Less than a week after the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden presented its Vital Mission Plan for future development to the County Planning Commission - an August 5 meeting that lasted nearly eight hours and will be continued on September 2 - the county’s Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission rebuked controversial changes to the garden’s landmark-protected 23 acres. On Monday, August 10, the HLAC decided to send a letter to the Planning Commission that, among other critiques, recommends the meadow terrace be removed, that there be no more paving of trails, and that the historic main entrance be re-opened.
The letter is the culmination of at least four separate HLAC hearings and hours of community input and debate. It was requested by county staff as a means of passing along HLAC’s opinion on the 23 historic acres to the Planning Commission, which is currently reviewing plans for the garden’s entire 78 acres. In general, HLAC does have authority to stop work on county landmarks, as it did when the meadow terrace project began in February 2008. But when it comes to the Botanic Garden’s Vital Mission Plan, any further HLAC action must await the Planning Commission’s certification of an environmental impact report. That certification could come as soon as the September 2 meeting.
HLAC’s John Woodward, who’s been following the garden’s plans for years and was involved in getting the 23 acres named a landmark in 2003, admits that trying to distinguish between the authorities wielded by the various bodies are confusing. He explained, “We’re in the awkward position of having had a lot of hearings, but can’t take any formal action.” While HLAC has the “jurisdiction to approve or deny something that is a change in the landmark,” Woodward said that the garden’s landmark status is a bit more unusual and challenging than the regular historic building. “It’s a unique landscape design concept,” he explained, which is defined as a system of “naturalistic” trails through native plant communities. “Anything that affects the landscape design concept is within the jurisdiction of the commission,” said Woodward, including the partially built meadow terrace, the proposed and current use of concrete pavers on the trails, and abandonment of the original entrance to the meadow as the major historic snafus.
Of the nine HLAC members, eight were present, and seven voted in favor of the letter. The lone dissenter was Deborah Schwartz, and Woodward explained that she only objected to the sentence that called for the complete removal of the meadow terrace, believing that there may be a compromise.
The garden is currently evaluating and crafting a response to the HLAC letter, explained spokesperson Nancy Johnson. “It seems HLAC wants to try and freeze the Botanic Garden - and more importantly plant science and horticulture - in a moment in time,” she explained. “Yet the reality is - and this is cited in the EIR - botanic gardens evolve. While there are historic buildings at the garden, there is no historic plan or layout. The garden’s displays and physical footprint have, again, continually changed and will continue to change.”
Presumably, the Planning Commission will give due consideration to HLAC’s critiques when they both certify the EIR and make their final decision on the project, because ignoring them will only prompt HLAC to flex its regulatory muscle. Said Woodward, “If they take action first, then we will come back and take our action.” Two of the most recent HLAC actions also involved the Botanic Garden’s meadow, and both - the stop work order on the meadow terrace and the approval of a temporary art structure - were appealed, the first by the garden, and the second by citizens. The Board of Supervisors supported the HLAC each time.
And all of this will most likely come down to the Board of Supervisors again, because no matter what HLAC says or the Planning Commission decides, the highly contentious and widely watched Botanic Garden matter is almost assuredly going to find its way to the county’s top decision makers. Evaluating both commissions’ decisions on their individual merits, the supervisors will then have the final say on the Vital Mission Plan, and that might not come until November or December of this year, if not later. “It’s gonna be quite an appeal hearing,” said Woodward.
Complete Botanic Garden coverage at independent.com/bg



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
And then there will be a lawsuit because Mr. Schneider and his botanic garden cohorts seem to like to spend money on lawyers and PR campaigns.
citti (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Garden's PR person says that the Landmarks Commission "wants to freeze plant science and horticulture in a moment in time." Exactly how does disapproving the paving of trails with concrete pavers and the construction of a wedding terrace in the historic Meadow "freeze plant science and horticulture"? More BS from the Garden administration because they can't justify the damage they've done and will do to this precious community treasure if their plan is approved.
zorro (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is "no historic plan or layout"? Give me a break! A half dozen years ago, HLAC after much discussion with Garden management - crafted verbiage which safeguarded the landmark but also provided the institution room to evolve and change as a botanic garden. That resolution, which protects several features including the "historic landscape design concept", gives the Garden so much leeway that you could drive a truck through it. It was - and still is - a win-win situation for everybody. Given the comments from their spokesperson, the Garden still seems to be clueless regarding the parameters of the landmark and what a super deal it is for them. Hey, folks - read the damned resolution!
carloscarborg (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2009 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops - sorry - I thought I wrote "darned".
carloscarborg (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure why everyone seems to ignore the reason behind the pavers. They're not just for the heck of it - they're to make the Garden more ADA compliant so that people with disabilities & in wheelchairs can enjoy the Garden as well. This + the huge increase in fire protection are 2 huge benefits of the Garden's plan. I suggest you all learn more facts instead of just listening to hearsay & making biased, unbalanced judgements.
blueskies12 (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot" (paraphrased from Joni Mitchell!). In the name of ADA I really don't think we have to put concrete over the most unique and beautiful assets of Santa Barbara!! Isn't there some way these Botanic Garden people can be allowed to quietly disappear? Is it some ego thing that makes them want to destroy the very thing they were charged with protecting??
SanRoqueMom (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ego, insecurity, and paucity of character, likely fueled by an overabundance of childhood nerdiness and mommy issues. As for the use of pavers, write it off to lack of taste and a paucity of esthetic sensibility (plus a subconscious desire to turn this naturalistic setting into Kew, the Huntington, or Chicago Bot Garden.) Limited pavers near the entry and central buildings would not be unreasonable, but why those crappy concrete ones? They are sooooo ticky-tackey. Arizona flagstone or other natural stone would be quite suitable.
aspiringdiva (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way: Re the ADA issue, historic landmarks do not require the same level of ADA compliance that other properties do. Certain historic trails in the Garden are part of a designated Santa Barbara County landmark; paving them would destroy an integral element of that landmark. It would be roughly analogous to painting one of the Mission belltowers chartreuse.
aspiringdiva (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For those of you - and there are MANY of you - check out botanic gardens around the world. What is their mission? The Huntington, Descanso, and others...what is a botanic garden? This is the question to which you refuse to hear the answer. Ever-changing, ever-evolving, not to mention pursuing important scientific and educational endeavors. This is for OUR future. This is not about preserving the past. Yes, the Garden is a museum, but museums are not dedicate just to the past. They are about the future as well. (What good is an endangered plant, if it only existed until the Jesusita fire in 2009? We have a pretty picture of it!) Wake up, please, and start looking at what you have. You're shooting your own foot..and for what? Perhaps Roland could offer some sage advise.
boredstein (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Botanic Gardens "board's chair, Fife Symington III, the former Republican governor of Arizona who resigned after being convicted for bank fraud in 1997. (His case was appealed, his conviction overturned due to an improper juror dismissal, and he was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton"
SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT
Why does anyone give any credibility to this organization that is headed by a man with this reputation?
GeorgeSessions (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)