Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Shades of green go to war

by Bill D'Agostino

Both sides say they agree on the goals: walkable neighborhoods, less traffic and affordable housing.

But the City Council candidates disagree about whether a controversial housing project at 800 High St. is a means to get there or a path in the wrong direction.

Their arguments mirror the bitter two-sided dispute over the project in general, where people who seemingly share the same environmentally friendly viewpoint can't find middle ground.

On Nov. 4, the city's voters will decide both issues -- who should be elected to the council and whether or not 800 High St., a four-story 61-unit condominium complex with some retail, should be approved and constructed.

The candidates' debate also highlights the current division on the council. The nine council members say they share the same goals of preserving neighborhoods and creating housing for low-income residents but still fight tooth-and-nail over the specifics.

Of the eight leading candidates, four oppose the project (Measure C) and four support it.

At the heart of the environmental issues is a discussion over traffic and housing.

The four candidates who oppose the project -- Councilwoman Nancy Lytle, challengers LaDoris Cordell, Ronny Bar-Gadda and John Fredrich -- argue the project doesn't give incentives for people who live in the project to get out of their cars.

The four who support 800 High St. -- challenger Harold "Skip" Justman, Mayor Dena Mossar, Vice Mayor Bern Beecham and Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg -- argue that because the project is located near mass transportation, it will help people get out of their cars and alleviate the city's traffic congestion.

The opponents also believe the project is too large, and will have a negative impact on the neighbors' quality of life. The proponents counter the project's location -- near downtown, and surrounded by businesses -- make it a perfect site for the four-story building.

"We're not building tract homes," Mossar said. "It's not a huge office building, which was the proposal before."

And proponents argue, a huge office building could be built right now -- without council or voter approval.

The "No" side also argues that although 10 city-owned, below-market-rate units are part of the project, those are not "really" affordable. The one-bedroom units will sell for around $190,000, while the three-bedroom units will sell for around $300,000.

The city's planning process is also part of the debate. Some in the "No on C" group point out that neighbors working with the city to update zoning regulations for the area were promised their work would be finalized before the project was approved. That didn't occur.

"They got short-changed on the process," Cordell said.

The three incumbents on the "Yes" side of the debate (Kleinberg, Mossar and Beecham) were among the six council members who originally approved the project in February. Afterward, neighbors gathered signatures to place the project on the November ballot.

Lytle voted against it, but did vote in favor of a slightly modified version of the plan.

Ironically, people on both sides of the debate argue that their political opponents are betraying environmental goals.

Janet Dafoe, a supporter of Measure C, argues that candidates who oppose 800 High St. are supporting "more traffic and more pressure on our infrastructure and our schools -- which I don't know how we can accommodate."

And Justman believes that the project's opponents "don't really have a commitment to transit oriented housing," or new housing.

But neither side can rectify the puzzle: How can people with seemingly similar objectives differ so strongly about one project?

"When you figure it out let me know," Mossar said. "It doesn't make sense. None of it makes sense."

E-mail Bill D'Agostino at bdagostino@paweekly.com.