preservation over improved infrastructure be passed on as written.

Comment # 7: Extra Staffing Essential - without adequate policing and public education there is no chance of resource/visitor management working.

Discussion of the full committee centered around the type and emphasis the subcommittee wished to place on the staffing recommendation. It was noted that this master plan if implemented, would change the focus of the area from recreation to education. The plan does discuss on page 44 the type of staff recommended, and it was agreed that this level of staffing should be considered a minimal level, and that hopefully county staffing could be augmented by a state presence in the area as well. Also if there was any shortages of capital during the years of the master plan, that staffing cutbacks should not be considered as a way of making up for any possible funding shortfalls, and that cutbacks in infrastructure spending would be preferable.

Carroll Ann left.

Comment # 8: Timetables for Short Term Restoration Projects - The timetable for environmental restoration appears not to start for up to five years (funding unknown until at least year 3). (See page 45, Table 1-3).

Discussion of the full committee centered on the possibility that if current restoration projects such as pampas grass removal, and restorations of red legged frog, SF garter snake habitat and San Vincente Creek, among others, were included in the master plan, that they might experience a delay to their implementation if they had to wait for the master plan's timetable for restoration projects to begin. Thus a method should be found that would allow the inclusion of current projects in the master plan, at the same time allowing them to move forward under their own independent timetable. A motion was made by Jerry and seconded by Keith to table this item.


Gary Lockman made the staff report. He is working on a automatic front door locking schedule change so late arrivals can hopefully get into our meeting. Also the idea of a park pass to be given to committee member for 1 or 2 years seemed feasible.

Jerry Hearn commented on several housekeeping issues: a comment from the Park Commission that they would appreciate written documentation to them to be timely, also we are responsible for submitting a review of term limits and term expirations. and an annual report due next month.

7:30 pm, motion to adjourn made by Keith and seconded by Mary.

Respectfully submitted
Wade Leschyn