Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Barbara commission finds 1923 Figueroa Street duplex likely historic; denies consultantreport that sought removal from inventory
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment and discussion, the Historic Landmarks Commission refused to accept a consultant's report that would have removed a 1923 Craftsman duplex at 228 East Figueroa Street from the city's Historic Resources Inventory, meaning demolition will not proceed without further environmental review.
The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission voted on Dec. 18 to reject a consultantprepared historic-structures report that concluded a 1923 Craftsman duplex at 228 E. Figueroa St. did not qualify as a historic resource and recommended its removal from the city's Historic Resources Inventory.
The commission's vote came after a lengthy staff and consultant presentation, three public commenters urging preservation, and extended commissioner discussion. The motion to deny acceptance of the consultant report passed with a majority; the chair abstained.
Why it matters: Commissioners said the modest duplex contributes to the character and continuity of a transitional block near El Pueblo Viejo and several nearby structures of merit, and that demolition would require a fuller environmental review under CEQA. Denying the report means the project proposing demolition cannot proceed without an environmental study that examines alternatives and mitigation.
What happened: Post Hazeltyne Associates presented a Phase 1 historic-structure report concluding that, when examined closely, the building did not rise to a level warranting designation. City staffand the commission's architectural historian explained the project's context: the lot once held a bungalow court pattern and retains nearby examples; the duplex had been reviewed in prior studies; and the owner had already received approval for removal of rear cottages and a garage. Tim Hazeltine (Post Hazeltyne) told the commission the building "does not individually merit designation" after a deeper review.
Public comment: Three neighbors and preservation advocates urged the commission to reject the report and preserve the duplex. Derek Penfield, a nearby resident, told commissioners the building "retains almost all of its original construction materials in good condition" and argued it meets multiple criteria for significance. Sherry Ray and Steve Doty (representing Bungalow Haven Neighborhood Association and the Pearl Chase Society, respectively) said demolishing the duplex would damage the block's historic continuity and urged the commission to require the developer to redesign around the existing buildings, as had been done in previous neighborhood cases.
Commission discussion and vote: Commissioners debated competing consultant opinions and the project's place in a block that has already lost some historic fabric. Several commissioners said the duplex's modest form and intact materials contribute to the block's authenticity and recommended preservation. The commission voted to deny acceptance of the consultantprepared report (motion to deny the report as presented; mover: Commissioner Jordan; second: Vice Chair House). Roll call showed the majority in favor of denying the report and one abstention by the chair. Commission remarks noted that if the owner still seeks demolition, the project would require an Environmental Impact Report and certification under CEQA, including analysis of alternatives and mitigation.
Next steps: Because the consultant report was not accepted, the proposal to demolish the front duplex is not cleared; any applicant action to pursue demolition will require further environmental review and additional hearings. The commission recorded its rationale on the public record, and staff said they will advise the applicant on the procedural options under CEQA and local ordinance.
