Town Square

Post a New Topic

Public asked for help on SF Creek priorities

Original post made on Mar 27, 2008

San Francisquito Creek planners are asking for help from the public to select a mini-fix for the creek that could be started as soon as 2011.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 12:00 AM

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Evan Economos
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 27, 2008 at 8:48 am

You story: "Public asked for help on SF Creek priorities" tells us what the options are for short term fixes for the flood plain. I can't tell how to make my preferences known. Please provide this information more clearly.
Evan Economos
753 DeSoto Drive
PA 94303

Like this comment
Posted by steidel raush
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22 pm

How do even know our suggestions for long term solutions will be heard?

The JPA BOARD hired D'Agosta. Kept her and her cracker jack brother-in-law on the payroll for years. Is it any wonder the funding dried up and the community began to zone out? There's no trust or accountability.

Like this comment
Posted by Rick
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 27, 2008 at 7:42 pm

As far as I know, and I try to read all of the local papers, there has never been a advertised public meeting where city residents can come and express their opinions!!!

These meetings are apparently held by and for certain people who may be directly affected by flood water.

They probably expect everyone who does not live in the flood zone to pay for the necessary actions to control the creek flood water.

The storm drain parcel tax was sold as a way to keep flood water off of the city streets and this is being paid for everyone in the city, even those who do not have storm drains in their neighborhood.

Here is my list of suggestions and I know that they will not be considered.

Remove the Chaucer (sp.?) St. bridge! Why not? It almost caused flooding this season. The cities admitted it caused the '98 flood and doled out about $3million of tax money to the attorneys and residentes who got flooded.

Post sign on the streets that will flood so that the city will be less liable to those who get flooded. Post the max water height expected during a 100 or 200 yr flood.

Change the zoning along the creek. Make a creek-side open space/park land zone like what was done about 30 years ago in the western half of the city. The city felt is was leagal and ethical to "down zone" by a factor of 10 the parcel sizes allowed and many other restrictions on property owners. It certainly would be for "Public Safety " here. A strip of land about 1000'wide could be rezoned. The people could keep their land/existing house, but would be greatly reguladed and existing things would be considered non-conforming. Any development would have to be kept at least 200' back from the creek like what was imposed on the property owners along Page Mill Rd.. The Green Belt Alliance should be very supportive of this action as a real "green belt" could be established along this Northerly border of Palo Alto.
The residences along the creek should be glad to get rid of their property along the creek or a portion of it as they can apparently be held liable for any flooding from their property since the city was held responsible for flooding at the bridge property.

An assesment district should be established that would encompass all of the properties in the flood zone. This way they would pay for most if not all of the improvements required to prevent flooding of their property. It's not reasonable for general tax payers to pay for these things when most of the properties are owned by multimillionairs or the properties are worth or will be worth multimillions once the work is done to prevent flooding.

Palo Alto Ave. could be made one way and the other half could be made into a "dike" along much of the road. Maybe the entire road could be made into a dike with a one way road on top of it. I suspect that this would be one of the most inexpensive ways to fix the problem as the city owns the road. Many dikes have roads on top of them.

Palo Alto should only spend a token amount of money on this problem as I understand most of the creek is lined with private property and it is their responsibility as long as they own the property. The city has a strict policy of not entering private property to do any work no matter what the dangers are to adjacent public property. I found this out when a tree on my property ,that had a city easement on it, was leaning towart the road and power lines. The city told me in no uncertain terms that they never enter private property to do work no matter what, it was my responsiblilty even though they had a easement and if it fell and would down power lines and block the road.

The newspaper article that said they wanted public input said that the comments would be included in a report "by April" which is 5 days away.

No info on how to communicate these input comments. Where or how to send them.

Does anyone know? Or is this a secret and only a way to be able to say they asked for public input ,but never got any.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter E. Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 27, 2008 at 8:49 pm

They could make Chaucer a toll bridge and use the tolls to buy flood insurance. Rick has good ideas,

Like this comment
Posted by Robert Roth
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Mar 28, 2008 at 9:13 am

Remove the Chaucer Street Bridge and divert flood waters onto the Municipal Golf Course when high tides prevent discharge into the Bay.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter E. Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2008 at 11:16 am

Who needs a City Manager - look at those great ideas!

Like this comment
Posted by florence
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 3, 2008 at 4:21 pm

D'Agosta should have been dumped the first year.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,708 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,124 views

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 9 comments | 716 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 593 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 492 views