THE WAX LORD’S LAST SUPPER. That’s probably Katherine Sturbergh and her daughter also named Katherine brushing up himself’s hair on this 3/4 size wax sculpture they made in 1950. We can only see this creation the week before Easter at the Santa Cruz Memorial Park& Funeral Home.
DATELINE DECEMBER 15, 2014 and DATELINE DECEMBER 22, 2014
SANTA CRUZ CITY ADVISORY BOARD OPENINGS. Our “fair” city released this list two weeks ago saying there are openings on lots of our Advisory Boards. Legally they stated,” The City of Santa Cruz encourages public participation in local government through its advisory bodies. These are boards, commissions, committees, and task forces that deal with a variety of issues and make recommendations to the City Council. Applicants must be City residents and/or City voters for most of the advisory bodies”. Normally you’d figure this would be a decent thing to volunteer for. Wow, a chance to actually participate in choices for our ever-growing Santa Cruz!!! Make a difference, an active citizen, a real democracy, etc.,etc..“Recommendations” is the key word here. Read the list…
Arts Commission (Two (2) reappointments and one (1) vacancy)
Board of Building and Fire Appeals (Six (6) reappointments)
Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women (Two (2) reappointments
Measure K Oversight Committee (Two (2) vacancies and one (1) reappointment;
Parks and Recreation Commission (One (1) reappointment and two (2) vacancies)
Planning Commission (Two (2) reappointments)
Sister Cities Committee (Two (2) reappointments and one (1) vacancy)
Transportation and Public Works Commission (One (1) reappointment and one (1) vacancy)
Water Commission (One (1) reappointment).
Read it again and see if you can remember any issue of any importance that Cynthia Mathews, Lynn Robinson, Mike Rotkin, Scott Kennedy, Ryan Coonerty or any of our pro-growth, screw the environment council members ever listened to those recommendations of any one of those committees. Yes, I was on the Downtown Commission (Tom Bihn convinced me to volunteer) I lasted about 3 months, couldn’t take the hypocrisy and quit. We need to change the power of the council , or get some good, forceful folks on these commissions.
FAREWELL LA BAHIA HISTORICAL LANDMARK. Historian and preservationist Ross Gibson representing The La Bahia Coalition worked very hard to save the La Bahia Apartments from Charlie Canfield’s Boardwalk development headed by Craig French. I asked Ross to write up his reaction to the loss of another historical landmark. Ross wrote a lot.
The City of Santa Cruz designated the La Bahia Apts. one of the most important historic assets on the waterfront, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, whose restoration in tandem with other important nearby landmarks would restore the historic character of the Beach-Front for heritage tourism. So it was shocking when developer Craig French proposed to demolished 90% of the landmark, delist it, and built a Corporate International Style modern hotel in its place.
SPOKESMAN: To appeal the decision, I was appointed spokesman for the La Bahia Coalition, representing a wide number of former City Council members and mayors, City Officials associated with development of the B/SOL Plan, along with community leaders and preservation backers, all feeling the protections and development guidelines for the La Bahia landmark were being misinterpreted. And those who developed and/or approved the plan should know. During the 1990s, I was an Historic Preservation Commission representative to the Beach/South of Laurel Area Planning process (called B/SOL), authored by the Phipps Group of Washington D.C. I was one of only two listed B/SOL Preservation Analysts to the Plan. I was requested to write four reports on Beach-front history (one on La Bahia), with some phrases and photos from my reports making it into the B/SOL Plan.
ARG: The other B/SOL preservation analyst was the widely respected Architectural Resources Group of San Francisco, who wrote a report on La Bahia, its significance, what needs to be protected, and guidelines for a compatible addition to the landmark. They, too, indicated in the recent French project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the project didn’t comply with the stated B/SOL requirements for the landmark.
POSITION: The La Bahia Coalition pushed to save more of the landmark, and design the addition in the required Spanish Colonial Revival style. So how did we go from City requirements to save the landmark, to a City government intent on overturning their own requirements? This is my view of the events.
A SIGNIFICANT LANDMARK
CASA DEL REY: The Casa Del Rey Hotel was built in 1911, a 300-room structure connected to the boardwalk’s Cocoanut Grove by a bridge over Beach Street, including 150 cottages in back with golf and tennis facilities. The hotel and cottages rented by the day or week. But in 1926, they built the Casa Del Rey Apts. (now La Bahia), a private complex of 44 luxury suites so guests could enjoy an extended stay, with their own kitchenettes.
STYLE: The architecture was a rare example of Mediterranean hill villages, a handmade look, with clustered buildings that expressed the topography of the landscape, garden courtyards like outdoor rooms, and a maze-like layout of landscaped stairs, terraces, and passageways that unveiled framed vistas like stage-sets. The courtyards had optimal natural lighting, as an oasis of calm midst a bustling Beach-front. The apartments were a trip into the past, designed to look like they’d always been there. Honeymooners loved to return for anniversaries, and over the years, this was always the place to house special guests to the City.
IMPORTANT ASSOCIATIONS: The Apts. were designed by Wm. C. Hays, one of the founding professors of the UC Berkeley School of Architecture, who believed the relationship of architecture and landscaping should be taught together. The Apts. had ironwork and lighting fixtures designed by Russian-born Johnny Otar, a Santa Cruz craftsman known statewide as “Otar the Lampmaker” for outfitting homes and hotels.
RESIDENTIAL ERA: After World War II, the complex became private residential luxury apartments, renamed La Bahia in the 1960s. La Bahia was repurchased by the Seaside Company in 1985, who then rejected a County Landmark’s Plaque for the La Bahia (even though it was entirely honorary with no legal restrictions). The apartments have been used continuously up to today for student housing and summer employees, under minimal maintenance. When the 1989 earthquake brought about the demolition of the Casa Del Rey Hotel, the City decided to create guidelines for Beach-front redevelopment.
THE BEACH AREA PLAN
OUTREACH: The Phipps Group of Washington D.C. described their resulting “Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan” (or B/SOL) as the largest outreach program in Santa Cruz history, a 7-year project involving over 2,100 individuals, 20 organizations, plus City, County and Regional governing bodies. This consensus document reflected the wishes of the Beach-front’s chief stakeholders of business owners, neighbors and preservationists, making sure economics didn’t take precedent over neighborhood and landmark protections. The B/SOL Plan identified the Boardwalk, Wharf, La Bahia Apts., the Railroad Depot, and Beach Hill neighborhood, as the most important historic Beach-front assets, whose mutual restoration would revitalize the Beach-front’s early resort character, to generate Heritage Tourism. The Seaside Company had led the way seeking State Landmark status for the boardwalk, and National Register status for the Looff Carousel and Giant Dipper Roller Coaster, gaining a share of heritage tourists and international prestige.
RATING: The La Bahia was already one of only a few specially designated City Landmarks, also listed in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, rated “excellent” for its unique architectural character in 1976, then “exceptional” in 1984 by John Gilchrist when factoring in the significance of the architect. The City Council believed converting the La Bahia into a hotel was the best plan for saving the building.
ARG: In 1997, the City Council hired the San Francisco firm Architectural Resources Group (or ARG) to evaluate the landmark, and ARG called La Bahia the most likely eligible (later upgraded to definitely eligible) for the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s highest landmark rating. ARG designated that the chief character-defining features to save would be its Beach Street facade, the courtyards and their facades, the passageways, as well as the general scale and detail. The ARG report concluded with detailed guidelines to make new development compatible with the landmark, through similar massing, and Spanish Colonial Revival style.
FOLLOW ARG: Fearing developers would treat the landmark site as a vacant lot, the City Council made the ARG criteria the definition of what was required to be saved in the B/SOL Plan, also referenced in the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and even in the RTC Zoning. In the 1998 B/SOL Environmental Impact Report, the La Bahia Mitigation’s list required a developer to (1.) follow the ARG report, (2.) hire a preservation professional to help the developer follow the ARG report, then (3.) afterwards have historians assess if the developer followed the ARG report. The conversion of the La Bahia landmark into a hotel was found scattered in 56-pages of the B/SOL Plan-Guidelines-&-EIR, regarded as one of the most important B/SOL projects. In 2003, the Coastal Commission certified portions of the B/SOL Plan, the entire B/SOL Architectural Guidelines, and the B/SOL Final EIR containing the entire ARG Report.
FIRST PROPOSALS
SAVING THE LANDMARK: The B/SOL Plan had called for expanding the La Bahia lot to include Westbrook St. and what’s now the Coastview Hotel, to allow a hotel the size of the Casa Del Rey. However this plan died when Coastview Hotel owners refused to sell-or-partner with the project. In 2003, Barry Swenson Builder proposed a 118-room near- total preservation plan for converting the La Bahia into a hotel on the original site. The developer insisted it was exactly what he had to have for a viable project, and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), City Council, and Coastal Commission approved it. The developer soon dropped his project in 2005, later telling the Preservation Commission it wasn’t that they couldn’t make money with it, but that they felt they could make more money without the landmark.
HIGHRISE: In 2008, the developer proposed total-demolition of the La Bahia, maybe saving the cupola, and building an 8-story skyscraper of 125-rooms as a condo-hotel. Condominiums were actually forbidden in the B/SOL Plan LCP, unless it facilitated the restoration of the La Bahia. The Preservation Commission kept trying to get a meeting, as is required in the B/SOL Plan to advise the project in its formative stages, but the developer said he was trying to line up support for his highrise first, and didn’t formally meet with Preservation Commission until nearly a year later. The Commission formed subcommittee to work with the developer, and I wrote report-after-report to guide the project to meet the B/SOL requirements, but nothing in their proposed design ever changed, and after three months, the subcommittee stopped meeting.
SPOT ZONING: HPC learned the City let the developer know he could design anything he wanted on the site, then change all the site requirements to legalize his non-compliance with the B/SOL Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The developer was playing by his own rules, and HPC was futilely trying to apply the requirements. In just five years, the City had gone from requiring landmark preservation by law, to unofficially urging landmark extinction through an Anything Goes development strategy. The developer’s own former 2003 proposal was offered as the sole historic alternative, yet this time denounced by its creator as infeasible. The developer called all his alternatives infeasible. When the developer realized the 8-story height was an issue that might doom his new project, he quickly invented a “real” alternative called 3A for a 7-story hotel. It failed at HPC, passed without unanimous support at City Council, then failed at the Coastal Commission for Spot Zoning the site. This was a shock, because the developer had said “the Coastal Commission is on-board with this plan,” and the anti-preservation crowd tended to loudly blame Santa Cruz Coastal Commissioner Mark Stone for his “betrayal” by finding non-compliance, and myself for my extensive analysis of the plan’s non-compliance.
CURRENT PROJECT
Craig French became the new developer for the Seaside Company, saying he’d learned the lessons from the previous project. Yet the lessons he learned, were that some City officials publicly announced they were still upset that the 7-story highrise was killed at the Coastal Commission. By bemoaning the La Bahia’s condition and the need for tax revenues, these officials were hinting that landmark extinction and non-compliant Anything Goes development was perfectly acceptable, and to regard this as a vacant lot project instead of a preservation project. The developer proposed a 165-room 6-story hotel, but articulated so that no more than 4-stories face any one street. He said he would demolish the majority of the landmark, saving only the tower wing, and delist the landmark since his plan obviously destroyed its National Register eligibility. The new hotel was designed in Corporate International Style, falsely claiming it is the required Spanish Colonial Revival Style. The developer claimed modernism is required to differentiate old-from-new under the Secretary of the Interior Standards for National Register landmarks (which this would not be). The developer felt he could justify all his non-compliance with his own interpretation of the B/SOL policies and preservation guidelines.
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS: It was obvious preservation was never a priority. Without hiring the preservation professional mentioned in the B/SOL Plan and FEIR mitigations lists to help achieve restoration, the developer’s Economic Analysis report had no credibility for a landmark conversion project, as it was not based on an examination of successful historic hotel conversions, concluding only new construction was viable. Likewise, his Structural Analysis was irrelevant to whether the building should be demolished, as the B/SOL Plan required reconstruction of demolished wings, meaning the new construction deemed economically feasible in his Economic Analysis, actually supported the required reconstruction of the La Bahia.
NO HARDSHIPS: The B/SOL requirements had included fail-safes to ensure preservation, but the developer used them to justify demolition-without-reconstruction, in order to satisfy the conditions of an Historic Demolition Permit. This demo. permit was not part of the B/SOL requirements, nor was it in any way specific to La Bahia. It requires proving economic hardship, abatement of a hazard, and that demolition is compatible with preservation requirements. Yet, if the La Bahia is unsound, it was due to negligence by the owner resulting in demolition-by-neglect, a self-imposed hardship. If it is abating a hazard, then the developer is saying the tenants have been endangered by the continuous occupation of the apts., again only a self-imposed hardship.
NOT CONSISTENT: Finally, you must find “demolition is consistent with the purpose of historic preservation.” Yet there is no provision that says 90% demolition satisfies the required preservation of the landmark’s specified “Character-Defining features,” especially since the landmark must be delisted for losing its National Register eligibility. The ARG authors of the preservation guidelines were hired to review the French proposal’s level of compliance with B/SOL. ARG cited La Bahia’s National Register eligibility as evidence of its significance, in an apartment complex defined by “…the interrelationships between the individual buildings and landscape components. By reducing the historic property to a single building, the proposed project would eliminate these characteristics. Such an adverse change to a CEQA-defined historic resource, constitutes a significant impact.” Thus, the project does not comply with the preservation requirements, and saving a single building does not preserve its national significance, and thus does not comply with preservation requirements. Further, a finding that the La Bahia no longer has any significance can only be rendered after the building’s significance is destroyed by the developer. Perhaps all you need to demolish an important landmark now is to personally destroy its significance.
NOT CONSIDERED: But there’s no evidence preservation was even considered. The developer hired an architectural firm with nothing but modern architecture on their website, obviously not expecting anything in the required historic style. If you overlay a map of the current landmark on the proposed structure, you see a vacant spot sufficient to contain the Court of the Troubadours as required, but missing. The Court of the Canyon and the Rabbit’s Hole breezeway could have been incorporated with little effort, while the Court of the Mariners had its footprint saved, but is to be gutted and turned into a driveway. If the developer had prioritized saving the landmark’s features, he could have placed the valet service in a special lane in front of the landmark, which would have pleased the Public Utilities Agency, which has complained the last two projects illegally introduce a new driveway opening onto active railroad tracks. So this project doesn’t abate a hazard, but introduces ahazard. Further, if the developer had split the hallway behind the tower wing, he could have made space for the Court of the Laurels in its place as required. But, as evidence by the non-complying mass-produced features of the modern building, the designers have little imagination or sensitivity to National Cultural Resources, if they happen to be associated with Santa Cruz.
AT HPC: When the project was brought before the current Preservation Commission, one of the new commissioners summed up their confusion this way: “What do they want from us? The City Council’s already made up their mind to support this, and our vote doesn’t count. So what’s our responsibility? Are we supposed to support the City Council, or support Preservation?” Two longer-serving members voted for preservation, while the new commissioners voted to support the City Council. Retired Capitola Museum head Carolyn Swift nearly wept speaking before them, wondering what they were there for if it wasn’t preservation?
AT CITY COUNCIL: At the City Council hearing, councilman Micah Posner (sympathetic to preservation) said there’s a feeling that Ross is probably right in what the requirements are. But Posner felt people are tired of the delays, and approving the modern hotel would put it on the fast track. He felt what he heard from business interests made
him think probably 80% of Santa Cruz wanted the dilapidated landmark
gone, and a modern structure built.
RESPONSE: Except the same business interests also supported the near-total landmark preservation project in 2003, as well as the highrise project in 2008. It’s the spirit of our business community to boost all local improvements. The 80% figure has no facts behind it, and doesn’t reflect the large number of preservation well-wishers I have encountered every day in all walks-of-life, who at one time were equal stakeholders in the B/SOL Plan. Any “delays” were caused by the developers, in killing the first project after it was approved, then ignoring six years of warnings that Spot Zoning was not likely to pass the Coastal Commission. And if the Council thinks this is the fast track, why did they replace the normal 3-year building permit with a 10-year building permit, if not because they lack confidence that the project can find investors before the year 2025?
THE APPEAL
On Sept. 25, the La Bahia Coalition filed to appeal the landmark demolition to the Coastal Commission. Our long list of non-compliance included housing, traffic, heritage trees, an on-site spring and archeological features, etc. But we simplified it to our basic goals: to saving more of the landmark, and make the addition in Spanish Colonial Revival style. The Dec. 11 meeting was supposed to be a 3-minute examination to prove Substantial Issue of concern to the Coastal Commission, which could grant us a full hearing. However, the Developer wanted 10 minutes for their case, so we were given 10 minutes under equal-time rules.
STAFF REPORT: The Coastal Commission staff report repeated the developer’s mis-statements, falsely asserting the project was in Spanish Colonial Revival style. The staff report claimed the B/SOL policies did not prevent demolition but offered it as an alternative, and wrongly implied non-B/SOL demolition and delisting guidelines specifically indicated La Bahia. The staff report claimed the B/SOL policies “did not ultimately include any explicit guidance regarding future development on the La Bahia site itself” (ignoring ARG’s detailed La Bahia report, partly titled “…& Recommendations for New Development” in the Certified B/SOL EIR and referenced in the LCP Zoning and Mitigations lists). The staff report falsely claimed (as was quoted in the Sentinel) that the Coastal Commission had approved “a separate coastal plan” to which this project complies. I asked the local Coastal Commission office about it, and was told this referred to the portions of the B/SOL policies that had been certified by the Coastal Commission. Thus, there is no separate plan; the LCP is imbedded in the B/SOL policies, dependent on the larger B/SOL document to understand context and intent.
RESPONSE: We provided 10 quotes requiring La Bahia preservation from the ARG report, the B/SOL Plan, the Certified B/SOL Final EIR, RTC Zoning, and the Implementation Policy, then focused on the non-existence of a Demolition Option.
NO DEMOLITION OPTION
Celia Scott was mayor when the B/SOL Plan was approved. She wrote the Coastal Commission during the appeal: “… La Bahia was to be part of a larger revitalization strategy to attract heritage tourism, and thus a demolition option was NOT part of the B/SOL plan.” In fact, none of the architectural guidelines even make sense without the landmark. The articulated massing, height provisions, and architectural style, were all intended to lessen the impacts of the addition on the La Bahia Complex, which the Plan stated unambiguously would be saved. But the staff report said demolition is mentioned throughout the B/SOL reports as an accepted option to preservation, as if it were a foregone conclusion, yet without any quotes to prove it. In fact, La Bahia demolition is not mentioned at all in the B/SOL Plan or Architectural Guidelines, except to say structural problems would allow certain specified wings to be replaced with replicas. Demolition is mentioned in the B/SOL EIR as follows.
MITIGATIONS: The La Bahia Impacts Mitigation list has been offered by the developer as what must be done to mitigate the elimination of the landmark. Except this again is a misreading. In the Certified Final EIR, the authors of the requirements explain that the massive expansion of the landmark into a hotel is considered an impact on the integrity of the structure, so it’s the addition that must be mitigated. {Certified B/SOL FEIR Sect. VI 35-36}. As a result, two versions of the Mitigations lists were prepared in the Draft EIR and the Certified Final EIR. They require adherence to the ARG protections for La Bahia, extensive documentation of any alteration on the La Bahia as a guide for restoration, and salvaging architectural features from wings that are being demolished, for use on the reconstructed wing to maintain historic continuity. So in these cases, demolition is only mentioned as part of the restoration process. However, the developer chose to read the procedures list backwards, starting with demolition, then using the mitigations to forgive the devastation, rather than to mitigate the expansion.
CEQA: After the B/SOL EIR came out in 1998, there was alarm from the Coastal Commission, HPC, and members of the public, that a La Bahia demolition-without-reconstruction option had been inserted with the phrase: “If the La Bahia is demolished, destroyed, or [inappropriately] altered…[it] would result in an unavoidable significant impact to historic resources.” The B/SOL authors replied in the Certified B/SOL FEIR that this phrase is required by CEQA (Ca. Environmental Quality Act) to assess these various impacts on the landmark. Yet they added, ‘The intent of the B/SOL Area Plan is to restore and expand the La Bahia, not ‘wholesale obliteration.'” Therefore, this does not constitute a demolition option, just as it’s also not permission for a disaster or inappropriate-alteration.
WORST CASE SCENARIO: Even if the Mitigations and CEQA boilerplate were confusing, it should have been perfectly clear what the last demolition mention means. The B/SOL FEIR states: “…In order to develop a 125-135 room hotel on the smaller footprint site [of the La Bahia]…it is likely that the La Bahia would be demolished under this alternative, in order to maximize the developable area for the hotel.” It sounds straight-forward as justification for how the developer approached the project. But in fact, this was Alternative E., a worst case scenario if the B/SOL Plan were not passed. The quoted portion ends with “…[This] alternative…would require demolition of the La Bahia, rather than an adaptive reuse of the building as proposed by the [B/SOL Plan] project.” It further notes this “…would not meet one of the primary purposes of the B/SOL Plan, to ‘enhance the historic resort attributes of the Beach area for residents and visitors alike.'” So this worst case scenario was not intended to happen because the B/SOL Plan was approved: requiring La Bahia Rehabilitation as part of the overall restoration of the waterfront’s most important features, to serve a primary B/SOL goal of generating heritage tourism. Therefore, demolition without reconstruction is non-compliance, accomplished by twisting restoration requirements, compatibility guidelines, and National Register Standards to help destroy the La Bahia’s significance, demolition most of the landmark, eliminate its national standing, and build an ultra modern replacement structure.
DECISION: The staff suggested the LCP had a range of options that left landmark protections up to the whim of the developer, and the Commission can’t look at material not in the LCP. One Commissioner contradicted this, saying understanding context and interpretation has always allowed examination of peripheral data. She observed that the developer’s economic analysis showed his preservation alternatives all made money, but was concerned his 10% profit model is not a universally accepted evaluation standard. Several other commissioners seemed sympathetic, but in the end only one voted to grant us a hearing.
CONCLUSION
LOSS: With the La Bahia’s demise, what we’re losing is that unique, intimate nature-oriented kind of landmark that characterizes the artistic soul of Santa Cruz, and was intended to knit-together a vista of waterfront landmarks to attract the deep-pockets Heritage Tourism as a cultural destination. Instead, we’re getting bland Freeway Vernacular motel-modernism (not allowed in the certified Architectural Guidelines), noted for its uniformity of mass-produced elements (not allowed in the certified Architectural Guidelines), imposing Corporate International Style to reflect the Corporate ambitions of the City, and attract a hopefully self-indulgent Corporate crowd.
PRECEDENT: Meanwhile, a development plan to enfranchise the largest number of Santa Cruzans, has turned into a project to disenfranchise neighbors and preservationists. Those defending the development of La Bahia according to the B/SOL Plan are accused of being anti-business and trying to stop progress. The City spent time and money devoting 56 pages to a La Bahia Preservation Plan (exceptional in Santa Cruz preservation history), and still ended up with the Worst Case Scenario that was warned against if the B/SOL Plan weren’t approved. Seeing nothing wrong with this, the Coastal Commission has set a low bar by creating the La Bahia Precedent for developers who don’t want to keep a protected landmark. All they have to do is reinterpret the LCP protections into non-protections, dismiss the authors of the requirements as having no authority over what it means, rewarding lack-of-maintenance with demolition, and planning to ruin a landmark’s historic integrity with delisting.
• • • – – – • • •
MILITARY VEHICLE & THE CITY COUNCIL. Brent Adams posted this on You Tube. Of course Mayor Don Lane doesn’t see this as militarization of our police force, even though other cities are turning these tanks away. Check out this You Tube clip.
You’ll read such statements as… “The City of Santa Cruz designated the La Bahia Apts. one of the most important historic assets on the waterfront, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, whose restoration in tandem with other important nearby landmarks would restore the historic character of the Beach-Front for heritage tourism. So it was shocking when developer Craig French proposed to demolish 90% of the landmark, de-list it, and build a Corporate International Style modern hotel in its place. Ross’s conclusion…”
With the La Bahia”s demise, what we’re losing is that unique, intimate nature-oriented kind of landmark that characterizes the artistic soul of Santa Cruz, and was intended to knit-together a vista of waterfront landmarks to attract the deep-pockets Heritage Tourism as a cultural destination. Instead, we”re getting bland Freeway Vernacular motel-modernism (not allowed in the certified Architectural Guidelines), noted for its uniformity of mass-produced elements (not allowed in the certified Architectural Guidelines), imposing Corporate International Style to reflect the Corporate ambitions of the City, and attract a hopefully self-indulgent Corporate crowd.
PRECEDENT: Meanwhile, a development plan to enfranchise the largest number of Santa Cruzans, has turned into a project to disenfranchise neighbors and preservationists. Those defending the development of La Bahia according to the Beach South of Laurel (SOL) Plan are accused of being anti-business and trying to stop progress. The City spent time and money devoting 56 pages to a La Bahia Preservation Plan (exceptional in Santa Cruz preservation history), and still ended up with the Worst Case Scenario that was warned against if the B/SOL Plan weren”t approved. Seeing nothing wrong with this, the Coastal Commission has set a low bar by creating the La Bahia Precedent for developers who don”t want to keep a protected landmark. All they have to do is reinterpret the LCP protections into non-protections, dismiss the authors of the requirements as having no authority over what it means, rewarding lack-of-maintenance with demolition, and planning to ruin a landmark”s historic integrity with delisting”. Ross had a lot of help and support in that battle.
ARANA GULCH. Opening-ribbon-cutting day has been moved to January 14.Watch and see which politicians show up for their picture op. Then see how they deal with what they did to our vanishing natural environment. Lets hope the ever-healthy bicyclists in the county don’t decide they need more of these destructive, expensive short cuts. And listen to the Jan. 6th Universal Grapevine 7p.m. (KZSC 88,1 fm and live online at KZSC.org) for both Ross Gibson talk about La Bahia and Jean Brocklebank talk about Arana Gulch.
ELERICK’S INPUT. Mr. Paul Elerick of Aptos writes…(On December 23,’14)
THE POLICE
Everybody I know agrees that our law enforcement officers are risking their lives every day to keep our community safe. Anything we can do to support them should be done, even obtaining bulletproof vehicles to be used when necessary. That being said, our elected officials can do their part by getting timely input from the public. Sometimes they are on it, when the council saw to it that Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark was removed as police spokesman after issuing an inflammatory verbal attack on a candidate for the Santa Cruz City Council. We’ll never know how many votes that took away from that candidate, but it could have cost her a seat on the council. It would be good to get input from the entire community on things like license plate readers too. Not just from city residents, but from the rest of us who love Santa Cruz and don’t need another reason not to go there.
ELERICK’S INPUT FOR DECEMBER 15, 2014
THE SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT’S NEW MILITARY VEHICLE.
It’s hard to believe, but our City Council has approved the “gift” of a quarter million dollar “defensive armored vehicle” from the Feds Homeland Security organization. This is the “tank” like thing we’ve gotten used to seeing on TV following citizen demonstrations in several parts of the country. We are shown only a few incidents. Interesting to see this offer was made to Santa Cruz City PD. I can’t imagine any other city or county law enforcement organization in the county accepting such an inappropriate “gift”. How about Santa Cruz residents just asking for the tax money back that paid for this ugly “tank” and use it to get people safely housed out of the rain and cold?
Lots of testimony opposed the acceptance of this vehicle, in fact the only people that went for it were 6 of the 7 members of the City Council when it was approved. I’ll predict that this thing will be rolled out on New Year’s Eve to go along with the chain-link fences and spotlights to keep “unapproved” revelers in check”. (Paul Elerick is co-chair with Peter Scott of the Campaign for Sensible Transportation, http://sensibletransportation.org , and he’s a member of Nisene 2 Sea, a group of open space advocates).
LA PROGRESSIVE. David McReynolds a life long Socialist sent this link to LA Progressive
http://www.laprogressive.com . Check it out. It’s created and run by Dick and Sharon.David wanted us to read ALL LIVES MATTER…EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!!!
http://www.laprogressive.com/all-lives-matter by Richard Shaffer. A tough subject, byt worth looking at, and thinking about. Then check out the other writers for LA Progressive…Tom Hayden, Robert Reich, Norman Solomon, Jim Hightower, and dozensmore of that same tone, temper and leanings.
Watch the Boswell Sisters in a rare film appearance.
THE BOSWELL SISTERS. Ken Koenig sent out a link to a book on the famed Boswell Sisters…and the mystery of why they broke up. Here’s that link…
LIVE FROM ANTARCTIC.. BrattonOnline readers may remember I had a friend Micaela Neus who lived and worked in Antarctica for many years. She sent weekly emails for the column about the carrying-ons way down there. It’s too late now to see the one week only documentary “Antarctica –One Year On Ice“, at The Nickelodeon. It was great, rent it or something. By luck I found this new You Tube clip on Micaela’s FB page. It only had 75 views so far. It gives you an instant taste of the friendship and relations and conditions down there. Take a peek and decide if you’d ever work there.
PATTON’S PROGRAM. Gary has a lot of holiday stuff to talk about so check out his blog. He also talks about Land Use and the Monterey Bay…he says, “The Land Use Report focuses on the “land,” and not on the marine environment that is of such great importance to everyone who lives around the Monterey Bay. That said, the land, and the coast, and the ocean are related, of course, and it is particularly true that what we do on the land affects water quality and the health of our marine environment. Let’s not forget that! It also happens to be the case that the powerful ocean environment out there has direct impacts on the land, and on land use. Saltwater intrusion, long endangering water supplies in the Pajaro Valley, and more and more of a concern in mid-Santa Cruz County, is one example.
Another example is the impact that the processes of coastal erosion have on our land uses near the coast. Gary Griggs, a professor at UCSC, has educated us on this topic for years. For those who would like to hear more, be advised that there will be a free seminar on Wednesday, January 7th, at 6:30 p.m., featuring a presentation by coastal wilderness enthusiast and local sailor, Dr. David Revell. He will be speakingon “The Santa Cruz Beachfront: A Look At How The Effects Of Coastal Engineering And Climate Change Are Affecting The Harbor, Boardwalk And Beaches.”This presentation will take place at the Santa Cruz Yacht Club, located at 244 4thAvenue, Santa Cruz, and everyone is welcome! Read the complete scripts of the above at Gary Patton’s KUSP Land Use site http://blogs.kusp.org/landuse . Gary is a former Santa Cruz County Supervisor (20 years) and an attorney who represents indivuduals and community groups on land use and environmenatl issues. The opions expressed are Mr. Patton’s. Gary has his own website, Two Worlds/365” – www.gapatton.net
CLASSICAL DeCINZO. Our Sheriff’s Department is hiring!!! See De Cinzo below… a bit!!!
EAGAN’S DEEP COVER, twice the pleasure!!! Internet Devils one week and Putin’s ride into the sunset. See downwards.
LISA JENSEN LINKS. Lisa writes…”Anything might happen this week at Lisa Jensen Online Express (http://ljo-express.blogspot.com). While still embroiled in a couple of secret projects, I’ll be keeping tabs on the latest Oscar-bait movies (as well as a few vintage Christmas chestnuts). Stay tuned!
CINEMA 9 CHANGE. After a very productive and challenging time as General Manager of The Regal Cinema 9 Nicole Snyder is leaving “show biz” to “pursue some other directions” as we say. She’s been great to work with and had to deal with the biggest changes in “The House” of any general manager since it opened. Wish her great luck when you see her. Mr. Paul Spencer takes over as manager right now.
THAT IS THE QUESTION
(IN ORDER OF PERFECTION)
WILD. Any Santa Cruzan will be totally sucked in when Reese Witherspoon starts hiking the Pacific Coast Trail and starts reading a copy of one of Adrienne Rich’s books. Somebody mentions Adrienne latsr in the film too. Cheryl Strayed did hike the PCT and wrote the book.Thomas Sadoski from HBO’s The Newsroom is in it too. Good acting, a few award nominations are already happening and it’s a very good feel-good movie. Not a great movie but a good feel good thing….especially for women.
FOXCATCHER. This is one of the most odd movies I’ve ever seen. You’ll spend almost the entire time just watching Steve Carell’s eagle beak fake nose. Mark Ruffalo and Channing Tatum look and act like a sequel to Planet of The Apes. It’s creepy, non- focussed and I’m not sure why they made the film. Carell will be nominated for sure for something.du Pont was a realpsycho and thought he was Jesus Christ, the Dalai Lama and a Russian czar according to Wikipedia.
THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES. This is supposed to end the Hobbit trilogies, but considering the huge opening weekend they’ll probably squeeze another dwarf flick and go for four. Yes, Martin Freeman is still in it as Bilbo Baggins, the titular lead of the little people. So is Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, and Ian Holm for two minutes at the end. Like Exodus it’s all done with pixels, and it’s impossible to tell one army fromanother. It’s very bloody and violent as all these billion dollar money makers are. So if you want to support more of these torture scenes , just go.
A NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. Not even Robin Williams in his last role gets a laugh here neither does Mickey Rooney in his last cameo appearance.Even with Owen Wilson, Ben Kingsley, Steve Coogan, Dick Van Dyke, Hugh Jackman andmostly Ben Stiller in two roles, it’s not a funny film. They try very hard, but the joke material has run out on late night museum happenings. Save your money.
EXODUS. This digitalized piece of junk movie topped the boxoffice two weekends ago. Probably because it had so much violence, bloodshed and killing in it. It’s all about the Hebrews and the Egyptians not getting along. Christian Bale (great first name for this God –driven spectacle). By the way, God appears to Moses Bale as a ten year snotty boy!!! The bush doesn’t burn very brightly either and if you can imagine Brooklyn-born John Turturro as Seti, Rameses father, you’re much more of a believer than I am. ( Rameses, aside from being the greatest ruler Egypt ever had, also had the honor of having a brand of prophylactics named after him, which is odd and puzzling).See below. With all of today’s special effects, they don’t come close to what Cecil B. De Mille and Charlton Heston could pull off in the glory years of biblical spectacular films. Save your money, go see Wild, or Birdman, or even The Homesman or The Theory of Everything…they’re all award winning nominees.
STILL PLAYING AT A THEATRE NEAR US FROM BEST TO REALLY BAD
BIRDMAN. Great cast with Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Zach Galifianakis, and Lindsay Duncan. Keaton is always good and here he plays an ex Batman/Birdman who tries to make it back to fame in a Broadway play. This is not a simple Hollywood flick!!! Don’t expect some cheap laughs, and takeoffs on Batman movies. It’s a complicated psychological look at egos, fame, friendship, family. It’s a very fine film, worth your going to see by all means. It’s just deeper than the previews make you think.
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING.Stephen Hawking is played by Eddie Redmayne who did Les Miserables. Felicity Jones from Spider Man 2 and Emily Watson is in it too but you’ll hardly recognize her. David Thewlis is also perfect and downplays his role nicely. It’s a heart rending- tear jerker- feel very good- movie. Redmayne will be near the top for an Oscar because they always go for handicapped roles (My Left Foot, Rainman etc.). There’s very little of Hawkings actual scientific genius in the film. It’s more about how later he split from his long suffering and eternally supportive wife and went for his beautiful sexy caretaker and how his wife paired up with her choir director!!! Hawkings book A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME sold more than 10 million copies in twenty years (but only 8 people read it!!). It was translated into 35 languages sez Wikipedia.The Met has commissioned an opera based on the book which should happen in 2015. Wikipedia also says, “the theory of everything”, is a physicists jargon term for a theory in physics which unifies the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force”, but recently Hawking says that theory will probably never happen. Go see it, and bring a hankie.
WHIPLASH. J.K. Simmons will get big Oscar time press for his role as Mr. Nasty and newcomer Miles Teller is honestly impressive as the young wanna be drummer in this New York City jazz orchestra contest extravaganza, it’s very good.
THE HOMESMAN. It’s cutesy, snarly Tommy Lee Jones as we all love him and as he himself directed in this quickly forgettable tale of crazy women in the early west. Hilary Swank does her best, and she’s very good as the survival spirit of the plains, and an equal match for T.L.Jones but it’s still his picture. Only go IF you’ve seen everything else.
INTERSTELLAR. This over hyped piece-of- crap movie starring Mathew McConaughey, Michael Caine and Anne Hathway should refund every admsssion dollar it takes in. It’s pretentious, full of phoney intelligence, and uses such concepts as black holes, three dimensions and even five dimensions, singularity, string theory and voices from “them” who exist beyond Saturn. It’s not as bad as UCSC’s recent production of Birth Of Stars ..but almost. Once in a great while I’ll look up other critics to see who’s with me in disliking (or seeing) a film the way I do. Here’s what Critic David Thomson of the New Republicwrote…check it out
HUNGER GAMES, Mockingjay Part 1.A stunning cast, plus what has to be Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s really, really last role–forever. He’s joined by Julienne Moore, Donald Sutherland, Woody Harleson, Stanley Tucci, and Elizabeth Banks….and it’s a waste of your time and money. That is unless you’ve read the Hunger Games trilogy. Ashlyn Adams of Westside Video read the books, saw this movie, and even then said this new film is puzzling. I could not follow the plot, who’s good, who’s evil…and what is it all about anyways. And Jennifer Lawrence the star of the Games carries a bow and arrow while everyone around her shoots and kills things with future zap and zing future type weapons. I repeat DO NOT GO unless you’ve read all three books and even then Ashlyn says you can’t always trust anybody in the story.
UNIVERSAL GRAPEVINE RADIO PROGRAM KZSC 88.1 FM or live online at www.KZSC.ORG TUESDAYS 7-8 P.M.
UNIVERSAL GRAPEVINE. Each and every Tuesday from 7:00-8:00 p.m. I host Universal Grapevine on KZSC 88.1 fm. or on your computer, (live only or sometimes old programs are archived… (See next paragraph) and go to WWW.KZSC.ORG. I’m on vacation for December 23 and will repeat UCSC Professor Emeritus Lincoln Taiz talking about Population Growth and Climate Change followed by Social Media strategist Lydia Snider who’ll give us internet hints. Then on December 30 we’ll repeat Santa Cruz County Superior Court JudgePaul Burdick returning to talk more about issues from the bench. Marty Rizzo follows by telling us “new” details in our earliest Santa Cruz Mission Days. As previously mentioned I return on Jan.6, 2015 and will have historian and preservationist Ross Gibson discussing the destruction of The La Bahia Apartments by our Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk Corporation. Then Jean Brocklebank talks about the sad loss of Arana Gulch to the so called bicyclists, and politicians. Do remember, any and all suggestions for future programs are more than welcome so tune in, and keep listening. Email me always at bratton@cruzio.com
UNIVERSAL GRAPEVINE ARCHIVES. In case you missed some of the great people I’ve interviewed in the last 5 years here’s a chronological list of just the last few year’s podcasts. Click herehttp://kzsc.org/blog/tag/universal-grapevine then tap on “listen here” to hear any or all of them… all over again. The update includes Nikki Silva, Michael Warren, Tom Noddy, Anita Monga, Mark Wainer, Judy Johnson-Darrow, Wendy Mayer-Lochtefeld, Rachel Goodman, George Newell, Tubten Pende, Gina Marie Hayes, Rebecca Ronay-Hazleton, Miriam Ellis, Deb Mc Arthur,The Great Morgani on Street performing, and Paul Whitworth on Krapps Last Tape. Jodi McGraw on Sandhills, Bruce Daniels on area water problems. Mike Pappas on the Olive Connection, Sandy Lydon on County History. Paul Johnston on political organizing, Rick Longinotti on De-Sal. Dan Haifley on Monterey Bay Sanctuary, Dan Harder on Santa Cruz City Museum. Sara Wilbourne on Santa Cruz Ballet Theatre. Brian Spencer on SEE Theatre Co. Paula Kenyon and Karen Massaro on MAH and Big Creek Pottery. Carolyn Burke on Edith Piaf. Peggy Dolgenos on Cruzio. Julie James on Jewel Theatre Company. Then there’s Pat Matejcek on environment, Nancy Abrams and Joel Primack on the Universe plus Nina Simon from MAH, Rob Slawinski, Gary Bascou, Judge Paul Burdick, John Brown Childs, Ellen Kimmel, Don Williams, Kinan Valdez, Ellen Murtha, John Leopold, Karen Kefauver, Chip Lord, Judy Bouley, Rob Sean Wilson, Ann Simonton, Lori Rivera, Sayaka Yabuki, Chris Kinney, Celia and Peter Scott, Chris Krohn, David Swanger, Chelsea Juarez…and that’s just since January 2011. Hear them all!!!
QUOTES. “Love is just a dirty trick played on us to achieve the continuation of the species”, Somerset Maugham. “I sold the memoirs of my love life to a publisher—they are going to make a board game out of it”, Woody Allen.”I married beneath me. All women do”, Nancy Astor.
COLUMN COMMUNICATIONS.
Subscriptions: Click and enter the box in the upper right hand corner of each Column. You’ll get a weekly email notice the instant the column goes online. (Anywhere from Monday afternoon through Thursday or sometimes as late as Friday!) Always free and confidential. Even I don’t know who subscribes!!
Snail Mail: Bratton Online
82 Blackburn Street, Suite 216
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
