Santa Barbara HLC declines to accept historic-structure report for 219 West Figueroa Street

The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission on May 21 voted 5–1 not to accept a historian’s report that had recommended 219 West Figueroa Street as a City of Santa Barbara Structure of Merit.

The motion to not accept the report passed after roughly two hours of testimony and questioning from commissioners about condition, historic integrity and the limits of the commission’s review. Vice Chair Ullrich and Commissioners Butler, Lundbeck, Drewy and Enzberg voted to deny acceptance; Commissioner Dordon voted no, saying he found the report persuasive.

The commission’s decision focused narrowly on the Phase 1 historic-structures report before it, not on any demolition or future project. Staff reiterated that the Historic Landmarks Commission’s purview is exterior historic evaluation and that interior condition is not normally part of the Phase 1 report. As staff put it, “the HLC does not have purview over the interior. They only have purview over the exterior.”

The report prepared by Post Hazleton Associates described the house at 219 West Figueroa as a national-folk–style residence constructed between about 1870 and 1888 with a sympathetic two-story addition from c.1892–1907. The historians wrote that the house “retains most of the materials and design features that convey its architectural style,” including 2-over-2 windows, chamfered porch posts and original board siding attached with square nails. The report also noted the property’s sandstone retaining wall and called the block an intact streetscape with houses dating from about 1875 through the 1920s.

The owner, Emmett Hawkes, disputed the report’s conclusions about condition during the public hearing and submitted a written letter read into the record. Hawkes said the house has been vacant “approximately 15 years” and described the building as “unsalvageable” in its present state. He told the commission the owner’s long-term intent had been to pursue workforce housing if the site could be cleared, and said, “we would prefer to demolish it, clean the lot.”

History consultants said Phase 1 evaluations intentionally limit structural analysis: Phase 1 determines whether a building retains enough original materials and features to convey style or association; a Phase 2 usually includes a structural engineer’s report that determines feasibility of rehabilitation. As the historian Pamela Post said during the hearing, “interiors, of course, are not covered at all under the ordinances,” and Phase 2 is the step when a structural feasibility assessment would be performed.

Commissioners debated the legal and procedural consequences of either accepting or denying the report. Staff warned that accepting the report — which would find the building eligible as a historic resource — could trigger additional environmental review (an environmental-impact report) if a demolition or development project were later proposed, and that denying the report could produce a disagreement-of-experts outcome with similar environmental implications. Staff described those outcomes as possible paths but emphasized that the commission’s only action at the meeting was whether to accept the Phase 1 report.

The motion on the table was to not accept the historic-structures report; the motion passed. Commissioners who voted to deny wrote reasons into the record, including that later additions substantially altered the house’s original aesthetic and that the street elevation and additions reduced the building’s ability to convey its national-folk style. Commissioner Dordon, the sole no vote, said he found the report persuasive.

Next steps were described by staff: if the commission’s decision is to deny the report, the parties could seek a revised report from the preparers; if the report is accepted or if a disagreement among experts occurs later, proposals that would demolish the building are likely to trigger environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The commission made no determination about demolition or any future project at the May 21 hearing.

The item drew multiple speakers, including the report authors and the owner, and occupied the bulk of the evening’s agenda.