Coastal Commission Calls for Equal Access for All : Jonathan Club Weighs State-Ordered Policy

It appeared to be business as usual Saturday at the Jonathan Club despite a California Coastal Commission decision that could force the club to adopt a nondiscrimination policy if it wants to expand its facilities.

On a misty morning, the main parking lot next to the Santa Monica beachfront facility filled up quickly and cars spilled over into an adjacent lot that the club leases from the state.

On the beach, two signs proclaiming, “Jonathan Beach Club, Members Only,” marked the boundary between the club land and public property. To the east, the clubhouse, paddle tennis courts, and grounds lined with palm trees; to the west, public land. Club members and their guests had erected ranks of blue umbrellas and chairs on the beach, extending the club’s domain to the water.

For years, the club, whose membership is primarily white, male and affluent, has been chided by the city of Santa Monica for allegedly excluding Jews, minorities and women. Club officials historically have refused to disclose membership policies. The Coastal Commission, however, which last Thursday voted 9 to 3 to approve the club’s expansion of an existing parking lot and paddle tennis courts, cited the Coastal Act in adding a condition that all members of the public be given equal opportunity of access to the club.

Club officials could not say whether they will comply with the decision.

“We can either compromise or there are a number of legal alternatives we could take,” said Richard Oxford, Jonathan Club president. He and the club’s lawyer, John Shiner, said the commission had exceeded its authority in tying approval of the 13,664-square-foot expansion to the policy statement.

Most of the members who were on the beach Saturday declined to comment on club policies but a few were angry about the commission’s decision.

“I think clubs should be able to have whomever they want for members,” said member Mike Mount. “That’s what makes them private clubs.”

“The members feel the expansion of the beach club has been frustrated by the Coastal Commission taking an untenable position,” said a 20-year member who asked not to be named. “It bothers me to see governmental and state action getting involved in the right to free association.”

The commission imposed the condition after hearing testimony from David Lehrer, attorney for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and spokesman for a coalition of Jewish, Latino, Asian, black and women’s groups.

He argued that because the club is leasing about 58,000 square feet of state land, the state has the authority to require the nondiscrimination pledge.

Lehrer said he believes that it is unconstitutional for a lessee of public land to discriminate.

“What you do on your own land is one thing,” Lehrer said in an interview. “What you do on public land is another one.”

In January, the club, which is headquartered downtown, began leasing state land as the result of the 1984 settlement of a beach boundary lawsuit that had been filed by the state and the city of Santa Monica in 1974.

The suit had gone unsettled because previous city councils had adamantly opposed the club’s policies. Former Councilwoman Cheryl Rhoden at one time told a club official that “not one grain of sand” would be given to the club until it changed its membership policies.

But the council decided to settle in 1984, fearing that it would lose the suit and a stretch of beachfront to the club. Under the agreement, the club’s boundary was set about 190 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway. To lease the three beach parcels and a parking lot, the club pays $43,000 a year to the city of Santa Monica, which operates the beach under an agreement with the state. The city is using the money for beach maintenance, City Atty. Robert M. Myers said.

Myers said that the City Council tried to get the club to sign a nondiscrimination statement during negotiations on the boundary dispute, but did not succeed.

The commission may accomplish what the city could not.

After the commission approves a final list of its conditions in late August, the club will be required to meet all of them, including the nondiscrimination policy, before any construction can begin.

Club attorney Shiner said the commission’s decision and any discussion of the club’s membership policies are “outside of the scope of the Coastal Act.”

But Deputy Atty. Gen. Anthony Summers said he is satisfied with the advice he gave the commission.

“If the club were solely operating on private property, it would be free to discriminate if it wished,” Summers said. “Since (the club) is currently leasing a portion of land and wants to use that exclusively for its members . . . it is entirely legitimate for (the commission) to consider whether the private club is available to all members of the public.”

Coastal Commissioner Marshall Grossman said that if the club refuses to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, he plans to ask Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp to evaluate the “propriety” of the club’s lease with the state “given its alleged discriminatory admission practices.”

“I think the Jonathan Club’s problems transcend the decision of the Coastal Commission and are not going to be avoided simply by refusing to pick up the permit or refusing to certify to a policy of nondiscrimination.

“The Jonathan Club now occupies 58,000 square feet of public trust land, about one-half of its 120,000-square-foot facility. Based upon the opinion of the attorney general, I conclude that if the Jonathan Club is discriminating against women, or minorities, or people of any given religious faith, then the Jonathan Club is in jeopardy of forfeiting its lease and that land may go back to the state.”

Lehrer said he hopes that the club adopts the policy. It “would be a very pleasant surprise were (the club) to agree to a policy of nondiscrimination. . . . Their attorneys were loud and clear in their failure to take the opportunity to declare their policy of nondiscrimination before the Coastal Commission. . . .

“Apparently there are four or five Jewish members. It shows, I guess, that progress does take place. But a few token members of one racial group does not a policy make.”

Oxford, the club president, said, “We do not discriminate against people that apply to the club. We don’t have any women. We do have minorities.”

Controversy over the club’s membership policies has plagued it for years. In 1976, a Los Angeles city councilman charged that the club refused to let a black member of the Air Force Academy Catholic Cadet Choir perform at the club. In September, 1982, the Community Redevelopment Agency prohibited its employees from conducting business at the club because of its policies.

Earlier this year, the Santa Monica Planning Commission approved the club’s expansion plans but voted to ask the city attorney to investigate the club’s membership practices and send a letter about the issue to the Coastal Commission. The letter and the investigation were voted down by the City Council, however.

The club has about 3,700 members, according to several officials. The officials would not provide any ethnic breakdown of the membership. It costs $10,000 to join the club and about $150 a month, according to Oxford.

Several members interviewed at the beach said they were unsure of the membership policies. “I don’t know what criteria the membership committee is using to decide on admission. . . . There are no women members, I know that as a fact,” said one man.

‘It’s a Men’s Club’

He said that women might not be admitted because of the athletic facilities at the downtown club. “The men wander around nude in the pool,” he said, and it would be too expensive to provide facilities for women.

Three wives of members on the beach said they were not bothered by the fact that women cannot join. And one junior member said that he does not want a change in the policy. “It’s a men’s club,” he said.

Many members said they joined the club because it is a business and social gathering place. “It’s not a secret society, where members go and sit around and talk,” Santa Monica Planning Commissioner Tom Larmore, a club member, said. “It’s mainly a place where you can take business associates to lunch, and I do that. When you do that, you talk about business.”

But Lehrer said, “When the corporate and political elite meet for lunch or dinner at a downtown social club and there is a longstanding policy to exclude visible minorities, women and Jews from membership in that institution, a message is sent out to the community at large.”