Appeal 1

APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT—SECTION IV, Reasons Supporting This Appeal   I.                  No one is Against an Authentic Rehabilitation Project The applicant has the resources and the obligation as the current steward of this treasured County Historic Landmark to maintain the building.  No appellant is opposed to an authentic rehabilitation that does not increase the commercial use of the facility at the beach.     II.               This Project is an Alteration and Expansion of a County Landmark on the Coast, with elements of Rehabilitation This project proposes to demolish and remove a significant amount of original, historic fabric from a County Historic Landmark in order to construct a new restaurant on the roof of the building.    NOTE:   Please see Attachment 1a Applicant’s Architect Peter Marino & Assoc’s presentation of Original/Existing/Proposed (1) Bird’s Eye View from Beach, (2) Bird’s Eye View From Channel Drive, and (3)View from Beach (Public View)   III.           The Elements of the Proposed Project that Cause the Damage to Historic Fabric and the Intensification of Commercial Use in a Residential Neighborhood are the new Restaurant and Tower Door No one is opposed to the rehabilitation of the building proposed by this project.  However, we are opposed to the construction of a new restaurant on the roof of the landmark and the creation of a new door in the base of the tower.   IV.            The Proposed Project Does Not Conform to the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Nor the Incorporated Montecito Community Plan (MCP)   A.  Public Access to the Coast (Butterfly Beach), Traffic & Parking   1.     Both the LCP and the MCP have as a goal a bike lane for Channel Drive—“At such time as the County is able to provide an equivalent amount of public parking elsewhere in the vicinity, parking on one side of Channel Drive shall be eliminated in order to accommodate bicycle lanes.”  MCP p. 86   We expect that the additional traffic and parking demand caused by this new restaurant will prohibit the realization of this goal, as eliminating parking on one side of Channel Drive would become impossible.             2.  Has the County addressed the traffic and circulation problems           resulting from the erosion and closure of Channel Drive in the 1980s? The Montecito Community Plan states this was to be done in 1992-1993.  If this has not been done, how can increased commercial usage be permitted with the resulting additional traffic and parking demand?   Traffic and parking has been a problem in this beach neighborhood since the 1970s.  In the 1980s, Channel Drive was closed due to cliff erosion, aggravating an already congested street system.  There now is only one way in to this entire beach neighborhood, with resulting congestion, public safety risks and public beach access impacts.   3.  “The location and amount of new development should maintain           and enhance public access to the coast . . .” LCP p. 13   The proposed new first class restaurant does not maintain and enhance public access to Butterfly Beach.  The current low-key Club dining room operates only 2 to 3 nights per week for dinner and only 3 days for lunch.   The proposed restaurant will have the capacity to operate 7 days a week, 3 meals a day, with two seatings for dinner.  The patrons for this proposed facility will compete with the public for limited parking spaces to access the beach.  Additionally, how many members of the general public will be able to afford to eat in this proposed “first class” Four Seasons restaurant?             4.  “The Coastal Act requires that coastal areas suited for water-           oriented recreational activities are protected for such uses . . . 3.7.4. Policies.  Local policies and recommendations are intended to provide the framework or implementation of the Coastal Act goal of providing maximum opportunities for Access and recreation . . .”  LCP p. 83   Butterfly Beach is a very popular swimming beach in Santa Barbara County, with gentle waves and enough beach to enjoy, even at high tides.  Access to the beach is illusory without parking and the proposed first class restaurant’s patrons will compete with the public for limited parking spaces.             5.  “Montecito Planning Area, Policy 7-10:  The County shall provide           increased opportunities for beach access and recreation in the           Montecito planning area . . .”  LCP p. 89   Again, parking demand will increase with the construction of the proposed new first class restaurant.   6.       “…commercial development should be limited to the amount needed to serve the greater Montecito community and additional tourist facilities should not be developed.”  MCP p.21   This is very clear.  The proposed project is a commercial hotel restaurant, connected to and run by the Four Seasons Biltmore Hotel across the street.  This proposed second floor restaurant is a tourist facility.   Olive Mill Road is the only road into this entire beachside neighborhood and is often already gridlocked due to multiple, simultaneous events at the Club and the hotel.  Adding an additional commercial facility will impact road capacity and will not increase opportunities for beach access for the general public.   Santa Barbara County follows the unfortunate practice of allowing applicants to select specialized consultants, manage their work product and pay for their services directly.  The County then accepts this work product for decision-making purposes.  Without impugning any consultants’ professional ethics, we believe this puts consultants in a difficult position.  The traffic analysis in this case was contracted and paid for by the applicant directly and convinced the local decisonmakers that this proposed project would not negatively impact traffic and parking.  We requested that the County obtain its own, independent traffic analysis, which they declined.           B. Historic Resources   The Coral Casino Beach and Cabana Club was designed in 1937 by the important architect, Gardner A. Dailey FAIA.  It was unanimously designated a County Historic Landmark in 2002 both by the County Historic Landmarks Commission and by the County Board of Supervisors.   1.     “Goal CR-M-1:  Preserve and Protect Properties and Structures with Historic Importance in The Montecito Community to the Maximum Extent Feasible,” MCP p. 120   2.     “Policy CR-M-1.2:  Improvements to the Coral Casino recreation club shall be designed in a manner to protect and enhance the historic use and architectural integrity of the property MCP p. 120   Feasibility This landmark can feasibly be preserved and protected.  No substantial evidence was presented by the applicant during the hearings that the two Alternatives deemed Environmentally Superior Alternatives by the EIR are infeasible. The applicant has stated that economic considerations are not an issue for this project.  The applicant claims the Alternatives do not meet all of the goals of the project, but the applicant does not have the right to define the project’s goals so narrowly that feasible alternatives are eliminated.  The applicant’s stated reason for requesting the restaurant addition is to provide a better view for patrons of his first class restaurant.  Should a historic resource be degraded for the benefit of the views of a few privileged individuals?  Please see Attachment 1 for an illustration of the Levikow/Coral Casino Preservation Committee Alternative, identified by the County’s independent historic consultant as one of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives.   Architectural Integrity The proposed project does not protect or enhance the landmark’s architectural integrity.  Quite the opposite would be achieved.  While the project does propose to remove some later additions, this is in exchange for irreversibly demolishing or removing substantial amounts of original, historic fabric to construct a non-original addition on the rooftop of the building.   The Final EIR states the proposed project would result in a Class I Impact on the historic resources of the building—significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts.  This Class I impact derives from the project’s non-compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.  The project does not comply with the Standards due to its unnecessary destruction of original, historic fabric.  Please see Attachment 2 (Coral Casino Preservation Committee’s Letter to the Historic Landmarks Advisory Council Regarding Non-Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards) for an explanation of how this project does not comply with the Standards.   These Standards were adopted recently by the County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (HLAC) to use in their review of proposed alterations to landmark buildings.  During the HLAC’s deliberations on this project however, the Commission chose to ignore these Standards, or any standards, on which to base their decision.  No consistent criteria were used, so it is assumed that each Commissioner relied upon personal and arbitrary considerations.   As discussed above, under Public Access to the Coast, Traffic and Parking, the applicant contracted with and managed the work product of three local historical consultants.  All three support their client’s proposal.  Fortunately, the County hired an independent, objective architectural historian.  The County’s architectural historian reported the Class I Impact and the Non-Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.   In addition to the County’s architectural historian’s negative review of the proposed project, statewide preservation organizations and professionals have written the County to express their concerns that the proposed project damages too much original material and does not comply with the accepted Standards:    a.       Two State Historic Preservation Officers b.     The National Trust for Historic Preservation c.     The California Preservation Foundation d.     Taylor Louden AIA, Historical Architect e.      And Others.  Please see Attachment 3 (Letters from Preservation Organizations and Preservation Professionals)   C.  Visual Impacts   1.     Any renovations or new development on this property shall be constructed at heights that do not exceed the height of existing structures.”  MCP p. 120   The authors of the MCP were very specific about this particular property; in fact, the Coral Casino is one of only two properties singled out for special, tailored protection.  The authors purposefully wrote “heights (plural) that do not exceed the height (singular) of existing structures (plural).”  This was done because the Coral Casino is an unusual building with its irregular shape and multiple facades.  By this language the authors intended to preserve the original profile.  There is no original structure at the height where the applicant proposes to construct the restaurant addition, therefore, the proposed project does not comply with this policy of the MCP.   The fact that the County Staff Planners chose to define an arbitrary point on the building as the “height of existing structures,”(which would allow this restaurant to be constructed,) does not override the more protective language of the MCP.   2.     “Introduction-Policy 1-2:  Where policies within the land use plan overlap, the policy which is the most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence.”  LCP p. 11   3.     “3.4.1. Coastal Act Policies.  30251.  The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.  Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas . . .”  LCP p. 33   4.     “Policy 4-4: In areas designated as urban on the land use plan maps and in designated rural neighborhoods, new structures shall be in conformance with the scale and character of the existing community.”  LCP p. 36   5.     “Policy 4-5:  . . . further bluff setbacks may be required for oceanfront structures to minimize or avoid impacts on public views from the beach.”  LCP p. 36   6.     “Goal VIS-M-1:  Protect the Visual Importance of the .  . . Ocean Views As Having Both Local and Regional Significance and Protect from Development Which Could Adversely Affect this Quality.”  MCP p. 124   7.     “Policy VIS-M-1.3.1:  Development of property should minimize impacts to open space views as seen from public roads and viewpoints.”  MCP p. 124   For 67 years, the public walking along popular Butterfly Beach has had an unaltered view of this original landmark.  Please refer to Attachment 4 (Visual Impacts of the Proposed Project – six photographs) for illustrations of the visual impact on the public’s view of the landmark.  The proposed addition of a commercial restaurant facility is not in character with the existing residential neighborhood.  The proposed addition on the roof of the landmark alters the original size, scale and proportion of Dailey’s design.     D. Increased Commercialization in a Residential Neighborhood   1.  “Visitor-Serving Commercial Development Policy 7-28: Visitor-serving commercial recreational development that involves the construction of major facilities, i.e. . . .restaurants, should be located within urban areas, and should not change the character or impact residential areas . . .”  LCP p. 98   The mass, bulk, and scale of this development and the expanded use by the hotel will forever change the character of this property.  There are no controls or restrictions on the hotel usage of this second floor restaurant.  The Four Seasons could have events in the ballroom and second floor restaurant simultaneously with normal private member and hotel use of the Raft Restaurant and the pool.   2.  “. . . commercial development should be limited to the amount needed to serve the greater Montecito community and additional tourist facilities should not be developed . . .” MCP p. 21   The second floor restaurant will be advertised by the Four Seasons as a hotel facility.  Again there are no restrictions preventing rental of the second floor restaurant as an event site.   3.     “Land Use-Commercial:  Goal – Strive to Ensure that all Commercial Development and Uses Respect the Scale and Character of Surrounding Residential Neighborhoods”  MCP p. 51   A quiet second floor deck with simple private cabanas will be replaced by a more heavily used second floor restaurant.  The intended use of a small scale fire exit door in the first floor of the Tower results in the building having three entrances with two of them facing Channel Drive.   E.  Precedent   Both CEQA and the MCP require protection of this historic landmark to the maximum extent feasible.  The appellants advocate for the “environmentally superior alternative” as identified in the EIR.  There is no dispute that Warner’s plan as approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara will result in a Class I impact to historic resources.  The approved plan violates the MCP height limit for this particular property.    The Class I impact to historic resources and the inconsistencies with the MCP/LCP are caused by one element of the plan:  the placement of a new restaurant on the second floor which requires removal of the historic fabric.  This in turn requires the placement of a new private deck at a height in excess of the MCP limits for this building.   The Board of Supervisors’ overriding Class I impact and violating the MCP sets a precedent for future projects.    The County of Santa Barbara has failed to comply with the requirements of its own coastal zoning ordinance, that project impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.  Feasibility is defined in CEQA and in the Coastal Act and its definition does not include the enhancement of private views. Warner’s representatives do not claim that the “environmentally superior alternatives” are infeasible, but state that Mr. Warner will not build them.    Feasibility is defined in the Coastal Act and in CEQA as:  capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.  Pub. Res. Code Section 21061.1, See also Pub. Res. Code Section 30108   There is no credible evidence that a rehabilitation project incorporating either of the “environmentally superior alternatives” is infeasible.  The statement that “according to the applicant, the proposed plan is necessary to provide the type of amenities the owner and Coral Casino members ‘desire’” is not evidence of infeasibility.  The threat to allow this landmark to deteriorate (“the building could face increasing deferred mitigation” Staff Report p. 21) if every single ‘desire’ is not approved is not evidence of infeasibility.    The proposed findings and statement of overriding considerations approving the plan are not supported by evidence as required by CEQA, the LCP, MCP, and the certified Coastal Zoning Ordinance.   Upholding approval of approval by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors sets a precedent that destroys the integrity of the MCP.

Appeal 2  

APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT   Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form.   SECTION I.      Appellant(s)   Name: Jacqueline Roston, James O. Kahan Mailing Address:  3709 Dixon Street City: Santa Barbara Zip Code: 93105-2419 Phone: 805.682.2972   SECTION II.     Decision Being Appealed   1.      Name of local/port government:   County of Santa Barbara 2.      Brief description of development being appealed:   An approval of a plan for the Coral Casino which approves a new second story & other changes which: (1) Replaces open space on the second level with a restaurant and a kitchen, (2) Obscures the Coral Casino's lighthouse tower (one of its most defining architectural elements) especially when viewed from the south (beach) & west, (3) Alters the proportions of architect Gardner Dailey's low, linear and open design of the Coral Casino, (4) Numerous other changes to the Coral Casino Historic Landmark structure which destroy its architecural integrity and the intactness of Dailey's original design & (5) Numerous discretionary approvals to permit this plan.    3.      Development's location (street address, assessor's parcel no., cross street, etc.):   1260 and 1281 Channel Drive, Santa Barbara (Montecito), CA93108 APN 009-351-015, 009-351-012, 009-352-009 and 009-354-001 4.      Description of decision being appealed (check one.):   Approval; no special conditions Approval with special conditions: Denial   Note:      For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable.   TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION:       APPEAL NO:               DATE FILED:               DISTRICT:         APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 2)   5.      Decision being appealed was made by (check one):     Planning Director/Zoning Administrator   City Council/Board of Supervisors   Planning Commission   Other   6. Date of local government's decision: July 05, 2005   7. Local government’s file number (if any): 03DVP-00000-00002   SECTION III.   Identification of Other Interested Persons   Give the names and addresses of the following parties.  (Use additional paper as necessary.)   a.      Name and mailing address of permit applicant: APPLICANT:                                                        PROPERTY OWNER:    1260 BB LLC  Jon Dohm                                                                                                       c/o Greg Rice Suzanne Elledge Planning and Permitting                                                      Ty Warner Hotels and Resorts 800 Santa Barbara Street                                                                                1260 Channel Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93101                                                                               Santa Barbara, CA 93108 b.      Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s).  Include other parties which you know to be interested and should receive notice of this appeal.    (1) Cynthia Ziegler,  936 Roble Lane, Santa Barbara, CA 93103-2044             (2) David Van Hoy, 209 La Jolla Dr.,  Santa Barbara, CA 93109                (3) Richard Monk, Esq.,  Hollister and Brace, 1126 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, CA 93101             (4) Richard Shaikewitz, Esq., 50 Butterfly Lane, Santa Barbara, CA 93108                     The names and addresses of the Agent for the Property Owner Applicant and Property Owner are listed in Section III. a. above.  The architect and attorney for the Applicant for this proposed project are listed in Subsections (2) and (3) above.  The names for two other very interested parties are listed in (1) and (4) above.  The other parties are too numerous to list, but the County of Santa Barbara should have a complete list.              APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3)   SECTION IV.   Reasons Supporting This Appeal   PLEASE NOTE:   ·         Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act.  Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section. ·         State briefly your reasons for this appeal.  Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing.  (Use additional paper as necessary.) ·        This need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law.  The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request.   See Attacment 1(20 pages)    APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 4)   SECTION V.     Certification   The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge.         Signature of Appellant(s) or Authorized Agent     Date: July 25, 2005               Note:   If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also sign below.   Section VI.         Agent Authorization   I/We hereby authorize James O. Kahan to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal.                   Signature of Appellant(s)     Date: July 25, 2005

Section IV. Reasons Supporting This Appeal (continued)                      1.  INTRODUCTION    This appeal concerns the Coral Casino, an architectural treasure, which is located on the Pacific Ocean in the unincorporated Montecito area of Santa Barbara county.  In addition to being an important coastal resource, the Coral Casino has been designated an official Historic Landmark by the County of Santa Barbara because of its architectural significance.  The Coral Casino was designed by internationally recognized San Francisco architect Gardner Dailey and was constructed in 1937.  (For more information about Gardner Dailey, please go to the website/url “gardnerdailey.org”  at http://www.gardnerdailey.org/index.htm .)   The Coral Casino is sui generous (one of a kind) and is frequently referred to as the “Gem of the Pacific.”   Its low, linear and open International Modern design is dominated by its landmark lighthouse tower and a monumental front entrance.  There is nothing like it in California.  From a historic preservation perspective, the Coral Casino is the most architecturally significant  building in Santa Barbara county that does not have a Hispanic design.    This appeal challenges approvals of a development plan for the Coral Casino because those approvals do not conform with and are inconsistent with the certified local coastal plan for the county of Santa Barbara. This local coastal plan includes at least four major elements which are: 1.  The Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan; 2.  The Coastal Zoning Ordinance of Santa Barbara (Article II of Chapter 35 of the Santa Barbara County Code) which partially implemented the Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan (Article III is the Inland Zoning Ordinance and Article IV is the Montecito Zoning Ordinance); 3.  The Montecito Community (General) Plan which has been made part of the Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan in Section 4.4 of Chapter 4 of the Santa Barbara County Coast Plan and is contained in Exhibit G of that Costal Plan; and 4.  The Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards which were identified and addressed in the Montecito Community Plan (Appendix B) and approved by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Sections 35-144A and 35.184.6.11  of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II).   The specific standards which do not conform with or and are inconsistent with the local coastal plan for the County of Santa Barbara include, but are not limited to:   1. The Cultural Resources protections contained in the Montecito Community Plan (Chapter V, Section F) which specifically identifies the Coral Casino and gives it specific protections.  The Coastal Act specifically includes “manmade ... cultural [and] historic” resources. [Public Resources Code Section 30344 (b)(2)]   The proposed project will destroy the Coral Casino’s LOW, LINEAR and OPEN design and the architectural integrity of its original design.   2.  The visual resources protections contained in Section 3.4 Chapter 3 of the Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan, California Public Resources Code Section 30251 and Montecito Community Plan (Chapter V, Section H).  Section H of the Montecito Community Plan contains a picture of a low seawall adjacent south of Channel Drive and next to the Coral Casino and to its immediate west.  This picture is captioned “Scenic views along Montecito’s coast” and does not show any buildings or other structures behind the railing for the seawall.  The proposed project will further block views from the coast.    3.  The proposed project does not conform with and is inconsistent with Section  35-162 (Nonconforming Buildings and Structures) of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II which does not allow this type of change, enlargement, expansion, extension or alteration of a non-conforming  building or structure and would be in direct violation of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance.   4.  California Government Code Section 65906 states prohibits the modifications which have been granted by Santa Barbara County to approve the deviations from the applicable Coastal Zoning Ordinance.  Zoning is the most basic and fundamental of all land use restrictions and zoning has been accorded primacy by the California State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65000 et seq.)  State law only permits deviations from zone requirements in very limited circumstances. Government Code Section 65906 states: “Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.”   “Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.”   The facts in this case do not support granting of the limited discretionary deviations permitted under Government Code Section 65906. Any governmental authorization to deviate from the setback requirements established by legal zoning is a variance.  It does not make any difference if it is called a variance, modification, deviation, reduction, waiver, development plan or anything else.  It still must comply with the strict requirements for a variance.   5.  This project is so tainted by the numerous violations of conflict of interest laws and related fundamental principles that it should not be approved.  The proposed project can be analogized to the tainted fruit of the poisoned tree.   6.   The County of Santa Barbara has failed to comply with limited, reasonable and legitimate requests to inspect records pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.).  Until the County of Santa Barbara complies with that law, this project should not be approved.  If the proposed project is considered, there should be inferences made against the Applicant which would deny approval of the second story restaurant.       2.  CORAL CASINO - LOCATION AND BACKGROUND    A. LOCATION:  The Coral Casino is located on the Pacific Ocean in the unincorporated Montecito area of Santa Barbara county.  The Coral Casino is surrounded by the following uses and building: South: Pacific Ocean and beach West: Seawall with railing, Channel Drive and open space (see picture in Section H of the Montecito Community Plan on page 123 which is captioned “Scenic views along Montecito’s coast.”  THIS PICTURE DOES NOT SHOW ANY BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES BEHIND THE RAILING FOR THE SEAWALL.   North:  Channel Drive which is 60 feet in width.  The Biltmore Hotel is located on the parcels north of Channel Drive. East: The Bonnymede Shores condominiums which were constructed in 1965 which predated the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code '30000 et seq., added by Stats.1976, c. 1330, Section 1.).  Montecito Shores, another condominium development, is contiguous to and to the immediate east of Bonnymede Shores.   The buildings on Montecito Shores are significantly set back from the mean high tide line (several hundred feet).  This substantial setback probably resulted from the fact that Montecito Shores was developed after Bonnymede Shores at about the time the California Coast Act was adopted.  Ocean Meadows, a planned unit development , is contiguous to and to the immediate east of Montecito Shores.  Ocean Meadows was developed in the 1990s by attorney Charles Munger.  Its buildings are much smaller in scale that Montecito Shores.  Moreover, Ocean Meadows contains significant open spaces and much larger setbacks from the mean high tide line than Montecito Shores.    In summary, there have not been any recent approvals of two story structures on parcels contiguous to the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of the Coral Casino without substantial setbacks.   That would include many miles to the west and thousands of feet to the east.  Moreover, I am not aware of any commercial building of two stories so close to the mean high tide line that has been approved between Summerland and Gaviota since 1976.    I DOUBT THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE DESIGN OF THE CORAL CASINO IF IT WERE SUBMITTED TODAY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE GREATER SETBACKS FROM THE TOP OF THE SEAWALL.  Except for its open clock tower (which was open when it was constructed in 1937), the railings and the illegally constructed exercise facility, the constriction above the roof of the first level of the Coral Casino has setbacks that are significantly greater than on its southerly (Pacific) side.  IN ADDITION TO BLOCKING THE LIGHTHOUSE TOWER, THE PROPOSED SECOND RESTAURANT IS NOT ADEQUATELY SET BACK BECAUSE IT BLOCKS VIEWS OF THE SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS AND THE SKY.  MOREOVER, (I) THE NECESSARY AWNING TO PROTECT THE RESTAURANT=S PATRONS FROM THE AFTERNOON SUN, (ii) THE GLASS FOR THE THIRD LEVEL RAILING AND (iii) PEOPLE, FURNITURE AND UMBRELLAS ON THE THIRD LEVEL WILL FURTHER BLOCK VIEWS.   B.  BACKGROUND - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION:     In addition to being an important coastal resource, the Coral Casino has been designated an official Historic Landmark by the County of Santa Barbara because of its architectural significance.  The Coral Casino was designed by internationally recognized San Francisco architect Gardner Dailey and was constructed in 1937.  (For more information about Gardner Dailey, please go to the website/url  “gardnerdailey.org”  at http://www.gardnerdailey.org/index.htm .)   The Coral Casino is sui generous (one of a kind) and is frequently referred to as the “Gem of the Pacific.”   Its LOW, LINEAR and OPEN International Modern design is dominated by its landmark lighthouse tower and a monumental front entrance.  There is nothing like it in California.  Its light and open design are particularly suited to the mild coastal climate of the southern California.   It is undisputed from a historic preservation viewpoint that the Coral Casino, which is often referred to as the “Gem of the Pacific,” is the most architecturally significant building in Santa Barbara county with a style that is not Hispanic or Mission Revival.  It was designed by Gardner Dailey, an Internationally recognized architect, who is considered to be one of the most prominent Bay area architects of the Twentieth Century.  Gardner Dailey considered it to be one of his best buildings and was especially proud of it.    For more information about the proposed project at the Coral Casino and related adverse impacts, go to the website/url “club93108.net”  http://club93108.net/ . (Submitted with this appeal is a disc that contains the pages on the club93108.net website, but it is easier to review the website on the Internet.  This disk also contains numerous pictures that are referred to in this appeal, some of which are posted on the websites. In addition to textual information, there are numerous pictures and graphics on those websites.  By this reference, I am incorporating the information contained in those websites into these appeals.)   C.  GARDNER DAILEY:  Gardner Dailey’s work is characterized by high quality in numerous styles.  He was also noted for his talent of mixing different styles. I refer you to the biography section in the website at   http://www.gardnerdailey.org  and the attached biography which is marked Attachment 2.   Among Gardner Dailey’s first works were numerous mansions with a variety of styles on the Peninsula in the Bay area.  Intel founder Gordon Moore purchased one of these great houses for $4,000, 000 in 2000 and has restored it.  In 1929, Dailey designed the Andalusian style Allied Arts Guild in Menlo Park which has also been restored.   In the mid-1930s, he embraced the International Modern Style and the Coral Casino was the highlight of his career with that Style.  The Coral Casino showcased his ability to harmonize styles.  The Coral Casino was designed with the International Modern Style, but it has a Regency Revival facade along Channel Drive.  Dailey also designed the monumental Brazil exhibit at the 1939 World’s Fair on Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay.   The World War II Manila American Cemetery and Memorial is Gardner Dailey’s most monumental work.  It can be viewed at the official site at  http://www.abmc.gov/ml.htm or by clicking on the icon next to the Slide Show at http://www.gardnerdailey.org/gallery.htm  Everybody with whom I have spoken who has seen it has described it with awe.  I urge you to look at it.            D.  THE 1937 APPROVAL WAS ONLY GRANTED AFTER THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE.  The 1937 approval was only granted after the Board of Supervisors had issued a variance.  This1937 variance might have been granted to allow Gardner Dailey to bring his design magic to Santa Barbara to create his Gem of the Pacific. [Gardner Dailey was considered one of the great American architects of his time. His work was prominently displayed at the New York Museum of Modern Art in its landmark exhibit “Built in the USA Since 1932."  That exhibit also showcased other architectural luminaries such as Frank Lloyd Wright, LeCorbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer, Oscar Neimeyer, Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Edward Durrell Stone, Philip Johnson, Gregory Ain, Richard Neutra, and other architects.  (see Attachment 2 to this Appeal  and biography at  http://www.gardnerdailey.org/highlights.htm  )]   The variance or variances granted in 1937 were for a specific building - Gardner Dailey’s Gem of the Pacific.  Variances are not forever, especially for an expansion beyond the original scope of the original project.  MOST IMPORTANTLY VARIANCES SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED TO ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF A LANDMARK.    E.  PRIMARY  ISSUE - SECOND STORY RESTAURANT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ALOW, LINEAR AND OPEN DESIGN OF THE “GEM OF THE PACIFIC”   The primary problem with the proposed project is the second story restaurant which destroys the architectural integrity of Gardner Dailey’s LOW, LINEAR and OPEN design.  Almost everything that the Applicant wants can be accommodated with a design on the first floor, but the Applicant has not made any serious effort to create a restaurant design that is limited to the first floor.  (see Section 3.2 of the Attachment)   The major theme of Dailey’s design was “LOW and LINEAR” (horizontality), but the proposed second story restaurant alters its proportions, size, bulk and scale and creates a new verticality.   As one critic noted, the primarily one-story Coral Casino with a monumental tower will be turned into a two-story building with a stump.     The Coral Casino was designed in 1937 and was featured in The Architect and Engineer, (October 1938, page 46) and Architectural Forum (December 1940, pages 497-500).  The picture in The Architect and Engineer featured the open clock tower, upper deck shade pavilion and lighthouse tower and emphasized the LOW, LINEAR  and OPEN horizontal design.   The Architectural Forum contained a more extensive discussion with pictures and plans.  I particularly refer you to the aerial picture on the first page (which can be found under the link Architectural Publications on the website at  http://club93108.net/  ).   The aerial picture indicates several important design elements: 1.  The prominence of the lighthouse tower, especially with the open Courtyard for the restaurant. 2.  Four open Courtyards: A.  The westerly open Courtyard which was surrounded by the restaurant on three sides and had a monumental stairway from the Courtyard to the upper deck area.  This Courtyard was covered but its outline and the entrance to the grand stairway is now marked by railings on the second story deck.  The proposed second story restaurant will cover this deck and replace the present light roof (not weight bearing) or roof like cover with a structural roof which would provide more useable area for expanded and increased uses.  (The present light roof is only a covering which is barricaded by the railing and probably would not support any additional weight.  In other words, this is an attempt to increase useable square footage for use of the restaurant and hotel.  Moreover, the historic railings will be removed.  The original design is still intact and can be restored with some relatively minor work, but the impacts of the second story restaurant will permanently seal the fate and complete the demise of that open Courtyard.                 B.  The northeasterly Courtyard where the Raft snack bar is located.  This Courtyard will not be impacted by the proposed project.   C.  The southeasterly Courtyard northeast of the cabanas (sometimes referred to as a “kennel and dog run”) will removed for the project. D.  There will be no impact on the Courtyard for the pool.  It will remain surrounded on three sides.  3.  An emphasis of the low, linear and open design except for the lighthouse tower.   The second page of the 1940 Architectural Forum  article (page 498) emphasizes the linear design, highlights the shade pavilion which will be obliterated by the restaurant and contains a site plan.  The third page of the 1940 Architectural Forum  article (page 499) emphasizes LOW, OPEN and LINEAR, highlights the shade pavilion which will be obliterated by the second story restaurant and contains some interior pictures.  The fourth page of the 1940 Architectural Forum  article (page 500) shows the original open Courtyard and the dining room which surrounded it and emphasizes LOW, LINEAR, and OPEN.    F.  INTACTNESS (INTEGRITY)   One of the major criteria for designating a building a landmark is the degree to which it is intact.  This is sometimes referred to as Aintegrity.@  The Coral Casino is primarily intact and later additions can be easily removed.  Moreover, many of the subsequent additions were LOW and LINEAR and consistent with the original design.  The upstairs exercise facility is the most obvious addition which is inconsistent with the LOW, LINEAR and OPEN design.  That exercise facility was constructed without a permit.  Although an as-built permit was eventually granted, this exercise facility exceeds the maximum height permitted in  Montecito Community Plan Policy  CR-M-1.2 which states: “Improvements to the Coral Casino recreation club shall be designed in a manner to protect and enhance the historic use and architectural integrity of the property. Any renovations or new development on this property shall be constructed at heights that do not exceed the height of the existing structures.” Fortunately, it can be removed easily.   The covering (light roof) over the formerly open westerly Courtyard could be easily removed.  This would allow the restoration of the grand or monumental stairs.  It should be emphasized that most of the other later additions are LOW and LINEAR.     As you can see from the pictures on the website on http://club93108.net/ , the level of Integrity (intactness) at the Coral Casino is very high as confirmed by the Applicant’s Historic Resources Study, Appendix I to proposed FEIR, pages 18-19.    There have been repeated references to Arestoring the Coral Casino to its “former grandeur.”  I do not believe that the “Beach Club” had any “grandeur” except for the grand stairway that descended from the upper deck to the westerly open Courtyard.  This stairway was removed decades ago and the Applicant has not shown any inclination to restore it. (note simulation of grand staircase on website in AUpper Deck pictures@ link   http://club93108.net/MoreCoralCasinoPhotos.html   and on separate pictures that will be submitted.)      G.  MONEY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT AN ISSUE   The Applicant has repeatedly asserted that (1) it has an entitlement to construct the project as proposed, (2) it needs the proposed project for economic reasons and (3) its property rights for the Coral Casino parcel are being unjustly restricted.   None of these assertions are correct.    1. There is no such thing as an entitlement on the parcel where the Coral Casino is located.  This parcel is located in (1) Montecito (the first portion of the County for which it adopted a zoning ordinance which was one of the earliest zoning ordinances in the United States - Miller v. Board of Supervisors) and (2) the coastal zone.  This parcel is regulated by (3) the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II), (4) Article IV zoning (Montecito), (5) the 1992 (updated in 1995) Montecito Community [General] Plan (which identified the Coral Casino for special preservation treatment), (6) the Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan, (7) the Montecito Architectural Design and Development Standards and (8) the California Coastal Commission.  (9) The 1937 approval of the Coral Casino required a variance and (10) subsequent approvals contained numerous conditions.  (11) Moreover, the Biltmore and Coral Casino have been the subject of significant number of land use disputes and litigation (Hamilton v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 269 Cal. App.2d 64, 75 Cal. Rptr. 106; Allied Properties v. Blume (1972) 23 Cal. App.3d 848, 102 Cal. Rptr. 259; Miller v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 539, 176 Cal. Rptr. 136)   In an unpopulated area of the Mojave Desert there might be an entitlement, but this parcel along the coast in a residential neighborhood in Santa Barbara does not have an entitlement.    2.  There is no economic justification for the proposed project and this has been confirmed by representatives of the Applicant.  I have represented people and governmental entities in relation to hotel food services and my expertise makes me independently concur with the lack of economic justification for the proposed project.    In the County hearing where Mr. Warner challenged the amount of the tax assessment for the Biltmore and Coral Casino, it was reported that he said that he overpaid for the Biltmore and Coral Casino because he liked them so much.  I do not understand that if money had nothing to do with the purchase of the Biltmore and Coral Casino, why money that would be generated by the proposed project has become so important now.  Moreover, the proposed final Environmental Impact Report is defective and inadequate because it contained no independent economic study, much less any economic study, to support the economic assertions.    3.  As a lawyer, I believe that property rights are a cornerstone to our freedoms and I have always been a strong supporter of property rights.  However, I do not believe in unbridled development.  It is reasonable to preserve the Coral Casino Landmark.  Moreover, the Applicant did a DUE DILIGENCE review prior to purchasing the Biltmore and Coral Casino and should have known the degree of regulation that would be entailed.  It unreasonable for the Applicant to claim its property rights for the Coral Casino are being restricted, especially when the unique character of its property rights are being protected by the Coastal Commission which does not sanction others buildings of the existing or proposed size to be built so close to the mean high tide line.      H.  THE SECOND STORY “RESTAURANT” DESIGN ALLEGEDLY APPROVED BY GARDNER DAILEY IS BOGUS: I did not want to address this matter, but the Applicant continues to allege that Gardner Dailey approved the design of a second story restaurant for the Coral Casino in 1951, but that restaurant was never built.  There is no credible evidence that Gardner Dailey had anything to do with the design of a “public dining [area] and bar” on the second story deck  [see permit included with Susan Elledge letter (FEIR, Appendix U, Letter A).  The 1951 restaurant story is BOGUS for many reasons, some of which are as follows: 1.  The permit does not refer to a restaurant.  The permit refers to a “public dining (area) and bar.”  2.  The drawing on the permit refers to a small portion of the Upper deck when the Open Courtyard still existed.  3.  The permit lists the second deck area as 4,000 square feet.    The proposed dining area and bar were a small portion of Upper Deck which I guess to be less than 1,000 square feet.  4.  THE 1951 PERMIT FOR THE “DINING AREA AND BAR” SHOWED THAT IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE SECOND LEVEL DECK, NAMELY IT HAD A MUCH GREATER SETBACK THAN THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. 5.  THE 1951 PERMIT FOR THE “DINING AREA AND BAR” ONLY SHOWED A FOOTPRINT FOR A PROPOSED LOCATION, BUT DID NOT SHOW ANY ELEVATIONS OR EVEN A ROOF OR COVERING FOR THE “DINING AND BAR AREA.”  6.  No kitchen was provided for the “dining” area.  7.  Charles Porter was a lowly designer who worked for Gardner Dailey for a short period of time and never had any significant authority in the firm. 8.  Architect Russell Levikow was a close associate of Dailey and he sent a letter to Chairman Robert Meghreblian of the Montecito Planning Commission which was dated April 25, 2005.  This letter explained Porter’s lowly position and explained the reasons that Gardner Dailey would never have authorized Porter to submit a design for him.  10.  Gardner Dailey did not promote Charles Porter and expressed his pleasure about Porter’s departure from Dailey’s firm.    The only reasonable conclusion is that Charles Porter acted on his own and proposed something that Dailey would never have approved.    I.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GARDNER DAILEY APPROVED ANY FIXED COVERING OF THE WESTERLY COURTYARD:  There is no evidence that Gardner Dailey approved any fixed covering of the westerly Courtyard.  A fixed covering would have been inconsistent with Dailey’s original design that was characterized by openness.   Dailey implemented his emphasis of openness is many ways, one of which was having numerous sliding doors that could be opened in nice weather.    Because the covering of that open Courtyard was so inconsistent with Dailey’s design and is forming the basis for increasing the useable square footage at Coral Casino by construction of a weight bearing roof that will have multiple uses, I searched the County files on several occasions for permits and plans that would show that Dailey approved the covering.  However, I found no such documentation.  Out of frustration, I made two requests for such records pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), but the County did not produce such records.  The County responded that I should search for the records and told me where I should go.  The Public Records Act requires that the County produce such records, if they exist.  The only reasonable conclusion is that the plans do not exist.    The covering of the Courtyard was a significant change to Gardner Dailey’s original design.  That covering is easily reversible at this time, but not after the proposed project is constructed.  The only evidence that has been produced to support the assertion that Dailey approved the covering of the open Courtyard has been a permit that listed Gardner Dailey as the architect (FEIR, Appendix U. Letter A), but that could have referred to the original construction in 1937.  DAILEY DID NOT SIGN THIS PERMIT nor have I seen any evidence that he authorized the covering of the open Courtyard.   The light roof (not weight bearing roof) or other covering that was installed in 1958 is not a justification to create more useable space for the proposed second story restaurant.  The County’s refusal to comply with the Public Records Act alone subjects any approval to a legal challenge.    Hence, the proposed project should be referred back to the Planning Department and Montecito Planning Commission for further review.                       3. MONTECITO COMMUNITY PLAN - CULTURAL & HISTORIC RESOURCES   The Montecito Community Plan was adopted in 1992 and it is part of the Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan.  The proposed project does not conform with and is inconsistent with the Montecito Community Plan in several ways.   1. PROTECT AND PRESERVE TO MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE AND ENHANCE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CORAL CASINO, A HISTORIC BUILDING:  Montecito Community Plan Goal CR-M-1.1 states: “Preserve and Protect Properties and Important Structures With Historic Importance to the Montecito Community to the Maximum Extent Feasible.” (emphasis added)   The Coral Casino is specifically designated as one of those structures.  In fact, it is the only historic structure that is specifically identified in the Montecito Community Plan.   Montecito Community Plan  Policy  CR-M-1.2  states: “Improvements to the Coral Casino recreation club shall be designed in a manner to protect and enhance the historic use and architectural integrity of the property. Any renovations or new development on this property shall be constructed at heights that do not exceed the height of the existing structures.”   Montecito Community Plan Goal CR-M-2 further gives further emphasis to preservation to the “maximum extent feasible” when it restates the standard as “Preserve And Protect Those Cultural Resources of Special Significance To The Maximum Extent Feasible.”   The proposed second story restaurant is not preservation to the maximum extent feasible or even true historic preservation.  Moreover, the proposed plan does not enhance the architectural integrity of the Coral Casino.  To the contrary, the proposed plan destroys the architectural integrity of the Coral Casino.  Therefore, it is inconsistent with the Montecito Community Plan.   2.  ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD HAVE PLACED THE NEW RESTAURANT ON THE FIRST FLOOR COULD BEEN SELECTED:  There are many alternatives which would satisfy the Applicant’s objectives which would not require a second story restaurant and comply with the LOW, LINEAR and OPEN design.  The Levikow alternative does this, but there are several other reasonable design alternatives which would add even more additional square footage.  The Applicant owns a significant amount of property to the west of the Coral Casino and south of Channel Drive.  The Applicant could expand into that area which would give much more square footage for the restaurant, kitchen and reception area.  Moreover, there are at least three major basements in the Coral Casino which are below surface grade and could be used for some of the functions that the Applicant claims to need.  A separate west entrance for the restaurant and ballroom could be constructed which would not detract from Dailey’s 1937 grand entrance.   Another addition could be made if the Applicant wants to remove the addition to La Perla and La Perla Circle.  Then retractable walls could be installed which would go from the reduced lounge area to the clock tower.  These could be closed for the additional seating in inclement weather or in the evening when no view would be obstructed.  This would be in keeping with Dailey’s grand design.    I have made repeated compromise offers to the Applicant since late 2001, but all of my efforts have been rebuffed.  I gave a verbal offer to compromise to Craig Stevenson of Keystone (predecessor to Ty Warner Hotels and Resorts) in late 2001 and made repeated offers to Greg Rice, David Van Hoy, Richard Cremieux (Ty Warner’s attorney in Chicago) and Richard Monk, but I never received any positive response or even a counteroffer. [See Attachment 3 (my letter to Greg Rice, dated March 24, 2002), page 3, first full paragraph through page 4.  The second story restaurant has been the problem since 2001 and the numerous meetings never changed the impacts of the second story restaurant.  THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 100 MEETINGS BUT THE APPLICANT NEVER CHANGED ITS DESIRE FOR A SECOND STORY RESTAURANT.    I made the suggestion almost four years ago to Keystone (predecessor to Ty Warner Hotels and Resorts) that it could do an authentic restoration and transfer the square footage that it eliminated from the Coral Casino to north of Channel Drive (Biltmore side) so that it would comply with the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) on the north side of Channel Drive.  I even suggested the Biltmore might receive a bonus density for doing an authentic restoration.  But the Applicant has not pursued that alternative.     3.  ALL INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED PLAN.   All independent preservation experts (who were not paid for an opinion) are opposed to the proposed plan.  These experts include five architects who specialize in historic preservation [State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Milford Wayne Donaldson (a Schwarzenegger appointee), George Homsey (a partner of the late Bay Area architect Joe Esherick), J. Russell Levikow (Dailey’s last practicing architect), Taylor Louden and Ione Stiegler (immediate past President of the California Preservation Foundation).  Some of the other non-architect professional and preservation organizations that have expressed their opposition to the second story restaurant and support for true architectural preservation include Dr. Knox Mellon (former SHPO appointed by Governors Jerry Brown and Gray  Davis), the National Trust for Historic Preservation (two letters, the most recent of which was signed by Dr. Knox Mellon, Mike Buhler (attorney for the National Trust) and Cindy Heitzman (Executive Director of the California Preservation Foundation), another letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the California Preservation Foundation, Dave Weinstein (an architectural journalist who specializes in California architecture and has written about Gardner Dailey in the San Francisco Chronicle and elsewhere - see article which has a link on gardnerdailey.org at http://www.gardnerdailey.org/projects.htm ), architectural historian Augustus Higginson, Dr. Jarrell Jackman [Phd., History; Executive Director of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation; President of the California League of Park Associations and a former member of Santa Barbara Historic Landmark Advisory Commission (“HLAC”)] and others individuals and preservation entities.    Supporting the proposed plan are four so-called architectural historians who have all been paid by the Applicant.  None of these hired historians are architects.  The so-called architectural historian whom the County retained to review the project was not an architect.  NONE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS WHO SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE OR ARE EVEN ARCHITECTS.  This lack of qualifications should be considered when evaluating their opinions and should be reason enough to disregard their opinions.     If this were not enough, the opinions of the four so-called architectural historians who have all been paid by the Applicant cannot be considered independent experts because of an inherent conflict of interest.  The Bible described this lack of independence with the statement: “No man may serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”  Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13 There is no reason that this wisdom should be ignored.  In the last two millenniums, we have become more aware of and sophisticated about conflicts, but the fundamental wisdom of the Bible still applies.    Moreover, the so-called architectural historian that the County retained to review the project did not comply with the state mandated requirements that consultants must file Statements of Economic Interest because the County of Santa Barbara does not require consultants to file Statements of Economic Interest.  (see Section 8 of this Attachment for more for more details).    The sanction in this appeal should be to disregard his input on this matter.      When weighing the input in this appeal, the Commission should consider that the individuals, experts and organizations that have opposed the second story restaurant are independent. The questions should be asked why do so many prominent preservationists and preservation organizations oppose the second story restaurant?  The answer is that they believe in true architectural preservation and believe that the Coral Casino is an important building of statewide concern to preserve.     4. THE PROPOSED PLAN VIOLATES HEIGHT THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE MONTECITO COMMUNITY PLAN AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH SAID PLAN:  Montecito Community Plan Policy CR-M-1.2 states: “Improvements to the Coral Casino recreation club shall be designed in a manner to protect and enhance the historic use and architectural integrity of the property. Any renovations or new development on this property shall be constructed at heights that do not exceed the height of the existing structures.”   Policy CR-M-1.1 uses the plural when it states A heights that do not exceed the height of the existing structures.@  This means all heights along each point of the structure.   In essence, it establishes a vertical building envelope as the Coral Casino existed in 1992 when the Montecito community Plan was adopted.  To decide otherwise, would render that section meaningless.  If one is to select points higher than the vertical building envelope, why not select the top of the tower as the height of the building? This absurd example shows the unrealistic interpretation by County staff and the approvals that were given.   If the Montecito Community Plan intended a simple height limitation, it could have selected a specific single height limitation but it did not elect to take a simplistic solution.  It wanted to protect the entire building by not allowing it to be expanded outside of the vertical building envelope that existed in 1992 which was primarily designed by Gardner Dailey.    5. PROTECTION OF VISUAL RESOURCES: The proposed project does not conform with and is inconsistent with the provisions that provide for protection of visual resources in the County Coastal Plan, the Montecito Community Plan and Public Resources Code Section 30251.  Section 3.4.1 of the County Coastal Plan recognizes that Public Resources Code Section30251 establishes the Coastal Act’s policies for protection of visual resources and quotes it as follows: “The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.  New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.”  (emphasis added)   Section 3.4.2 states: “The scenic resources of Santa Barbara=s coastal zone are of incalculable value to the economic and social well-being of Santa Barbara County.  The beauty of the Santa Barbara Coastline is world-renowned; it is the basis of the County’s strong tourist and retirement economies and is a source of continuing pleasure for the local populace.”    In relation to the views proposed project, the Surfrider Foundation has commented on the importance of maintaining views from the beaches and surf.   Under Section 3.4.3, Policy 4-5 states: “Blufftop structures shall be set back from the edge sufficiently far to insure that the structure does not infringe upon views from the beach except in areas where existing structures on both sides of the proposed structure already impact views from the beach.  In such cases, the new structure shall be located no closer to the bluff’s edge than adjacent structures.” Although some might not consider the seawall to be a bluff, it has the same practical effect as a bluff, i.e. it blocks views.   There are no structures to the west of the Coral Casino and between the seawall and Channel Drive.  Therefore, the in-fill exception should not apply to allow higher structures such as the second story restaurant.  In other words, new construction should not be allowed to further degrade views.    Section H.1 of the Montecito Community Plan characterizes Montecito as semi-rural areas mixed with open space.       Section H.2 of the Montecito Community Plan establishes goals and policies for Montecito.  Goal  VIS-M-1states: “Protect The Visual Importance Of The Santa Ynez Mountain Range And Ocean Views As Having Both Local and Regional Significance And Protect From Development Which Could Adversely Affect This Quality.”    Policy VIS-M-1.3 states: “Development of property should minimize impacts to open space views as seen from public roads and viewpoints.”   The proposed project would create a second story closer to the Pacific will impact the public’s view of the landmark lighthouse tower and Santa Ynez Mountains from certain locations for those walking along the beach and in the surf.   6.  ARTICLE II ALLOWS BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES TO CONTINUE TO BE USED AFTER ENACTMENT OF MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING REGULATION, BUT PROHIBITS ENLARGEMENTS, EXTENSIONS OR EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMING  STRUCTURES/BUILDINGS:    The proposed project is inconsistent with and does not conform with the standards in Sec. 35-162 (Nonconforming Buildings and Structures) of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance.  The facts do not permit the proposed project to be constructed as a legal nonconforming structure.  The staff reports merely concluded that the proposed project qualifies to receive an exemption as a nonconforming structure.  Conclusionary statements about authorization as a non-conforming use do not justify the proposed project.     It is undisputed that the Coral Casino’s building is a legal nonconforming structure.  (see Appendix J of Board Agenda Letter,  Staff Report, p. 32, discussion of setback requirements and reference to definition in Article II, Section 35-58).  CONCERNING SETBACKS, THE STAFF REPORT STATES THAT “PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING [THE CORAL CASINO BUILDING/STRUCTURE] ARE CONSIDERED NONCONFORMING.”  The Building does not comply with the requirements of existing zoning law.   The relevant portions of Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II) are set forth below:   DEFINITIONS (Article II, Section 35-58)   “NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE:  A building or structure, the setbacks, height, or location of which was lawful prior to the adoption of this Article or any amendments hereto, or previously adopted County Zoning Ordinances and which does not conform to the present regulations of the zoning district in which it is situated.”   NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES, DIVISION 10,   Article II, Sec. 35-60 (Purpose and Intent) states in, relevant part, that: “It is further the intent of this Article, subject to only very limited exceptions as specified to prevent nonconforming uses and structures from being enlarged, expanded or extended, or being used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district.”    Sec. 35-162 (Nonconforming Buildings and Structures) states, in relevant part, that: “If a building or structure is conforming as to use but nonconforming as to setbacks, height, lot coverage, or other requirements concerning the building or structure, such structure may remain so long as it is otherwise lawful, subject to the following regulations.” 1.              Structural Change, Extension, or Expansion. A nonconforming building or structure may be enlarged, extended, moved, or structurally altered provided that any such extension, enlargement, etc., complies with the setback, height, lot coverage, and other requirements of this Article.”   The County has very limited exceptions, if any, which allow nonconforming buildings and structures to be enlarged or extended.  ARTICLE 2 REQUIRES THAT THE EXCEPTIONS FOR A NONCONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE BE CONSTRUED VERY NARROWLY.  The proposed reconstruction will enlarge the nonconforming building/structure.   The reconstruction of the portions of the building/structure within the setback areas will not comply with the setback requirements.     The existing Tower does not comply with the height limit in 35-81.9 (See Staff Report, p. 32), but the Staff Report states that it is considered nonconforming.   However, additional facilities will be constructed within the portions of the Tower located within the Setback area (stairs, etc.).  This will also be an enlargement within the setback area.    Leading authorities on Land Use and Zoning have discussed the principles underlying nonconforming buildings and structures.  It has been stated that the provisions of most local ordinances allow repairs, but extensive repairs are not usually allowed.  Nonconforming structures represent conditions which should be reduced to conformity as is compatible with justice.  In other words, continued use of a nonconforming structure is permitted with the goal of eventually making the property conforming.  This is because the presence of any nonconforming structure endangers the benefits to be derived from a Comprehensive Zoning Plan. California law contemplates the eventual termination of nonconforming structures.  If the County had wanted to do so, it could have established a time period to eliminate (amortize) nonconforming buildings/structures.  Instead, it allowed them to be continued, but not expanded or given an extended life.     THE ADDITIONS CONTEMPLATED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERWOVEN WITH THE NONCONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING.  MOREOVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT NONCONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONS.  ANY SUCH RECONSTRUCTION WOULD EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE NONCONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING WHICH WOULD BE A SEPARATE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II AND UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES RELATING TO CONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.    Moreover, there will be major reconstruction on the east side of the Coral Casino which will significantly expand and extend the life of the building.   MOST SIGNIFICANTLY THE PLANS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED DO NOT CLEARLY SHOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.  HOW CAN SOMETHING BE APPROVED WHEN IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED WHAT IS BEING APPROVED?  THE ANSWER IS THAT THE UNKNOWN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.   The proposed project requires multiple discretionary decisions which should not be granted to destroy the architectural significance of a Landmark.   Moreover, State law prohibits some of these discretionary decisions.    7.  THE MODIFICATIONS GRANTED ARE PROHIBITED BY STATE PLANNING LAW:   The proposed project requires multiple discretionary decisions which should not be granted for a Landmark.   Moreover, State law prohibits some of these discretionary decisions.    1. VARIANCE IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW:  Zoning is the most basic and fundamental of all land use restrictions.  Zoning has been accorded primacy by the California State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Code Section 65000 et seq.)  State law only permits deviations from zone requirements in very limited circumstances. California Government Code Section 65906 states: “Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.   Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.@ (Adopted by Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880)   Any governmental authorization to deviate from the setback requirements established by legal zoning is a variance.  It does not make any difference if it is called a variance, modification, deviation, reduction, waiver or anything else.  It still must comply with the strict requirements for a variance.   2.  THE NECESSARY FACTS DO NOT EXIST TO JUSTIFY THE GRANT OF A VARIANCE FOR THIS PROJECT:  The State law establishes very strict standards and requirements for granting variances.  Even if a variance were granted in this matter, facts do not exist which would support the granting of a variance.  However, if there were a desire to consider the grant of a variance, fundamental principles of due process require that it would have to be referred back to the Montecito Planning Commission for review.    3.  THE EASTERLY ELEVATION OF THE CORAL CASINO IS NOT MINOR: The changes on the east side or the Coral Casino are significant.  The proposed closing of the enclosed Courtyard, alley or runway is a significant addition.  Gardner Dailey’s architectural detailing of the easterly elevation would be eliminated by the proposed project.  The proposed project has expansions along the eastern facade for additional storage space.   8.  THE (PROPOSED) FINAL EIR AND THE STAFF REPORT ARE TAINTED BY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES ACT: The approvals for the proposed plan were inconsistent with and did not conform to State law.  The consultants hired by the County for this project were directly involved in made discretionary decisions which led to the approval the proposed project.  The members of the County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (“HLAC”) gave discretionary decisions which formed some of the basis for the approval of the proposed project by the Board of Supervisors.  However, neither the members of the HLAC nor the above referenced consultants were required to comply with the minimal reporting requirements of State law.   The (Proposed) Final EIR and the Staff Report are tainted by apparent non-compliance with the Fair Political Practices Act.  I AM NOT ASSERTING THAT THERE IS ANY CONFLICT, BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.  THE SANCTION SHOULD BE TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.   The County did not comply with the California Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000-91015).   Government Code Section 87100 states: “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.”   The Act requires every public official to disclose his/her economic interests who could foreseeably be affected by his/her duties. (Sections 87200-87313).  Moreover, there are specific restrictions relating to members of non profit organizations.  Section 82048 defines a public official and it states:  "Public official" means every member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency.@  (Emphasis added)  Regulation Section 18701 clarifies some important definitions of Public Official and states as follows:  “(a) For purposes of Government Code Section 82048, which defines ‘public official,’ and Government Code Section 82019, which defines ‘designated employee,’ the following definitions apply: (1) ‘Member’ shall include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of committees, boards or commissions with decisionmaking authority. A committee, board or commission possesses decisionmaking authority whenever: (A)  It may make a final governmental decision; (B)   It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto that may not be overridden; or ( C) It makes substantive recommendations that are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency.  (2) ‘Consultant’ means an individual who, pursuant to a contract with a state or local government agency: (A) Makes a governmental decision whether to: *** 3.  Issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license, application, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization or entitlement; *** (B) Serves in a staff capacity with the agency and in that capacity participates in making a governmental decision as defined in Regulation 18702.2 or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the agency that would otherwise be performed by an individual holding a position specified in the agency's Conflict of Interest Code under Government Code Section 87302.”   Deputy County Counsel Jennifer Klein stated in writing that the County does not require Consultants of the Planning and Development Department to comply with the Fair Political Practices Act and disclose financial interests. (Klein letter, dated April 6, 2005, to James Kahan in response to request for Public Records pursuant to the California Public Records Act, p.3, Request 13 -14).  Likewise, the County does not require the members of the HLAC to file Statements of Economic Interests.    The County of Santa Barbara requires entry level planners to report and file Statements of Economic Interest.  However, the County does not require land use consultants who have greater discretion and make significant discretionary land use decisions to report and file Statements of Economic Interests.  This failure to require senior decision makers to report and file makes a mockery of the California Conflict of Interest laws and fundamental principles related to conflicts of interest.  Hence, input by these non reporting individuals should be ignored and set aside.     9.  CONCLUSION: The Coral Casino is an architectural treasure that is a valuable coastal resource.  The Coral Casino has been viewed by people from all parts of California and other parts of the world.  The preservation of this architectural treasure is a matter of statewide concern.    Buildings are defenseless from development pressures.  The proposed project and this appeal are a good example of why the Coastal Act was adopted.  Buildings are even more defenseless than animals, because animals can run but buildings cannot.   Architecturally significant buildings deserve protection and the Coral Casino is one of the more significant.    The Coral Casino needs and deserves protection by the Coastal Commission.  The Coastal Commission has not approved developments similar to the proposed project between Summerland and Gaviota.  And there is no reason to change the Coastal policies for this project.      This Appeal should be granted for numerous reasons, some of which are set forth herein.  There are more than adequate grounds for the Coastal Commission to stop the proposed project.        Respectfully Submitted,       James O. Kahan       Attachments (2)

Supplement to Appeal 2 (see below)

James O. Kahan      ATTORNEY AT LAW   3709 DIXON STREET       (formerly Magnolia Lane) SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93105-2419   TELEPHONE     (805) 682-2972 FACSIMILE        (805) 682-8914 E-Mail                 jok@kahansb.com   July 26, 2005     California Coastal Commission South Central Coast Office 89 California St. , Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93001   Attention: Shana Gray   TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE TO (805) 641-1732   Re:       Coral Casino Appeal  - Jacqueline Roston & James O. Kahan Filed July 25, 2005 Supplement (amendment) to appeal - Coastal access issues   This letter will serve to add additional substantial issues concerning Coastal Access to the referenced Appeal.    First, the proposed new second story restaurant will draw additional customers and people.  The present restaurant at the Coral Casino is only open for lunch on three days (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) and dinner for two or three evenings.  The proposed restaurant is scheduled to be open for breakfast, lunch and dinner.   In addition, the proposed restaurant will have a new additional kitchen on the second level which will be added to at least one kitchen will remain on the first level.  Moreover, the second story restaurant will have more square footage and seating than the existing restaurant.  The Application for the development refers to relocating La Perla restaurant.  However, the only relocation is for some of the seating area.  THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A NEW RESTAURANT, NOT A RELOCATION.   The proposed second story restaurant (at least twenty one mealtimes per week, more seating and square footage and an additional  new kitchen) dwarfs the existing restaurant with only five or six mealtimes shorter mealtimes per week.    The Applicant asserts that the restaurant will only be open to Coral Casino members, their guests  and hotel guests.  However, Coral Casino members will be given guests passes that others can use.  This expanded use will create more demand for parking.  This additional demand for parking will further restrict parking for the popular beaches in the immediate area.   This restriction will impair access to the beach and other coastal resources and does not conform to Coastal Access policies,   Second, ramp that is proposed to be constructed to the immediate west of the Coral Casino does not conform to Coastal Access policies in several ways.  The ramp will not be built entirely behind the existing seawall and will extend into the existing beach area.   The removal of this beach area would also restrict access to coastal resources because this beach area would no longer exist.  Such removal would not conform to Coastal Access policies.     Even if the ramp were built entirely behind the existing seawall, it might still impair Coastal Access because a portion of the significant, substantial and long viewing area along that balustrade (railing) above the seawall would be removed.  However, if the ramp were built several feet behind the balustrade and a continuous viewing area remained, access to the coastal views might not be impaired.   If you have nay further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.      Respectfully submitted,     James O. Kahan     JK:ac

Home Page | Proposed Project | Background, Adverse Impacts | About Us, Help, Contacts | Channel Drive Pictures | Main Entrance Pictures | Letters I | More Coral Casino Photos | East elevation pics | Pool pics | Interior Pics | Pictues from Beach | Pictures from Ocean | Docomomo Article | Links | Tower Pictures | Channel Drive Elevations | Archival Publiications | Appeals- Montecito P.C. Comm. | Appeals-S.Bar HLAC