Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ABR continues 428 Anacapa Street mixed‑use proposal for more coordinated drawings and details
Summary
Architectural Board continued final review of a mixed‑use project at 428 Anacapa Street, asking for coordinated construction drawings, resolved elevator/overrun geometry, trim and awning details, and treatment of solid garage walls introduced by code-driven enclosures.
The Architectural Board of Review on Oct. 27 continued final review of a mixed‑use project at 428 Anacapa Street after board members said the current permit-level drawings contained unresolved and inconsistent details.
Project team representatives from BWD and Common Ground presented updated elevations, color palettes and landscape information. The project envisions six short‑term rental units on the Ground Floor and nine long‑term rental units on upper floors, with six covered parking spaces to serve nonresidential uses; long‑term residential parking is not required under Assembly Bill 2097 and the city’s priority housing overlay.
Designers said they removed one Second‑Floor trellis after concerns that the recessed roof and door proportions made a trellis appear crowded; a smaller Fourth‑Floor trellis remains, they said. Landscape consultant Chris Gilliland described a simple, drought‑tolerant planter and pot scheme and said irrigation and lightweight planters were specified for rooftop pots.
Board members raised multiple concerns that, in their view, reduced the project’s substantial conformance with the prior project‑design approval. The issues cited included inconsistent window and corbel patterns on multiple elevations, a heavy and bland garage facade caused by code‑required enclosures, unclear flashing and roof transitions at shed roofs, and uncertainty about elevator overrun geometry. Board member 6 said the building had “lost” features that gave the preliminary design character, and urged the team to restore consistent rhythm and detailing.
For those reasons the board voted to continue the item indefinitely and asked the applicant to return with coordinated civil/structural/shop drawings, clarified trellis/rafter/awning details, resolved elevator-overrun sections, and a treatment for required blank garage walls so they read as intentional design elements rather than leftover enclosures. The applicant and staff were asked to coordinate a return date.
