POINT 8 ......  A beach closure would contradict the 2001 Commission’s decisions in 6-00-126 against a permanent seal reserve in La Jolla on trust protected public recreational tidelands.

a) In March 13th, 2001 the Coastal Commission disallowed a proposed permanent seal reserve in La Jolla because of objections from the State Lands Commission and Department of Fish and Game.  Application No. 6-00-126 (San Diego marine mammal reserve)   Though a temporary extension could have been allowed, San Diego decided not to try to meet the conditions of providing justifying research and pulling the boundaries away from Children’s Pool. 

b) An offshore rock, dubbed Seal Rock attracted seals when the tides were right, and San Diego had established the temporary “Seal Rock Reserve” from 1994 to 1999 consisting of open coastal waters around the rock.  Swimming, diving and fishing had been prohibited. Meanwhile, the Commission noted the City had installed a rope barrier at Children’s Pool for 4 years without a Coastal Permit, though it resulted in a change in public access to the ocean and was a violation of the Coastal Act.  

c) Page 12 of 6-00-126:   “Although Children’s Pool is not the subject of this coastal development permit application, it should be noted that SLC staff has indicated that because the existing statute (Trust) specifically talks about public access and recreational use of the area, a permanent barrier on the beach which blocks access to the ocean is inappropriate”.   (This would be why the first permanent rope barrier permit in 2008 was not all year, in order to call it a permanent-temporary rope barrier)

d) Requested research by Hubbs-Sea World from 95 to 97 “did not reach any conclusions”.   In 2001, the Commission also noted, “In addition, establishing Seal Rock as a permanent marine mammal reserve would be inconsistent with the State Tidelands grant (Chapter 688) which specifically calls for the absolute right of access to the water. “ 

e) From Superior Court Records:  
“The SLC then followed up with a clarifying letter dated November 15, 1993, addressed to Ms. Stribley and Barbara Bamburger. In that letter, SLC more thoroughly advised the City of its rights and obligations in regard to lands over which it is the trustee. The State stated that "[t]he proposed ordinance is clearly inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 937, Statutes of 1931. To ban public recreational uses as proposed would violate the specific provisions of the statute and the City's responsibility as Trustee." [Exh. 70.] The court recognizes that the Reserve is situated within the broader tidelands grant of 1933 and not the much more narrowly and specifically worded grant of 1931.
On January 25, 1994, the SLC, upon further review, concluded the (Seal Rock) Reserve did not violate the conditions of the 1933 grant, which granted to San Diego trust rights over all "[s]tate owned Public Trust Lands within the Pacific Ocean and the City limits (not already granted-such as the Children's Pool) to the City of San Diego." The SLC distinguished the broad provisions of the 1933 grant and the "restrictive provisions" of the 1931 grant which "impact[s] the area of the Children's Pool. [Exh. 597.]”

f) The final recommendation was to use signs, docents and public education instead of barriers to access to public tidelands.  Applicable sections of the Coastal Act cited were 30210, 30211, 30220, 30230, and 30240(b).