Quick Take
The battle over Measure O is many things to many people, but at its base, it is an attempt by residents to push through their own vision for urban planning, one that contrasts against that of city staff. Sharing the stage in this struggle are a well-known library mixed-use project proposal and a broad outline of affordable housing on eight city-owned parking lots. Where are these lots? How large are they? What do they look like? Could housing realistically be placed on these sites as the measure promises? Lookout examines what we know.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
Measure O, which rose to the ballot in the city of Santa Cruz through a citizen-led petition drive, pits affordable housing against affordable housing, and has split voters, organizations and locals who claim affordable housing development as their priority issue.
Though O’s many impacts would affect the location of a new downtown library and of the downtown farmers market, and offer a vision of a new “downtown commons,” it is that housing-versus-housing fight that might produce the greatest repercussions if voters approve O next Tuesday.
Quick Take
Lot 4 could become one of the most significant downtown Santa Cruz construction projects since the 1989 Loma Prieta...
A “yes” on Measure O abandons the plan to build a new mixed-use library, parking structure and 124 affordable-housing units on Lot 4 downtown. If Measure O proponents value affordable housing, why would they stop the building of those 124 units? They say the trading of those units — already midway through planning — for the enforced priority of housing elsewhere downtown is worth it.
To effect that trade, Measure O mandates that the city preserve eight city-owned downtown surface parking lots “to the maximum extent feasible” for future affordable-housing development.
According to the measure, if the city determines that a lot cannot feasibly host an affordable housing project, it must remain surface-level parking, without the possibility of building a parking structure on it. That’s as far as Measure O goes, offering no plans, process or funding for the housing.
Where did the “eight lots” idea come from?
That idea finds its roots in a parking battle that stretches back to 2020. Measure O leader Rick Longinotti’s group, the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation, was collecting signatures in March 2020 on a ballot measure that would have required any multilevel parking garage proposals to be first approved by voters. The petition drive was a pushback against the city’s original plan to put the new library as the first-floor tenant under a 640-space parking garage.
The pandemic canceled the original petition drive after only a few weeks. During that time, Longinotti said, the coalition expanded to welcome people who cared about the location of the library and farmers market. Longinotti said the idea to preserve the eight city lots came from a Santa Cruz YIMBY (yes in my my backyard) event in which demonstrators congregated on a city-owned parking lot, pushing for the city to use its own land for affordable housing projects.
“That was the inspiration in my mind,” Longinotti said. “We feel the city should be using public land to leverage affordable housing development. We were looking at parking lots that we thought would be practical for affordable housing, and we selected them based on size.”
How much housing the eight lots could individually and collectively produce, of course, is the key question.
The city’s response included calling for an outside, expert view. After it was clear Measure O would go on the ballot, the Santa Cruz City Council commissioned an analysis from Berkeley-based real estate consultant firm Keyser Marston Associates — and that report has been something of a political football. That report says only three lots could feasibly work for housing, and estimates the trio could max out at just 209 units. The city’s planning director, Lee Butler, told Lookout that the Keyser Marston report is the “key set of analyses that the city commissioned and recognizes.”
Yet even the feasibility of these lots as future sites for affordable housing has become part of political furor over the measure. An analysis by Measure O proponents, one they call “very conservative,” says almost all of the lots could produce housing, and estimates that four of the lots could yield at least 433 affordable housing units.
Quick Take
The second of three Lookout election forums brought together those on both sides of two key ballot measures facing...
Throughout the Measure O campaigns, these eight city parking lots in question have drifted along in abstraction. Where are these lots? How large are they? What do they look like? Could housing realistically be placed on these sites? Lookout set out to describe them as best we could, and show you what they look like from the air, below.
Beyond those questions, there are weightier ones speaking to the underlying politics of this election. How voters stand on Measure O could depend on how they answer the following question: Who are you more likely to trust in making long-lasting urban planning decisions? The city’s planning staff in conjunction with democratically elected officials or organized citizen groups?
***
The Keyser Marston report, heavily relied upon by the city and Measure O opponents and heavily critiqued by Measure O’s authors, makes the case that the ballot measure would essentially trade the up to 125 units of affordable housing being planned with the library project for a maximum of 209 units on only three lots. Judging by the current pace of planning and financing affordable housing projects, the units might not come online for the better part of a decade.
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz mayor and current chairperson of advocacy organization Housing Santa Cruz County, has been leading the campaign against Measure O. He trusts the Keyser Marston report, he said, because of the firm’s neutrality and history of analysis in Santa Cruz and across the state.
“Keyser Marston knows exactly what’s going on there,” Lane said. “I don’t have to do my own breakdown, I trust theirs.”
A project of at least 50 units was the critical mass for Keyser Marston in ensuring a project would pencil out for developers. Rectangular lots at a minimum of a half-acre that allowed for a height of at least 50 feet was the sweet spot in the report. The report cited a state government code that says a site smaller than a half-acre “shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower-income housing need” unless the city can show precedence within its boundaries. The rectangular lot shape, the report said, allowed for a more efficient building, and the project height was based on cost — keeping a project at five floors or lower of residential space means it could be built with a wood frame. Going higher and using material such as steel would enhance the cost so as to make it infeasible, the report said.
John Hall, a leading proponent of Measure O, called the Keyser Marston report flawed in its assumption that a half-acre is necessary for a project to be financially feasible. He pointed to Pacific Station South, the seven-story, 70-unit affordable housing project planned for Front Street, which, with a footprint of roughly 15,700 square feet, will be built on land much smaller than a half-acre.
Quick Take
As the Our Downtown, Our Future group waits for approval for a voter measure for November to challenge the current new...
In their own estimates, Measure O’s proponents say six of the eight lots could yield housing, and four of those lots, together, could produce more than double the number of units calculated in the Keyser Marston report. If the projects on those four lots were to include seven stories of housing at 1,500 square feet of residential space per unit, the proponents’ analysis says 433 affordable housing units could be built.
How conservative is that estimate? For context, the 70-unit Pacific Station South development comes out to 886 square feet per unit; the 124-unit library mixed-use project comes to 938 square feet of residential space per unit, compared to the 1,500 square feet per unit used by Measure O’s authors.
“We wanted to make sure that no one could accuse us of exaggerating the amount of 100% affordable housing that can be created with Measure O,” Hall said. “I have no doubt that a larger amount of units could be created.”
Longinotti said two of the other lots could host smaller projects, but offered no numbers. However, he admitted that the situation on the final two other lots had changed since the measure was drafted and were unlikely to fulfill a vision for affordable housing (more on that below).
Lane said he does not trust the analysis.
“Where are their credentials on affordable housing development and financing? It’s a well-intentioned community group, but they don’t know very much about affordable-housing development,” Lane said. “You have one side presenting data and expertise and the other side just saying it because they want it to work that way. Politics may work that way; good policy doesn’t.”
Lane said if Measure O passed he would “work like hell” to get smart affordable-housing projects built on the city-owned parking lots. However, he urged voters to remember that if Measure O fails, those city-owned parking lots would still be candidates for future affordable-housing projects.
“In the meantime, we have something that could move forward in the next couple years,” Lane said. “Or we could wait nine years.”
THE EIGHT LOTS OF MEASURE O: AN EXAMINATION
Lot 7
Address/size: Composed of five individual parcels:
- 505 Front St. - 11,543 square feet
- 511 Front St. - 4,312 square feet
- 513 Front St. - 3,354 square feet
- 515 Front St. - 8,668 square feet
- 521 Front St. - 6,098 square feet
Total size: 33,975 square feet
Total current parking spaces: 66
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? Yes
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: 176
Keyser Marston’s estimated unit yield: 109
Why Keyser Marston says it’s compatible: At 0.78 acres, the lot meets the half-acre threshold used by Keyser Marston. The parking lot also has two entry points: one on Front Street, another on Cathcart Street, which allows for a “well-designed circulation” for cars entering and exiting the ground-floor parking lot.
Additional notes on the lot: According to city planning staff, Lot 7 has been evaluated as the potential future home of the downtown farmers market.
Lot 8
Address: 710 Cedar St.
Size: 21,431.5 square feet
Total current parking spaces: 32
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? Yes
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: 96
Keyser Marston’s estimated unit yield: About 50
Why Keyser Marston says it’s compatible: Although it’s slightly smaller than a half-acre, the parcel is rectangular, which allows for more efficient construction. Keyser Marston estimates about 50 units could fit on the lot, but says height limits restricting development to 50 feet would require development incentives and/or waivers.
Lot 9
Address: 120 Elm St.
Size: 19,732 square feet
Total current parking spaces: 46
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? Yes
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: 91
Keyser Marston’s estimated unit yield: About 50
Why Keyser Marston says it’s compatible: Although slightly smaller than the half-acre threshold, the lot’s rectangular shape makes development more feasible. Similar to Lot 8, Lot 9 is mostly restricted by 50-foot height limits, so fitting 50 units would require development incentives and/or waivers.
Lot 11
Address: 326 Front St. (includes only the right half of the parking lot shown above)
Size: 4,399.5 square feet
Total current parking spaces: 24
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? No
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: No estimate
Why Keyser Marston says it’s incompatible: Measure O proponents say the situation has changed regarding Lots 11 and 27 since the measure was first written, as the parcels between Lots 11 and 27 have sold to a private developer eyeing a 228-room hotel. The Keyser Marston report explains that the same developer is eyeing city-owned Lot 11, as well as Lot 27, for purchase. By themselves, the lots are not large enough to be feasibly developed for affordable housing. “The horse left the barn on those,” Longinotti told Lookout. Still, the lots are listed in the ballot measure. Voter approval of Measure O would, in effect, thwart the hotel plans and limit future use of Lots 11 and 27.
Lot 14 and Lot 16
Address: Composed of two parcels
- Lot 14 (right half of back lot), 224 Church St. - 4,225 square feet
- Lot 16 (front lot), 212 Church St.- 11,587 square feet
Total Size: 15,812 square feet
Total current parking spaces: 60
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? No
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: 70
Why Keyser Marston says it’s incompatible: This one gets a little hairy. The Keyser Marston report explains that the two lots, when combined, are too small and too irregularly shaped to “efficiently” support an affordable-housing development. For Lot 14, the lot in the back, Measure O claims only the right half of the lot, which totals 4,225 square feet. Yet the left half of the parking lot is also owned by the city as part of the larger library parcel. To include the left half would have added roughly 5,500 square feet, bringing the total size of the two lots to more than 21,300 square feet — about the size of Lot 8, which O proponents estimate could fit 96 housing units. Without the additional square footage, Measure O proponents still estimate the parcels could fit 70 units in an eight-story development. The existing zoning would have to be changed, however, as the lot sits beneath an existing height limit of 35 feet.
However, if Measure O passes, the library, which sits left adjacent to the parking lots, would be renovated at its current location, rather than starting anew on Lot 4, potentially complicating the logistics for an affordable housing project.
Additional notes: According to city planning staff, Lots 14 and 16 were part of a larger evaluation of the existing downtown library parcels as a potential site for affordable housing and a public plaza. Butler said the farmers market could end up at that site as well if Measure O fails.
Lot 26
Address: Composed of two parcels
- 409 Laurel St. (front lot) - 3,528 square feet
- 241 Center St. (back lot) - 3,528 square feet
Total size: 7,056 square feet
Total current parking spaces: 10
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? No
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: No estimate
Why Keyser Marston says it’s incompatible: The two equally sized lots, which make up the airstrip-looking long parking lot in the photo above, are currently used as a mix of public parking and parking for the Santa Cruz Police Department. At 0.16 acres, the lot falls well below the half-acre threshold used by Keyser Marston. The report argues that development potential is “constrained” by its small size and the cost and logistics associated with having to replace parking spaces for the Santa Cruz Police Department, though the report does not estimate what that cost could be.
Lot 27
Address: 502 Front St.
Total Size: 5,053 square feet
Total current parking spaces: None
Compatible for affordable housing according to the Keyser Marston report? No
Measure O proponents estimated maximum unit yield, 1,500 square feet per unit, eight-story development: No estimate
Why Keyser Marston says it’s incompatible: Although Measure O lays claim that it would preserve this entire parking lot for affordable housing, the city only owns the right sliver of the parcel, which is a landscaped area adjacent to the parking lot. As mentioned in the explainer for Lot 11, Lot 27 is being eyed by a private developer for purchase as the site of a future hotel. The Keyser Marston report additionally argues that the lot is not large enough to “feasibly accommodate” an affordable housing development.