Concerns

• An Alarming Lack of Transparency
  • The nomination process bypassed the requirement for a majority agreement among property owners, as stipulated by the City of Santa Barbara’s Historic District approval process.
  • The nomination process has been underway since 2021¹, and the only notice of its existence was not given until 2023 at an informal potluck.
• Lack of Information to Affected Owners
  • Many property owners, especially non-resident owners, were not adequately informed about the nomination process.
  • Notification methods (invitation flyers to a single informal gathering left at homes) were insufficient.
  • No clear effort was made to provide follow-up information or host additional discussions with all affected stakeholders.
• Potential Impact on Property Values
  • While some claim historic designation can increase property values, local real estate brokers suggest the opposite for residential neighborhoods, where additional restrictions may deter buyers.
  • Future buyers may be discouraged by the added bureaucracy associated with historic designation, affecting marketability.
• Impact on insurance
  • One homeowner learned that their earthquake insurance would be cancelled if the property were to be listed in a historic district. Other carrier options were either drastically more expensive or provided inadequate coverage.
  • None of the insurance companies surveyed have indicated that the proposed historic district would increase premiums for typical homeowner’s insurance. One should note that, in the event of a claim, construction to historic standards can be reasonably expected come at a higher cost. Thus, the insurance limits for replacement costs would have to be increased to maintain the same amount of coverage.
  • At least one insurance carrier offers discounts when fire resistant modifications are made. However, most of the approved modifications (enclosed eaves, fire-resistant vents, windows and/or shutters) would not be accepted under historic construction guidelines.
  • The National Trust for Historic Preservation has hosted a webinar on the topic of insuring historic properties in an increasingly challenging marketplace.
• Increased Bureaucracy and Restrictions
  • This could complicate efforts to adapt homes for climate resilience, comply with insurance requirements, or meet changing family needs.
• The nominating process is biased to favor approval
  • Unlike the City’s process, approval of affected property owners is assumed. Objecting owners must each submit a signed affidavit using specific language in order for their objection to be recognized.
  • The City Historian has openly stated in a Historic Landmarks Commission meeting that the nomination path was chosen to avoid having to get 51% owner approval. The meeting was not noticed to owners within the proposed district, so none knew to comment.
  • The State Historical Resources Commission comprises predominantly specialists in history and architecture, with limited representation from the general public. This composition does not adequately represent the practical concerns of property owners. Commission staff has been actively working with those who submitted the nomination and the city historian to revise the nomination.
• Missed Opportunity for Collaborative Decision-Making
  • By submitting the nomination directly to the state without sufficient local engagement, the process bypassed opportunities for meaningful input from affected owners.
  • A city-led process would allow for more collaborative decisions that reflect the neighborhood’s collective interests and concerns.
• Claims about the historical value of many of the properties are exaggerated
  • Erroneous assumptions are made about the origins of specific design features.
  • Some descriptions contain errors.
  • “Most houses were built from pattern books, from mail order kits from distributors of factory-built houses, such as Sears and the Aladdin Company, or by local contractors” and “the high quality of design and construction represented in individual buildings” are contradictory.²
    1. Kits are made to be affordable, and an examination of the actual structures reveals barely-adequate construction materials.
    2. Haphazard construction techniques are apparent. Crumbling foundations from poorly formulated concrete are not uncommon.
    3. Original design flaws exacerbate ongoing maintenance problems, such as perpetually leaky roofs.
    4. These are not examples of original architectural innovation, but rather mass-produced knock-offs that are repeated throughout the neighborhood and the city, and many other parts of California and the U.S.
  • There are several other intact neighborhoods throughout the city. See https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Final%20West%20Downtown%20Historic%20District%20Survey.pdf
• Exclusion of Properties from the Nomination Area
  • Properties on the west side of Olive Street, which include some of the best examples of Craftsman design, were arbitrarily excluded without consulting other property owners in the proposed district.
  • This lack of consistency raises concerns about the criteria used to define the district and the fairness of the process.
• Taken individually, very few of the properties would rise to the criteria for listing as historic
  • Does the fact that they are simply adjacent to each other make them more historic?
  • Doesn’t declaring them so devalue the standing of demonstrably historic structures?
• What are the benefits to the general public of a historic district?
  • The proposed historic district preserves only the appearance of the buildings in it, and ignores the contributions of the people who built and lived in them. Thus, it is of value only to those with an interest in architectural history.
  • The district is composed exclusively of small private residences. Promoting it as a tourist destination is entirely inappropriate.
• It is redundant
  • The area and more are already protected from incompatible development by the Bungalow Haven Special Design District.
  • The area already qualifies for Mills Act resources due to the city’s mapping of the district as a proposed historic district.
• It further impedes the creation of sorely needed additional housing
  • A listing of the district will require review to determine that an ADU addition will not “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places”³.
• It impedes or adds cost to the addition of energy conserving modifications
• We don’t need it
  • In the 1970s, the area was at the bottom of its decline, and not considered particularly desirable. This meant that it was also relatively affordable. Over time, families purchased homes, moved in, and fixed them up according to their tastes and needs. All of this was done without some commission telling them what their homes should look like. The district we have today is the result of individual homeowners acting responsibly in their own interests, not the imposition of other’s vision for the neighborhood.
• The creation of a historic district disrespects the original purpose of the neighborhood
  • What was once modest workforce housing would become a museum.
• It could be argued that this is akin to exclusionary zoning

---

1. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Survey Methodolgy, page 8. ↩︎
2. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Neighborhood Origins page 62 and Conclusion page 69. ↩︎
3. Santa Barbara City Council Ordinance No. 5794, page 11 Section I. ↩︎