The Carbajal Compromise

got three of my four request...that's a banner day!

I think he did very well, and weighed both sides in a pragmatic and fair manner. I am impressed.

Sauld has become an impressive public official.

He is very effective and makes every effort to be responsive to his constituents.

I understand the complicated that Salud is in, but I do not think that this is a fair compromise. The garden's plans have already been scaled back drastically and this "compromise" would require the garden's already simple plan to be reduced much further. I am particularly concerned about the incredibly strict limitations being suggested for visitation. Limiting attendance so severely will be detrimental to the garden's mission; they will have to turn away researchers, lecturers, visitors (including neighbors!) and students. That is unfair. Very unfair. In exchange for being able to make needed improvements the garden should not have to impose such ridiculous and potentially harmful restrictions upon itself.

If the Garden is allowed 200 people per day during the fire season and 250 people per day the rest of the year, they will not need to "turn away" any researchers, lecturers or students. However, they might not be able to accomodate all the tourists, wedding partiers, rock concerts, etc. that they would like to have visit.

The proposed cap would limit the number of visits by school children, lecturers, and scientists. We cannot expect the Garden facilities to be premiere when we are imposing such limits on the scientific research it provides. The Garden has already proposed limits in accordance with the SB Fire Dept. and many other regulations. By allowing these restrictions, we are just restricting the ability of the Garden to finance and maintain itself.

Research and Education are secondary to preserving and protecting the Garden’s site (the goal of those who originally donated the land). The classroom is the great out-of-doors. That “only 1%” marked for development is the historic portion that people visit. Indians walked dirt trails, not cement pavers; they camped by great boulders under oaks, not on terraces improved for weddings. Scientific research is important—but the development of premiere facilities for an institutional campus is not appropriate in this historic garden.

"A cap on 200 total people on-site (including non-residential staff)" means 200 people at a time. There could be 200 people in the morning, and then completely different set of 200 people in the afternoon - or every hour. It is the number of cars at any one time that need to exit that is important.

That's a lot of balance.

I can’t imagine that very many of us were around in 1926.  To declare that Ms. Bliss was intending to “protect the Garden’s site” is a bit obtuse.  You see, in 1926 there were not hundreds of people living in Mission Canyon, so she didn’t yet have to worry about the space becoming developed.  Thankfully the Garden has had the good fortune to grow from those original 13 acres to six times the size.  They have 78 beautiful acres where all in the community can enjoy the natural open space AND allow the Botanic Garden to research and teach about the incredible plant life found on their campus.
 
The Garden is there for the whole community to enjoy.  If you want to simply walk through and enjoy the serenity then please do.  If you want to have your children learn about nature by true experts – that should be allowed too.  And if you happen to be one of the few “premiere” botanists in this world and you want to come to one of the finest Botanic Gardens in the country, then I believe you should be allowed that right.  To put a cap on the Garden forces them to choose who they allow onto their property. 
 
I would prefer they allow the researchers (who are making breakthroughs that could change the world) or the students (who are being taught important lessons about our environment) be allowed on the campus before the neighbors (some of whom fought tooth and nail against the Garden) who are out for a stroll with their dog.  Because if you allow 200 people in the morning and 200 people in the evening like tabatha proposes – 146,000 people will be attending on an annual basis.  The Board of Supervisors are trying to put a cap on annual visitors at 110,000, even though in years past they have had up to double that number without any problems.

The proposed limits are outrageous. I know of no other environment non-profits with such limitations. For example, the Natural History Museum (which is not far from the Botanic Garden) is not limited in this way.

Also, The Botanic Garden's 80 year old mission is to be a place for science and education as well as a nice place to visit. The plan will allow all the Garden's intended purposes to be realized. The Garden has, and should always be, a scientific institution.

Yes, Jfitz, the cap of 110,000 is unreasonable. It should ONLY be a cap of 200 people at a time - that is the whole point of the limit; the number of cars using the road at any one time.

I'm glad to read that others see the proposed limits on attendance as excessive also. Setting the yearly cap at 110,000 is ridiculous. When you think about that limit in terms of how it would impact daily attendance it is easy to see that it is an unfair limit. By talking to garden staff regarding past attendance records it is apparent that there are often far more visitors than what the proposed average of 300 per day would allow.

The concern here is not whether "rock concerts" will be able to visit the garden. (I sincerely doubt that the botanic garden is a venue many rock musicians seek out) The garden should be available to whomever wants to visit, either to relax, learn or simply enjoy the scenery.

Fire safety is extremely important and this plan is working to address the concerns of the community. However, outrageous limits such as capping yearly attendance at such a low number will not help with fire safety, it will only hurt the garden.

Information quoted from respected Santa Barbara historian, Walker A Tompkins:
" In 1926 Mrs. Anna Dorinda Bliss of Montecito heard that a housing tract was being planned for upper Mission Canyon. Rather than see one of Santa Barbara's most beautiful untouched attractions ruined by "progress", Mrs. Bliss bought the entire 26-acre subdivision and dedicated it as a botanical preserve, confined to native flora of California, as a living memorial to her father, Henry Blakesley. "
So the Garden was indeed established as a preserve and should remain one.

The catch is that native plants cannot be preserved without doing the research on them. And since she was dedicated to the preservation of native plants, it would not be a stretch to assume she would support research about and preservation of them in the county.