GGNRA AND POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE
ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
Richard
Bartke [chair]:
As
a matter of introduction, the members of the Commission that are seated up here
each have their names in front of them, and so I won’t introduce them all. They are appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior to give advice to the Park Service.
And the Commission members are not paid, they are volunteer citizens, as
most of you are, and have been appointed because they have some experience in
local government or public affairs of some kind. And the Commission members range all the way from service of just
a couple of months all the way to a couple of decades.
The
two gentlemen on my immediate left are employees. Brian O’Neill is the general superintendent of Golden Gate, and
Craig Middleton is representing the Presidio Trust this evening, and we’ll be
getting reports from them later.
The
next item on the agenda is the Fort Funston closure notice, and it’s going to
take a couple of minutes, but I want to set this into context in order to
explain to the people who are here what it is that the commission has dealt
with with this issue.
First
of all, in the area of public comment:
this commission has had four sessions in which public comments were
received – on January 18, March 21, July 18, and August 29, and then we even
heard from a few on September 26 who had been missed on August 29. But on August 29 public hearing was closed,
and so I hope that everybody understands that tonight is not a public hearing,
it’s already been closed. However,
there was an eight-week public comment period and during that period of time we
received a number of different communications.
I’ve been told that the estimate is something like 1500 written
communications, and that includes significant amounts of material from SFDOG,
the SPCA, and habitat restoration.
Next,
at the request of members of the public we reviewed the transfer from the City
of San Francisco to the Park Service of the area now known as Fort
Funston. That included, we all have
copies of the voter pamphlet, the ballot arguments, and Proposition F of
October 1973; the late but emphatic endorsement of Willie Brown; we have a bit
on the spending, in which this proposition spent less than anything else on the
ballot, less than $700, and yet it passed with the highest number of votes of
anything on the ballot, on the November 6, 1973 election, getting over 75% of
the vote. We’ve also reviewed the
agreement that was signed between the City and the Park Service on April 29,
1975, and there’s two deeds, May 22, 1975 and September 17, 1975, that we had
copies of.
As
far as planning documents go, we reviewed the San Francisco Master Plan, the
San Francisco comments to our General Management Plan and the Golden Gate’s
General Management Plan in 1980, which was adopted after I don’t know how many
hearings, but just in San Francisco alone there were over 100 hearings before
that Master Plan was adopted, General Management Plan.
We
also reviewed federal laws and regulations, which included the National Park
Service’s Organic Act, the 1978 amendment to the National Park Service General
Authorities Act, Director’s Order No. 55, Code of Federal Regulations,
specifically 36.2.15, and specifically having to do with Golden Gate, Public
Law 92-589, which established Golden Gate, the Advisory Commission Pet Policy,
which was adopted on September 27, 1978, the Code of Federal Regulations
Compendiums – there’s three of them, dated July 8, 1996, December 19, 1997, and
August 24 of this year.
We
also reviewed the findings and order for the federal district court dated April
26 of this year. In fact, I went so far
as to look up the cases that were cited by Judge Alsup, all of which had to do
with Park Service closures – Henderson versus Stanton, Mausolf versus Babbitt,
Spiegel versus Babbitt -- it was interesting that on appeal, all three of those
the Park Service prevailed.
We
also checked with other federal court cases that had to do with closures, one
of which in fact involved Golden Gate – the Bicycle Trails Council versus
Babbitt in 1996, in which this commission was involved, and that case held two
things; one was that all units of the Park Service be treated the same, there’s
no difference between national parks in urban areas and national parks in rural
areas; and the second is that as long as the evidence supports the Park Service
determination, the court is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the
agency, and that’s a quote.
The
members of the commission also made site visits to Fort Funston and, of course,
have had available their own contacts with members of the public and their own
opinions. If you’re looking for copies
of the summary report, there are some at the back table, but it now comes to
the Commission for action, and so that’s where we are right now.
The
member of, the chairman of our San Francisco Committee is Jack Spring, and
Jack, were you going to pass this off to someone else?
Jack
Spring:
Well,
I’m going to give you my report from our last meeting of November 7, and at the
start of that meeting we were updated on the Camera Obscura and the nominating
of that for the National Historic Register.
And then we went into the Fort Funston closure notice for about the
fourth meeting in a row. And there was
a great deal of discussion, and the result of that discussion was that we
should suggest to the Commission a series of resolutions to stimulate discussion
and modification or change by the members of the Commission who have not had
the opportunity to participate in these kinds of discussions. So in the packet there are three resolutions
that are drafted very roughly, and by only a few of us, so they need a lot of
polishing. And Amy Meyer has agreed to
introduce these and talk about these resolutions and ……
Amy
Meyer:
Okay,
I’m going to present -- the first resolution regards the closure of 12 acres at
Fort Funston. This is the issue which
brought matters to a head. And I’m
going to read the resolution into the record, and hope the commissioners have
it as the top sheet in one of the sets of papers you have.
Whereas
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is part of the national park system
and subject to its policies and regulations, as well as to federal law, and
Whereas
the GGNRA has proposed to close 12 acres of Fort Funston to reduce cliff and
bluff failure, encourage the restoration of natural habitat, protect the lives
and habitat of bank swallows, a species listed as threatened by the State of
California Endangered Species Act, and assure the safety of visitors and pets,
and
Whereas
the naturally eroding cliffs of Fort Funston have lost many feet of land since
the GGNRA was established, exacerbating loss of species habitat and creating
safety issues, and
Whereas
this commission has, during extended comment period between January and October
2000, heard testimony from park users and other interested parties on four
occasions and has received approximately 1500 written comments, and
Whereas
this commission, in part at the request of the Fort Funston Dog Walkers, has
reviewed applicable National Park Service law, including:
Now
therefore be it resolved that the decision of the GGNRA superintendent to close
12 acres of Fort Funston to dogs is appropriate and necessary, and
Be
it further resolved that in preference to permanent closure, the Commission requests
the superintendent consider removing the fences and having a trail through the
area accessible to dogs on leash.
Well,
I think that I’ve just presented that one straightforward.
Richard
Bartke:
All
right, it’s now open to commission comment or question on the proposed
resolution as drafted by, I think, a couple of members of our commission.
Redmond.
Redmond
Kernan:
I
have a concern that we haven’t recognized that the plan for Fort Funston is
somewhat old in that it’s twenty years or more, I think, in age, and should be
updated, and I would suggest a further resolve, which would be that this
commission request that the National Park Service as early as practicable
update the General Management Plan for Fort Funston, and in that process work
with neighbors and user groups to see that that plan reflects not only
conservation, but how people fit into that plan, which by just emphasizing the
conservation aspects, doesn’t indicate how people fit there; one could fence
off the entire park for conservation.
So, I think the plan needs to be revisited, and I would suggest adding
that further resolve.
Richard
Bartke:
I
would like to point out that the Chair has not accepted a motion or second and we
have not -- therefore, we don’t have to put this in the form of an amendment to
the motion because we don’t have a motion.
It’s open, wide open, for discussion, and…
Redmond
Kernan:
I
would move the resolution with my addition to it…
Richard
Bartke:
I
was actually encouraging to not do that until we get a lot of ideas on
the floor, and then maybe somebody can frame a single motion, but …… No, we’re
going to discuss without a motion for a while at least.
Speaking
only for myself, I certainly sympathize with what you said. When I brought it up myself a couple of
weeks ago, I was told that that would raise false expectations because there is
no money in this budget or next budget or the next budget to do that kind of a
plan, and which is regrettable. I’m not
sure that that should stop us from saying what we want to say, but the reality
is that the plan isn’t going to get done very soon.
Amy
Meyer:
Well
Rich, I also think that this is a highly focused resolution, there are other
resolutions here, there’s no reason why what you say can’t be a separate
resolution. But this resolution is
specifically to deal with the closure of 12 acres at Fort Funston, which became
the subject of the court case. And I
would hope that we would stick to that one subject in this resolution.
Redmond
Kernan:
I
would only suggest that we consider the subject I mentioned because I’m not
sure there’ll ever be money requested unless there is a meeting to
update the plan, and therefore money will be requested at the point there is a
recognized need. So I think it may help
to get it on record, whether it’s in a separate or this resolution, I don’t
care. But I think, I feel, one of the
issues is operating without a plan that’s current enough for people to feel
that it represents the wishes of all those involved.
Richard
Bartke:
Okay,
hold that thought. Fred?
Fred
Rodriguez:
I
just wanted to draw attention to the, or ask a question, concerning the last
clause, about the area being accessible to dogs on leash on the trail
there. And this is solid with respect
to the rest of Fort Funston. It is my
understanding that, notwithstanding the federal legislation, that there really
isn’t an enforcement of the dog on leash in other areas within Fort
Funston. Is there going to be any
change with respect to that?
Amy
Meyer:
We
have a series of resolutions here. It
seemed wise to start with one that spoke specifically to the core of the matter
that went to court. We had to handle this
ourselves, and because of the nature of it, this has been handled within the
members of the commission; usually we’ll work on the resolutions -- we work
with the staff and language sometimes gets smoothed. But in this case this is a separate resolution to hang by itself;
that topic will be taken up in another resolution.
Fred
Rodriguez:
Okay.
Richard
Bartke:
But
the question specifically, as I understand it, was not necessarily the fact
that there not be a permanent closure and that there be leashes, but whether or
not the enforcement would follow, either whether that was done or not
done.
Trent?
Trent
Orr:
I
don’t have any, actually I like this quite a bit, but I have a correction at
this point. I may have some discussion
a bit later. It’s just a technical
matter.
In
the long “whereas,” three lines from the bottom – the name of that document is
not the West Side Plan, it’s the Western Shoreline Area Plan. An area plan is a specific subset of the
general plan, it’s incorporated as part of it.
Unidentified
Speaker:
……….
……that many lawyers!
[laughter]
Trent
Orr:
That’s
my only comment right now.
Richard
Bartke:
Do
you want to make any more?
Trent
Orr:
I’ll
wait and hear more of the discussion.
Amy
Meyer:
Thank
you. I heard what Fred said better
after I listened to Rich’s comment and I think what you seem to be saying,
Fred, about that last resolve, is the commission request the superintendent
consider removing the fences, having a trail through the area accessible to
dogs on leash, and enforcing the regulations that would then keep a dog on a
leash. I think that that’s
missing. That makes sense.
Richard
Bartke:
Other
comments. [pause] Now, does somebody want to make a
motion
on this proposed resolution?
Unidentified
Speaker:
So
moved.
Unidentified
Speaker:
Second.
Richard
Bartke:
It’s
moved and seconded as drafted, except for the name of the City’s plan.
Unidentified
Speaker:
Now,
we just added a clause saying we had… considered
removing
the fences, having a trail through the area accessible to dogs on leash, and
enforcing the leash regulation…
Amy
Meyer:
The
leash regulation required by the, by national…
Unidentified
Speaker:
Well
in other words by or enforcing the national leash regulation, the national
parks leash regulation.
Amy
Meyer:
The
NPS leash regulation.
Richard
Bartke:
Okay,
got it. That is part of the motion
then. Redmond, did you want to bring up
your point?
Redmond
Kernan:
I
will …amendment, but I’m willing to have
it be as a separate resolution.
[brief,
unintelligible cross-conversation]
Richard
Bartke:
All
right. Discussion on the motion. Michael.
Michael
Alexander:
I
think we’ve all read the legislation, and it’s been pretty enlightening to me because
it is, I’m not a lawyer, so I read it as a layperson does. We have lawyers on this panel, goodness
knows there are enough lawyers around.
I read it as a layperson, and as I’ve read the Organic Act and the long
series of regulations and court decisions and further regulations and further
court decisions and interpretations that bind the National Park Service, and
bind this commission, because we took an oath to uphold the law, I don’t see a
lot of room. And so I’m going to
support this resolution, because I think this is what the law says.
Now
I appreciate that we have heard from some people that they believe that the law
says something else. We have a much
larger issue in this country right now that is being settled; that’s why we
have courts, and it’s my understanding that a case questioning the law has been
filed. If that’s the case, so be it;
that’s what the courts are for, and we will get a ruling, we will get an
appropriate ruling on this issue. Until
then, though, I feel bound by the law as I understand it and as it has been
presented, I think quite persuasively, to me by the Park Service and its
solicitors. So I will vote for this
resolution.
Richard
Bartke:
Other
comments. [pause] Trent.
Trent
Orr:
Well,
just briefly to take out, not saying what Michael just said was grudging, but
I’d just like to say that I think there are some principles here. I’m not voting for this just because
I feel bound by the law. I think that
the law is absolutely right there, but I think that to me it’s really an issue
of what national parks are for, and that obviously is expressed in the law, but
the principle beyond that is a very important one, and I think that, in fact,
we have at Fort Funston a really remarkable area that has some extremely rare and
valuable resources within our city, and what the Park Service is trying to do
is find a way to preserve those resources, to enhance them, to bring that
population of bank swallows back, to save a little bit of the remaining dune communities we have here
in the city, and I think in and of itself that’s an extremely valuable
thing to do. And I think that the
notion that in this area especially with the second resolve that we would even
think that the fences could go away as long as people were willing to have
their dogs on leash, which does not seem to me to be a really onerous burden in
a national park. So I just wanted to
have someone say for the record that I think there are a number of principles
involved here that I think are very important ones that made me quite pleased
to vote for this resolution.
Richard
Bartke:
Lennie.
Lennie
Roberts:
Well
I’d like to add to that a bit. I agree
with what Trent has said, and I also wanted to add the broad consideration that
we have to do, about visitor enjoyment of the national parks. And we have to keep in mind that we are, we
are really, we need to take into account the mandate of the Park Service for
providing for all visitors, and having a single use in a national park actually
will exclude other potential users, and from my perspective I am happy to see
this park used by many dog users, dog walkers and dogs and owners, and I think
that their dogs off leash become a problem for other users who may not choose
to go there, and it’s hard to find out about those people who are not there and
why they’re not there. We’ve heard a
lot from the public that does use the park and I very much appreciate all the
comments that we have heard about this.
But I think we have to keep in mind many of the voices that we haven’t
heard as well, so I would support this resolution for that reason.
Richard
Bartke:
Redmond?
Redmond
Kernan:
I
think I agree with everybody, but I have a slightly different view, that urban
parks perhaps shouldn’t be treated the same as all national parks –
maybe one size doesn’t fit all. Maybe
one set of rules shouldn’t govern all parks.
I think there is a distinction between creating an urban park in an
urban area and some of the national parks – Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. – who
are in wild areas. And I think that, if
I could make the law, I would have the superintendent have discretion in some
matters that he now doesn’t. But given
all that, the law does say what it says and I’m willing to support it and
support this resolution, but I wish that there were more latitude for
creativity on the part of the superintendent and that there was the opportunity
to have different rules for different kinds of parks.
Richard
Bartke:
Michael.
Michael
Alexander:
Two
points. First of all, I didn’t mean to
suggest -- by omission … -- that there weren’t other reasons why I supported
this resolution. But I think that
following the law is the first test and everything else falls away if,
as in this case, the law has to be obeyed.
As
to Commissioner Kernan’s point, there was a time, I believe in the seventies
(Doug, I think you can check me on this) when the Park Service actually did set
management standards for three different kinds of parks, one of which was
recreation areas. And Congress clearly and
specifically, in two instances, wrote into law that that was not to be
the way the Park Service interpreted the Organic Act, that the Park Service was
to treat all units of the national park system, to manage all units of the
national park system by the same standards; they did not want that. So the Park Service had to revise its
regulations to conform to the will of Congress. It was absolutely clear.
You may disagree, you know, others may disagree with the intent of
Congress, but that’s what Congress did and they did it twice.
Richard
Bartke:
Gordon.
Gordon
Bennett:
Can
I ask a question. Does anyone know what
the San Francisco Westside Plan says? I
assume someone knows. Could you read
again that part…
Amy
Meyer:
Yeah. This takes up all the coastal areas on the
west side of San Francisco, such as Cliff House and Ocean Beach and Sutro
Baths, and on Fort Funston it says,
·
Objective
9: Conserve the natural cliff
environment along Fort Funston.
·
Policy
1: Maximize the natural qualities of Fort
Funston. Conserve the ecology of entire
Fort and develop recreational uses which will have only minimal effect on the
natural environment.
·
Policy
2: Permit hang gliding, but regulate it
so that it does not significantly conflict with other recreational and more
passive uses, and does not impact the natural quality of the area.
Gordon
Bennett:
And
that’s San Francisco policy for that area…
Unidentified
speaker:
It’s
part of the General Plan.
Amy
Meyer (reiterating):
It’s
part of the General Plan.
Richard
Bartke:
Other
comments or questions. Doug.
Doug
Nadeau:
I’d
like to make a mild response to what Red said.
In my view, in my experience, the only difference between an urban
national park and what you would consider to be a more traditional national
park is the incredible intensity of use in those areas, and to me that factor
makes it all the more important that the National Park Service apply the
correct standards of preserving resources and not look to lowering those
standards. So to me it strengthens our
resolve to make sure that we do the right thing at Fort Funston. So I think with that I just would like to
say, I’m delighted with this resolution here.
Richard
Bartke:
Ed?
Edgar
Wayburn:
I’m
prepared to support this resolution, but I have certain comments, having had
quite a fair amount to do with the establishment of urban parks in the United
States, and particularly with the establishment of the GGNRA. We were confronted with this problem early
on and it was agreed at that time that there should be certain exceptions made
with regard to dogs, and these were done with the knowledge and the advice and
the permission of the superintendent of the parks, the first superintendent,
and realized that parks in urban areas are going to be up against different
plans and objectives from parks in what are more wilderness areas. I think that the city allowed dogs in the
Fort Funston area, and I’m not acquainted with the further developments which
were just read, but it was not meant to take away any of the privileges which
have been allowed before.
Richard
Bartke:
Other
comments or questions? All right, I
sense we’re ready to vote on this resolution, I call for a voice vote. If there is a serious split, then we’ll ask
for a show of hands, but first, a vocal vote: all in favor, say “aye”.
[Several
“ayes.”]
Any
opposed? I hear none. The resolution is adopted as presented.
[The
GGNRA later provided a copy of a revised resolution incorporating the changes
discussed above.]
Amy,
back to you.
Amy
Meyer:
Okay,
you have two other resolutions here.
Some of you I’ve had a chance to explain this to, a few of you I
haven’t. Because this was processed
completely outside of this building, it went through a bit of a, we just had
some difficulties as it went from fax to fax.
Please
turn to the third page, which is the resolution to rescind the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area Advisory Commission 1979 Pet Policy. Now, Rich told me that actually we passed
this in 1978; I was chair of the committee.
But they didn’t get around to printing it until 1979, just in case that
comes up and bothers anybody.
The
resolution of 1978 is in conflict with federal law, and as such we feel it is
confusing to the public. And so I will
read this resolution aloud.
Whereas
in 1978, this Advisory Commission, recognizing that this national park in an
urban area (rather than an urban national park, I would say parenthetically),
this national park in an urban area included some lands whose social history
was different from that of other national parks, passed a Pet Policy resolution
in which it sought to accommodate San Francisco and Marin County custom regarding
dog walking, allowing dogs to be walked off leash and under voice control in
certain areas, and
Whereas,
although not formally adopted by the National Park Service, this resolution was
used as a permissive guideline in these park areas by a sequence of national
park superintendents of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, although it
contravened National Park Service regulations requiring all dogs to be on
leash, and
Whereas
over the years since the establishment of the GGNRA in 1972 and the transfer of
the city lands to the GGNRA in 1975, the natural resources of the GGNRA as well
as those of the state of California and the nation, including the habitat
requirements of native plants and animals, have been studied and their
interdependence has become better understood, and
Whereas
it has become evident that many areas of natural habitat in this country have
been so affected by human incursion and development that many species have been
listed by the state and nation as threatened and endangered, under the Federal
and State Endangered Species Act (those are two separate acts), and that some
of these species live in areas of the GGNRA, and
Whereas
since 1978 the dog owning population of the Bay Area has increased, and areas
in other jurisdictions formerly open to dogs have been closed, so that the
number of dogs that visit the GGNRA has increased, leading to increasing
conflicts with other park users, as well as concentrations of dog litter off
trail in areas of natural habitat where it cannot be removed by the dogs’
owners, and
Whereas
present circumstances in the GGNRA require the closer supervision of dogs as
provided by a leash in order to fulfill the requirements of law and regulations,
and
Whereas,
because of loss of habitat and increased dog use, some of the purposes for
which the GGNRA was established within the national park system can no longer
be fulfilled in areas of the park in which dogs are now permitted to run off
leash,
Now,
I’m going to ask you to turn back to the previous page, because, rather than
have another separate resolution, we’re going to try to incorporate two other
whereases, which you will see here.
Whereas
Director’s Order 55 of September 8, 2000, referring to the National Park
Service Organic Act of 1916, the National Park Service General Authorities Act
of 1970, and the Redwoods National Park Expansion Act of 1978, which contained
a paragraph, states as follows:
Section
3.4, the prohibition on impairment:
While Congress has given the Service the management discretion to allow
certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory
requirement, enforceable by the federal courts, that the Park Service must
leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly
and specifically provides otherwise.
That’s the end of the quote.
And
whereas the September 15, 2000 “Notice of the New Policy Interpreting the
National Park Service Organic Act” states, “All NPS personnel must conduct
their work activities and make decisions affecting the national park system in
conformance with the interpretation of this Director’s Order” and twice states,
“Conservation is to be predominant.”
Now
therefore be it resolved (back to page 3) that the GGNRA Advisory Commission rescinds its
1978 resolution.
Richard
Bartke:
We’re
open for commission discussion on that combined resolution. Redmond.
Redmond
Kernan:
I
don’t find it on our agenda. This is to
rescind a policy that applies to the total GGNRA. I think it should be discussed, but I don’t think we should move
on something that hasn’t been calendared, noticed, that people have not been
alerted to. There are areas that I can
think of where I think the Director’s Order can be met, the resources can be
protected, and yet you could have dogs off leash. West Pacific Avenue comes to mind; it’s got a fence on both
sides. I’m just not prepared to deal
with something that hasn’t been calendared so that those who might be affected
would have an opportunity to address the issue. As I understand it, to the extent our policy contravenes the
director’s orders, the Park Service will not implement our policy, they will
implement the director’s orders. So I
don’t think we need to do this and I don’t think we should do this because it
has the appearance of changing a policy for which people have not had an
opportunity to address this commission.
Richard
Bartke:
Okay. Other comments. Trent?
Trent
Orr:
Well,
I would take an opposite view of that, I mean, it seems to me completely in
line with the resolution we just passed here recognizing that we have a policy
– I mean, if it happens this month or it happens in the future -- I suppose,
you know, next month -- doesn’t particularly concern me. The problem is that, as Amy said, we have a
policy out there that is blatantly inconsistent with the law, is illegal, is
unenforceable, and so leaving it out there only leads to confusion and it leads
to people coming in and saying, “Well, there’s this policy,” and that’s then
part of the misunderstanding and part of the problem that we are addressing
right now. So I am certainly, I don’t
know what the commission feels about voting on it tonight, I don’t have any
problem with that myself, because basically we’re saying, we’re removing
something that isn’t legally authorized in the first place. We have a policy that was never adopted by
the Park Service, it’s advice that this commission as Advisory Commission gave
in 1978; circumstances have changed.
To
me the most important whereas here is probably the fifth one; while dogs
historically were at Fort Funston, a combination of the increase in the number
of dogs that come to the park, and I guess one thing that isn’t mentioned in
the resolution is the closure by other park agencies around the Bay Area,
including the beaches down in San Mateo County, I know the Marin Open Space
District I think is considering some further restrictions on dogs, and we’re
just, as long as this policy is here, we’re going to have more and more people
saying “Well the national parks are the place where you go with your
dogs.” So it seems to me something we
need to correct. It’s something that’s,
as I say, entirely illegal and out of sync with everything else we’ve said so
far tonight, so I’m prepared to vote yes for it, but I would like to hear what
other commissioners think.
[Audience
Member] Avrum Shepard:
Mr.
Chairman -- Mr. Bartke. Point of
order.
Edgar
Wayburn:
If
there’s not a motion, I won’t make it…
[Audience
Member] Avrum Shepard:
Mr.
Bartke, I have a point of order, sir.
Edgar
Wayburn:
If
there’s a motion made, I would move to table it.
Richard
Bartke:
Okay. There has not been a motion made. Other comments from other commission
members. Jack?
Jack
Spring:
I’d
like to suggest that one of the reasons that we felt that this kind of a
discussion should be held is that the fact that the Advisory Commission passed this
resolution some years ago imposed the impression on the public that this was a
matter of fact a policy of the National Park Service, whereas as it is
not. So if we can remove that policy
from our commission records I think it would be truthful … to do it.
Richard
Bartke:
Okay. Gordon.
Gordon
Bennett:
I
agree partially with both sides of this discussion. I think we should calendar what our policy should be, but I think
I would support this proposal. I think
it’s confusing, I think it’s illegal.
Richard
Bartke:
Are
you suggesting that it go over to a noticed meeting at some time in the future
or do you think it should be voted on tonight.
Gordon
Bennett:
What
I’m saying is I think this should be voted on tonight, but what I’m further
suggesting is that we have now eliminated the policy if we all agree to pass
that, and what I’m suggesting is that we calendar perhaps discussion about what
a new policy should be, if there is one,
that could replace this. That
should go on the calendar for discussion.
Richard
Bartke:
I
see. Okay. Other comments? Susan.
Susan
Giacomini Allan:
I
agree, but I don’t feel quite ready. I
was really prepared on the closure issue.
I’d like to think about this a little bit more; I understand the
confusion of two different policies. I
think that we’re really informed on the subject now, so we’ll really be ready
to move on it at the next meeting.
Amy
Meyer:
I
would remind everybody that what this does is removes a basic confusion. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36,
Volume 1, Section 2.15, Pets, says the following are prohibited and one of
those in failing to crate, cage, restrain on a leash which shall not exceed six
feet in length or otherwise physically confine a pet at all times. I do not see how this commission can have a
policy out there -- we have been told that this is -- what we have done is
doing nothing but confusing the public.
That is why I feel very strongly that this resolution to remove that
confusion, I agree that we could certainly have a fine dog discussion on, you
know, other subjects or, but we have to get, to remove the discrepancy between
ourselves and the existing Park Service regulation, this has been an informal
policy for 20 years. It survived. Circumstances have changed, some of which
are cited in the resolution, someone else mentioned closure of the San Mateo
County beaches and, you know, it’s just become impossible if the confusion is
too great. And we’ve had plenty of
letters indicating that people are terribly confused. That’s why I want to see this voted on tonight.
Richard
Bartke:
Michael.
[Audience
Member] Avrum Shepard:
Mr.
Bartke. I have a point of order, sir.
Richard
Bartke:
I
think you’re out of order, but go ahead. What is it?
[Audience
Member] Avrum Shepard:
Thank
you, sir. I think that Mr. Kernan’s
suggestion that the item that you’re discussing now has not been put on the
agenda; the public has had no notice of this…
[applause]
Richard
Bartke:
Yes,
we’re aware of that, we’re having…
[Audience
Member] Avrum Shepard:
And
I would like to see some public comment on this, if I can suggest that, sir.
Richard
Bartke:
Michael.
Michael
Alexander:
I
want to ask for some legal advice on this, because I don’t want to see us, I
agree that we are inconsistent and I think we need to get consistent, but I
don’t want to get into another situation where we, where we are legally
challenged because we haven’t given proper notice, and I’d like that
resolved. As soon as that’s resolved,
I’m prepared to go…
Richard
Bartke:
Okay,
well let’s get some more discussion.
Trent?
Trent
Orr:
Well
I’ll, I mean, I’ll take a stab at that, which is to say, we are an advisory
commission, we are currently giving advice which is clearly illegal; that is,
through this 1978 policy. I don’t think
there’s any problem with our rescinding it now. If someone has a process problem with it, I suppose you
could go to a federal court to ask the judge to have us un-rescind the policy
and go through a formal process to reinstate and then get rid of again a
clearly illegal regulation. Now,
someone could bring that lawsuit. I
think it would be difficult to win because it really is a nullity. I mean, you’re asking a federal court to
spend its time recreating an obviously illegal piece of advice that hasn’t even
been adopted by the National Park Service.
So I don’t, I mean, I think the possibility of being sued and losing on
that one is remote. I suppose someone
could spend their time that way.
[Audience
Member] John Keating:
Point
of order. You’ve had someone request a
public comment period. You cannot
proceed to rule on an alteration of park use in a highly controversial instance
without taking public comment. You’re
relying on legal advice. One of the
values of public comment is to allow the public to contest the legal advice,
which many would tell you that what has been presented to you as legal advice
is wrong. And the value of public
comment, that you are obligated to take, according to the point of order, is to
allow that information to be received.
Richard
Bartke:
We’ve
heard you. Any further comment from
commission members? Betsey?
Betsey
Cutler:
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I’m persuaded that,
although sitting as a relatively new commissioner, I would prefer to have all
the policies be legal [laughter] and not have some that are illegal, I am
somewhat persuaded that perhaps if the calendar allows, that we calendar this for
January and vote on it at that time. If
that is going to cause a huge problem, then is there some way that we can give,
rather than a formal vote, an advisory vote, or some sort of an indication of
our feelings, without making a specific motion. That would be my question.
Amy
Meyer:
I
feel strongly that we ought to vote on this because it is, remains, a matter of
public confusion, and it’s patently illegal; I mean, that’s…
Edgar
Wayburn:
On
the other hand, we have not had any advance notice of this, and being
confronted by several resolutions, which we have not seen, I think is not wise
of this commission.
[applause]
Doug
Nadeau:
I
can see the point about wanting to have a hearing, but I guess on the other
hand, I don’t see that the policy serves any purpose whatsoever. The Park Service never adopted it, they’re
not following it, and the only purpose it serves is to confuse people. So, it seems to me that going through a
hearing on it would be a kind of a silly charade because we all know we want to
get rid of it. [laughter]
Richard
Bartke:
Trent?
Trent
Orr:
I’m
prepared to make a motion and see where the commission stands on this matter. I
move that we adopt this resolution rescinding the 1979 or ’78 Pet Policy.
Richard
Bartke:
I’m
going to rule that motion as out of order, because I am convinced that the
tradition of this commission, as well as our organic documents, require that
there be a noticed hearing and that the public have an opportunity to
speak. I’m not speaking to the merits
of the resolution; I’m prepared to vote on it also, and I agree with those
speakers who say that it’s illegal and it’s going to be silly to have a hearing
on an illegal item. On the other hand,
we’re talking about process here and faith …with the public. So I’m going to rule the motion out of order
and if anybody wants to challenge the Chair, they can make a motion to do
so. [silence, then laughter]
All
right, this matter will be calendared.
Unfortunately, we have no meeting in December, so I can’t tell you
exactly when it will be calendared for those of you that have an interest in
it.
Is
there anything further on Fort Funston?
Redmond
Kernan:
I
would like to move that the commission resolve that the, request the National
Park Service as early as practicable, and I understand that it may be a few
years, but update the General Management Plan for Fort Funston and in the
process work with the neighbors and user groups.
Unidentified
speaker:
I’ll
second that.
Richard
Bartke:
The
move is seconded. Discussion on that
motion? [pause]
All
in favor say “aye.” [several “ayes.”]
Opposed
“no.” [silence] …
[motion
passed]
Gordon.
Gordon
Bennett:
Question. It’s really directed to Brian. It’s whether we have a policy or don’t have
a policy, or whether we have a policy that says this or the other. You, what is the park going to do? What is the park’s position?
Brian
O’Neill:
Well,
the Park Service has no other option than to carry out the national
policies. I mean, the issue to the
degree of aggressiveness and enforcement is an issue here, but any policy that
we adopt from the Park Service has to be within the purview of laws and
regulations we’re mandated to carry out.
Congress has expressed itself quite clearly on this issue, the National
Park Service has adopted very specific regulations. So, any regulations we have that carry out that regulation have
to be within the boundaries and purview of that regulation. But, that having been said, there’s probably
opportunity to develop a policy within that framework.
Richard
Bartke:
Okay. Now we’re through with the Fort Funston
issue on our agenda.
transcribed by Vicki Tiernan and Michael B. Goldstein
“…….”
indicates a word or two which could not be understood