[Noozhawk’s note: Seventh in a series. Click here for previous columns.]
The 1970s were an important decade for the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation as well as the future of the restoration of El Presidio de Santa Bárbara.
As a result of two very significant actions by the SBTHP board, the nonprofit organization was elevated to an entirely different management level.
In 1972, the board approved a concession agreement with state officials to manage El Presidio de Santa Bárbara State Historic Park at 123 E. Canon Perdido. A year earlier, the trust had accepted the gift of the historic El Paseo, a sprawling complex of shops, restaurants, apartments and offices occupying most of the first block on the north side of East De la Guerra Street between State and Anacapa streets.
The stage seemed set for SBTHP to advance with its financial and institutional tool box filled to overflowing, which had it operating at two levels. The board had been at work evolving itself into an economic and political force, while the public face of the organization became the presidio volunteers, which were made an official committee of the trust.
Needless to say, it was not likely that a small organization — with the force of state government behind it — could sneak in and buy up valuable real estate (even if it was the founding site of Santa Barbara), close city streets, tear down some buildings and thereby alter the downtown landscape without pushback or controversy.
On April 1, 1981, I started with the trust as project administrator, with little idea of what lay ahead and the baptism by fire I was about to get.
Trouble surfaced in 1981 and 1982 when the trust sought funding from the state to purchase a privately owned parking lot built atop the foundations of the presidio’s front gate.
Then-Assemblyman Gary Hart, D-Santa Barbara, said he would support the funding request but asked the trust to hold a public meeting about its plans and secure the City of Santa Barbara’s endorsement.
Until that time, the presidio project had pretty much flown under the radar. That changed when local citizens and businesses caught wind of the idea of closing down streets and removing buildings that were part of the project’s full buildout.
Things didn’t go well at the public meeting, and ultimately the SBTHP was required to prepare a plan for future park development.
The challenge of the presidio project was based on a series of attitudes and perceptions. First, the site contained history from later periods of significance that would be minimized or ignored.
Other objections involved the project wiping out thriving businesses and viable residences, replacing them with a kind of “Disneyland”-type world; traffic tie-ups from the closure of downtown streets; and the glorification of the conquest of local Indians.
The trust responded to the criticism in various ways, including hiring an out-of-area architectural firm and a consulting company to lay out the park’s development plans. It also met with dozens of local organizations, most often with yours truly as spokesman.
The trust’s aim was to explain that there was both extensive research and archaeological evidence on which the project was based; that the site was worth preserving for its transcendent historical importance; and that there was a valuable opportunity to educate about the interesting technology of adobe construction.
The SBTHP also pointed out that the so-called Spanish soldiers came from diverse backgrounds. Almost all were born in Mexico, but many of them had roots in Spain and could trace back their Basque and Catalan heritage of diverse cultures and completely distinct languages. For instance, Catalan was the native language of Father Junípero Serra, one of Santa Barbara’s founders, while Mexican-born Comandante Felipe de Goicoechea’s roots were in Basque Spain.
In addition, enlisted soldiers were ethnically diverse, with more than half being of mixed Spanish and Indian blood, African-American and, in some cases, native Indians from Mexico.
Dozens of meetings were held until 1986 when California State Parks decided to create a general plan for the park and settle some of the related issues through an official public process that would culminate with a plan the California State Park and Recreation Commission would review and approve.
On the local level, SBTHP, the city and State Parks agreed to a memorandum of understanding that required each party to approve the plan before it went to the State Park Commission. Finally, order was being introduced to a politically unpleasant, chaotic situation.
In an important move, SBTHP had its architectural planning firm prepare a five-phase development for the park, with only the final phase involving street closures and the removal of certain buildings. As a result, the project was pulled back from an all-or-nothing roadmap.
Meetings continued from 1982, the 200th anniversary of the presidio’s founding, until 1987. Having attended every meeting but one in that span, I can tell you the process was grueling.
The final meeting was held at City Hall on April 21, 1987 — the presidio’s actual 205th anniversary.
In a packed council chambers, the meeting went on for hours with SBTHP project proponents and opponents out in force. Also in attendance were Les McCargo, the then-acting director, of the California State Parks, and project planner Art Camacho.
In the end, the City Council voted unanimously — with then-Mayor Sheila Lodge casting the final vote — to endorse the state’s general plan with the acceptance of a modified version of Phase III but without the inclusion of a post office parking lot.
More than five long years of public debate had finally been resolved. Streets would not be closed. About half of the presidio was to be rebuilt, including its front gate. Other historical eras would be included, such as the Asian presence in the neighborhood dating from the 1900s.
It was all good as far as I was concerned, and the State Park Commission endorsed the final general plan in the summer of 1988.
In other good news, Hart, who had been elected to the state Senate, and then-Assemblyman Jack O’Connell, D-Santa Barbara, introduced legislation authorizing State Parks to sign an operating agreement for El Presidio State Historic Park with a qualified nonprofit organization, such as the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation.
The bill was approved by the Legislature and signed into law in 1988 by then-Gov. George Deukmejian. Ever since, California State Parks has entered into a series of operating agreements with the trust. The law also required that all monies raised in the park must stay in the park.
The agreement would become a model for California as the parks agency confronts possible park closures while trying to make itself more financially flexible.
By 1987, I had been promoted to executive director of the trust, with primary responsibility for advancing the presidio project and a more direct involvement in El Paseo. As if SBTHP had not had enough controversy, the board decided after years of financial struggles with El Paseo, to offer it for sale with protective easements. In our next installment, we’ll explore more on this institutional challenge.
— Jarrell Jackman is the former executive director of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation. After receiving his Ph.D. in history from UC Santa Barbara, he taught for six years in Europe and Washington, D.C. In 2015, he was honored as a knight of the Royal Order of Isabel la Católica by Spain’s King Felipe VI and was named an honorary state park ranger by the California State Park Rangers Association in 2016. Click here for previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.