Harbor seals got a flipper version of a thumbs-up in the seesaw battle over shared use at La Jolla’s Children’s Pool after the San Diego City Council voted 6-3 to close the beach to human contact during the marine mammals’ five-month pupping season. District 1 City Councilwoman Sherri Lightner, who represents La Jolla, along with Mark Kersey of District 5 and Scott Sherman of District 7, cast dissenting votes. The pro-pinniped vote came after Lightner’s motion to oppose city staff’s recommendation to approve Children’s Pool seasonal beach closure from Dec. 15 to May 15 was defeated 6-3. The Feb. 24 vote came after three hours of public testimony in the decade-long battle over co-existence of the two species at the crescent-shaped pool. The Children’s Pool was created in the 1930s by La Jolla philanthropist Ellen Browning as a safe wading area for children and ocean recreationalists. Beach-access proponents argued before the City Council that the seasonal beach closure was both unnecessary and unwarranted. Seal enthusiasts countered seasonal closure was essential to protecting seal mothers and pups. Their argument was bolstered by numerous videos depicting seal harassment by humans. Citing her “20-year record of community activism” and “passion for supporting neighborhoods,” Lightner said she’s “never been supportive of a seasonal beach closure.” She said a year-round rope barrier and ranger are in place at the pool to keep the peace between humans and pinnipeds. “There are better ways to balance the needs of humans and marine mammals,” Lightner said adding she couldn’t believe the Scripps’ trust creating the pool could actually be interpreted to “eliminate physical access to the beach.” Lightner argued that appropriate studies have not been done to assess the impacts of a seasonal beach closure on the surrounding marine ecosystems. “I’m concerned that we’re drawing a line in the sand that we do not need,” Lightner said, adding she felt the beach closure would “set a chilling precedent that public, physical access to the beach provided for in the Coastal Act is not guaranteed.” Lightner described the seasonal closure of the Children’s Pool as  “regulatory overkill.” District 9 City Councilwoman Marti Emerald disagreed with Lightner’s perspective. “Just because a very generous member of the community more than 80 years ago donated this pool doesn’t mean we have to continue along that vein as times and circumstances change,” Emerald said. “It’s also become abundantly clear that this tiny piece of beach with its harbor seals has become a regional and national treasure, as well as having gained international recognition.” “We should have reverance and respect for wildlife,” noted Emerald pointing out that isn’t in evidence “from the reports we’re seeing about abuse of the environment and overfishing.” Pointing out “many people will never have the opportunity to see the miracle of birth in nature,” Emerald made her countermotion to approve the seasonal closure of the Children’s Pool to protect the seal rookery. Several La Jollans spoke against the seasonal beach closure. “Seals are not an endangered species. Their population is exploding,” testified Phyllis Minnick, adding “harrassment is a myth.” Others agreed. “As a result of human activities, the balance of nature has been changed,” argued La Jollan Mike Costello, a scientist. “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Costello is an advocate of doing a comprehensive management study to figure out best practices for dealing with pinnipeds. Ken Hunrichs, president of Friends of the Children’s Pool advocating beach access for people, said seasonal closure would have the net effect of “criminalizing beach use.” San Diego Fire-Rescue Department lifeguard Ed Harris, who has presented an alternative plan to beach closure which envisions using faux boulders, which can be moved to encourage use of the beach by either species, chided the city for not being open-minded, warning, “You’re really setting this up for litigation if you go through with this plan.” Seal enthusiasts sporting name tags saying “beach for seals” defended the seasonal pool closure. “It isn’t safe for baby seals to share the beach with people,” said Ellen Shively, speaking for the Seal Conservancy of San Diego. “Sharing the beach during pupping season does not work.” Shively showed video footage depicting people prompting seals as a group to flush into the ocean, as well children touching seals, “as if this were a petting zoo.” Attorney and animal-rights activist Bryan Pease claimed the majority of San Diegans favor greater protection for seals during their pupping season. “This is the final step in a management plan voted on in 2010,” Pease said. “Harassment has been ongoing.” Others agreed. “You are the last defense for the seals. The buck should stop with your vote today,” said Carolyn Price.

Attorneys on behalf of Mt. Soledad Memorial Association (MSMA) have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court yet again, asking it to review Mt. Soledad Memorial Association v. Steve Trunk, et al., following a December district court order requiring the iconic 29-foot cross atop Mt. Soledad Veteran’s Memorial in La Jolla to be moved. Over the past 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice previously declined to hear the Soledad cross case, sending it back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution. Cross opponents argue the landmark cross is a Christian symbol constituting an unconstitutional “establishment or endorsement of religion” on public land, and that it must be moved to private property. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit didn’t order the cross to be dismantled, but instead offered the defendants an opportunity to alter the monument in some unspecified way so that it no longer violated the law. Litigants were unsuccessful in negotiating a settlement to do that. “Due to the unique circumstances and the gravity of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial case, we wanted to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to take the case now if they choose — since they will be deciding it eventually,” said Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford on behalf of MSMA. “We are hopeful that, once and for all, the Court will settle this question of the constitutionality of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, as the fate of hundreds of other similar veterans memorials hang in the balance.” Bruce Bailey, MSMA President/CEO said, “The association is eager to have this case reviewed by the highest court in the land. We built this Korean War veterans memorial with support from The American Legion close to 60 years ago to honor the selfless sacrifice and service of the thousands of veterans who fought for the freedoms we enjoy today. The sacrifice of these great men and women must not be in vain. We will continue to depend on the steady hand of leadership of our attorneys and the court system, and I am confident we will ultimately prevail.” Jim McElroy, attorney for the plaintiffs in the cross case, said this most recent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is premature. “They’re trying to leap frog the 9th Circuit Court, jump over one step that everybody goes through,” McElroy said adding, “It makes no sense. You need to go through the 9th Circuit first, before you can go to the Supreme Court.” McElroy said what’s at issue now in the Cross case is “whether a court order to remove the cross within a 90-day period is valid.” In May 2006, the courts ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross from then city-owned property by Aug. 1 of that year or be fined $5,000 day. Two months later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy temporarily blocked that order. A month later, Justice Kennedy’s action was followed by President George W. Bush signing into law a bill transferring the cross to the U.S. Defense Department as a war memorial. That law was subsequently challenged in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Jewish War Veterans and others. In 2008, Judge Larry A. Burns of the U.S. Southern District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the cross could stay. In 2011, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Burns’s ruling, finding that the cross, as currently presented and situated, violated the First Amendment.

San Diego City Council voted 8-1 on Feb. 25 to enact zoning regulations that would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate. But councilmembers also restricted dispensaries to mostly outlying industrial areas no closer than 100 feet from residences and 1,000 feet from each other, schools, churches or daycare centers. Perhaps most notably, the vote also capped the number of dispensaries allowed to set up shop and operate in any one of the nine City Council districts to a maximum of four — a total of 30 citywide. Several of the council districts, like interim Mayor Todd Gloria’s District 3, have no existing zonings that would meet the new requirements for dispensaries to operate. Other communities, however, like Kearny Mesa and Otay Mesa, contain numerous parcels where dispensaries could be located. District 5 City Councilman Mark Kersey, who cast the dissenting vote, said he could not vote for the ordinance because his constituents opposed it and because federal law continues to forbid possession and sale of marijuana, despite what California voters approved a few years ago. The City Council action amends the land-development code and the local coastal program to add medical marijuana consumer cooperatives as a new, separately regulated land use. It’s been 17 years since California’s Compassionate Use Act was approved by state voters legitimizing medical marijuana use. Gloria said the new medical marijuana ordinance “is a balance providing a framework protecting neighborhoods while giving safe access to those (patients) that deserve it.” District 4 City Councilwoman Myrtle Cole said she supported the establishment of zoning that ensures dispensaries will be enforceable, adding she expected a “zero-tolerance policy” for ordinance violators. District 6 City Councilwoman Lorie Zapf said she expected the city to realize “full cost recovery” from the ordinance. Zapf, who made the motion to cap the number of dispensaries allowed in each of the council districts, noted “that will spread it evenly.” District 8 Councilman David Alvarez expressed concern that the new ordinance was overly restrictive adding, “there are needs for access for people throughout this entire city.” Councilmembers took public input for roughly two hours as scores of people testified for and against the new marijuana zoning ordinance, including several beach residents. Scott Chipman of Pacific Beach claimed public use of marijuana by adults and teens has “skyrocketed” since California voter approval of the legislation permitting medical marijuana. Chipman spoke of dispensaries changing names and ownership to try and conceal the fact they’re primarily serving recreational users of the drug — not medical patients, as proponents claim. “Marijuana use is dangerous, it’s unhealthy physically and mentally,” Chipman said. “Hiding dispensaries away in industrial areas is admitting they’re harmful.” The reaction from medical marijuana proponents was mixed. “We are glad that the San Diego City Council has decided to allow regulated access to medical marijuana. However, we are very disappointed with the extreme restrictions contained in this ordinance,” said James Slatic, executive board member of the California Cannabis Industry Association. "That said," continued James, "this ordinance does represent an opportunity to show the leadership of the city, as well as our detractors, that well-regulated dispensaries with responsible operators can be positive members of the communities while serving the needs of patients and caregivers."