Below is an email regarding some of the history and facts about the rope barrier:

Acting as a member of the public, John :Leek challenged the legality and

wisdom of the rope barrier across Children's Pool before the Planning

Commission. He had not attended the original permit hearing, but having

submitted written input had qualified him to file an appeal. The vote

to sustain the permit was 4-3, one swing vote away from forcing the City

to remove the rope.

During the original permit hearing on 12/2, it had been recorded that:

1. The rope barrier would be put up through every half year in

perpetuity, not needing a permit from the Coastal Commission.

2. The hearing officer was twice told the City would have a choice to

declare Children's all seals or all people in January

3. The La Jolla Community Planning Association had voted against a rope

permit this time and the 2 previous years.

4. Persons who had offered input could could appeal the permit (Leek

and the LJCPA)

5. The LJCPA opposition was from denial of vertical access to the

shore, but the stairs were not affected so that was invalid (?).

When the rope barrier was to be installed on Dec 15, Leek reminded Park

and Rec he had filed an appeal and they stopped.

The next day the City Attorney declared an emergency and the rope went

up anyway. On a website sponsored by APRL, it was claimed that Bryan

Pease had threatened the City Attorney with re-opening unrelated suits

against the City and pressured him into issuing the emergency decree.

The source is suspect, of course, as in the same page they falsely

accused Leek of being "a convicted violator of the MMPA"

On Jan 21 the Planning Commission was presented 15 pages of argument and

documentation and the key points were explained.

1. Published City Council minutes show the City requested a State bill

that allowed it to have both seals and public access at Children's Pool

in keeping with its longstanding joint use policy. Those deliberations

are on City Video Archives on the web.

2. The bill that became law has no discretion in it. It added an

undefined "marine mammal park" to the set of stipulations in the Trust

including public park, bathing pool for children, playground and

recreational purposes, right to fish with convenient access.

3. The City Attorney is a corporate attorney, with one client. As such

he is not a source of unbiased information, but a lobbyist, litigant and

stakeholder.

4. Section 126.0702 requires a Calif Coastal Permit for such a construct

within the Coastal Permit Jurisdiction. Development Services agreed,

and noted its permit application to the CCC would be appealable.

5. Section 126.0718 defines a Coastal Emergency, which the delaying of

a rope did not fit.

6. The same section describes a required separate emergency coastal

permit required be cleared through the Mayor, which was not done.

7. The conclusion stated was that the Commission did not have enough

information to approve the permit and should kick it up to the City

Council for ratification. That was not within the scope of the hearing.

The Commission discussed the matter for almost an hour, bringing up an

interesting list of concerns:

1. How can a rope that stretches 133' to leave a 3' opening not be

encroachment of coastal access?

2. What is the federal definition of harassment? (Nobody knew, so John

Leek recited it from memory)

3. Was the rope placed where it is because of known location and habits

of seals?

4. Is there clear signage so the public knows the beach is still open?

(one line in 2 signs)

5. Is there any penalty for stepping over the rope to access the

beach? (No)

6. Should the opening be widened and take a turn to the left to

indicate it directs the public to their side of the beach?

7. What would John Leek want done? ( "Turn the rope 90 degrees and

split the beach")

8. Is there any ruling from any agency on a set distance a person must

maintain from a seal? (No)

9. The hearing officer directly asked the deputy City Attorney if the

copy of the trust was accurate and indeed stipulated public access.

She had to agree.

10. Do divers typically use the east side of the beach where the rope

opening is? (Yes, we stay close to the East bluffs as not to present

our profiles between a seal and the horizon, as a courtesy)

11. Has anybody ever been harmed by a harbor seal?

David Pierce, another officer of the Dive Council and David Johnson,

of "The Other La Jolla Swim Club" described harassment at the Pool.

The director of Park and Rec offered the observation that divers and

swimmers are always considerate of the seals. It was a public meeting,

but no other citizens had shown up to offer public input.

In hindsight, the presentation could have been better, and certainly

needed more people there to add support. The City will apply for a

California Coastal Permit. Any citizen or organization can file their

own appeal with the Coastal Commission from now until 10 days after the

City notifies the CCC of its decision. One need not have been at the

Municipal hearings. All the arguments one might use need not be in the

application yet. The CCC conducts local public hearings on appeals.

The form is downloadable.

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/cdp/CDP-AppealForm-sc.doc

To save everybody some time, please note

"The grounds for appealing a project are limited to whether the project

conforms to the requirements of the LCP or the public access policies of

the Coastal Act." & "It is important to note that the Coastal Act

presumes that an appeal raises a substantial issue."

Homework required.