City of Luguna Beach City Council Involvement in MLPA Process

[johncarpenter]

Fellow Spearos,

Has anyone looked into the legal authority that the City of Laguna Beach has regarding their apparent involvement in the MLPA process? Has the state legally abdicated this process to the local city council? It is my understanding that these reserves will be managed by the STATE. Does the City Council have legal authority to supercede the state process that should ideally include meet & confer with users groups, including us? It appears that the council will interject their negative bias toward spearos upon deciding closures. Any lawyers out there? Potential for possible court injunction?
Is the City of San Diego City Council going to ultimately decide whether or not to close LJ and PL kelp? We know the track record with Children's Pool...
I thought this was a mandated state process that was to include all the stakeholders before lines are ultimately drawn and decided upon?
Thoughts Terry?

[Bill McIntyre]

I just got home from Paul Romanowski's MLPA 101 session, and I wanted to ask that very question. Unfortunately, it was slowing down and dragging on and I had no idea how much longer it would go on, so I left before it was over and didn't get a chance to ask. I can only drive home so late.

I was also hoping to get some concrete proposals of what each of us could do, but that probably came at the end.

[rojodiablo]

I just got home from Paul Romanowski's MLPA 101 session, and I wanted to ask that very question. Unfortunately, it was slowing down and dragging on and I had no idea how much longer it would go on, so I left before it was over and didn't get a chance to ask. I can only drive home so late.

I was also hoping to get some concrete proposals of what each of us could do, but that probably came at the end.

I will be sure to get you a contacts list Bill. Yes, we did it at the end.
John, Bill- there are 4 or 5 cities that have representatives on the RSG. Since the RSG is a Resource Stakeholder Group, the cities DO deserve representation in the process, especially when it comes to coastal towns. Calla is there representing her constituents, and so long as she is reasonable and will sit down and really listen to what we have to say, I can't imagine that a city like Laguna would not want a member on the RSG for input. There is a broad cross section of members on the RSG, and at least we have a seat at the table.:rolleyes:

Thanks for coming Bill, I will be sure you get the info you need. Paul.:thumps:

[tmaas]

Fellow Spearos,
Has the state legally abdicated this process to the local city council? It is my understanding that these reserves will be managed by the STATE. ?

John you are correct. This is a state managed process. There is a hodge-podge of reserves along the coast from Newport to Dana Point. The goal of the process is to evaluate each reserve with the mission of simplifying this mess into a simple set of reserves. Most of the municipalities are interested in protecting the near-shore (out to 1,000 ft) and this is what Calla Allison
Marine Protection Officer and stakeholder from Laguna has suggested to the stakeholders. This tubes the shore fishermen but keeps the access open past the surf line.
Laguna Beach City Council can only make suggestions as to where they would like reserves placed.
Terry

[johncarpenter]

Got it. I guess I won't sell my boat just yet...Thanks Terry.

[Wind_in_his_hair]

John you are correct. This is a state managed process. There is a hodge-podge of reserves along the coast from Newport to Dana Point. The goal of the process is to evaluate each reserve with the mission of simplifying this mess into a simple set of reserves. Most of the municipalities are interested in protecting the near-shore (out to 1,000 ft) and this is what Calla Allison
Marine Protection Officer and stakeholder from Laguna has suggested to the stakeholders. This tubes the shore fishermen but keeps the access open past the surf line.
Laguna Beach City Council can only make suggestions as to where they would like reserves placed.
Terry

Thanks for the clarification.

Mike

[mnguy]

This tubes the shore fishermen but keeps the access open past the surf line.

This is the biggest problem that I, personally, have with the whole process. The closures act highly regressive, hurting the lower income people much more than anyone else. If you fish/dive from shore regularly, then you probably don't have a boat because you can't or don't want to afford one. Those with boats, however, still have many places they can go because they have the benefit of mobility.

Even the species that get a high/mod/low LOP feels regressive. Calicos, halibut, sheephead, etc. are the bread and butter of a shorediver. It isn't very often that we have a shot at CPF species other than WSB from shore. It is what it is though, and the process by it's nature hoses the lower income guys.

Though, more on point, I don't think that a city like Laguna Beach can supercede the state in the process. I do think that they have the ability to set up ordinances to prohibit activites in their jurisdiction that happen to limit fishing and spearing opportunities. For example, they could outlaw spearguns and polespears on city lands citing potential safety hazards.

I believe some towns in NorCal have done something similar already.