 The Historic Preservation Commission attempts to put its foot down on a new La Bahia
Whose job is it to design a new landmark? In a cumbersome setting at the police department’s community room, Jeff Current, the vice president of architecture for Barry Swenson Builder, uttered before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase about his company’s latest proposal for a new La Bahia: “Of the six proposals that have come out for this property over the years, we believe the current one stands head and shoulders above the rest.” As a $30 million rebuild with 125 rooms, swimming pool, restaurant, and conference space, the proposal certainly does that, physically. According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) currently being circulated, the proposal makes several significant unavoidable impacts on the neighborhood, mainly due to the fact that it represents a nearly complete demolition of the current La Bahia (the bell tower would be saved), designated a city historic landmark, and because the height of 72.5 feet would block views of the mountains from the wharf and West Cliff Drive, not to mention views of the bay from its neighbors on the hill behind the complex. This isn’t Barry Swenson’s first go around with La Bahia. It had an approved permit ready to go in 2003, in which the original building was rehabilitated with a few new amenities, but the Seaside Company—which owns the property along with the Beach Boardwalk across the street, and currently uses it as seasonal employee housing, leasing rooms out to UC Santa Cruz during the school year—couldn’t find a hotel operator willing to run a resort within La Bahia’s existing 1926 configuration. As Current stated it briefly in the HPC meeting on July 30, the five problems with the approved plan, according to hotel operators, were the main entrance not being on Beach Street, inadequate parking, a non-functional swimming pool area, not enough units with views, and a lack of Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility. Since Swenson also wants the option to sell some of the units as vacation condominiums, there are also insurance issues with the condition of the building. The EIR looked at five options, numbered as follows: 1) doing nothing, an option mandated by law in all EIRs; 2) the approved 2003 plan, even though it was rejected by Swenson; 3) a version with towers 10 feet shorter than the original proposal, and fewer rooms; 3a) a version with yet shorter towers, but higher density, as rooms are restored to the original number by packing them into the middle; and 4) a version the same height as the Cocoanut Grove across the street, which would be within the existing zone ordinance’s height limit, and have about 90 rooms. There were several meetings with an HPC subcommittee prior to the July 30 presentation, but those meetings ended suddenly, which particularly angered HPC chair David Subocz (he read a statement of disappointment about Barry Swenson’s “unilateral” cessation of negotiations into the record twice). Perhaps sensing a reluctant board in front of him, Barry Swenson Vice President Jesse Nickell prefaced his remarks by saying, “Personally, I love old buildings. My house is a historical building. I love old things. And La Bahia has lots of character, so I personally had a lot of struggle with this. I understand your frustration, and we understand how you must feel.” Indeed, after a mixed public comment period in which equal numbers spoke for and against the project, the HPC made its feelings fairly clear that the lack of a reconstruction or rehabilitation option was unacceptable to them. The surprise was that it took four hours to express that. Nominally, the commission had a series of recommendations to make to the planning commission and city council, and nothing that was decided that night could be set in stone. The HPC was to recommend whether or not the city council should: - certify the EIR (meaning that it met all legal standards and was received);
- adjust the zoning ordinance to allow for more height;
- adjust the Beach / South of Laurel general plan to include the project;
- allow a demolition permit for the historic landmark;
- and remove La Bahia from the city’s historic landmark list.
Subocz, however, was uncomfortable for most of the meeting with the position the the HPC had been put in. “We’re in a position where we have been forced to essentially suggest a design. I resent the fact that this commission is being put in this position. Whether the EIR, as a matter of case law, meets the standards of the state doesn’t necessarily mean it reflects the standards of this community or this commission.”
The matter of what to do occupied the bulk of the HPC’s discussion. Because Alternative 2 was the only version that restored the existing building, and that alternative had already been rejected as unfeasible by Barry Swenson, and the commission unanimously opposed extensive demolition, the body felt its hands were tied. The commission, from about 9 o’clock to midnight, stated repeatedly and from different mouths that none of the new alternatives incorporated enough significant rehabilitation and restoration, but never has a dais full of people so in accordance fought so vigorously about how to agree with each other. The closer it got to midnight, the more the squabbles grew, along with the confusion, until the city staff, the public, and the commissioners themselves felt like running to the top of the La Bahia bell tower and screaming. Commissioner Ross Gibson, who did extensive work on the Beach / South of Laurel plan and seemed particularly hurt that anyone would suggest changing the language of it, attempted to float a motion that the HPC not recommend altering the zoning ordinance or general plan. But Subocz, who was more fixated on which alternative to back, wanted an ad hoc design meeting in which the commission would attempt to craft a direction for another EIR alternative. The city staff—which normally recommends a course of action but declined to do so in light of the controversial nature of the project—seemed perplexed that there was so much reluctance from the commission to do the one thing it did recommend: accepting the EIR as a valid document. Eventually, a strange compromise emerged in which the commission certified the EIR “with prejudice” by a vote of 5 to 1. (Subocz opposed, disliking the “with prejudice” language.) Then, suddenly, Subocz, holding the one microphone in the room which was passed around like a conch shell during the meeting, asked the representatives of Barry Swenson point blank if they would consider withdrawing the application and returning to the drawing board. They declined vociferously. “OK, they said no, that’s all I needed to hear,” Subocz said as the room started to get chatty. “The way to send them back to the drawing board is to deny the project,” Gibson stated. “No,” Subocz replied, “the way to send it off in a way that allows the planning commission and city council to reverse our decision is to basically say no to everything. And that’s my fear. We need to point this project in the right direction. We’ve already heard the applicant say they don’t want to do that. We don’t have anything given us that fits the bill. And we have a huge confusion about what we have to do.” Commissioner Judith Steen encapsulated the commission’s fear, saying, “If the city council approves demolition of a historic building, it must provide evidence of overriding consideration. I don’t believe the EIR provides that consideration that overwhelms the cultural importance of La Bahia. To meet the economic demands of the developer, is the city council willing to change the carefully considered plans and regulations that exist? If a city landmark cannot be saved because an owner wants a vacant lot to build a new structure to meet his needs, any historic building in the city of Santa Cruz is doomed.” She went on to accuse the Seaside Company of intentionally neglecting the building. Commmissioner Clarke Shultes said that Alternative 4 was pretty close, but didn’t attempt to restore the courtyards or other salvageable areas. “The thing that’s disturbing to me is that Barry Swenson Builders has basically planted their feet with regards to any kind of reconstruction on this project,” he said. But it was Gibson who raised the most pique: “I don’t think any of us want to see nothing happen on that site. It’s disturbing because we went in front of city council and said this is a developer we can work with because we’ve worked well in the past. I was sadly mistaken. The EIR, as I read it, is mostly about how to disenfranchise the Historic Preservation Commission, to take away a national register landmark from us without our being able to block it. We’ve been demoted to being merely an advisory commission. I feel that asking us to approve this EIR is like asking us to strap a time bomb to our chest, and then we can approve or disapprove the main project, but when that time bomb goes off, it will blow us up, and we put it on willingly. It will look like we were complicit in the destruction of this landmark.” At about 12:30 in the morning, the HPC did get around to making a motion to deny all the new alternatives because of their lack of significant preservation, and recommending against everything else, unanimously. Then we all took our toys and went home. The latest EIR will be discussed at the Santa Cruz Planning Commission on Aug. 7 at City Hall, then go on to city council in early September. For more information, see the EIR documents at ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pl.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
|
