Public Access to City Shoreline Threatened : Preservation: Local officials say the state’s interpretation of a measure to create ecological reserves is too narrow and threatens to restrict use of popular beach areas. State officials disagree.

Divers, surfers and Palos Verdes Estates city officials are protesting what they believe is the state government’s narrow interpretation of a 1990 voter initiative, saying it could mean the closure of half of the city’s shoreline to the public.

Even the author of the initiative, Assemblywoman Doris Allen of Orange County, lashed out at state officials last week for what she said was the deliberate misinterpretation of the measure, Proposition 132.

The attorney general’s office and the Fish and Game Department, she said, are misinterpreting the measure, which requires that four two-mile stretches of coast be designated as marine ecological reserves for scientific research. Allen said Friday she never intended the initiative to bar the public from the reserves.

“You don’t go into the most used areas,” Allen said. “You are really trying to punish the public when you do that.”

State officials disagree, saying they are selecting coastline areas in accordance with a legal interpretation of Proposition 132 issued recently by Attorney General Dan Lungren.

“Unless we get a court order, I don’t think we can get any other interpretation,” said Al Petrovich of the state Fish and Game Department, the agency in charge of implementing Proposition 132.

Palos Verdes Estates city officials learned earlier this month that the state Fish and Game Department was considering a two-mile stretch of beach from Flat Rock Point to Rocky Point for one of the reserves.

The initiative, passed by 55.5% of the voters in 1990, bans gill and trammel net fishing within three miles of shore. The measure mandated that the state set aside the four ecological preserves strictly for scientific research by Jan. 1, 1994.

Allen said she believed the reserves could be set up similar to 69 others that the Fish and Game Department currently operates, all of which allow some public access.

But Fish and Game officials asserted Friday that the legislation governing the present reserves differs from Proposition 132, which they said more stringently restricts who can use the reserves.

The officials denied they were trying to burden the public and maintained that they are bound by the attorney general’s opinion, which was issued last month. A spokesman for the attorney general last week referred comment to Ellen Peter, a state Department of Justice attorney. Peter could not be reached.

Allen agrees that, given Lungren’s opinion, the Fish and Game Department has the leeway to pick popular coastline spots such as the one in Palos Verdes Estates. But the agency, she argues, could have interpreted the initiative without the attorney general’s help, pointing out that fish and game officials had sought the opinion.

Fish and game officials stressed that public opposition will be one factor they will consider in selecting the sites, a decision not expected until next summer.

During the past several months, the department, through its Director’s Marine Resources Advisory Committee, has narrowed the number of potential sites from 20 to 10. The agency plans to select six to eight sites by October, arriving at the final four by next summer.

Aside from Palos Verdes Estates, the other locations under consideration are King Range in Humboldt County, Point Cabrillo in Mendocino County, Bodega Head in Marin County, James V. Fitzgerald Reserve in San Mateo County, Big Creek in Monterey County, Point Piedras Blancas in San Luis Obispo County, two sites in Santa Monica Bay, and a stretch of beach at Camp Pendleton in San Diego County.

Petrovich, of the fish and game agency’s marine resources division, said he sympathizes with those concerned about the loss of recreation areas, but he added that the department has no choice but to create the reserves.

“The general sense among the public is ecological preserves are a great idea but not in my back yard,” said Don Shultz, a senior marine biologist working on the site selection.

Still, Palos Verdes Estates officials and people who use the shoreline say the state may have a fight on its hands if it chooses popular areas for the reserves.

“They are going to end up with their rear ends in court if they keep this up,” Allen said, adding that if the four reserves end up at popular beaches, she would lead the effort to reverse the decision.

“It certainly has taken us aback,” said Palos Verdes Estates City Atty. Jim Hendrickson, who at the direction of the City Council has sent a protest letter to the Director’s Marine Resources Advisory Committee, which is in charge of scouting locations for the reserves.

The rocky area in Palos Verdes Estates is a favorite among divers; in the winter months, huge swells make it a prime surfing spot, Hendrickson said.

“If you get the right swell, it can go off, as we say,” said Don Steiner of the South Bay chapter of the Surfrider Foundation.

“I’m sure the government officials feel we may need to do this, but you have to look at people too,” said Rick Olson, manager of Dive ‘N Surf, a Redondo Beach shop that hosts a 300-member diving club. “If you cut that off, it’s kind of a bummer.”