The Santa Barbara City Planning Board on Dec. 2 approved project design for exterior and accessibility improvements at 1105 Harbor Way — including a new entrance ramp, new handrails and a covered atrium-style patio — voting 3–2 after a lengthy discussion about materials, scale and process.

Rachel Hollander, the city land use planner for the project, told the board the item was continued from the Oct. 27 consent calendar to full board review for both project design approval and final approval. Dudley Michael, the restaurant owner/operator (the Breakwater, now operating as Gracie), described delays with permitting and said the entrance ramp was constructed before full board action because of operational and financial pressures: "I made the decision to just build the ramp, right before we opened, knowing I hadn't been here in front of you guys yet and getting your permission," Michael said, explaining he built the ramp to meet accessibility and safety needs after a nine‑month permitting delay.

The project team from Don Cherry Associates presented a design that includes a centered gabled roof with skylights, glass side wings intended to feel like an atrium, steel framing to avoid interior columns, and minor alterations to two existing ADA ramps. The team said heaters and distributed LED table lamps will provide nighttime warmth and ambience, and acknowledged one existing railing had been replaced without a permit and requested permission to retain that railing.

Opposition centered on compatibility with the harbor's design guidelines. "I have a real problem with this," said Board member 6, who voted no; "it's a steel and glass modern structure that has nothing to do with either of those styles ... it over‑dominates the existing building and it is incompatible." Board member Noon, also voting no, said the ramp's function and circulation remain a concern even while acknowledging the applicant's need to improve customer flow.

Other board members urged practical restraint and noted the maintenance challenges of wood in a saltwater environment. Board member Soften, who moved to approve the project with a condition, said the project "remains minimalistic" in proportion and recommended that the project be referred back to the consent calendar for final approval provided no substantial changes are made.

The board approved the project design with the condition that "the overall height of the new roof structure does not exceed what was proposed today," and the motion passed 3–2 (Chair Anderson, Board member Black and Board member Sovereign voting yes; Board member Noon and Board member 6 voting no). Staff announced a 10‑day appeal period for the project design approval. Board members who voted no stated their reasons on the public record as incompatibility with harbor guidelines and excessive massing.

The project team said structural engineering remains to be completed and that beam sizes and other engineering details will be addressed before final approval. The board amended the motion to refer the item to the consent calendar for final approval so long as there are no substantial changes from the design approved at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The planning board then opened item 2, which the applicant postponed indefinitely, and adjourned the meeting.