Should State Street reopen to cars?

What is concerning is that many business owners and employees, including myself, experience a limited, if not non-existent, visible police and public safety presence. This contributes to ongoing concerns about day-to-day comfort and confidence in the downtown environment for both locals and visitors. In contrast, Montecito is increasingly perceived as having strong conditions of safety and cleanliness and is benefiting from positive word- of-mouth, which we hear referenced regularly. This is the direction we need to head in.

Invest in what is already working. Keep State Street clean, safe, vibrant, pedestrian first and car-free.

And finally, I hope that twenty years from now we can look back on this moment and say this Council had the courage to build on what makes Santa Barbara special, not the decision to return State Street to conditions that are sure to fail businesses or simply no longer exist.

Kindly, 154 [NAME]

Thank you for your consideration, Adelaide -- [NAME] PhD student | Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology University of California, Santa Barbara Young Lab | Website

Hello: I am a longtime Santa Barbara resident and a very frequent user of State Street. I live 7 blocks off of State Street and am on State 3 to 5 times per week.

The file may have been [NAME], renamed, or deleted.

I am a tour guide and my guests love it. I find State Street to be vibrant and usable and an extended part of my neighborhood.

Thank you, [NAME]

Hi All — I'm been a full time resident of SB for almost 50 years and even before that visited and shopped on State Street as a young child growing up in Ventura County. I remember when there was parking on State St. So I've lived through a few changes and economic ups and downs. But hey I still ride a bike and shop, but am not drawn to downtown too much to eat in over-priced restaurants or shop because what I like isn't there anymore (clothes stores like Nordstrom & Macys, Barnes and Noble, Sur La Table- and oh how I wish for a Crate and Barrell for more home furnishing options). Plus State has turned into more of a recreational bike path with idiot unsafe riders of all types and ages. It was never like this before, having vehicle traffic flow between lights and intersections provided a control of sorts that also regulated bicycle traffic because most riders back then followed the rule of traffic laws. I was one of them.

Ok... in reading this Draft my first thought was there was a lot of subjectivity in stating "perceived" facts.

Perceptions are not facts. And lot of nice well meaning people on this committee seem to have strong opinions with which they are trying to drive certain narratives with. So City Council, please don't be entirely swayed by this, question everything.

For example, note my "perceptions" in (italic parenthesis): Driving Experience Prior to COVID, State Street served as a drive-through plaza (street) for vehicles (and bicyclists). The beautiful architecture, (some) outdoor cafes, shoppers, and street layout made the Plaza (it's a street, was never a plaza) a popular cruising destination (a vehicle travel route for drivers). The actual utility of driving was negligible (? that's a matter of opinion, not fact) since there was no on-street parking on State (many people disagree with this as seen in reading online comments as State Street has always been a vehicle driving corridor to reach other streets and destinations in the City- that is it's history). When the temporary State Street Promenade opened to pedestrians and cyclists, the level of traffic congestion that was added to the parallel streets of Chapala and Anacapa Streets was minimal (fact or perception? are there before and after traffic studies available to support this claim? my "perception" = wrong, traffic is now very heavy on these side streets). Chapala and [NAME] (as well as Santa Barbara St and De La Vina) are the north and south bound streets carrying traffic in Downtown and connect to the rest of the City's road network, including the nearby highway interchanges at Carrillo, Castillo, and Garden Streets to U.S. Highway 101, the only major highway bisecting the City.

And... I have not learned anything about any of the following after reading this Draft: • what are the net benefits of implementing this Master Plan?

• what is the timeline for this? This needs to be seriously discussed and put in writing. It could take 2-4 more years just to reach final approval. Then another 1-3 years to secure funding. Then another 3-6 years to tear up State and make the physical changes. So what 10 years total? more? less? anyone?

• Spanish Colonial Revival architectural: my opinion= I am sick and tired of this same 'ol same 'ol style, it adds to the monotonous feeling of State Streets' long mile. Whether we keep State closed or open it up to vehicles, we must become more flexible in allowing some spice here and there with some fun and attractive modern designs.

Throughout the world, from Aspen, CO, to Barcelona, to Madison, WI, to Ventura, CA, it's proven that having pedestrian-friendly promenades revives downtown business districts and creates a thriving community hub. The only thing preventing this from becoming a reality for Santa Barbara is the lack of conviction the city council has in committing to this ideal.

To permanently keep State St. closed to cars is to vote for a bright future for our city, and to take a step towards investing in a more vibrant downtown core. The lack of certainty is causing landlords to hold out and not commit to leasholder improvements, rezoning efforts, or making any effort to adapt their property holdings to an evolving world. With certainty that State Street will be closed, Santa Barbara can take back control and oversight of our downtown core.

Please, please keep State St. closed to cars indefinitely and invest in a pedestrian-friendly future for our city.

Thanks, [NAME]

Get some great high-end residential in place all along the corridor, put in some bespoke grocery pantries, and keep up with the great events and we are there! Lower cost housing downtown is also important but the State Street corridor should be targeted for beautiful, lux condos and plenty of family sized units.

125 You owe it to upcoming generations, who care much less about cars and cruising. Be bold, move beyond regressive thinking and influences, and look to the future. I am down on State Street nearly every day, and it is getting better all the time..better, better, bettttterrr. Getting so much better all the time....蛂 蛃 蛄♬ 뇤 눜 눝 눞 눟 눠 눡 DO NOT OPEN UP STATE STREET IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. PLEASE AND THANK-YOU. [On the other hand, we need a vacancy ordinance for commercial properties so it is not more profitable for store fronts to sit empty, and we also need to get the bicycle situation way calmed down. There are plenty of other bike paths on the parallel streets for going fast and commuting. If bikes stay on State Street, it must be calmed way down in order to induce a festive pedestrian space.

Sincerely- [NAME] Esq.

351 Paseo Nuevo, 2nd Floor Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone (805) 258-7758 Email: [EMAIL] www.telluslawgroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately. Thank you.

Hi, I would like to voice my strong strong support for keeping State Street Car-Free and reauthorizing Title 31.

Having a car-free space to safely walk around one of the liveliest parts of our city is absolutely essential to the vitality of this community. I have not met a single person who prefers to have cars driving, and everyone loves being able to safely explore, shop, eat, and drink without the threat of cars.

I speak from experience as someone who was recently hit by a truck in a hit-and-run, just one block off of State Street. Cars are dangerous, and drivers in this city are some of the least aware of pedestrians.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

UC Santa Barbara

Hi there, I am providing my public comment for Item 26 for Tuesday's 6/30 council meeting.

I strongly urge city council to re-authorize title 31 and keep State Street car-free.

I am a downtown resident and have lived downtown for many years. State Street is more pleasant, vibrant, and profitable without cars.

Frankly, it's silly that city council has had to have so many votes to consistently keep a State street that prioritizes both residents and tourists, State Street business owners, and a thriving downtown corridor.

1. Reauthorizing Title 31 costs nothing. Letting it expire would cost an estimated $700,000 - and this is when city council has admitted a budget problem. There is no justification for this waste.

PS - this message was sent to several emails to ensure it reaches the right recipients.

Thank you, [NAME] 15+ year downtown Santa Barbara resident

Hello my name is Byron and I am writing about the State Street Master Plan.

Look with the traffic jam removed form the center of our downtown its just so much nicer to walk around and enjoy the silince. It really has started to feel unique and special like this so finish that master plan and show those other cities in California and the country that we can still build great things.

Look, e-bikes, like phones and screens have already been invented so let's keep State Street car-free and instead focus on new ways to ticket those E Bikes. I personally favor a snitch line website.

Anyhow thank you for your time. I really do not envy the task in front of you.

~ Byron

To whom it may concern, I am writing to urge you to take the necessary steps to keep State Street car free. I am an 8 year resident of Santa Barbara, UCSB alum, and visited many times prior to this when car traffic was allowed on state.

I cannot emphasize the improvement in the quality of the downtown experience that results from a car- free, walkable State.

Thank You, [NAME]

Hello Council members, I'm writing to urge you to keep State Street car free now and into the future. All the data available to us shows that making State Street pedestrian-only has improved public safety and increased business engagement in that corridor.

I really hope you will listen to the voices of the people who live and work here and keep State Street open to pedestrians and closed to cars.

Thank you, [NAME]

COVID is over. Please bring back our main thoroughfare.

[NAME] from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

All the best, [NAME] -- [NAME] Senior Project Scientist Environmental Markets Lab (emLab) University of California, Santa Barbara Google Scholar

This change has met with widespread disapproval of your constituents as evidenced by the fact so few people go downtown.

State Street is no longer a highly desireable place which is truly sad and in need of am immediate change in course.

[NAME] Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

[ Dear SB City Council, I am writing to ask, with deepest sincerity and urgency, to please keep State street car free!

Dear City Council and State Street Master Plan team, I'm writing as a Santa Barbara homeowner to ask the Council to reauthorize Title 31 and formally commit to a permanently car-free State Street Promenade from Haley to Victoria.

Finally, I want to push back on the framing that Title 31 is an emergency measure that has overstayed its welcome. The initial 2020 closure was an emergency response, but Title 31 itself was a deliberate, debated codification by Council in 2023, after the community had already lived with the new street for three years. Reauthorizing it is not extending an emergency. It is acknowledging that the city looked at the evidence and chose the better street.

In short: the safety data, the business data, and the years of advisory committee work all point in the same direction.

Please reauthorize Title 31 and commit to a permanently car-free Promenade from Haley to Victoria, paired with the housing density and transit investment the Master Plan envisions.

Thank you for your work on this and for considering this comment.

Sincerely, [NAME] District 3 Homeowner

Item 26, June 30, 2026 City Council meeting Please reauthorize Title 31 to keep State Street car-Free.

To the Mayor and Santa Barbara City Council, The future of State Street is car-free. This future needs to start today. You can end the car/no-car debate now. Put this decision behind you, and us, finally. [NAME] 31 today.

Of course, the internet is also a big reason why a range of formerly profitable retail businesses in older downtowns are in trouble all across America. We are not alone. In the last several years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a million apparel retail jobs have disappeared nationwide. In Santa Barbara City, public records reveal that more than 30% of sales taxes returned from the State come from internet sales. Nearly a third of the walk-in retail trade has now moved to online sales. (Perhaps new downtown leases should reflect THIS impact.) Within a decade, the internet's effect on City sales tax revenue might 255 reach 50%. That's another clear reason to get more housing inside the City limits. Every new home is also a new sales-tax source.

One of the hardest hit brick-and-mortar retail sectors is travel. More than 70% of all travel plans and payments are done online in the US. And now there is an online platform (Fora Travel) that allows individuals to become "travel advisors," personal travel agents with all the same connections and discounts that in-person travel agencies offer. Today, 15,000 Fora Travel advisors sell billions of dollars of services with near-zero overhead.

<https://oysterlink.com/spotlight/online-travel-booking-statistics/> Allowing cars back for a few years is an expensive retreat away from the central promise of the new Master Plan. It's so much better to keep moving ahead, not back.

We need to surround the downtown promenade with a thousand new apartments, including family housing. Let's create a lively downtown neighborhood as the basis for essential, walkable retail shopping: an actual neighborhood with spaces for kids to play.

State Street already offers boutique shopping and dining experiences, and "embodied retail" (gyms, yoga studios, art galleries, vintage clothing shops, barbershops, etc.). These are unaffected by the internet. When the Master Plan is built, the City's beautiful State Street pedestrian promenade will attract tourists from across the US and the world, and reward locals who will enjoy its lovely quietude.

Please keep State Street car-free starting today by reauthorizing Title 31.

Also: bring back regular, convenient micro transit soon. Regulate bicycle use on the promenade by limiting this to only street-legal eBikes. Today, a majority of eBikes ridden on State Street are actually illegal to ride on the street.

I thank you all and City staff for the enormous amount of work you have already accomplished on this matter.

[NAME] Santa Barbara resident.

Best, [NAME] Goleta Resident and frequent State St visitor PS, Disneyland also has no cars and everyone loves it there

"Sweet Disposition", 2025

Please continue the Promenade and expedite the planning/execution of the master plan for a car-free, people-friendly downtown.

With many thanks, jen.

[NAME] santa barbara, ca

Keep state street car free, and let more people get the exercise they need while supporting our local commerce.

Best regards, [NAME]

Thank you for your time, [NAME]

In these trying budget times, spending public dollars to undo years of capital planning is poor fiscal stewardship. We urge the Council to let this ordinance stand and protect the City's investment in its own plan.

Respectfully, [NAME] (she/her) Executive Director, MOVE Santa Barbara County Mail: P.O. Box 92047, Santa Barbara, CA 93190 Office: 508 E [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Text: 503-975-0240 Voicemail: 805.845.8955 x 1

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I am writing to strongly urge you to keep State Street closed to cars and preserve its walkable character.

Many of us who care deeply about this issue are not spending hours online posting about local politics.

It is also financially irresponsible. Spending approximately $700,000 to reverse a popular, walkable public space is not a prudent use of city funds. At a time when the city has many pressing needs, using public money to make State Street less safe, less inviting, and less community-oriented is deeply misguided.

Please protect the progress Santa Barbara has made. Keep State Street walkable. Keep it closed to cars.

Do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars dragging our downtown backward.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara Resident & Voter Cell: 530.400.8082| [EMAIL]

[NAME] 1014 Santa Barbara St. [EMAIL]

Hello Mayor and City Council Members, I am submitting these comments to express my strong SUPPORT for a car-free State Street. I submitted comments to this point recently during the State Street Master Plan update. State Street has become a vibrant and welcoming place since the street was closed to vehicular traffic in 2020. I shop every week at the Tuesday Market and am energized by the number of people who are out and about downtown on a Tuesday evening.

[NAME] Spring Street, Santa Barbara 93103

[NAME]

But the real reason I want State Street reopened, fully reopened, is accessibility.

I've been here since 1965.

I've seen a few changes over the years.

Now, in my senior years, the challenges are real.

Just geƫng up and down a few blocks on State Street is quite challenging anymore.

I'm not the only senior out there that's feeling this.

When we could catch a trolley and even go, three or four blocks, it made such a difference.

And those little golf cart style free rides don't look safe for someone with my mobility issues.

Reopen State Street and reopen access for all.

Sincerely [NAME]

Hello!

I am a student at UCSB and I am writing to urge the city council to keep State Street car free. Beyond the economic benefits to local businesses and savings on the cost to reimplement car infrastructure, having a car-free downtown makes it much more pleasant to be around and increases pedestrian safety and comfort.

[NAME]

In the past 5 years countless tourists have enjoyed the relaxed feeling of strolling & cycling State Street. The word has doubtless spread throughout the world and certainly to our neighbors in CA, bringing in vitality and revenue to the City.

So why break what works, and have the nerve to charge taxpayers for the reversal?

There are plenty of well situated parking garages up and down State and also Anacapa for easy access to those who insist on driving.

There is no excuse for this asinine proposal to allow cars on State.

Sincerely, Elizabeth Concerned citizen

[ at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing in support of reauthorizing the car-free ordinance for State Street (Item 26).

My family and I rely on and enjoy State Street as it is today. We love dining alfresco, love seeing shops and vendors on the streets, and waking and biking down state street from the west side. These experiences simply wouldn't be possible with cars running through the street, and they're a big part of why we choose to spend time downtown. Santa Barbara could look to places in Europe as great examples of car free streets with dining and shopping.

I also want to be direct about the fiscal piece: I do not want my tax dollars spent on reversing something that is working.

Thank you for your time.

Respecƞully, [NAME] 815 w Micheltorena st

 Current pilot programs. [NAME] and the expanded sidewalk dining on the 500 block are active pilots right now, and both depend on State Street staying car-free.

 Our bike network. State Street anchors the City's bike routes. Reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and newer cyclists are far less likely to use.

 Local businesses. Businesses (Wildcat Lounge, [NAME], [NAME], and plenty others) along the corridor have reported higher revenue since the street went car-free. Reversing course now risks undoing that momentum.

I hope the Council will vote to keep State Street the vibrant, car-free heart of downtown that residents and visitors alike have come to love.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME]

Please keep State Street Car-Free!

Thank you, -- [NAME] Santa Barbara Homeowner

Please reauthorize title 31.

Love, Steven

Jessica

Please vote to reauthorize Title 31.

Thank you, [NAME]

Keep it open! It's what everyone wants, and we are starting to figure out how to better utilize the space.

- [NAME]

As someone who lives and works downtown, I implore you to keep state street closed to cars. I feel safe letting my kids walk downtown with their friends. I enjoy eating outdoors without the stink of car exhaust.

Thank you, [NAME] To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

[NAME] Little Castle Press Studio by appointment 128 W Ortega St #5 Santa Barbara California 93101 Phone: 805 729 2424 Instagram: [HANDLE] Web: littlecastlepress.com

With many thanks, jen.

[NAME] santa barbara, ca

- [NAME] 4424 Nueces Drive

Thank you, [NAME]

Thanks for your work and dedication.

[NAME]

I recognize there are challenges that still need to be addressed, including homelessness, enforcement of reckless e-bike and e-moto riders, and continued activation of the corridor. However, I do not believe reopening State Street to vehicle traffic will solve any of those issues.

I encourage the Council to continue investing in and improving the promenade rather than reversing the progress that has been made over the past six years.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering my perspective.

[NAME] O'Keefe Medical Solutions Cell 805-822-9516 [EMAIL] Sent from my iPhone Please excuse typos!

Cars will do nothing to support local businesses, they'll merely add noise, air pollution and safety hazards back to State Street.

[NAME]

There should be some laws about young folks not driving e-bikes without a drivers license perhaps to make things safer, but that is a separate issue.

Please consider keeping it car free!

Best, Ally

I remember when State Street was first opened up to pedestrians/bikers only and I believe we should not go back to allowing cars. I love the extra outdoor seating it gives restaurants. I love having more space to walk along State without being limited to the sidewalks. Driving on Anacapa or Chapala has always been quicker and easier anyways.

Best, [NAME]

Thanks!

[NAME] Santa Barbara

[NAME] W Canon [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93101 - via iPhone

Cars don't buy things or browse stores, people do. Cities aren't loud, cars are loud. Cars don't make a city what it is, it's the people that do. I urge the city council to vote to keep State Street car free.

Thank you for your consideration!

[NAME]

I urge the council to vote to keep state street car free.

Best, [NAME] from my iPhone

I strongly support keeping cars off State Street!

Thank you for your deliberation on this issue and please support our pedestrian community!

[NAME]

[NAME]

Thank you for your time and for considering the impact this decision has on local families.

Best regards, [NAME]

I understand that there are details to improve, including accessibility, emergency access, design consistency, deliveries, maintenance, and making the space feel beautiful and intentional. But those are reasons to keep improving the promenade, not reasons to reopen State Street to cars. The right path forward is to invest in a thoughtful, safe, well-designed downtown corridor that prioritizes people first.

Santa Barbara has an opportunity to build a downtown that reflects our values: walkability, local business, public life, sustainability, and community connection. Reopening State Street to cars would be a step backward.

Please continue supporting a car-free State Street and move forward with a permanent vision that keeps it open, active, and welcoming for pedestrians, cyclists, businesses, residents, and visitors.

Thank you for your service and for considering the voices of community members who want to see downtown Santa Barbara thrive.

Sincerely, [NAME]

Plus, you already voted to keep it closed. Why are we doing this again? Will we just keep re-voting until the other side of the argument gets their way?

Dear Mayor, City Council, and those who call Santa Barbara their home, Please do not re-open State Street to cars. This is an important ongoing experiment. A pedestrian mall, a cultural paseo, revitalizes our downtown. Incubating organic development gives this City an opportunity to develop a unique downtown character and become a destination for locals and visitors alike.

The budget to re-open State Street to cars only further accelerates depletion of Santa Barbara's coffers. And, to what end? A familiar urban ghost town that is unable to compete with Goleta's shopping malls?

Please thoughƞully exercise your decision making power for the good of this community. It's a wonderful life, if you have the vision to see its future.

Sincerely, [NAME] from my iPhone

Thank you, L. Secrest

Thank you for your consideration, 79 [NAME] Senior Manager, Climate & Insights She/Her/Hers (Why I use pronouns) [EMAIL] ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ ReFED | Rethinking Food Waste LinkedIn · Instagram · ReFED.org ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Hi there, I am providing my public comment for Item 26 for Tuesday's 6/30 council meeting.

1. Reauthorizing Title 31 costs nothing. Letting it expire would cost an estimated $700,000 - and this is when city council has admitted a budget problem. There is no justification for this waste.

2. Businesses along the corridor have already reported higher revenue since the street went car- free.

3. Having cars on State risks never implementing the true Master Plan and adds an additional hurdle (re-closing to cars) to actually make the master plan a reality. Don't put up unnecessary roadblocks.

4. There is no compelling reason that cars need to be on State Street. The best argument that folks make is that they want to "cruise" down State again. This is inane. Cars do not traffic business, buy goods, or eat at restaurants. People do these things and they do so in much greater numbers when they are on bike or foot.

Please make the sane and positive choice to keep cars off State Street.

PS - this message was sent to several emails to ensure it reaches the right recipients.

Thank you, [NAME] 15+ year downtown Santa Barbara resident

Best wishes, [NAME] (She/Her/Hers)

My next trip is planned for July 10, so please keep it open for humans until at least then so I can say goodbye and visit the businesses one last time. Thanks for your consideration!

Dear Council and Clerk, I want to submit my public comment for tomorrow's city hall meeting, specifically on item 26.

Please do not continue to cave to the landlord lobby that demands that the issue of cars on state street continues to top of mind, because potential car traffic is a stupid, archaic measurement of property worth. Although they could change the way property value is measured and could tie it to reality, they continue to live in an alternative universe where a property that is vacant because of an outrageous expectation of rent is more valuable than a property that is filled at a rate that businesses can reasonably sustain.

As a reminder, state street is still accessible by cross streets at all hours of the day. On March 27th, a drunk Montecito man crashed his car, hitting 2 vehicles and a person on state street and cota. This further exemplifies the need to keep state street closed and displays how accessible state street still is to vehicle traffic.

Parking garages are not accessible via state street and state street is still accessible by cross streets at all hours of the day. State St does not need to be opened up. State Street is the spine of the City's bike network and reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and new cyclists are a lot less likely to use.

Lastly, if cars come back, the City may have to remove the Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State & Carrillo. The grant requires the art to stay in place for two years, so that likely means repainting it elsewhere or repaying the grant money.

Thank you for your time and for reading my public comment.

Best, [NAME]

-Marco

2.) There are also always pedestrians walking in the bike lane. I've personally had close calls when young kids in a group next to the bike lane suddenly running into the bike lane. Perhaps, striping a third lane, just for pedestrians, similar to the butterfly beach area could improve this problem? I would also say that the Cabrillo bike lane is dangerous for the same reason.

Lastly, thank you to all the people at the City who have put so much thoughtful time and energy into this issue.

Thanks, [NAME]

[ Hello, I'm in support of keeping State St. car free!

Thank you for your time and dedication to serving our community.

Sincerely, [NAME] Architect Email: [EMAIL] T: 917-747-1934-1934

Hello, Thanks for taking the time to accept this comment regarding Item 26 and Title 31 to keep State Street car free.

As a Santa Barbara resident, I use State Street all of the time, and frequent many businesses and restaurants. If the street were to open to cars again, I can absolutely say that I would rarely visit State Street anymore. Not only out of disappointment in the city leadership, but also because of the change of atmosphere in the city as well as the lack of safety I would feel.

I cannot more urgently and sincerely urge our leadership as a proud resident to maintain State Street as car free and to continue the development of the street on the current trajectory, prioritizing our community and health and safety.

Sincerely, [NAME] Some people who received this message don't often get email from [EMAIL]. Learn why this is important 23 -- [NAME] | he/him/his

Dear Mayor and Council members, One wonders if Council members have time to read all of these comments. At times, it must be overwhelming. I appreciate the consideration each of you brings to the conversation.

I am writing to urge you to keep State Street car-free while the State Street Master Plan moves toward final adoption.

Reopening the street to cars now, even temporarily, would spend public money to move backward just as the long-term plan is coming into focus.

Please reauthorize the current car-free configuration, keep the promenade in place, and focus the City's energy on making it better: safer bicycle behavior, better accessibility, better signage, cleaner and more consistent outdoor dining, more shade, more seating, and a stronger mix of local businesses and events.

Sincerely, [NAME] 147 Lower West Side

State Street is amazing without cars. Everyone loves it. I love it. Everyone that comes to visit loves it.

Thank you, Ben

Reopening the street also creates unnecessary complications. The Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State and Carrillo may have to be removed despite grant requirements that it remain in place for two years, potentially requiring the City to repaint it elsewhere or repay grant funding. At the same time, successful pilot programs like [NAME] and the expanded outdoor dining on the 500 block depend on State Street remaining closed to vehicles.

State Street is also the spine of Santa Barbara's bicycle network. Reintroducing cars would immediately make it a more stressful and less welcoming place for families, older adults, and newer cyclists, reducing one of the safest and most accessible north-south routes through downtown.

Perhaps most importantly, the current configuration is working. Businesses along the corridor have reported increased revenue, commercial vacancies have declined, and downtown has become a destination again. On any evening, State Street is full of people walking, shopping, dining, attending events, or simply enjoying being together. The farmers market, outdoor dining, community events, and everyday life have created a public space that feels uniquely Santa Barbara.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara Resident

Hello, I'm a local Santa Barbara resident and small business owner on upper State st. I sincerely urge the council to vote in favor of reauthorizing Title 31. There are a number of arguments that I feel have been misrepresented by a number of the advocates of "opening" State street that I wanted to discuss.

Accessibility: This is a major talking point of the Open State street crowd. However, the State st shuttle enables handicapped individuals access not to a single location, but the entire promenade.

Furthermore, they do not discuss a major branch of accessibility: financial.

Walking enables discoverability. Instead of spending money on advertising and flyers, a business can simply start on State street and receive immediate foot traffic and opportunity. This will lead to a different set of businesses succeeding, opening the door to high quality local business.

E-commerce is clearly here to stay. The way to combat it is to look to Spain, New York, France, Norway, all countries and cities with thriving brick and mortar stores that have been resilient to e-commerce because people walk by stores every day. Making purchases in person becomes more convenient not less.

Vacancies: E-commerce has hit the town hard. Property values have gone down (at least in reality, despite the landlord's resistance to lower rent prices). The real estate companies behind open State st.

Best, Kian

keep state street car free!

• 48 Identity and placemaking. Comparable to pedestrian districts in other beach/resort towns — it gives the city a distinct "destination" feel rather than just a drive-through corridor.

— [NAME] [EMAIL] khrossi.[EMAIL]/khrossi/

Thanks, [NAME]

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I am writing to strongly urge you to keep State Street closed to cars and preserve its walkable character.

Many of us who care deeply about this issue are not spending hours online posting about local politics.

We are working, raising kids, supporting our families, and trying to keep up with daily life. But please do not mistake our silence for indifference.

Please protect the progress Santa Barbara has made. Keep State Street walkable. Keep it closed to cars.

Do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars dragging our downtown backward.

Sincerely, [NAME] Santa Barbara Resident & Voter Cell: 530.400.8082| [EMAIL]

Hello my name is Byron and I am writing about the State Street Master Plan.

As a longtime Santa Barbara resident and survivor of a catastrophic bike accident in this city, I can say is that I have personally spent far more time downtown since it was closed to cars than I ever did for the last few decades when it was open to car traffic.

As someone who understands the whore of cycling accidents first-hand. I had to have part of my elbow replaced. I know how suddenly something like that can happen and how much of it can be avoided by simply separating the car from everyone else.

As someone who still rides a pedal bike everywhere let me tell you drivers have gotten so much worse since the pandemic; yes, it's the phones and screens. I have had to start mounting a camera to my bike and streaming my rides just to have a record in case the worst happens again.

Anyhow thank you for your time. I really do not envy the task in front of you.

~ Byron

Promenade During Interim Operations June 30, 2026 Santa Barbara City Council 735 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Subject: Support for Maintaining the State Street Promenade During Interim Operations Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, [NAME] is writing in strong support of maintaining the State Street Promenade until the State Street Master Plan is implemented. We urge you to adopt staff's Recommendation A and reauthorize Title 31, allowing the promenade to remain in its current configuration while the long-term vision moves toward construction.

This item is confusing because it is separate from the Master Plan itself. The Master Plan establishes the long- term vision. This agenda item is much simpler. It asks whether Santa Barbara should continue operating the successful promenade we have today or spend hundreds of thousands of public dollars temporarily returning State Street to its 2019 configuration before rebuilding it again a few years later. Staff estimates that restoring the old roadway would cost approximately $700,000, while maintaining the promenade requires no new implementation costs.

We would first like to thank City staff for the thoughtful work that has gone into both the Master Plan and the interim improvements. The Loop shuttle, new landscaping, public art, pedlets, and e-bike safety efforts demonstrate that the City has not simply maintained the promenade, it has continued making it better 3 while gathering valuable information for the permanent design. This is exactly how successful cities approach transformational projects: by testing ideas, learning from them, and steadily improving over time. These interim projects are already helping shape a better State Street.

Safety Must Remain Our First Priority Before State Street closed to private vehicles, it was the third most dangerous corridor in Santa Barbara for fatal and severe crashes, especially for people walking and bicycling. The City recognized this through its Vision Zero initiative, Bicycle Master Plan, and Safe Streets for All efforts. Since private vehicles were removed, serious collisions involving people walking and biking have effectively disappeared from the promenade. That is not a coincidence. It is exactly what transportation engineers expect when conflict points between vehicles and vulnerable road users are eliminated.

Staff acknowledges this reality in the agenda report. Reintroducing private automobiles would increase opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle collisions while creating a higher-stress environment for people who bike. It would also discourage many of the riders who currently feel comfortable using State Street, including children, older adults, and people who are new to cycling.

That matters because State Street has become the spine of Santa Barbara's bicycle network. More than one million BCycle miles have been ridden on car-free State Street alone. Our own bike survey found that many riders are not simply passing through: they are shopping, dining, meeting friends, and choosing State Street because it feels safer than surrounding streets.

Safety should not be viewed as a compromise against economic success. It is one of the reasons the promenade has become successful.

The Economic Conversation Has Changed Much of the opposition to the promenade has centered on the belief that businesses need cars to survive. Six years later, that prediction simply has not come true.

Commercial vacancy rates continue to decline and are now approaching their lowest levels since before the pandemic. Radius Real Estate reports a vacancy rate of just five to ten percent in the core promenade, with fewer vacant storefronts than in 2018. New investment continues to arrive downtown, including adaptive reuse projects, new restaurants, major employers, and more than $100 million in announced investment.

Equally important, a growing number of business owners are publicly crediting the promenade with bringing customers downtown.

The recent formation of Businesses for State Street reinforces this point. This group came together quickly over the past few weeks, with the help of [NAME] and [NAME], owner of Wildcat Lounge. For years, some have argued that reopening State Street to cars is what businesses want. That is no longer a credible claim. Businesses for State Street was created by downtown merchants who believe exactly the opposite. For years, they have felt left out of the State Street conversation, but with the vote on Title 31 coming up quickly, they decided to organize. Their message is straightforward: State Street should continue evolving into a safer, more vibrant destination guided by data, public safety, and the people who use it every day.

Their own survey found that 75 percent of State Street businesses they were able to contact do not want private cars to return. That closely mirrors [NAME] earlier business survey, which reached the same conclusion. Business owners are not speaking with one voice, but many of those operating successful businesses on State Street today are asking the City to move forward—not backward.

In just under two weeks, the Businesses for State Street Instagram has gained almost 200 followers and thousands of likes.

4 Ultimately, people do not visit great downtowns because they can drive through them. They visit because they want to spend time there.

That is exactly what the promenade encourages.

Emergency Response: Real Experience Should Carry More Weight Than Hypothetical Modeling We appreciate the City's effort to better understand emergency access on State Street, and we recognize that emergency response is a legitimate concern. Public safety should always come first.

However, we encourage the Council to view the Fehr & Peers analysis in its proper context. The study is not an evaluation of six years of actual emergency operations on the promenade. It is a model built around hypothetical "worst-case" scenarios. Staff explains that the analysis assumes incidents occur at the midpoint of each block (the maximum possible distance from an intersection) and further assumes that responders either cannot drive directly onto the promenade (which they can) and instead walk from the nearest cross street, or that emergency vehicles travel through the promenade at just three miles per hour.

Those assumptions may be appropriate for testing theoretical limits, but they should not outweigh six years of real-world experience.

The staff report notes that during the past six years police officers, firefighters, and paramedics have successfully responded to commercial fires, medical emergencies, violent crimes, and many other incidents throughout the promenade.

That history deserves significant weight.

Emergency responders already access State Street when needed. The promenade has never been inaccessible.

The question is not whether emergency vehicles can reach incidents—it is whether hypothetical travel time estimates justify fundamentally changing one of the city's safest and most successful public spaces.

We also encourage Council to remember the other side of the safety equation. Reintroducing private vehicles may improve modeled emergency response times in certain scenarios, but it also reintroduces the everyday crash risks that existed before 2020. Staff explicitly acknowledges that returning cars to State Street would increase opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle collisions. We believe that emergency response times could actually increase, as emergency vehicles could get stuck behind car traffic.

Every policy choice involves tradeoffs. We should not focus solely on theoretical emergency response times while overlooking the demonstrated reduction in serious crashes that has accompanied the removal of private automobiles.

[NAME] the Course Strong Towns has long advocated for incremental, fiscally responsible investment. This agenda item presents a straightforward choice.

Council has already directed staff to complete a Master Plan centered around a pedestrian-oriented State Street. The City has invested years of public outreach, technical analysis, pilot projects, and community engagement. Businesses have made decisions based on that direction. Residents have adjusted to it. New organizations like Businesses for State Street have formed around it.

Now the question is whether Santa Barbara should spend roughly $700,000 restoring a temporary roadway configuration that everyone understands would itself be temporary.

5 We do not believe that is a prudent use of public funds.

In addition to the direct construction costs, reopening State Street would require removing or relocating existing improvements, modifying bike share facilities, and potentially affecting the City's Bloomberg-funded asphalt art installation before the grant period expires.

At a time when Santa Barbara faces many competing priorities, spending scarce resources to reverse course (only to rebuild the promenade again later) does not reflect sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The Community Has Spoken Throughout this process, [NAME] has tried to listen as much as we advocate.

Over the past several months, our volunteers have spent countless hours talking with residents, visitors, and business owners while gathering signatures to support a permanent car-free State Street. Those conversations have produced one overwhelming takeaway: most people are surprised this debate is still happening.

Today, more than 3,100 people (1,000 in-person signatures and over 2,100 digital signatures) have signed our petition supporting a car-free State Street, and that number continues to grow. Just as important as the number itself are the conversations behind it. Parents appreciate having a place where their children can safely walk and ride bicycles. Older adults describe a calmer, more accessible downtown. Business owners tell us people stay longer, shop more, and enjoy spending time on State Street.

Those stories reinforce what broader public outreach has consistently shown. The City's own survey found that 79 percent of respondents supported keeping State Street closed to private vehicles. Our business survey found that 75 percent of surveyed businesses do not want cars to return. The consensus may not be unanimous, but it is remarkably consistent.

Council has spent years asking the community what it wants for State Street.

The community has answered.

Keep Moving Forward The most successful cities do not thrive because they cling to the past. They succeed because they build upon what works.

The State Street Promenade is not perfect. We still need better bicycle calming design, additional shade, more seating, improved landscaping, accessible transportation options, cleaner public spaces, more housing, and continued investment in downtown.

Those are arguments for improving the promenade—not abandoning it.

[NAME] respectfully asks the Council to:  Adopt staff's Recommendation A and reauthorize Title 31.

 Maintain the State Street Promenade until the Master Plan is constructed.

 Continue investing in practical interim improvements that advance the long-term vision.

Today, it has become the heart of our downtown.

6 Let's continue building on that success instead of spending public money trying to recreate a street we have already chosen to leave behind.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] [NAME], Local Conversation Leader And the 500+ members of [NAME]

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

I respectfully ask you to adopt Option A and direct staff to maintain the State Street Promenade in its current configuration until the State Street Master Plan is implemented.

As a founding member of Friends of State Street and a local businessman based in the old [NAME] at 27 East Cota Street, it has been an honor to work alongside city staff and our community to help activate five of the 11 short-term action items this council requested.

Sincerely, [NAME]

Item 26, June 30, 2026 City Council meeting Please reauthorize Title 31 to keep State Street car-Free.

To the Mayor and Santa Barbara City Council, The future of State Street is car-free. This future needs to start today. You can end the car/no-car debate now. Put this decision behind you, and us, finally. [NAME] 31 today.

Bringing cars back for a couple years to satisfy a nostalgic impulse denies the Master Plan development effort of a couple years to test out various alternatives for the final, car-free design.

Bringing back cars will not reanimate the cadaver of late Twentieth Century downtown retail business. It is magical thinking to believe that traffic going up and down the street with nowhere to park will have a positive impact on the actual businesses. It does have an unfortunate impact on business rental pricing expectations.

Commercial property owners use commercial leasing sites on the internet (like Zillow for commercial property) to advertise their properties. The big sites, such [EMAIL], automatically compute the Average Daily Traffic (the number of cars going by) as an important metric determining the competitive pricing for leasing a commercial property. State Street property owners are calling for cars on the street to increase the national lease pricing of vacant properties. If you agree that State Street commercial leases need to be more expensive, then putting cars back might help property owners make more money in the short run. They could even use this as an excuse to raise the rent on existing leases that expire in the next couple years. No wonder the downtown property owners are for this.

Of course, the internet is also a big reason why a range of formerly profitable retail businesses in older downtowns are in trouble all across America. We are not alone. In the last several years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a million apparel retail jobs have disappeared nationwide. In Santa Barbara City, public records reveal that more than 30% of sales taxes returned from the State come from internet sales. Nearly a third of the walk-in retail trade has now moved to online sales. (Perhaps new downtown leases should reflect THIS impact.) Within a decade, the internet's effect on City sales tax revenue might 255 reach 50%. That's another clear reason to get more housing inside the City limits. Every new home is also a new sales-tax source.

One of the hardest hit brick-and-mortar retail sectors is travel. More than 70% of all travel plans and payments are done online in the US. And now there is an online platform (Fora Travel) that allows individuals to become "travel advisors," personal travel agents with all the same connections and discounts that in-person travel agencies offer. Today, 15,000 Fora Travel advisors sell billions of dollars of services with near-zero overhead.

Please keep State Street car-free starting today by reauthorizing Title 31.

Also: bring back regular, convenient micro transit soon. Regulate bicycle use on the promenade by limiting this to only street-legal eBikes. Today, a majority of eBikes ridden on State Street are actually illegal to ride on the street.

I thank you all and City staff for the enormous amount of work you have already accomplished on this matter.

[NAME] Santa Barbara resident.

Please consider my public comment when making a decision for the future of state street!

So why break what works, and have the nerve to charge taxpayers for the reversal?

There are plenty of well situated parking garages up and down State and also Anacapa for easy access to those who insist on driving.

There is no excuse for this asinine proposal to allow cars on State.

Best regards, [NAME]

Our historic parades and traditions need the street width and sidewalk space of State Street. Santa Barbara street can't accommodate crowds and therefore locals and visitors don't attend.

COVID is over. Please bring back our main thoroughfare.

[NAME] from my iPhone

Please continue the Promenade and expedite the planning/execution of the master plan for a car-free, people-friendly downtown.

With many thanks, jen.

[NAME] santa barbara, ca

THank you for hearing my opinion.

[NAME] West side resident

Mr. Mayor, Clerk, Over the weekend I was at Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, and [NAME], and I could already feel the familiar push toward Christmas. Decorations, displays, reminders that another year is almost behind us.

It struck me that many people seem eager to rush toward the next season as though a change in calendar alone might somehow lift the economic and civic malaise that has hung in the air this past year.

We are living through uncertain times: anxiety over the economy, questions surrounding Federal Reserve leadership, war in the Middle East, and a national mood that feels strangely disconnected even as our country approaches its 250th anniversary. At times even our local celebrations feel more commercial than meaningful. Maybe that is unfair, but it is hard not to notice.

In some ways, I admit this letter comes from both melancholy and concern. I do not take pleasure in counting down the final months of this council's tenure, but I also feel an obligation—as one of many residents who continue writing to you—to honestly say where I stand before tomorrow night's decisions.

First, the Paseo Nuevo project.

I was strongly opposed to the original proposal to demolish the Macy's building while simply trusting that the promised apartments would eventually materialize. I believed the city was being asked to gamble far too much on assurances rather than certainty. Frankly, I feared it could become one of the largest development failures Santa Barbara had seen in decades. To the council's credit, that original version did not move forward.

Now we arrive at the Yardi-backed proposal and the redevelopment surrounding the former Nordstrom site. While many portray Yardi almost as a civic savior, I remain cautious. I understand why City Administrator [NAME] appears determined to see this project through, particularly as she approaches retirement, but determination alone is not the same as wisdom.

What concerns me most is not development itself. Santa Barbara needs thoughtful investment. What concerns me is the willingness to concede too much in order to get a deal done: effectively granting extraordinarily valuable public land at little or no true cost basis, while also creating expectations that future tax revenues tied to that land could later be forgiven or reduced. That land carries immense value—financially and symbolically—and the city should act like it understands that.

I hope I am wrong. Truly.

Perhaps the project succeeds beyond expectations. But I also suspect there is a real possibility these apartments are eventually sold off to interests the city never anticipated, leaving future councils and 23 residents dealing with outcomes they did not choose. Once these agreements are set in motion, they are very difficult to reverse. The mold hardens quickly.

Still, as consequential as these development votes are, I believe the larger issue before the city remains State Street.

This is where I must speak plainly.

I do not believe the council has shown the leadership necessary to rally the community around a realistic and sustainable vision for downtown. I say that respectfully, not maliciously. But the current trajectory feels less like planning and more like drift. Since COVID, Santa Barbara has too often settled into stagnation while pretending that stagnation itself is progress.

You, more than anyone, have the ability to influence that outcome.

You have to make them understand the long-term consequences of continuing down the present path.

Leadership sometimes means standing apart from the loudest voices in the room and reminding people what reality looks like beyond the next headline or applause line.

The redeeming truth in all of this is that Santa Barbara is not just another city. It is Santa Barbara. It can survive mistakes that would cripple other places. Its beauty, history, and character are resilient. But resilience should never become an excuse for complacency.

We are called to leave the things we touch better than we found them. Right now, I am not convinced this council is doing that consistently.

I will close with lyrics from [NAME] song "One Voice," because they capture something important about leadership and civic courage: "Just one voice, singing in the darkness All it takes is one voice Singing so they hear what's on your mind."

And later: "If only one voice would start it on its own We need just one voice facing the unknown And then that one voice would never be alone."

24 Mayor, (Randy) whether people agree with you or not, your voice carries weight. Use it fully. Santa Barbara needs leadership that is willing to speak clearly, honestly, and courageously before decisions become irreversible.

Respectfully, [NAME] (805) 451-0005 [EMAIL]

Thank you!

[NAME] W Canon [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93101 - via iPhone

Please, for all of us in Santa Barbara who love spending an afternoon wandering around State Street with our loved ones, reauthorize Title 31. Thank you for taking the time to read public comments, and thank you for serving our community on the City Council.

All the best, [NAME] -- [NAME] (she/her) PhD Candidate | Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California, Santa Barbara Past and Future Climates Group [EMAIL] | 231-838-1254 | LinkedIn | sadiecwikiel.com UCSB is situated on the unceded lands of the Barbareño Chumash people

The majority of Santa Barbarans want no cars on State so let's keep it that way!

Best, [NAME]

Driving on a 5 block long stretch of ONE STREET will not fix this problem--that is preposterous.

Please keep State St. car-free!

Best Regards, [NAME] UCSB Class of 23 and East Side resident.

agenda) Draft State Street Master Plan — Implementation, Financing, and the Paseo Nuevo Transaction Mayor Rowse and Members of City Council, I am submitting this comment in response to the request for public comment on the Draft State Street Master Plan. In addition to submitting this comment to the email provided, I am sending it directly to you in the hope that you might have time to review at least the executive summary in advance of tomorrow's vote on the Paseo Nuevo item, as the property tax questions I focused on in my previous public comments on that matter intersect in important ways with the viability of the funding mechanism proposed for the Downtown Development Authority. I have outlined three potential scenarios for the proposed property tax assessment in Section II of this document, each having quite different implications for the amount of revenue this mechanism could bring in and how fairly the costs and benefits are distributed. I anticipate receiving some documents in response to my first CPRA request on July 2, and these should allow me to better identify which of those scenarios is the most likely. Thank you for your timely attention to this matter.

Executive Summary Tomorrow marks the close of the public comment period on the Draft State Street Master Plan — a long-term vision for downtown Santa Barbara that this community deserves to evaluate with full information. This comment raises questions about whether that evaluation has been possible, because the Master Plan's financial viability depends on a set of assumptions that are directly affected by the proposed Paseo Nuevo Disposition and Development Agreements — a separate transaction also before this council — in ways that have not been publicly analyzed.

Specifically, this comment identifies four interactions between the Master Plan's financing strategy and the Paseo Nuevo transaction that could materially affect the plan's financial viability, downtown parking supply, and the equity of who bears costs versus who captures benefits from public investment. The public records needed to evaluate these interactions are the subject of pending California Public Records Act requests whose production deadlines fall after today. The community has not had access to this information during the comment period now closing, and the council should not finalize the Paseo Nuevo transaction — whose terms will shape the Master Plan's financial foundation — without first making that evidentiary foundation available for public review.

A Procedural Concern That Bears on Both Matters Before turning to the substance, a procedural point deserves attention.

31 I submitted a California Public Records Act request 21 days ago seeking the city's property tax projections and assessed value analysis for the Paseo Nuevo parcels, including analysis of whether and how Proposition 13 reassessment applies to the proposed transfer. More recently, I also requested the city's financial modeling related to the proposed Downtown Development Authority financing mechanism described in the Draft State Street Master Plan. These records are directly material to evaluating both the Paseo Nuevo transaction and the Master Plan's financing assumptions — they are not peripheral requests but requests for the evidentiary foundation that connects these two matters.

The CPRA production deadlines for these requests fall after today's scheduled vote on the Paseo Nuevo Disposition and Development Agreements, and after the close of the Master Plan's public comment period.

The public will not have access to this analysis before the Paseo Nuevo decision is made today, nor before this comment period closes. This is not a minor procedural irregularity. The council is being asked to approve a land transfer whose implications for the Master Plan's financing strategy have not been publicly analyzed — and the city has the information to do that analysis but has not made it public.

I. The Proposed Financing Mechanism — And Why the Paseo Nuevo Transaction Affects It The Draft State Street Master Plan, which will come before the council for adoption at a future meeting, depends significantly on a proposed Downtown Development Authority — a public financing mechanism that would capture rising property tax revenue within a defined downtown district to fund street reconstruction and related capital investments. Understanding how this mechanism works is essential to understanding why the Paseo Nuevo transaction, being decided today, is not a separate decision from the Master Plan's financial viability.

Under this type of financing, property tax revenues within the district are split into two streams. The first stream — based on assessed values at the moment the district is formed — continues to flow normally to the county, school districts, city general fund, and other public agencies. The second stream — the increase in property tax revenue generated as values rise above that frozen baseline — is redirected to the new authority, which can borrow against it to fund capital investment. The baseline is set at the moment the district is formed, making the assessed values of key downtown parcels at that moment critically important to how much financing capacity the authority can generate over its thirty to forty-five year life.

This mechanism requires the voluntary consent of the county, school districts, and other taxing entities, who must agree to redirect their share of future property tax growth to the authority. They are not required to consent, and school districts in California frequently decline. The Master Plan presents this financing as a primary funding source — estimated at $15–25 million (Create State Master Plan, Draft April 16, 2026, p. 145, Funding Strategy table) — without acknowledging either of these dependencies.

The city's fiscal position makes this mechanism not aspirational but essential. Following significant budget reductions, the FY2027 budget projects a narrow operating surplus of approximately $400,000 (Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2027, Council Agenda Report, June 30, 2026, p. 3) — a margin achieved only through painful cuts — with a projected deficit of $6.9 million anticipated for FY2028, as presented at the Special Council Budget Meeting of June 23, 2026. General Fund reserves are projected at 12.1% of annual expenditures by end of FY2027, less than half the city's own policy-required level of 25% (Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2027, Council Agenda Report, June 30, 2026, p. 3). The Master Plan's capital program cannot proceed without the financing mechanism working as described — which means the Paseo Nuevo transaction's effect on the tax base is not a technical footnote but a foundational question that deserves to be resolved before the transaction closes.

32 II. The Paseo Nuevo Transaction and the Tax Base — Three Scenarios The proposed Paseo Nuevo Disposition and Development Agreements would transfer city-owned parcels to Yardi Systems and DSP Santa Barbara for zero monetary consideration. How this transaction affects the property tax base — and therefore the financing mechanism that the Master Plan will depend on when it comes before the council for adoption — depends on a question the city has not publicly addressed: whether the transfer triggers reassessment under Proposition 13. The pending CPRA responses should answer this question directly. In the absence of that information, three scenarios are possible, each with materially different implications.

In the first scenario, the transfer is structured in a way that does not trigger Proposition 13 reassessment. The parcels would continue to be assessed at historically suppressed values reflecting their encumbered status under the ground leases — values the city's own documents describe as reflecting "essentially no economic value" (Regular City Council Meeting 1089, December 2, 2025 [NAME], p. 201). The financing authority's baseline would incorporate those low values, and the annual property tax growth available to the authority — capped at 2% per year under Proposition 13 — would compound from a low floor. This is the weakest long-term financing position for the authority and the worst outcome for the taxing entities who share that baseline.

In the second scenario, the transfer triggers reassessment at market value, and the financing district is formed afterward. The reassessment value would be distributed equitably across all taxing entities as part of the frozen baseline — the county, school districts, and city general fund would all benefit from the higher assessed value going forward. The authority would then capture appreciation above that already-reassessed baseline.

The higher baseline also generates larger absolute dollar growth annually under the 2% cap, making this arguably the most equitable and financially stable outcome for both the authority and the broader public.

In the third scenario, the financing district forms first, and a future sale of the Paseo Nuevo property by [NAME] DSP to a third party subsequently triggers reassessment at then-current market value. The full increment between the baseline and the new reassessment value would flow to the authority rather than being distributed across all taxing entities. This maximizes the authority's financing capacity but concentrates future reassessment value in the downtown authority rather than sharing it with the county, school districts, and other public agencies. Whether this outcome occurs depends entirely on a future private sale that neither the city nor any of the other affected taxing entities can control — and the interests of those parties diverge significantly.

The Downtown Development Authority would be the primary financial beneficiary of such a sale occurring after district formation, while the county, school districts, and special districts would not share in that increment. The city therefore has an institutional interest in this outcome that the other taxing entities do not share, even though none of them can compel it.

It is also worth noting that substantial renovation or adaptive reuse of existing structures — such as the proposed conversion of the former Macy's building — would not trigger full reassessment under Proposition 13. Only genuinely new construction components would be added to the assessed value base, meaning that even significant private investment in the properties would not automatically translate into a higher tax base for the financing authority or other taxing entities.

Of the three scenarios, Scenario 2 appears most consistent with a standard fee simple transfer to a private party, which normally triggers reassessment. However, government transfer exemptions under the Revenue and Taxation Code may apply, and the city has not disclosed which scenario its financing model assumes. The pending CPRA responses should resolve this question — which is precisely why those records should be produced before the Paseo Nuevo transaction is finalized.

III. Who Bears the Costs, Who Captures the Benefits 33 Even if the financing mechanism works as intended when the Master Plan comes forward for adoption, a question of broader equity deserves to be named plainly now, while the public comment period remains open.

The Master Plan projects 1,000 to 2,000 new housing units in the downtown core (Create State Master Plan, Draft April 16, 2026, p. 130), explicitly to meet the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. New residents mean new demands on public services — schools, county health services, libraries, parks, and transit. The agencies that provide those services are the same agencies being asked to forgo their share of future property tax growth within the financing district for the next thirty to forty-five years. School districts in California are particularly affected, because redirecting local property tax increment effectively shifts a portion of their funding burden to the state — a cost that is real even if it is less visible locally.

The question is not whether downtown investment is worthwhile. It is whether the taxing entities being asked to participate have been given a full accounting of the service demands that new downtown housing will generate, weighed against the increment they would forgo — and whether that analysis has been shared with them before they are asked to consent.

Scenario three makes this tradeoff most acute: the scenario that maximizes the authority's financing capacity is also the scenario that most concentrates future reassessment value in the downtown authority rather than distributing it across the agencies serving the broader community.

There is also a longer-term dynamic that connects all three scenarios and that deserves to be stated plainly.

Under Proposition 13, assessed value for tax purposes grows at a maximum of 2% per year, regardless of what actual market value does. In a downtown corridor receiving significant public infrastructure investment, those two numbers are likely to diverge substantially over time. The public and the taxing entities are limited to capturing tax revenue on the slowly-growing assessed value, while the actual market value of the privately- held properties rises freely — driven in part by the very public investment the financing mechanism is designed to fund. If and when Yardi and/or DSP choose to sell, they would realize the full market appreciation at that moment, including the portion attributable to public investment made during their ownership. The taxing entities that foregone increment to fund that infrastructure receive no share of that appreciation when it is finally realized.

The public contribution is front-loaded and certain. The private gain is back-loaded and uncapped. This asymmetry is particularly pointed here because the proposed transfer price is zero: the public has foregone the upfront land value, accepts limited ongoing tax capture, and would see the full long-term appreciation — including the value it helped create — flow to private owners at the moment of eventual sale. The public and the taxing entities deserve to understand that tradeoff explicitly before the Paseo Nuevo transaction is finalized and before the Master Plan is brought forward for adoption.

IV. City Parking Lots 2 and 10 — Connected Decisions Being Presented Separately The city appears to be quietly removing encumbrances from Parking Lots 2 and 10 through the Paseo Nuevo transaction while simultaneously planning to convert those lots to housing through the Master Plan — without ever presenting these as the connected decisions they are.

These two city-owned parking garages were built by the Redevelopment Agency in 1989 specifically to support the Paseo Nuevo mall. The 1989 agreements required the city to provide 1,115 publicly accessible parking spaces in those lots at subsidized rates through 2065 (Long-Range Property Management Plan for the Paseo [NAME], As Amended, February 2015, p. 8; December 15, 2015 Joint Council and Successor Agency Agenda Report, p. 4) — an obligation that has served as the primary public policy rationale for holding them as public infrastructure. The proposed [NAME] would terminate those covenants entirely ([NAME], Exhibit G — Parking Agreements Termination; Regular City Council Meeting 1176, June 16, 2026 [NAME], p. 877), replacing them with two separate and narrower arrangements.

34 Under the proposed Yardi parking agreement, Yardi would receive up to 250 permits across Lots 2 and 10 — specifically, up to 50 24/7 permits in Lot 2, up to 50 standard commuter permits in Lot 2, and up to 150 standard commuter permits in Lot 10 (Yardi Parking Agreement, Section 3, Regular City Council Meeting 1176, June 16, 2026 [NAME], p. 965). Yardi's reciprocal obligation in Lot 1 tracks only the number of permits it actually holds in Lots 2 and 10, meaning reduced permit uptake does not automatically increase public availability in Lot 1.

Under the proposed DSP parking agreement, DSP would receive up to 80 24/7 permits in Lot 2 only (DSP Lot 2 Parking Agreement, Section 5, Regular City Council Meeting 1176, June 16, 2026 [NAME], p. 1095).

DSP's agreement does not extend to Lot 10.

Neither document presents an independent analysis of the net effect on downtown parking supply of terminating the 1,115-space covenant and replacing it with these permit arrangements.

The Master Plan's Parking Lot Conversion Proposal The Master Plan's Phase 2 implementation explicitly calls for "conversion of City parking lots into mixed-use spaces, including parking and new housing units" (Create State Master Plan, Draft April 16, 2026, p. 136, Phasing Strategy table). Today's Title 31 interim implementation staff report additionally identifies, under [NAME], that staff will be "studying opportunities to redevelop City-owned surface parking lots into mixed-use projects that provide for housing units while retaining parking capacity" (Council Agenda Report, Interim Implementation of the State Street Master Plan, June 30, 2026, p. 4) — without identifying which specific lots are under consideration. Given their location at the heart of the plan's highest-priority Civic and Commercial District, Lots 2 and 10 are the most plausible candidates for that study. The encumbrance removal being approved today and the conversion study being initiated as a bridge project are connected steps that deserve to be presented and evaluated as such.

The Perpetual Parking Agreements as Structural Encumbrances Both parking agreements carry perpetual duration and are subject to termination by the city only under specific conditions. The Yardi agreement (Section 7, Regular City Council Meeting 1176, June 16, 2026 Agenda Packet, p. 966) explicitly runs with the land and may be assigned to any future purchaser of the development property, with that purchaser deemed to have accepted and agreed to be bound by its terms. It covers both Lots 2 and 10, and if the city determines to terminate either lot for parking purposes, Yardi may elect either replacement permits at the nearest city parking lot or termination only as to the eliminated lot.

The DSP agreement (Section 9, Regular City Council Meeting 1176, June 16, 2026 [NAME], p. 1095) is somewhat narrower: it covers Lot 2 only, and includes a city commitment not to terminate Lot 2 for parking purposes for at least 10 years from the effective date. If the city subsequently terminates Lot 2, DSP may elect replacement permits at the nearest available city lot.

Taken together, these perpetual agreements create durable contractual interests in Lots 2 and 10 that would need to be resolved in any future disposition process. Any competitive bidding for those lots would need to account for these encumbrances, which would suppress the value third-party bidders could offer. In Yardi's case specifically, the explicit assignment clause means the parking interest transfers automatically to any future buyer of the Paseo Nuevo property, giving whoever holds that property ongoing contractual leverage over the city's disposition options for Lots 2 and 10.

The Same Assessed Value Questions Apply to Lots 2 and 10 The same three scenarios described in Section II apply equally if the city eventually transfers Lots 2 and 10.

Before the proposed transaction closes today, those lots carry the 1989 parking covenants as encumbrances that arguably suppress their market value, parallel to how the ground leases suppressed the Paseo Nuevo fee 35 interest value. After the transaction closes and the covenants are terminated, that encumbrance disappears, and Lots 2 and 10 become unencumbered city-owned structures in a prime downtown location.

The city used the encumbered value of the Paseo Nuevo parcels to justify zero monetary consideration at transfer. Would it seek independent appraisal of Lots 2 and 10 now that their encumbrances are proposed to be removed? Would any future transfer of those lots occur before or after the financing district baseline is set — a question that carries the same timing significance described in Section II? And would the Oversight Board compensation agreement established under Resolution No. 027 — which requires taxing entity compensation upon disposition of the city's Paseo Nuevo interest — apply to a future disposition of Lots 2 and 10 as RDA- built assets transferred to the city under the same Long-Range Property Management Plan framework? These questions appear unaddressed in the current transaction documents and will need to be resolved before the Master Plan's parking lot conversion program can proceed.

V. The State Street Reopening Question The ongoing public debate about whether to reopen State Street to vehicle traffic is fundamentally a debate about whether the pedestrian promenade is viable — and parking availability is a central argument on both sides of that question.

The proposed Yardi and DSP DDAs being considered today would eliminate the covenant guaranteeing 1,115 subsidized public parking spaces adjacent to the Civic and Commercial District. The Master Plan, when it comes before the council for adoption, simultaneously proposes converting the city's remaining public parking lots to housing. The Master Plan also maintains the pedestrian promenade configuration with only overnight vehicle access (Create State Master Plan, Draft April 16, 2026, p. 95). These decisions together represent a significant reduction in parking supply and vehicle access in the downtown core, and they interact directly with the State Street reopening debate. Neither document acknowledges the combined effect. The public deserves an integrated analysis that treats them as connected before either becomes irreversible.

VI. Questions for the Record The following questions are most critical and should be answered before the Paseo Nuevo transaction is finalized and before the Master Plan is brought forward for adoption: Has the city determined whether the proposed Paseo Nuevo transfer triggers Proposition 13 reassessment, and has the county assessor been consulted?

Which of the three property tax scenarios described above does the city's financing model assume, and has that analysis been shared with the county and school districts before they are asked to consent to financing district participation?

Has the city identified Lots 2 and 10 as candidates for the Master Plan's parking lot conversion program, and will it seek independent appraisal of those lots now that the 1989 covenants are proposed to be removed?

I urge the council to ensure that when the State Street Master Plan is brought forward for adoption, it is accompanied by the integrated financial analysis these questions require — including the property tax treatment of the Paseo Nuevo transfer, the parking supply impact of the covenant terminations, and the equity of the cost and benefit distribution across all affected taxing entities. I further urge the council to consider whether the public comment period on the Draft State Street Master Plan should be extended, or a second comment period provided on a subsequent revision of the plan that incorporates these fiscally relevant questions, so that the community has a meaningful opportunity to respond to the financial analysis before the plan is adopted.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions.

Respectfully, [NAME] Prepared by [NAME] | June 29, 2026 A copy of this comment is also available at: https://tinyurl.com/muvea22k

There are thousands and thousands of blocks with busy thoroughfares, speeding cars, inadequate street-side parking and awkward inadequate off-street parking. A car-free State Street isn't responsible for extremely high leasing/ rentals fees that make running a business so difficult. That should be negotiated with landlords and banks, so please leave the rest of out of it. A lack of adequate parking exists literally everywhere across the area, it's even a complaint at giant box stores with giant oceans of parking like Costco.

Furthermore, moving backwards is an incredible waste of money when budgets are very tight.

Reauthorizing Title 31 costs nothing. Letting it expire would cost an estimated $700,000 just to rip out the current setup and restore vehicle lanes.

Please vote and support people, children, and the next generation to enjoy this unique and incredible treasure that we have here in our own backyard. My 8 year old son regularly bikes this street with his Dad, proudly navigating this safe area on his own. Car-free State Street (that's actually an Open State Street) is an incredible gift of safety and vibrancy to our community. I'm going to keep fighting for it and hope you will be too.

Thank you, [NAME] 

As both a nurse practitioner and a patient who was on crutches for three months last year, I support making our downtown businesses more accessible to those with mobility limitations. Can't our City leader envision more creative solutions to accessibility, without making the street open to all cars?

Perhaps movable partitions with sensors for those with disabilities? Or ADA-friendly shuttles servicing a reliably serviced handicapped parking area?

In summary, I urge our city council to keep State Street closed to cars. Why revert to again being like many downtowns in America with cars polluting our main promenade? Our predecessors were able to turn something devastating into a lasting, beautiful legacy. Perhaps this most recent disaster will be the regenesis of our town into a more environmentally-conscious, elegant and safe place for locals and tourists alike.

Sincerely, [NAME], NP

Please keep State Street car free!

[ Please vote YES to keep State Street car-free.

But you know, baby steps. For now, let's at least keep out the cars.

Thanks for your consideration, [NAME]

[NAME] 1809 Cliff Street, SB 93109

I strongly encourage the Council to direct staff to allow Title 31 to expire and return to Council to appropriate funds necessary to effectuate the re-configuration of the roadway until the Master Plan can be implemented.

As for the costs estimate for restoring vehicular traffic, this list seems like it has been padded. Are the barriers used for the farmer's market different than what had been used for the Tuesday farmer's market before Covid? Are they different than the barriers that were used for parades before Covid? Where did those barriers go? Do you really have to remove any paint on the art installation, or can we just work with it for two years? Let's look for the most cost effective way to relocate B-Cycle stations by possibly moving them without removing planters. Even if you have to spend $700,000 to bring the old State back, it will be worth it, but try not to needlessly spend money on the project.

Bring State Street back!

[NAME]

Thx [NAME] from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

 Yardi Systems is reportedly in talks to convert the old Macy's into a global headquarters — a deal reported at over $100 million. That is not a bet on a failed street.

 The city's own survey found 79% of 5,700 respondents want State Street kept car-free, and a separate survey of downtown businesses found 75% prefer it that way.

With appreciation and respect, [NAME] 10 SB Resident who lives on state street and works downtown

Dear Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing to express my personal opinion as a local business owner who has operated a walking tour company in downtown Santa Barbara for the past 10 years.

Our company conducts daily public walking tours as well as private and corporate tours, and State Street serves as the centerpiece for many of our experiences. During the years since State Street was closed to vehicle traffic, I have not had a single guest tell me they wished it were reopened to cars. In fact, I regularly hear the opposite. Visitors frequently comment on how unique and special Santa Barbara feels because of the pedestrian promenade. They describe it as "European," welcoming, vibrant, and unlike many other destinations they have visited. It has become one of the defining features of downtown and a memorable part of their experience.

Please keep State Street closed to cars. I believe the pedestrian promenade has become one of Santa Barbara's greatest assets and continues to enhance both our local quality of life and our visitor economy.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, 62 [NAME], Totally Cali Tours of Santa Barbara Totally Cali Tours of Santa Barbara (805)403-6500

Keep State street Car-Free and open to bikes!!!

Dear Mayor, City Council, and those who call Santa Barbara their home, Please do not re-open State Street to cars. This is an important ongoing experiment. A pedestrian mall, a cultural paseo, revitalizes our downtown. Incubating organic development gives this City an opportunity to develop a unique downtown character and become a destination for locals and visitors alike.

The budget to re-open State Street to cars only further accelerates depletion of Santa Barbara's coffers. And, to what end? A familiar urban ghost town that is unable to compete with Goleta's shopping malls?

Please thoughƞully exercise your decision making power for the good of this community. It's a wonderful life, if you have the vision to see its future.

Sincerely, [NAME] from my iPhone

[ at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] I've lived in Santa Barbara for over 26 years. I am a retired teacher who still teaches 3 days per week, and my husband & I go to the Promenade on State St. to eat & shop at least once a week.

We attended a concert st the Granada Theatre a few weeks ago and afterward went across the street to get a bite to eat.

Even though there was a stop sign, e-bikers barreled through the stop sign and didn't even slow down as we were crossing the street. I could've been killed.

Opening State St. to cars will NOT draw more customers to the downtown area. Since eBikers are taking over numerous streets in Santa Barbara, we would then be battling the current eBike racetrack on State with cars added into the mix.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[NAME] 4017 Invierno Dr Unit A Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Sent from my iPhone

Item 26, June 30, 2026 City Council meeting Please reauthorize Title 31 to keep State Street car-Free.

To the Mayor and Santa Barbara City Council, The future of State Street is car-free. This future needs to start today. You can end the car/no-car debate now. Put this decision behind you, and us, finally. [NAME] 31 today.

Bringing cars back for a couple years to satisfy a nostalgic impulse denies the Master Plan development effort of a couple years to test out various alternatives for the final, car-free design.

Bringing back cars will not reanimate the cadaver of late Twentieth Century downtown retail business. It is magical thinking to believe that traffic going up and down the street with nowhere to park will have a positive impact on the actual businesses. It does have an unfortunate impact on business rental pricing expectations.

Commercial property owners use commercial leasing sites on the internet (like Zillow for commercial property) to advertise their properties. The big sites, such [EMAIL], automatically compute the Average Daily Traffic (the number of cars going by) as an important metric determining the competitive pricing for leasing a commercial property. State Street property owners are calling for cars on the street to increase the national lease pricing of vacant properties. If you agree that State Street commercial leases need to be more expensive, then putting cars back might help property owners make more money in the short run. They could even use this as an excuse to raise the rent on existing leases that expire in the next couple years. No wonder the downtown property owners are for this.

Of course, the internet is also a big reason why a range of formerly profitable retail businesses in older downtowns are in trouble all across America. We are not alone. In the last several years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a million apparel retail jobs have disappeared nationwide. In Santa Barbara City, public records reveal that more than 30% of sales taxes returned from the State come from internet sales. Nearly a third of the walk-in retail trade has now moved to online sales. (Perhaps new downtown leases should reflect THIS impact.) Within a decade, the internet's effect on City sales tax revenue might 255 reach 50%. That's another clear reason to get more housing inside the City limits. Every new home is also a new sales-tax source.

One of the hardest hit brick-and-mortar retail sectors is travel. More than 70% of all travel plans and payments are done online in the US. And now there is an online platform (Fora Travel) that allows individuals to become "travel advisors," personal travel agents with all the same connections and discounts that in-person travel agencies offer. Today, 15,000 Fora Travel advisors sell billions of dollars of services with near-zero overhead.

<https://oysterlink.com/spotlight/online-travel-booking-statistics/> Allowing cars back for a few years is an expensive retreat away from the central promise of the new Master Plan. It's so much better to keep moving ahead, not back.

We need to surround the downtown promenade with a thousand new apartments, including family housing. Let's create a lively downtown neighborhood as the basis for essential, walkable retail shopping: an actual neighborhood with spaces for kids to play.

State Street already offers boutique shopping and dining experiences, and "embodied retail" (gyms, yoga studios, art galleries, vintage clothing shops, barbershops, etc.). These are unaffected by the internet. When the Master Plan is built, the City's beautiful State Street pedestrian promenade will attract tourists from across the US and the world, and reward locals who will enjoy its lovely quietude.

[NAME] Santa Barbara resident.

Dear City Council, Nearly one hundred and one years ago, Santa Barbara was devastated by the historic 1925 earthquake.

Perhaps movable partitions with sensors for those with disabilities? Or ADA-friendly shuttles servicing a reliably serviced handicapped parking area?

In summary, I urge our city council to keep State Street closed to cars. Why revert to again being like many downtowns in America with cars polluting our main promenade? Our predecessors were able to turn something devastating into a lasting, beautiful legacy. Perhaps this most recent disaster will be the regenesis of our town into a more environmentally-conscious, elegant and safe place for locals and tourists alike.

Sincerely, [NAME], NP

[ at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City Council Members, I hear there is a vote coming up to determine whether or not State street should remain car-free or not. It absolutely should.

Thanks for your consideration, [NAME]

Keep it open! It's what everyone wants, and we are starting to figure out how to better utilize the space.

- [NAME]

Attention City Council Members, Please allow Title 31 to expire and return State Street to its pre Covid configuration, with traffic lanes in both directions for vehicles.

Return mid-block crosswalks for pedestrians.

Please reinforce all traffic rules for all modes of transportation.

Keep State Street Safe for all.

[NAME]

Please allow Title 31 to expire and return State Street to its pre Covid configuration, with traffic lanes in both directions for vehicles.

Return mid-block crosswalks for pedestrians.

Please enforce all traffic rules for all modes of transportation.

Keep State Street Safe For All!

[NAME]

State Street is no longer a highly desireable place which is truly sad and in need of am immediate change in course.

[NAME] Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

Dear Council and Clerk, I want to submit my public comment for tomorrow's city hall meeting, specifically on item 26.

Please do not continue to cave to the landlord lobby that demands that the issue of cars on state street continues to top of mind, because potential car traffic is a stupid, archaic measurement of property worth. Although they could change the way property value is measured and could tie it to reality, they continue to live in an alternative universe where a property that is vacant because of an outrageous expectation of rent is more valuable than a property that is filled at a rate that businesses can reasonably sustain.

The reason why state street is "dead" is because Santa Barbara property owners are vampires that suck the wealth from all of us. We need to introduce a vacancy tax - there are some business fronts that have been empty on State St for over 10 years.

Please continue to keep State Street closed to car traffic. Since the closure, State Street has thrived and businesses are busier than ever. The number of car-pedestrian collisions has been significantly reduced.

Lastly, if cars come back, the City may have to remove the Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State & Carrillo. The grant requires the art to stay in place for two years, so that likely means repainting it elsewhere or repaying the grant money.

Thank you for your time and for reading my public comment.

Best, [NAME]

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, Keep State Street car-free. I am writing as a small business owner who lives and works in downtown Santa Barbara' District 6 and as someone who rides and walks State Street nearly every day. I have commuted downtown by bike on State Street for the past several years, and I can say plainly: I never would have done that consistently before the closure.

[NAME] to cars changed it from a street I moved through cautiously into a place I actually use, enjoy, and feel proud of.

State finally feels alive. State Street feels more vibrant now than it did when cars dominated the corridor. I see people walking, biking, eating outside, meeting friends, discovering businesses, and actually spending time downtown. That makes me proud of State Street in a way I did not feel before. It now feels like a civic place, not just a road between storefronts.

Small businesses are not "against closure". A vocal minority would have the Council believe that small businesses need cars back. That claim does not match the evidence.

The City's visioning outreach received feedback from nearly 6,000 people, and 79% of 64 survey respondents preferred no cars on State Street. Strong Towns Santa Barbara reported that, in its survey of more than 40 businesses, 75% did not want cars to return, with many reporting increased foot traffic and sales. The Santa Barbara Independent also reported that vacancies along State Street between Gutierrez and Sola declined from 48 available storefronts in Q4 2020 to about 30, roughly back to mid-2019 levels.

People want a promenade. The strongest public input points in the same direction: residents, many business owners, and daily users of downtown want State Street to remain people-centered. From my own experience, visitors respond to that same energy.

They do not come to Santa Barbara because State Street looks like every other car corridor. They come because it feels distinctive, walkable, beautiful, and alive.

Do not reopen it overnight. I strongly recommend keeping State Street closed to public car traffic 24 hours a day. Opening it from 10 p.m. to 10 a.m. creates the worst version of both worlds: reckless or impaired nighttime driving when people are leaving bars and restaurants, followed by morning commuter traffic exactly when cyclists are trying to get downtown safely. There is no compelling public benefit to introducing cars during the hours when the risk is highest and the economic upside is lowest.

Be bold again. Santa Barbara has a rare chance to build a truly unique American downtown with a world-class promenade at its center. After the 1925 earthquake, the city made bold design choices that shaped the Santa Barbara people love today. This is another moment that calls for confidence, creativity, and speed. Pick a direction, build it well, enforce the rules, and invest in a downtown that is safer, more beautiful, more prosperous, and unmistakably Santa Barbara.

[NAME] 31. Please keep State Street closed to cars, continue the promenade, and move quickly from temporary compromise to permanent civic asset.

Thank you for your time and for your work on this issue.

Sincerely, John

please!

Dear City Council— As I was biking under the 101 on State last night one of the cruiser muscle cars gunned their engine deafeningly in the echoing space.

As I crossed Carrillo, a different car violently gunned what sounded like a muffler-less engine, and peeled out around the corner, tires shrieking.

The contrast with car-free State Street really made me appreciate the quiet, absence of exhaust, and relief from the mortal danger of being run over by a several thousand pound speeding car.

Kids on e bikes are a nuisance and can be startling, but cars present actual mortal danger, killing cyclists and pedestrians in our town each year. Air pollution takes years off of all our lives, as does lack of exercise.

State Street is a refuge for kids, cyclists, pedestrians, and people with mobility challenges, to see, be seen, shop, and get around free from worry of being killed—quickly or slowly—by cars and their emissions.

Thank you— [NAME] Parent of two local cyclists, soon to be grandparent of another

Thank you, [NAME]

Please keep state street car free! I've lived in downtown Santa Barbara for over 5 years and I'm a patron of multiple businesses downtown every single day because state street is such a pleasant place to be without cars. The atmosphere of community, music, culture, arts, is all thriving without cars and it is one of the reasons I choose to live in Santa Barbara.

[NAME] W Canon [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93101 - via iPhone

Alex

Hi, This message is in support of Keeping State Street closed to cars.

Thank you, - -- [NAME] Associate Researcher Climate Hazards Center UCSB Geography http://www.frankdavenport.com/

Returning the street back to a car focused on is a mistake against the people of Santa Barbara

Jessica

I plead with SB city council to double down on pedestrian access and good bike lanes. It's a jewel of our town!!

[NAME] MD, MA Assistant Clinical Professor Division of Hematology/Oncology [EMAIL] Phone (805) 563-0041 Fax (805) 563-0051 111 [NAME], Third Floor, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 uclahealth.org/community-cancercare/santa-Barbara UCLA HEALTH SCIENCES IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.

Cars are noisy, polluting, and lethal and state street is out downtown's only refuge from them, allowing pedestrians to really enjoy the space and small businesses.

I strongly support keeping cars off State Street!

Thank you for your deliberation on this issue and please support our pedestrian community!

[NAME]

Comment Hello Mr. Benon: Sometimes as a precautionary measure to ensure compliance with the California Brown Act, the Mayor or councilmembers may choose to respond to you individually rather than using the "Reply All" function.

While councilmembers are permitted to communicate individually with constituents, engaging in a group email discussion among a majority of the Council regarding City business could raise concerns under the Brown Act's prohibition on serial meetings.

Accordingly, if you receive individual responses from councilmembers, please understand that this approach is intended to preserve transparency and ensure compliance with applicable open meeting laws of the Brown Act, rather than to discourage communication. Just wanted to make you aware of the legal concerns they must all balance when communicating with the public and with each other.

Get Outlook for iOS From: [NAME] <[EMAIL]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 2:32 PM To: [NAME] <[EMAIL]> Cc: City Clerk <[EMAIL]>; Santa Barbara City Council <[EMAIL]>; State Street Master Plan <[EMAIL]> Subject: Re: SUPPORT for Car-Free State Street & Demand for Recusal – June 30 Public Comment Hi Randy, Thank you for taking the time to respond. As always, I genuinely appreciate that you chose to engage directly rather than send a form response.

I also noticed that your reply was only to me, but I think it's worth keeping everyone involved, so I'm adding them back to the email so everyone has the same context I do. I think it's important they see both of our responses and the discourse being had. While I suspect we'll continue to disagree on the future of State Street, I do appreciate the conversation.

As I read your response, I realized our disagreement isn't just about State Street. It's about how we evaluate public policy. Again and again, I raised questions about evidence, transparency, and public confidence.

Again and again, your response relied on personal convictions or individual observations. I don't question that those are sincerely held beliefs. I just don't believe they're enough to justify decisions affecting one of the most important public spaces in our city.

223 Take the FPPC findings. I appreciate your acknowledgment that mistakes were made and that you describe them as "sloppiness." My concern was never whether you believe your votes have been influenced by campaign contributions. None of us can know what's in someone else's mind. My concern is public trust.

You mention the law changed between your council campaign and your mayoral campaign. Fair enough. But even accepting that explanation, I still come back to the same question: why wasn't there more transparency?

If a major downtown property owner was financially supporting my campaign while I was making decisions affecting downtown, I'd want people to know that. Not because the law required it, but because that's what builds public confidence. Transparency shouldn't end where the minimum legal requirement begins. You also mention that the FPPC took five years to resolve the matter. Respectfully, I don't find the timeline particularly relevant. Had a complaint never been filed, would these contributions have ever been publicly connected to their ultimate source? That's exactly why disclosure requirements exist.

You wrote there was "certainly no conflict of interest." I think we're talking about two different things. I never suggested you consciously vote based on campaign contributions. My concern is whether a reasonable member of the public could question the appearance of impartiality when improperly disclosed campaign support traces back to one of the largest downtown property owners with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the State Street Master Plan.

Reading your response also reminded me of something you wrote in your Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, The Return of State Street: "No data or studies are needed to confirm the obvious." I think that's where our disagreement really begins. I couldn't disagree more. Public policy shouldn't be based on what feels obvious to any one of us. It should be grounded in evidence, especially when we're talking about one of the most important and central public spaces in Santa Barbara.

Further in your reply to my email, you make several factual claims: that downtown business has declined because of the promenade, that seniors and residents with disabilities have been excluded, and that Coast Village Road demonstrates why reopening State Street would improve downtown. Those are all testable claims. They deserve evidence, not simply confidence.

On accessibility, I agree with you that State Street should be welcoming and accessible to seniors and residents with disabilities. We should absolutely continue improving access across all public spaces. What I don't understand is why that automatically leads to reopening State Street to private vehicle traffic. Before the promenade, State Street wasn't designed for convenient accessibility either. Outside of designated loading areas, drivers couldn't simply pull over in front of businesses. Cars crawled from signal to signal through heavy pedestrian traffic, stopping at crosswalk after crosswalk.

My memory of State Street before 2020 isn't one of effortless accessibility. It's of drivers inching along, trying to make lights, and consistent running yellow lights or reds because they were seemingly frustrated with stopping every block. That created its own safety concerns for the thousands of pedestrians crossing State Street every day. Maybe that's anecdotal. But so is the claim that seniors and people with disabilities have somehow been excluded from downtown.

I spend a great deal of time on State Street with my family. Every week I see seniors, wheelchair users, mobility scooter users, and residents with mobility limitations enjoying the promenade. That doesn't mean accessibility is perfect, but it does mean the claim that these residents have been excluded simply doesn't match what I see with my own eyes. If accessibility is the concern, let's solve accessibility. Improve the State Street Loop. Expand shuttle service. Add more ADA drop-off locations on the cross streets. Improve mobility services. Those are direct solutions without bringing thousands of private vehicles back into the heart of downtown and increasing the opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

Regarding your comparison to Coast Village Road, I feel like I've seen you or someone else from the loud minority that wants State Street reopened make this same comparison. With respect, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison. Coast Village Road is the commercial corridor serving not only the wealthiest neighborhood in Santa Barbara, but one of the wealthiest residential communities in California. It benefits from 224 affluent Montecito residents, luxury tourism, and retailers specifically catering to that clientele. Downtown Santa Barbara serves an entirely different market.

If we're going to compare commercial districts, why not compare State Street to La Cumbre Plaza? La Cumbre has abundant parking, unrestricted vehicle access, multiple entrances, easy drop-offs, and everything advocates of reopening State Street say businesses need. Yet it has struggled for years despite all of those advantages.

If unrestricted vehicle access is really the key to commercial success, why isn't La Cumbre the city's retail success story That suggests the challenges facing downtown are far more complicated than whether cars can drive down one street.

Likewise, I continue to question the assertion that downtown's economic struggles are primarily the result of the promenade. In fact, even in your own Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, you acknowledged that downtown's business vacancies "were occurring prior to COVID." That's an important admission because it recognizes these challenges existed before the promenade. If vacancies predated the closure, it's difficult to argue that reopening State Street to cars is somehow the solution. I'm sure you've heard from countless other residents and your colleagues that multiple analyses have shown vacancy rates have actually improved since the promenade was created. Like cities across the country, downtown is navigating challenges far bigger than whether cars can drive down one street.

Finally, regarding food trucks, I appreciate your clarification that you personally didn't have the authority to ban them, but I don't need to research that period. I lived through it. I remember the hearings. I remember the debate. Do you remember Burger Bus? I certainly do. I loved their burgers.

I also remember food truck owners standing before the City warning that the regulations being advanced would make it economically impossible for many of them to continue operating. Burger Bus itself said those regulations made it easier to leave Santa Barbara, and they did. Whether we call that a ban or not is almost beside the point. The practical effect was that businesses many of us enjoyed disappeared. You chaired the committee advancing those regulations while owning a downtown restaurant. Whether that constituted a legal conflict isn't really my point. The concern then, much like today, was the appearance of a conflict and whether private interests were receiving greater consideration than the broader public.

The reason I keep writing these letters isn't because I enjoy debating this issue. It's because this conversation never seems to end.

Every time residents overwhelmingly come out to support and embrace the promenade, every time surveys show broad support for keeping State Street car-free, every time new evidence points toward investing in the pedestrian experience instead of reversing it, we're brought back to the same debate.

It very much feels like the preferences and portfolios of a relatively small group of commercial property owners continue to outweigh the voices of the residents and people who actually live here, and support local shops and restaurants, every day.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I only wish the same attention had been given to the questions I originally raised, because those are still the questions that matter most.

Respectfully, [NAME] On Jun 26, 2026, at 9:12 AM, [NAME] <[EMAIL]> wrote: 225 Hi Sam, You make some interesting assertions. I'd like to chat about a couple of them. First off, the "small, greedy landlord association" is, in fact, a self-assessing BID, much like the one on Coast Village Road, who are trying to form a coalition to better maintain and promote the downtown. The Covid- based current configuration has resulted in commercial properties being re-assessed downwards and rents reduced to 1990's levels. Other areas, like CVR have rebounded nicely, and are renting at a multiple of State Street. This lack of vitality and circulation has hit not only State Street, but the cross-streets as well within the Central Business District. Business has simply declined in the past 6 years in this area.

The assertion that I "banned food trucks downtown" is ridiculous on many levels. First off, I have never had that kind of power. Second, when we approached the food-truck ordinance, there was a city-wide ban on mobile food trucks in public areas. That was unconstitutional and unfair. As was passed in Ventura, the idea was to create districts where they were permitted and others that were restricted. My participation was to legalize those areas that were formally banned. Logically, I was serving around 500 customers per day at Paradise. A food truck did not represent serious concern for my business.

Lastly, the FPPC took 5 years to review my "case" which involves a law that was modified between my council and mayoral campaigns, and represented sloppiness on my part in that I should have been aware in the change, but certainly no conflict of interest. I have never, and never will, cast a vote based on anything but what is right for the city. I made that clear to all of my donors, and have never varied.

State Street is a street, not a park, not an optional open space. It is part of the circulation of the downtown and its closure has precluded disabled and elderly with ambulatory issues from participating in the downtown. My one little victory was getting one-way traffic on the 1200 block to help save the SB Symphony. Their subscribers are largely seniors from residential facilities who were dropping their subscriptions due to lack of drop-off access.

I know we will continue to disagree on the concept, but your negative assertions are unfounded and unfair.

Best Regards, [NAME] From: [NAME] <[EMAIL]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 8:48 AM To: City Clerk <[EMAIL]> Cc: Santa Barbara City Council <[EMAIL]>; State Street Master Plan <[EMAIL]> Subject: SUPPORT for Car-Free State Street & Demand for Recusal – June 30 Public Comment Dear Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, My name is Sam, and I am a downtown resident and father of two young children who enjoy walking or biking down to state street to enjoy the promenade. I am writing to express my strong, unwavering support for keeping State Street permanently closed to private vehicle traffic, and to demand immediate ethical accountability on this issue from city leadership.

226 Frankly, I am tired of having to repeatedly write these letters. A small, greedy landlord association simply cannot get it through their heads that the only people who want to reopen State Street to cars are themselves. They do not represent the families, locals, or community members who actually live here, use this space, and spend money downtown.

Opening State Street back up to cars would be a direct rejection of local families. Giving in to this loud minority of property owners is what will encourage downtown's demise, turning a vibrant community space back into a dangerous, polluted traffic corridor.

Furthermore, the recent California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) penalties against Mayor [NAME] make it entirely clear why this anti-promenade push is still being entertained. For those unaware, the FPPC found that the Mayor's campaign failed to disclose the true sources of LLC contributions, hiding the fact that they were directed by SIMA Corporation Chairman [NAME] to intentionally bypass local contribution limits.

It is a blatant conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote on or advocate for the destruction of our family promenade when he was funded by obscured, illegal campaign donations from the city's largest commercial landlord. SIMA has a direct financial stake in bringing cars back to protect vehicle-dependent commercial assets, including major downtown hubs like Victoria Court (1221- 1235 State St.), El Paseo (800 block), 500–510 State St., 1113 State St., 1129 State St., 1231–1233 State St., and especially 710–720 State St., where Knell protects 23 private parking spaces directly behind the buildings.

Because his campaign was caught masking financial backing from SIMA interests, the Mayor should recuse himself from all further decisions, deliberations, and votes regarding the State Street Master Plan.

Comment Hi Randy, Thank you for taking the time to respond. As always, I genuinely appreciate that you chose to engage directly rather than send a form response.

I also noticed that your reply was only to me, but I think it's worth keeping everyone involved, so I'm adding them back to the email so everyone has the same context I do. I think it's important they see both of our responses and the discourse being had. While I suspect we'll continue to disagree on the future of State Street, I do appreciate the conversation.

As I read your response, I realized our disagreement isn't just about State Street. It's about how we evaluate public policy. Again and again, I raised questions about evidence, transparency, and public confidence.

Again and again, your response relied on personal convictions or individual observations. I don't question that those are sincerely held beliefs. I just don't believe they're enough to justify decisions affecting one of the most important public spaces in our city.

Take the FPPC findings. I appreciate your acknowledgment that mistakes were made and that you describe them as "sloppiness." My concern was never whether you believe your votes have been influenced by campaign contributions. None of us can know what's in someone else's mind. My concern is public trust.

You mention the law changed between your council campaign and your mayoral campaign. Fair enough. But even accepting that explanation, I still come back to the same question: why wasn't there more transparency?

If a major downtown property owner was financially supporting my campaign while I was making decisions affecting downtown, I'd want people to know that. Not because the law required it, but because that's what builds public confidence. Transparency shouldn't end where the minimum legal requirement begins. You also mention that the FPPC took five years to resolve the matter. Respectfully, I don't find the timeline particularly relevant. Had a complaint never been filed, would these contributions have ever been publicly connected to their ultimate source? That's exactly why disclosure requirements exist.

You wrote there was "certainly no conflict of interest." I think we're talking about two different things. I never suggested you consciously vote based on campaign contributions. My concern is whether a reasonable member of the public could question the appearance of impartiality when improperly disclosed campaign support traces back to one of the largest downtown property owners with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the State Street Master Plan.

Reading your response also reminded me of something you wrote in your Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, The Return of State Street: "No data or studies are needed to confirm the obvious." I think that's where our disagreement really begins. I couldn't disagree more. Public policy shouldn't be based on what feels obvious to any one of us. It should be grounded in evidence, especially when we're talking about one of the most important and central public spaces in Santa Barbara.

235 Further in your reply to my email, you make several factual claims: that downtown business has declined because of the promenade, that seniors and residents with disabilities have been excluded, and that Coast Village Road demonstrates why reopening State Street would improve downtown. Those are all testable claims. They deserve evidence, not simply confidence.

On accessibility, I agree with you that State Street should be welcoming and accessible to seniors and residents with disabilities. We should absolutely continue improving access across all public spaces. What I don't understand is why that automatically leads to reopening State Street to private vehicle traffic. Before the promenade, State Street wasn't designed for convenient accessibility either. Outside of designated loading areas, drivers couldn't simply pull over in front of businesses. Cars crawled from signal to signal through heavy pedestrian traffic, stopping at crosswalk after crosswalk.

My memory of State Street before 2020 isn't one of effortless accessibility. It's of drivers inching along, trying to make lights, and consistent running yellow lights or reds because they were seemingly frustrated with stopping every block. That created its own safety concerns for the thousands of pedestrians crossing State Street every day. Maybe that's anecdotal. But so is the claim that seniors and people with disabilities have somehow been excluded from downtown.

I spend a great deal of time on State Street with my family. Every week I see seniors, wheelchair users, mobility scooter users, and residents with mobility limitations enjoying the promenade. That doesn't mean accessibility is perfect, but it does mean the claim that these residents have been excluded simply doesn't match what I see with my own eyes. If accessibility is the concern, let's solve accessibility. Improve the State Street Loop. Expand shuttle service. Add more ADA drop-off locations on the cross streets. Improve mobility services. Those are direct solutions without bringing thousands of private vehicles back into the heart of downtown and increasing the opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

Regarding your comparison to Coast Village Road, I feel like I've seen you or someone else from the loud minority that wants State Street reopened make this same comparison. With respect, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison. Coast Village Road is the commercial corridor serving not only the wealthiest neighborhood in Santa Barbara, but one of the wealthiest residential communities in California. It benefits from affluent Montecito residents, luxury tourism, and retailers specifically catering to that clientele. Downtown Santa Barbara serves an entirely different market.

If we're going to compare commercial districts, why not compare State Street to La Cumbre Plaza? La Cumbre has abundant parking, unrestricted vehicle access, multiple entrances, easy drop-offs, and everything advocates of reopening State Street say businesses need. Yet it has struggled for years despite all of those advantages.

If unrestricted vehicle access is really the key to commercial success, why isn't La Cumbre the city's retail success story That suggests the challenges facing downtown are far more complicated than whether cars can drive down one street.

Likewise, I continue to question the assertion that downtown's economic struggles are primarily the result of the promenade. In fact, even in your own Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, you acknowledged that downtown's business vacancies "were occurring prior to COVID." That's an important admission because it recognizes these challenges existed before the promenade. If vacancies predated the closure, it's difficult to argue that reopening State Street to cars is somehow the solution. I'm sure you've heard from countless other residents and your colleagues that multiple analyses have shown vacancy rates have actually improved since the promenade was created. Like cities across the country, downtown is navigating challenges far bigger than whether cars can drive down one street.

Finally, regarding food trucks, I appreciate your clarification that you personally didn't have the authority to ban them, but I don't need to research that period. I lived through it. I remember the hearings. I remember the debate. Do you remember Burger Bus? I certainly do. I loved their burgers.

236 I also remember food truck owners standing before the City warning that the regulations being advanced would make it economically impossible for many of them to continue operating. Burger Bus itself said those regulations made it easier to leave Santa Barbara, and they did. Whether we call that a ban or not is almost beside the point. The practical effect was that businesses many of us enjoyed disappeared. You chaired the committee advancing those regulations while owning a downtown restaurant. Whether that constituted a legal conflict isn't really my point. The concern then, much like today, was the appearance of a conflict and whether private interests were receiving greater consideration than the broader public.

The reason I keep writing these letters isn't because I enjoy debating this issue. It's because this conversation never seems to end.

Every time residents overwhelmingly come out to support and embrace the promenade, every time surveys show broad support for keeping State Street car-free, every time new evidence points toward investing in the pedestrian experience instead of reversing it, we're brought back to the same debate.

It very much feels like the preferences and portfolios of a relatively small group of commercial property owners continue to outweigh the voices of the residents and people who actually live here, and support local shops and restaurants, every day.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I only wish the same attention had been given to the questions I originally raised, because those are still the questions that matter most.

Respectfully, [NAME] On Jun 26, 2026, at 9:12 AM, [NAME] <[EMAIL]> wrote: Hi Sam, You make some interesting assertions. I'd like to chat about a couple of them. First off, the "small, greedy landlord association" is, in fact, a self-assessing BID, much like the one on Coast Village Road, who are trying to form a coalition to better maintain and promote the downtown. The Covid- based current configuration has resulted in commercial properties being re-assessed downwards and rents reduced to 1990's levels. Other areas, like CVR have rebounded nicely, and are renting at a multiple of State Street. This lack of vitality and circulation has hit not only State Street, but the cross-streets as well within the Central Business District. Business has simply declined in the past 6 years in this area.

The assertion that I "banned food trucks downtown" is ridiculous on many levels. First off, I have never had that kind of power. Second, when we approached the food-truck ordinance, there was a city-wide ban on mobile food trucks in public areas. That was unconstitutional and unfair. As was passed in Ventura, the idea was to create districts where they were permitted and others that were restricted. My participation was to legalize those areas that were formally banned. Logically, I was serving around 500 customers per day at Paradise. A food truck did not represent serious concern for my business.

Lastly, the FPPC took 5 years to review my "case" which involves a law that was modified between my council and mayoral campaigns, and represented sloppiness on my part in that I should have been aware in the change, but certainly no conflict of interest. I have never, and never will, cast a vote based on anything but what is right for the city. I made that clear to all of my donors, and have never varied.

State Street is a street, not a park, not an optional open space. It is part of the circulation of the downtown and its closure has precluded disabled and elderly with ambulatory issues from 237 participating in the downtown. My one little victory was getting one-way traffic on the 1200 block to help save the SB Symphony. Their subscribers are largely seniors from residential facilities who were dropping their subscriptions due to lack of drop-off access.

I know we will continue to disagree on the concept, but your negative assertions are unfounded and unfair.

Best Regards, [NAME] From: [NAME] <[EMAIL]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 8:48 AM To: City Clerk <[EMAIL]> Cc: Santa Barbara City Council <[EMAIL]>; State Street Master Plan <[EMAIL]> Subject: SUPPORT for Car-Free State Street & Demand for Recusal – June 30 Public Comment Dear Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, My name is Sam, and I am a downtown resident and father of two young children who enjoy walking or biking down to state street to enjoy the promenade. I am writing to express my strong, unwavering support for keeping State Street permanently closed to private vehicle traffic, and to demand immediate ethical accountability on this issue from city leadership.

Frankly, I am tired of having to repeatedly write these letters. A small, greedy landlord association simply cannot get it through their heads that the only people who want to reopen State Street to cars are themselves. They do not represent the families, locals, or community members who actually live here, use this space, and spend money downtown.

Opening State Street back up to cars would be a direct rejection of local families. Giving in to this loud minority of property owners is what will encourage downtown's demise, turning a vibrant community space back into a dangerous, polluted traffic corridor.

Furthermore, the recent California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) penalties against Mayor [NAME] make it entirely clear why this anti-promenade push is still being entertained. For those unaware, the FPPC found that the Mayor's campaign failed to disclose the true sources of LLC contributions, hiding the fact that they were directed by SIMA Corporation Chairman [NAME] to intentionally bypass local contribution limits.

It is a blatant conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote on or advocate for the destruction of our family promenade when he was funded by obscured, illegal campaign donations from the city's largest commercial landlord. SIMA has a direct financial stake in bringing cars back to protect vehicle-dependent commercial assets, including major downtown hubs like Victoria Court (1221- 1235 State St.), El Paseo (800 block), 500–510 State St., 1113 State St., 1129 State 238 St., 1231–1233 State St., and especially 710–720 State St., where Knell protects 23 private parking spaces directly behind the buildings.

Because his campaign was caught masking financial backing from SIMA interests, the Mayor should recuse himself from all further decisions, deliberations, and votes regarding the State Street Master Plan.

Thank you for your time, [NAME]

P (805) 961-5377 [EMAIL] 123 E. Canon Perdido St.

Santa Barbara, California, 93101 sbthp.org WEBSITE • UPCOMING EVENTS • BECOME AN ADVOCATE • VENUE RENTALS

Hello, I am a resident of downtown Santa Barbara. I have lived in the heart of downtown for the last 15 years. I walk and bike through downtown, using the state street corridor, almost daily. I often stop at a restaurant or a local store to make a purchase. My friends and family members and I attend downtown events because we can do so easily and enjoy the pleasant car free atmosphere. I use the state street loop shuttle 1-2 times per week and utilize the state street ebike stations several times a week.

Comment Hi Randy, Thank you for taking the time to respond. As always, I genuinely appreciate that you chose to engage directly rather than send a form response.

I also noticed that your reply was only to me, but I think it's worth keeping everyone involved, so I'm adding them back to the email so everyone has the same context I do. I think it's important they see both of our responses and the discourse being had. While I suspect we'll continue to disagree on the future of State Street, I do appreciate the conversation.

As I read your response, I realized our disagreement isn't just about State Street. It's about how we evaluate public policy. Again and again, I raised questions about evidence, transparency, and public confidence.

Again and again, your response relied on personal convictions or individual observations. I don't question that those are sincerely held beliefs. I just don't believe they're enough to justify decisions affecting one of the most important public spaces in our city.

Take the FPPC findings. I appreciate your acknowledgment that mistakes were made and that you describe them as "sloppiness." My concern was never whether you believe your votes have been influenced by campaign contributions. None of us can know what's in someone else's mind. My concern is public trust.

You mention the law changed between your council campaign and your mayoral campaign. Fair enough. But even accepting that explanation, I still come back to the same question: why wasn't there more transparency?

If a major downtown property owner was financially supporting my campaign while I was making decisions affecting downtown, I'd want people to know that. Not because the law required it, but because that's what builds public confidence. Transparency shouldn't end where the minimum legal requirement begins. You also mention that the FPPC took five years to resolve the matter. Respectfully, I don't find the timeline particularly relevant. Had a complaint never been filed, would these contributions have ever been publicly connected to their ultimate source? That's exactly why disclosure requirements exist.

You wrote there was "certainly no conflict of interest." I think we're talking about two different things. I never suggested you consciously vote based on campaign contributions. My concern is whether a reasonable member of the public could question the appearance of impartiality when improperly disclosed campaign support traces back to one of the largest downtown property owners with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the State Street Master Plan.

Reading your response also reminded me of something you wrote in your Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, The Return of State Street: "No data or studies are needed to confirm the obvious." I think that's where our disagreement really begins. I couldn't disagree more. Public policy shouldn't be based on what feels obvious to any one of us. It should be grounded in evidence, especially when we're talking about one of the most important and central public spaces in Santa Barbara.

230 Further in your reply to my email, you make several factual claims: that downtown business has declined because of the promenade, that seniors and residents with disabilities have been excluded, and that Coast Village Road demonstrates why reopening State Street would improve downtown. Those are all testable claims. They deserve evidence, not simply confidence.

On accessibility, I agree with you that State Street should be welcoming and accessible to seniors and residents with disabilities. We should absolutely continue improving access across all public spaces. What I don't understand is why that automatically leads to reopening State Street to private vehicle traffic. Before the promenade, State Street wasn't designed for convenient accessibility either. Outside of designated loading areas, drivers couldn't simply pull over in front of businesses. Cars crawled from signal to signal through heavy pedestrian traffic, stopping at crosswalk after crosswalk.

My memory of State Street before 2020 isn't one of effortless accessibility. It's of drivers inching along, trying to make lights, and consistent running yellow lights or reds because they were seemingly frustrated with stopping every block. That created its own safety concerns for the thousands of pedestrians crossing State Street every day. Maybe that's anecdotal. But so is the claim that seniors and people with disabilities have somehow been excluded from downtown.

I spend a great deal of time on State Street with my family. Every week I see seniors, wheelchair users, mobility scooter users, and residents with mobility limitations enjoying the promenade. That doesn't mean accessibility is perfect, but it does mean the claim that these residents have been excluded simply doesn't match what I see with my own eyes. If accessibility is the concern, let's solve accessibility. Improve the State Street Loop. Expand shuttle service. Add more ADA drop-off locations on the cross streets. Improve mobility services. Those are direct solutions without bringing thousands of private vehicles back into the heart of downtown and increasing the opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

Regarding your comparison to Coast Village Road, I feel like I've seen you or someone else from the loud minority that wants State Street reopened make this same comparison. With respect, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison. Coast Village Road is the commercial corridor serving not only the wealthiest neighborhood in Santa Barbara, but one of the wealthiest residential communities in California. It benefits from affluent Montecito residents, luxury tourism, and retailers specifically catering to that clientele. Downtown Santa Barbara serves an entirely different market.

If we're going to compare commercial districts, why not compare State Street to La Cumbre Plaza? La Cumbre has abundant parking, unrestricted vehicle access, multiple entrances, easy drop-offs, and everything advocates of reopening State Street say businesses need. Yet it has struggled for years despite all of those advantages.

If unrestricted vehicle access is really the key to commercial success, why isn't La Cumbre the city's retail success story That suggests the challenges facing downtown are far more complicated than whether cars can drive down one street.

Likewise, I continue to question the assertion that downtown's economic struggles are primarily the result of the promenade. In fact, even in your own Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, you acknowledged that downtown's business vacancies "were occurring prior to COVID." That's an important admission because it recognizes these challenges existed before the promenade. If vacancies predated the closure, it's difficult to argue that reopening State Street to cars is somehow the solution. I'm sure you've heard from countless other residents and your colleagues that multiple analyses have shown vacancy rates have actually improved since the promenade was created. Like cities across the country, downtown is navigating challenges far bigger than whether cars can drive down one street.

Finally, regarding food trucks, I appreciate your clarification that you personally didn't have the authority to ban them, but I don't need to research that period. I lived through it. I remember the hearings. I remember the debate. Do you remember Burger Bus? I certainly do. I loved their burgers.

231 I also remember food truck owners standing before the City warning that the regulations being advanced would make it economically impossible for many of them to continue operating. Burger Bus itself said those regulations made it easier to leave Santa Barbara, and they did. Whether we call that a ban or not is almost beside the point. The practical effect was that businesses many of us enjoyed disappeared. You chaired the committee advancing those regulations while owning a downtown restaurant. Whether that constituted a legal conflict isn't really my point. The concern then, much like today, was the appearance of a conflict and whether private interests were receiving greater consideration than the broader public.

The reason I keep writing these letters isn't because I enjoy debating this issue. It's because this conversation never seems to end.

Every time residents overwhelmingly come out to support and embrace the promenade, every time surveys show broad support for keeping State Street car-free, every time new evidence points toward investing in the pedestrian experience instead of reversing it, we're brought back to the same debate.

It very much feels like the preferences and portfolios of a relatively small group of commercial property owners continue to outweigh the voices of the residents and people who actually live here, and support local shops and restaurants, every day.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I only wish the same attention had been given to the questions I originally raised, because those are still the questions that matter most.

Respectfully, [NAME] On Jun 26, 2026, at 9:12 AM, [NAME] <[EMAIL]> wrote: Hi Sam, You make some interesting assertions. I'd like to chat about a couple of them. First off, the "small, greedy landlord association" is, in fact, a self-assessing BID, much like the one on Coast Village Road, who are trying to form a coalition to better maintain and promote the downtown. The Covid- based current configuration has resulted in commercial properties being re-assessed downwards and rents reduced to 1990's levels. Other areas, like CVR have rebounded nicely, and are renting at a multiple of State Street. This lack of vitality and circulation has hit not only State Street, but the cross-streets as well within the Central Business District. Business has simply declined in the past 6 years in this area.

The assertion that I "banned food trucks downtown" is ridiculous on many levels. First off, I have never had that kind of power. Second, when we approached the food-truck ordinance, there was a city-wide ban on mobile food trucks in public areas. That was unconstitutional and unfair. As was passed in Ventura, the idea was to create districts where they were permitted and others that were restricted. My participation was to legalize those areas that were formally banned. Logically, I was serving around 500 customers per day at Paradise. A food truck did not represent serious concern for my business.

Lastly, the FPPC took 5 years to review my "case" which involves a law that was modified between my council and mayoral campaigns, and represented sloppiness on my part in that I should have been aware in the change, but certainly no conflict of interest. I have never, and never will, cast a vote based on anything but what is right for the city. I made that clear to all of my donors, and have never varied.

State Street is a street, not a park, not an optional open space. It is part of the circulation of the downtown and its closure has precluded disabled and elderly with ambulatory issues from 232 participating in the downtown. My one little victory was getting one-way traffic on the 1200 block to help save the SB Symphony. Their subscribers are largely seniors from residential facilities who were dropping their subscriptions due to lack of drop-off access.

I know we will continue to disagree on the concept, but your negative assertions are unfounded and unfair.

Best Regards, [NAME] From: [NAME] <[EMAIL]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 8:48 AM To: City Clerk <[EMAIL]> Cc: Santa Barbara City Council <[EMAIL]>; State Street Master Plan <[EMAIL]> Subject: SUPPORT for Car-Free State Street & Demand for Recusal – June 30 Public Comment Dear Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, My name is Sam, and I am a downtown resident and father of two young children who enjoy walking or biking down to state street to enjoy the promenade. I am writing to express my strong, unwavering support for keeping State Street permanently closed to private vehicle traffic, and to demand immediate ethical accountability on this issue from city leadership.

Frankly, I am tired of having to repeatedly write these letters. A small, greedy landlord association simply cannot get it through their heads that the only people who want to reopen State Street to cars are themselves. They do not represent the families, locals, or community members who actually live here, use this space, and spend money downtown.

Opening State Street back up to cars would be a direct rejection of local families. Giving in to this loud minority of property owners is what will encourage downtown's demise, turning a vibrant community space back into a dangerous, polluted traffic corridor.

Furthermore, the recent California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) penalties against Mayor [NAME] make it entirely clear why this anti-promenade push is still being entertained. For those unaware, the FPPC found that the Mayor's campaign failed to disclose the true sources of LLC contributions, hiding the fact that they were directed by SIMA Corporation Chairman [NAME] to intentionally bypass local contribution limits.

It is a blatant conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote on or advocate for the destruction of our family promenade when he was funded by obscured, illegal campaign donations from the city's largest commercial landlord. SIMA has a direct financial stake in bringing cars back to protect vehicle-dependent commercial assets, including major downtown hubs like Victoria Court (1221- 1235 State St.), El Paseo (800 block), 500–510 State St., 1113 State St., 1129 State 233 St., 1231–1233 State St., and especially 710–720 State St., where Knell protects 23 private parking spaces directly behind the buildings.

Because his campaign was caught masking financial backing from SIMA interests, the Mayor should recuse himself from all further decisions, deliberations, and votes regarding the State Street Master Plan.

-Marco

Why do you guys hate nice things? Why do you want to butcher something that makes this quaint little town so charming, and sets it apart? Giving this street back to cars would change this place significantly in a bad way. It's honestly infuriating and I know many people who are not taking the time to write an email feel the same way.

If you genuinely think putting cars back on state street is a GOOD idea, you are out of touch with the things that actually matter in this little short life we have here on earth. Listen to the people who live here.

It's so rude to take this street away.

Whoever's idea this was, if it was one of you or a group of you, I hope every parking space you find actually has a motorcycle in it at the last second.

Sincerely, A human being who wants to enjoy being a human being living in a society that prioritizes people and interpersonal relationships and connections and community, not money and greed. Bye

-- [NAME] [EMAIL] 805-760-3905 UC Santa Barbara | 2017

As a Santa Barbara resident, one of the greatest gifts is a car free State Street. It allows more people to browse, shop, and casually enjoy the beauty of our incredible town. When we have guests come to town the first place we take them is State Street to walk the town, enjoy a lovely meal outside whenever possible. The feedback is always: I wish we had something similar in our town".

[NAME] Mobile: (714) 397-2130 [EMAIL]

Hello!

I am a student at UCSB and I am writing to urge the city council to keep State Street car free. Beyond the economic benefits to local businesses and savings on the cost to reimplement car infrastructure, having a car-free downtown makes it much more pleasant to be around and increases pedestrian safety and comfort.

[NAME]

Comment Hi Randy, Thank you for taking the time to respond. As always, I genuinely appreciate that you chose to engage directly rather than send a form response.

I also noticed that your reply was only to me, but I think it's worth keeping everyone involved, so I'm adding them back to the email so everyone has the same context I do. I think it's important they see both of our responses and the discourse being had. While I suspect we'll continue to disagree on the future of State Street, I do appreciate the conversation.

As I read your response, I realized our disagreement isn't just about State Street. It's about how we evaluate public policy. Again and again, I raised questions about evidence, transparency, and public confidence.

Again and again, your response relied on personal convictions or individual observations. I don't question that those are sincerely held beliefs. I just don't believe they're enough to justify decisions affecting one of the most important public spaces in our city.

Take the FPPC findings. I appreciate your acknowledgment that mistakes were made and that you describe them as "sloppiness." My concern was never whether you believe your votes have been influenced by campaign contributions. None of us can know what's in someone else's mind. My concern is public trust.

You mention the law changed between your council campaign and your mayoral campaign. Fair enough. But even accepting that explanation, I still come back to the same question: why wasn't there more transparency?

If a major downtown property owner was financially supporting my campaign while I was making decisions affecting downtown, I'd want people to know that. Not because the law required it, but because that's what builds public confidence. Transparency shouldn't end where the minimum legal requirement begins. You also mention that the FPPC took five years to resolve the matter. Respectfully, I don't find the timeline particularly relevant. Had a complaint never been filed, would these contributions have ever been publicly connected to their ultimate source? That's exactly why disclosure requirements exist.

You wrote there was "certainly no conflict of interest." I think we're talking about two different things. I never suggested you consciously vote based on campaign contributions. My concern is whether a reasonable member of the public could question the appearance of impartiality when improperly disclosed campaign support traces back to one of the largest downtown property owners with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the State Street Master Plan.

Reading your response also reminded me of something you wrote in your Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, The Return of State Street: "No data or studies are needed to confirm the obvious." I think that's where our disagreement really begins. I couldn't disagree more. Public policy shouldn't be based on what feels obvious to any one of us. It should be grounded in evidence, especially when we're talking about one of the most important and central public spaces in Santa Barbara.

240 Further in your reply to my email, you make several factual claims: that downtown business has declined because of the promenade, that seniors and residents with disabilities have been excluded, and that Coast Village Road demonstrates why reopening State Street would improve downtown. Those are all testable claims. They deserve evidence, not simply confidence.

On accessibility, I agree with you that State Street should be welcoming and accessible to seniors and residents with disabilities. We should absolutely continue improving access across all public spaces. What I don't understand is why that automatically leads to reopening State Street to private vehicle traffic. Before the promenade, State Street wasn't designed for convenient accessibility either. Outside of designated loading areas, drivers couldn't simply pull over in front of businesses. Cars crawled from signal to signal through heavy pedestrian traffic, stopping at crosswalk after crosswalk.

My memory of State Street before 2020 isn't one of effortless accessibility. It's of drivers inching along, trying to make lights, and consistent running yellow lights or reds because they were seemingly frustrated with stopping every block. That created its own safety concerns for the thousands of pedestrians crossing State Street every day. Maybe that's anecdotal. But so is the claim that seniors and people with disabilities have somehow been excluded from downtown.

I spend a great deal of time on State Street with my family. Every week I see seniors, wheelchair users, mobility scooter users, and residents with mobility limitations enjoying the promenade. That doesn't mean accessibility is perfect, but it does mean the claim that these residents have been excluded simply doesn't match what I see with my own eyes. If accessibility is the concern, let's solve accessibility. Improve the State Street Loop. Expand shuttle service. Add more ADA drop-off locations on the cross streets. Improve mobility services. Those are direct solutions without bringing thousands of private vehicles back into the heart of downtown and increasing the opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

Regarding your comparison to Coast Village Road, I feel like I've seen you or someone else from the loud minority that wants State Street reopened make this same comparison. With respect, I don't think it's a meaningful comparison. Coast Village Road is the commercial corridor serving not only the wealthiest neighborhood in Santa Barbara, but one of the wealthiest residential communities in California. It benefits from affluent Montecito residents, luxury tourism, and retailers specifically catering to that clientele. Downtown Santa Barbara serves an entirely different market.

If we're going to compare commercial districts, why not compare State Street to La Cumbre Plaza? La Cumbre has abundant parking, unrestricted vehicle access, multiple entrances, easy drop-offs, and everything advocates of reopening State Street say businesses need. Yet it has struggled for years despite all of those advantages.

If unrestricted vehicle access is really the key to commercial success, why isn't La Cumbre the city's retail success story That suggests the challenges facing downtown are far more complicated than whether cars can drive down one street.

Likewise, I continue to question the assertion that downtown's economic struggles are primarily the result of the promenade. In fact, even in your own Santa Barbara Independent op-ed, you acknowledged that downtown's business vacancies "were occurring prior to COVID." That's an important admission because it recognizes these challenges existed before the promenade. If vacancies predated the closure, it's difficult to argue that reopening State Street to cars is somehow the solution. I'm sure you've heard from countless other residents and your colleagues that multiple analyses have shown vacancy rates have actually improved since the promenade was created. Like cities across the country, downtown is navigating challenges far bigger than whether cars can drive down one street.

Finally, regarding food trucks, I appreciate your clarification that you personally didn't have the authority to ban them, but I don't need to research that period. I lived through it. I remember the hearings. I remember the debate. Do you remember Burger Bus? I certainly do. I loved their burgers.

241 I also remember food truck owners standing before the City warning that the regulations being advanced would make it economically impossible for many of them to continue operating. Burger Bus itself said those regulations made it easier to leave Santa Barbara, and they did. Whether we call that a ban or not is almost beside the point. The practical effect was that businesses many of us enjoyed disappeared. You chaired the committee advancing those regulations while owning a downtown restaurant. Whether that constituted a legal conflict isn't really my point. The concern then, much like today, was the appearance of a conflict and whether private interests were receiving greater consideration than the broader public.

The reason I keep writing these letters isn't because I enjoy debating this issue. It's because this conversation never seems to end.

Every time residents overwhelmingly come out to support and embrace the promenade, every time surveys show broad support for keeping State Street car-free, every time new evidence points toward investing in the pedestrian experience instead of reversing it, we're brought back to the same debate.

It very much feels like the preferences and portfolios of a relatively small group of commercial property owners continue to outweigh the voices of the residents and people who actually live here, and support local shops and restaurants, every day.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I only wish the same attention had been given to the questions I originally raised, because those are still the questions that matter most.

Respectfully, [NAME] On Jun 26, 2026, at 9:12 AM, [NAME] <[EMAIL]> wrote: Hi Sam, You make some interesting assertions. I'd like to chat about a couple of them. First off, the "small, greedy landlord association" is, in fact, a self-assessing BID, much like the one on Coast Village Road, who are trying to form a coalition to better maintain and promote the downtown. The Covid- based current configuration has resulted in commercial properties being re-assessed downwards and rents reduced to 1990's levels. Other areas, like CVR have rebounded nicely, and are renting at a multiple of State Street. This lack of vitality and circulation has hit not only State Street, but the cross-streets as well within the Central Business District. Business has simply declined in the past 6 years in this area.

The assertion that I "banned food trucks downtown" is ridiculous on many levels. First off, I have never had that kind of power. Second, when we approached the food-truck ordinance, there was a city-wide ban on mobile food trucks in public areas. That was unconstitutional and unfair. As was passed in Ventura, the idea was to create districts where they were permitted and others that were restricted. My participation was to legalize those areas that were formally banned. Logically, I was serving around 500 customers per day at Paradise. A food truck did not represent serious concern for my business.

Lastly, the FPPC took 5 years to review my "case" which involves a law that was modified between my council and mayoral campaigns, and represented sloppiness on my part in that I should have been aware in the change, but certainly no conflict of interest. I have never, and never will, cast a vote based on anything but what is right for the city. I made that clear to all of my donors, and have never varied.

State Street is a street, not a park, not an optional open space. It is part of the circulation of the downtown and its closure has precluded disabled and elderly with ambulatory issues from 242 participating in the downtown. My one little victory was getting one-way traffic on the 1200 block to help save the SB Symphony. Their subscribers are largely seniors from residential facilities who were dropping their subscriptions due to lack of drop-off access.

I know we will continue to disagree on the concept, but your negative assertions are unfounded and unfair.

Best Regards, [NAME] From: [NAME] <[EMAIL]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 8:48 AM To: City Clerk <[EMAIL]> Cc: Santa Barbara City Council <[EMAIL]>; State Street Master Plan <[EMAIL]> Subject: SUPPORT for Car-Free State Street & Demand for Recusal – June 30 Public Comment Dear Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, My name is Sam, and I am a downtown resident and father of two young children who enjoy walking or biking down to state street to enjoy the promenade. I am writing to express my strong, unwavering support for keeping State Street permanently closed to private vehicle traffic, and to demand immediate ethical accountability on this issue from city leadership.

Frankly, I am tired of having to repeatedly write these letters. A small, greedy landlord association simply cannot get it through their heads that the only people who want to reopen State Street to cars are themselves. They do not represent the families, locals, or community members who actually live here, use this space, and spend money downtown.

Opening State Street back up to cars would be a direct rejection of local families. Giving in to this loud minority of property owners is what will encourage downtown's demise, turning a vibrant community space back into a dangerous, polluted traffic corridor.

Furthermore, the recent California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) penalties against Mayor [NAME] make it entirely clear why this anti-promenade push is still being entertained. For those unaware, the FPPC found that the Mayor's campaign failed to disclose the true sources of LLC contributions, hiding the fact that they were directed by SIMA Corporation Chairman [NAME] to intentionally bypass local contribution limits.

It is a blatant conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote on or advocate for the destruction of our family promenade when he was funded by obscured, illegal campaign donations from the city's largest commercial landlord. SIMA has a direct financial stake in bringing cars back to protect vehicle-dependent commercial assets, including major downtown hubs like Victoria Court (1221- 1235 State St.), El Paseo (800 block), 500–510 State St., 1113 State St., 1129 State 243 St., 1231–1233 State St., and especially 710–720 State St., where Knell protects 23 private parking spaces directly behind the buildings.

Because his campaign was caught masking financial backing from SIMA interests, the Mayor should recuse himself from all further decisions, deliberations, and votes regarding the State Street Master Plan.

Dear Members of the Santa Barbara City Council, My name is Sam, and I am a downtown resident and father of two young children who enjoy walking or biking down to state street to enjoy the promenade. I am writing to express my strong, unwavering support for keeping State Street permanently closed to private vehicle traffic, and to demand immediate ethical accountability on this issue from city leadership.

Frankly, I am tired of having to repeatedly write these letters. A small, greedy landlord association simply cannot get it through their heads that the only people who want to reopen State Street to cars are themselves. They do not represent the families, locals, or community members who actually live here, use this space, and spend money downtown.

Opening State Street back up to cars would be a direct rejection of local families. Giving in to this loud minority of property owners is what will encourage downtown's demise, turning a vibrant community space back into a dangerous, polluted traffic corridor.

Furthermore, the recent California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) penalties against Mayor [NAME] make it entirely clear why this anti-promenade push is still being entertained.

For those unaware, the FPPC found that the Mayor's campaign failed to disclose the true sources of LLC contributions, hiding the fact that they were directed by SIMA Corporation Chairman [NAME] to intentionally bypass local contribution limits.

It is a blatant conflict of interest for the Mayor to vote on or advocate for the destruction of our family promenade when he was funded by obscured, illegal campaign donations from the city's largest commercial landlord. SIMA has a direct financial stake in bringing cars back to protect vehicle-dependent commercial assets, including major downtown hubs like Victoria Court (1221-1235 State St.), El Paseo (800 block), 500–510 State St., 1113 State St., 1129 State St., 1231–1233 State St., and especially 710–720 State St., where Knell protects 23 private parking spaces directly behind the buildings.

Because his campaign was caught masking financial backing from SIMA interests, the Mayor should recuse himself from all further decisions, deliberations, and votes regarding the State Street Master Plan.

Of course, I know he won't actually recuse himself. His track record of self-serving politics precedes him, lest we forget how he used his position to ban food trucks downtown years ago simply because 248 he wanted to protect his now-closed [NAME] from outside competition. He has a long history of putting narrow business special interests ahead of what the broader community actually wants.

• Better experience for visitors and locals. Santa Barbara's economy depends heavily on tourism, and a walkable promenade plays well with that — people linger, browse, and spend more when they're not dodging traffic.

• Safety. Fewer car-pedestrian conflict points, especially with the area's bar and restaurant density at night.

• 48 Identity and placemaking. Comparable to pedestrian districts in other beach/resort towns — it gives the city a distinct "destination" feel rather than just a drive-through corridor.

— [NAME] [EMAIL] khrossi.[EMAIL]/khrossi/

Hi there, I've been a resident of downtown Santa Barbara for 15 years now. I went to UCSB, now work at UCSB, and live downtown and am an active member of the community. I go to farmers market, shop and eat downtown, and my child goes to daycare here. To get around town, I walk or ride my bicycle, which is by far the best way to get around town. I leave my car at home as much as possible.

Alex

As a resident of Eastside, walking and biking through State is not only enjoyable, but it encourages me to support local businesses. Nearly every time I walk down State, I meet community members and explore new shops, something that I would not do if I had to drive and park.

When I am in downtown with my car, I actively wish I was walking or biking, as this is a faster, easier, and more enjoyable way to move about downtown. The parking situation and traffic are bad enough as is, I cannot even imagine what would happen with additional car traffic.

Remember that Santa Barbara is the American Riviera, and nearly a "Blue Zone;" the walkability and people-first design of a city has a direct impact on the physical and social health of its residents. Please continue our city's journey in the direction of health — no cars on State!!!!

Thank You, [NAME]

public health and safety, and quality of life!

Dear City Council Member, I implore you as a resident of Downtown Santa Barbara with an infant, PLEASE keep cars off of State Street! Reauthorizing title 31 is low-cost compared to the alternative which costs $700,000 according to the city report.

Santa Barbara's downtown is the most pedestrian and bike friendly city in all of Southern California, a beacon and shining example for smart urban planning. Downtown SB is loved for its wonderful quality of life as a result of it's pedestrian friendly nature.

[NAME] 1809 Cliff Street, SB 93109

[ FAO. Santa Barbara City Council As a Santa Barbara resident and someone committed to supporting equitable pathways to vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable futures, I urge you to reauthorize Title 31 to keep State Street car-free.

Pedestrianizing State Street has been a considerable improvement on all fronts — cleaner air, more foot traffic, and more shared public/social spaces, all of which have been better for local businesses.

The move promotes sustainable transportation options, and is also a net positive for the City's environmental and climate goals — supporting localization efforts, creating much safer streets with fewer cars, and fostering a vibrancy for the city that cannot be achieved by any other means.

[NAME] and [NAME] 2732 Painted Cave Road Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Dear Mayor & City Council: I'm writing to express my support for keeping State Street car-free.

The City may also have to remove the Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State & Carrillo.

With the car-free configuration of State Street, visiting and shopping there are much more pleasant experiences. It's easier to walk around. It's easier to cross the Street. It's safer to spend time and shop there. Please reauthorize Title 31.

Sincerely, Kyle -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [NAME] "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

129 ~Margaret Mead ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

City Council: Regarding Item 26, please extend State Street's car-free status until the master plan is complete.

Thank you.

[NAME] 3411 Calle Noguera Santa Barbara, 93105 805-215-0741

I urge you to protect our vibrant downtown and choose a safe, quiet, and prosperous pedestrian environment. Please vote to reauthorize Title 31.

Sincerely, [NAME] Hitchcock Neighborhood

Cheers, [NAME] of district 5

Promenade During Interim Operations June 30, 2026 Santa Barbara City Council 735 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Subject: Support for Maintaining the State Street Promenade During Interim Operations Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, [NAME] is writing in strong support of maintaining the State Street Promenade until the State Street Master Plan is implemented. We urge you to adopt staff's Recommendation A and reauthorize Title 31, allowing the promenade to remain in its current configuration while the long-term vision moves toward construction.

This item is confusing because it is separate from the Master Plan itself. The Master Plan establishes the long- term vision. This agenda item is much simpler. It asks whether Santa Barbara should continue operating the successful promenade we have today or spend hundreds of thousands of public dollars temporarily returning State Street to its 2019 configuration before rebuilding it again a few years later. Staff estimates that restoring the old roadway would cost approximately $700,000, while maintaining the promenade requires no new implementation costs.

From our perspective, this should be an easy decision.

Six years ago, closing State Street was an emergency response to an unprecedented pandemic. Today it has become one of Santa Barbara's defining public spaces. Families walk here every weekend. Thousands of people bike through it each day. Visitors regularly describe it as the highlight of downtown. Businesses have invested in it. The City has invested in it. Most importantly, the community has embraced it.

The question before Council is no longer whether a pedestrian promenade can work. It already does. The question is whether we continue improving it or spend public resources undoing six years of progress.

That matters because State Street has become the spine of Santa Barbara's bicycle network. More than one million BCycle miles have been ridden on car-free State Street alone. Our own bike survey found that many riders are not simply passing through: they are shopping, dining, meeting friends, and choosing State Street because it feels safer than surrounding streets.

Safety should not be viewed as a compromise against economic success. It is one of the reasons the promenade has become successful.

The Economic Conversation Has Changed Much of the opposition to the promenade has centered on the belief that businesses need cars to survive. Six years later, that prediction simply has not come true.

Commercial vacancy rates continue to decline and are now approaching their lowest levels since before the pandemic. Radius Real Estate reports a vacancy rate of just five to ten percent in the core promenade, with fewer vacant storefronts than in 2018. New investment continues to arrive downtown, including adaptive reuse projects, new restaurants, major employers, and more than $100 million in announced investment.

Equally important, a growing number of business owners are publicly crediting the promenade with bringing customers downtown.

The recent formation of Businesses for State Street reinforces this point. This group came together quickly over the past few weeks, with the help of [NAME] and [NAME], owner of Wildcat Lounge. For years, some have argued that reopening State Street to cars is what businesses want. That is no longer a credible claim. Businesses for State Street was created by downtown merchants who believe exactly the opposite. For years, they have felt left out of the State Street conversation, but with the vote on Title 31 coming up quickly, they decided to organize. Their message is straightforward: State Street should continue evolving into a safer, more vibrant destination guided by data, public safety, and the people who use it every day.

Their own survey found that 75 percent of State Street businesses they were able to contact do not want private cars to return. That closely mirrors [NAME] earlier business survey, which reached the same conclusion. Business owners are not speaking with one voice, but many of those operating successful businesses on State Street today are asking the City to move forward—not backward.

In just under two weeks, the Businesses for State Street Instagram has gained almost 200 followers and thousands of likes.

4 Ultimately, people do not visit great downtowns because they can drive through them. They visit because they want to spend time there.

That is exactly what the promenade encourages.

The staff report notes that during the past six years police officers, firefighters, and paramedics have successfully responded to commercial fires, medical emergencies, violent crimes, and many other incidents throughout the promenade.

That history deserves significant weight.

Emergency responders already access State Street when needed. The promenade has never been inaccessible.

The question is not whether emergency vehicles can reach incidents—it is whether hypothetical travel time estimates justify fundamentally changing one of the city's safest and most successful public spaces.

We also encourage Council to remember the other side of the safety equation. Reintroducing private vehicles may improve modeled emergency response times in certain scenarios, but it also reintroduces the everyday crash risks that existed before 2020. Staff explicitly acknowledges that returning cars to State Street would increase opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle collisions. We believe that emergency response times could actually increase, as emergency vehicles could get stuck behind car traffic.

Every policy choice involves tradeoffs. We should not focus solely on theoretical emergency response times while overlooking the demonstrated reduction in serious crashes that has accompanied the removal of private automobiles.

[NAME] the Course Strong Towns has long advocated for incremental, fiscally responsible investment. This agenda item presents a straightforward choice.

Council has already directed staff to complete a Master Plan centered around a pedestrian-oriented State Street. The City has invested years of public outreach, technical analysis, pilot projects, and community engagement. Businesses have made decisions based on that direction. Residents have adjusted to it. New organizations like Businesses for State Street have formed around it.

Now the question is whether Santa Barbara should spend roughly $700,000 restoring a temporary roadway configuration that everyone understands would itself be temporary.

5 We do not believe that is a prudent use of public funds.

In addition to the direct construction costs, reopening State Street would require removing or relocating existing improvements, modifying bike share facilities, and potentially affecting the City's Bloomberg-funded asphalt art installation before the grant period expires.

At a time when Santa Barbara faces many competing priorities, spending scarce resources to reverse course (only to rebuild the promenade again later) does not reflect sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The Community Has Spoken Throughout this process, [NAME] has tried to listen as much as we advocate.

Over the past several months, our volunteers have spent countless hours talking with residents, visitors, and business owners while gathering signatures to support a permanent car-free State Street. Those conversations have produced one overwhelming takeaway: most people are surprised this debate is still happening.

Today, more than 3,100 people (1,000 in-person signatures and over 2,100 digital signatures) have signed our petition supporting a car-free State Street, and that number continues to grow. Just as important as the number itself are the conversations behind it. Parents appreciate having a place where their children can safely walk and ride bicycles. Older adults describe a calmer, more accessible downtown. Business owners tell us people stay longer, shop more, and enjoy spending time on State Street.

Those stories reinforce what broader public outreach has consistently shown. The City's own survey found that 79 percent of respondents supported keeping State Street closed to private vehicles. Our business survey found that 75 percent of surveyed businesses do not want cars to return. The consensus may not be unanimous, but it is remarkably consistent.

Council has spent years asking the community what it wants for State Street.

The community has answered.

Keep Moving Forward The most successful cities do not thrive because they cling to the past. They succeed because they build upon what works.

The State Street Promenade is not perfect. We still need better bicycle calming design, additional shade, more seating, improved landscaping, accessible transportation options, cleaner public spaces, more housing, and continued investment in downtown.

Those are arguments for improving the promenade—not abandoning it.

[NAME] respectfully asks the Council to:  Adopt staff's Recommendation A and reauthorize Title 31.

 Maintain the State Street Promenade until the Master Plan is constructed.

 Continue investing in practical interim improvements that advance the long-term vision.

 Reject spending public funds to temporarily restore the 2019 street configuration.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of downtown Santa Barbara.

Six years ago, the promenade began as an emergency response.

Today, it has become the heart of our downtown.

6 Let's continue building on that success instead of spending public money trying to recreate a street we have already chosen to leave behind.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] [NAME], Local Conversation Leader And the 500+ members of [NAME]

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, Keep State Street car-free. I am writing as a small business owner who lives and works in downtown Santa Barbara' District 6 and as someone who rides and walks State Street nearly every day. I have commuted downtown by bike on State Street for the past several years, and I can say plainly: I never would have done that consistently before the closure.

Small businesses are not "against closure". A vocal minority would have the Council believe that small businesses need cars back. That claim does not match the evidence.

The City's visioning outreach received feedback from nearly 6,000 people, and 79% of 64 survey respondents preferred no cars on State Street. Strong Towns Santa Barbara reported that, in its survey of more than 40 businesses, 75% did not want cars to return, with many reporting increased foot traffic and sales. The Santa Barbara Independent also reported that vacancies along State Street between Gutierrez and Sola declined from 48 available storefronts in Q4 2020 to about 30, roughly back to mid-2019 levels.

People want a promenade. The strongest public input points in the same direction: residents, many business owners, and daily users of downtown want State Street to remain people-centered. From my own experience, visitors respond to that same energy.

[NAME] 31. Please keep State Street closed to cars, continue the promenade, and move quickly from temporary compromise to permanent civic asset.

Thank you for your time and for your work on this issue.

Sincerely, John

Keep state street car free, and let more people get the exercise they need while supporting our local commerce.

Best regards, [NAME]

Sincerely, Elizabeth Concerned citizen

Respectfully, [NAME] (she/her) Executive Director, MOVE Santa Barbara County Mail: P.O. Box 92047, Santa Barbara, CA 93190 Office: 508 E [NAME], Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Text: 503-975-0240 Voicemail: 805.845.8955 x 1

[ Please do not let Title 31 expire. [NAME] car free.

Don't jeopardize the new vitality of our downtown.

Make the democratic and logical choice!

Maripaula

Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing in support of reauthorizing the car-free ordinance for State Street (Item 26).

My family and I rely on and enjoy State Street as it is today. We love being able to walk, scooter, and bike down the street after going to the library or out to a restaurant. These experiences simply wouldn't be possible with cars running through the street, and they're a big part of why we choose to spend time downtown.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully, [NAME] 802 W Micheltorena St Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Thank you for your consideration, 79 [NAME] Senior Manager, Climate & Insights She/Her/Hers (Why I use pronouns) [EMAIL] ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ ReFED | Rethinking Food Waste LinkedIn · Instagram · ReFED.org ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

please!

Dear City Council— As I was biking under the 101 on State last night one of the cruiser muscle cars gunned their engine deafeningly in the echoing space.

As I crossed Carrillo, a different car violently gunned what sounded like a muffler-less engine, and peeled out around the corner, tires shrieking.

The contrast with car-free State Street really made me appreciate the quiet, absence of exhaust, and relief from the mortal danger of being run over by a several thousand pound speeding car.

I look forward to the taming of speeding bikes, so State is once again a place where the tiniest of local residents can learn to ride a bike, as was the case in the earlier configurations.

The city's own survey found overwhelming support for keeping State Street car-free, with 79 percent of the 5,700 respondents saying NO to cars. Thousands of residents have expressed support for a permanent promenade through written and spoken public comments.

Please keep State Street Car-Free!

Thank you, -- [NAME] Santa Barbara Homeowner

Dear Mayor, Clerk, and SB Council Members, I urge you to reauthorize Title 31 and maintain the current configuration of State Street while the Draft State Street Master Plan moves through the adoption process later this summer.

The City's own staff report makes clear that reauthorizing Title 31 comes at no additional cost. By contrast, allowing it to expire would require an estimated $700,000 simply to remove the current configuration and restore vehicle lanes—an unnecessary expense for a temporary change.

Reopening State Street to cars would also create additional complications. The Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State and Carrillo may need to be removed, even though the grant requires it to remain in place for two years. That could mean relocating and repainting the artwork or repaying grant funds.

This is a practical, low-cost, no-regrets decision. Reauthorizing Title 31 simply preserves the current conditions while the Master Plan—whose overall concept the Council has already supported—continues through the public process toward adoption.

Thank you for your consideration and for supporting a thoughtful, fiscally responsible path forward.

Sincerely, [NAME]

I recognize there are challenges that still need to be addressed, including homelessness, enforcement of reckless e-bike and e-moto riders, and continued activation of the corridor. However, I do not believe reopening State Street to vehicle traffic will solve any of those issues.

I encourage the Council to continue investing in and improving the promenade rather than reversing the progress that has been made over the past six years.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering my perspective.

[NAME] O'Keefe Medical Solutions Cell 805-822-9516 [EMAIL] Sent from my iPhone Please excuse typos!

keep state street car free!

• More usable space for businesses. Restaurants and shops can spread into the street with outdoor seating and displays, which tends to boost foot traffic and sales for hospitality-type businesses.

— [NAME] [EMAIL] khrossi.[EMAIL]/khrossi/

Dear Council and Clerk, I want to submit my public comment for tomorrow's city hall meeting, specifically on item 26.

Please do not continue to cave to the landlord lobby that demands that the issue of cars on state street continues to top of mind, because potential car traffic is a stupid, archaic measurement of property worth. Although they could change the way property value is measured and could tie it to reality, they continue to live in an alternative universe where a property that is vacant because of an outrageous expectation of rent is more valuable than a property that is filled at a rate that businesses can reasonably sustain.

As a reminder, state street is still accessible by cross streets at all hours of the day. On March 27th, a drunk Montecito man crashed his car, hitting 2 vehicles and a person on state street and cota. This further exemplifies the need to keep state street closed and displays how accessible state street still is to vehicle traffic.

Parking garages are not accessible via state street and state street is still accessible by cross streets at all hours of the day. State St does not need to be opened up. State Street is the spine of the City's bike network and reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and new cyclists are a lot less likely to use.

Lastly, if cars come back, the City may have to remove the Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State & Carrillo. The grant requires the art to stay in place for two years, so that likely means repainting it elsewhere or repaying the grant money.

Thank you for your time and for reading my public comment.

Best, [NAME]

Attention City Council Members, Please allow Title 31 to expire and return State Street to its pre Covid configuration, with traffic lanes in both directions for vehicles.

Include a turn out lane for emergency vehicles, commercial vehicles, pick-up drop-off for passengers including handicapped for easier access store fronts.

All bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters and skateboards should ride in the street.

Keep sidewalks safe for pedestrians.

[NAME]

All the best, [NAME]

Please allow Title 31 to expire and return State Street to its pre Covid configuration, with traffic lanes in both directions for vehicles.

Include a turn out lane for emergency vehicles, commercial vehicles, pick-up drop-off for passengers including handicapped for easier access to store fronts.

All bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters and skateboards should ride in the street.

Keep sidewalks safe for pedestrians.

[NAME]

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I'm writing to express my strong support for keeping State Street closed to cars and open to pedestrians, bikes, families, visitors, and local businesses.

The car-free State Street has become one of the best parts of downtown Santa Barbara. It makes our downtown feel more welcoming, vibrant, safe, and uniquely Santa Barbara. As someone who lives, works, shops, eats, and spends time in our community, I believe this has been a major improvement for both residents and businesses.

A pedestrian- and bike-friendly State Street encourages people to slow down, explore, visit local shops, eat at restaurants, meet friends, and spend more time downtown. That is good for business, and it is good for the character and health of the community. Instead of State Street being treated primarily as a roadway, it has become a shared public space where people actually want to gather.

I understand that there are details to improve, including accessibility, emergency access, design consistency, deliveries, maintenance, and making the space feel beautiful and intentional. But those are reasons to keep improving the promenade, not reasons to reopen State Street to cars. The right path forward is to invest in a thoughtful, safe, well-designed downtown corridor that prioritizes people first.

Sincerely, [NAME]

[ Hello sb city council, I am in favor of keeping State St closed to car traffic.

I was just on State St yesterday while I charged my electric vehicle in Lot 11 for a couple hours and walked a foster dog I got from the county shelter for the day. We dined on sandwiches from SB Pizzahouse for The Independent Sandwich Week and enjoyed the company of many families enjoying lunch and watching sports on the wide patio which spanned the whole sidewalk.

Please vote to keep State St closed to cars!

[NAME] 709 Bond Ave, 93103

I hope Council recognizes that the answer is not to open State St to cars, and to explore other options that can help businesses and continue to promote community. Thank you.

[NAME] [EMAIL] (562) 569-9070 

Thanks!

[NAME] Santa Barbara

Sincerely, [NAME]

-Marco

[NAME] Mayor and City Council, I'm writing in support of Item 26 to urge you to reauthorize Title 31 and keep State Street Car-free. I love State Street, and I say that as someone who does not drive. I grew up in New York City, where getting around on foot is simply how life works, and being in a walkable place is vital to me. Santa Barbara has built exactly that on State Street. That walkability is a big part of what made me feel welcomed here into the community. I'm also a PhD student researching how we make cities more walkable and liveable, and State Street is one of the top examples I point to in my own work. When I explain why features like outdoor dining, open-air markets, and spaces for community gathering matter, this is the place I describe. It isn't hypothetical for me, this is a concrete example of a successful walkable feature in a city, it's right here. And State Street does so much more than just look nice.

A car-free street keeps these areas open for community, for the small, ordinary moments that matter: passing a neighbor and stopping to talk, running into people, having room to just be around each other.

Thank you so much for your time, and for the work you're doing on the future of State Street.

Sincerely, [NAME] of the 93117

 [NAME] and the expanded sidewalk dining on the 500 block are active pilot programs right now, and both depend on State Street staying car- free to keep running.

 State Street is the spine of the City's bike network. Reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and new cyclists are a lot less likely to use.

 Businesses along the corridor have already reported higher revenue since the street went car-free. Reverting now risks undoing that momentum right when downtown is trying to bounce back.

This is a low-cost, no-regrets decision: Title 31 only needs reauthorizing in the interim, while the full Master Plan (which Council already voted to support the concept of on April 28) continues toward adoption later this summer.

Thank you, [NAME]

Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, I'm writing to urge you to reauthorize Title 31 and keep State Street car-free.

 Our bike network. State Street anchors the City's bike routes. Reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and newer cyclists are far less likely to use.

 Local businesses. Businesses (Wildcat Lounge, [NAME], [NAME], and plenty others) along the corridor have reported higher revenue since the street went car-free. Reversing course now risks undoing that momentum.

I hope the Council will vote to keep State Street the vibrant, car-free heart of downtown that residents and visitors alike have come to love.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME]

 [NAME] and the expanded sidewalk dining on the 500 block are active pilot programs right now, and both depend on State Street staying car- free to keep running.

 State Street is the spine of the City's bike network. Reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and new cyclists are a lot less likely to use.

 Businesses along the corridor have already reported higher revenue since the street went car-free. Reverting now risks undoing that momentum right when downtown is trying to bounce back.

Dear Mayor & City Council: I'm writing to express my support for keeping State Street car-free.

While I don't live in the City of Santa Barbara, I visit frequently, especially State Street. I often drive, and sometimes I visit on my bike. Either way, having this section of State Street closed to cars makes visiting a more pleasant experience. To re-introduce cars to State Street would still not increase parking, and it would not increase accessibility to the businesses in this area. What it would do is make this area less safe for all and a less desirable place to visit.

With the car-free configuration of State Street, visiting and shopping there are much more pleasant experiences. It's easier to walk around. It's easier to cross the Street. It's safer to spend time and shop there. Please reauthorize Title 31.

Sincerely, Kyle -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [NAME] "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

129 ~Margaret Mead ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good morning!

My request here is simple... please reauthorize Title 31 and keep State Street car-free.

No solution will satisfy everyone, but the direction is clear. Build on what's working instead of reopening old debates. Improve the promenade. Add shade, seating, landscaping, better bike facilities, and transit.

Thanks, Andy 2908 Ventura Drive, Santa Barbara CA 93105 2063903870

Six years ago, closing State Street was an emergency response to an unprecedented pandemic. Today it has become one of Santa Barbara's defining public spaces. Families walk here every weekend. Thousands of people bike through it each day. Visitors regularly describe it as the highlight of downtown. Businesses have invested in it. The City has invested in it. Most importantly, the community has embraced it.

The question before Council is no longer whether a pedestrian promenade can work. It already does. The question is whether we continue improving it or spend public resources undoing six years of progress.

We would first like to thank City staff for the thoughtful work that has gone into both the Master Plan and the interim improvements. The Loop shuttle, new landscaping, public art, pedlets, and e-bike safety efforts demonstrate that the City has not simply maintained the promenade, it has continued making it better 3 while gathering valuable information for the permanent design. This is exactly how successful cities approach transformational projects: by testing ideas, learning from them, and steadily improving over time. These interim projects are already helping shape a better State Street.

Safety should not be viewed as a compromise against economic success. It is one of the reasons the promenade has become successful.

The Economic Conversation Has Changed Much of the opposition to the promenade has centered on the belief that businesses need cars to survive. Six years later, that prediction simply has not come true.

Commercial vacancy rates continue to decline and are now approaching their lowest levels since before the pandemic. Radius Real Estate reports a vacancy rate of just five to ten percent in the core promenade, with fewer vacant storefronts than in 2018. New investment continues to arrive downtown, including adaptive reuse projects, new restaurants, major employers, and more than $100 million in announced investment.

Equally important, a growing number of business owners are publicly crediting the promenade with bringing customers downtown.

The recent formation of Businesses for State Street reinforces this point. This group came together quickly over the past few weeks, with the help of [NAME] and [NAME], owner of Wildcat Lounge. For years, some have argued that reopening State Street to cars is what businesses want. That is no longer a credible claim. Businesses for State Street was created by downtown merchants who believe exactly the opposite. For years, they have felt left out of the State Street conversation, but with the vote on Title 31 coming up quickly, they decided to organize. Their message is straightforward: State Street should continue evolving into a safer, more vibrant destination guided by data, public safety, and the people who use it every day.

Their own survey found that 75 percent of State Street businesses they were able to contact do not want private cars to return. That closely mirrors [NAME] earlier business survey, which reached the same conclusion. Business owners are not speaking with one voice, but many of those operating successful businesses on State Street today are asking the City to move forward—not backward.

In just under two weeks, the Businesses for State Street Instagram has gained almost 200 followers and thousands of likes.

4 Ultimately, people do not visit great downtowns because they can drive through them. They visit because they want to spend time there.

That is exactly what the promenade encourages.

Emergency Response: Real Experience Should Carry More Weight Than Hypothetical Modeling We appreciate the City's effort to better understand emergency access on State Street, and we recognize that emergency response is a legitimate concern. Public safety should always come first.

However, we encourage the Council to view the Fehr & Peers analysis in its proper context. The study is not an evaluation of six years of actual emergency operations on the promenade. It is a model built around hypothetical "worst-case" scenarios. Staff explains that the analysis assumes incidents occur at the midpoint of each block (the maximum possible distance from an intersection) and further assumes that responders either cannot drive directly onto the promenade (which they can) and instead walk from the nearest cross street, or that emergency vehicles travel through the promenade at just three miles per hour.

Those assumptions may be appropriate for testing theoretical limits, but they should not outweigh six years of real-world experience.

The staff report notes that during the past six years police officers, firefighters, and paramedics have successfully responded to commercial fires, medical emergencies, violent crimes, and many other incidents throughout the promenade.

That history deserves significant weight.

Emergency responders already access State Street when needed. The promenade has never been inaccessible.

The question is not whether emergency vehicles can reach incidents—it is whether hypothetical travel time estimates justify fundamentally changing one of the city's safest and most successful public spaces.

We also encourage Council to remember the other side of the safety equation. Reintroducing private vehicles may improve modeled emergency response times in certain scenarios, but it also reintroduces the everyday crash risks that existed before 2020. Staff explicitly acknowledges that returning cars to State Street would increase opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle collisions. We believe that emergency response times could actually increase, as emergency vehicles could get stuck behind car traffic.

Every policy choice involves tradeoffs. We should not focus solely on theoretical emergency response times while overlooking the demonstrated reduction in serious crashes that has accompanied the removal of private automobiles.

[NAME] the Course Strong Towns has long advocated for incremental, fiscally responsible investment. This agenda item presents a straightforward choice.

Council has already directed staff to complete a Master Plan centered around a pedestrian-oriented State Street. The City has invested years of public outreach, technical analysis, pilot projects, and community engagement. Businesses have made decisions based on that direction. Residents have adjusted to it. New organizations like Businesses for State Street have formed around it.

Now the question is whether Santa Barbara should spend roughly $700,000 restoring a temporary roadway configuration that everyone understands would itself be temporary.

5 We do not believe that is a prudent use of public funds.

In addition to the direct construction costs, reopening State Street would require removing or relocating existing improvements, modifying bike share facilities, and potentially affecting the City's Bloomberg-funded asphalt art installation before the grant period expires.

At a time when Santa Barbara faces many competing priorities, spending scarce resources to reverse course (only to rebuild the promenade again later) does not reflect sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The Community Has Spoken Throughout this process, [NAME] has tried to listen as much as we advocate.

Over the past several months, our volunteers have spent countless hours talking with residents, visitors, and business owners while gathering signatures to support a permanent car-free State Street. Those conversations have produced one overwhelming takeaway: most people are surprised this debate is still happening.

Today, more than 3,100 people (1,000 in-person signatures and over 2,100 digital signatures) have signed our petition supporting a car-free State Street, and that number continues to grow. Just as important as the number itself are the conversations behind it. Parents appreciate having a place where their children can safely walk and ride bicycles. Older adults describe a calmer, more accessible downtown. Business owners tell us people stay longer, shop more, and enjoy spending time on State Street.

Those stories reinforce what broader public outreach has consistently shown. The City's own survey found that 79 percent of respondents supported keeping State Street closed to private vehicles. Our business survey found that 75 percent of surveyed businesses do not want cars to return. The consensus may not be unanimous, but it is remarkably consistent.

Council has spent years asking the community what it wants for State Street.

The community has answered.

Keep Moving Forward The most successful cities do not thrive because they cling to the past. They succeed because they build upon what works.

The State Street Promenade is not perfect. We still need better bicycle calming design, additional shade, more seating, improved landscaping, accessible transportation options, cleaner public spaces, more housing, and continued investment in downtown.

Those are arguments for improving the promenade—not abandoning it.

[NAME] respectfully asks the Council to:  Adopt staff's Recommendation A and reauthorize Title 31.

 Maintain the State Street Promenade until the Master Plan is constructed.

 Continue investing in practical interim improvements that advance the long-term vision.

 Reject spending public funds to temporarily restore the 2019 street configuration.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of downtown Santa Barbara.

Six years ago, the promenade began as an emergency response.

Today, it has become the heart of our downtown.

6 Let's continue building on that success instead of spending public money trying to recreate a street we have already chosen to leave behind.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely, [NAME] [NAME], Local Conversation Leader And the 500+ members of [NAME]

[NAME] 6

Good afternoon!

My request here is simple... please reauthorize Title 31 and keep State Street car-free.

No solution will satisfy everyone, but the direction is clear. Build on what's working instead of reopening old debates. Improve the promenade. Add shade, seating, landscaping, better bike facilities, and transit.

Make it even better. Don't spend time and taxpayer money trying to turn the clock back.

Please reauthorize Title 31 and give State Street, and the people who depend on it, the certainty they deserve.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks, Patti 2908 Ventura Drive, Santa Barbara CA 93105 805 895 0177

Hi I'm a long-term resident of Anacapa Street, just a block from State.

If businesses want to have cars on State Street they can go to Upper State Street. Or Goleta, or really any other street in Santa Barbara and/or America. The Car-Free area of State Street isn't unique or special to just those blocks of State Street, but all of Santa Barbara County. It's a treasure not just for Santa Barbara, but also the people who come to visit us from all around the world. It is literally an international best-practice. We wouldn't have received a grant from one of the most prestigious funders in the world, Bloomberg Philanthropies, if it wasn't. We should be celebrating and praising this incredible gem rather than constantly be fighting for its existence. People who like to have air-pollution free, vibrant, quiet, safe, open to people streets also deserve a small, small sliver of our city.

Businesses and residents who don't like bicycles or tourists or pedestrians or children or people in walkers or wheelchairs or skateboarders or outdoor seating can literally move any other place in the city.

There are thousands and thousands of blocks with busy thoroughfares, speeding cars, inadequate street-side parking and awkward inadequate off-street parking. A car-free State Street isn't responsible for extremely high leasing/ rentals fees that make running a business so difficult. That should be negotiated with landlords and banks, so please leave the rest of out of it. A lack of adequate parking exists literally everywhere across the area, it's even a complaint at giant box stores with giant oceans of parking like Costco.

Thank you, [NAME] 

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I urge you to extend Title 31 and maintain the current car-free configuration of State Street while the State Street Master Plan moves through its final stages of review.

From both a financial and practical standpoint, there is little benefit to allowing Title 31 to lapse. The City has already invested in the existing configuration, and dismantling it now would require a significant expenditure—estimated at approximately $700,000— only to create another temporary condition before a long-term plan is adopted.

Keeping State Street as it is also protects several important public investments. The Bloomberg-funded public art installation, the Downtown–Waterfront [NAME], and the expanded outdoor dining program are all tied to the current street design. Interrupting these successful initiatives now could create unnecessary costs, operational challenges, and uncertainty for businesses and the community.

State Street has become much more than a roadway. It is a central pedestrian destination, a vital bicycle connection, and a gathering place that serves residents and visitors alike.

Returning vehicle traffic would diminish its accessibility for cyclists, families, older adults, and others who have come to enjoy a safer, more welcoming downtown environment.

5 Thank you for your consideration, [NAME] from my iPhone

Hi there, I am providing my public comment for Item 26 for Tuesday's 6/30 council meeting.

I strongly urge city council to re-authorize title 31 and keep State Street car-free.

I am a downtown resident and have lived downtown for many years. State Street is more pleasant, vibrant, and profitable without cars.

3. Having cars on State risks never implementing the true Master Plan and adds an additional hurdle (re-closing to cars) to actually make the master plan a reality. Don't put up unnecessary roadblocks.

4. There is no compelling reason that cars need to be on State Street. The best argument that folks make is that they want to "cruise" down State again. This is inane. Cars do not traffic business, buy goods, or eat at restaurants. People do these things and they do so in much greater numbers when they are on bike or foot.

Please make the sane and positive choice to keep cars off State Street.

PS - this message was sent to several emails to ensure it reaches the right recipients.

Thank you, [NAME] 15+ year downtown Santa Barbara resident

It would also reverse hard-won momentum. The closure has become a valuable public space, supporting foot traffic, bicycling, outdoor dining, and a downtown people actively choose to spend time in.

Returning to cars temporarily risks dampening the very vibrancy the Master Plan is meant to make permanent.

And honestly, it's frustrating that a decision this sound keeps having to be re-defended. The car-free Promenade has proven its value year after year, yet each interim step seems to reopen the question. I'd ask the Council to give this corridor the stability it has earned, so residents like me aren't repeatedly called to protect progress the community already embraced.

Please keep the Promenade as-is and reauthorize Title 31 until the permanent design is in place. Thank you for your work on this.

Sincerely, [NAME] 821 Laguna Street, Unit D, Santa Barbara, CA 93101

For example, Radius Commercial Group's April 2026 Q1 report (p. 6) concludes that "vacancy along State Street between Gutierrez and Sola Streets (400– 1300 blocks) has declined significantly. After peaking at 48 available storefronts in Q4 2020 [due to COVID], vacancies have returned to approximately 30—on par with mid-2019 [pre-COVID] levels.

Hayes Commercial Group year-end report tracks vacancies since 2018. Its data show a similar pattern (asreported in Molina, 2025; Strong Towns, 2024).

The cause of vacancies long predate the State Street closure. They reflect national changes in retailing, incluidng the rise in on-line shopping. The City has done a heroic job of addressing these changes. The Master Plan, currerntly under discussion and review, envisions a partially open, partially closed State Street Promenade. Staff will be refining the Plan, based on extensive feedback, late this summer. It makes absolutely no sense – from either an economic or planning standpoint – to reopen State Street while the final Plan is being prepared for City Council discussion and a final vote.

CLUE-SB urges you to reauthorize Title 31 and let the process proceed as planned.

/s/ [NAME] /s/ Laurence Severance

Cars are noxious, dangerous, and loud. Reintroducing them, even temporarily, will have costs, even beyond the $700,000 projected. A major pollution from automobiles is PM 2.5, a pollutant that can cause decreased cognition [1], heart and pulmonary disease [2], and is an acute hazard to sensitive groups [3].

Please reauthorize and keep cars OFF OF STATE STREET!

Best, [NAME] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-70646-6 [2] https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm [3] https://www.epa.gov/pmcourse/patient-exposure-and-air-quality-index "Over the long term, the future is decided by optimists. To be an optimist you don't have to ignore all the many problems we create; you just have to imagine improving our capacity to solve problems." - [NAME]

This change has made downtown safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, which is part of the city's commitment to reduce traffic accidents. It also brings out people who were not on state before. State in 2019 was dead! Safety also comes with eyes on the streets and that is people walking and biking, not driving.

It costs nothing at this point to keep it car-free. A lot has been invested in a car-free State that would be tax-payer funds wasted, and on top of that it would cost hundreds of thousands to bring cars back.

Don't jeopardize the new vitality of our downtown.

Make the democratic and logical choice!

Maripaula

In the past 5 years countless tourists have enjoyed the relaxed feeling of strolling & cycling State Street. The word has doubtless spread throughout the world and certainly to our neighbors in CA, bringing in vitality and revenue to the City.

So why break what works, and have the nerve to charge taxpayers for the reversal?

There are plenty of well situated parking garages up and down State and also Anacapa for easy access to those who insist on driving.

There is no excuse for this asinine proposal to allow cars on State.

Sincerely, [NAME]

The majority of Santa Barbarans want no cars on State so let's keep it that way!

Best, [NAME]

Hello Mayor and City Council Members, I am submitting these comments to express my strong SUPPORT for a car-free State Street. I submitted comments to this point recently during the State Street Master Plan update. State Street has become a vibrant and welcoming place since the street was closed to vehicular traffic in 2020. I shop every week at the Tuesday Market and am energized by the number of people who are out and about downtown on a Tuesday evening.

[NAME] Spring Street, Santa Barbara 93103

All bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters and skateboards should ride in the street.

Keep sidewalks safe for pedestrians.

Return mid-block crosswalks for pedestrians.

Please enforce all traffic rules for all modes of transportation.

Keep State Street Safe For All!

[NAME]

Dear Santa Barbara City Council, I am writing to express my personal opinion as a local business owner who has operated a walking tour company in downtown Santa Barbara for the past 10 years.

I strongly encourage the City to explore safer alternatives for bicycle traffic while preserving the pedestrian nature of State Street.

Please keep State Street closed to cars. I believe the pedestrian promenade has become one of Santa Barbara's greatest assets and continues to enhance both our local quality of life and our visitor economy.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, 62 [NAME], Totally Cali Tours of Santa Barbara Totally Cali Tours of Santa Barbara (805)403-6500

Website www.katbleudesign.com Instagram [HANDLE] To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

"Sweet Disposition", 2025

Dear Mayor and Council members, One wonders if Council members have time to read all of these comments. At times, it must be overwhelming. I appreciate the consideration each of you brings to the conversation.

Other cities have shown this can work. Boulder's Pearl Street Mall converted from a vehicle street into a pedestrian mall in 1977, is still described by the City of Boulder as a nationally renowned public space and major attraction nearly fifty years later. The American Planning Association similarly recognizes Pearl Street as an example of the social and economic vitality that can come from a focused shift toward pedestrian-only space.

The City has already done the hard work: years of public engagement, planning, technical review, and refinement. The direction is clear. State Street should be a people-first public space, with access managed for emergency vehicles, deliveries, ADA needs, maintenance, bicycles, and pedestrians.

Reopening the street to cars now, even temporarily, would spend public money to move backward just as the long-term plan is coming into focus.

Please reauthorize the current car-free configuration, keep the promenade in place, and focus the City's energy on making it better: safer bicycle behavior, better accessibility, better signage, cleaner and more consistent outdoor dining, more shade, more seating, and a stronger mix of local businesses and events.

Sincerely, [NAME] 147 Lower West Side

[NAME] 1014 Santa Barbara St. [EMAIL]

Dear Mayor Rouse and Members of Council: In reference to Item 26, I am writing in favor of maintaining State Street downtown as a car-free zone! As the city enables the building of new housing and as enterprises such as Yardi add office jobs, the car-free zone will help with downtown revival.

We are all painfully aware that activity has been shrinking in downtown Santa Barbara, as it has shrunk even more severely in other cities. But the shrinkage likely would have been worse had we not established the car-free zone. The absence of cars on State Street helps to bring people downtown to stroll, to shop, to visit galleries and museums, to attend concerts, and to dine.

Across the nation for many years, retail commerce has declined, but some cities have bounced back.

I do agree there is room for improvement and I think the golf cart shuttle program should be expanded but puƫng the cars back would just turn State st into every other boring cookie cutter street in America, it would lose it's charm.

Best, [NAME] Goleta Resident and frequent State St visitor PS, Disneyland also has no cars and everyone loves it there

Hello!

Thank you for your consideration!

[NAME]

Dear City Council Members.

Here is my response to The State Street conundrum.

Taking into the study you posted, about City fire, EMTs, PD- first responders, I would Like to see a one lane north to the beach for cars back on State Street. Responders could use the other portion of the streetmaybe marked for that in some way.

I have always felt SB needed pretty hanging baskets of flowers like Europe or Canada. They could even be mixed with succulents. As a landscape designer, this style was my specialty. If you think about the feel of Petersen's, La Arcada Plaza, at Figuroa and State Street, they have captured the feeling of the theme of SB pretty well. The planter displays, wall fountains, hanging baskets---charm. SB needs to enhance its beauty and not try to be something it isn't with pop art, etc So there is my vote. I can easily envision it, can you?

188 189 -- Barnesy [NAME] "There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you."

[NAME]

Sent from my iPhone

Hello Council members, I'm writing to urge you to keep State Street car free now and into the future. All the data available to us shows that making State Street pedestrian-only has improved public safety and increased business engagement in that corridor.

I really hope you will listen to the voices of the people who live and work here and keep State Street open to pedestrians and closed to cars.

Thank you, [NAME]

The mockups look like a utpoian version of State Street I would be thrilled to live in.

Please reauthorize title 31.

Love, Steven

- [NAME]

Think it's "bad for business"? Think of solutions. Businesses were closing long before State St did.

Categorically allergic to change? Too bad. Grow up.

Having grown up here, I can assure anyone that having a clean, fresh-air State St is long overdue.

Thank you.

[NAME] Santa Barbara

Hi All — I'm been a full time resident of SB for almost 50 years and even before that visited and shopped on State Street as a young child growing up in Ventura County. I remember when there was parking on State St. So I've lived through a few changes and economic ups and downs. But hey I still ride a bike and shop, but am not drawn to downtown too much to eat in over-priced restaurants or shop because what I like isn't there anymore (clothes stores like Nordstrom & Macys, Barnes and Noble, Sur La Table- and oh how I wish for a Crate and Barrell for more home furnishing options). Plus State has turned into more of a recreational bike path with idiot unsafe riders of all types and ages. It was never like this before, having vehicle traffic flow between lights and intersections provided a control of sorts that also regulated bicycle traffic because most riders back then followed the rule of traffic laws. I was one of them.

Ok... in reading this Draft my first thought was there was a lot of subjectivity in stating "perceived" facts.

• what is the timeline for this? This needs to be seriously discussed and put in writing. It could take 2-4 more years just to reach final approval. Then another 1-3 years to secure funding. Then another 3-6 years to tear up State and make the physical changes. So what 10 years total? more? less? anyone?

5 • what are the ALL costs involved for ALL these stages and who's paying for it? anyone?

• Economic Development & Housing: Support conversion of excess retail space to housing, office, and mixed-use development. The City has planned for 8,001 new units under the California Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by 2030; the downtown core, including the Master Plan area, should accommodate 1,000–2,000 of those units (so that's a big maybe that this plan is hoping for, "should accommodate" how is that going to happen and how long will that take?) .

• 4. [NAME] for All to Recreate: The Promenade has created an expanded opportunity for residents and visitors to use State Street as a recreational space (during Covid, was supposed to be a temporary closure?), including for walking, cycling, jogging, and informal play in a way that was not possible when vehicles occupied the roadway. (but what about the merchants? the property owners? how will more of a shift to recreational space use benefit the businesses? will shoppers be going into their stores after they "recreate" or will they leave because they just came down to recreate?) This shift has been particularly meaningful for families with children, elderly residents (disagree), and people with disabilities (nope) for whom a car- free environment offers greater comfort, accessibility, and safety. However, ensuring that the space is welcoming to all requires continued attention to design, programming, maintenance, and the management of behaviors that make some users feel unwelcome. (what will the constant annual cost of these be and who pays for them?).

• Spanish Colonial Revival architectural: my opinion= I am sick and tired of this same 'ol same 'ol style, it adds to the monotonous feeling of State Streets' long mile. Whether we keep State closed or open it up to vehicles, we must become more flexible in allowing some spice here and there with some fun and attractive modern designs.

In conclusion, too much talk has been about whether or not to keep State closed or open to vehicles. Not nearly enough has been discussed about timelines, costs, net benefits to whom, net benefits to all merchants/all property owners (who are the real stakeholders).

The best possible solution right now— because it is too premature to support this Draft plan— is to simply open up State Street to some degree of vehicle traffic flow NOW because there are way too many varables that still need to be worked out. Lets see how State functions again, this seems like it's the least costly solution for now. It would even provide more clarity to what really could work as planning goes forward and what could help the merchants, not just the restaurant tourist industry. Staying closed for another 10 years is not a responsible financial decision at this time. You have a legal fiduciary duty to make the most responsible financial decisions that benefit the City as a whole, with no conflicts of interest. It's a heavy burden, don't drag your heels.

:) [NAME] (ps- same goes for supporting the Short Term Rental Ordinance update, 14 years and counting is waaaay [NAME]!!!)

Please keep State Street car free!

Best, [NAME]

[NAME] from my iPhone

Item 26, June 30, 2026 City Council meeting Please reauthorize Title 31 to keep State Street car-Free.

To the Mayor and Santa Barbara City Council, The future of State Street is car-free. This future needs to start today. You can end the car/no-car debate now. Put this decision behind you, and us, finally. [NAME] 31 today.

Bringing cars back for a couple years to satisfy a nostalgic impulse denies the Master Plan development effort of a couple years to test out various alternatives for the final, car-free design.

Bringing back cars will not reanimate the cadaver of late Twentieth Century downtown retail business. It is magical thinking to believe that traffic going up and down the street with nowhere to park will have a positive impact on the actual businesses. It does have an unfortunate impact on business rental pricing expectations.

Commercial property owners use commercial leasing sites on the internet (like Zillow for commercial property) to advertise their properties. The big sites, such [EMAIL], automatically compute the Average Daily Traffic (the number of cars going by) as an important metric determining the competitive pricing for leasing a commercial property. State Street property owners are calling for cars on the street to increase the national lease pricing of vacant properties. If you agree that State Street commercial leases need to be more expensive, then putting cars back might help property owners make more money in the short run. They could even use this as an excuse to raise the rent on existing leases that expire in the next couple years. No wonder the downtown property owners are for this.

Of course, the internet is also a big reason why a range of formerly profitable retail businesses in older downtowns are in trouble all across America. We are not alone. In the last several years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a million apparel retail jobs have disappeared nationwide. In Santa Barbara City, public records reveal that more than 30% of sales taxes returned from the State come from internet sales. Nearly a third of the walk-in retail trade has now moved to online sales. (Perhaps new downtown leases should reflect THIS impact.) Within a decade, the internet's effect on City sales tax revenue might 255 reach 50%. That's another clear reason to get more housing inside the City limits. Every new home is also a new sales-tax source.

One of the hardest hit brick-and-mortar retail sectors is travel. More than 70% of all travel plans and payments are done online in the US. And now there is an online platform (Fora Travel) that allows individuals to become "travel advisors," personal travel agents with all the same connections and discounts that in-person travel agencies offer. Today, 15,000 Fora Travel advisors sell billions of dollars of services with near-zero overhead.

<https://oysterlink.com/spotlight/online-travel-booking-statistics/> Allowing cars back for a few years is an expensive retreat away from the central promise of the new Master Plan. It's so much better to keep moving ahead, not back.

Also: bring back regular, convenient micro transit soon. Regulate bicycle use on the promenade by limiting this to only street-legal eBikes. Today, a majority of eBikes ridden on State Street are actually illegal to ride on the street.

I thank you all and City staff for the enormous amount of work you have already accomplished on this matter.

[NAME] Santa Barbara resident.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I urge you to extend Title 31 and maintain the current car-free configuration of State Street while the State Street Master Plan moves through its final stages of review.

From both a financial and practical standpoint, there is little benefit to allowing Title 31 to lapse. The City has already invested in the existing configuration, and dismantling it now would require a significant expenditure—estimated at approximately $700,000— only to create another temporary condition before a long-term plan is adopted.

Downtown businesses have begun to experience the benefits of increased foot traffic and a more vibrant public space. As our community continues its economic recovery, maintaining consistency is far more likely to support continued investment than another disruptive change in direction.

Extending Title 31 is not a permanent commitment—it simply preserves the current conditions while the City completes the thoughtful planning process already underway. It allows decisions about the future of State Street to be made through the comprehensive Master Plan rather than through an unnecessary and costly interim reversal.

I encourage you to reauthorize Title 31 and continue moving forward with a vision that is fiscally responsible, supports local businesses, and reflects the community's investment in a thriving downtown.

5 Thank you for your consideration, [NAME] from my iPhone

Thanks, [NAME]

Hello: I am a longtime Santa Barbara resident and a very frequent user of State Street. I live 7 blocks off of State Street and am on State 3 to 5 times per week.

Conversations to fix State Street having been going on long before it was closed to cars.

Hopefully you have seen this article from 2009 when The Independent was reporting about a broken State Street.

The linked image cannot be displayed.

The file may have been [NAME], renamed, or deleted.

Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

The Retail [EMAIL] For the record, I love State Street being closed to cars. Bringing back to a car traffic would increase noise and pollution not to mention kill the laid-back energy. Can you imagine all the ride shares and delivery people pulling over with their blinkers on 'just for a minute'.

[ I'm writing to urge you to keep State Street closed to cars.

Please support a car-free State Street.

Thank you [NAME] 18 W. Victoria Street

Plan (Reauthorize Title 31 with Conditions) Dear Mayor Rowse, Councilmembers, and Staff: I am writing as a Santa Barbara resident and downtown-area property owner to submit comments on the Draft State Street Master Plan and on the June 30, 2026 Council item regarding the interim implementation of the Plan and the future of Title 31.

I have read the Draft Master Plan and Appendices, the June 30 Council Agenda Report, Attachment 1 (Summary of Interim and Pilot Projects), and Attachment 2 (the Fehr & Peers Emergency Vehicle Response 2025 Travel Time Evaluation). I want to thank [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], [NAME], and the consulting teams for the quality and transparency of this material. The work is serious, and the choices in front of the Council deserve a serious response from the community.

Summary of Position I urge the Council to reauthorize Title 31 with conditions — specifically, to maintain the State Street Promenade in its current configuration during the interim period, paired with a defined set of commitments that directly address the legitimate concerns raised by emergency responders, accessibility advocates, and residents who want to see a more finished and inclusive corridor.

This is the option that protects the public investment already made, avoids spending $700,000 on a configuration that will itself be torn up within a few years, and uses the interim period to lay groundwork for the permanent Master Plan rather than working against it.

Why Reauthorization Is the Right Interim Path 1. Allowing Title 31 to expire would waste public money. Per the staff report, reverting State Street to its pre-2020 configuration would cost approximately $700,000 in immediate physical work — removing pedlets, relocating B-Cycle stations, grinding off pavement markings, slurry-sealing, re-striping, and purchasing new traffic barriers for the Farmers Markets. That work would then be undone within a few years when Master Plan construction begins, at a total program cost staff has estimated at $48–68 million. Spending $700,000 to reverse a configuration that the City has just spent over $700,000 building — and that will be reconstructed regardless — is not a defensible use of capital during a structural General Fund deficit.

2. Substantial public and philanthropic investment is already on the ground in the current configuration.

This includes: • Approximately $528,000 in MODSTREET pedlets installed on the 500 block in September 2025; • The $100,000 Bloomberg Philanthropies Asphalt Art Initiative installation at State and Carrillo, which carries a binding two-year maintenance obligation that exposes the City to either repaint costs or a grant refund if the surface is ground up; • 89 [NAME] pilot infrastructure and operating partnerships; • Sidewalk and native-plant landscape work on the 1200 block performed in coordination with the Santa [NAME] and Friends of State Street.

Reauthorization preserves this investment. Expiration strands or destroys it.

3. The interim pilots have produced demonstrable results. The [NAME] has carried more than 18,000 riders with a 99% satisfaction rating; Council has already extended it unanimously once. Most 500-block restaurants kept or increased their seat counts after pedlets were installed. SBPD has issued 431 citations under SBMC Section 10.52.020 and delivered approximately 20 e-bike safety presentations at local schools, directly addressing the most common public-safety objection to the promenade. These are data points the City paid for. They should inform the decision.

4. The General Fund cannot absorb the alternative scenarios. Staff has formally determined that an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District is not viable for this corridor given the $8.7 million structural deficit, the tax-exempt share of downtown land, and the multi-year accrual horizon. Restoring the MTD Downtown-Waterfront Shuttle to its pre-COVID daily schedule would cost approximately $2.1 million annually and is currently unfunded. In that fiscal environment, voluntarily incurring a $700,000 reversal cost — plus potential Bloomberg grant exposure — is difficult to justify when reauthorization costs zero.

Acknowledging the Strongest Counter-Argument: Emergency Response I want to be direct about the Fehr & Peers analysis rather than dismiss it. The memorandum estimates that, on a typical block, emergency response times are 10–25% longer with State Street closed than with State Street open, and 29–42% longer on the 800 block due to its block length. The average increase is 60–90 seconds, with a worst case of 2 minutes and 10 seconds on the 800 block. That delta is real, and it deserves a serious response — not deflection.

At the same time, I would respectfully ask the Council and staff to note three contextual points the memorandum itself makes clear: • The "open" baseline modeled by Fehr & Peers assumes one-way northbound vehicle traffic. That is not what Title 31 expiration would actually produce. Per the staff report, expiration restores the pre-COVID configuration with two-way vehicle traffic and bike lanes — a more complex environment that would partially erode the modeled response-time benefit.

• The "closed" scenario assumes worst-case midblock incidents and that emergency vehicles travel at 3 mph through bollard openings to reach midblock. Real-world incidents are not uniformly midblock, and existing planter gaps already permit faster access than the model assumes.

• The permanent Master Plan design specifies retractable bollards with automatic lowering for transit and emergency vehicles. That technology, once installed, largely eliminates the response-time delta the memorandum documents.

The relevant policy question is therefore not "open vs. closed forever" but "how do we manage the interim safely until the Master Plan's emergency-access technology is in place?"

Recommended Conditions for Reauthorization I respectfully request that the Council direct staff to incorporate the following commitments into any Title 31 reauthorization, so that reauthorization is paired with concrete progress on the issues that have legitimately divided the community: 1. Accelerated retractable-bollard pilot on the 700–900 blocks. Install pilot retractable-bollard infrastructure on the highest-risk segment ahead of full Master Plan construction. This is the block with the largest documented emergency-response penalty (2:10 worst case) and the densest concentration of civic and historic structures. Bollards that auto-lower for emergency and transit vehicles will eliminate 90 most of the Fehr & Peers delta — and will become permanent Master Plan infrastructure rather than throwaway capital.

2. Formal SBFD/SBPD interim access protocol. Document existing emergency-vehicle entry points through current planters and bollards, identify additional access gaps that should be cut, and commit to an annual joint review with both departments. Publish the protocol so the public understands how the corridor is actually navigated under emergency conditions.

3. Resolution of the Access Advisory Committee's concerns. The AAC has indicated that the current Loop accessible cart is not fully suitable. Commit to a remedy within six months, including specifications for any successor vehicle or expanded paratransit coordination. The Promenade's legitimacy depends on its being genuinely accessible to all residents and visitors.

On the Master Plan Itself I support the overall vision of the Draft Master Plan and the April 28 Council direction. A few specific items I would ask staff to address as the Plan is finalized for late-summer adoption: • Vehicle access hours. The Council was right to strip the proposed 10 PM–10 AM private vehicle window.

If a future configuration includes any vehicle access, it should be designed around clearly defined permitted uses (deliveries, paratransit, residents with mobility permits, approved shuttles) rather than open private through-traffic.

• Anacapa and Chapala two-way conversion. The Gibbs Group appendix recommends this; the main Plan does not commit. Council direction here will shape downtown circulation for a generation and should be made explicitly rather than left ambiguous.

• Stormwater on the 700–900 blocks. The lack of a storm drain system is the single largest hidden barrier to redevelopment, with a $5–10 million shared-system estimate. Funding clarity on this should precede, not follow, Master Plan adoption.

• Housing density. I encourage the Council to consider the UCSB Economic Forecast Project's recommendation of a short-term emergency planning ordinance permitting approximately 120 units per acre downtown, with a 3–4 year sunset. The Plan's success is downstream of whether residents actually live on and near State Street in meaningful numbers.

Closing 91 A six-year promenade has not been static. It has produced a body of usage data, accessibility findings, business-impact information, and pilot infrastructure that the Council should now build on rather than reverse. The honest middle path — reauthorize Title 31, address the safety and accessibility concerns with concrete commitments, and accelerate the housing and economic foundations the permanent Plan will depend on — costs less, protects more, and moves Santa Barbara forward.

I plan to speak briefly at the June 30 hearing, and I am grateful for the opportunity to submit these written comments.

Respectfully, [NAME] Santa Barbara Resident and Downtown-Area Property Owner

Dear Mayor and Council Members, I grew up in Santa Barbara, and I raised my family here. I remember Piccadilly Square. I remember when La Cumbre Plaza and Paseo Nuevo were thriving and fully occupied. Like many lifelong residents, I have seen downtown retail rise, shift, and change over time. My perspective has shifted significantly since becoming a business owner on State Street, because now I experience it every single day. In fact, I am right in the heart of it on the 700 block of State Street, directly across from De La Guerra Plaza.

I am here seven days a week, at least eight hours a day. I do not see State Street occasionally. I live its reality.

Every day, we hear from visitors from all over the world who tell us they are stunned by the beauty of Santa Barbara and make a point of mentioning how much they love that our street is free from traffic, noise, and exhaust.

We also hear from people who have not been downtown in years. They are often surprised by how vibrant it is now, how many new shops have opened, and how enjoyable it is to walk the street again. More now than ever since the sidewalks, trash cans, and foliage are clean again after years of neglect.

Reopening State Street to cars will not bring back the department stores and chains that left long ago. Take a fresh look at all the recent premium brands that have invested in a car-free State Street: Vuori, Sephora, Alo, and more, right alongside new and existing vibrant local shop owners. It's amazing to see.

It will not add parking. Cars on State Street and a parade (and I loved those parades) was never the solution, and it will not be the solution now.

Retail has changed everywhere, not just here. But State Street is coming back quickly and more beautifully.

And finally, I hope that twenty years from now we can look back on this moment and say this Council had the courage to build on what makes Santa Barbara special, not the decision to return State Street to conditions that are sure to fail businesses or simply no longer exist.

Kindly, 154 [NAME]

A car-free corridor is key to the City's bike network which, with the creation of separated pedestrian and bike lanes would make the downtown a healthier and, a more viable public space. The reduction in accidents has made the area demonstrably safer.

There is no downside to reauthorizing Title 31. It benefits everyone and costs nothing. In contrast, according to the City's staff report, leƫng it expire would cost an estimated $700,000 just to rip out the current setup and restore vehicle lanes.

The budget to re-open State Street to cars only further accelerates depletion of Santa Barbara's coffers. And, to what end? A familiar urban ghost town that is unable to compete with Goleta's shopping malls?

Please thoughƞully exercise your decision making power for the good of this community. It's a wonderful life, if you have the vision to see its future.

Sincerely, [NAME] from my iPhone

As a 37-year retail business owner at 531 State Street, I have directly observed the positive impact that a car-free State Street has on retail sales. Unlike other cities where seasonal extremes of heat or cold limit outdoor activity, Santa Barbara's climate remains ideal for year-round outdoor engagement.

Dear Mayor Rowse and Members of the City Council, I'm writing to urge you to reauthorize Title 31 and keep State Street car-free.

What makes this stretch of Santa Barbara special? it's one of the only places around here where you can walk, bike, or sit at a table without a line of cars rolling past. Anyone who wants gridlock, noise, and traffic doesn't have to look far (just down the 101). People who want that experience have endless options. What they don't have endless options for is a place like car-free State Street, and once it's gone, it's gone. I don't think we should give up the one thing that sets us apart to become a little more like everywhere else.

A few other points worth keeping in mind as you deliberate:  Fiscal responsibility. The City's own staff report shows reauthorizing Title 31 costs nothing, while letting it expire would cost an estimated $700,000 just to tear out the current setup and rebuild vehicle lanes. In addition, reopening the street to cars would likely force removal of the Bloomberg-funded asphalt art at State & Carrillo — the grant requires it to stay in place for two years, meaning the City would have to repaint it elsewhere or repay the grant.

 Current pilot programs. [NAME] and the expanded sidewalk dining on the 500 block are active pilots right now, and both depend on State Street staying car-free.

 Our bike network. State Street anchors the City's bike routes. Reopening it to cars makes it a higher-stress ride that families, older adults, and newer cyclists are far less likely to use.

Sincerely, [NAME]

The notion of allowing cars back on State Street is foolish and would cost taxpayers an estimated $700,000.

There are plenty of well situated parking garages up and down State and also Anacapa for easy access to those who insist on driving.

There is no excuse for this asinine proposal to allow cars on State.

Dear council members, I'm writing to you as a Santa Barbara resident, in support of keeping State Street car-free.

Sincerely, [NAME] Ph.D

Dear City Council and State Street Master Plan team, I'm writing as a Santa Barbara homeowner to ask the Council to reauthorize Title 31 and formally commit to a permanently car-free State Street Promenade from Haley to Victoria.

Finally, I want to push back on the framing that Title 31 is an emergency measure that has overstayed its welcome. The initial 2020 closure was an emergency response, but Title 31 itself was a deliberate, debated codification by Council in 2023, after the community had already lived with the new street for three years. Reauthorizing it is not extending an emergency. It is acknowledging that the city looked at the evidence and chose the better street.

In short: the safety data, the business data, and the years of advisory committee work all point in the same direction.

Please reauthorize Title 31 and commit to a permanently car-free Promenade from Haley to Victoria, paired with the housing density and transit investment the Master Plan envisions.

Thank you for your work on this and for considering this comment.

Sincerely, [NAME] District 3 Homeowner

Dear City Council, Nearly one hundred and one years ago, Santa Barbara was devastated by the historic 1925 earthquake.

In the aftermath of this disaster, prominent community members reimagined and advocated to rebuild the city in the Spanish Colonial Style. While the architectural charm that defines our town is now widely celebrated, this unique vision was met with significant controversy at the time. Without strong leaders such as [NAME] and Fredrick Forest Peabody, our town would have been rebuilt to look like every other turn-of-the century town in America.

In 2020, a different natural disaster devastated not just our town, but the entire world. The COVID19 pandemic birthed a new version of State Street that now included relaxed outdoor dining, a pedestrian- only promenade, and a safe, centralized bike lane.

As both a nurse practitioner and a patient who was on crutches for three months last year, I support making our downtown businesses more accessible to those with mobility limitations. Can't our City leader envision more creative solutions to accessibility, without making the street open to all cars?

Sincerely, [NAME]

Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to urge you to vote no on reauthorizing the car-free ordinance for State Street (Item 26).

Please vote no on Item 26, restore vehicle access to State Street, and pursue a balanced approach that supports businesses, accessibility, and the long-term vitality of downtown.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully, [NAME] 729 W Valerio St.

Sent from my iPhone

Cars will do nothing to support local businesses, they'll merely add noise, air pollution and safety hazards back to State Street.

[NAME]