Measure O Fact Check

Parking consultants hired by the City recommended alternatives to building a parking structure. See Parking Solutions.

Affordable Housing

No on O ballot argument:

“If approved, Measure O immediately halts 125 affordable housing units Downtown, as well as a new modern library and childcare center, already planned and approved with  extensive public input.”

Fact Check
  • The City’s project has not been approved. The permit application wasn’t submitted until 9/21/22. There has yet to be environmental review. The only City Council approval (June 23, 2020) has been to “conceptually approve, subject to appropriate environmental review and the required permit process, and give direction to staff to proceed with design and development of a mixed use project on parking lot 4.”
  • The “extensive public input” overwhelmingly opposed putting a library in a project with a parking structure. See correspondence to the City Council for the June 23, 2020 meeting.
  • The City’s project will be delayed indefinitely  (see below)

City’s Project Will Be Delayed Indefinitely

The City cannot execute its plan to finance the garage through 30-year revenue bonds unless the Downtown Parking District can demonstrate annual revenue to pay the bond debt. It is not possible to predict when and if this will ever happen.

In Fiscal Year 2022, the Downtown Parking District deficit was $4 million, which is huge relative to the size of its expenditures of slightly over $8 million. The City projects a deficit in 2023 of $2.9 million. There is no estimate for when the Parking District will make ends meet, let alone generate the surplus needed to make bond payments.

The City Council already doubled parking rates beginning in 2019. So there is no quick fix to bring profitability to the Parking District.

There are two other factors delaying the City project: the City is $17 million short on funding a new library (below) and has not acquired the Toadal Fitness property necessary for the project, nor explained where it will get the funds to do so.

We asked Fred Keeley,

former County Treasurer, about the City’s ability to sell 30 year bonds to finance the garage:  “The City is not going to be able to go out and bond based on the last couple of years of [parking revenue] experience…What the Street [Wall Street] will want is two, three, four years of basically back to normal.”

How Soon Can Measure O Housing Be Built?

Measure O would amend the General Plan to “Require, to the maximum extent feasible, that certain designated parcels situated within the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan area…shall be developed with permanently affordable housing, with parking permissible on the ground level…” Those parcels are currently City parking lots (see map).

It is reasonable to conclude that without the need to finance a parking structure, affordable housing projects on lots named by Measure O can be constructed several years sooner than could happen with the City project.

 

Keyser Marston report:

Lots under .5 acres are not feasible for affordable housing development.

Fact Check
  • The following affordable housing projects in Santa Cruz are on less than a half acre: 
    • 111 Barson St, .35 acres, 27 units
    • 1041 Cayuga St, .3 acres, 14 units
    • 314 Jessie St, .39 acres, units tbd
  • Measure O lots acreage:
    • next to Library  .35
    • Cedar/Lincoln .49
    • 120 Elm .45
    • Front .88

Farmers Market

No on O ballot argument:

“The Farmers Market doesn’t even support Measure O —which locks it into a long-term location that it may not want.”

 Fact Check
  • The Farmers Market Board has approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City that calls for $1.8 million in improvements for the an all weather structure, bathrooms, and lot surfacing, wherever the Market ends up. This includes the option of staying on Lot 4 if Measure O passes.
  • The Farmers Market has had little long-term security, operating on a yearly lease with the City. The Farmers Market Board has expressed its desire for permanence. Measure O offers the Market permanence.    Front St. (the most-discussed alternative location) has three times the daily vehicle traffic as Cedar St. Traffic will only intensify after new development on Front St, making it less pedestrian-friendly.

Library

No on O ballot argument:

“Friends of the SC Public Libraries vigorously opposes Measure O because it would close the Downtown Library for at least two years, impede long-planned, essential upgrades, and result in a smaller, mediocre library with fewer services than we now have.”

 Fact Check
  • The leadership of the Friends of the SC Public Libraries never polled their membership on this question. At the Downtown Library Advisory Committee public workshop in December 2017, the overwhelming sentiment of participants opposed moving the library into a garage project. Participants included many library volunteers and members of Friends of the LIbrary.
  • The Measure S funds available for library renovation or new construction is equivalent (around $25 million). In recent news, the City failed to win a $10 million grant for a new library. The City has no explanation for how it plans to meet the $42 million estimate for new construction. Hence it is baseless to claim that the renovation would result in a mediocre library with fewer services.
No on O postcard

[The City’s project] “builds a new library that will be bigger, less expensive to build and operate, offer more programming and be more sustainable than a renovation of the old library”

 Fact Check
  • The City estimates the cost of a new library at $42 million. Measure S funds on hand are approximately $25 million that can be used for renovation or new construction. The City failed to win a $10 million grant for a new library. The City has not published any plans to make up the $17 million shortfall. Library renovation can be designed to stay within the City’s budget.
  • The library’s budget for programming is the same whether in a new building or renovated one.
  • There is a movement among architects who value sustainability to renovate rather than demolish and rebuild.

Democratic Process

No on O ballot argument:

“Measure O is a mess written in private by a few people who didn’t get their way during the public process.”

 Fact Check
  • Measure O is a citizen initiative in response to the failure of City government to engage with public concerns. A Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial stated, “Many voters and residents are still angry over the 2016 Measure S countywide tax that has led to the multi-project library planned for downtown. We’ve called for a follow-up vote on this project, since the original measure said nothing about any such plan and many residents remain convinced they were deceived by the measure.”
  • Measure O implements the consensus of parking consultants hired by the City that a new parking garage is not necessary. The City did not follow principles of good governance in promoting this project:
    • City staff proposed the parking structure at the City Council in December 2016, before receiving results of the $100,000 Nelson\Nygaard Downtown Parking Strategic Plan contracted by the City in May 2016.
    • City staff falsely represented to the Downtown Commission that their parking demand projections were the work of Nelson\Nyaard. See the Good Times article.
    • To this day, City staff has never brought the Nelson\Nygaard Strategic Plan to the Council for consideration.

Childcare

No on O ballot argument:

[The City project] “provides a child care center… including an enclosed outdoor play area.”

 Fact Check
  • A child care center could go in one of the affordable housing projects called for in Measure O.
  • A better location for a child care center downtown is where one operated successfully for many years, London Nelson Center. This location is superior since kids can play outside, and not just on an outdoor deck on the floors above a garage.