The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-9-C (16) , . . ~I)O~" ~ - . , ..f}.-.C OC1 1 19!;i\ . MEMORANDUM OCT 8 1991 DATE: October 11 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council Oel i 5 1991 FROM: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney Mary H. Strobel, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Response to Letters Regarding the Local Coastal Plan This Memorandum responds to the letter from Kathleen Schwallie to the City Council dated September 29, 19911 (the It "Schwallie letter") and a letter received by this office from Debra Bowen dated September 261 1991 (the II Bowen letter" ) concerning the Local Coastal Program ( .. LCP" ) scheduled for public hearing at the October I, 1991 City Council meeting. The Schwallie Letter with respect to the Schwallie letter, the city Attorney's Office makes the following responses or recommendations in response to the enumerated points in the letter: 1. A. We recommended to the Planning staff that it amend Policy 65 to read exactly as Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. e B. We recommended to the Planning staff that it add a general policy consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act. C. We recommended to the Planning staff that it amend the LCP to reflect the policy set forth in Section 30252 of the Coastal Act. D. We recommended to the Planning staff that it add a policy similar to that suggested in the letter concerning neighborhood impact from Coastal Zone visitor traffic. E. Since the terms "coastal-dependent development" and "coastal-dependent usen are defined in the appendix to the LCP, and the term "visitor-serving commercial uses" has been deleted in Policy 44, we do not recommend any additional changes to the LCP to address the letter's concern. Terms should be consistently used, and we have recommended that Planning sta:p attempt to identify any inconsistencies. A~~ -I,,~ Oe1 1 . . " - 1 - OC1 8 1991 GCl 1 G \99\ - I . . F. policies 6 through 17 of the LCP address public . access goals. Specifically, policies 6,7, and 8 are substantially similar to Coastal Act sections 30210, 30212.5, and 30211 quoted in the letter. A separate definition of "public access" does not appear necessary. G. We recommended that Planning staff add a general policy similar to that suggested concerning protection of the Coastal Zone environment and views. None of the Coastal Zone in Santa Monica has been designated a "sensitive coastal resource arean thus no changes are necessary to comply with 30502 of the Coastal Act. Although the suggested change to Policy 53 appears too restrictive I we recommended to the Planning staff that a line be added to Policy 53 pointing out that development west of the 1921 mean high tide line is subject to the Santa Monica Bay Ordinance of 1973. It H. 1. This is a factual dispute to which we recommended that the Planning Department respond. 2. Whether a new policy concerning use levels on PCH should be added fallowing Policy 20 is a policy question for the City council. We do not believe it is a legal requirement that such a policy be added. I. Whether the shuttle system discussed in Policy 30 should be amended as suggested is a policy question for the City Council. Policy 73 requires an assessment of adequacy of parking in the Bayside Improvement District as part of the review of each development permit. The suggested changes to Policy 73 do not e appear to be legally mandated. J. Whether the LCP should be amended to delete all upzoning in the coastal zone is a policy question for the City Council. 2. Public Resources Code Section 21080.9 specifically exempts the activities and approvals by a local government necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (nCEQAu). There is no requirement that the LCP itself contain alternatives or mitigation measures, contrary to the contentions in the letter. Reference in the LCP to individual EIRs prepared with respect to zoning ordinance changes and particular projects were informational only and not meant to satisfy CEQA obligations with respect to the LCP (since there are none) . - 2 - ~ -- -----""-- --~ . '- . Whatever CEQA obligations the California Coastal Commission may have pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9 when reviewing and certifying the LCP are not within the City's control or jurisdiction. The city has complied with the steps set forth in the Coastal Act for preparation and submittal of a local coastal program. Concerning the LCP's reference to projects which have not yet been approved by the City Council, such as future civic Center development, it is not yet clear whether the California Coastal Commission will require an amendment to the LCP to accommodate these projects should they be adopted by the city. 3. The City's Attorney's office shares the author's concern regarding the Attorney General opinion issued in 1987 concerning local coastal programs (70 ops. Atty. Gen. 220 9-10-87) (the "Opinionll). In a recent memorandum to the Planning 4It Department, this office advised the Department concerning the the Opinion, which made the following conclusions: 1. A city or county, by ordinance, including those adopted by referendum or initiative, may not lawfully authorize a use of land in the coastal zone which is not permitted by a local coastal program or a land use plan certified by the California Coastal Commission without approval of the commission. 2. A city or county may not lawfully prohibit a use of land in the coastal zone which is permitted by a local coastal program or land use plan certified by the California coastal Commission by ordinance, including those adopted ~ by referendum or initiative, without the approval ~ of the Commission. The potential impact of the Opinion is great. Had a local Coastal Program been certified, many City actions including the downzoning of Ocean Park and North of Wilshire neighborhoods and the adoption of the specific plan for the Third Street Promenade area would have been subject to Coastal Commission approval. Additionally, the ability of the people to legislate by initiative is severely limited by this Opinion. For example, Proposition S might have been subject to Coastal Commission approval had the LCP been adopted prior to its adoption. Although it is understandable that the city cannot approve projects that do not meet the policies of the Coastal Act, we do not believe it should be limited in the types of projects it can prohibit. We therefore recommended that policies protecting the City's land use authority be added to the LCP. These policies now appear in the LCP and read as follows: - 3 - - - ~ - - - - -- - -- . . . "80. Nothing in the Local Coastal Program limits the authority of the city council or the . people to legislate by ordinance, resolution, initiative, referendum, or charter amendment to prohibit or limit any type of development. 81. Whenever the LGcal Coastal Program or implementing documents set forth development standards, the developments standard shall not be considered entitlements but shall be considered the maximum development intensity that may be authorized. In any administrative proceeding, development standards may be reduced in order to advance these goals of this LUP. Nothing in the Local Coastal Program limits the authority of the city Council or the people to legislate by ordinance, resolution, initiative, referendum, or charter amendment to reduce any development standard." It is not clear that the Coastal Commission will accept e these new policies, but we recommend that the City not surrender its land use authority to the California Coastal Commission. The Bowen Letter The Bowen letter outlines the concerns of Sharon Jacqui th concerning the implementation of Proposition 5 in the LCP, specifically, in the Plan's accommodation of the Natural Elements Sculpture Park on the beach. The letter contends that sculptures on the beach are permissible under Proposition S only if they are a specifically delineated "permitted use." section 9035.2, enacted through Proposition S, lists as permitted uses, in relevant part: "open space, public beaches, parks, incidental park structures, gardens, playgrounds, recreational buildings, recreational area." The Bowen letter concludes that the sculptures on the beach tit would not fall into one of these categories. We have concluded that the sculptures could be considered as uincidental park structures," and are therefore not prohibited by Proposition S. Alternatively, sculptures do not constitute a "land use" and therefore the sections of Proposition S delineating permitted and prohibited "usesll are irrelevant. - 4 - OM' . ~4. ~.~ STATE CAPITOL OCT POBOX 942849 -Y C COMMITTEES 1 ~ SACRAME.NTO, CA 94249.0001 _ _ ~ - ~ . ~. ., HIGHER EDUCATION CHAI::> 1916.J 445-1676 ,I Y C- . '1:..- v :- - BANKING FfNANCE AND 227S~~A~~AY V - a. ss.emhln OCT 8 19~. BONDEDINDEBTE.D'\I;:SS SANTA MONICA. CA 90401 ~ ~ NATURAL RESOURCES (213; 393-2717 (([at ifttrnltb:4!1Iegislatur.e TOM HAYDEN MEMBER STATE ASSEMBLY June 18, 1991 44TH DISTRICT Mr. Paul V. Berlant Director, Planning and Zoning Santa Monica city Hall 1685 Main street San~a Monlca, CA 904U1 4It Dear Mr. Berlant: As your staff prepares to redraft the Local Coastal Program docu~ent, I want to share with you some of my concerns which I hope will be addressed in the UpCOffi1.ng draft. 1. Shuttle - increasing traffic threatens public access to the beach and detracts from the quality of llfe of all residents and visitors. The City should make a strong COITIffiltment to a permanent shuttle program serving not only the beach but downt~wn and other heavily travelled areas as well. The shuttles should be alternat1.ve tuel veh1.cles, settlng a positive example for other corr~unlties that alternative energy sources are the only responsible choices, both economically and env2ronmentally. e 2. Scclpture Garden - the orig1.nal proposal, as I unde~stand it, was to place the sculptures in one ~i....dlCE:;L~-'.:.l~tcG. sCLl:;rt-...:rc ~:.:.rd2r: ",,-There th~~e ":Tho Ch00S'? to could stroll through the garden and view the sculptures. To enlarge the Slze of the sculptures and distr1.bute them over large areas of the beach takes the optlon away from those who prefer an uninterrupted view of the coastline. As the coast ~s many things to many people, I think it would be a IDlstake to lmpose a partlcular aesthetlc cholce on the public as a whole, and the City should lnstead always err on the side of preservatlon of a natur~l resource WhlCh l5 spectacular in its own right. 3. Public Arcess - au overridlng concern, dnd one of the main goals of the coastal Act, is to preserve publ1.c accE'SSS to the coast, but we ShOl11d be sure TN'hlCh "publicl! we are talking about. The LCP should not reflect a blas toward commerc1.al development which caters to P"~re~or' "I. ~}'''~ 0'''''0 A.~ :Au_ c ~ ~' . 0 CT 8~9i ' , 1 " . ~ . . . , a small group of wealthy out-of-town visitors at the expense of large numbers of local citizens. The fact that an establ~shment is open to the public does not mean that it furthers public access to the coast. 4. Interpretation - The LCP should contain a clause that in the event of a conflict of inconsistency between the LCP and the General Plan, or any other applicable document, the most restrictive rule should apply. Thank you for your consideration. " ~ e cc: Suzanne Frick Sharon G~lpin Ralph Mechur Rita Morales Donald Nelson Thomas Plne Jennifer Polhemus Paul Rosenstein e-e: ~ ~_-r--d'/ e , . . . = July 8. 1991 Land Use and Transportation Management Department Program and Policy Staff City of Santa Monlca 1685 ~aln Street Santa Monica. CA 90401 e Attention: Ms. Suzanne Fr1ck. Plannlng Manager Mr. Paul Foley. Assoc1ate Planner Re: Comments On Local Coastal Program/Land Use Imp'ementat1on Plan PUb'lC Workshop. June 1. 1991 Dear Staff Members: The fo 11 ow; ng is our outl i ne of comments wi th respect to the referenced. d1Vlded into sub-sets 1n accordance with the Land Use Plan Book and identified accordlngly. Our focus is primarily on Sect10n 1 a: North Beach (north of the Santa Moni ca Pi er) . We have addressed first the memorandum of May 22. 1991 relating to the a'ternatlve development standards for the Pac1 fl c Coast Hi ghway Corri dor between the pier and northern C1ty 11mlts. It is acknowledged that the present draft does not contain standards for e th1S area. Other aspects of our comments regarding thlS area shall be appropr1ately referenced to C01nC1de w1th the plan document. Comments re alternatlves per memorandum of May 22. 1991: 1. The SUbject zone has great historical signlficance and is reflected in numerous articles ln both the prlvate and PUb'lC domaln. The present residences on lots greater than 25 feet 1n width in some cases exceed the development standard that is proposed under alternatlves 1. 2, and 3 Wl th respect to helght llmits. It would seem appropriate that lf archl tectural conslstency. wlth the present character of the area. 1S to be malntalned. it would be reasonable to a l' ow a new structure replacin!;; a demollshed or damaged old one to be at least in height equal to the prevlously eXlsting structure providlng that the archltectural treatment is conSlstent with the historic aspect of the area. RALEIGH El\'TERPRISES 11444 \V OLYMPIC BOULE\/\RD LOS Au!.;;GELES CA,LIFOR.,'\iIA 00064 l21Y 311-3600 TELEX 691718 R.....LEIGH F....X i2.BI4~<>-305c- . . . . Page 2 . Under a 1 terna ti ves I, 2, and 3 it 1 S proposed that all R-l zoned parcels shall remain R-l. It is further proposed that in each of the alternatives all parcels occupied w1th non-residentlal uses, includ1ng vacant parcels, s ha 11 be zoned RVe. The present parcels wh i eh are util i zed for non-res; denti a 1 uses are ei ther parking or beach club util i za ti on. There are numerous parcels Whl eh are presentl y vacant interposed between and next to exi st1 ng resident; al that would have commercial value and ut11ization if any of the alternat1ves were adopted. Th1S would be inconsistent w1th providing approprlate buffers between the existing residential and commercial utilizations. Further. in the specific instance of The Jonathan Club, they are the owner of several parcels of property whereon single family residences have been removed. They are presently l11egally using these parcels tor park1ng. Unaer the proposed alternatives. there would be a wlndfall wherein The Jonathan Club would have property zoned RVe. It has been cl early stated over the years to the resi dents that the ... res1dential character of the neighborhood should be ma1ntained. If . RVC utlllZatlOn 1S made available on any properties presently not uti11Zed by R-l, present or future, the res1dentlal nature of the beach w1ll be completely destroyed. north of the Santa Momca Pier. In 11stening to the var10US comments by the councilpersons. I do not belleve it was their intent that RVe zon1ng would destroy the beach area for the present residents by addl ng more commerci a 1 zom ng. However, clearly 1t will have an adverse lmpact on the existing residential area. The Jonathan Club presently leases a property owned by the city of Santa Monica; and under a contract the city 1S obl1gated to exchange the 1 eased property for property of 1 i ke va 1 ue an d/ or size. The 1 eased property is presently used by the Cl ub and 1 s cont1 guous to a recently purchased parcel Wh1Ch contained a res1dence subsequently demol1shed by The Club. It is lmperative that these lots owned by The Club not be a 11 owed the benef1 t of RVC deve 1 apment. It is further e 1mperatlve that The Club not be allowed to util1ze presently zoned R-l propert1 es for parki n9 purposes. It is cl ear that such use waul d 1mpose unsat1sfactory conditions upon the contiguous residentlal property and a 1 so prov; de a'l opporturn ty to u 1 t1 I11i! te 1 y destroy the resldential zone 1n 1tS ent1rety. Where RVe is appropriately appl1ed and where there are exist1ng commerC1al leases. V1ew corrldors, on all parcels includlng the park1ng lots, should be malntained so that any RVC development on eXlsting state-owned, c1ty-operated park1ng lots will not totally interrupt the V1ew plane. RA.LEIGH P..frERPR.ISES ]1444 ".... O~Y?\.IPIC BOLLEV-\RD LOSA'\;CELES C'\LI1'()R]\;lA, 90;)64 .21>'312 3t-0C' TE'..':Y ('-;)1'11' R'\:"E1C'-j P.> }"4-;) 3C8t I . . Page 3 Consideration in this area should be given to very stringent architectural controls so that any RVe development. whether completed by the city and/or state. should be consistent with the architectural treatment presently existing. Further. the Coastal Conmission has used a string line concept predi cated upon the 1 ocatl on of ex; sti ng buil d; ngs seaward. It has precluded the possibility of buildings slde-by-side continually 1 ntrudl n9 into the view plane. Santa Man; ca 1 s rear set back 1 1 ne wou 1 d allow cons tructi on of residences to be Wl thi n 25 feet of the most seaward property 1 i ne. Although the present zoning allows for such a location. we believe a string line concept should be utllized wlth respect to any new construction so that the seaward exterior wall does not protrude beyond the existing string line of buildings on ei ther si de of the proposed structure irrespectlVe of the set back e considerations under Santa Monica's zoning regulatlons. II. Santa Monica's Coastal Zone: Sectlon 1a - North of the Santa Monica Pler: Thi s section ln part states: "Zoning lS a mlX of sln91e family residential and hi9h density mu 1 t1 P 1 e family residential {emphasls added) . We ca 11 to your attention that there are few hl gh densl ty multiple family residentlals in th 1 S area wi th the except10n of one condoml n1 urn development. The balance is medium denslty and far and away the maJorlty is slngle family resldence. Page 19, Parasraph 1 states that The Jonathan Cl ub 1 s permitted to lease a publ1Cly owned parking lot and those parts of the beach on e WhlCh 1 ts facllities has extended over time. The parklng lot agreeme~t further provides that The Club may become the fee owner by exchanglng property as indlcated ln my previous paragraph. Page 19. Paragraph 4 refers to the orl gl nal estate of Marlon Davles bel ng desi gnated as a Cl ty 1 andmark. Perhaps some conSl derat, on should be gi ven to the entlre area of "The Gold Coast" as bei ng designated for landmark status. III. Coastal Zone Condltions and Issues Page 32, Paragraph 1 refers to the traffl c flow along the Pacifl C Coast Hi ghway, sma 11 lots WhlCh are interspersed among pn vate resldential development and are dlfflcult to see from a dlstance, and access to the lots requlring left turns from north traffic. R.ALEIGH E~TERFRlSES 11444 \."\' OLYMPIC BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES C.bU.IFOR.."J! '\ 9OV64 l2131.311-3600 TELEX 001718 -R,'\lEIGH FA.. X l213.. 4-<)-301'-:::- . , , . Page 4 . In other parts of the Plan document, si gnage and 1 andscapi ng of the parking lots is suggested. It is requested that adequate consideration be g1ven to uniform s19niog and appropriate landscaplng a t the entry to the parki ng lots Wh1 ch Wl 11 help to identify for the pub 1 i c the uti11 za ti on of the property. In conjunc ti on wi th thi s, although not in order. is the additional consideration of consistent signing on eXlsting concession and public serving facilltles located on the subJect parking lots. The original intent and requirements of the conceSSlonalres was that the signage address the beach side of the property and not the Paciflc Coast Highway side, for commercial promotion. At the present time there is no conslstency in signing and no enforcement of a slgnage policy. thereby allo~ing makeshift slgns to be attached to the eXlsting concession stands and a multltude of temporary structures for storage of beach chal rs, bicycles and other such items. There should be consistency in all of these matters so that it is tastefully ldentifled. Additionally, temporary structures e should not be allowed. Pa~e 37, Bicycle Access - It is lncorrectly stated that three types of bike ways are located in the Coastal Zone. Paragraph 1 refers to "a bike way that provides a completely separated right-of-way for the excluslve use of bicycles, wlth mlnimum of 1 ntersectl ons for automobile crossings." The bike path described in later paragraphs of the subJect sectlon along the beach does not provide for an exclusive r1 ght-of-way for blcycles but is allowed to be utilized by both pedestrians, skaters and for other uses. It was spec 1 fi call y agreed between the resldents of Palisades Beach Road area that in conslderatlon for their cooperation in the location of the bike path and the resolution of a 20-year disagreement, that the blke path would be utillzed far both bleyeles and pedestrlans. Further, the ci ty of Santa Monlca pr:vlded assurances that the city had no intent to extend the promenade for pedestrlans beyond lts present northerly terminus. e Seeni c and Vl sua 1 Resources - Paragraph 3 of thlS Sectlon refers to "; n certain special circumstances, archltectural review will take place ;n R-l zones---The board generally requires that development be cOffioatible with 1 ts surroundings at'1d that the design is of a conSlstent style and character." ThlS language is conslstent with our ear11er suggestion wlth respect to the s1gnlficant aspect of the area and should addltlonal1y extend to any RVe developments as well as Slgmng, present concession stand remodel i ng, or other contemplated new development. IV. Policies: Goals - Paragraph 2 of this Section, page 58, in part states "protectlon of the qua 11 ty of life for resldents, protectlon of R.A.lEIGH ENTERPRISES 11444 \.\, OLYMPIC BOCUVo\RD LOS A,">:GELES CALlroRJ\"IA 90004 11B! 311-360..'1C TELEX 69FI/l R.A.LEIGH FA X 11131 .FQ-30tk- l . . Page 5 existing affordable housing, and the Constitutionally protected rights of property owners." The interposing of cammerClal facllities next to res i denti a 1 wi thout appropri ate buffer zones is not consi stent wi th the stated policy previously partially Quoted. Throughout the policy secti on, the Constitutionally protected rights of pri vate property owners is referred to. Access Policies - Paragraph 6. page 61, again provides that access to the coast be conslstent with the rights of private property owners and In Paragraph 9(c) provides that a "parcel is too narrow for an adequate prl vacy buffer separati ng the access way from the ex; stl n9 residency and would therefore adversely affect the pri vacy of the property owner. The following guidelines shall be used 1n determlning adequacy of pr1vacy buffers: There should be at least 15 feet between the existing residence and the side yard property line for an adequate e buffer." I call to your attention that the present parking lots. WhlCh do provlde access ways do not provide the residents wi th a sufficlent buffer in that vehicular parking is allowed lmmediately adJacent to the side yard property llnes. In some instances. the side yards are three to f1ve feet from the common line. Parking should be configured so as to prov1de the appropriate buffer zones as stated in the policy section. The utilization of eX1stlng parking lots or new parking lots without the buffer is in direct controversion to the conslstent requ1rements of state and federal law. Pase 63, Artlcle 10. Sub-parasraph b excludes from the definition of "new development" demolit1on and reconstruction of a single-famlly res1dence provided that construction does not involve removal of 50% or more of one exterior wall or supportive members. Due to the age of many of the resi dences and the constant exposure to ocean mOl sture. conslderatlon should be gi ven to ; ncreaSl n9 the standard to 70% or more. e Pase 64, Artlcle 17 prov1des that pr1vate use of leased pUbl1cly-owned land shall be phased out as leases exp1re. Query is made as to whether thlS would be applicable to The Jonathan Club's use of leased property. Page 65. ltem 25 should provlde for security ln conJunction with the utllizatlon of park1ng spaces 1n the publlC beach for resi dentl a 1 permit parklng. Obviously access for the residents is lmperative but not at the expense of the parkl n9 lots bei ng opened to the pub 1 1 C after dusk. pase 66, Item 29 should requlre landscap1ng of existing parking lots and provi 5i on of a buffer between the adJacent resi dentl a 1 use as a priority prior to any further development of RVC parcels. RALEIGH ENTERPRISES 11444 W OlYMPIC BOl:LE\'l\RD LOS I\NGELES CALlFOR.t..;IA 90064 [2131312-3600 TELEX 691"'18 .R,A.LEIGH fAX l213' 4~O 3J8t> -- - --- . , . Page 6 Page 68. Item 40 is inconslstent with agreements made with the resi dents of Palisades Beach Road/Pacific Coast Hlghway with respect to the promenade. it bei ng the intent that the bi ke path woul d be utilized as a combination bike path/promenade. Page 68. I tern 43 - Recreati on and Vis; tor Servi n~ Pol i ci es contains language which would allow a phase out of residential utilization if. upon demolitlon or other non-residential uses, the R-1 property became commercial recreation facllity utilized. Further. such use should not have priority over slngle and multi-fam1ly res1dential and RVC should not be an automat1c zom ng upon the demolition. destruction. or non-utilizat1on of R-1 property. Page 69, Item 51 is in cO'1fl i ct wi th Item 43. As per previous comments regarding preservation and protection of the res1dential neighborhood, Item 51 should be the priority. Page 69, Item 52 should contain language where1n views of residents e should be considered in the development of any public-serving recreation or support facilit1es. Cons1deration should be glven to such bU1ldings being consi stent wlth beach design and perhaps be subterranean 1n nature. Page 72. Item 68 should be cons1dered as an interim control ord1nance or emergency ordinance so that further new construction will be cons1stent wlth the goals 1n thlS Land Use Plan. The newly completed construct1on 1n th1S area does not allow for the visual extenS10n of Pal1sades Park to Crescent Bay Park. Implementatlon Plan II. Zon1n9 Amendments - Page 97, Sect10n 903.58 (c) provides for residential development to prov1de secure space for bicycle storage at e the rate of f1 ve bi cycle spaces for the first ten parklng spaces or any fraction thereof. It seems absurd that the slngle family resldents would be required to have blcycle storage for five bicycle spaces. V. Comprehens1 ve Si ~n Pro~ram - Any comprehensive si gn program shaul d include signing requirements which are consistent Wl th the Slgn program WhlCh w111 be located on sped f1 C faC1l1ties such as conceSS1on stands and shoul d be cons; stent with the Sl gm ng program for the beach areas at large. They should be 1n the form of ident1fYlng the serVlces as opposed to be1ng "advertlsing" for a speC1 fl c restaurant and/or serv; ce. The intent of the foregoing is that the publlC be aware that food and/or other publlc-servlng facil i ti es are ava i1 ab 1 e but not to promote for name's sake. the vendor. R.A..LEIGH E~ERPRISES 11444 \-\' OLYMPIC BOLiLEVARD LOS Al\GELES C'\lIFORNIA 90064 (llJI312-3600 TELEX 69T'lS RA.LEIGH r....x l21314-0-3('.:'-2 - -------- - --- - , . . Page 7 Thank you for your consideratlon of these comments. We are hopeful that our V1ews will be beneficial for the North Beach area 1n its entirety. Sincerely, C:=~ -C_-;;; < George I. Rosenthal 549 Pa11sades Beach Road Santa Monica. California 90402 e p- O ~ h A. Rosenthal lisades Beach Road Monlca, Ca11fornla 90403 Mayor Judy Abdo Mayor Pro Tern Ken Genser Counci1person Robert Holbrook Councllperson Herbert Katz Councllperson Kelly Olson Councl1person Antonio Vazquez Plannlng Commissioners: Chairperson Ralph Mechur Thomas Pyne e John Kaufman Rlta Morales Donald Lewin Nelson Jennlfer Polhemus Paul Rosensteln Ri\LEIGH Et-.'TERPRISES 11444 W OLYMPIC BOLiLE\I\RD LOS AI\GELE5 CALIFORNIA 90064 ;2LMU-360C TELEX 69n8 .R.......LElGH F-\X ;'::13" 4-" 30k , . April 15, 1991 To: Santa Monica City Council Members From: All the property owners of Seaview Terrace Re: Local Coastal Plan of April 1991 Please be advised that we, the owners of all the Seaview e Terrace property and of the accompanying private easement rights, deem the des~gnation of Seaview Terrace as a public easement in the Local Coastal Plan of April 1991 to be in error and in direct conflict wlth the coastal plan's own stated goals and policies regarding private property rights, public safety, and coastal accessibility. We therefore insist that the language designating Seaview Terrace as a public easement be removed from the LCP document, Policy 34 and 35, page 67. (See Exhibit 2 and 3) I. SEAVIEW TERRACE IS A PRIVATE EASEMENT A. County records show Seaview Terrace to be private Per County records of February 13, 1914, Book 25, page 36, " There shall be a joint easement of all owners of Lots 1- 14 inclusive of Tract 2562..." and this easement can be e " abandoned only on consent of all the owners of all the above lots 1-14 inclusive of Tract 2562 Santa Monica." This clearly means that the easement belongs to the property owners, not the general public, not the City and in practical purposes was established to benefit the property owners ln order to secure access to the Terrace. (See Exhibit 4) B. Seaview Terrace is not identified on City maps because it is prlvate. l. Seaview Terrace was not listed on city maps for the purposes of EIRs for 4 adjacent proJects (Loew's, Hyatt, Magulre Thomas hotels and Ocean Plaza) w1.thin 500 feet of Seaview Terrace. - - - - - - ---------- - . I page II 2. Seaview Terrace is not iisted by name on the map of the very document under discussion, the LCP. (See Exhibit 6) 3. Seaview Terrace is not listed on city's Land Use and Circulation Element document. The fact that it is not listed on the LueE map (See Exhibit 5) is significant because the LCP states that if there is a conflict between the LCP and LUCE, the LUCE takes precedent. (Lep Page 61 General Pol icy number 3) Marine Terrace is designated on the LUCE as the accessway between the beach and the civic Center. Therefore, it follows for the purposes of LCP Policy 34 and 35 that e Marine Terrace should be designated as the public accessway not Seaview Terrace. (See Exhibit 5) C. Seaview Terrace and Private Arcadia Terrace are identified identically in offic1al county documents 1. Seaview Terrace is identical in official County Tract Map description to Arcadia Terrace, and Arcadia Terrace has been recognized in official City documents to be a private easement. In a planning staff memo of September 4, 1985, it is stated that "Arcadia Terrace is a private walkway which extends between Ocean Ave. and Appian Way. . ." If Arcadia Terrace is a private walkway, Seaview Terrace is a private walkway. (See Exhibit 7) D. The desiqnation of Seaview Terrace as a public accessway e places an unfalr burden on private property owners to provide a lIpublic qood" 1. A nexus was not established between the achievement of public policy goals and the benefits to private property owners by the imposition of these policy goals. This is one-sided and unfair. (See Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission and AB 1600.) E. The desiqnatlon of Seaview Terrace as a public accessway places a IIcloud" on the title of private prooerty. 1. Public policy is being created in a state document which in affect puts a lien on private property w1thout any compensation. ------- -- . . Page III F. Proximity to ad;acent residential uses creates conflict between pr2vate p~operty riqhts and Dublic access. 1- Per the LCP access policy 9 C & 0, page 63, access policy should be implemented in a manner that takes into account the "proximi ty of the access area to adjacent residential uses...so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners." Seaview Terrace is completely residential and by being designated as the accessway between the Civic Center and the beach, the rights of adjacent property owners are not being protected. (See LCP policy 34) e II. PUBLIC SAFETY A. The LCP states that, "access shall not be inconsistent w2th the public safetyll. (LCP Page 62, General Access Policy number 8C. ) Specifically the LCP states that "access to the coast...shall be provided for all the people consistent with the public safety needsll. (LCP Page 61 General Access Policy number 5.) Seaview Terrace, with its 38 step descent to the beach renders itself inaccessible to the disabled/wheelchair bound and as such, is not equally available to the entire public. Given these facts, there is not true public access. B. Public safety also means protection of the public throuqh e adequatepolicinq and crime prevent2on. 1. Seaview Terrace has never been patrolled by the police. It is not accessible to patrol by police cars, bicycles or horseback. c. Public safety requires maintenance and resoonsibilitv for the public accessway. 1. Seaview Terrace has never been the recipient of any city maintenance or other city services. Access shall not be required, "until a public agency or private association agrees to except responsibility for maintenance and liability for the accessway." (LCP page 62, policy 8) . i , Page IV III. COASTAL ACCESS A. six other uublic accessways exist within 1. 000 feet of Seaview Terrace 1. Within one or two blocks of Seaview Terrace the beach can be accessed, without stairs and with disabled accessibility by six existing public accessways. a) pico Blvd. b) vicente Terrace c) vicente Place *d) Marine Terrace (designated in LUCE Page 79 as e official civic Center/Beach east/west connection) e) Seaside Terrace f) Autoway There are no other areas of city beach front off of Ocean Avenue that can claim even 1/2 the above number of proximate access points. In conclusion, we do not obj ect to the LCP, WE WANT TO BE EQUALLY PROTECTED BY IT. We are not opposed to coastal access. However, we do object to designatlng a private easement as a public accessway, particularly when this private easement is surrounded by six other public accessways, is not police patrolled, is not maintained by the city and is not accessible to the dlsabled/wheelchair bound. e Seaview Terrace is private. For the LCP to state otherwise would be to compromlse its stated goals and policies regarding private property rights, public safety and accessibility. We respectfully request that all language designating Seaview Terrace as a coastal accessway be removed. , - I . :=.. Xli d3 J I ~ F I .. "" N€ ~.6?---~ c;I 4....d::(;'.t.-&~O- ~L-U~ /~pV-/-cLLLr k~f _uic~ ~~.,-,1:Jz/---d.--d..-~ -;'!A'r W ~r;u:zb~ {.( ~a--?v C-c---c'--<lL.=L &~~'-^l?--Y ;t<--.'2-. VU-Ir5'-CUt.v'-V?;I :..Cu...<!C,...J- ) f "'I. '. , I & ~ 'J..G.h~~ -b3 '--7L..--rf -Il.c~ C' c~ vC...- C~lj '<-l/_~C0 ~J p~U .-L.<. ~, ~ --<U'~ o~~J b ~ ~ ~. v "".. I / . -1'" T _"".," ... _ ' ' -;. --. .' ~~.--c'~--"~ "----.LvA.r-<:,-",-t-A-C ~ -r-<'"/- o.:::J"'J-f-tCJ-- _ty .....Ut.e- '.<:I:~--;-:.-t.-~ //?C;;U C4L- / 'I .0 ~ // .i""f ~ /" /.. J : P. . I \ . /. . / ../ t~ _.Jo F / '- -. _./ ,/ G~/____n ,~,,:L-J.......w -7't-D /;----r.~-r ,/~~4.. ~} :..-/~a' c<:.--?L~- /,--,-'C-i ~<:w ~ /Z-C~ ./ 7r( ~ .:.~~/ ~ ;,-r-rJ&'~_':~'rLf/') (/ r/ / .. ..J ~ . "'/, .--;-- ./ ~.... .... . - -:-. - -.I '" ~_/ ,-' ~,-<--,,----,,{..~ ~'z...~~ -w ~ F':.LC':~ '--'--/" U-!.-<.~--r'_-<'--L/~- :...<./-a.j:--/cL-~:/ LL-;----"'<- / vi ,.,.Ld 7L..r/ -?n-L~~~ h ~ ~</ 0 cT J \ ~ ..--/ .. t/), . / -' ./ "l/ j" 0.-"':' __ L-- _ ~ ./ 1 / / /" ~L-(.(<-<; ~---t:/ a.J ad - ...i--}".&W' CL-/ '-YV...1.L-J--?'-" .::'v<jl ~~ eCo~ ~,( '7:"" CA....-6-tZ---i.L--.u..,..r~ ':'"'L- ?-&~L /:::fc{~i~L.--;L/ Jl.L C;t /if - c:;( ~~ ...J:Z.,~ if'-- V--I' --U.--OLi--L--- . ~ r) 0/ {.. (/ \ /I 0 / L.,-;. ; "'./1 /~..... J I ....- ~ / ~? / .... --') 1..4u::.u -.--vJ-'-L/ -C...Li' /'u; f ~~ ~';1Y::9<-4.': h ~t..I-:..-~ ,;,,-<< <- .[( ";/ ~ ~u /~' ~:/ .....ti.c /L-W ( ~ ,v {/ /t.- i/ v CL:'J<L- '-/ >L-~~~ /~Ld.c.e - JAL +c~u"CJv ~di-c--c.J-~1 ~ct:.-t/L{.n- /__,---' ./:.,/..L~LGi o-{ L;:JLIt?-.~;/ _.J>c.u'-t:...~ /. -r .. /1 {/ V (/ L' , J_. '--, .. . . J"l-- / /!7 // /'. J _ ..-; . .. - / --/, - - _ ~ ' ::;:;;;J~./V<-L.'~ /;';-,--v&L<~ ~ _,--",-'- L.?..W0.J-f' c..{J~C-..t-.J. C'J,.....f L.-fCu/t;C.ULLC' /,--,}<-6 cc.z-cn7v j,1' ,_ . .~ ,". .' . - ~ -:1 &-~ vu.~7--4-~'-t..' ~-'~ --r:...co-I- ,('-".:.&~~ - ~ _ ,. ~c--'><" Cc / :J' t:.Jf . U '---- ,r '-<.'...!. ..<:-07- ~,~ <::e.- - r /;> ~. j .r . / - /. L ' --,/ - -0':.....- , ,l, / " . - - - / <.A----"J'L.v{ ~~ ,~-'L-.,L-e..-c..-- - ~'-.{. -L- ... / . {.- L' -'--<_ ----.:- 'c.-C-.::-- V" .:.-{..,~.c_ L-c-..!..::z-L~\..- ,// ..- u' '7/" - ---- . E ~ / / ~ . ~.1 - ~.. ~ , ~ _ I : , I ,,-r ~ ... ~'1 ... -:J' , ,./'f ~7i.-.:::L--7?-L-& U% ':'L-!.---L ____V'-t:- ::: ~ _ -/// .:,~' ' .,L .-- r-c L_"__' J.j ~ <<"Lr-C-C..U e-i--z.d...L-e /. .. ~~ ~. ~ .., . ...,-., _ ~ _ / -"- ..... t ... ~ ~ '7 _ l .-;'----- "..- I' ~ f/ r'J "--- 6- t....-r_ LJ ........,: po ... ~ ./. '" -....-.. -r.. LC/ <-- . [ ./1" ......?t..{ ,-? cr ... I '- ~ ol........ .(.L-f ,- L_ ~\- ~ z.-.. l.--' ~ .../--.- - - - - ---.....,/- ~ l ,.~ ---""I - ~........ - -- .-~ ~ ~ -- ..~ v ---;. I.-'C... I ~ I ~ ~H r 13 i T ;;2 p,..2..- ~~ ~~ "..u~~-~~' ~-/~ L.."t<: d~ F4.4-G~ 6L ZI ~ ~-~'CY ~ ~,,!~~e~i]i'-t~ rtv "Clef 6[f\,l r \ n I . 1'-' ; -'- L' ~ JJ ! ^ oj ," /' 0 ""' ~.-1';' /1 CA.-nu::- I '--'"l \ .. '- 1---' '......' I t-1 1 I v 1 I e){ S 1" CA 19 (- - . (-.-- (' r C;OYC'f, ~i.A~ a~ ~ uLOdJ( e L~ l ~/l/fl~c..L ~I.rlrt-o.. MoV\\cc,,\ ~ r r., . n~. 1-," I ry~ J I r ~ ," I ~ v, L 1 'rJ-">:"'1L":v"\ r hi <':--{U.'V'"\) II (;) :- ct I v 1 r..J...f....... I I~ \f\ L- 01......\/\ 9\t C{I'{ -..f '0 l C"l.' V\./\ 0- d/A..--\. ~-:rh .'1......1. 1 \'. ;'~ -:- - r ,_ ,.., OJ (] ! ,(, ~ "(Y'-r vi (\-;c.vCy -.7 lll'vvQ IS. SvLo.-, ',<_ \,::>.4 '.' ~~~ '-J --r,::r;-"~ / ~\ r ..--J ---"'--1 ...,.-,,,, . ~ T7V :r;.v..,. I I-J G.-- A '/'7'dv'- /Z--~'-47~ !OM J"',JI..1..tIJC- ";f- ;..nLe. r~' '/ _ ~ ~ 1-7(e;Jvte1..-() -J€J2-M-Cl€..- .. - ~ - (- /, 'z;.r /. ---- ~. ~ - 1,-:1 ~ .___ ?//c '1/ L-c,. " i ~ ~~ _ & ___ J , ~~ -""'-/7':'- /}?-<-/}l.e. C'v;i 1/ y t..~ ---' A- 11.-, :; . "-//71- a..dd;-e:-s;.5 f/r?)EfiVI Etv' !-ei?ij // Cb /.."'l \' .. . /_ y;~) ~ A ........ _ X, ., ! /-:P1__~'u. ~ V L..--'V\..---"" /\J a./~"<...--/ ~itJ-1f /~ ;;:c; n C{ ..::; UJT7 s e I ~ - ,,'-- , ~ . V\.{. IjJ-~~ rle.../. ")~Y~t./L~ '- '7 ..:- / (" -1n~ t/)/kj. ,. r . .- , = c..---'-< / ________~ L--<O. "-, ' - ~-- . / ,~ . I....... . /1'/ r}q, /~ c.:-.:;h:'IIL /'1, -',- 1'1 L--(' J -)/) f ~~S;;- /2- ~t'.{.'" V',evJ l-tftAC-c' - I;J;,..--J / - - ~ ~~ )/'l/~A<- , ,~~ /~ ~r~ lit/v"! /Z.a~ ~ ,J .Gr2n..tJ (j2JJsS '--E/7/ .?w;;z?-t...L?4:; /6 5P-/7U/bw !;.qA/~PY'e S~,.?fP- ^\:JAJlcPtA. }bYDj ) , . . , EXI-i j 6if }... p,,-3 , / " (L~~~~ ~L -'l'~ L<-e.~ d~ 4- -1~~ c-#-~_~_L.:;-f! u . #~ h ./-, /, 4."vivu-. ~~~~------:. , fx I/J I- -'l4-/l1t!.. ;%1/( /-1 A-l c /;/ A 7!f)'Z- Jd r.l f I f24 m r- ad c1h.44 / '9' s J2 -L V '~.-..-..J 1-<./ r ~ 5{.trl~ &-.L r1G-/~f~ Fie /J4/JJt!- C;f-N'DA Cb t:l:'~K-t ,0 c... e<C: ';Jr/ /Jr tZd c/ /'eS5 t <i' SC-Ik lJ( €-r.,J Ie- vY 1-- c-e... ~-Ij~ ~8u-t~ ../ !J r i n f- /'2A.:L/TYC- Sf q.:--7/7.-<.:vn / C 8u.7hu.nel/ )///7 i-- ~r~.$5 d e<::L (j ( e..c...u ~ /b / 0'1,tt ('c '3/1 a Iu i.t: J7!'c: L~ )rt:--e- /i..~ ~I U'~> Ci '-::, n/~ -. - I h Sza V / r-' L(; r 7(C/?-(t C~E ~yr~ I .. .~ - ~ \Ct 1 .~~~ i\.J)I ~. '-/ ~{llw Ylj y;r /7 dInt' Cy() YCc' S)tfV1 c-- 7/'/J7 -I addlr'55 r S-Ct'/ """'( ----~ 0 ~e--.~VICU f z-e-- (~a c c' 0 _ , . J A,:p~t-iW~ ~ ' ;j /L ;_~ ~:...,_ [,{)V"- r.i...;~ ~UyL..- 7~: J J:", S J ~ Ii .' ~J /l.M}f.b , t l...-~;; ({ J l':Ii '. . // ~ - i :..., ....: oJ - ,,;,//,r ...~ - r.-L-~ j.- "- ...0...-' . '''-I r ~ ct- ..........:.4 ~O~ eFf ~ \91i - (5 1~91 JOHNSTON FILMS, 34 SEA COLONYtDR, SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 (213) 452-0004 September 4, 1991 City Clerk, Room 102 e 1685 Main street Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 Re: Santa Monica Local coastal Program and particularly the Natural Element Sculpture Park You have 1nvited comment on the above and this letter is in response to your invitation. I am opposed to the entire idea of sculpture en the beach. It seems to me that it would be in the community's best 1nterest to keep the beach just that, a beach. While I support the arts, local and otherwise, I don't think that any artistlc adornments are appropriate in our few remaining e natural surroundings. A redwood grove would not be improved with a sculpture garden, nor would a mountain stream, nor T-a;Till our ~9=.(;l-J.~ Sincerely, -, ~ :\ /-/ If ,- >J~~~~ I-::;...r~ i / J ~/Jim JPhnston jj/nc '-/ tSCJ ~~cr; ~~{~ ~~'-~ A~,; -h kf:::7I= :J" <::... 1 \. ". orT ." : \,,'1 \,/1",1 D I~~l OCT 01 '91 12:39 ABC LABOR RELATIONS P.i/1 I , A~ flfJ ~ Edgar W. Hint .. \991 8 Sea Colony Drive .9",c. OC1 1 Santa Monica CaBfomla 90405 Del 8 1991 (213) 392.1926 October 1, 1991 Santa Monica City Council city Clerk, Room 102 1685 Main street Santa Monica California 90401 via Fax: 213-394-2962 e Re: Proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Dear Members of the City Council: I object to the inclusion of the Natural Element Sculpture (NES) Park along the three mile stretch of the Santa Monica Beach as part of the proposed Local Coastal Program. The beach should be left as sand. The sand is being encroached on enough by parking lots, toilets and outdoor showers, food stands, barbecue grills, picnic tables, volleyball areas, bicycle paths, exercise equipment and trash cans every 200 feet. e I agree that public art should be placed in publ io places. But I do not support art on the beach. Put the art in a park, put the art on the front lawn of City Hall, put the art in the beach parking lot, put the art at the entrance to the beach parking lot to welcome people there, but do not put it on the sand. Leave the sand alone. yours, $wr Ii). Hirst ~:4lf~t.V ,1~" ~ ~ '4~ v/ .j;W OCT 1 J9::' ~C//, tZe;; ~r"r.1 r a ~ (~ J SENT aY~C:TY OF S~NTA MONICA : 9-30-91 ; 14:31 2' S3 !~429 62-+ 2133967063;# 1 , v OJ."..1CC~~::S DOUCHERTY 0'9/30/91 16:58 ~ ~~.tI TD nrT of .. Qel 8 1991 1Q!)~ MAlY PAtRIGIA DOUGBERTf ,.. ADELAJOE PLACE -- -- SANTA 1lOffJCA. U --- ..... ..........611 Septeaber 30, I'll Oo..tal coam18.ion e MAria 4. Herrera Arts Adaini.tratot 'ax NUJnb4ar: 313/394-2962 Lad!.. and Gentlemen of the Coa.~al COmm18$1cn: I aID writ1nq in favor tor the Natural 11_nts SOulp'ture parK, to be included in your plan of r.oreationa1 ",se ar.. tor th1a co_unity. III add.! tiQn to unencumbered beach.cape t our park visitors have a n.ed for visually _tlwulat!nq, .. vall.. functional art. I believe that NEB Park prov1d.es for all t1\ree of the abOve objectives, thereby allowinq tor the best uae of our beaches. A tremendou& amount of inter..t and controversy is qenerated ~r art in itself. Hopef~lly, th1a will be seen .a a n.ce$.a~ily po. tive ~ .ign, and not .iainterp~.t8d .a public rejection of what oth.r~ wille would be a .a;or accOllplishJael\t in the field of art-in.. public places. I respeotfully aubnit the.. comments .. . concerned individUal. Sinoerely, ~ ;<';1.;~~.wi ef,{f?7; ,-..x;/A::' ccmmisaioner ~Uqherty ~ C t' .f tf< j~-;- (, / ~-C ~ . r{ A-~d ~ -,'I t!)-.--#-- l-~ ~7 l.... / Liz; fir~-y { ~.,.. \. .. i . ~ OC,1 B \~9\ ~-- - - -- - -- -- Prdd. -fa 9-1tf! -' . - 1 ught to have been bef::lr~Clh~ fa91 ~';:nt~ 2 3 , 4 C~W. shoul e dee,ding that if go,ng to 5 '. P t s~e If;! fl:k.:-hOW - 6 b>g~fl"(;on. lJile:bS is 7 the 9 w ~ ~ng 9 this. So, my vote 8 lS gOlog to be agalnst this but with appr@ciation f~r 9 t'1e efforts to create somet~lng that the Art Assoc- ~O iat~on and the City felt was a positive addltion. e ' 1 I understooc that. On the other hand, I 12 thl:-k we have to lock at. the larger lnterests of the . 13 p..:bllC for thlS beach. 14 CHA IRl'1A~ ~10RNt;~: CO~~lssloner Rynerson? 15 COMMISSI0NER RYNERSON: I just wanted to . 16 also state that I feel that the interest of Santa 17 Morllca as a cor.rr.unity 10 public art 15 nos~ laudible. 18 ---- However, the ComIrllssion has a maJor responsibllity 1n e 19 terr.1S of trying to preserve our coastline and beaches unclsturbed as possible, and , 100"0 ng at 2C as so we re 21 it I thinK tcom that point of - view. 22 CHAIRMAN WORNUM: Anyone else? IWell, I "m ~ "'- to make I and I like the Lone Ranger, a 23 going seem - 24 stand for the staff and for art, which is always 25 controversial and obviously has becol!le so now. o. "- . Page 22 j . 1 And the az:g'..1"lent 1S tl-Jat because lot's on ..- - - 2 ;~e beach, the beac'1 is scmeho:.r sacred and ~e have to !c ," 3 'have an absolutely uniform dull blandness that any ~ ;r.' .... . , 4 pro2ect, any structure, for people to play, activity 5 .~ do on the, beach beach u~brella5, or -- soon, picnic - 6 -. baskets will be outlawed because they interrupt the 7 ~pri5tine sweep of the sand and we all stand there. c _. - . 8 contel1plating our navel and the sea without any- , 9 thing around to d1stract us. 10 When the Eiffel Tower was suggested, they 1 1 wantec to tear it do''''n. NOlrl, it's the prlde of 12 ParlS. The t.; a t t 5 'rowers, If you t"e~embet" , were put , 13 up ana the City wanted to ta~e it dO'..m and o'11y by a 14 great deal of effort were they left. No....., they're . 15 the prlce of ~.; a t t oS . 16 Eve" the sculptures 1n the rn'Jdflats of 17 Oakland and Berkeley are now admlred and, again, ~E bu~ea~~racy wants to ta~e them down because they 19 mlght interfere wlth some creatures or sot.1ething and 20 they are again something that everybody looks at. 21 I think it#s a very attractive sculpture'. . 22 It~s somethlng focal and it#s something that is part > 23 of our civilization. It does not interrupt the' i ~ -.. 24 ~beach. It is a steel pipe structure. You 'WandE:r in , 25 it and behind it and below it and you enjoy lt ~nd have fun it and it gives you inspiration. ~ .. ." " Page 23 . 1 The Ilttle pIcky thlngs that It mlgt'.t rus,: 2 and come off on yeur hands -- \orell, t hey can paHlt It 3 once 10 a .....hlle. You do have rou.ndabouts and all 4 sorts ~f structures O~ trye beach WhICh survive and do '-'- 5 very well. -. - 6 You s~y_that this .....111 be a precedent and~ 7 that "from no~ on every beach .....ill have thousands of 1.> - 8 sculptures allover it. That#s not true. This is 1 9 ~sort of the domino theory. Each case should be judg ed W 0:1 its oW'n mari ts-: - ;-- e e 1 1 This is a very wide beach. The cItIzens of 12 Sant:a ~enlca ano the Art Com~isslon should be . ~3 comr;.ended for trying to make things better, to 14 lJTIprOVe it, to give you sor..e inspiration and I think 15 it is a. great shame that we are becoming serre kino . ~ O.L - -' 16 artlstlC censor in this. . t7 This is somewf-tat of an artistic NIMBY~ 16 attltude, you kno...., not in f'lY backyard don't you e 19 build sculptures. Do it some....here else. The beach 1 - 20 think will be embellished and improved by this, not: destroyed, and will add fun for the kids and the , 21 . ca.n still - t 22 people watching it. You go and wander. < 23 under it. ilt will be about t....o square feet that ~. 4. . . 24 pipes occupy it and you can ~ander and sit under. 25 I can see I'm going down to abject defeat. I think it#s a shame that we#re doing this. I thi'lk .... n " Page 24 -- " " I ~ I . - ; ... 1 t'1e staff sr-.ould b@ ccrr.ner.ded fer dCl:1g thlS and I 2 t}-,lrlk It~s best \ole call th~ roll at tl-jis stage. I , 3 urge a.n aye vote. , 4 '0 CC~'~ISSIC~lER CERVA~nES: If thet'e~s not a -. motlOn on the floor, Me Chalrman, r'd like to move ... € tr,at ~e deny staff' r," 7/d~tlon. staff. 7 CHAIRMJ: - , -~M: No, move per -, I 8 CC:-l~tISS 1 ::;ER'J ANTES :1 Move per staff ~- / /- ; 9 , recomrr.end a nC ,- ar::: '" CO~MISSICNER ~acELVAI~E: Second. ....; "... .----- , 1 " eEA frf::AN ~~ 0 R t.; lJ "1 : W01,;ld yot: call fer tl1e: 12 roll, please? f 13 . Ey.E:~~rVE CIRECrOR DCUGLAS: Mr. Chairj'l')an, 14 r Just wa:1.teo to Ma"<.e an observation. I was ... t5 11stenl'1g to you, Corrmlssioner Warren, when you wer-e ~6 rnak 1 ng your com'"'ents. I was just COr"l~ent i ng to Mr: 17 Dami'i that unlike many of you here I was her-e when the i8 Commission spent literally hours debatlng a sculpture 19 at Laguna Beach on the beach and the park and I 20 recall the outcome there. 21 This was a judgment call we made. You~re 22 making a judgment call now and whatever the outcoMe 23 is, we'll provide a signal for the future. 24 CHAIRMAN WORNUM: The outcome will be no 25 more sculpture or art on the be~ch. COMMISSIONER WARRSN: No more waivers. '. . I . ,- Page 25 I , ,- " , . . ~ - , , CHA IFP~;' N i'JOR!W"\: W'1.1Ch 15 a '",onderful 2 _ s::ulpt:.lre. t"Jould you call the roll, please? 3 COMMISSrO~ER McI~KIS: No. 4 CO'1MISSIO~ER NEELY: Yes. 5 COM~!SS!ONER WAR~EN: No. 6 COMM!SSIONER WRIGH7: No. 7 CO~~ISSIONER CERVA~TES: ~~o . e 8 CO~~ISSIONER FRANCO: No. g CO~~ISSIC~ER GLICKF~LD: No. 10 COMMISSIO~ER RY~ERSO~: Nc. ~ 1 . CO~MISSIONER MacELVAI~~: Yes. '2 CHAIR'1A~ vlOR~Wr1: Yes. . 13 THE CLERK: Three, seven& 14 C fP- I?oM to N i.;'OR l:Ut1 : The motion is defeated ~5 ana r''':'l afraid art is no longer an incentive in Santa 'f:; fv1onica. e Iv '7 Chairman, dlC CO~~ISSIONER McI~~IS: Mr. '8 we ~a7e an understanding that no !:'lore of these things 19 come throug~ on the consent calendar? . 20 CHAIRMAN WORNUM: I think the staff gets 21 that message. 22 DISTRICT DIRECTOR DAMM: We clearly l1a',Pe 23 that message. 24 (At which time the meeting recessed for ten minutes] ... - COMMISSIONER RYNERSON: Mr. Ci1airman, '::0 prlor to any other projects such as the one we just . . " ---------- > . . -, .. . . 1 ch s c ussec CO....l:"lg to the Ccrmlsslcn, agaIn because I 2 '<.nc'"" the COJ71T.lss::.cn has requested to see tl-}ese . .- -J ~hin.;ls, I. would hope that we could develop sorne r 4 that would .. _.. _'0- ... ., - -,_-..-"" crlterla enable us to approach thIS a - ~ , -- - --- -- - - 5 -~~ t ~ l.~__d j f.f e ~_e~r: ~ ~y. r " . , '70 e Th is .was all of a sudden out of the blue, . 7 'a sIngle p~oJect, and it would seem to me that it ~, -- - . - . .' - 8 should be put i~ the context of what OUt real sense 9 is i r. of the whole and if we have . .. terr.~s coast 10 prc~osals llke tl'1is again in the future it would be ) 1 . helpful to have some ~ind of discussIon because we do 12 allo'", 1 1 ~ thlngs like that the beach. Jung_e gyms a!!o on ,. , I 13 . Certainly the last thing in the world the 14 CO'7irnssion should be is an artistic censor and that;s~ , ~ , , 15 the last thing we would want to do, I believe. I 16 EXECCTIVE OI~EC70R DOUGLAS: Right, I 17 appreclate that concern, COf':'l"'\:!'ssioner Rynerson, but 15 let me just indicate to you. that I have discussed 19 ....l~h the representative of the CIty that they come 20 back: .....ith a listing of all the projects that they're 21 proposing so that we don't do -i t on a piecemeal baS1S 22 and that they don't waste their resources in terms of 23 moving ahead with a proJect that they know is not 2~ go i:1g to be approved by you. 2~ In terms of an overall guideline or policy :; frankly, I ~ this is not a frequent problem, and, I could , ~ "'.. ....... ~ ~ ~ - ~ - -- r . ,- .. , Page 27 ------------- 1 see It taklns an en~r~o~s a~~~nt of tl"'\e If 1 r.ce.:d. '-ole 2 ..:ere to do It prope~li a--:d 1n llght of the staffll"'g 3 constraints that we have, I wouldn~t want to mlsleaci , 4 you to indicate that, yes, we'll go ahead a..d do that 5 . because right now I Just don't think 'wle have the 6 resources to do It_ . 7 I thlnk that: \ole have enough gUldance and 8 .we can glve directlon to the City of Santa Monica. 9 ~I f this were a problem that we were facing on an < -- 10 'ongoing basis up and down the coast I ......ould suggest' e 11 lt might be worth the divet'slcn of staff to :io that; 12 b~t, at this pOlnt, I Just don't see it. . 13 1 think we're gClng to be providing sere . 14 g'Jidance though 1n the context of Santa Monica, so 1,Je 15 may out of that effort provlde gu u5a nee for other 16 areas, and that's the Ylay I' d like to proceed, If 17 that's all right. 18 COM~ISSIONER FRA~CO: Mr. Cha1rrnan, . ~ I 1. e . t 19 nay make a comnent? I want to reassure everyone, 20 especially myself, that ! was not eensoring art. That , . 21 is out of the question. Who am I to censor anybodi s --- . 22 -art? But I agree with the Executive Director that i ~ -W. _ _ __ 23 perhaps part of the LUP should include special uses 24 of the beach due to the fact of the desires of the 25 COm:'1Unlty and, secondly, the large beach expanse they . .. Page 28 ~ . - , - .. , have. Once tt'at 15 set In the Lt.:'P, the'1 I ....oulo no': -- - , 2 opt'ose that. " - - - - - - 3 . MS. SHARer; JAQUITH: Commlssioners, my 4 "Iar:i9 is Sharon Jaquith and last week when -r went do..n"' . 5 to your staff offlces l.n Long Beach I was teld on 6 Ch15 item lt would be late morning or flrst thlng 7 a:!ter lunch and I am opposed to thlS. I have spent 8 a"'; i:1ordlnate amount of ti"iie --- 9 C H h! R~lJ; 1\ WO R~W!1: ~ell, , ve ac~ed it we on 10 ar.c it WaS denled. , , MS. JAQt.:ITI1: If you would llke to see 12 so"e pic:ures of the beach area'? . 13 CHl.IRMAN ~~OPN:JM: The matter has been 14 f.:.nlshed. I don't '><ne...... If staff misled you --- 1:; MS. J~QUI':':J: I than~ you very ~~ch. I've 16 been werking o.n this Slnce May, as you knc'... 17 EXEC~7IVE D~RECTOR DOUGLAS: And, Mr. 18 Cha ~ r"Bn, ....e do tell peo~le to be here at nine 19 o'clock because you can never predict ho", fast or 20 slowly the agenda is going to move. 21 So, with that, Mr. Chair~an, , \.Ie re 22 prepared to go back to an ltem that we tralled from 23 earlier from South Central which appears on page 12. 24 --000-- 25 Page 29