Editorial Mercifully, election day cometh Campaign tactics and emotion marred Measure D debate from the start
I
n a community that prides itself on both its intelligence and the ability to debate issues at a high level, the campaign over Measure D has not been our best work. The ballot measure allows voters to decide if the City Council made the right decision in unanimously approving a zoning change to permit the development of a four-story, 60-unit lowincome apartment building and 12 houses on Maybell and Clemo avenues, across from Briones Park on the southern edge of the city’s Barron Park neighborhood. The referendum is the only item on the ballot for Palo Alto residents, and an expected low turnout means the outcome will depend on which side can do a better job of turning out its supporters. A “yes” vote upholds the City Council’s rezoning of the 2.5-acre property, now the site of four homes and an orchard, so that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation can proceed with its plan. A “no” vote keeps the zoning as is, retaining four two-family homes on Maybell and permitting a number of possible options, including new homes, condominiums or apartments on the remainder of the property. The bitterness and anger of the campaign, fueled mostly by the neighbors who gathered the 4,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot and felt ignored and disrespected by the city and the Housing Corporation from the start, resulted in an ongoing whirlwind of assertions that too often were distortions and exaggerations. And for their part, the nonprofit Housing Corporation and the city officials who rallied around it to support Measure D have been unable to clearly document and indisputably prove their key point: that defeating Measure D will actually result in a worse and more intensive development than the project being proposed. A barrage of campaign mailings extol the value and need for senior housing. Sadly, the campaign has pitted friends against each other, divided the Barron Park neighborhood and tapped into a festering unease in the community about how zoning decisions are made, who pays the price and who benefits. The Weekly urged a “no” vote on Measure D (see our Oct. 18 editorial), primarily because we believe the City Council failed to strike the appropriate balance between mitigating the impacts on the neighborhood and the Housing Corporation’s desire to maximize its returns in selling half the site to a private home developer. In not recognizing the potential for conflict early on and taking steps to forge compromise, the city and Housing Corporation mistakenly sowed the seeds for this bitter contest and emboldened opponents. Hopefully, whether Measure D passes or is defeated, both sides will be able to put the emotions of the campaign behind them and unite behind a common goal of supporting the creation of more affordable housing for seniors.
Too glitzy for Palo Alto In a flash, digital billboard idea panned and discarded
O
nce in awhile an idea comes along that is so outlandish that everyone runs away from it as fast as possible. That was the case Monday night, when Mayor Greg Scharff and his colleagues disposed of a loser of an idea in record time. Even calling this a “proposal” is probably unfair to the city staff, which asked for “direction” from the Council on a moneymaking endeavor that first surfaced when the Great Recession was severely impacting city finances and all potential revenue angles were being pursued. The staff dutifully looked into operating an electronic billboard on city property along the highway, estimating that it was located in such a prime spot it might generate $1 million a year in advertising revenue. The idea was immediately ridiculed by residents on Palo Alto Online’s Town Square forum, and Council members got an earful through letters and emails. Why the Mayor and City Manager ever allowed this item to even come before the Council is bewildering. Perhaps they were just looking for something to lighten up the evening. But next time a dumb idea comes along, let’s not waste the time.
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Evaluate the facts Editor, The opponents of Measure D claim that under existing zoning, 41 affordable homes could be built on the site next to the four existing market-rate homes. This is simply not true. Affordable housing projects cannot be financed at such a low density. Nor can existing zoning guarantee that any units will be permanently affordable for low-income seniors. The City Council’s zoning decision is the only legal tool to ensure the 60 Maybell apartments remain affordable and age-restricted for seniors in perpetuity. As people learn more about Measure D between now and Nov. 5, and they hear arguments on both sides of this issue, I would only ask that they evaluate the facts of the Maybell project and this project alone. If they agree we need more affordable senior housing, then I urge them to vote “yes” on Measure D. Craig Bright Alma Street, Palo Alto
Reasons for “yes” Editor, Vote “yes” for affordable senior independent housing. That’s yes to 60 housing units that will shelter low-income people age 62 and older. There are many types of housing specifically for people who are 62 and older. The Maybell development is a rental project whose rents are being kept low through several funding sources. This is an independent development meaning that the residents provide their own care or make arrangements themselves for additional care if needed. This is not assisted living. Vote “yes” for well-planned housing. These 60 small units are located directly behind the 100foot-tall Tan Apartments complex. The 50-foot height of the building is a transition to the 30foot standard height of the twostory single-family units that face Maybell Ave. A transition down in height is good zoning. Vote “yes” for an excellent nonprofit manager of affordable apartments. The reputation of Palo Alto Housing Corporation is among the best. Their units are kept in excellent condition. Vote “yes” because funding for senior units is difficult to obtain. There is competition to fund our many community needs. The city dedicated money from the Stanford Hospital expansion that should have gone to affordable housing, into youth services and infrastructure. If the Weekly knows of other money that can be used to fund affordable housing
Page 16ÊUÊ Ûi LiÀÊ£]ÊÓä£ÎÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii ÞÊUÊÜÜÜ°*> Ì " i°V
please find it! Let us celebrate a creative solution to providing senior affordable housing units. Vote “yes” on Measure D! Phyllis C. Cassel Wellsbury Way, Palo Alto
Zoning for sale Editor, In 2009, when running for city council, Mayor Scharff said that “Planned Community zoning has the advantage of requiring the developer to give something to benefit the community.” The mayor has unusual standards as to what constitutes a “benefit.” In May 2012, Scharff was one of seven council members who voted in favor of the Lytton Gateway project, calling the building itself a benefit: “I think this is a prime site and having an office building — a Gateway project — is itself a public benefit.” Councilwoman Nancy Shepherd agreed, saying the building itself was a contributor to the public-benefit package. Back in the 1990s, council member Micki Schneider said that PC zoning allowed developers to benefit at the city’s expense. Another council member at the time, Ron Andersen, said it was “zoning for sale.” More recently, Councilwoman Liz Kniss said developers gained too much at the public’s expense and PC zoning was one of the biggest issues raised during her council campaign. In March of this year Planning Commissioners Martinez, Michael and Alcheck called for major changes to planned-community zoning, calling the existing process “the greatest challenge to land-use planning in Palo Alto today.” With all the talk, it took the Maybell community to finally stand up and say, “No more rezoning!” As the owner of a Palo Alto home in which a family member lives, I urge people to vote against Measure D. Pat Marriott Oakhurst Avenue, Los Altos
A godsend for seniors Editor, There are many senior and retired couples living on fixed incomes in Palo Alto who have children and grandchildren living in the area. When the rents exceed their income, and they certainly will, where are they going to live? Palo Alto would not be an option for them. They would be forced to get out of town. There are also seniors, who have lived and worked in Palo Alto for
many years and who have established a network of friends, and relationships, for whom it would be very stressful to move away and start a new life. Do we want our city to be a place where only young professionals and the very wealthy can live? For many seniors, these 60 new belowmarket units would be a godsend. Vote “yes” on Measure D. Linda Lopez Otero Curtner Avenue, Palo Alto
More affordable housing Editor, We are all residents of Barron Park, and the Maybell affordable senior apartment project is in our neighborhood. In fact, one of us lives on the same block. We fully support this project, and we will all be voting “yes” on Measure D. We can all agree that Palo Alto is not the same place it was 10, or 20, or 30 years ago when many of us moved here. Progress is inevitable, and we empathize with the growing concern about the pace of development, traffic congestion and overall impacts to our quality of life. But the fact remains Measure D is about one thing and one thing only — the ability to build 60 much-needed affordable senior apartments and 12 single-family homes on a large parcel of land at the corner of Maybell and Clemo avenues in our neighborhood. Here are some of the reasons why we support Measure D: - Building this project will allow Palo Alto seniors on fixed incomes to remain close to their families and in the community they call home. - The need for affordable senior housing in Palo Alto is well-documented and undeniable. - Maybe someday our parents or one of us may need a safe, affordable place to call home. - We have carefully evaluated this project from a neighborhood and quality-of-life perspective and we support it. So if people agree Palo Alto needs more affordable housing for senior residents, then we hope they will join us in voting “yes” on Measure D. Don Anderson Alta Mesa Avenue, Palo Alto Trina Lovercheck McGregor Way, Palo Alto Lynnie Melena Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto
A better place with D Editor, I have lived in downtown Palo Alto for many years. There have been many changes over these years: some good, some bad. I appreciate the increased vitality of our downtown; I don’t like the