[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6672751,"mediaKeyId","2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b","parentId",2117130,"title","City Council upholds appeal to protect Italian stone pines on Anapamu Street; HLC members call for clearer rules on landmark trees","audioSeconds",988,"startMs",928000,"endMs",1916000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b&start=928&end=1916","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b/thumbnail_928000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6672751/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/City-Council-upholds-appeal-to-protect-Italian-stone-pines-on-Anapamu-Street-HLC-members-call-for-clearer-rules-on-landmark-trees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672751-bf80ca87586bf00cf882a2a0c2659cdb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771226690&Signature=ZysDC3z2OAJ7SvsscFjWAy1LLYdD0ILEJG9LOhEeN18xca7QOynxhiOTN-l469PmI12gFZ1TiMMpLmlD3C-7kXPeMlAP~UNkKprBqXMj9Z~gRSDGjGspBb7xBMuS~8eXBFRntWwnnh11hEgykA~t1aehlXc9vJpOM~78KE8NVt1ZUwsFIqYx76Ii97qrNZFl2uvGXPOUu0pRtBuUAJzClcfVhzJEcovaF5ASQPrydHJAFA0Bevr1efDeNm828kGz9cYCkY1qAv6H1hMCS5XgqDNtk8d1F9N4VM4I5qOS6NuIr90IVpKQnZ8zNfxHQ-OBna9TBcg8H~GRM3dbJesp-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Santa Barbara, CA","date","2025-01-16T01:10:28.117Z","article","Santa Barbara City Council unanimously upheld an appeal to preserve the Italian stone pines along Anapamu Street, a decision commissioners and staff said reflected unusually strong public comment and concerns about how the municipal code treats living, non‑structural cultural resources.

Public commenters and commission staff said the council’s decision — announced after the appeal hearing — affirms an intent that replacements for removed Italian stone pines should be the same species (Italian stone pine) whenever possible. Ellen Kokkin, the city’s design review supervisor, told the commission the council vote was unanimous (Council Member Sneddon absent) and that staff expects a council resolution that will state the city’s intent to maintain Italian stone pines in place and, where a tree is lost, to replace it in kind.

Why it matters: Commission members and members of the public framed the case as more than a disagreement over street trees. Commenters and several commissioners said the episode showed municipal rules are focused on built, architectural landmarks and lack clear guidance for living cultural resources such as landmark trees and canopies. That lack of clarity, they said, led to prolonged review and an appeal to the council.

What speakers told the commission
- Rick Clawson and Sherry Ray, two public commenters who filed speaker slips, credited public input and the written record with persuading council members to uphold the appeal. Clawson supplied an appeal record and public comment materials to the commission. Sherry Ray urged creation of an Office of Historic Preservation to provide a standing voice and to help coordinate historical and cultural expertise earlier in disputes.
- Ellen Kokkin (Design Review Supervisor) told commissioners that the council found the appellants’ presentation persuasive and said staff will prepare a council resolution to clarify that the Italian stone pine is the intended species for replacement when a designated tree is lost.
- Multiple commissioners said the case exposed a gray area in the Santa Barbara Municipal Code: while buildings and structures are well defined, cultural resources that are living (trees, landscapes) are not spelled out consistently and need clearer standards. Commissioner Enzberg noted the commission has only a handful of designated landmark trees — she stated “we have 7 trees, basically” — and said the city needs rules about what happens when a landmark tree dies or must be removed.

What the commission will do next: Staff said it will prepare an agenda item to open a discussion on “cultural landscapes and biological heritage,” including training resources and possibly new guidance or a supplemental chapter in the commission’s guidelines. Commissioners suggested consulting national guidance on cultural landscapes and bringing relevant experts to inform local policy.

Context and limits: The commission emphasized the council decision addressed the Anapamu appeal and does not itself create citywide code changes. Several speakers noted that the Secretary of the Interior’s guidance on cultural landscapes exists but often lacks the level of detail needed to resolve tree‑by‑tree disagreements at the local level.

Ending: Commissioners and staff said the issue revealed an immediate technical need — clearer local procedures and definitions for living cultural resources — and a longer term policy task: whether to create local enforcement, monitoring, or a specialist office (an Office of Historic Preservation) to coordinate decisions that cross Parks, Public Works, and historic preservation responsibilities.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historic Landmarks Commission - January 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Santa Barbara City Council unanimously upheld an appeal to preserve the Italian stone pines on Anapamu Street after public commenters and commissioners argued the trees are culturally significant and that the municipal code lacks clear guidance for living, non‑structural landmarks.","taxTitle","Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County, California","taxId",4209,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672737,"HLC refresher: Secretary of the Interior Standards training highlights; staff stresses preservation-first approach",1272,4254000,5526000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b&start=4254&end=5526","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b/thumbnail_4254000.jpg","/articles/6672737/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/HLC-refresher-Secretary-of-the-Interior-Standards-training-highlights-staff-stresses-preservation-first-approach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672737-343fcb34b100bebe8add0f02410fcdb7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771226690&Signature=KGVat6WlA0XgRH34Oy9aMRSCU3tfCAZaHs2~XOBVvA5c3JRLP205bAcrEd2CshSoJisyliJJp5pAGs8n1Dg4Om99ImbrTY17Z42mevuI5XdE8NYVWh7U7n-dmYOktMtQyyulUMlvMi4JYStGd5HjM-WGj5joYjCfvPZ3sdLaDLwqcv6tj82Sf9KRe-lllUv~7YiHf5DL-QoX9JJiUuPIGulw8xMiM1pEVhTb3obzg4BHpwm02vnjUZ0rKRNYNTFZ2v0fTab1Ph44~OQCbQCaZ3JtDFQ~F3z-0STkFA0yL2s6b6dhaKhJCdpS082RgSCZCmKvPOdBbso5Bhnvuoao1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Historic resources staff delivered a refresher training on the Secretary of the Interior Standards (the federal guidelines used to evaluate historic properties) for the commission, walking through how the standards apply to local projects and why staff often requests applicants redesign projects before bringing them to the commission.

Training lede: Staff explained that local ordinance and CEQA practice require buildings 50 years or older to be reviewed for historic significance, and that meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards often enables a categorical exemption (avoiding a negative declaration or EIR) by showing that alterations are consistent with preservation best practice.

Key takeaways from the training
- Preserve character‑defining features: Staff emphasized preservation of original materials and features — especially wood windows, chimneys, and distinctive roof tiles — and said staff will work with applicants to retain or restore original elements when feasible.
- Do not add a false sense of history: The Standards discourage adding conjectural elements or incompatible historic detail that misrepresents a building’s architectural history.
- Rear additions and compatibility: Staff reviewed how rear additions can be designed to be compatible and reversible, and recommended setbacks, massing, and materials that read as a later addition rather than fabricating an original‑looking front façade.
- Replacement materials and documentation: When materials must be replaced, staff said replacements should be substantiated by physical evidence (photographs or original drawings) and, where possible, use like‑for‑like materials; otherwise the item goes to commission review rather than staff consent.
- Cultural landscapes and trees: Staff noted that the Secretary of the Interior Standards include guidance on cultural landscapes but do not always provide precise answers for living resources such as trees; staff committed to a future agenda item specifically on cultural landscapes and biological heritage.

Examples shown: Staff illustrated points with recent local projects: a commercial conversion that retained historic storefront arches, a Moderne building where openings were carefully adapted for ventilation, and a craftsman house where a failing chimney’s replacement was considered character‑defining and thus not easily removed. Staff also described a consent item earlier in the meeting where vinyl windows were required to be replaced with wood.

Why this matters: The training was intended to remind commissioners how to apply federal guidelines alongside local ordinance and to explain why staff sometimes returns plans to applicants for redesign before scheduling commission review. It also set expectations for documentation that should accompany applications (historic resource reports, photographs, and restoration justifications).

Ending: Staff urged commissioners to review posted draft master environmental assessment documents and announced that updated environmental guidance — including tribal and archaeological considerations — will be posted for public review ahead of a later hearing.","City historic resources staff gave commissioners a refresher on applying the Secretary of the Interior Standards to local projects, focusing on preserving character‑defining features and documenting alterations so projects can qualify for streamlined review when appropriate.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672742,"At a glance: key votes and actions taken by Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission (Jan. 15, 2025)",1306,438000,1744000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b&start=438&end=1744","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b/thumbnail_438000.jpg","/articles/6672742/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/At-a-glance-key-votes-and-actions-taken-by-Santa-Barbara-Historic-Landmarks-Commission-Jan-15-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672742-65d2f8b5a4b30938edc4d2727e713614/orig.mp4?Expires=1771226690&Signature=ZjInsNnviczZzjLMYn636Kl4pBkD~gIQ3vQp9E2s2aoL5OHWK0Pj-qTR2tuxwCym1CY3B4zDmxK3EGHHpkpqyI1Czn1VhwtVyDEg21QU95hBxM4myztPCx2eT6lYMr7uNsEx01~eKyFYw3OSab-MszH2cWNPc9QR3ve-VxGUQpFcN~EygbTG~H6zz5vB6vcUA0VTDJsMt7nsBgqUKdMlrH5Fjr9fIT14zg6sRzmi5degJs1NuUh9Bcpd0iFT49Sndz-TxtcQiuxR~KX4jBgo2pGrHcKPoAgw~XHfmskoSD29O7b3E1TksPjCvn-iCReiOL-sbioUkUGyoFcaTZIgUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission completed several formal items on Jan. 15, 2025, including elections, ratification of consent actions, structure‑of‑merit designations and project approvals. Below are the actions recorded during the meeting and the official outcomes.

Votes and formal actions (highlights)
- Election of officers: The commission elected Anthony Grumbine as Chair and Robert Ullie as Vice Chair by oral (viva voce) votes. (Motion: nomination and viva voce election; outcome: elected.)

- Ratification of the consent calendar (items from the commission’s consent review): Motion to ratify the actions taken on the consent calendar. Staff reported the consent items as:
a) 324 West Figueroa Street — final approval as submitted.
b) 914 Anacapa Street — project design approval and final approval as submitted.
c) 1327 Bath Street — project design approval and continued to staff for final approval with the condition that all vinyl windows be replaced with wood windows; staff also suggested evaluating light fixtures for a more historic character.
The ratification motion passed on roll call; Commissioner Enzberg and Chair Grumbine abstained from item 2 due to an affiliation with the Trust noted in the record.

- Structure of Merit designations (resolutions adopted):
• 18 Calle Alamo — Adopted Resolution 2025‑1 designating a Spanish Colonial Revival residence (designed by Edwards, Plunkett & Howell, 1927) as a structure of merit. Roll call recorded: Commissioner Butler (Yes); Commissioner Lindbeck (Yes); Commissioner Jordan (Yes); Commissioner Drury (Yes); Vice Chair Ullie (Yes); Chair Grumbine (Aye); Commissioner Edsberg (Yes). Motion carried.
• 234 Cannon Drive — Adopted Resolution 2025‑2 designating an American Colonial Revival residence (1934; architect J.H. Hillcock & Sons) as a structure of merit. Roll call recorded multiple yes votes; motion carried.

- Final/project approvals and other actions:
• 3204 Calle Pinon — Final approval for additions and alterations to a 1926 Craftsman residence (Project design approval previously given). Motion to grant final approval passed; a commissioner abstained due to absence at prior hearings.
• 1170 East Ortega Street — Project design approval to convert an existing two‑story single‑unit residence to a duplex and to build a new 4‑plex at the rear under the city’s average unit size/density program; approval included findings on compatibility and historic‑resource treatment. Motion carried; plans will return for final/consent review as appropriate.

Roll calls, abstentions and appeals: Several roll‑call votes were recorded; the meeting transcript lists commissioner votes for key motions. Where declared, abstentions were recorded (for example, Vice Chair Ullie abstained on one consent ratification item; others abstained where conflicts were disclosed). Appeals periods for final approvals were noted where applicable (generally 10 days following the action).

Why this matters: The meeting combined routine administrative business (officer elections, consent calendar ratification) with substantive preservation actions — two designations and advancement of major project reviews — moving multiple downtown property and plaza items forward into implementation or further environmental review.

Ending: Several actions are subject to appeal or further environmental review (De La Guerra Plaza EIR ongoing). Staff will process required findings, conservation conditions, and any follow‑up materials for projects that received design or final approval.","The commission elected officers, ratified consent calendar actions, designated two homes as historic structures of merit, approved several project designs and final approvals, and accepted minutes. This roundup lists the motions, outcomes and recorded roll‑call votes captured in the meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672747,"Historic Landmarks Commission accepts Phase 2 De La Guerra Plaza historic‑structure and cultural‑landscape study; two commissioners dissent",326,5814000,6140000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b&start=5814&end=6140","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117130-58d954ddaa721e3df2da67fa3329b85b/thumbnail_5814000.jpg","/articles/6672747/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Historic-Landmarks-Commission-accepts-Phase-2-De-La-Guerra-Plaza-historicstructure-and-culturallandscape-study-two-commissioners-dissent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672747-781aee24799a0d8048689bd75be4e49d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771226690&Signature=Mh7vf1PkRYxlh0FUC268mfn2Msesm9vrfWMjVQAjXGvc9Umg1qrdDCKMavV-GQLjOrtSUFHG0bGQz42f1gqPWSSLx2Kd92Sk9BT02GorqXUa5wazollBw3nDzs2i5YuwyNp5G9dCJaYAdyCAQVS2acy6mv8C4~e9tsmCCjnV8RoKodSc~p~YaYl0ODDmOgNmIyTH4~w6A-ej9RtgIWtLasfYKalSeqW48TsjZZqRMb-WNM1~OgS4aNhOpiwubmMrUMHmQ68LuF4p2jwwy2UhRgBYiCuIdVSyjao84~zn-VRIypugmU-ncGz2KJGqHEZgZxeiDpsmVpUN5KWF9GN-pA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Landmarks Commission voted to accept a Phase 2 historic‑structure/site report and cultural landscape study for the De La Guerra Plaza revitalization project, concluding the revised plans and recommended mitigation would allow the core plaza to remain an eligible historic resource provided the report’s guidance is followed. The motion passed with a majority; two commissioners voted against the acceptance.

Nut graf: The Phase 2 report, prepared for the city by Post Hazeltine Associates, reviewed historical maps, photographs and prior findings and concluded the plaza’s significance is primarily its long‑standing urban form — an open rectilinear civic space framed by surrounding buildings. The report recommended that proposed design changes (including a new level plaza surface, a pavilion at the eastern end, and a ground‑level water feature) could meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards if the report’s mitigation and guidance are implemented. Two commissioners said the report under‑weighted the plaza’s historical pattern of public use and raised objections to removing historic turf and curbing.

What was proposed and reviewed: The project would raise and level the central plaza and reconfigure East De La Guerra Street between Anacapa and State, replace deep turf and mixed paving with a unified, level surface, install a low‑profile water feature that can be activated for play, add a pavilion and stage near the historic footprint of the old adobe, and provide new landscaping and restrooms. The Phase 2 report examined the physical history of the plaza, reviewed prior documentation (including a 2011 study finding the plaza eligible for landmarking and prior 1924 city engineering work), and evaluated whether the proposed project could meet federal preservation standards.

Votes and dissent: A motion to accept the Phase 2 report and cultural landscape study carried on a roll‑call vote; Commissioners Lundbeck and Enzberg voted no. In their statements, each said the analysis did not adequately account for how the plaza historically functioned as a soft‑landscape, multi‑use public gathering space and that removing the turf and curbing risked changing how citizens used the space in ways that could weaken the resource’s historic character. Supporters of the report said the defining characteristic of the plaza is its form — the open rectangle surrounded by buildings — and that the proposed design conserves that fundamental quality while making the space more flexible and accessible.

Why the disagreement matters: The dispute illustrates a recurring tension in preservation practice between preserving specific historic materials (for example, early‑20th‑century curb and turf configurations) and preserving the spatial or experiential qualities that give a place meaning (the plaza as a long‑used public gathering area). Two commissioners asked that the record reflect their concern that the Phase 2 analysis did not fully assess changes to use and how those use changes could affect the plaza’s ability to convey its historic significance.

Next steps: Staff and the project team said the design will continue to be refined; because the project will require environmental review (an EIR is in progress), further design permits and reviews will follow. The accepted Phase 2 report becomes the preservation analysis base for later design reviews and environmental documentation; staff said any significant design changes later would require an addendum or revision to the Phase 2 report.

Ending: The commission’s acceptance clears a major technical step for the De La Guerra Plaza revitalization, but the recorded no votes signal remaining preservation concerns commissioners want addressed as the design and environmental review continue.","After a lengthy presentation and discussion, the Historic Landmarks Commission accepted a Phase 2 historic structure/site report and cultural landscape study for the De La Guerra Plaza revitalization project. Two commissioners voted no, citing concerns the proposed plan removes historic landscape elements and may change how the plaza is used.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City Council upholds appeal to protect Italian stone pines on Anapamu Street; HLC members call for clearer rules on landmark trees

HLC refresher: Secretary of the Interior Standards training highlights; staff stresses preservation-first approach

At a glance: key votes and actions taken by Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission (Jan. 15, 2025)

Historic Landmarks Commission accepts Phase 2 De La Guerra Plaza historic‑structure and cultural‑landscape study; two commissioners dissent