After a two-week hiatus, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday afternoon resumed hearing public comment regarding the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden’s proposed development project.

Those who showed up to add their two cents at the last hearing on the issue were evenly divided between pro and con, albeit somewhat thinner in numbers this time around.

In the end, the supervisors gave unanimous conceptual support to a decision made last year by the Historic Landmark Advisory Commission that placed a portion of the garden under its jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the garden’s administration has been continued until the board’s June 1 hearing, giving the supervisors time to make what they feel are appropriate findings related to the garden’s proposed Vital Mission Plan.

“These have been some challenging appeals by all the parties involved,” said First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal, whose district includes the garden property. “I really hope we reached a balance that’s in the best interest of everyone. Not everyone got what they wanted, but at the end of the day, I think we came up with an outcome that is in the best interest of the community.”

Carbajal read a laundry list of conditions the garden must meet for the project to gain approval June 1.

Among the nearly 30 conditions were such requirements as reducing the number of pavers used for paths around the garden, keeping land use permits within the guidelines given by the nearly complete Mission Canyon Community Plan, as well as a number of strengthened fire safety regulations and vigilance for potential Native American artifacts.

Along with other supervisors, Carbajal highlighted the need for a cap on the number of people allowed in the garden at any given time — particularly during the drier months from May 1 to Nov. 30, when fire danger is much higher.

Much of the public discussion Tuesday centered on fire safety in Mission Canyon — in which the garden is located — and access for the park’s disabled visitors. While some public commenters said wheelchair access could occur only with pavers laid on the garden’s paths, others maintained that dirt paths are easy enough for nearly anyone to use for that purpose.

Many, including a few of the supervisors, asked that the chain-link fence now surrounding the property be replaced with something more in keeping with Mission Canyon’s rustic character.

Richard Battles, an attorney representing the garden, decried what he said was the Historic Landmark Advisory Commission’s unreasonable denial of the Vital Mission Plan’s Meadow Terrace — a project that was halted while under way in 2008 after the HLAC found that the meadow was a historic landmark.

“They made no objective appeal for its denial,” he said. “You cannot uphold HLAC’s conclusions when those conclusions were based upon their opinions and not the facts.”

Mark Chytilo, an attorney representing Friends of Mission Canyon — one of the three groups that appealed approval of the plan — was backed up by several vocal members of the public in his assertion that the garden had been misleading in its plea to adopt the Vital Mission Plan as a project necessary to repair the damage done by last year’s Jesusita Fire.

“The plan and most of the work on the proposal had been done before the Jesusita Fire occurred last year,” Chytilo said.

Supervisors and county staff will take the next two weeks to analyze remaining information regarding the garden’s proposed project.

— Noozhawk staff writer Ben Preston can be reached at bpreston@noozhawk.com.