What is Measure D really about?
Original post made
on Oct 11, 2013
After hearing each side out during public meetings, in-depth interviews, a tour of the orchard site and dozens of conversations with supporters and opponents, the Weekly zooms in on eight iffy claims that both sides have put forth in the Measure D debate in the hope they will convince voters come Nov. 5.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Friday, October 11, 2013, 12:00 AM
Posted by Vote AGAINST D
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 12, 2013 at 11:06 am
"If one of those private developers had prevailed, that property would already be headed for construction of up to 46 homes, either a condominium project or a mix of single family, duplex and townhouse units. There would be no public input no matter how upset the neighborhood might be at the increased traffic and out-of-character appearance of what was going in."
One of those private developers did prevail in 2011. Hmmm.... Somehow it's not a condo complex. Maybe the developer realized that in order to put what you envision onto that property, he was going to have to subdivide, and maybe he realized that when you subdivide, you can only sneak in something so inconsistent with the comprehensive plan if the neighbors aren't paying attention and the City gets away with it. And maybe he realized that the examples brought up in this article are not in the heart of residential neighborhoods like Maybell is, and it's harder to sneak things by the neighbors when plopping something right into the middle of their residential neighborhood.
Since Gennady doesn't know the area or the history except according to PACC and PAHC, and just took what the City provided him, when he was looking at recent developments, he forgot to include the Glenbrook extension in Greenacres I, a very large tract of land that the city tried to make into a road from El Camino to Arastradero and even sued neighbors over. But neighbors managed to fight the City and guess what? It's a subdivision with large homes and "normal" sized lots, some homes (not a typo, I said "homes") even larger than 9,000sq ft. (That happened about 10 years ago.)
NOTICE TO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE A LARGE DEVELOPMENT GO IN AT MAYBELL, WHETHER BY PAHC OR ANYONE ELSE (of course check with your friendly neighborhood land use attorney): When a private developer -- or PAHC for that matter, they have to subdivide, too -- goes to subdivide, the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act, which means that's a time when those who care can ensure the project is consistent with the general plan. This is why even PAHC's funding application asks for verification that a project is consistent with the city's general plan, which of course our city provided along with the objectively falsified verification of the rezoning (technically, the property has never been rezoned, the referendum put to a vote whether to enact the ordinance).
So, there is an opportunity for residents to ensure a development is consistent with the general plan. Not the City's self-serving cherry-picked version, but the actual general plan. For example, something that Gennady also didn't know, is that the general plan calls for transition zoning (as the RM-15 is) to be on the LOWER END of the range when adjacent to R-1 areas. That is EIGHT units per acre, not 15. Neighbors have only let that argument slide because if PAHC does develop affordable senior units there under existing zoning, they aren't going to argue about the extra units for that purpose. But they will if it's a market-rate development. And the density bonuses Gennady brought up are only for AFFORDABLE HOUSING. (If the City tries to invoke that for one or two BMR units, they will face a court challenge over that, which there is precedent they will lose.)
Unlike the political process we just went through, proceedings under the Subdivision Map Act are an evidentiary process that even charter cities like Palo Alto have to comply with and which can be enforced in court.
So if you are reading this, and you don't want to see a dense development, don't leave it up to someone else, contact the City on Monday or Tuesday, and insist that you be notified of any and all proceedings for the Maybell property under the Subdivision Map Act. Then go sit with a highlighter and our Comprehensive Plan, and mark out all the many ways a high-density development in that spot is inconsistent with the general plan. Be sure to check out more than just land use. When the time comes, submit your findings by letter. Again, it's not a political process then, you are providing evidence for a court challenge, which is already in the works, and your citizen input will be invaluable. Web Link
Lastly, it's ludicrous to think any sane builder would try to put 600 sq ft 1-bedroom condos there - which is what you would get if you had to live with the existing zoning limits and tried to put in more and more units - when he or she could put in 15-20 nice, very desirable homes of 2,500-3,000sq ft that would sell around $2.5-3million plus in this neighborhood. Regardless, any sane builder who goes to buy that property is going to know they face huge blowback if they try to build anything else, because a giant stack of letters with concerns about traffic, etc (i.e., city and developer liability) have been included with the file on that property.
Please vote AGAINST D, just to show the City Council that steamrolling neighborhoods will be rejected by residents no matter how it is packaged, and in future they need to work with Palo Alto residents. No stack and pack in the middle of residential neighborhoods!
Posted by Vote AGAINST D
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 13, 2013 at 10:31 pm
You wrote, "Nice one, misleading! Seniors should just suck it up and leave. Get these bum seniors out of Palo Alto."
Actually, that's just another ridiculous, misleading sound bite from you proponents of rezoning.
1) The major demographic in the neighborhood, and AGAINST Measure D is seniors.
2) A large development of senior housing sits just 1/4 to 1/3 mile away from this site, just across El Camino essentially in the same neighborhood. They are building a tall new building on El Camino and El Camino Way. All large developments include BMR housing, so there will be affordable housing there. No one in the neighborhood has even said one peep in protest, because it's on El Camino. (El Camino Way has a SERIOUS parking problem, though, but it's unclear who is causing that.)
3) This same neighborhood already hosts the most affordable housing of any residential neighborhood in Palo Alto, including the Terman Apartments which has designated senior spots. Residents were a big reason we have that project, many of the same residents who are AGAINST the bad plan at Maybell. Those Terman low-income units may be at risk of being converted to market-rate - if so, the same residents are planning to fight to keep those low-income units.
4) The same neighborhood is currently in the process of losing over 400 low-income residents at Buena Vista. The City is doing nothing to stop it. If the City committed the $7million they are loaning for Maybell, and the County committed the $8million they are loaning at Maybell, instead to Buena Vista and added to the $14million the neighbors have offered, they could buy the 4 acre property together and save vastly more low-income housing than at Maybell. The City could sit on their portion or develop it over time for more low income housing, thus saving 400 low-income residents who are already Palo Alto residents, many seniors and families. They won't, though. Speaking of heartless.
5) PAHC manages the Moldaw senior BMR units, in a new beautiful senior center with fully assisted living and age-in-place provisions, where 20 out of 24 of those BMR units went completely empty and unfilled for three years, and PAHC did nothing at all about it. Presumably if there is so much need, THEY were telling seniors to take a hike, or at least doing nothing to negotiate a different deal. Which they got the City to do this past spring because of the giant and embarrassing spotlight on all those empty senior units, so clearly they could have filled those if they had felt the need. (Are they even all filled now?)
6) PAHC and the City keep advertising that the need for Maybell is because 20% of Palo Alto seniors live below the poverty limit. Yet the lowest-income person allowed at Maybell will make more than twice the poverty limit, many almost 3.5 times the poverty limit, i.e., not one single person living in poverty will be housed at Maybell. Yet PAHC and the City have been advertising that as the reason for the development, getting up the hopes of those living in poverty who think they will benefit. Now THAT's heartless.
7) PAHC never did a real marketing study to figure out what the greatest need for senior housing in Palo Alto is (refer to Moldaw experience and misadvertising to the impoverished above). They are committing millions without knowing whether this does a good job of meeting the need we have, thus inadvertently leaving the greatest need unmet, and possibly without resources because of this project going forward.
7) The City's own documents show that the whole point of the setup at Maybell -- which necessitated the rezoning -- was to save money for the City and make PAHC more competitive in their funding competition. But who are they competing against? Other projects in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties from less wealthy communities, where the same money would pay for more affordable housing for needier people. Generally, the categories compete with like projects, so PAHC being more competitive means they're housing a few seniors in Palo Alto instead of housing a whole lot more seniors in, say, Gilroy or East Palo Alto. Even if no one were competing with them (doubtful, PAHC said they were one in five), if they don't take the money, it's there in the next round for a worthy project. Palo Alto is a wealthy community that has never had to finance affordable housing this way or by taking money from projects in less wealthy communities before. (i.e., be that heartless)
8) PAHC is a regional housing provider not limited to Palo Alto. They can provide far more affordable housing for Palo Alto seniors by taking a more regional approach. They have stated their position that seniors living in low-income housing are comfortable taking the bus, so presumably downtown Palo Alto is just a busride away. Why not build a much nicer regional senior center in Sunnyvale, say, where seniors of all income levels can live (those who have higher income can help subsidize more low-income), providing more housing for all seniors, nearby, and in a better location for the density like on El Camino?
9) Maybell is just apartments. No on-site dining, no nearby grocery or medical services. When residents need assisted living, they will have to find it and move away from their friends and what they know. As one geriatrician told me, moving is really hard on old people, the older and more fragile, the harder it is. Palo Alto is some of the most expensive real estate in the world. The cost of simply dedicating this land tax free for so long could put those same seniors in subsidized senior centers where they could have assisted living when they need it!
10) Neighbors are not heartless and if PAHC really wants to build the housing there, they are happy to step aside if they build under the existing zoning (or even close). Many neighbors even pointed out in City meetings that they should JUST build the senior housing and drop the market-rate for-profit portion taking up 55% of the property. PAHC probably won't do that because they don't have the kind of resources that Eden Housing who built 801 Alma has, in fact they went after Maybell because they were kind of miffed at the City giving 801 Alma to Eden and wanted to be top affordable-housing dog in town again -- there is a professional/ego-related motive in there for PAHC. Now who's being heartless?
If this was really about the affordable housing, the City could have guessed such overdevelopment would be a problem (this wouldn't be the first time overdevelopment was protested) and gone with a low-income developer who could pay the actual costs and put in just the affordable housing. If the low-income developer paid as much per unit at Maybell as Eden did at 801 Alma, the financing scheme at Maybell wouldn't be necessary, they could build 40-60 senior units at Alma with density, height, setbacks, daylight plane, parking and other restrictions closer to existing zoning, and wouldn't over burden the neighborhood. This isn't about rejecting the senior housing for the neighborhood, it's about rejecting the overdevelopment and rezoning. PAHC and the City could have easily put this on a different path and instead of insisting on getting their big discount at the neighborhood's expense, they would be building there now. It's not the neighbors who are heartless, it's the City who is being heartless and greedy, and cynical to steamroll and blame this on neighbors.
11) Lastly, neighbors have been much more considerate of the needs of affordable housing than proponents of the rezoning have been about the disabled kids who attend the long-time programs at the OH at Juana Briones School, the part of the school facing the park and catty corner to the new development. To save money, the City is allowing new stovepipe houses the disabled could never live in to be built right across the street from where these kids go to school, tangible evidence of the City's complete disregard for the disabled in its housing policies. They are taking a cavalier attitude to the impact of the overflow parking on the families of those who take their kids to the county rehabilitation facility there. Speaking of heartless.
If you look beyond the glib soundbites, please have a heart (and a brain) and vote AGAINST D.
Posted by Vote AGAINST D
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 15, 2013 at 3:24 pm
@ Eileen 1,
This issue has been discussed.
The biggest impact issue for the school children is the impact of putting a large high-density development where there is currently 4 ranch houses and an orchard. The development has no other ways in and out except via the two (and only) major Safe Routes to School traveled by nearly 4,000 school children every school day, nearly half by bike and foot. One of those routes, Maybell, is seriously substandard in width, with no room for even a single regular bike lane or sidewalk on either side.
Residents in the neighborhood participated in an in-depth safety review, with 6 months of discussions and six-figure upgrade of Maybell within the last 4 or 5 years. Maybell is about is safe as it's going to get, and those neighbors realize it's not safe now, much less with a high-density development on it.
City policy is to subject developments along school commute corridors to "heightened scrutiny" for safety, yet this was never done despite months of calls by neighbors along the way. The traffic study was minimal, included almost no current data, and never examined the impact of the development on the bikes and pedestrians.
It's specious to argue about how much seniors drive or don't drive. We should have had an actual study with current data for such a major development, instead of arguing without any data. The City policy calls for it and we owe it to our children. Even the article above was clearly written by someone who is not familiar with the traffic patterns on Maybell, which change depending on the season, the weather, the school schedule (such as kindergarten) and is NOT limited to two surges a day.
The second impact on the schools that have been brought up but roundly ignored by City Council is the direct impact on the school that sits right across from the development. The part of the school that faces the park and development has a preschool for seriously disabled children, an elementary program for seriously disabled children, and a rehabilitation program for seriously disabled children from around the county, all long-time programs.
The children in these programs use the park daily. There are already parking challenges in that segment of the neighborhood and families in those programs, especially the rehabilitation program. The consequences of building a high-density development that has seriously inadequate parking to the families of the disabled children in those programs have not been addressed. The City Council brushed off all concerns about the symbolism of their allowing a market-rate development of high density, stovepipe homes the disabled could never live in right in the faces of these schools for disabled children, evidence of our City's complete and total disregard for the disabled in new housing development in Palo Alto.
The other thing that has been a topic of hot discussion has been what could go on that site if this development isn't built.
There are many reasons the scenario you envision with 30 units being built there will never happen. But let me cover a few:
1) By virtue of the fact that the City and County basically bought the property with $15million in loans, the loan agreements give the City full power to take over the property. If PAHC wants to sell, the City has first right of refusal. They could take the property, put deed restrictions on it that ensure 6,000 sq ft lots (i.e., around 15 or 16 single-family homes), then resell it at a profit. If they believe the impact of the land use you envision is even possible (many don't) and so negative, they have a duty to exercise their power to prevent it. And they do have full power to prevent it.
2) Anyone who subdivides the property has to comply with the Subdivision Map Act. Unlike the political process where they can shameless cherry pick the comprehensive plan for whatever will help them justify their outcome, the SMA is an evidentiary process that even charter cities have to comply with. When neighbors aren't involved, the City clearly gets away with things such as in the examples they gave Sheyner for this article. But they didn't mention that in the same neighborhood in Greenacres I, the huge Glenbrook extension was built around 10 years ago not with stack and pack, but with compatible lots - some houses even larger than 9,000 sq ft (the houses, the lots are larger). Neighbors had to battle the city in that situation over everything, and the result was they got a compatible development. I can tell you they will continue to be involved at Maybell, because I know there are plans to do so already before even the referendum was qualified.
The scenario you have asked about won't happen because of that alone.
3) Do the math. Talk to some builders. Building 2500 sq ft new homes in this area is a guaranteed sale of $.25-3million in a week. Building 1 bedroom 600 square foot apartments? It costs more to build that many more bathrooms and kitchens, and the returns are way less guaranteed. Remember, if you have to build under existing zoning, there are setback, height, parking, density, square footage, and other restrictions that will make what the City envisions to scare us pretty unlikely. The Mayor himself said in one of the meetings that a 30-foot height restriction (as is on the whole Maybell existing zoning) pretty much limits it to 2 stories. When you put in more units, you have to have internal lanes (with minimum widths) and the homes get smaller and smaller. Note that the houses at Alma Plaza were done under PC zoning and could not be done at Maybell under existing zoning. Unless it is rezoned for high-density.
4) If you are concerned about the impact on the schools, perhaps you will consider supporting one of the many efforts that will proceed after Nov 5 to convert the property to a low-traffic use, such as a community orchard, as would be safest for the kids in the many local schools.
There are some other reasons afoot but this post is already too long.
Bottom line: If Measure D is passed, there will be ongoing battles, and neighbors have very good standing to still prevent the high-density development. If Measure D is rejected (AGAINST wins), the same neighbors who have fought City Hall for the first time in so many years will, I promise you, ensure that the (already extremely improbable) scenario you are worried about will never happen.
Posted by Vote AGAINST D
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 16, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Actually, as much as proponents of rezoning have tried to negatively portray the orchard in order to keep people who care about trees and nature and open space from coming to the aide of those who would like to preserve that location as open space/parkland, it is the last piece of heritage orchard in Palo Alto.
Every other community around us has preserved some piece of orchard or our agricultural past. There are grants at the state and federal level for that. The piece of property sits across the street from an existing park, facing the hills. There are over 100 established trees and 12 giant, 100-year-old oaks (2 of which will come down for this development - isn't it convenient that the 2 in the "worst" shape are the ones they most need to take down for the development?)
It's a bad place to put a high-density development because it's in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It's a bad place to put a high-density development because it sits at a bottleneck for traffic for the neighborhood and along the Safe Routes to School for 4 major schools that are already overcrowded and not very safe. It's a bad place to put a high-density development because it's currently zoned LOW DENSITY, and it is the psychological heart of the neighborhood across from Juana Briones School and Park. It is a BAD PLACE to put high-density market-rate stovepipe homes across from 3 schools for severely disabled children who could never live in such homes, reminding them that Palo Alto doesn't even consider the disabled in its diversity goals in the housing element, and is building as fast as it can while shutting them out. It is a bad place to put a high-density development with inadequate parking with no provision to protect the park and schools from the overflow parking.
Frankly, the fact that it is "undeveloped" is the very reason a high-density development shouldn't go there. It should go somewhere on a corridor like El Camino where the code says a high-density development is appropriate. The senior center across El Camino from the neighborhood is putting in a large new building right as we speak - Huh. Was that the second to the last "undeveloped" piece of property so that's why they got to build there? Or maybe they bought a dilapidated property and tore it down, like everyone else does, what do you think? How many new buildings do you see going up on El Camino right now? And guess what, there's an empty lot on El Camino right in the neighborhood...
Frankly, they went after that parcel because they wanted it, as admitted by Candace Gonzales who said they had been eyeing it for years. But the City and County put up $15 million in PUBLIC MONEY to buy it, shouldn't the public have been given some consideration in deciding its best land use before it was all written in stone?
In this neighborhood, we have more affordable housing developments already than any other residential neighborhood in Palo Alto. Downtown has a lot, too, but downtown also has City Hall, the downtown library, Rinconada Park, Rinconada tennis courts, Rinconada pool, the Children's pool, Avenidas, the children's library, the children's theater, Lucie Stern Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Center, the Art Center, Gamble Gardens, the Bowling Green, the Baylands nearby with the airport, the golf course, the proposed gym and soccer fields, the main library, etc. etc. Mitchell Park isn't even really on our side of town, we have to cross El Camino, Alma, and the railroad tracks to get there, too.
All we have on this side is Juana Briones Park, which would be an electrical substation if neighbors hadn't intervened. We used to have a bowling alley on this side of town, but now that's a dense ugly development. Barron Park has Bol Park and the donkeys. Yet we are taking more than our share of densification and hits to our quality of life with no commensurate investment in open space or community assets such as on the other sides of town. We have schools, but our City Council seem to think our schools satisfy our open space requirement even though they are mostly not available to the public.
So, the fact that the land is still open space with a historic orchard and 100 trees makes it a very bad place to put a high-density development. High-density developments can go many places -- perhaps the City Council and PAHC should have tried finding one. It makes it a very good place to consider for preserving the trees, open space, or perhaps to put a community asset there such as relocating Betty Wright Swim Center, if they would wish to go there.
Posted by Vote AGAINST D
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:05 am
@on the fence,
That's a really good question. Unfortunately, the City Attorney didn't do a proper analysis. In San Francisco, where they have a ballot committee that holds public meetings to prepare a fair and impartial ballot summary, they always include four sections:
*The Way It Is Now
* A "Yes" Vote Means
* A "No" Vote Means
And typically that analysis includes the costs to the taxpayers. Unfortunately, the City and City Attorney have been over the top advocating for this rezoning, so there really is no telling what the financial consequences would be, and it would be a fair bet that they wouldn't give an impartial answer about them even if asked.
I think perhaps it's good to consider what will happen if for Prop D wins and the neighbors keep fighting, because they will - this really is about the safety issues and neighborhood character, and the neighborhood is one where people tend to live out their lives, it's deadly serious business to them. That's just going to cost everyone more money, and (based on what I know) PAHC may very well not be able to build that development in the end anyway. If the City keeps at it, they may find energized neighbors overturning their density bonus rules in court the way the citizens in LA did.
Again, it's not about affordable housing, as affordable housing is welcome there under existing zoning or close to -- and as you know, there is more affordable housing development in this neighborhood than any residential neighborhood in Palo Alto, some of it brought in by the same neighbors opposing D (read above re: the Terman Working Group), and they would be more than happy to save the low-income residents at the Buena Vista mobile home park in the same neighborhood (frankly, it's a better use of the same money - over 400 low-income residents -- if Measure D fails, can residents re-purpose it to help there?)
If PAHC keeps fighting the way they have, they will only hurt their reputation among many Palo Altans more than they already have. They will indelibly ruin their reputation among thousands of previous supporters in these adjacent neighborhoods alone. It will cost them money to fight, and perhaps cost them future ability to apply for grants if the city's and their malfeasance becomes clear to the state. In fact, the state CTCAC seems pretty calm about the idea, since if this happens, they get to keep some huge deposit that PAHC would make.
If PAHC loses, and AGAINST wins, however, they could dust themselves off, and if they haven't alienated the neighborhood already too much, come up with a plan for a development within the existing zoning, or even for 60 seniors (but without the market rate portion and assuming they finally do a legitimate traffic study), like they should have in the first place, and it will probably proceed faster than if they end up in court battles. I'm not sure they haven't burned too many bridges already, though, it might be better for everyone if they instead took a broader more regional look at this issue and proceeded only after doing actual market studies, etc. But rest assured, the same PAHC people will go after the next good work with some valuable lessons and the same dogged persistence they seem to have in spades.
Wayne Martin did a calculation about what the development will cost Palo Altans, printed in the print edition of the Weekly. I do not know how accurate it is, but he's the only person who seems to have considered the costs of the development to taxpayers.
It makes one wonder why we aren't handling senior low-income housing with a subsidy program instead. The Maybell housing will only be apartments with not even dining services, people will have to be disrupted and leave when they start ailing, just when they need familiarity and friends the most. It makes me wonder why they aren't considering a subsidy program for seniors instead. A subsidy program for younger people probably wouldn't work because market conditions are so variable in this area, but for senior centers, generally prices are fairly well established/advertised, it's easier to shop for spots and for a subsidy program to understand costs versus available resources and need. It would be much easier to meet as much of the need as possible, in a flexible way year to year, and seniors could live in places that have services. If Wayne Martin is correct, we could serve an awful lot of seniors for a very long time for the same money.
As someone who has to leave the neighborhood by that location daily, and am just terrified by how unsafe it is for the kids already - most of us have many near miss stories with child bicyclists - I ask you to please read through the comments made above, and vote Against.
Posted by Vote AGAINST D
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm
@ Not an issue,
If the City Attorney had not written such a blatantly leading ballot question, you might have a point. Web Link
But citizens knew the odds they were not in their favor going into this, because they are totally grassroots, where PAHC hired an expensive elections firm that specializes in squashing citizen referenda and initiatives.
The referendum was just the next step in the process, in order to AVOID lawsuits. Neighbors of the property also know the problems better than anyone else, and will continue to do whatever it takes to ensure the safety issues are dealt with as they should have been, and that the neighborhood character is protected.
The way referenda work, qualifying the signatures actually set aside the City Council decision, set aside the rezoning. The will of the people was exercised in setting aside the council decision by referendum.
The Council at that point had the choice, per the City code, to honor the will of the people or put it to a vote. When they decided to put it to a vote, they already knew from the High Street referendum that they could influence the outcome by writing a leading ballot question, because the City Attorney gets to write the "impartial" analysis and ballot question. Here, she didn't even tell taxpayers the implications of for and against, as would have been required in, say, San Francisco, where they have an impartial committee to write ballots in a public process involving both sides. Here, the City Attorney even deliberately left off the "low density" official designation from the City Code of one of the existing zoning designations. I say deliberately, because neighbors pointed out the omission to her in writing, citing the City code. She mentioned an electric car charging station, but failed to analyze the costs of for and against to taxpayers. Her stated reason for this was the word limit.
So if D passes, residents will take it to the legal arena. But they will be suing against a bad plan, not the affordable housing, which could be achieved if AGAINST wins. If it's more important to you to squash the citizens and show them who's boss, then by all means, interpret it with the same negative way. If it's more important to you to have the affordable housing, you'll recognize that it's in the interest of achieving that to vote AGAINST. Because the same folks who brought us the Terman low-income apartments are leading AGAINST D and will work out a compromise if AGAINST D prevails and they are finally listened to. But if For D wins, there will be no talking to the pro-rezoning side except in court.
The biggest problem I see with your argument against the neighbors, is that if AGAINST D wins, it will be interpreted as against affordable housing in Palo Alto -- if you push that, YOU will be hurting the cause of affordable housing here. If AGAINST D wins, you should acknowledge that other people saw it was a bad plan, too, that residents want City Hall and developers to respect zoning rules (even approximately) in residential neighborhoods, and that safety should be the highest priority, as the Comprehensive Plan states. If the other side wins, neighbors will go on trying to protect safety and their neighborhood character as they have been trying all along. If you again continue to interpret it in a way that I know, from personal experience, is not true, YOU will be hurting the cause for solutions that bring us a better plan and ultimately a win-win for the neighborhood and affordable housing.