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

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.