[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6608377,"mediaKeyId","2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2","parentId",2939552,"title","Commission gives concept comments, tables ADU/garage plan at 321 East Eastleigh","audioSeconds",4347,"startMs",2754000,"endMs",7101000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2&start=2754&end=7101","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2/thumbnail_2754000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6608377/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Commission-gives-concept-comments-tables-ADUgarage-plan-at-321-East-Eastleigh","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608377-8b1255ce780d59ac84c19ac1b27c2ea0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167582&Signature=Dl83Hm2acXyFmsHH-~tbHHcTIMK60CP4r7JzeLvDyf8VX~UGrlSK~FUzkbe6m9rXL938Aq6iimoMKp-U7ADv7pj77duuQaVtwA~Y8iaAuCq3P8CTgdwrWuL70AxZ-RYidVIrn928Qbg80FX8aLnFC7E9caEf-e0eKYXOWaojwsOQHGuIlIweyF30Mm-3ScONTZpRzpEL8-bRgcT2TskbXuBje-lQRboIA0TsyTeov5rsJsA7KxnPNfDXMjrdCIDCPzv7OBn6AMFmhmKJ6GAUp~PEI5SqqyfSnyhRFieG-rLfJRRYGFmEEfnYa1Qw4vrj0mMZ6lwwOHRaQtUbGnxvIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Santa Barbara, CA","date","2025-04-09T23:13:13.13Z","article","The Historic Landmarks Commission reviewed a concept plan April 9 for a proposed detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with an attached two‑car garage, pool, pool hut and front‑yard stone and wrought‑iron work at 321 East Eastleigh. After public comment and substantive discussion, the commission provided detailed guidance to the applicant and voted to table the matter for redesign and further review.

Project overview: Architect Paul Zink presented a concept for a 1,072‑square‑foot ADU with a 500‑square‑foot garage and 46 square feet of storage, an in‑ground pool and spa and a 10‑square‑foot pool hut. The project description in the staff report also listed removal of 11 trees, a 6‑foot wood fence, a front garden wall with wrought iron, and demolition of an unpermitted rear shed. Zink said the existing garage sits “two inches from the property line” and described the proposal as rebuilding the garage in that location, adding that the ADU would meet the four‑foot ADU setback allowed under state law.

Public comment: Four in‑person speakers voiced views. Neighbors praised the rehabilitation of the main house but raised concerns about the new chimney under construction on the main residence, visual impacts and the scope of new hardscape and paving. Elena Urschel submitted written comments and showed photographs contrasting the existing chimney and a larger new stack; Steven Olsen and other neighbors asked whether the garage demolition had a separate permit, whether the spa is enclosed, and why the project lists many non‑historic exterior elements. Greg Dolan, a long‑time resident, said the preliminary designs were “sympathetic to the neighborhood.”

Commission guidance: Commissioners voiced consistent design directions:
- Simplify the ADU and garage massing and roof forms; several commissioners said the current design is “overly complex” and recommended a much simpler roof and façade treatment. Commissioner Enzberg asked the applicant to “strip away” nonessential elements and return with a clarified formal approach.
- Reconsider dormers and chimneys on the ADU. Commissioners noted that dormers can be difficult to proportion on a low‑slope secondary roof and suggested they may be unnecessary; some commissioners said a chimney on the ADU appeared unnecessary and urged study of whether to omit it.
- Revisit front‑yard treatment. Multiple commissioners recommended finding precedents on the block before installing new sandstone walls and terraces, and to simplify the promenade from sidewalk to front door rather than add multiple terraced walls.
- Clarify legal nonconforming/ set‑back issues for the existing garage. Staff reviewed zoning allowances for rebuilding a nonconforming garage footprint; commissioners asked the applicant to provide the legal analysis and clearly document why the proposed garage location and dimensions are allowed.
- Use a simplified materials palette that draws from the main house (window division/muntins, shutters, simplified columns or piers, and compatible siding) rather than introducing new, ornate materials.

Action: Commissioner Butler moved to continue (table) the item for redesign and the motion passed on a roll call vote (ayes: Butler, Enzberg, Lundbeck, Vice Chair Ullie, Chair Grumbine). The commission’s action was a concept‑level continuance — the commission provided direction but did not grant project or demolition approvals.

Next steps: The applicant was asked to return with simplified massing and roof studies, clearer setbacks/legal nonconforming documentation for the garage, a materials and color board that ties to the residence, precedent images for proposed front terraces, and an explicit explanation of how trees, pool equipment and mechanical equipment would be sited and screened. The commission also requested clearer documentation on any already‑issued administrative permits for the main house chimney.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historic Landmarks Commission - April 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Historic Landmarks Commission provided concept‑level guidance April 9 and tabled a proposal for a detached ADU, attached two‑car garage and front‑yard work at 321 East Eastleigh, asking the applicant to simplify massing, revisit dormers and the chimney and clarify setback and legal nonconforming issues.","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},6608381,"Commission accepts Phase I archaeology report for 321 East Eastleigh",273,2443000,2716000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2&start=2443&end=2716","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2/thumbnail_2443000.jpg","/articles/6608381/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Commission-accepts-Phase-I-archaeology-report-for-321-East-Eastleigh","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608381-b535179d2aeaf859c7b74437ba2b55af/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167582&Signature=Q1-9HphLJa8FxZXRtFInk9geYBuU7XgYHg3R4Zpd2htShpGEUlf-qbBOBBiGAJ4~GiJGKeiG7kpYq7TXxh~p0B8N9-kzPfaJ8Zw22RnaYqYuZyw~isOw3R-Ov9xZbfosgMFfKUizSlTZlUwwG7DzYYzceUboG6wJDjb8aUubB-a~zEoL6YDaeW2KdwlRw8DIQ4m4qkACLAo8x0tleoCoh2sFCHuO~oM9VZ3ikbuMyrqL~BDpxq1-zI2l8SFts2DdOFCtcJHgWf6ex9KNbPGQnYYslNQyFlFB-U01DzL-WHm4f1CLQj4YAvDpL3t1zKmczSxc40-PusyjjXiYOc5dbA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Landmarks Commission accepted a Phase I archaeological resources report for 321 East Eastleigh during its April 9 meeting, clearing an archaeological review requirement for a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and garage at the property.

Paul Zink, the project architect, summarized the archaeological findings on behalf of David Stone of Stone Archaeological Consulting, saying the report identified eight prior archaeological studies within a quarter‑mile with negative results and that Dr. Glassow reviewed and concurred with the report’s conclusions and recommendations. Zink told the commission the consultant concluded the “likelihood of finding anything in this project…was minimal.”

No speakers raised concerns about archaeological resources during the public comment period for this item, and staff confirmed the archaeological report was reviewed by the city’s consulting archaeologist. Commissioner Lundbeck moved to accept the report; the roll call vote was unanimous in favor.

What this means: Acceptance of the Phase I report clears the project’s archaeological review requirement. The project itself (site changes, ADU, garage, pool and landscaping) remains subject to separate HLC design review; the archaeology acceptance does not approve construction or demolition of structures.","The commission accepted a Phase I archaeological resources report for the proposed accessory dwelling unit project at 321 East Eastleigh, with staff and a consulting archaeologist finding low likelihood of archaeological resources on the site.",{"_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},6608387,"Historic Landmarks Commission adds 2314 State Street cottage to city inventory",967,1450000,2417000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2&start=1450&end=2417","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939552-008f3fa224a44488e4032c2fe5d119f2/thumbnail_1450000.jpg","/articles/6608387/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Historic-Landmarks-Commission-adds-2314-State-Street-cottage-to-city-inventory","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608387-b21b0bd66ece5e8b503c5a771916b380/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167582&Signature=nn-TnxPQlLRQl~8O7vF7UH4fHhuGPtTcTSJX9BGh0Qhbyxfu01I3uT1RIvDlyy9yA2n6wZpmr3CDuhegHn-f7j8OUMGyDIiok92KSG-TUrlkrgUAC5RhLmJAUuKKWypaimbWZDjLnDAZcAxT1Q0IRrPHLPlzGCvGtZxTDLByCh3Hvsnd9EEmuQgt5ENhV8PWV5QXkOVuLwPA9cRn4oXlZlDNokWiwqZ~HYJSF5kNSHgwy0mn1kArOpLVcPshEPmRnj08ZTrPbsSj6-Mh4AMe9xSYK76o6t5Up356OMk743XCeRt5SYULZCXIKZdBILHoxqMS-58n~qV0e7aWDUVFYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Landmarks Commission voted to accept a historic structure/sites report for 2314 State Street, placing the 1926 period-revival cottage on the City of Santa Barbara Historic Resources Inventory.

Tim Hazeltine of Post Hazeltine Associates presented the report during the April 9 meeting, saying the building is “a very modest example of Spanish colonial revival” and that the property’s primary significance is “its contribution to the State Street Parkway, which is a City of Santa Barbara landmark.” Hazeltine said the cottage is a substantially intact example of the small‑house period of the 1920s and that the detached wood‑frame garage “does not substantially contribute to the streetscape.”

The commission’s acceptance means the property will be listed in the city’s inventory used to identify locally significant historic resources. Chair Grumbine moved to accept the report, and the motion passed on a roll call vote of five in favor and one opposed.

Commissioners who spoke in discussion emphasized the house’s intactness and its role in the overall streetscape. Commissioner Enzberg noted the house’s contribution to the block’s assemblage of modest period‑revival houses and sandstone landscape features, saying those features “speak to a very specific time and place and period in the city’s history.” Commissioner Lundbeck explained her “no” vote as a judgment that the property did not meet her reading of the city’s significance criteria for this type of designation.

No members of the public testified in person or online on this item. The commission’s acceptance directs staff to list the property in the Historic Resources Inventory; no changes to the building were approved at the meeting.

What happened next: the commission’s action was procedural acceptance of the historic‑resource report. Any future design or demolition actions affecting the property would come back to the commission for project‑level review as required by city procedures.","The Historic Landmarks Commission voted 5–1 April 9 to accept a historic structure/site report concluding that a modest 1926 period revival cottage at 2314 State Street is eligible for the City of Santa Barbara Historic Resources Inventory; the commission found the garage does not contribute to the streetscape.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission gives concept comments, tables ADU/garage plan at 321 East Eastleigh

Commission accepts Phase I archaeology report for 321 East Eastleigh

Historic Landmarks Commission adds 2314 State Street cottage to city inventory