SR-9-C (17)
,
" ' AJJ 'fa lOA-
LUTM: CPD: a.... c.,.. OC J ~ 1991
wjlcpoct1 J
COUNCIL MEETING: October 11 1991 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Response to Letter From Kathleen Schwallie Dated
September 29, 19911 and transmittal of LCP Errata.
Attached for Council information are minor corrections to the
document brought to the attention of staff by the members of the
public and the City Attorney. The corrections will be
incorporated into the document before it is forwarded to the
e Coastal Commission for review. In addition, attached is a new
resolution to adopt the LCP. The resolution has been modified to
reflect the most current City Council hearing dates.
The following are staff responses to the september 29, 1991
letter submitted by Kathleen Schwallie. Revised policy language
has been proposed where staff concurs with Ms. Schwallie's
comments. Ms. Schwallie's comments are underlined, new language
proposed by staff is indicated with bold text I language to be
deleted is indicated with strike out text.
Issue 1 A: Revise Policy 65 to be consistent with Section 30251
of the Coastal Act.
Response: Staff concurs that the proposed changes would better
clarify the policy intent. The following is proposed for Policy
65:
e The scenic and visual qualities of the Coastal Zone shall be
considered and protected as an important public resource. Public
views to, from, and along the oceanl the Pier, Inspiration Point,
and Palisades park shall be protected. Permitted development
including public works of art shall be sited and designed to:
a. protect %~ %~_ ~t%~~% t_~~j~X_ t~~~~~~~X_ views to and along
the ocean and scenic coastal areas:
b. minimize the alteration of natural landforms:
c. be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding
areas and restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded
areas.
- 1 -
.
J
Issue 1 B: Modify LCP to be reflect policies set forth in
section 30250(a) of the Coastal Act.
Response: Staff concurs with the language from the Coastal Act.
The following policy is recommended to added to the New
Development General Polices:
New development shall be located'within, contiguous with, or in
close proximity to, existing ~eveloped areas able to accommodate
it, or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other
areas with adequate public services and where it will not have a
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively,
on coastal resources.
Issue 1 C: Modify Policy 71(f) and Polciy 116 to correlate with
other City policies regarding the shortage of parklands.
Response: Staff concurs that POlicy 7l(f) should be modified as
follows:
Assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will ~~ y.~t ~
not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the ..
amount of new development with local park acquisition and
development plans with the provision of onsite recreation
facilities to serve the new development. Office development shall
conform to this Policy by complying with the parks mitigation fee
ordinance, residential development shall comply by providing on
site open and recreational spaee consistent with the development
standards for each zoning district.
Issue 1 D: Provide language to protect neighborhoods from
coastal related traffic by amending Policy 18.
Response: Staff concurs that Policy 18 should be amended to
include the following language:
Traffic flow from the Freeway and other major access routes to
the beach parking lots and the Pier area shall be improved e
through a comprehensive sign program, which also provides
information on alternative transit modes. No siqns shall direct
traffic onto residential streets. The City shall further work
with all neighborhoods to ensure, among other ~hings, that
visitors to the Coastal Zone do not use residential streets as
alternative access routes.
Issue 1 E: LCP must use terms consistent with the defined terms
in the Coastal Act.
Response: The LCP contains definitions for both terms
identified, IIcoastal related development" and IIcoastal-dependant
development or use" on page 113 of the August 1991 document. The
policies throughout the document have been modified to ensure
- 2 -
.
,
correct use of the terms since the April 1991 city council staff
report. No additional changes are necessary to address this
issue.
Issue 1 F: A Broad definition of public access must be included
in the LCP.
Response: staff does not agree that a definition of access is
required or appropriate in the LCP. The Coastal Act does not
attempt to define public access but rather sets forth policies on
how to achieve public access. Local Coastal Plan polices 6, 7,
and 8 set forth the general access policies for the city. These
polices are consistent with the Coastal Act language (Section
30210) and therefore staff does not recommend that any additional
changes be made to the document.
Issue 1 G: The goals of the LCP should include protection of the
environmel}t.
Response: The proposed goal to protect the environment is
e acceptable to staff. The following policy should be added to the
Goals section:
The Land Use Plan must encourage public recreational use and
enjoyment of the coast while ensuring that the very resources
that make the coast so valuable for human enjoyment are not
spoiled. The pUblie's demand for access to the coast is
increasing and, consistent with its other polices, the LCP
attempts to accommodate that demand. Care must be taken,
however, that while providing public access, that the beauty of
the coast, its tranquillity and the health of its environment are
not marred by public overuse and overdevelopment.
Include language for compliance with Coastal Act Section 30502 in
relation to sensitive coastal resources:
The Coastal Commission has not designated any area as a sensitive
e coastal resource, therefore the LCP need not contain
implementation plan actions designed to protect the sensitive
resource.
Modifications to Policy 53 should be made to prevent development
on the sandy beach.
The language proposed in the letter is too broad. Given that the
Bay Initiative passed in 1973 limits development west of the mean
high tide line, staff feels the existing regulations in place
adequately protect the coast. Therefore the following amendment
to Policy 53 is proposed by staff:
Private encroachments onto the Santa Monica State beach shall be
prohibited except when determined to necessary by the state of
- 3 -
.
,
California to settle litigation concerning the boundary between
private and public property. Existing encroachment permits shall
not be renewed, except where mandated by lease terms, and the .
area of encroachment shall be reverted back to sandy beach when
the permits expire. Public development on the sandy beach shall
be pern'li tted for the provision of public coastal recreation or
support facilities. Development west of the 1921 mean high tide
line is limited by the provisions of the Bay Ordinance of 1973.
Issue lH: Coastal Zone conditions and issues must include actual
conditions and pertinent issues. The LCP should contain level of
service information for intersections in the Coastal Zone.
Response: staff does not agree that levels of service for
intersections should be included in the LeI? This information
will be contained in the Citywide Master Environmental Assessment
which will be updated on an annual basis. By updating annually,
the information in the MEA will be more reliable and accurate.
Add new policy related to use levels on Pacific Coast Highway.
Response: Staff does not agree that this policy is necessary. ...
The acceptable levels of development are established in the WI'
development policies and therefore development may proceed if it
complies with the adopted standards. The issue of acceptable
levels of service will be evaluated as part of a project's
discretionary review process.
Issue 1 H: Policy 30 needs to be amended to reflect a "can-do"
rather than a "cantt-doll philosophy.
Response: Hotel developments in the coastal zone will be
contributing to the proposed shuttle program. The two year trial
period has been determined to be a sufficient time period to
assess the feasibility of the shuttle. As part of the
feasibility analysis, staff will be assessing the availability of
other funding sources to implement the project. staff does not
recommend any changes to Policy 30.
Modify Policy 73, the LCP relies too heavily on the use of e
parking structures.
Response: Staff does not recommend any changes to Policy 73. As
stated in the Policy, the City shall assure as part of the
coastal development review process of -each development, that
parking is available wi thin the district to adequately support
the proposed development.
Issue 1 J: The LCP should be amended to delete all upzoning in
the Coastal Zone.
- 4 -
----- - -
.
<
Response: The areas proposed to be zoned RVC along pacific Coast
Highway are presently zoned R4. Although the RVC designation
would permit commercial uses that are coastal related, the
proposed development standards are in fact less than what the
present zoning would allow. In addition, under the provisions of
Proposition SI recreational uses such as the beach clubs may not
be removed unless replaced with a similar use. staff is not
recommending any changes to address this issue.
Issue 2: CEQA has not been adhered to.
Response: Please See October 1, 1991 City Attorney memo.
All references to the civic Center Development, NES park[ future
pier development[ the Aquarium, and rezoning which will intens~fy
uses, increase heisht or FARs should be removed from the
document.
Response: References to the pier development and the Aquarium
have been included in the document for purposes of background
e information. There are no policies that will "grandfather" these
developments. Further, both the Pier and the Aquarium will
require coastal permits from the City or the Coastal Commission
if the LCP is not certified before the developments are reviewed
by the City Council.
Policy 110 as it relates to development in the Civic Center
states that development shall comply with the standards of the
Civic Center Specific Plan. Once this Plan is approved, the LCP
will be amended to include the development standards.
Policies related to NES Park and Coastal Zone development
intensities are appropriately contained in the LCP. These are
policy questions to be decided upon by the City Council as part
of the LCP adoption process.
Issue 3: 19B7 Attorney General Opinion.
e Response: Please see October 1, 1991 city Attorney memo.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Attachments: October 1, 1991 Errata Sheet
Revised Resolution
- 5 -
.
.
ERRATA I
Items to be deleted are underlined.
Items to be added are in bold print.
page 27 2nd complete paragraph add:
II no more than 400 units of market-rate housing, the
. . .
development of off-site affordable housing units, at
least 6 acres of public open space, "
. . .
page 62 policy #3
" the most restrictive policy takes precedence.1t
. . .
should read:
" the LUP takes precedence."
. . .
page 63 policy '#9 add: e
"Note: Although current conditions in the Coastal Zone
would exclude these exceptions, public ownership
patterns may change at some future date."
page 65 policy #17
IIprivate use of leased, publicly owned land shall be
phased out as leases expire except where such use is a
coastal dependent use." should read:
IIprivate use of leased, publicly owned state park and
tidelands shall be phased out as leases expire unless
the public property is developed with a non-membership,
visitor-serving use open equally to the pUblic."
e
page 68 policy #34
liThe City will study the feasibility of an 9..cean
Shuttle It should read:
. . .
"The City will study the feasibility of an ocean
shuttle ... tl
page 93 3rd paragraph
"The R3R District is interested ..." should read:
"The R3R District is intended n
. . .
- 1 -
I
L
.
,
page 104 Section 9153.1
; ... all development in the Coastal Zone conform
..
to the provision of the Santa Monica Zoning
Ordinance ..." should read:
" all development in the Coastal Zone is
. . .
consistent with all provisions of the Santa Monica
Zoning Ordinance ..."
page 105 Section 9153.4 e.
liThe proposed development is consistent with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." should read:
"The proposed development is consistent with all
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance."
It page 108 section 9153.10 (a) (5) .
"The Director shall act upon an Emergency Permit
application within 90 days." should read :
liThe Director shall act upon an Emergency Permit
application within 5 working days."
page 109 Section 9152.4 b.
"The proposed development is in conformance with the
provisions contained in the Zoning Ordinance."
should read:
"The proposed development is consistent with all
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance."
e page 114 add: definition
"Natural Disaster. A situation in which a force or
forces of nature, beyond the control of man, have
destroyed a structure or structures."
page 122 1st paragraph
" as called for in Government Code Section 655901
. . .
community known as the Mello Act." should read:
" as called for the Government Code section 65590,
. . .
commonly known as the Mello Act."
- 2 -
.
,
y
C~ty Council Meet~ng: 10/1/91 Santa Monical California
1
RESOLt:'IION NO.
(City Counell Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
TRANSMITTING THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO THE
CALIFORNIA COATAL COMMISSION
HHER:::AS, in Nove:nbe:!:'I 1990, the City staff submitted a
draft Land use Plan to the Pla~ning Commission: and e
m:rEREAS , on Nover:'ber 14 a~d 28, December 6 and 19, 1990,
and .January 23, 1991, the Planning COlrmission held public
hear longs on the Local Ccasta: Program and approved it with
certa~n modif~catior.si and
WHEREAS, on April 16, and October 1, 1991, the City
Cot.:::ci: held a publl.c t:.ea~lng or~ the Local Coastal progran and
adopted it with certa~n mod1fica~ions,
e
New THEREFORE, THE CITY COGNCIL OF ~HE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES
RESOLY.=: AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1- Pursuant to Public -Resources Code Section
30510, t~e C1ty Council certl.f:.es that the adopted Land l;se Plan
of t:J.e L-ccal Coast.al Progra:n, attached hereto, is intended to be
car:::-ied CUi: in a manner in ful~ conformance with t:.e California
Coastal Ac";, and that ,... cor:.ta:ns, i~ accordance wi~h guidelines
_ w
- ~ -
-
.
establ~shed by the Coastal Co~misslon, materlals sufflcient fer a
I thorough and complete review.
SECTION 2. The Cl.ty Council does hereby authorize the
transmittal of the approved Local. Coastal Program to the
California Coastal Commisslon for lts consideratlon.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certlfy to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
e A?PROVEO AS :-0 FORI-!:
~y~' ~
Clty Attorney
wjlcpres
10/01/9:'
e
- 2 -
A JJ ." O-c.. /Cf~
f"KlCiI'. ttfr 8 . ".. .
FEDERUlON OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR CONSERVING URBAN SPACE FC C u S
October I, 1991 _
7-
IICayor Abd 0 ...;
Santa ~onica City Council :
1685 ~ain Street =
Santa ~onica, Californ1a ;
-
,.
RE: SUGGESTZD A~JITIONS & ruODIFICATIOKS TO lOCAl COASTAL FBOGR~~ O? ~
LANJ US2 & IIi.F lEf.iENTATION FLAr; 017 CITY CF SAr-~TA l,JQNICA. :
.F
V ~
"'~rn-:- c::..~r.r.l"""!"" 1\- -~ ,. . - r~ '!" p 1=" -- ~.-.n _" 1I.~-!1 "!--/
f, CH1-\..t.J.':"~, n, .....::.v.J..lO~, la,rAhA.rRAFH 'f.r-A....::., 18 - NO.,TH 0 ~AN1A II.O,\,:"CA F...-=.-:::
SU~f,est following sen~ence ~e added to paragraph: however, north of f
~contana Avenue no pedestrian access 1S provided to Santa ~onica State 7
B each :Prom ra11sades rark 0 'The d1stance from .. Inspira t10n f-01nt'' ta ::
the ~ontana Avenue beach access 1S approximately 2000 feet, which 1S -
in excess of the 1000 foot spacing of the faur existin6 access routes ~
to Santa ~O~lca State Beach. ~
-
r)'-RC~""S-~ A---""""'C1\- 'TIn ,....TA~iTI~. I' r,""- /"9 -r....-," 40 r.l( ......o-r-.~~. -',~:r :::::-
~';-.L -r-v L..;..,..' .ti__)0.i.J....:. .~.j ..LV vJl' r'l""'-:'-'.1. ..,', rdl...T~ 0 J .riir,-ri. 1 J V .~:: ~~~~ ~.
, C" 3.L:AC~ AC8:C;SS r~C.-;:7.r1 OP I.<C~~A~';-A A"\:.2::'\D~;" The feasibility of obtaininG :.
and (j'evelopins an easement in th'e' canyon 1mmediately adjacent to "In- ~
spira tioD 1- oint" in Falisades lark for a pUblic accessway (sldewalk 6; ~
steps) to the raclfic Coast Eighway sldewalk at the foot of the canyono=
Two eXlst1n[ pedes~rian tannels ~o under the Fac1fic Coast Eighway -
(Ocean '~ay and .Jest Cha:mel ::toai) and are adjacent to Santa ",_onlca
State 3each. The Ocean ~ay tunnel is approxi~ately 400 feet north a~ /
the San~a ~onica Clty boundry Ilne and is in constamt use by the N
b each gOlr~ public, wr.o v iS1 t bath Santa I\-:on1ca & ~.ill Rogers i)eaches': ~
...
..,
f
-\ ""!\L""~'" - ~A" ~ 69 - r'RAr.- '-H "2 - OT T....I-- S t th -+- 2 "hI ....
3; ~r.l"U _'L:\ .l~' tl- 'J':' , r.M. ;~ 'J tuu'" '+ - r- '.1.. 1.'...... J:,;:::d ugg e s .a" pu.... 1 C :i
accessways (~talrs and walks) on Adelaide Jrive.shown on ooftS 7. have
the third Sa~ta ~onica public stairway at 531 Adelaide Lr1ve alsa in-
cluded on ~A} 7, with address or street intersect10n (145 Adela1de,5Jl
Aiela:de. and Adelalde - Fourth &treet lntersection) clearly sho~n on
-,'AI 70 Cr:isslcn of preclse locations of stairs and walks may lmply ta e
pedeEtrians that the facilities are privately owned.
it)c'!--:~:::::~' r.r";-'.f:'"' .''''':-:~,-:-T.-'''': f".<:' Ft.R.^-::"l\-:::H 1'2 pa'~e 69 -,- I' r,;--,~-::,--...-, r;;Ol L::-"-,
11 :::!.......-t......-..w......,l...;. .l.__.-........ uv_.-J....J.''-- v. ~~rl....._~..._ ::-' s ,.0_ .L)."'-'~~ .1..............: __ J.~---,-'''i.-1,
~ The portlon o~ the 3 public accessways located at 145 a~d 531 Adela1de
Jrl\'"e and 4th ~treet and Adelaide Jr1ve, wi thin the Ci ty of Santa :'jO:1-
lca, Wh1Ch pro'v-1de access to ;:;;'anta kon1ca Can.yon, :Janta i\.onica G; .111
F Oi;ers S tate .=.eaches. and Santa kon1ca ;',.ou:1tains r\a tional hecrea ti a!':
A~ea shall be ~aintainej and kept open for public access to the beaches,
rountai~s, parks and residential cor:Iun1ties in Santa ~_onica and &a~ta
fl- Orll ca Ca:l::orl,
~\S;:,r-'T'1'JI' ".:l~ _~ ~lIS"'l:::;'C' ~r\:':K .,~'"~ 23 'Cr-;:;A"""Qr.'F.~ OY" ~l""'~ c:.L. 4'011 h'''''~
.J) ~v_ L',.)a l'H. n..-,~ .n... ,rh'~.r::, ..1.11.., 'J..h u .~ ....UE>be....'" -'- 0'/-'-"0
~ .< '-l" b - t . ....-0 1~75 '~~'-~119?- r.~-
cnar1€ es an;:;. aO".....l1;;1.0nS .9 mace 0 paragrapn: -" n ".,_ b ..;l~'l";' v), r u~
88 Y':;A~S, SA~\TA :,.:Ot\'ICANS HA.:: A i~:ACa;1171CAI'~'I' "l.~". 01:" 'IH.c: -r.AY I CCASTlE';'::
AF-=~ 1,.0U:';r.;=~~S c:'l;,C "INS?IFAT1OI\" lOII\T" E: TEi -,T:Cn~:LTY c"S' fH~ AIASKA:'-
'I,~,7~~ ...nu.l:::' S-:-"-,T{';; 1963 SI~"~:: 1.-96)~ r."l.,'F^T "r.c: ut,C: --'~-'. O-''''''''''-'TT~'''''l.--r-- BV ,\
V...l...--.,J."_.... --.-JI .......:'v--.r .t1j~...I~ r..c.. .,''':' -. fi.l4,w ~.-.:.-..::=..- '; 1.r;.;:J..L;- v\.....::~ "J- ~
P. L~~L~ L ...:-J- K';- I.....~I\ ~ B.J ILJ II~C; 1I
/\C:-~.-l.~ >-. '-lS'li'T -~_'s.-,-....:r~c - - nTT'"'I"'<:::: .,. ,':':=-- 72 -=['-.A~'::".f'~.1-" o/"<=::{c\. A":;";; -Po"'lo'-.-
,.., J .....;-.....~.' "J u.. ~ L.'.~J...........J ':!.......~_v~ __ r L4.-....'v ~....... Jrrt............. t.L n:\ 0...-.l'1.r.J";' ../ J II .LI..A~ 1 .L ~t
- / 11 ~ r-I'-o. t ,or ....' ~... .;'} i ~--'"""";j'~ ----.:;..,--r -; n-: r~ --";-~7.-.. ~....----~::-;~"'r'>---=.~...........- - '-'-' -.-..-: -
..--/ ar1.C:tla>=-t.:' 0 c)lc): l-'.:--LUU....:..L.-..;...~ 1.r:rl..i.. "1I1'J.LL .~L.QT\.)!-.~ 1.n1: L-~J;\A0~.,-"' l..L-'A~lA.i...- ,1.:..-
A r "11\51- I;;~A ~ =: C:\ Fe. I ~\ T 11 SH C}l=. 3.s AC T I . ~l:- f U:-. S~J~~, :L~>~C I l~=<~~r'~::; 'I~.:: F LA~ I-
1=<7-:- ~-'r- "1=" ,- ,""-'--~:".7T-~-:--~ A I'CJ,_.,,-.-.L . ,;:;> 'I'" T"''''- A~ T-;':'" rr.' -'-ry'. ml.'- ',~ 101
,j.... ....i..____ -: \.... ....J L._~;;'..L': U loo'f...l.. "Iio-.1\~ u '.c-...~ _rl. ~ ..l.~~~ 1...,....;- 'U-Ii-J! 1 ...J...---=" ~....;.t"!.!.~ r \..,1'. ..:.. .....:r 1'1....;..
O=...:,i-'_~, A: ~:~:J.::,2 ~ " : ~-, r
/ " -, ? - i .' / !_" ' -
. 1 F~." "rl
;:: , """"- r""l 0 -y... ... ~ '" e./" l (. ~-t. ~..-/ ......'- .. ~..... __.....,.: .r'i -" -..
_~._.....~.L e .J' _ - ,K F~ C:Xdr:.:1",r .'.0 j';an. ,-,ha.J.r - ~O..........~
AJd -f, /tJ~
, . . j.,C-
OCT 8 1991
t
I would like to express my gratitude to Kathleen Schwa11ie for her
excellent letter and I hope that the CounCll and Staff address the
concerns that she has expressed It this kind of hard work and
comrrutment that I have seen ttme and ttme agam from some very
special women in this community who have chosen wisely to be the
leaders on these issues rather than the followers. They have been at
the forefront of coastal and dty wide issues and I applaud there
dedIcation to the principles of preservation and protection While the
men in Uus communIty have been busy bUildIng monuments to their
own medIocrity these women have h8d a vision of the future for Santa
Monica that included the survival of the PIer I the passage of Save Our
Beach legiSlatIon and protection of our state beach ptlrklands from a
e luxury hotel developer IronIcally they have had overwhelming publ1c
support
Thl$ Local Coastal Program supports the premise that building
shoppIng malls} bars, clubs} high pnced hotels and aquariums in our
coastal zone supports publ1C access to the beach Tounsm IS perceIved as
the drIVIng force behind the publics use of their state beach parklands
The term Parkland IS conspIcuously absent from thIS document It
IS partIcularly eVIdent when It refers to the state beach parkland
propert y at 41 5 PCH No mention has been made of the publ1CS
rejectIOn of the commercial exploitatIOn of this parkland
e Somewhere along the way the local Arts CommiSSIon also beheves
that our state beach parkland IS the approprtate place to display
SCUlpture Agatn. what has happened to the prmclples of protectIon and
preservatIon of our state beach parklands The Arts Commission has
not exhausted all of the potential sttes for sculpture In their own CIty
Why would they jeopardize the future of the arts In this city by thiS mis
gUIded concept Sculpture 1$ not coastal dependent
Why IS there no mention of a potential for a 1,000/000 sq ft. CIVIC
center project rIght In the mIddle of lithe gateway to the coast II Will thiS
massive development In our already severely congested coastal zone
serve the need for publtc access
. . ,
,
\
Why have we shown Ocean Park containing Los Amigos Park as
serving our recreational needs when m fact the School Board is
planning to make this park into a third school site, using ES money
along with the money from bU1ldlng an 88 urut condorruruum
development on the John MUlr School Site and additional condo units on
the smash school site. All of this in our coastal zone
Why does one map show all our parks as recreational uses and the
following map shows our parks zoned for residential use - along with our
school sites? Why did we not mention that all of our parks are currently
being reviewed by planning to remove their commercial office and
resldenUal zonmg In order to protect them for the future recreatIonal
needs of the publ1c? It
We are simply not fOllowing the prlndples of protection and
preservation In our coastal zone. I ask that you please ask these
question of the City Manager and his staff? We are a community that
serves the needs of 20,000,000 mill10n people and their access to a
very precious natural resource The misguided planning of commercIal
development of the past should not be the gUide Une for our future
Enc SlSS
2601 33rd Street
Santa MonIca} Ca 90405
e
. , w ~ 9'-"<:
, .
I #6 Sea Colony Dnve
Santa Monica, CalIf. 90405
October I, 1991 OCT 8 1991
t
DELIVERED BY HAND
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL:
ThIS draft Local Coastal Program has not Incorporated in form or in substance
the provIsions of Proposltlon S, passed by 62% of the voters of thIS City. The
attached letter to attorney Mary Strobel, dated September 26, 1991, from Debra
Bowen, my attorney acting on my behalf, expresses several of my concerns. I
have addltlOnal concerns: ThIs draft LCP ignores and does not incorporate the
purposes of PropOSItion S, as stated in SectIons I and II, and this draft LCP is
in dIrect VIolatIon of SectIon 9035.7 of PrOpOSltlOn S.
uRecreational Use. Any bUlldmg or area wlthm the Beach
Overlay DIstnct currently In use as a recreational buildmg
or recreational area shall not be removed or demolIshed ex-
cept to replace saId bulld10g or area WIth open space or
e substantially simIlar recreational use or uses."
You cannot remove the beach and replace It With a structure/sculpture of the
Natural Element Sculpture Park because you cannot replace It WIth open space;
It obVIously Is open space. You cannot remove parkland In Palisades Park WhICh
is open space because you have no open space to replace it WI th'
To make thIS LCP conSIstent WIth Proposltlon 5, the follOWIng must occur.
1. Page 71. Delete polley 55 In Its entIrety.
2. Page 72. PolIcy 65, fIrst paragraph, Delete the words "mcludmg publ1c works
of art"
3. Page 75. PolIcy 83, fIrst paragraph; Delete the words "elements 10 the
Natural Element Sculpture Park
e 4. Page 76. Polley 86. fIrst paragraph; Delete the words "elements In the
Natural Element Sculpture Park, other art works"
-
5. Page 76. Pollcy 87. Delete the words "elements In the Natural Element
Sculpture Park"
6. Page 70. Polley 49. Delete the words "Art works appropnate to the SIte may
be permltted.!l
7. Page 77. Pollcy 91. Either delete the words "or other publIc purpose" or add
to the end of the sentence the words "and ProposItion S " so that the
sentence would read In Its entIrety, "Improvements may be proposed
in the park that are necessary for maintenance of the park or other
pubhc purposes cons]stent wlth the Pallsades Park Master Plan and
ProposltlOn S."
B. Page 71. Polley 53. Add the words, "as consistent with ProposItIOn SIt to
the last sentence so that It reads In Its entirety, "Public develop-
ment on the sandy beach shall be permItted for the prOVIsion of
public coastal recreation or support facllmes as conSIstent WIth
ProposItIOn S."
----- -- --- -- -
.
,
-2-
.
In the LCP you state that Santa Monica is the most heavily used beach in L.A
County and that over 20 million people VISit thIs beach annually. Why would you
permIt the structure/sculptures of the Natural Element Sculpture Park on the beach
that would remove 32,218 square feet of sandy beach from pubhc use with 4
addltlonal pieces to be added later to take away even more beach?
You claim in the LCP that you WIll work with all state agencIes, and yet if you
approve this LCP includmg the Natural Element Sculpture Park, you may be m
default of your operating agreement with the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, and you may forfeIt your rights to maintain, care, and control the
Santa Momca State Beach. Why would you jeopardIze your operating agreement
with the State?
You speCIfIcally state that you have incorporated ProposItion S, approved by 62%
of the voters, into this LCP. Yet by approvmg thIS LCP WIth the Natural Ele-
ment Sculpture Park in it, you are m direct violatlOn of key provIsions of e
PropositIon S which preserve open space and publIc parkland. Why don't you
lIsten to the voters of thIS City?
In the LCP you state that new development shall not Interfere wIth the public's
use of dry sand and coastal beaches. CIty Attorney Robert Myers, In removmg
the Sorrento Beach fence, stated, "Preservmg publIc beach IS very important.
The City is not gOIng to allow 8 prIvate person to fence off public beach. II That
fence was only 6 feet hIgh and 50 feet long. The fence that is a structure/
sculpture of the Natural Element Sculpture Park IS 16 feet hlgh and 200 feet long.
You profess great concern for the protectIon of endangered species, and you promIse
to work WIth the Department of FIsh & Game to not impact their foragmg areas
around the PIer. You have taken money from the WildlIfe ConservatIon Board to
Improve the flshmg areas off the Pier, because, accorchng to thIS LCP, PIer flshmg
is an Important source of recreatIon for people WIth a limited mcome. Why would
you permit the Installation of a 700 foot hIgh waterfall, an element of the Natural e
Element Sculpture Park, at the end of the PIer if you really care about endangered
species or low income people who fish? -
While you state on page 93 of the LCP. "The LVP must be internally consistent...",
the entIre document IS totally InconsIstent.
~
, . .
-3-
In this LCP you have tried to elevate viewing and enjoymg art Installations
and art resources to the status of a beach-related. coastal-dependent use
whIch IS directly opposite of the relevant sections of the Pubhc Resource Code
and the Coastal Act of 1976.
At page 41, where you list tradItional coastal-dependent beach uses -
"swim. surf, sunbathe, jog. and bicycle along the bike path. barbecue in
some picnic areas, stroll the promenade, play VOlleyball on the sand" -
you hst "enJoy the art installations"
On page 55, you state, "As a leader in Visual arts. Santa Monica offers a
variety of art resources.... These amenities enhance the visual experience
for some in the coastal zone."
On page 71, you state, "To enhance pubhc recreation opportUnIties and the beam
experience, the City may continue to develop a Natural element Sculpture
(NES) Park along the three-mile stretch of the Santa Momca Beach." which Will
e provide a "umque coastal opportunIty."
On page 72, you state that, "Pubhc views to, from, and along the ocean, the
PIer. InSpIratiOn Pomt and PalIsades Park shall be protected." Then you add
that permitted development shall Include "pubhc works of art,"
VleWlng and touchmg art is NOT a coastal dependent use, nor is 11 a beach-
reI ated use. Why don't you spend the thousands of dollars that you have 10
the arts budget to fInance and preserve 2 arts centers that the commumty
really supports, wants. and uses - the Westside Center for the Arts and
Barnum Hall at Santa MOnIca High School?
Smcerely,
~CU;;:; I~
e Sharon J aqui th
~
.
.' , .
-
DEBRA L. BOWEN
....TTO...N.V AT ...AW ,
e3~O COMMooODOI'IIE SL.OAT DRIVE
LOB ANGEL.ES CAL.I~O"'NIA .OO4e-~401l
(~131 830.2'03
OMN1FAX (2131831-8582
September 26, 1991
Ms. Mary Strobel
city of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
i3V facsimile
Dear Ms. strobel:
The purpose of this letter is to outline the concerns
of my client, Sharon Jaquith, regarding the implementation of e
Proposition S in the Santa Monica Local Coastal Plan (JlLCpll),
in preparation for our meeting on Monday, September 30.
Proposition S prohibits certain uses in the Beach
OVerlay District, which extends westward to the Pacific
Ocean. In addition to hotels, motels, and large restaurants,
section 9035.5 of Proposition S prohibits "[a]ny use not
specifically listed in Section 9035.2." Section 9035.2
establishes three categories of permitted uses:
(a) All uses listed as permitted uses within the
district in which the parcel is located.
(b) Open space, public beaches, parks, incidental
park structures, gardens, playgrounds, recreational
buildings, recreational areas. e
(c) Public parking. (This is a category that need
not concern us at this time). '
This language is set forth in the Im~lementation Plan,
as required by Section VI of Proposition S. While the
most recent draft of the LCP contains the required language
itself, it also contains policies, goals and plans that
provide for the placement of structure/sculptures on the
beach. This is in direct conflict with Pro~osition S,
because these structure/sculptures are not permitted within
the district in which the parcel is located, nor are they
within the ambit of the permitted uses enumerated in
Proposition S.
1 section VI provides: "This initiative ordinance
shall be included as a part of any land use plan and local
coastal program adopted by the City of Santa Monica and shall
be submitted to the Coastal Commission for its approval and/or
certification to the extent required by law."
--- ------
,
. .
.
DEBRA L. BOWEN Hs. Kary Strobel
ATTOPlNIltV AT .....AYtI Sept. 26, 1991
Page Two
;.
Santa Monica's zoning does not cover the sand;
therefore structure/sculptures are permissible under
Proposition S only if they tall within the ambit of paragraph
(b) . Structure/sculptures are not open space, public
beaches, parks, gardens, playgrounds, recreational buildings,
or recreational areas. The only remaining permissible use
is incidental park structures, which, as set forth in Section
V of Proposition S, includes structures such as "restrooms
and maintenance facilities, community rooms, locker rooms and
showers servicing persons using the beaches or ocean, playing
courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, public swimming pools."
it does not seem that, to use one example, a 16-foot high,
20Q-foot long wall could rationally be considered an
"incidental park structure."
This analysis leads to the conclusion that structure/
sculptures on the beach are not permitted under Proposition
e s. I believe that in order to fully implement the mandate of
Proposition S 1n the LCP -- as required by the ordinance
itself -- all language that enables this prohibited use
should be deleted from the LCP.
I look forward to discussing this issue with you on
Monday.
Yours very truly,
}k" 6~
Debra L. Bowen
~ Ms. Sharon Jaquith
e
~
----- - --- -