Anapamu Street Objection

As a neighbor of the proposed AUD building at 226 East Anapamu Street (Case #MST2017-00092), I wish to voice my objection to this proposal. I have resided in Santa Barbara since 1971, and here at my present apartment on Anapamu Street since 1989, so I speak with some perspective. I object to the proposed construction on several grounds:

• It does not provide affordable housing for real working people.

• The inadequate underground parking facility, as designed, will not contribute any mitigation to this neighborhood’s disastrous parking situation.

• The proposal’s power-guzzling garage lift mechanisms (needed to “stack” cars into the smallest possible space) saves the developer the expense of digging a proper underground garage, but inordinately consumes — rather than conserves — expensive electricity for the tenants’ car retrieval and storage.

• The proposed generic, nondescript architectural design lacks beauty, does not conform to the neighborhood character, and impinges on adjoining abodes.

While we all reluctantly acknowledge the need for increased urban density — as opposed to the even less desirable sprawl — we must, nonetheless, attempt to preserve our neighborhoods from LosAngelization, and retain our unique, small-town Santa Barbara character:

• We need housing units for real working people who are looking for affordable studios, not people wealthy enough to afford three-bedroom downtown apartments.

• We need extra, secure underground parking made affordably available for neighborhood residents, in addition to the parking spaces provided to the building occupants.

• We need secure underground parking that does not rely on absurd amounts of (not always reliable) electricity for vehicle deposit-and-retrieval.

• We need a beautiful building design that conforms to Santa Barbara’s unique architectural style — as inspired by our famous County Courthouse.

• We need multi-use structures that cater to local, mom-and-pop businesses, not multinational corporations.

Please send owner “Barranca Enterprises” back to the drawing board on this one.