Despite hopes that something might be decided by the end of an all-day hearing on Tuesday, the future Santa Barbara Botanic Garden remains in bureaucratic limbo, as the county supervisors decided to continue the remaining public comments and deliberations on the controversial “Vital Mission Plan” until May 18. That leaves both the garden’s administration as well as leading critics waiting anxiously yet again for a final decision to be made, as the plan’s been making rounds before various county agencies for nearly five years now.
The decision came after five straight hours of testimony from staff, from the three parties appealing the County Planning Commission’s approval of the project, from the Botanic Garden’s representatives, and from more than two dozen members of the public, who were about evenly split on whether to approve or deny the project. The major concern echoed by both the appellants and the opposed citizens was fire safety and emergency evacuation, and the individual supervisors seemed to recognize those issues as the critical considerations. Other than that, however, the supervisors gave no inkling of whether they were supportive of the project or not, and it remains anyone’s guess as to how they will vote on May 18.
Now scheduled for that date are the remaining 75 or so public commenters who turned in request to speak, the Botanic Garden’s rebuttal, the staff’s input, and then the supervisors’ deliberations. On top of that, the May 18 meeting will also include an additional appeal hearing, that of the Botanic Garden’s request for the supervisors to deny the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee’s denial of their changes to the historic meadow. If all of that proves too daunting for May 18 alone, then the supervisors have also penciled in June 1 as a final decision date.



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





Previous Month



Comments
The Major Concern is the Village site and the destruction they are proposing. The "cherry picking" of policies to follow and the willful disregard of Native American rights is yet another slap in the face of Native Americans.
It is so pathetic that even in the news Native American rights are not part of the discussion. How low this town has become.
That's fine, the issues of Native American rights and the destruction of the village site are actionable in court.
Plenty of case law on the books.
KsenSku
KsenSku (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2010 at midnight (Suggest removal)
KsenSku I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that your major concern can be put to rest. The Botanic Garden's Vital Mission Plan is proposing no destruction whatsoever. I'm a bit surprised that such an active community member as yourself wouldn't take the time to read the proposal that you are so vehemently opposed to.
The Vital Mission Plan is proposing to update facilities within the already existing footprint of current buildings. These facilities will be replacing buildings that do not currently meet fire codes and are a danger to Mission Canyon. Also part of the plan is to bring more water access into the area so that if another fire comes through the Fire Department will have a stronger flow in order to better fight a fire. The EIR and a captain with the Fire Department stated that the Garden's plan will greatly improve fire safety in Mission Canyon. Let me repeat that - the Vital Mission Plan IMPROVES fire safety. Those trying to stop the Garden's Plan are damaging the fire safety of Mission Canyon.
Ksen I am pleased to see that you don't list increased traffic to the area as a Major Concern. Hopefully you are one of the many that have realized the Garden is placing a cap on visitations for the first time ever. The number they are proposing is LOWER than the total attendance for many of the last few years.
The Vital Mission Plan is a good thing for the Botanic Garden AND a good thing for Mission Canyon.
Jfitz (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2010 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am glad that everyone is getting a chance to voice their opinion on the issue. That being said, I am still confused on how fire safety is a topic of debate. The SB Fire Department has come out multiple times and stated how the Vital Mission Plan will improve the fire safety in the area. I consider them to be the premiere authority on the issue - when they claim something will improve fire safety, I trust that it will.
Additionally, I personally know that much of the resources and facilities at the Garden are currently out-dated. The updates to these are necessary and will provide the Garden with greater abilities to educate and serve SB.
GauchoScott (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The BGVital mission plan IS proposing to destroy the village site. They got approved by P&D to remodel the two existing residences and build three more right on the village site. Go back and read it all over again. It is obvious and in the plan proposals.
P&D staff came out with a new recommendation that is asking the BOS to not allow the building of new residential units on the S. Hanson site, due to zoning violation.This would reduce the amount of impact to the site. However they admit that impact would still remain due to the installation of infrastructure and widening of the access road. This is a impact to the site. Staff report is online, april20th.
Now lets talk about widening the access road. The general assumption is that the road is being widened for "fire safety" . Ok the building plans call for widening the road to 16 to 20 feet where it is possible. In some places the road is only 14 feet. What the grading plans show is that the road will go from 14ft to 16ft then to 20 ft then back down to 16 ft then20 then 14. It looks like some crazy hourglass shape.
Common sense says what is the difference between 14ft and 20 mean to the ability of a truck to drive up that road....if it can get past the 14ft wide portion then why would there be a need to go as wide as 20ft. U can't turn around on that road...need to have two way traffic? It is not a road....its a drive...if anything it's not even a legal drive based on the engineering standards..its just a drive. In fact the fire code references the engineering standards and fails to point out section 8-5. It doesn't add up at all. Unless you want to make the road l"look good" , then is that really for safety reasons?
As for the infrastructure...your telling me that the only place you can run a water line is right through the village site...destroy this valuable place because you decided to put in a water line. here is existing sewer lines that can be used just as well. But noo we have to run new lines in new areas because....?
Land use code says you can't develop on slopes over 30%, ok isn't a village site worth bending those rules for a water line. You want to break the rules and sacrifice a village site for some cosmetic reason for widening a road that doesn't serve to save anyone life but wont give up the 20ft needed to run the water elsewhere?
It all could be done It is just cheaper for BG to stand their ground.
If you need reference to the sections I am pointing out in the Final EIR I can direct you.
Oh yeah the circulation is not going to work. as pointed out in the BOS hearing the EIR never addressed the access road and its traffic contribution to las canoas.Quite a few holes left to fill.
Enjoy!
KsenSku (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2010 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gouchoscott- the reason there is public review is so that the community can keep those making decisions in check. This is how CEQA works. The people proposing the changes that are needed are not perfect. Often times they are just doing what they have always been doing. Others like the people are here to keep them in check.
You have "word smiths" at work here, they take a term and use it to send a message, but they never actually say specifics...like I seen the house......well what if they seen the house in a photo, or on a video or in a drawing...they are telling the truth they seen the house but are failing to clarify the way or method they seen the house from. In projects like this, theses word-smiting" methods are used to meet the standards of the CEQA reporting processes and not the determination of impacts. Public comment is to clarify and point out issues like this.
We are the reviewers of there work. And we have to call them on the mistakes that are made so that they do not do that again or else those mistakes become common practice.
Next they will start charging you a fee to open your door each day and tell you it is to improve fire safety then will you stand up then? sure cause it is totally crazy to charge for something silly like that. No we need to be watchful. They need our help too.
Enjoy!
KsenSku (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2010 at 3:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One more correction Jfitz
ohh the cap is at 300 of events that are by invite only....there is no cap on public events.
So what if they have a combo thing going on...open public but some where on the property they have a special place for invitees....so what is the rule to go by..the general public or the invite limit??? hummm My guess is that since general public is on the property then the limit is unlimited!
Kinda makes you wonder if that will ever be addressed. It almost was at the BOS hearing. But just slipped on by.
Enjoy
KsenSku (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2010 at 3:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)