Board approves project design for 205 Anacapa Street with conditions on lighting and materials

The Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review on July 7 voted to grant project design approval for renovations and outdoor‑seating additions at 205 Anacapa Street in the Funk Zone, setting conditions for final review that include an exterior lighting plan, samples of a screening breeze block and paving materials.

Designers said the project converts a small existing winery and parking lot into expanded outdoor seating, a trellis shade structure, public-facing windows and a new trash enclosure location. Tony Schonhardt, design director at Anacapa, told the board the project scope includes removing a 10-space surface parking lot to create patio and cafe areas, minor additions and a 231-square-foot demolition with a 469-square-foot addition to Building A to provide restrooms and improved circulation. The staff hearing officer approved a coastal development permit under the cited authority on May 14, 2025.

The project team described a material palette that retains existing masonry and industrial textures while adding terracotta‑tone pavers, an Alaskan cedar trellis, and wood-framed door and window units. Landscape designer Graham (Bosque Landscape Architecture) said the planting plan emphasizes low‑water native and drought‑tolerant material, with the exception of one required street tree.

Board members raised questions about access for service and bikes, the material and porosity of vertical screening elements, window details and the intended weathering treatment for wood elements. Project staff said bike parking will be accessible from the corner curb cut and that the relocated trash enclosure will use a short existing curb cut for service access. The design team confirmed the intent to allow the new wood elements to weather naturally rather than be sealed.

Vice Chair Whelan moved to grant project design approval with conditions requiring that, at final review, the applicant provide an exterior lighting plan that includes any proposed outdoor heaters, a sample of the proposed breeze block screen, and additional paving material samples. Board Member Noon seconded. The motion passed 5–0 (Chair Anderson: yes; Vice Chair Whelan: yes; Board Member Anderson: yes; Board Member Noon: yes; Board Member Sovereign: yes). The board noted a 10‑day appeal period and invited the applicant to return for final review.

Several board members urged refinement of the screening and landscape relationship. Board Member Anderson recommended studying a quieter architectural treatment so the landscape can better define and sequence outdoor space; that recommendation was discussed by the board but was not incorporated as a condition after a straw vote.

Clarifying details discussed at the hearing included: the relocation of the trash enclosure to improve interior geometry and screening; preserving existing low‑slope roofs; protruding/"proud" window trim on repaired masonry walls; and the intent to use fixture hoods to prevent upward light spill and meet dark‑sky considerations for exterior sconces.