[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-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",[32,75,86,98],{"_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",6661274,"mediaKeyId","2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de","parentId",2414513,"title","Historic Landmarks Commission continues review of 1533 State Street; asks for public access to video simulation","audioSeconds",2969,"startMs",1237000,"endMs",4206000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de&start=1237&end=4206","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de/thumbnail_1237000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6661274/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Historic-Landmarks-Commission-continues-review-of-1533-State-Street-asks-for-public-access-to-video-simulation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661274-a5ea3819081f256089f9978f0a44647d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775716396&Signature=mc4-pMRHu0AHtu8F~Yykz8qUoVyFp4EV5Dqv909o9x8FO3odU8gPbMyxzi74TuYjBDunPFfTl6yGJrU9D5Ix09qBt-slbvFutCaoYRLnfEMgVqX1iMW3vXAW-61JNMdM4v3eBvNzlmxLDjshk6RgbSRFJRQh7a~~YoPiG3x~wrWkNqohfDyPdZXQrMXXiEYB3pyP6RqDYpQJSQKVX2l-~2vJe9x1ncY9M4~IgQxR7SHBR996luXZLPHdJfndS2uK1wzUcsCg9qyvbbR7ljQcETNzZcscg9SYLwLtr0DNBbzaRlNfLSa~z1DV3uoDLoqdwKl4wd0nB9yl8IKWbzfnqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Santa Barbara, CA","date","2025-02-27T00:11:19.343Z","article","The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission on Feb. 26 continued review of a proposed mixed‑use project at 1533 State Street (also referenced as 1529 State Street), asking the applicant to post its 3‑D simulation publicly and to provide an on‑site project sign with a QR code directing neighbors to the video.

Commissioners said the team’s revisions — including stepping down massing on the street side, adding arcades at the corner and reducing repetitive large balcony openings — were a clear improvement but left open procedural matters including an open‑yard modification that will be heard by the Staff Hearing Officer. The commission voted to continue the matter to the Staff Hearing Officer for the open‑yard modification and for any remaining administrative review (roll call: Ennsberg — yes; Lundbeck — abstain; McClure — yes; Butler — yes; Dordon — yes; Vice Chair Ullie — yes). The motion passed.

Why it matters: The project proposes multifamily residential above ground‑floor commercial on State Street, a corridor where recent zoning changes have allowed larger buildings; commissioners said the details and massing will set an example for future State Street development. The open‑yard modification and the requested exception from story poles are procedural issues that determine how adjacent residents and business owners see and comment on the proposal.

What the applicant presented: The applicant team said the project massing has been reduced from an earlier four‑story appearance to a three‑story expression on the State Street frontage, with stepped elements toward adjacent, lower buildings. The design team displayed street elevations, a drive‑through/video simulation down State Street, and solar/shadow studies for different times of year. They said the proposed residential units meet required open‑yard square footage but that some required open yard is located adjacent to the commercial spaces, which triggers a modification request. The applicant also requested an exception from installing story poles, saying poles would be unsafe or impractical in the existing driveways and would obscure access paths; they offered the video simulation and photographic street elevations as substitutes.

Commission feedback: Commissioners generally welcomed the design changes — praising the corner arcade, reduced repetitive fenestration and increased setbacks on the alley side — but varied on story poles. Several commissioners (including Jordan and McClure) said the video simulation and the photographic street elevations made the massing clear and that posting the simulation on the project or city website would make the design accessible to neighbors who can’t attend hearings. Others asked the applicant to post a large on‑site AUD sign (as allowed by the city’s procedures) with a QR code linking to the simulation so passersby can find the materials. A few commissioners suggested placing limited story poles at the corner only if feasible, as a way to alert the neighborhood that a major development is proposed.

Public input and written correspondence: Staff reported no in‑person speakers for the item but acknowledged written comments from a list of residents and stakeholders submitted prior to the meeting (names noted in the record). The meeting transcript records no live public testimony during this presentation.

Formal action: The commission voted to continue the project to the Staff Hearing Officer for consideration of the open‑yard modification and return to the HLC as needed for preliminary/project design approval. Vote record: Yes — Ennsberg, McClure, Butler, Dordon, Vice Chair Ullie (5); Abstain — Lundbeck (1). Outcome: continued to Staff Hearing Officer. Legal threshold: not applicable (administrative referral).

Next steps: The applicant will present the open‑yard modification to the Staff Hearing Officer and was asked to make the 3‑D simulation accessible (applicant website or clear link from the city’s HLC page) and to post an on‑site sign/QR code. The HLC expects the team to return for preliminary design approval if the Staff Hearing Officer’s action requires additional HLC review.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the commission record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historic Landmarks Commission - February 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission on Feb. 26 continued review of a proposed mixed‑use project at 1533 State Street (also referenced as 1529 State Street), asking the applicant to post its 3‑D simulation publicly and to provide an on‑site project sign with a QR code directing neighbors to the video.","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":46,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6661261,"Votes at a glance: Historic Landmarks Commission, Feb. 26, 2025",3808,398000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de&start=398&end=4206","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de/thumbnail_398000.jpg","/articles/6661261/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Historic-Landmarks-Commission-Feb-26-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661261-95ce5d111cb7e79fafe9cb2035907bee/orig.mp4?Expires=1775716396&Signature=OhGTXUOARQKbXXf-2PkRvSo1s2q7WCBl~5v3rODV4GgeAEMWMxlrAcFLkAACZTviXrkPOAwlXDcPTtXcVh8stTLOYRQ2xUFmcN7dV-hvw87Gk4H7~monSBsd2RXRGxTi7DWs-FazDJPH8O-JGpD-r6817FDv-w2oqhRI1LMLQIJdXVjFWzDxu65BQw37~goP3VEMqroY2vpVAVFtFo-sVASRM6oQRYXcTFRmdiyn7YOWNS6oZG1OSNd~G-769jzGnvDdxC4ZNvZef1C3CiSfroWguPczvWFQa6EiaI6j5~iOo4UDOFI3S1QoDtC7QoFh5ZGNAHQa5t-XXpEDDjSEMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Landmarks Commission held a meeting on Feb. 26, 2025. The following motions and outcomes were recorded in the meeting minutes and transcript.

1) Approval of minutes (February 2025)
- Motion: Approve minutes as submitted.
- Outcome: Approved by roll call. Vote recorded as: Commissioner Butler — yes; Commissioner Jordan — yes; Commissioner Ennsberg — yes; Commissioner Lundbeck — yes; Commissioner McClure — yes; Vice Chair Ullie — yes. Motion passes.

2) Approval of consent calendar (Feb. 12 minutes / consent calendar items)
- Motion: Approve consent calendar (one item: 123 East Carrillo Street, with conditions noted).
- Outcome: Approved by roll call. Vote recorded as: Commissioners Ennsberg, Lindbeck, McClure, Butler, Dordon, Vice Chair Ullie — yes. Motion passes.

3) Ratification of consent calendar for Feb. 26
- Motion: Ratify the consent calendar for today’s hearing.
- Outcome: Approved by roll call. Motion passes (recorded in hearing transcript).

4) Consent calendar item (123 East Carrillo Street)
- Item: Consent approval for alterations at 123 East Carrillo Street (conditions: non‑reflective street‑facing glazing; plaster treatment; clay tile parapet detail accepted).
- Motion: Approve consent calendar item as conditioned.
- Outcome: Approved by roll call (commissioners recorded as yes). Motion passes.

5) Postponement
- Item: 276 Cannon Drive
- Outcome: Postponed indefinitely at applicant’s request (staff announced the postponement). No formal vote recorded; staff announced action.

6) Archaeological report (871 Summit Road)
- Motion: Accept the archaeological report for 871 Summit Road as presented.
- Outcome: Motion passed by roll call (see separate article for vote names). Motion passes.

7) 1533 State Street (1529 State Street)
- Motion: Continue the project to the Staff Hearing Officer for the open‑yard modification; applicant to post simulation/public materials and install an on‑site AUD sign/QR code per commission comments.
- Outcome: Continued to Staff Hearing Officer. Vote: Ennsberg — yes; Lundbeck — abstain; McClure — yes; Butler — yes; Dordon — yes; Vice Chair Ullie — yes.

8) Providence School, 3531 East Ortega Street
- Motions: a) Accept revised Phase 2 historic resources addendum. b) Continue the project (indefinite continuance) so the applicant can return with project‑design approval materials and requested refinements.
- Outcome: Phase 2 accepted by roll call; project continued for PDA submittal. Vote for Phase 2 acceptance recorded as: Commissioners McClure, Butler, Dordon, Ennsberg, Lenvick, Vice Chair Ullie — yes. Motion passes.

Notes: All votes and motions above are recorded in the meeting transcript and minutes. Individual commissioners’ votes appear in the transcript at the roll‑call moments immediately following each motion.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the commission record.","Summary of motions and roll‑call outcomes from the Feb. 26 Historic Landmarks Commission meeting, including minutes, consent calendar, and actions on calendar items.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6661264,"Archaeological survey for 871 Summit Road finds no prehistoric resources; HLC accepts report",354,899000,1253000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de&start=899&end=1253","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de/thumbnail_899000.jpg","/articles/6661264/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Archaeological-survey-for-871-Summit-Road-finds-no-prehistoric-resources-HLC-accepts-report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661264-44c865865b0c599ab9d08b27919dfac2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775716396&Signature=Rd85hrPl0QNz48oo16iF9JOcM40ft8S83T4w~LGmvkModvNXt37pF0f97BZ9Xa7a9cNS9q-aGVU89qGt5O9yr6s49ZPB1Tiq-eX~Hvz9s~kltFoDBX3khbVY-QiwTwrWyF~kDn87BgucH8T9LAm6WB3tD5DnC26Lnm2SrZCzIqOaAjTwp9wI9tDiaooJD1IKnMfcV6h2YymdAYW4vPT0OvUw2EqY52JOyavAwWZAzxqeR2Okr~1XWlHRyf2djN~sQFUVTGic~RCCS7GZ3PISB3hTu1ZDFv9LPF~skA-VhfEyrTLknJfVBiavgN2q9pMsB8wdFBUx9wRKhYEOXdwMCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Landmarks Commission on Feb. 26 accepted an archaeological report for a proposed single‑family replacement and new bridge access at 871 Summit Road, finding no prehistoric resources or buried living surfaces in creek‑bank exposures.

Dr. Stone (the project archaeologist) told the commission the site, located in foothill terrain adjacent to two drainages, was surveyed with good ground visibility and included inspection of creek‑bank exposures for buried alluvium that can contain deeply buried cultural deposits. The survey found no prehistoric sites within a quarter‑mile and no evidence of buried living surfaces in either ground surfaces or creek‑bank exposures. The existing home dates to 1949; the archaeologist concluded the project would not result in impacts to archaeological resources.

The commission voted to accept the archaeologist’s report (roll call: Dordon — yes; Ennsberg — yes; Lindbeck — yes; McClure — yes; Butler — yes; Vice Chair Ullie — yes). Outcome: report accepted. No public speakers commented on the item.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the commission record.","A survey and creek‑bank inspection at 871 Summit Road found no prehistoric archaeological resources, and the Historic Landmarks Commission voted to accept the archaeologist's report on Feb. 26.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6661269,"HLC accepts revised Phase 2 report for Providence School project, asks design refinements and continues concept review",2796,4312000,7108000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de&start=4312&end=7108","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2414513-5025a8138d3b28744892253589f810de/thumbnail_4312000.jpg","/articles/6661269/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/HLC-accepts-revised-Phase-2-report-for-Providence-School-project-asks-design-refinements-and-continues-concept-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661269-b723e5345c32e167183f1efeff9ff5ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1775716396&Signature=S6hMRtJp1OzMBHcGBLHESHUDYrWp9VJqhewF3cIosOjELqCvpThKcdRs~fde3QFMLP5yPqVP4U3-ew8hfWfJd~Zv22iKsxbSwdiKWs7HAR3w-AA83KNBSqgykQOxk8ZEEXSq0NW~NsIUnjXoxYFw4SrBJ2qg1Up3qgPZUfjLkJUtZbPUa4EdgDAg5XsK1jzwXhGQhfXRpo9W5Tv84-aoGL39HqAWYopgH4-GOGWTUWZy1b5Ufr2lx7dA-emq~CUnyCTsYDlqibBUkbxnaLMpTKVaFz99nMhsDUXlaGLMyNgCgTE1Yqk-RN3kwRbCtNGQ20Ir-70C8SKU673XU-rgsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission on Feb. 26 accepted a revised Phase 2 historic‑resources addendum for the Providence School proposal at 3531 East Ortega Street but continued the project’s concept review so the applicant can return with final project‑design materials.

Commissioners said the project’s scale, massing and courtyard organization are generally appropriate and commended the design team for responding to earlier HLC comments. The commission recommended several refinements — most notably study of a lighter palette for the new construction to better contrast the existing Robert Engle Hoyt (Hoyle) building, simplification of some landscape elements, confirmation of the proposed wrought‑iron fencing details, and further refinement of the parking‑lot paving and planting so the lot does not read as a single large paved area. The commission voted (roll call: McClure — yes; Butler — yes; Dordon — yes; Ennsberg — yes; Lenvick — yes; Vice Chair Ullie — yes) to accept the revised Phase 2 report and then voted to continue the project indefinitely to allow the team to prepare materials for project design approval (motion to continue passed by roll call).

Why it matters: The project includes rehabilitation of the existing mid‑century Hoyle building and construction of new classroom, gym and administration wings. The site is a historic resource and the Phase 2 report assesses whether the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Acceptance of the Phase 2 report clears a necessary historic‑resources review step; the commission’s design comments will shape the materials and detailing required for final approvals.

What was presented: The applicant team (DMHA Architects and Arcadia Studio) reviewed site organization, the revised Second‑Floor program (which added a physical‑education/PE room and reconfigured a library/chapel element), circulation and an updated materials palette. The team said the gym’s parapet and overall apparent height are consistent with prior submissions; they described a bowstring roof structure and a lowered floor plate to accommodate mechanical systems while keeping the gym’s parapet height consistent with earlier plans. The design team explained changes to fenestration on the historic block building (previous windows are non‑original and the updated fenestration is intended to improve visibility and security), revised trash and bicycle enclosures, revised fencing and screened rooftop equipment.

Historic consultant findings: The project’s Phase 2 addendum concluded the revised design continues to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic properties. The consultant noted changes such as updated fenestration and modest enclosures will not meaningfully impair the ability of the historic building to convey its significance.

Commission questions and comments: Commissioners asked staff and the consultant a mix of technical and design questions: whether the Phase 2 assessment considered the entire new construction’s effects on the historic building (the consultant confirmed it did), how colors and materials would relate to the porous textile block of the Hoyle building, how the security fencing would affect visual prominence, and whether the parking lot would be sufficiently broken up by planting. Several commissioners requested physical material samples at the next hearing and suggested the applicant study lighter finishes for the new construction so it reads as a distinct, subordinate addition to the historic Hoyle building.

Formal actions: 1) The commission voted to accept the revised Phase 2 historic resources addendum for 3531 East Ortega Street (roll call: McClure — yes; Butler — yes; Dordon — yes; Ennsberg — yes; Lenvick — yes; Vice Chair Ullie — yes). 2) The commission then voted to continue the project (indefinite continuance) so the applicant can return with refined design materials in advance of project‑design approval. Outcome: Phase 2 accepted; project continued to return for PDA materials. Implementation: staff will review the applicant’s resubmittal and schedule the project for a PDA hearing when materials are complete.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the commission record.","The Historic Landmarks Commission accepted a revised Phase 2 historic resources report for the Providence School project at 3531 East Ortega Street on Feb. 26, then continued the project for additional design refinement and requested the team return prepared for project design approval.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Historic Landmarks Commission continues review of 1533 State Street; asks for public access to video simulation

Votes at a glance: Historic Landmarks Commission, Feb. 26, 2025

Archaeological survey for 871 Summit Road finds no prehistoric resources; HLC accepts report

HLC accepts revised Phase 2 report for Providence School project, asks design refinements and continues concept review