Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Resources Saint Marys topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Landmarks Commission accepts phase 1 report, finds Saint Mary's Seminary not eligible for landmark status
Summary
The commission voted to accept a phase 1 historic resources report concluding that Saint Mary's Seminary (1964 Los Canoas Road) "lacks sufficient integrity" to convey its significance and is not recommended eligible for listing at the local, state, or federal level.
The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission on Feb. 25 accepted a phase 1 historic resources report for Saint Mary's Seminary, concluding the property is not eligible for landmark designation.
John Mullen, representing owner Charles Rich, told the commission the property — renamed Valanor under new ownership — will continue to operate under the existing conditional use permit for religious purposes as a Christian retreat center and that the owner does not intend to add new structures. Mullen said deferred maintenance and infrastructure issues (including corroded sewer piping and HVAC needs) are among site priorities.
Amber Long, principal architectural historian with Long Historic Preservation Services, presented the report and the team's findings. She said the site is "significant as a design by Barker and Ott" but that alterations and missing ecclesiastical features mean the property "lacks sufficient integrity to convey its significance and therefore is not recommended eligible at the state, local, or federal level." Long noted removed elements including stained glass windows, stations of the cross and a cross shown on original plans, and widespread door and window replacements across multiple buildings.
Commissioners questioned whether some missing features could be restored. Long replied that some elements, such as removed stained-glass windows, cannot be readily recreated and that replacements and alterations across several buildings have lowered the integrity of design, materials and feeling.
Commission discussion ranged from sympathy for the owner's plans to concern about loss of detail; several commissioners said the report's reasoning and conclusion were persuasive. A motion to accept the report as written was made and seconded and carried on a roll-call vote; the record shows all present commissioners voting to accept the report.
The commission's action accepts the consultant's evaluation; it does not itself impose alterations or limit future permit actions beyond the city's normal review processes.
