Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceA new terrace exhibit on the west side of the Meadow area at the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden is coming under scrutiny from some community members, including members of the county’s Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (HLAC), who say they should have been forewarned that the work on the project was taking place.
The three- to five-week project-which includes the installation of a 4,025-square-foot area featuring a three-tiered exhibit space with a flagstone floor, according to a conformity request submitted by the Botanic Garden-was greenlighted by the county Planning and Development Department in mid-July. That approval came despite the fact that the landscape design of the Meadow and other structural components at the Botanic Garden are considered historically important and thus require review by HLAC. According to a 2003 Board of Supervisors resolution, no changes to the Garden could be made that “substantially deviate from the foregoing historic landscape design concept or historic use of the landmark property unless express consent in writing is first had and obtained” from HLAC. However, in a July 18 letter to Botanic Garden President Ed Schneider, Deputy Planning Director Dave Ward concluded that the project falls under the category of “continued operation and maintenance” of the Botanic Garden and therefore didn’t need HLAC approval.
The terrace, which will have large containers featuring different plants for educational purposes, will stand in the spot formerly occupied by a dying oak tree removed earlier this year from the northwest corner of the Meadow, explained Nancy Johnson, Botanic Garden vice president of development and marketing. Arborists estimated the tree’s age between 100 and 150 years old. Before its demise, the tree-which stood 40 feet high and had a girth of 21 feet-posed a safety threat because its limbs could have fallen on people, Garden officials say.
Botanic Garden member and Mission Canyon resident Paulina Conn said the project lends the Garden to uses inconsistent with its original purpose. “Many of us see this as a major change in design concept and use,” she said. But Johnson said not replacing the oak with a new one was the “choice of the people who do the horticulture in the garden.” Conn explained that Garden management decided against another oak in part because such a tree would have shaded other plants and hindered their growth. Furthermore, plant experts feared a fungus that had infected the dying oak might spread to other trees.
County planner Alex Tuttle said staff looked at the Botanic Garden’s request for the application for the terrace’s construction and decided the project could bypass HLAC review or approval. Some members of the HLAC said that even if the exhibit complied with the resolution, a gentleman’s agreement had been established with the Botanic Garden saying the commission would have an opportunity to review any changes to the Meadow. “At least we’d have some dialogue about it,” said HLAC commissioner Sue Adams. “We felt we had an understanding. Along with the degradation on the Meadow is the degradation of the agreement.” HLAC commissioner John Woodward, an attorney, took it further, suggesting that not approaching the HLAC could be cause for a lawsuit. Nobody on county staff alerted commission members of the planned work, and the matter wasn’t placed on the most recent HLAC agenda. “I’m really disturbed that when you sit on the commission, that the bulldozers are at work when you first hear about it,” Woodward said.
In response, Johnson said the agreement with the county is only the historic landmarks resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors and that Garden management was in compliance. The matter has been placed on the HLAC’s agenda for its August 13 meeting. In addition to a briefing on the exhibit, Tuttle said staff will be looking for further guidance on when the HLAC wants to be involved in smaller projects.
Previous Month
Comments
Good for Paulina Conn for standing up and watchdogging. It's shocking, although, all-in-all, not surprising that the SBBG tried to by-pass the HLAC.
As a former Botanic Garden member for many years, I finally gave up my membership, disgusted by a Japanese tea house (JAPANESE TEA HOUSE!) in a Botanic garden for native plants. It's become a manicured park instead of the place of serenity it was not too long ago.
Under CEO Ed Schneider and Board Chair Fife Symington (former AZ convicted of fraud and pardoned by Pres. Clinton), the garden has forgotten its Mission:
"Santa Barbara Botanic Garden was founded in 1926 by Anna Dorinda to study, display and conserve the California native flora." (description in Guidestar.com)
It's a non-profit, a 501(c)(3) with a publicly available 990 (at Guidestar.com). The main program is supposed to be: "The Garden is dedicated to advancing the knowledge and understanding of botanical and horticultural sciences, to enhancing the public appreciation of plant life, and to fostering the conservation of natural habitats and species."
They seem to have also forgotten the Santa Barbara part and has abandoned its free first Monday monthly for Santa Barbara residents. Unlike the SB Art Museum, open free every Sunday, the Garden has a daily $8. charge.
It's shocking they can go in there with bulldozers and no community input, but that says again that the County P&D does not value protection. That area with that wonderful old oak tree was a serene place, one of the most important spots of the garden. Now apparently it is to be flagstoned.
What a travesty, as though there is not already enough pavement and manicuring. Surely, a snack bar will be next. Maybe it will be vegetarian, serving succulent native plants. The greeting heading on the SBBG web site says: "Dedicated to research, education and conservation, and display of California native plants." What better display than on a plate!
citti (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a former employee of the Botanic Gardens, I do agree with many of your points. However, I think you are making some generalized assumptions without knowing all the facts.
My main problem with your argument is the opinion that the garden has "forgotten Santa Barbara" by abandoning the free day. The garden did not abandon the free day, it abandoned the garden. As a non-profit, much of the income made by the garden is through admission fees, thus they had a sponsor cover the costs of not recieving admissing one day out of the month. The sponsor, for whatever reason, decided after a short time to sponsor the Museum of Natural History instead.
I do agree that the garden should be looking for a new sponsor - I had suggested it many times in my working there, only to be ignored by the VPs.
Also, the paving is to accomodate for the elderly visitors who have trouble walking along dirt and rocky paths, with or without wheelchairs. It's hard to please those who are complaining that they can't comfortably visit the garden, along with those locals who believe it should have been left the way it was. Someone will always be angry with the decision.
Just trying to clarify from my point of view - I definitely do not have all positive feelings towards the garden.
lcw4228 (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)