Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, activists urge delay and transparency as council approves downtown land transfer amid protests
Summary
Dozens of public speakers urged the Santa Barbara City Council to slow or halt a proposed downtown land transfer tied to a redevelopment proposal, citing incomplete public records, valuation questions and potential impacts on housing and public access. Council approved the staff recommendation after debate (motion passed; one abstention).
The Santa Barbara City Council approved staff’s recommendation on a controversial downtown land transfer on June 30, but not before extended public comment and sharp debate. Residents and activists told the council that the proposal, which would change control of prime city-owned property under the Pose/PO project (variously described in testimony as linked to Yardi and related parties), should be delayed until public records and financial analyses are fully available.
“Stop the shell game, reject this budget, and freeze the PO asset transfers,” Joanne Olen said during public comment, calling the administration’s handling of the matter “administrative theater” and alleging the city was rushing a zero‑dollar transfer while prior proposals promised larger public investments.
Several speakers echoed that demand. Raina Angel called the process rushed and asserted the community had not had time to review due diligence: “I urge you to hold off on voting this through until the public records request is fully fulfilled.” Other commenters pressed for application of the Surplus Land Act and to consider housing-first alternatives.
City Administrator Kelly McAdoo told the council staff had been responding to voluminous public records requests and that portions of the requests remain incomplete because of the scope and timing. During council questioning, McAdoo said staff had met with the ad hoc committee and had worked through negotiation points with Alliance Bernstein and the prospective office user, and that certain trash maintenance obligations would remain in place through an existing settlement.
Council members debated the merits of delay versus moving forward. Council Member Snedden said she would abstain because she wanted more public access to records before voting. Council Member Harmon said the matter had been the subject of multiple public hearings and that staff had answered difficult questions; she moved the item and the motion passed with a recorded abstention by Council Member Snedden.
What’s next: The council approved the staff recommendation and included a clerical adjustment to another consent item tied to airport pavement work. Opponents have asked that council postpone implementation until outstanding records and valuation analyses are published; proponents of the deal say the proposal promises redevelopment and private investment downtown.
Speakers listed (selected): Joanne Olen (public commenter), Raina Angel (public commenter), Stacy Espa (public commenter), Council Member Snedden, Council Member Harmon, Kelly McAdoo (City Administrator).
Actions: Motion to adopt staff recommendation on item 6 (PO/Pose redevelopment transfer). Mover: Council Member Harmon; Second: Council Member Jordan. Vote: approved; tally reported in the record as 6 yes, 1 abstain. Notes: public records and valuation concerns remain in dispute.
Why it matters: The transfer touches downtown public land, competing development and access priorities, and raised questions about the timing and completeness of public disclosure and the city’s duty under state surplus‑land rules. Residents asked the council to use its leverage to secure stronger, enforceable housing and public‑access protections before closing deals.
