Op-Eds
Celebrating Earth Day on Lot 4 commons
Santa Cruz Sentinel
May 1, 2021
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/05/01/stephen-kessler-celebrating-earth-day-on-lot-4-commons/
By Stephen Kessler
Up close, from under their expansive canopy, the magnolias look even larger. I’ve long appreciated their beauty in passing, but their size from this perspective is even more impressive. Their shiny green leaves and shady branches reaching in every direction release oxygen into the atmosphere and absorb carbon, storing it in their massive trunks, too big for even the lankiest tree hugger to get her arms around.
All the more outrageous then that under cover of the buzzwords “bold climate action” and “health in all policies” the city intends to whack these heritage trees and replace them with a block-long five-story parking garage with a library tucked into one corner and “50 units of affordable housing” belatedly slapped on as a last-ditch ploy to win the approval of a skeptical public for what is euphemistically called the “Downtown Library Mixed-use project.”
The public, via the Measure S bond issue of 2016, has approved only renovation of the library, not the massacre of these trees nor the transplanting of the Church Street library onto this lot, the last open space in downtown Santa Cruz and the perfect setting for a public plaza as championed by Downtown Commons Advocates and the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, sponsors of these Earth Day festivities. This low-budget, grassroots, free-admission celebration features a variety of musical acts performing from the back of a pickup truck and an audience of socially spaced and safely masked spectators seated in folding chairs or dancing on the asphalt while tables representing a dozen or so environmental and political organizations ring the periphery with their informational and advocational handouts.
Of the 100 or so people scattered about this pop-up plaza, it’s hard to know who I recognize because everyone’s mask obscures their identity; but a former colleague calls my name from behind a table with information about the 831 Water Street project and its neighborhood opponents, who favor “safe, reasonable, responsible and respectful” affordable housing in Santa Cruz, not the five-story, 60-feet-tall, 151-unit development that threatens to leave a neighborhood of single-story homes in the shadow of its disproportionate profile. This is but one example of the trend to throw up multistory housing anywhere it will fit without regard for its impact on current residents.
Affordable housing is needed, but not necessarily on every square foot of available land. Downtown is growing, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as some room remains for sunlight and public space where people can pause to do something besides shopping. Today’s gathering is a good example: live music and human bodies circulating, possibly for the first time since the Before Times, welcoming the chance to dance and schmooze and celebrate social life outdoors, which seemed so natural before but now, after long confinement, has the luxurious feeling of freedom.
The breeze off the bay is unseasonably cool in the global weirdness of climate change plaguing the planet, which will not be saved by tearing down seismically sound buildings like the Civic Center library and constructing steel and concrete parking megaliths destined for obsolescence. If that is to be the tragic fate of this block and these gorgeous trees, then every moment it’s possible to bathe in their cool shade should be savored like a last meal on Death Row — or at the Farmers Market, which the city has sentenced to be displaced and removed to a much less attractive, less appropriate location, at Front and Cathcart streets (Lot 7), which could easily be the site of affordable housing.
City bureaucrats and the City Council, serving as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, have condemned these trees in the name of economic development. The actual cost of building their “21st-century library” will be significantly greater than the $25.5 million remaining for it in Measure S funds. Where that money will come from is among the many questions for which we are owed answers before the chainsaws scream into action and slaughter the trees.
Stephen Kessler is the author of “Garage Elegies,” available at Bookshop Santa Cruz.
May 1, 2021
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/05/01/stephen-kessler-celebrating-earth-day-on-lot-4-commons/
By Stephen Kessler
Up close, from under their expansive canopy, the magnolias look even larger. I’ve long appreciated their beauty in passing, but their size from this perspective is even more impressive. Their shiny green leaves and shady branches reaching in every direction release oxygen into the atmosphere and absorb carbon, storing it in their massive trunks, too big for even the lankiest tree hugger to get her arms around.
All the more outrageous then that under cover of the buzzwords “bold climate action” and “health in all policies” the city intends to whack these heritage trees and replace them with a block-long five-story parking garage with a library tucked into one corner and “50 units of affordable housing” belatedly slapped on as a last-ditch ploy to win the approval of a skeptical public for what is euphemistically called the “Downtown Library Mixed-use project.”
The public, via the Measure S bond issue of 2016, has approved only renovation of the library, not the massacre of these trees nor the transplanting of the Church Street library onto this lot, the last open space in downtown Santa Cruz and the perfect setting for a public plaza as championed by Downtown Commons Advocates and the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, sponsors of these Earth Day festivities. This low-budget, grassroots, free-admission celebration features a variety of musical acts performing from the back of a pickup truck and an audience of socially spaced and safely masked spectators seated in folding chairs or dancing on the asphalt while tables representing a dozen or so environmental and political organizations ring the periphery with their informational and advocational handouts.
Of the 100 or so people scattered about this pop-up plaza, it’s hard to know who I recognize because everyone’s mask obscures their identity; but a former colleague calls my name from behind a table with information about the 831 Water Street project and its neighborhood opponents, who favor “safe, reasonable, responsible and respectful” affordable housing in Santa Cruz, not the five-story, 60-feet-tall, 151-unit development that threatens to leave a neighborhood of single-story homes in the shadow of its disproportionate profile. This is but one example of the trend to throw up multistory housing anywhere it will fit without regard for its impact on current residents.
Affordable housing is needed, but not necessarily on every square foot of available land. Downtown is growing, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as some room remains for sunlight and public space where people can pause to do something besides shopping. Today’s gathering is a good example: live music and human bodies circulating, possibly for the first time since the Before Times, welcoming the chance to dance and schmooze and celebrate social life outdoors, which seemed so natural before but now, after long confinement, has the luxurious feeling of freedom.
The breeze off the bay is unseasonably cool in the global weirdness of climate change plaguing the planet, which will not be saved by tearing down seismically sound buildings like the Civic Center library and constructing steel and concrete parking megaliths destined for obsolescence. If that is to be the tragic fate of this block and these gorgeous trees, then every moment it’s possible to bathe in their cool shade should be savored like a last meal on Death Row — or at the Farmers Market, which the city has sentenced to be displaced and removed to a much less attractive, less appropriate location, at Front and Cathcart streets (Lot 7), which could easily be the site of affordable housing.
City bureaucrats and the City Council, serving as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, have condemned these trees in the name of economic development. The actual cost of building their “21st-century library” will be significantly greater than the $25.5 million remaining for it in Measure S funds. Where that money will come from is among the many questions for which we are owed answers before the chainsaws scream into action and slaughter the trees.
Stephen Kessler is the author of “Garage Elegies,” available at Bookshop Santa Cruz.
Lot 4: Best site for community plaza
Santa Cruz Sentinel
4/23/21
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/04/23/guest-commentary-why-parking-lot-4-checks-all-the-boxes-for-santa-cruz-community-plaza/
The city’s Economic Development Department took its first steps toward envisioning the site where the current downtown library is located, with two Zoom meetings on April 5 and 6. One can view those recorded meetings on the EDD’s web page.
The well-regarded consultant firm Projects for Public Spaces was hired to work with the city’s go-to consultants Group 4. Their goal? To come up with ideas for what might replace the library in its historic setting. The current building will presumably be hauled off to the landfill.
Participants included representatives from several housing advocacy groups, the Farmers Market, Downtown Commons Advocates, Friends of the Civic Auditorium, Downtown Forward, the Downtown Association and the Downtown Management Corporation. Future public outreach is planned.
Vice-Mayor Sonja Brunner stated at one point, “Downtown business owners have always wanted a plaza.” David Schnee from Group 4 remarked, “There are many types of plazas in Santa Cruz.”
His definition was anything from a street corner to an entire block. Some referred to Abbott Square, though this is privately owned. All agreed that any public space should be well-maintained and safe, with a steady presence of activities.
Housing advocates see this city parcel as appropriate for subsidized housing, whether for seniors, workforce housing, or permanent supportive housing. One has to question why this location is more suitable for housing than for a renovated library, since it is not close to elementary schools or shopping opportunities for household items.
Downtown Forward’s Mark Mesiti-Miller favored the city build housing there, then “see what’s left” to use as open space. Mesiti-Miller might review the city’s Downtown Plan statement on creating meaningful open space: “Open spaces within downtown Santa Cruz should have value and meaning; they should be carefully located where people want to be and in locations that take advantage of the unique resources, heritage, and traditions of the community. They should not be contrived or created from ‘leftover’ space.’”
David Schnee reiterated this idea, observing that good planning pays attention to the history of how a site has been used, rather than “plunking something down” there. Yet “plunking something down” is a pretty accurate description for what is being attempted. The discussion continued.
Could the site work as an expanded Farmers Market? An outdoor “lobby”during performances at the Civic Auditorium? Could the surrounding streets be permanently closed, considering the Fire Department’s need to use those streets? Would a permanent Farmers’ Market there be compatible with access to concerts happening at the Civic Auditorium? Could this site accommodate the popular Antiques Faire?
A growing number of Santa Cruzans see what’s hiding in plain sight – the wonderful potential of Parking Lot 4, between Lincoln, Cathcart and Cedar Streets, to fulfill so many of the ideas put forward. A place for a small performing art stage? Check. Sunshine? Check. Fountain, sculpture, fun furniture, interactive art? Why not?
All anchored by the Farmers Market, with potential to grow into the vision of its Board, taking advantage of Santa Cruz’s history of being at the forefront of organic farming.
Quoting again from the Downtown Plan, “Although the 1989 earthquake was devastating, it did not erase the underlying structure and form of the downtown.” This underlying structure and form includes a civic core with key institutions that do not need to be dismantled to build a fifth parking garage downtown, using the library as a sacrificial lamb.
There is no funding identified at this point for any major redo of this city block. Without wishing to undermine this phase of community outreach, “envisioning” in 2021 what should have been done in 2016 upon the passage of Measure S to improve our libraries, seems backwards.
Lot 4 is the city’s best location for a community plaza/commons, for residents, businesses, visitors, and future generations.
Judi Grunstra is a librarian, a Santa Cruz resident and a member of Downtown Commons Advocates.
4/23/21
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/04/23/guest-commentary-why-parking-lot-4-checks-all-the-boxes-for-santa-cruz-community-plaza/
The city’s Economic Development Department took its first steps toward envisioning the site where the current downtown library is located, with two Zoom meetings on April 5 and 6. One can view those recorded meetings on the EDD’s web page.
The well-regarded consultant firm Projects for Public Spaces was hired to work with the city’s go-to consultants Group 4. Their goal? To come up with ideas for what might replace the library in its historic setting. The current building will presumably be hauled off to the landfill.
Participants included representatives from several housing advocacy groups, the Farmers Market, Downtown Commons Advocates, Friends of the Civic Auditorium, Downtown Forward, the Downtown Association and the Downtown Management Corporation. Future public outreach is planned.
Vice-Mayor Sonja Brunner stated at one point, “Downtown business owners have always wanted a plaza.” David Schnee from Group 4 remarked, “There are many types of plazas in Santa Cruz.”
His definition was anything from a street corner to an entire block. Some referred to Abbott Square, though this is privately owned. All agreed that any public space should be well-maintained and safe, with a steady presence of activities.
Housing advocates see this city parcel as appropriate for subsidized housing, whether for seniors, workforce housing, or permanent supportive housing. One has to question why this location is more suitable for housing than for a renovated library, since it is not close to elementary schools or shopping opportunities for household items.
Downtown Forward’s Mark Mesiti-Miller favored the city build housing there, then “see what’s left” to use as open space. Mesiti-Miller might review the city’s Downtown Plan statement on creating meaningful open space: “Open spaces within downtown Santa Cruz should have value and meaning; they should be carefully located where people want to be and in locations that take advantage of the unique resources, heritage, and traditions of the community. They should not be contrived or created from ‘leftover’ space.’”
David Schnee reiterated this idea, observing that good planning pays attention to the history of how a site has been used, rather than “plunking something down” there. Yet “plunking something down” is a pretty accurate description for what is being attempted. The discussion continued.
Could the site work as an expanded Farmers Market? An outdoor “lobby”during performances at the Civic Auditorium? Could the surrounding streets be permanently closed, considering the Fire Department’s need to use those streets? Would a permanent Farmers’ Market there be compatible with access to concerts happening at the Civic Auditorium? Could this site accommodate the popular Antiques Faire?
A growing number of Santa Cruzans see what’s hiding in plain sight – the wonderful potential of Parking Lot 4, between Lincoln, Cathcart and Cedar Streets, to fulfill so many of the ideas put forward. A place for a small performing art stage? Check. Sunshine? Check. Fountain, sculpture, fun furniture, interactive art? Why not?
All anchored by the Farmers Market, with potential to grow into the vision of its Board, taking advantage of Santa Cruz’s history of being at the forefront of organic farming.
Quoting again from the Downtown Plan, “Although the 1989 earthquake was devastating, it did not erase the underlying structure and form of the downtown.” This underlying structure and form includes a civic core with key institutions that do not need to be dismantled to build a fifth parking garage downtown, using the library as a sacrificial lamb.
There is no funding identified at this point for any major redo of this city block. Without wishing to undermine this phase of community outreach, “envisioning” in 2021 what should have been done in 2016 upon the passage of Measure S to improve our libraries, seems backwards.
Lot 4 is the city’s best location for a community plaza/commons, for residents, businesses, visitors, and future generations.
Judi Grunstra is a librarian, a Santa Cruz resident and a member of Downtown Commons Advocates.
Why library and rail plans are so divisive
Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial
December 6, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/12/06/editorial-why-sc-multi-use-library-and-county-rail-plans-are-so-divisive/
Here’s two issues that have become increasingly divisive in Santa Cruz County: the debate over passenger rail and a coastal recreational trail, and the plans for a library/multiuse complex in downtown Santa Cruz.
Public policies and decisions on both continue to be worked out through government agencies, but our concern here is the divisions were almost inevitable due to a lack of transparency when funding measures went to voters in 2016.
First the library.
In 2016, 70% of voters approved Measure S, a $67 million bond measure and parcel tax “to modernize, upgrade and repair local libraries … and construct/expand facilities where necessary … .”
Some of this money went to build new libraries in Felton and Capitola with improvements planned for other branches in the 10-branch system (Watsonville has its own library system); $27 million went to the city of Santa Cruz to improve its libraries. Since that vote, plans have been put together to essentially abandon the current Church Street Main Library in the Civic Center and move that library to a new multi-use project to be constructed on the Cedar Street parking lot where the weekly farmers market gathers.
This project would include at least 50 affordable housing units and an estimated 400 parking spaces along with a new library. Measure S money would only go to the new library.
But more than a few opponents to the library/garage believe they were misled in the 2016 bond measure, saying they never would have supported it had they known funds would go to such a project. Supporters of the multi-use project say that renovating the existing Main Library would be too costly and that the library/garage project would address several pressing needs and be financially viable.
The proponents’ arguments may be correct, but, we’ll repeat: Did voters understand in 2016 that a good portion of the library bond measure could be allocated for this kind of project?
We don’t think so.
Also in the 2016 election, voters agreed to pass Measure D, a half-cent sales tax that funds transportation projects for a 30-year period, and is expected to raise about $17 million a year.
But what projects are these?
The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission on its website lists the following: “road improvements, bicycle and pedestrian projects, safe routes to school projects, increased transit and paratransit services, and construction and maintenance of the Coastal Rail Trail.”
It is the last project in that list that has been hotly debated.
Because advocates of a trail only approach for the 32-mile county owned rail corridor are adamant that Measure D does not provide money for passenger rail along the corridor.
They point out that the money raised by Measure D was expressly targeted toward fixing some of the terrible roads in the county, building a much-needed auxiliary lane on Highway 1 along with overpasses, providing more transit services for seniors and the disabled, for work toward the coastal trail, and finally, for maintenance along the rail corridor (8% of the funding).
There was no money in the measure that expressly provided for a new train service.
The RTC itself notes that Measure D will eventually provide $40 million in funding “for the Rail Corridor” including maintenance and costly repairs and for “an analysis of future potential uses ... through an open, transparent public process.”
Some backers of rail- and-trail believe such language allows Measure D funding to be used for passenger rail plans.
Again, voters may feel manipulated by this kind of parsing, since many voted for the transportation sales tax while also opposing rail.
A lack of transparency on ballot measures can breed cynicism among voters. Cabrillo College has lost two successive bond measures amid accusations that, among other problems, the ballot language was too open ended and could also lead to trouble for future tax measures in the county.
Here’s a good way to defuse both controversies: Put the multi-use Santa Cruz library plan before city voters as an advisory vote on that project only, and the rail and/or trail options to a county-wide vote.
December 6, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/12/06/editorial-why-sc-multi-use-library-and-county-rail-plans-are-so-divisive/
Here’s two issues that have become increasingly divisive in Santa Cruz County: the debate over passenger rail and a coastal recreational trail, and the plans for a library/multiuse complex in downtown Santa Cruz.
Public policies and decisions on both continue to be worked out through government agencies, but our concern here is the divisions were almost inevitable due to a lack of transparency when funding measures went to voters in 2016.
First the library.
In 2016, 70% of voters approved Measure S, a $67 million bond measure and parcel tax “to modernize, upgrade and repair local libraries … and construct/expand facilities where necessary … .”
Some of this money went to build new libraries in Felton and Capitola with improvements planned for other branches in the 10-branch system (Watsonville has its own library system); $27 million went to the city of Santa Cruz to improve its libraries. Since that vote, plans have been put together to essentially abandon the current Church Street Main Library in the Civic Center and move that library to a new multi-use project to be constructed on the Cedar Street parking lot where the weekly farmers market gathers.
This project would include at least 50 affordable housing units and an estimated 400 parking spaces along with a new library. Measure S money would only go to the new library.
But more than a few opponents to the library/garage believe they were misled in the 2016 bond measure, saying they never would have supported it had they known funds would go to such a project. Supporters of the multi-use project say that renovating the existing Main Library would be too costly and that the library/garage project would address several pressing needs and be financially viable.
The proponents’ arguments may be correct, but, we’ll repeat: Did voters understand in 2016 that a good portion of the library bond measure could be allocated for this kind of project?
We don’t think so.
Also in the 2016 election, voters agreed to pass Measure D, a half-cent sales tax that funds transportation projects for a 30-year period, and is expected to raise about $17 million a year.
But what projects are these?
The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission on its website lists the following: “road improvements, bicycle and pedestrian projects, safe routes to school projects, increased transit and paratransit services, and construction and maintenance of the Coastal Rail Trail.”
It is the last project in that list that has been hotly debated.
Because advocates of a trail only approach for the 32-mile county owned rail corridor are adamant that Measure D does not provide money for passenger rail along the corridor.
They point out that the money raised by Measure D was expressly targeted toward fixing some of the terrible roads in the county, building a much-needed auxiliary lane on Highway 1 along with overpasses, providing more transit services for seniors and the disabled, for work toward the coastal trail, and finally, for maintenance along the rail corridor (8% of the funding).
There was no money in the measure that expressly provided for a new train service.
The RTC itself notes that Measure D will eventually provide $40 million in funding “for the Rail Corridor” including maintenance and costly repairs and for “an analysis of future potential uses ... through an open, transparent public process.”
Some backers of rail- and-trail believe such language allows Measure D funding to be used for passenger rail plans.
Again, voters may feel manipulated by this kind of parsing, since many voted for the transportation sales tax while also opposing rail.
A lack of transparency on ballot measures can breed cynicism among voters. Cabrillo College has lost two successive bond measures amid accusations that, among other problems, the ballot language was too open ended and could also lead to trouble for future tax measures in the county.
Here’s a good way to defuse both controversies: Put the multi-use Santa Cruz library plan before city voters as an advisory vote on that project only, and the rail and/or trail options to a county-wide vote.
Why downtown library should be renovated
Santa Cruz Sentinel
October 23, 2020
by Sandra Ivany
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/10/22/guest-commentary-2/
It is just remarkable that Bonnie Lipscomb, Economic Director of the City of Santa Cruz, could write an editorial on Tuesday October 13 that claims, “..the library plan i the key to solving housing crisis”.
Ms. Lipscomb claims that the funding sources for the 6 story garage with library have already been identified. Despite what she writes, actual costs as well as funding sources are obviously unclear and unspecified.
Another unknown in this proposal concerns the future usage of the current library building. This building sits opposite City Hall and the Civic Center making library renovation a perfect way to solidify a Civic Center.
And what is to be the fate of the current library building? Before any decision is made to move forward or spend any funds at all - this question must be answered. There has been speculation that the current library building would be renovated for offices of city staff or even that it might be leased or sold to Amazon.
The current estimate for the multi-use complex is estimated to be $85 million – $100 million to be paid for over 30 years. That is a very large range and a tremendous expenditure for a city with a current projected $20 million budget deficit in the next 2 years.
Consider for a moment that the new lot for the proposed Farmer’s Market would move to Cathcart and Front Street. Ironically, very scarce parking is near that lot and lot itself is half the size of current space on which the present Farmer’s Market stands.
Why has this not been taken into consideration in the countless hours of meetings and discussions about this topic?
Does Santa Cruz need a 400 space parking garage? Consultants hired to study the matter state “no”. And who will be the population to most enjoy a library on the first floor of a 6-story parking garage? Would parents and families still be attracted to such a library or would they opt instead to visit other branches of the library system?
Imagine the two years of construction, noise and disruption to traffic building this 6-story project in the heart of downtown. How would that impact local business?
And once completed, how would this behemoth architecturally affect the charming “village” feel of Cedar Street called for in the 2017 Downtown Plan? Has an analysis been made about how Cedar Street would maintain the traffic flows towards a 400 space garage?
What is our vision for a better downtown Santa Cruz? The current Farmer’s Market lot is the largest open space downtown. There will be no replacing it. We need public space to draw people into heart of Santa Cruz - a place for people to gather - a downtown “commons”.
And the renovated library, with doors facing City Hall, would only enhance Civic Center area.
It is such a pity that after 4 years, the community is still spending time and energy to oppose the ill-conceived mixed-use project. Building a garage is the last thing Santa Cruz needs to do right now. It is based on outdated philosophies and concepts of urban planning. The community has largely made that clear.
A significant City Council meeting takes place this Tuesday October 27 – “detailed financial information regarding each component of the mixed use project” will be presented. In that meeting, City Council could vote to approve the hiring of a project manager for the construction at the cost of $240,000.
Please attend on October 27 via Phone and comment with your views and vision for Santa Cruz!
The funds for the library remodel are available right now: voting on measure S in 2016 was a vote to restore 10 libraries in Santa Cruz County.
And please consider carefully the positions of the City Council candidates on this matter before you vote.
~ Sandra Ivany has been a community member since 1988
October 23, 2020
by Sandra Ivany
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/10/22/guest-commentary-2/
It is just remarkable that Bonnie Lipscomb, Economic Director of the City of Santa Cruz, could write an editorial on Tuesday October 13 that claims, “..the library plan i the key to solving housing crisis”.
Ms. Lipscomb claims that the funding sources for the 6 story garage with library have already been identified. Despite what she writes, actual costs as well as funding sources are obviously unclear and unspecified.
Another unknown in this proposal concerns the future usage of the current library building. This building sits opposite City Hall and the Civic Center making library renovation a perfect way to solidify a Civic Center.
And what is to be the fate of the current library building? Before any decision is made to move forward or spend any funds at all - this question must be answered. There has been speculation that the current library building would be renovated for offices of city staff or even that it might be leased or sold to Amazon.
The current estimate for the multi-use complex is estimated to be $85 million – $100 million to be paid for over 30 years. That is a very large range and a tremendous expenditure for a city with a current projected $20 million budget deficit in the next 2 years.
Consider for a moment that the new lot for the proposed Farmer’s Market would move to Cathcart and Front Street. Ironically, very scarce parking is near that lot and lot itself is half the size of current space on which the present Farmer’s Market stands.
Why has this not been taken into consideration in the countless hours of meetings and discussions about this topic?
Does Santa Cruz need a 400 space parking garage? Consultants hired to study the matter state “no”. And who will be the population to most enjoy a library on the first floor of a 6-story parking garage? Would parents and families still be attracted to such a library or would they opt instead to visit other branches of the library system?
Imagine the two years of construction, noise and disruption to traffic building this 6-story project in the heart of downtown. How would that impact local business?
And once completed, how would this behemoth architecturally affect the charming “village” feel of Cedar Street called for in the 2017 Downtown Plan? Has an analysis been made about how Cedar Street would maintain the traffic flows towards a 400 space garage?
What is our vision for a better downtown Santa Cruz? The current Farmer’s Market lot is the largest open space downtown. There will be no replacing it. We need public space to draw people into heart of Santa Cruz - a place for people to gather - a downtown “commons”.
And the renovated library, with doors facing City Hall, would only enhance Civic Center area.
It is such a pity that after 4 years, the community is still spending time and energy to oppose the ill-conceived mixed-use project. Building a garage is the last thing Santa Cruz needs to do right now. It is based on outdated philosophies and concepts of urban planning. The community has largely made that clear.
A significant City Council meeting takes place this Tuesday October 27 – “detailed financial information regarding each component of the mixed use project” will be presented. In that meeting, City Council could vote to approve the hiring of a project manager for the construction at the cost of $240,000.
Please attend on October 27 via Phone and comment with your views and vision for Santa Cruz!
The funds for the library remodel are available right now: voting on measure S in 2016 was a vote to restore 10 libraries in Santa Cruz County.
And please consider carefully the positions of the City Council candidates on this matter before you vote.
~ Sandra Ivany has been a community member since 1988
City rolls the dice on the Taj Garage
Santa Cruz Sentinel
September 26, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/09/26/stephen-kessler-city-rolls-the-dice-on-the-tag-garage/
By Stephen Kessler
At its June 23 meeting when it approved what is now known as the mixed-use library- housing project—formerly known as the garage-library project, aka the Taj Garage, subsequently lipsticked with “at least 50 units of affordable housing,” thereby eliminating a couple hundred supposedly desperately-needed parking spaces—the Santa Cruz City Council directed staff “to provide a report to the City Council at the earliest possible time, but no later than three months, containing detailed financial information regarding each component of the mixed-use project.”
Exactly three months later, on Sept. 22, with no such report delivered, the council’s consent agenda contained a “Motion to award the contract for the Mixed Use Library Owner’s Representative for Phase 1 to Griffin Structures Inc. … in the amount of $240,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.” Absent the requested financial information, and without the actual contract in hand, the council was being asked for its consent, without further discussion, to authorize the significant expenditure of city funds toward a project of unknown cost so that Griffin Structures could move forward with “pre-design, design, and permitting,” presumably including the missing financial data on estimated actual costs of the structure’s discrete components: library, housing and parking.
When council members Katherine Beiers and Sandy Brown raised the question of financial information, essential to making an informed decision on a project of such magnitude and complexity, the city’s Principal Management Analyst Amanda Rotella, Director of Economic Development Bonnie Lipscomb and City Manager Martín Bernal attempted to explain that the financial details would be provided later by Griffin. In other words, without any realistic idea of what it will cost to build, the council was expected to believe on faith that the mixed-use project would be affordable.
As neither the library nor the housing nor the parking component has been designed, there’s no way of knowing accurately how much they will actually cost. And without a finished contract in hand, Mayor Justin Cummings reasonably asked, “What are we spending our money for in this contract?” After further discussion, the council postponed authorization to go ahead until the requested financial data are delivered at their second meeting in October, extending the deadline for another month.
This episode illustrates the power dynamic between council and staff that I wrote about last week. Staff apparently presumed that the council would sign off on something they hadn’t seen involving a huge and many-faceted building of no more than conceptual existence at this point. Nobody really knows how much each component will cost or how much additional money must be raised, or from where, to make up for predictable shortfalls in funds already dedicated to this project. This is a strangely irresponsible way of doing business amid the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression and a city budget deficit of more than $19 million.
Whether staff was deliberately trying to pull a fast one on the council by slipping the unread contract into the consent agenda, or just being negligent and unresponsive to the directive to provide financial information, this reckless and opaque process is typical of how this whole unfortunate saga has unfolded. If they had simply taken the Measure S funds meant to renovate the library in Civic Center and begun renovating, we might have had a new library by now. But since someone in City Hall had the brilliantly bad idea of moving the library into a parking garage regardless of public opinion, the city has wasted tons of time and money trying to impose its will on the citizenry by whatever devious, deceptive and misleading means it could devise. This time, at least three members of the City Council had the fiscal conscientiousness and courage to say, Hey, wait a minute!
Let’s see what the city comes up with next month in the way of a financial report. Stephen Kessler’s column appears on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
September 26, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/09/26/stephen-kessler-city-rolls-the-dice-on-the-tag-garage/
By Stephen Kessler
At its June 23 meeting when it approved what is now known as the mixed-use library- housing project—formerly known as the garage-library project, aka the Taj Garage, subsequently lipsticked with “at least 50 units of affordable housing,” thereby eliminating a couple hundred supposedly desperately-needed parking spaces—the Santa Cruz City Council directed staff “to provide a report to the City Council at the earliest possible time, but no later than three months, containing detailed financial information regarding each component of the mixed-use project.”
Exactly three months later, on Sept. 22, with no such report delivered, the council’s consent agenda contained a “Motion to award the contract for the Mixed Use Library Owner’s Representative for Phase 1 to Griffin Structures Inc. … in the amount of $240,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.” Absent the requested financial information, and without the actual contract in hand, the council was being asked for its consent, without further discussion, to authorize the significant expenditure of city funds toward a project of unknown cost so that Griffin Structures could move forward with “pre-design, design, and permitting,” presumably including the missing financial data on estimated actual costs of the structure’s discrete components: library, housing and parking.
When council members Katherine Beiers and Sandy Brown raised the question of financial information, essential to making an informed decision on a project of such magnitude and complexity, the city’s Principal Management Analyst Amanda Rotella, Director of Economic Development Bonnie Lipscomb and City Manager Martín Bernal attempted to explain that the financial details would be provided later by Griffin. In other words, without any realistic idea of what it will cost to build, the council was expected to believe on faith that the mixed-use project would be affordable.
As neither the library nor the housing nor the parking component has been designed, there’s no way of knowing accurately how much they will actually cost. And without a finished contract in hand, Mayor Justin Cummings reasonably asked, “What are we spending our money for in this contract?” After further discussion, the council postponed authorization to go ahead until the requested financial data are delivered at their second meeting in October, extending the deadline for another month.
This episode illustrates the power dynamic between council and staff that I wrote about last week. Staff apparently presumed that the council would sign off on something they hadn’t seen involving a huge and many-faceted building of no more than conceptual existence at this point. Nobody really knows how much each component will cost or how much additional money must be raised, or from where, to make up for predictable shortfalls in funds already dedicated to this project. This is a strangely irresponsible way of doing business amid the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression and a city budget deficit of more than $19 million.
Whether staff was deliberately trying to pull a fast one on the council by slipping the unread contract into the consent agenda, or just being negligent and unresponsive to the directive to provide financial information, this reckless and opaque process is typical of how this whole unfortunate saga has unfolded. If they had simply taken the Measure S funds meant to renovate the library in Civic Center and begun renovating, we might have had a new library by now. But since someone in City Hall had the brilliantly bad idea of moving the library into a parking garage regardless of public opinion, the city has wasted tons of time and money trying to impose its will on the citizenry by whatever devious, deceptive and misleading means it could devise. This time, at least three members of the City Council had the fiscal conscientiousness and courage to say, Hey, wait a minute!
Let’s see what the city comes up with next month in the way of a financial report. Stephen Kessler’s column appears on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
Honest governance needed for Santa Cruz’s parking plan
Santa Cruz Sentinel
July 8, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/07/07/guest-commentary-honest-governance-needed-for-santa-cruzs-parking-plan/
By Rick Longinotti
Close your eyes and imagine you live somewhere where the authorities are planning to use the taxpayers’ money to build a massive public works project. Prior to embarking on the project, the authorities sought expert advice. The experts produced a report that said the project was not needed and would place the government at financial risk. The authorities suppressed the report and proceeded with the project. Now open your eyes. You are not in China, Brazil, or Sicily. You are in the City of Santa Cruz.
In May 2016, the City of Santa Cruz commissioned the nationally respected transportation consultant, Nelson\Nygaard, to produce a Downtown Parking Strategic Plan. In December of that year, City staff proposed building a library on the ground floor of a six-level parking structure. My organization, the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation advocated that the City wait for the results of the Nelson\Nygaard report before planning any new parking structures.
In September 2017, Nelson\Nygaard staffer Patrick Siegman shared with City staff the results of his parking demand model. The model inputs included City staff’s expectations for new development and loss of parking spaces at surface lots. It also included the City’s plan to double the parking rates downtown in order to pay for a new parking structure. The model predicted that the price increase would dampen demand for parking among workers commuting to their jobs. Siegman’s results concluded that the City’s sizable surplus of parking would continue, and that no garage was needed.
At that point City staff asked Nelson\Nygaard to borrow their parking model. Staff plugged their own inputs into the model, and came to the conclusion that there would be a significant parking deficit by 2025. Staff presented these results to the City’s Downtown Commission in February 2018, telling the Commissioners that they were presenting the results of the Nelson\Nygaard model. They did not tell the Commissioners that Nelson\Nygaard had reached very different results.
When Siegman heard that City staff had presented information as if it came from Nelson\Nygaard, the company considered quitting the contract on ethical grounds. Subsequently, the consultant and the City agreed to continue the contract with City staff agreement to refrain from trying to influence the outcome of the report.
In August, 2018, Patrick Siegman, now operating his own consulting business, contacted the City Manager to let him know that the staff’s use of the Nelson\Nygaard parking model was not credible. Nevertheless, the City Manager backed his staff. In September the City Council approved the concept of the parking garage. The number of proposed parking spaces was reduced from 640 to 600 in order to fit a few affordable housing units. My Public Records Act request to see City staff inputs into the parking model was denied.
On June 23, 2020, the City Council, with Katherine Beiers and Sandy Brown dissenting, approved the concept of a parking garage of 400 spaces—a size equivalent to the garage on Soquel and Front St. The proposed building includes a floor library and a minimum of 50 affordable housing units. At the Council meeting, City staff continued to predict a future parking deficit.
City staff’s plan for paying off the debt on the garage—$87 million over 30 years—rests on their prediction of increased parking demand. Meanwhile many cities in the US are experiencing a decline in parking demand (think Uber, Lyft, and decline in car ownership among young adults). Parking demand in Downtown Santa Cruz has declined 10% since 2008. A dubious plan to finance the garage puts Downtown businesses at risk of higher parking rates, and ultimately puts the City’s finances at risk.
The Nelson\Nygaard Downtown Parking Strategic Plan has never come to the Council’s attention. It is now the responsibility of the mayor and city council to invite Nelson\Nygaard to present to the council, which is a provision of the contract. For more information, see GarageAlternatives.org.
Rick Longinotti is co-chair of Campaign for Sustainable Transportation.
July 8, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/07/07/guest-commentary-honest-governance-needed-for-santa-cruzs-parking-plan/
By Rick Longinotti
Close your eyes and imagine you live somewhere where the authorities are planning to use the taxpayers’ money to build a massive public works project. Prior to embarking on the project, the authorities sought expert advice. The experts produced a report that said the project was not needed and would place the government at financial risk. The authorities suppressed the report and proceeded with the project. Now open your eyes. You are not in China, Brazil, or Sicily. You are in the City of Santa Cruz.
In May 2016, the City of Santa Cruz commissioned the nationally respected transportation consultant, Nelson\Nygaard, to produce a Downtown Parking Strategic Plan. In December of that year, City staff proposed building a library on the ground floor of a six-level parking structure. My organization, the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation advocated that the City wait for the results of the Nelson\Nygaard report before planning any new parking structures.
In September 2017, Nelson\Nygaard staffer Patrick Siegman shared with City staff the results of his parking demand model. The model inputs included City staff’s expectations for new development and loss of parking spaces at surface lots. It also included the City’s plan to double the parking rates downtown in order to pay for a new parking structure. The model predicted that the price increase would dampen demand for parking among workers commuting to their jobs. Siegman’s results concluded that the City’s sizable surplus of parking would continue, and that no garage was needed.
At that point City staff asked Nelson\Nygaard to borrow their parking model. Staff plugged their own inputs into the model, and came to the conclusion that there would be a significant parking deficit by 2025. Staff presented these results to the City’s Downtown Commission in February 2018, telling the Commissioners that they were presenting the results of the Nelson\Nygaard model. They did not tell the Commissioners that Nelson\Nygaard had reached very different results.
When Siegman heard that City staff had presented information as if it came from Nelson\Nygaard, the company considered quitting the contract on ethical grounds. Subsequently, the consultant and the City agreed to continue the contract with City staff agreement to refrain from trying to influence the outcome of the report.
In August, 2018, Patrick Siegman, now operating his own consulting business, contacted the City Manager to let him know that the staff’s use of the Nelson\Nygaard parking model was not credible. Nevertheless, the City Manager backed his staff. In September the City Council approved the concept of the parking garage. The number of proposed parking spaces was reduced from 640 to 600 in order to fit a few affordable housing units. My Public Records Act request to see City staff inputs into the parking model was denied.
On June 23, 2020, the City Council, with Katherine Beiers and Sandy Brown dissenting, approved the concept of a parking garage of 400 spaces—a size equivalent to the garage on Soquel and Front St. The proposed building includes a floor library and a minimum of 50 affordable housing units. At the Council meeting, City staff continued to predict a future parking deficit.
City staff’s plan for paying off the debt on the garage—$87 million over 30 years—rests on their prediction of increased parking demand. Meanwhile many cities in the US are experiencing a decline in parking demand (think Uber, Lyft, and decline in car ownership among young adults). Parking demand in Downtown Santa Cruz has declined 10% since 2008. A dubious plan to finance the garage puts Downtown businesses at risk of higher parking rates, and ultimately puts the City’s finances at risk.
The Nelson\Nygaard Downtown Parking Strategic Plan has never come to the Council’s attention. It is now the responsibility of the mayor and city council to invite Nelson\Nygaard to present to the council, which is a provision of the contract. For more information, see GarageAlternatives.org.
Rick Longinotti is co-chair of Campaign for Sustainable Transportation.
A letter to parking garage advocates
By Stephen Kessler | Santa Cruz Sentinel
May 27, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/05/27/stephen-kessler-a-letter-to-parking-garage-advocates/
To Santa Cruz City Councilwoman Cynthia Mathews, City Manager Martín Bernal, Development Director Bonnie Lipscomb and anyone else who still believes that a block-long six-story building with a five-story parking garage on top and a library on the bottom is a better use of the Lot 4 site on Cedar Street between Lincoln and Cathcart than an open plaza:
I wonder whether the coronavirus pandemic and its economic repercussions have changed your thinking about the need for another 300 parking spaces in the middle of downtown. It will likely be many years, if ever, before Santa Cruz recovers from the devastating impact the virus has had on local business, especially the restaurants, bars and live entertainment venues, which on weekend evenings used to draw the big crowds.
Even pre-COVID, available parking downtown exceeded existing demand. There may not have been a metered spot in front of the shop you were going to, but within a block or two you could find a space on the street or in a city lot or garage, and you could walk. So in light of what is likely to be a reduced demand for parking, how do you explain the alleged need for hundreds more parking spaces? What is it about a multistory garage that you find so irresistible—architecturally, environmentally, socially, esthetically and economically? Why would you wish to leave as your legacy such abominable evidence of your years in power?
A public plaza, an open social and cultural space in a sunny south-facing location whose most beautiful and appealing feature is those big magnolias with their generous green planet-cooling shade, with dedicated space for the farmers market and Antique Faire—essentially what we have now but much improved by new landscape design and much, much cheaper to build than an ugly and instantly obsolete garage—seems such an obviously superior idea in every way that I’m baffled by your persistence in promoting your garage-library. And if you tell me that now “affordable housing” is the major component, then what was so urgent about building more parking?
Ah yes, the library, which you want to incorporate into your garage with “affordable housing” as window-dressing to sweeten the poison of your proposal. I understand your fiscal instinct to squeeze as much juice as possible out of available resources, but some ideas (as I’ve argued before) are just bad to begin with and never should have made it out of whatever committee conceived them.
The library belongs where it is, grouped with City Hall and the Civic Auditorium, as a Civic Center complex which, when Center and Church Streets are closed for events, is also a pop-up plaza. With the imminent development of more multistory housing and commercial mixed-use buildings, downtown is going to need more open spaces, not fewer. To renovate the library where it is—a far more environmentally and fiscally sound option than constructing a giant garage, with or without a library—maintains the integrity of our Civic Center and will help to advance the proposed renovation of the Civic Auditorium.
If and when tourism and dining and entertainment and retail return to our downtown in whatever new forms they take, a plaza or commons where people can congregate for social interaction will be a far greater attraction for visitors (both local and out-of-town) than a monstrous block of concrete, no matter how nice a library is under it.
Soon the city council library subcommittee will submit its report to the council, presumably with recommendations. I hope they will see the “health in all policies” common sense of abandoning the ill-conceived garage and deciding to renovate our main library, even if it means raising additional money—perhaps from funds saved by scrapping the garage. Nobody knows what the future holds, but it’s a good bet that attractive open space will prove a far more practical investment than a concrete megalith meant to accommodate cars that are unlikely to materialize.
Stephen Kessler’s column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
May 27, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/05/27/stephen-kessler-a-letter-to-parking-garage-advocates/
To Santa Cruz City Councilwoman Cynthia Mathews, City Manager Martín Bernal, Development Director Bonnie Lipscomb and anyone else who still believes that a block-long six-story building with a five-story parking garage on top and a library on the bottom is a better use of the Lot 4 site on Cedar Street between Lincoln and Cathcart than an open plaza:
I wonder whether the coronavirus pandemic and its economic repercussions have changed your thinking about the need for another 300 parking spaces in the middle of downtown. It will likely be many years, if ever, before Santa Cruz recovers from the devastating impact the virus has had on local business, especially the restaurants, bars and live entertainment venues, which on weekend evenings used to draw the big crowds.
Even pre-COVID, available parking downtown exceeded existing demand. There may not have been a metered spot in front of the shop you were going to, but within a block or two you could find a space on the street or in a city lot or garage, and you could walk. So in light of what is likely to be a reduced demand for parking, how do you explain the alleged need for hundreds more parking spaces? What is it about a multistory garage that you find so irresistible—architecturally, environmentally, socially, esthetically and economically? Why would you wish to leave as your legacy such abominable evidence of your years in power?
A public plaza, an open social and cultural space in a sunny south-facing location whose most beautiful and appealing feature is those big magnolias with their generous green planet-cooling shade, with dedicated space for the farmers market and Antique Faire—essentially what we have now but much improved by new landscape design and much, much cheaper to build than an ugly and instantly obsolete garage—seems such an obviously superior idea in every way that I’m baffled by your persistence in promoting your garage-library. And if you tell me that now “affordable housing” is the major component, then what was so urgent about building more parking?
Ah yes, the library, which you want to incorporate into your garage with “affordable housing” as window-dressing to sweeten the poison of your proposal. I understand your fiscal instinct to squeeze as much juice as possible out of available resources, but some ideas (as I’ve argued before) are just bad to begin with and never should have made it out of whatever committee conceived them.
The library belongs where it is, grouped with City Hall and the Civic Auditorium, as a Civic Center complex which, when Center and Church Streets are closed for events, is also a pop-up plaza. With the imminent development of more multistory housing and commercial mixed-use buildings, downtown is going to need more open spaces, not fewer. To renovate the library where it is—a far more environmentally and fiscally sound option than constructing a giant garage, with or without a library—maintains the integrity of our Civic Center and will help to advance the proposed renovation of the Civic Auditorium.
If and when tourism and dining and entertainment and retail return to our downtown in whatever new forms they take, a plaza or commons where people can congregate for social interaction will be a far greater attraction for visitors (both local and out-of-town) than a monstrous block of concrete, no matter how nice a library is under it.
Soon the city council library subcommittee will submit its report to the council, presumably with recommendations. I hope they will see the “health in all policies” common sense of abandoning the ill-conceived garage and deciding to renovate our main library, even if it means raising additional money—perhaps from funds saved by scrapping the garage. Nobody knows what the future holds, but it’s a good bet that attractive open space will prove a far more practical investment than a concrete megalith meant to accommodate cars that are unlikely to materialize.
Stephen Kessler’s column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
Build Trust, Not a Garage
By Rick Longinotti
Santa Cruz Sentinel
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/05/18/guest-commentary-build-trust-not-a-garage/
Is the City of Santa Cruz staff proposal for a 400 space parking garage warranted?
In order to answer this question, the City Council should hear from the consultant that the City paid $100,000 to conduct a study of parking downtown. According to the contract with the consultant, Nelson Nygaard should present their findings to the City Council. That has never happened. Nor has the council been notified of the publication of Nelson Nygaard’s report which I have posted online at GarageAlternatives.org. The report concludes, “The most fiscally prudent approach to accommodating additional demand: Modernize parking management and better align parking prices to the cost of building and maintaining the system.”
This conclusion aligns with the consensus of parking experts from three agencies who presented to the Planning Commission on Oct. 15, 2015. City staff have argued that Santa Cruz is exempt from this consensus. They have presented no evidence to support the claim of Santa Cruz exceptionalism. An online interview with parking researcher and UCSC Professor Adam Millard-Ball addresses the claim of exceptionalism.
In this era of economic uncertainty, will the City be able to finance a new parking garage from parking revenues? In September 2018, the City Council approved a doubling of parking fees downtown that City staff claimed would cover the $2.9 million annual debt service on the garage portion of the proposed project. Part of the staff presentation was a report from a consultant, Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), that reviewed the City staff calculation of the garage financing model. EPS found that “The model does not evaluate a worst-case scenario (for parking revenues) where a major recession occurs or a technological change (and pricing) substantially reduces parking demand.”
Even in the unlikely event that no economic recessions or technological changes were to take place during the 30 year debt on the garage, projected parking revenues are unrealistically optimistic.
The projections are based on the notion that the increased parking prices would have minimal effect on reducing demand. EPS states, “The [City’s] financial model uses, in most cases, a demand elasticity at the low end of the range (0.1).” Choosing the low end of the range is not a safe assumption, according to parking consultants. No successful business would make an investment based on this kind of wishful assumption.
When the Downtown Parking District can’t pay its debt, what happens? The City may look to raise parking fees— setting off a further round of declining demand. Or the City could re-institute the deficiency fee paid by businesses downtown that is now being phased out by 2024.
Neither scenario is favorable to businesses. Ultimately the City’s general fund is liable for the debt.
The consensus of three agencies and an academic parking researcher that there are more fiscally and environmentally sound ways to satisfy parking demand should be enough to persuade the council that no more funds should be spent on planning a new garage for downtown.
The unrealistic plan to finance an unnecessary garage undermines the credibility of the City at a time when we need to rebuild trust in local government.
Rick Longinotti is co-chair of the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation.
Santa Cruz Sentinel
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/05/18/guest-commentary-build-trust-not-a-garage/
Is the City of Santa Cruz staff proposal for a 400 space parking garage warranted?
In order to answer this question, the City Council should hear from the consultant that the City paid $100,000 to conduct a study of parking downtown. According to the contract with the consultant, Nelson Nygaard should present their findings to the City Council. That has never happened. Nor has the council been notified of the publication of Nelson Nygaard’s report which I have posted online at GarageAlternatives.org. The report concludes, “The most fiscally prudent approach to accommodating additional demand: Modernize parking management and better align parking prices to the cost of building and maintaining the system.”
This conclusion aligns with the consensus of parking experts from three agencies who presented to the Planning Commission on Oct. 15, 2015. City staff have argued that Santa Cruz is exempt from this consensus. They have presented no evidence to support the claim of Santa Cruz exceptionalism. An online interview with parking researcher and UCSC Professor Adam Millard-Ball addresses the claim of exceptionalism.
In this era of economic uncertainty, will the City be able to finance a new parking garage from parking revenues? In September 2018, the City Council approved a doubling of parking fees downtown that City staff claimed would cover the $2.9 million annual debt service on the garage portion of the proposed project. Part of the staff presentation was a report from a consultant, Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), that reviewed the City staff calculation of the garage financing model. EPS found that “The model does not evaluate a worst-case scenario (for parking revenues) where a major recession occurs or a technological change (and pricing) substantially reduces parking demand.”
Even in the unlikely event that no economic recessions or technological changes were to take place during the 30 year debt on the garage, projected parking revenues are unrealistically optimistic.
The projections are based on the notion that the increased parking prices would have minimal effect on reducing demand. EPS states, “The [City’s] financial model uses, in most cases, a demand elasticity at the low end of the range (0.1).” Choosing the low end of the range is not a safe assumption, according to parking consultants. No successful business would make an investment based on this kind of wishful assumption.
When the Downtown Parking District can’t pay its debt, what happens? The City may look to raise parking fees— setting off a further round of declining demand. Or the City could re-institute the deficiency fee paid by businesses downtown that is now being phased out by 2024.
Neither scenario is favorable to businesses. Ultimately the City’s general fund is liable for the debt.
The consensus of three agencies and an academic parking researcher that there are more fiscally and environmentally sound ways to satisfy parking demand should be enough to persuade the council that no more funds should be spent on planning a new garage for downtown.
The unrealistic plan to finance an unnecessary garage undermines the credibility of the City at a time when we need to rebuild trust in local government.
Rick Longinotti is co-chair of the Campaign for Sustainable Transportation.
Large library downtown feels wrong
Santa Cruz Sentinel | Letters to the Editor
May 18, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/05/18/letter-large-library-downtown-feels-wrong/
As both Jean Brocklebank (5/12) and Curt Simmons (7/14/19 & 4/28) point out in separate guest commentaries, the city’s plans for a multipurpose garage/ library/apartment building is not looking inviting. I mostly frequent the Live Oak library, but I do go to the Central branch almost always when I am downtown. I’ve been hoping that the city council would recognize that the entire county is affected by the decisions they make on this issue. I asked Cynthia Mathews a few years ago why she was so adamant about the destruction of public open space being considered. She said, “We need more parking.” I drive downtown often and always find parking in short time. Public libraries, in my lifetime of use, are almost sacred places, restful oases of quiet, calm, limitless browsing, reading. A towering concrete monstrosity in the heart of our small urban center feels just plain wrong.
— Susan Stuart, Santa Cruz
May 18, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/05/18/letter-large-library-downtown-feels-wrong/
As both Jean Brocklebank (5/12) and Curt Simmons (7/14/19 & 4/28) point out in separate guest commentaries, the city’s plans for a multipurpose garage/ library/apartment building is not looking inviting. I mostly frequent the Live Oak library, but I do go to the Central branch almost always when I am downtown. I’ve been hoping that the city council would recognize that the entire county is affected by the decisions they make on this issue. I asked Cynthia Mathews a few years ago why she was so adamant about the destruction of public open space being considered. She said, “We need more parking.” I drive downtown often and always find parking in short time. Public libraries, in my lifetime of use, are almost sacred places, restful oases of quiet, calm, limitless browsing, reading. A towering concrete monstrosity in the heart of our small urban center feels just plain wrong.
— Susan Stuart, Santa Cruz
Parking structure would be a loss for downtown
Santa Cruz Sentinel | Guest Commentary
April 28, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/04/28/guest-commentary-parking-structure-would-be-a-loss-for-downtown/
By Curt Simmons
On March 16, like nearly every other small business owner in downtown Santa Cruz, I closed my office doors. Twelve employees plus my business partner and I now sit at home wondering when it might be safe to invite our family of patients back for their vision care. At some point I hope to continue what I have been doing in Santa Cruz for the last 30 plus years, however I also have concerns about our economic outlook.
Patience, planning and significant belt tightening will be imperative as we begin to open our businesses.
These imperatives bring me to a subject that I wrote about in this newspaper on July 14, 2019 in a letter signed by a dozen other downtown business owners. The City is proposing a massive new parking structure that would occupy the site of the current weekly Downtown Farmers Market. The Downtown Library would be a first-floor tenant in this structure. The City estimated the cost to the Downtown Parking District to be $37 million. Borrowing the funds would require debt payments of $2.9 million per year over the next 30 years – a total amount of $87 million. Financing would depend on revenue from parking district fees, a City staff model that predicts an increase in parking demand over the coming years.
This model ignores expert studies that indicate we already have ample parking spaces downtown and that future parking demand will remain flat. It ignores the downward trend in parked vehicles downtown since the peak in 2008. It ignores the possibility of future economic downturns, such as the one we are currently experiencing. It ignores the City’s Climate Action Plan that calls for reduced vehicle trips.
If and when the Downtown Parking District can’t pay its debt, what happens? The City could raise parking fees again. Or the City could re-institute the deficiency fee paid by businesses downtown that is now being phased out by 2024. Neither scenario is favorable to businesses. If the City wants to support small businesses downtown at this time of crisis it should:
In order to win support for its concept of a library/garage, the City proposed adding affordable housing to the project. We still do not know how many units this would provide, what the costs would be, and how they would be funded. If affordable housing is a desired outcome, the City has other parking lots that can be converted to affordable housing, in some cases with preserving parking on the ground level.
This proposed parking structure would end any possibility of a lovely Downtown Commons and permanent home to the Farmers Market at its current location. While virtually every European, Central American or South American city or town of any size has a central public park, most of our modern US cities have neglected to include one in the planning process. Priority is given over to the auto. Downtown parks are a haven for residents, workers and tourists alike. People visit cities for what they offer; cultural, educational, artistic, entertainment and economic opportunities, not their parking structures. If we lose this space, we will likely never have another opportunity to create such a valuable community asset.
Dr. Curt Simmons has operated Plaza Lane Optometry for 25 years. The following business owners and operators add their names to this letter: Dr. Jennifer Buell, Plaza Lane Optometry; Patrice Boyle, Soif Wine Bar; Paul Cocking, Gabriella Café; Lisa Graham, Agile Monkey; Lauren McLaughlin, Salon on the Square; Joseph Schultz, India Joze; Paul Speraw, Metavinyl; Stuyvie Bearns Esteva, Lupulo; Bubb Rader, Berdels; Anna Maleta, East West Acupuncture Clinic; Aaron Little, EyeQ.
April 28, 2020
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/04/28/guest-commentary-parking-structure-would-be-a-loss-for-downtown/
By Curt Simmons
On March 16, like nearly every other small business owner in downtown Santa Cruz, I closed my office doors. Twelve employees plus my business partner and I now sit at home wondering when it might be safe to invite our family of patients back for their vision care. At some point I hope to continue what I have been doing in Santa Cruz for the last 30 plus years, however I also have concerns about our economic outlook.
Patience, planning and significant belt tightening will be imperative as we begin to open our businesses.
These imperatives bring me to a subject that I wrote about in this newspaper on July 14, 2019 in a letter signed by a dozen other downtown business owners. The City is proposing a massive new parking structure that would occupy the site of the current weekly Downtown Farmers Market. The Downtown Library would be a first-floor tenant in this structure. The City estimated the cost to the Downtown Parking District to be $37 million. Borrowing the funds would require debt payments of $2.9 million per year over the next 30 years – a total amount of $87 million. Financing would depend on revenue from parking district fees, a City staff model that predicts an increase in parking demand over the coming years.
This model ignores expert studies that indicate we already have ample parking spaces downtown and that future parking demand will remain flat. It ignores the downward trend in parked vehicles downtown since the peak in 2008. It ignores the possibility of future economic downturns, such as the one we are currently experiencing. It ignores the City’s Climate Action Plan that calls for reduced vehicle trips.
If and when the Downtown Parking District can’t pay its debt, what happens? The City could raise parking fees again. Or the City could re-institute the deficiency fee paid by businesses downtown that is now being phased out by 2024. Neither scenario is favorable to businesses. If the City wants to support small businesses downtown at this time of crisis it should:
- Abandon the garage proposal, relying instead on measures to address parking demand recommended in the Nelson\Nygaard report, Santa Cruz Strategic Parking Plan.
- Terminate the deficiency fee now instead of phasing it out over the next four years.
In order to win support for its concept of a library/garage, the City proposed adding affordable housing to the project. We still do not know how many units this would provide, what the costs would be, and how they would be funded. If affordable housing is a desired outcome, the City has other parking lots that can be converted to affordable housing, in some cases with preserving parking on the ground level.
This proposed parking structure would end any possibility of a lovely Downtown Commons and permanent home to the Farmers Market at its current location. While virtually every European, Central American or South American city or town of any size has a central public park, most of our modern US cities have neglected to include one in the planning process. Priority is given over to the auto. Downtown parks are a haven for residents, workers and tourists alike. People visit cities for what they offer; cultural, educational, artistic, entertainment and economic opportunities, not their parking structures. If we lose this space, we will likely never have another opportunity to create such a valuable community asset.
Dr. Curt Simmons has operated Plaza Lane Optometry for 25 years. The following business owners and operators add their names to this letter: Dr. Jennifer Buell, Plaza Lane Optometry; Patrice Boyle, Soif Wine Bar; Paul Cocking, Gabriella Café; Lisa Graham, Agile Monkey; Lauren McLaughlin, Salon on the Square; Joseph Schultz, India Joze; Paul Speraw, Metavinyl; Stuyvie Bearns Esteva, Lupulo; Bubb Rader, Berdels; Anna Maleta, East West Acupuncture Clinic; Aaron Little, EyeQ.
A Win for the Library, Parking and the Community
This guest editorial was signed by a dozen business owners.
By Curt and Karen Simmons
Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 14, 2019
There is a perception that downtown Santa Cruz has a shortage of parking spaces. Customers come into our business, often late for their appointments, stating, “I just couldn’t find any parking.” Employees who arrive after 10 a.m. or who leave for lunch and try to get back in, often tell me, “There are no parking spaces left.” Yet an independent parking study commissioned by the City of Santa Cruz found that there is plenty of parking downtown during the peak hours. We have spot shortages, but not an overall shortage. The study found that parking supply will be adequate to meet demand ten years into the future, even with new development downtown and loss of surface parking lots.
What we are lacking is careful parking management.
Parking management would price parking according to the popularity of the location. Monthly permit holders would not be assigned to prime locations. Currently, the Locust Street Garage near our business frequently fills to capacity on weekday afternoons. When the garage is full, 60% of spaces are occupied by monthly permit holders. Thankfully, the city has taken steps to incentivize those of us who work downtown to consider alternatives to solo auto commutes. In addition to raising parking rates, the city has approved free bus passes and Jump Bike credit for all downtown employees, a program that has been successful in other cities. We appreciate these steps of progress. As several consultants have advised the city, the results of these measures should be evaluated before planning a new parking structure. UCSC professor and parking researcher Adam Millard Ball advised the city we are in an interim period before automated vehicles cause a large drop in parking demand.
With proper parking management, we can all win. A new parking structure that would cost the Downtown Parking District $87 million in debt payments over 30 years would be rendered unnecessary. The surplus funds could be used for the library to complete the renovation in its existing location and support housing for the downtown workforce. We could offer the farmers market a permanent home at its current location. The site could be improved to become a Town Commons and event space.
People are tribal. We need to gather. Historically we do that by gathering in spots where there is the interconnection of corridors. We have visited memorable cities, where public plazas matter. In many American cities today, including Santa Cruz, the connective tissue that binds communities and anchors neighborhoods is missing or in need of repair. A proven remedy is to create public space that allows people to connect and cultivate trust. This space allows us to refresh and feel in touch with nature.
The farmers market lot is an example of a great location to do that. With more residential development planned for downtown, it becomes even more important to create an outdoor living room for the urban family to gather. A revitalized library and farmers market will create a welcoming aspect to people of all backgrounds, drawing visitors downtown. And that’s good for business.
The Climate Action Plan, approved by the city in 2012 has a goal to “Reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled, decreasing single occupancy vehicle travel, and increasing the use of alternative fuels and transportation options.” A new multi-story garage does just the opposite. Fortunately, we can choose a win-win for the library, for business, and for the community. We can have a safe, walkable, convivial place to be together.
Let’s try it.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 14, 2019
There is a perception that downtown Santa Cruz has a shortage of parking spaces. Customers come into our business, often late for their appointments, stating, “I just couldn’t find any parking.” Employees who arrive after 10 a.m. or who leave for lunch and try to get back in, often tell me, “There are no parking spaces left.” Yet an independent parking study commissioned by the City of Santa Cruz found that there is plenty of parking downtown during the peak hours. We have spot shortages, but not an overall shortage. The study found that parking supply will be adequate to meet demand ten years into the future, even with new development downtown and loss of surface parking lots.
What we are lacking is careful parking management.
Parking management would price parking according to the popularity of the location. Monthly permit holders would not be assigned to prime locations. Currently, the Locust Street Garage near our business frequently fills to capacity on weekday afternoons. When the garage is full, 60% of spaces are occupied by monthly permit holders. Thankfully, the city has taken steps to incentivize those of us who work downtown to consider alternatives to solo auto commutes. In addition to raising parking rates, the city has approved free bus passes and Jump Bike credit for all downtown employees, a program that has been successful in other cities. We appreciate these steps of progress. As several consultants have advised the city, the results of these measures should be evaluated before planning a new parking structure. UCSC professor and parking researcher Adam Millard Ball advised the city we are in an interim period before automated vehicles cause a large drop in parking demand.
With proper parking management, we can all win. A new parking structure that would cost the Downtown Parking District $87 million in debt payments over 30 years would be rendered unnecessary. The surplus funds could be used for the library to complete the renovation in its existing location and support housing for the downtown workforce. We could offer the farmers market a permanent home at its current location. The site could be improved to become a Town Commons and event space.
People are tribal. We need to gather. Historically we do that by gathering in spots where there is the interconnection of corridors. We have visited memorable cities, where public plazas matter. In many American cities today, including Santa Cruz, the connective tissue that binds communities and anchors neighborhoods is missing or in need of repair. A proven remedy is to create public space that allows people to connect and cultivate trust. This space allows us to refresh and feel in touch with nature.
The farmers market lot is an example of a great location to do that. With more residential development planned for downtown, it becomes even more important to create an outdoor living room for the urban family to gather. A revitalized library and farmers market will create a welcoming aspect to people of all backgrounds, drawing visitors downtown. And that’s good for business.
The Climate Action Plan, approved by the city in 2012 has a goal to “Reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled, decreasing single occupancy vehicle travel, and increasing the use of alternative fuels and transportation options.” A new multi-story garage does just the opposite. Fortunately, we can choose a win-win for the library, for business, and for the community. We can have a safe, walkable, convivial place to be together.
Let’s try it.
Dr. Curt Simmons has operated Plaza Lane Optometry for 25 years. The following business owners add their names to this letter: Dr. Jennifer Buell, Plaza Lane Optometry; Patrice Boyle, Soif Wine Bar; Paul Cocking, Gabriella Café; Lisa Graham, Agile Monkey; John Hamstra, The Bagelry; Wade Hall and Matt Potter, Spokesman Bicycles; Lauren McLaughlin, Salon on the Square; Joseph Schultz, India Joze; Paul Speraw, Metavinyl, Noelle Antolin and Stuyvie Bearns Esteva, Lupulo.
|
New downtown library proposal looks promising
by Jean Brocklebank, Judi Grunstra and Michael Lewis
Santa Cruz Sentinel | Guest Commentary
November 5, 2019
The recent preliminary report from Jayson Architecture to the Library Subcommitte was a surprise for two reasons. First, the Jayson plan provides much more than a renovation. It entails extensive rebuilding of the library within the Measure S budget of $27 million. It will look brand new in every respect. Second, while being smaller (30,000 sf) than the existing inefficiently used building, the enhanced library will still provide the programs and services that the public has come to expect from a modern library.
The downsizing and upgrading turn out to have many unforeseen benefits. For example reduction in overall library square footage, while fulfilling all library functions, will result in future operational and maintenance cost savings, also reducing environmental impacts.
So, what does a smaller two-story library look like and how will it function? The answer is that it will look beautiful and function well.
Although no alternative for the downtown library will be a LEED certified building, due to constraints of Measure S funds, energy efficiency can be obtained in many ways, not the least being that a smaller library requires less lighting, heating and cooling.
The industry standard for maintenance and operation of libraries is $10/square foot/year. With a reduction of 12,000 sf the smaller library can save $120,000/year on maintenance.
Countywide Library Administrative services (including IT) will not be housed in the downtown library. So they will not be affected by the Jayson plan.
Right now there is no way to evaluate a library in a mixed-use structure. There are no floor plans, visuals, cost models or estimates, or listing of the extensive tenant improvements beyond the shell for such a library. Abe Jayson cautioned the subcommittee that tenant improvements are more costly than people realize.
The mixed-use project seems to change weekly but the subcommittee still has no figures to compare the two likely library alternatives. Without essential information for a garage-library, the subcommittee cannot possibly recommend a preference for a library in the mixed-use project. However, it can heed Abe Jayson’s concern that the clock is running out for Measure S funding and acknowledge the benefits of a beautifully rebuilt library. It is time to finally separate the library from the parking garage-retail-housing project.
We hope that will be the recommendation of the subcommittee.
Jean Brocklebank, Judi Grunstra, Michael Lewis are with Don’t Bury The Library.
Santa Cruz Sentinel | Guest Commentary
November 5, 2019
The recent preliminary report from Jayson Architecture to the Library Subcommitte was a surprise for two reasons. First, the Jayson plan provides much more than a renovation. It entails extensive rebuilding of the library within the Measure S budget of $27 million. It will look brand new in every respect. Second, while being smaller (30,000 sf) than the existing inefficiently used building, the enhanced library will still provide the programs and services that the public has come to expect from a modern library.
The downsizing and upgrading turn out to have many unforeseen benefits. For example reduction in overall library square footage, while fulfilling all library functions, will result in future operational and maintenance cost savings, also reducing environmental impacts.
So, what does a smaller two-story library look like and how will it function? The answer is that it will look beautiful and function well.
- The building will be brought up to code. There will be new HVAC, plumbing, fire sprinklers, and all new ADA bathrooms.
- The roof will be replaced. The HVAC will be placed on the roof, freeing up space in the building.
- The main core building structure is sound. The perimeter ground floor sections that need some seismic upgrade will be removed, leaving a structurally sound two story building of 30,000 square feet.
- The plan consolidates the library within the Civic Center by redesigning the library entrance to face City Hall. Extensive new glazing on that west-facing wall will bring natural light into the library. The same is planned for the south-facing wall. The entrance lobby is enlarged and sunny.
- A second entrance off an enlarged parking lot is planned.
- A new, larger, first floor community meeting room can remain open after hours for more flexibility. There will be several smaller meeting spaces.
- Teens will have their own dedicated space, separate from the children’s space.
- An enlarged children’s area will include an outdoor garden.
- Space is available for the Genealogy Society’s continued services.
- Upgraded computer technology, new shelving, new furniture, enhanced staff areas and offices are provided.
Although no alternative for the downtown library will be a LEED certified building, due to constraints of Measure S funds, energy efficiency can be obtained in many ways, not the least being that a smaller library requires less lighting, heating and cooling.
The industry standard for maintenance and operation of libraries is $10/square foot/year. With a reduction of 12,000 sf the smaller library can save $120,000/year on maintenance.
Countywide Library Administrative services (including IT) will not be housed in the downtown library. So they will not be affected by the Jayson plan.
Right now there is no way to evaluate a library in a mixed-use structure. There are no floor plans, visuals, cost models or estimates, or listing of the extensive tenant improvements beyond the shell for such a library. Abe Jayson cautioned the subcommittee that tenant improvements are more costly than people realize.
The mixed-use project seems to change weekly but the subcommittee still has no figures to compare the two likely library alternatives. Without essential information for a garage-library, the subcommittee cannot possibly recommend a preference for a library in the mixed-use project. However, it can heed Abe Jayson’s concern that the clock is running out for Measure S funding and acknowledge the benefits of a beautifully rebuilt library. It is time to finally separate the library from the parking garage-retail-housing project.
We hope that will be the recommendation of the subcommittee.
Jean Brocklebank, Judi Grunstra, Michael Lewis are with Don’t Bury The Library.