Town Square

Post a New Topic

East Palo Alto runs out of water, development on hold

Original post made on Jun 17, 2016

Hundreds of units of affordable housing and millions of square feet of commercial construction in East Palo Alto cannot be developed because the city has run out of water for new projects, according to city leaders.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 17, 2016, 12:00 AM

Comments (52)

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2016 at 9:35 am

East Palo Alto is our neighbor and interested in the development. Why not transfer water and housing unit allocations to East Palo Alto? More housing could be built for the same money as in PA, and it's close enough to bike to most PA jobs.

I'd like to know how the excess of PA water described here ties in to the drought restrictions and my dead garden and fruit trees - when can I just water my garden again?

Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 10:48 am

Why not use well water? Or just transfer the projects to Palo Alto, and build additional developments in East Palo Alt once water supplies are secured.

Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 10:52 am

[Post removed.]

Posted by Victoria
a resident of Southgate
on Jun 19, 2016 at 10:59 am

Just one of many ways that poor communities are penalized for being poor. I do hope that EPA is given more water to continue these vital projects.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2016 at 12:22 pm

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 3:19 pm

[Portion removed.] Since we have the water in PA, there is no need for us to throw the problem over the fence. We need plenty of housing both in EPA and PA. Perhaps Palo Alto could annex EPA and we could all be one big, happy family. The EPA voters would bring some sorely needed rationality to PA.

[Portion removed.]

Posted by Andrew Rich
a resident of Woodland Ave. area (East Palo Alto)
on Jun 19, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Funnily enough, the contracted EPA water agency keeps raising our rates and tacking on bogus fees. Almost like they're trying to increase profit without increasing supply.

Posted by SteveU
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 19, 2016 at 4:34 pm

SteveU is a registered user.

EPA is not alone with High rates and fees.

The charge for 8 units of PA water now exceeds our charge for Both Gas and Electric, combined (neither are in the low usage range compared to our neighbors in that consumption ranking Mailer).

16 Units (highest Summer usage) in 1985 was $20...
$20 barely pays the Meter fee (we do not have a large meter required by houses with Fire Sprinklers) today

EPA is at a 'Well' disadvantage: Baylands salt.

Time to share if we have excess. If they build, that takes some of the load off US. seems fair to me.

Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 5:36 pm

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 19, 2016 at 5:40 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Palo Alto doesn't have enough water to support even the most modest drives to overpopulate this town, either, but it won't stop the endless development and overpopulating of Palo Alto.

Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 5:40 pm

So while Palo Alto pumps fresh water from McMansion basements to the sewer, our neighbor runs out of water. I hope the regional/state/national/international press never hears of this. We've had our quota of embarrassment for this decade.

Posted by Gus L.
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 19, 2016 at 6:05 pm

I am surprised we Palo Atan's are not out of water also, the way the building and development is out of control.
In some areas the well water cannot be used because it is toxic.
Yet buildings and high rises are starting to clog our skyline,
Abag says "Keep Building", .. Sarah Winchester hears those voices too...

Posted by EPA Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 19, 2016 at 6:59 pm

@Kazu & @Curmudgeon
Your comments about "transferring development projects from EPA to PA," "moving to EPA," and "annexing EPA" are pretty troubling to me. The two cities are in different counties and always have been. You speak as though the 2 communuties are one in the same, as if East Palo Alto is just an extension of Palo Alto, but that couldn't be further from reality. In stead of proposing your own solutions, I'd urge you to learn a little more about East Palo Alto and think about what people over here might have to say about these issues.

If you're serious about being a part of the solution, you can start by encouraging your elected officials in Palo Alto to transfer a portion of the city's unused water allotments to East Palo Alto.

Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm

[Portion removed.] I was merely saying that Palo Alto should not be trying to throw its problems over the fence to adjacent communities. Transferring water allotments to EPA is fine, but should be done to allow housing and business development in EPA, not to avoid doin the same in Palo Alto.

OK, instead of Palo Alto annexing EPA, how about EPA annexing Palo Alto? I think the EPA influence would be a good thing. Palo Alto is starting to get pretty weird and goofy, and does not seem to know how to effectively utilize its considerable resources. Transferring some of those resources to EPA, not just water allotments, might be beneficial for both sides of the freeway. That would be easier to facilitate if the two communities were joined. It's a Better Together kind of thing.

Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2016 at 7:33 pm

[Post removed.]

Posted by carrying capacity
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jun 19, 2016 at 9:03 pm

The San Francisco Bay Area is already well above its carrying capacity, as shown by how much water is already imported. Perhaps a robust gray water system would allow more growth, or at least get the region living closer to within its means, as its unlikely that the population will de-centralize in the near future. That said, water and other resources that we're already pulling in should be distributed equitably.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 11:16 am

How sad that Facebook gets the water it wants every time it expands, but the little school its founder wants to build can't get built because we don't have the water.

Also, as all too often, many commenters here are making this about PA. It's not. A thoughtful, serious discussion about our lack of water, and how we've been screwed over by a neighboring city and those in power at the time would be useful. Please stop making this about PA when it's about East Palo Alto during a regional housing crisis and historic inequity that has interrupted our crucial economic development. Why the constant knee-jerk reaction to make news like this about PA?

All cities updating their general plans encounter controversy and values conflicts over growth and change. But how many face such a lack of water? What jobs does Hillsboro provide? What affordable housing does Hillsboro provide the county? What sort of serious water conversation plan does Hillsboro have in the wings for when the current drought worsens?

Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 20, 2016 at 12:07 pm

"@Kazu & @Curmudgeon
Your comments about "transferring development projects from EPA to PA," "moving to EPA," and "annexing EPA" are pretty troubling to me."

Those comments are especially troubling to me, because I never made them. Please (re)read what I did say.

Posted by Anne-Lise
a resident of another community
on Jun 20, 2016 at 1:24 pm

I don't think development should be made near the bay anymore due to sea level rise. These areas should be left to development that can be moved like go cart parks or businesses like Lyngso (which has moved).

Web Link

Posted by resident 1
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 20, 2016 at 1:27 pm

East Palo Alto is in San Mateo County. The SM county should be working the allocation of water within the county since there is planned growth coming up in Menlo Park on El Camino, and Redwood City - new SU campus. There is also a new condo development on the SM Baylands. The question on the table is if SM County has all of the new growth planned why isn't it allocating the water to the cities within the county in a equal manner. When a city goes through the process of approving new construction there has to be an evaluation and impact study to see if there are adequate support services for the new construction.
So why is this a Palo Alto problem? PA is in Santa Clara which is controlled by the SC County Water District.
Any impacts to any city within a county need to be resolved by the agencies within that county since the taxes are allocated by the county agencies.

Posted by EPA Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 1:35 pm

So let me get this straight. East Palo Alto needs more water so that other people (by other people I mean no one from the current EPA community) can build more monstrosities like the Sabrato building, and the million dollar Edenbridge homes? Are you kidding me? None of these projects are going to create jobs for EPA residents. Waht company is going to actively hire EPA residents from the sabrato building. Does EPA need yet another alternative school? How about fixing the schools that are already there. What NATIVE EPA resident can afford to buy or rent in EPA now? Not many. How about making sure that there is adequate water supply for the people who already live in EPA and have for generations. Why would anyone care about that when everything is becoming about Facebook. Facebook is giving $10K bonuses to live within 10 miles is sad. That is why East Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are no longer affordable. I am disgusted.

Posted by Mark Dinan
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:15 pm

Mark Dinan is a registered user.

EPA Resident - it is extremely short sighted to want to halt development. I have to drive from EPA to Palo Alto if I want to get my oil changed, go out for dinner, get a car wash, go to the bank, or go to a bookstore. The idea that these kind of developments would not create local jobs is ludicrous - the entire peninsula is staffed by people who live in EPA and work elsewhere.

Furthermore, the increase home prices you complain about also pay the property taxes which pay for schools, sidewalks, roads, police officers, and pretty much everything government related. Most of the city's revenue comes from property taxes, and increased revenue can only benefit the community.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Resident 1 - why do you think it's a PA problem? That's not my takeaway from this article. But then, I don't think everything is about my city or how it relates to my city. Why do you think it's a county issue that SM County should be handling when it's not under their authority? It's an issue by jurisdiction overseen by a PUC. Maybe you need a better understanding of the complexities of water rights and what communities with water inequities can do about it?

Posted by Let them drink beer
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:28 pm

So let's get this straight. The kneejerk reaction of most Palo Alto residents is to check the map and say "not our county, not our problem." Fascinating to see how little provocation is required to elicit the elitist me-first attitude that lurks just behind the facade of smug social liberalism and protestations of concern for those less affluent.

That said, this project has been in the works for years. I'm stunned no one even looked at the water situation before. If Sobrato didn't get that message, are the rest of the big developers even aware of our drought conditions and how they may impact development?

Posted by resident 1
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm

I did not say it is a PA problem - it is a San Mateo County / East PA Water District problem. You pay your property taxes to the County you live in and your utility bills to the city you live in.

Individual property owners do not have the authority to oversee the allocation on how the water they receive is allocated. That is the job of the county water district who is funded by the taxpayers for that county. It is a governmental issue at the city, county, and state level.

It is unfortunate that construction was approved and went through an approval process that was suppose to evaluate the requirements for the construction effort and now they have come up short.
That puts to question the how and why this happened. The assumptions were incorrect.

It serves as an advisory to other cities who are in construction mode to insure that all services required by any new construction can be met within the existing resources available to the city and county.

Posted by Julius
a resident of Monroe Park
on Jun 20, 2016 at 5:02 pm

I just sent this email:


Here is a water project to consider:

* Large desalination plant filling the South Bay area bordered by the Dumbarton Bridge on the north and salt farms on the east, west, and south.

* Cover the top with solar panels. Their black onyx color will look nice bordered by colorful salt ponds. They will defray energy costs.

* The plant can be entirely below Bay water level, quiet and invisible.

Thanks for considering,

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Resident 1 - It is NOT a county or water district problem. That's why the council is having to address the other agencies and consider other options. But you're correct in that it's a county issue because of the impact on affordable housing. We've been the default low income housing option for this region, and the county has some responsibility in that. If they want more housing - especially more affordable housing for all segments of society - built here, they need to do their part to support it all the way, including greater advocacy for water.

Let them drink beer - we've had a construction moratorium for years, and it was re enacted in recent years due to lack of water. I don't recall exactly why/how Sobrato was grandfathered in, but I believe the current projects by them and others were grandfathered in or already approved when the moratorium hit, so there were a few exceptions.

As helpful and detailed as this article it, it doesn't give an overview about why/how these few projects were approved. Kudos to Sue Dremman for this article. I also think more/additional info in another article would be helpful for readers. It's clear that many locals are unaware that this has been an issue here for a long time, but is now a crisis because we need some increased revenue for the city and the recent E Bayshore water discovery isn't going to solve all our problems.

Mark Dinan - I appreciate your thoughtful input. For very long term residents, change and growth are not just difficult to accept, but from the cost if living aspect, it can be terrifying. We are not a hermetically sealed city, do change is inevitable. Informed opinions from residents engaged in the process of updating the General Plan, as well as being watchdogs over development, are important for the city's future to change while not losing its roots. We have a great opportunity for engagement, and I hope that fear and stress don't cause residents to shut down and not participate.

Posted by resident 1
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 20, 2016 at 9:21 pm

There has to be an agency that has the necessary clout to negotiate the requirements for the cities that make up the tax base for a county. San Mateo County has huge resources in taxable base which includes SFO. So who is the agency that is suppose to do that for San Mateo county? The county is not lacking tax base and has a lot of new construction in process. Letting one city go lacking does not make sense. And putting any one city at risk for future development while the other cities are in development does not make sense.
Possibly one of the problems is that the congressional lines divide San Mateo county. We have a similar issue in Santa Clara County in which a major city - San Jose - is in a different congressional district than Palo Alto.
If each county is a distinct congressional district then maybe the splitting of resources could be corrected.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 10:08 pm

Resident1- perhaps you should reread the article so that you can better understand which agencies are involved.

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jun 20, 2016 at 10:22 pm

FYI: Google,Apple,Facebook,and Sobrato Group, just to name a few, have purchased big tracts of land in E.P.A.

The$e companies will get their water. One way or another.

Posted by EPA kidss
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 20, 2016 at 11:04 pm

How about EPA get all the land back that was stolen from EPA, maybe we will get some water then? How about Menlo Park take Willow Oaks Elementary and Bell Haven to be part of there school district since they have all this money from Facebook taxes? We had to pass a bond to fix our Ravenswood School District Schools. Why? Why didn't we go after Menlo Park who is making all that money from the taxes. This is 2016 and Menlo Park still does not won't the schools because? Maybe soon as the Belle Haven area changes. Segregation is still alive. Crazy

Posted by resident 1
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 20, 2016 at 11:22 pm

My take here is that EPA is in the wrong congressional district that most of San Mateo County is in so it is not getting the same resources that the rest of the county is getting. You are paying your taxes to the county to provide those services and are not getting those services,

We have a similar problem in Santa Clara county - we vote for transportation taxes but the majority of those funds get spent in the San Jose area - a different congressional district. The splitting of congressional districts is contrary to the taxes voted on by the county and how those services are provided. And the voting base is critical to negotiating how the resources are provided.

Posted by Michael Uhila
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2016 at 12:22 am

East Palo Alto incorporated in June 1983 not 1982

Posted by EPA Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:00 am

@Mark Dinan - I am not sure how long you have been a resident of EPA but I can guarantee it is not generations like me and my family. The reason I know this is because you can get your oil changed on the corner of Pulgas and East Bayshore and across the street from that get your car washed and detailed. On a good day, you can also get a bbq dinner on either side of this corner. There is a credit union on the Mi Pueblo plaza as well. I will concede that you will have to travel to a bookstore, as they are few and far between since most people use kindles or buy there books from amazon. Being that I am short sighted, you tell me in the large development that is Home Depot, Nordstrom Rack, Mi Pueblo, oh and let's not forget the PGA Golf Store - how many EPA residents work in those places?
The increase in property values make it impossible for the people who have ALWAYS lived there to be able to afford to continue to live there. And just so you know, I am well aware of what property taxes are SUPPOSED to pay for but we just had to vote on a bond measure to help get much needed repairs to the aging schools, like Brentwood Academy, that has the exact same cafeteria/gym that it had when my sons grandmother went there. You clearly choose carefully what road you go done because daily I am on roads with NO sidewalks and giant potholes. Sometimes it's better to think before you speak.

Posted by kathy
a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:19 am

Interesting there seems to be enough water for nearby Facebook campus (I know Menlo but east side), and how is Four Seasons, an EPA business, weathering this water crisis?

Posted by Jonathan Brown
a resident of Ventura
on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:47 am

Solution: Increase supply. We don't capture enough of the excess water we receive in wet years. Adding some more local reservoirs would help. Instead, many environmentalists are trying to tear down existing dams. Then we don't have enough water to build affordable housing. Something's got to give. You can't have no dams, adequate water, no controls on overpopulation, affordable housing, preservation of open space, quality of life, and an endless number of other items on the wish list.

Posted by Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2016 at 12:37 pm

There seems to be some confusion as to which agency is responsible for determining the allocations. From what I gather, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission who makes this determination. They supply wholesale water to 27 water districts in three counties so, if I understand this correctly, it is an issue for them to resolve, not the county.

This certainly isn't an EPA vs. PA issue by any means. They are neighboring cities and make a nice comparison with regard to relative water allocations, but they are only one of the 27 water districts (including SF) that could have their allocation reduced to meet EPA's relatively modest request. Given the examples of PA and MV as cities with surplus (13M between them), I have to imagine that it would be easy to fulfill EPA's request.

The did not need the additional water until now, and the city only made this request a week ago, so there are no issues of inequity (at least not in this regard), yet. If their request is denied we can have that discussion then.

Posted by Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2016 at 12:55 pm

To address some points that were made in the discussion section:

- As EPA citizens, we can't complain about needed improvements that are municipal responsibilities and also complain about development that will provide additional revenue to fund those improvements in the same breadth. We either build our tax base or accept the status quo. Responsible and well-planned development is a good (necessary) thing, IMHO.

- We also can't complain about whether or not these businesses provide jobs to our cities residents (provided they are not being discriminated against). I have met many EPA residents at Home Depot, IKEA, etc., so I disagree that those businesses haven't provided jobs, but if we want more jobs for our locals we have at least two options:

A. Develop our own businesses to meet this need.

B. Improve our education and training such that our residents qualify for jobs in the industries that want to operate here. That applies to both the education and training our city provides, and what we go out and achieve for ourselves.

Posted by resident 1
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 21, 2016 at 6:59 pm

In Santa Clara County we voted on a person to be the head of the Water District for the county. Many people have been to meetings at the Water District facilities. Each County has to have negotiating power to get what they need. We pay support in our County Property Taxes. We pay the city utilities to negotiate what we need. Your city needs to figure out who is responsible for negotiating with these agencies to get what you need. there has to be a county representative who is the point person for these actions.
The fact that you have construction in process and cannot complete it makes no sense.

Posted by Resident
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 21, 2016 at 11:54 pm

resident 1 - Why do you assume that EPA doesn't know who is responsible for negotiating with the SFPUC? Seems to me that the origin of this article was precisely those negotiations. Just because Santa Clara County has a water board doesn't mean that San Mateo County has taken the same approach. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that there are various water boards throughout the county comprised of either individual or multiple municipalities.

I'm also not sure which construction project you are referring to that is currently in process and can't be completed.

Posted by Resident 0
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 22, 2016 at 9:52 am

Can we change the name of the city to Ravenswood already?

Posted by Resident
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 13, 2016 at 9:13 am

Thank you for the dense and eye-opening article. I want to make sure that I'm understanding the article correctly:

- City Councilwoman Lisa Gauthier, an elected official who represents the residents of East Palo Alto, is in favor of development

- BAWSCA is in favor of increasing East Palo Alto water allocations

- SFPUC is voting again in 2018 to reconsider permanent allocations

- In the meantime, any city served by SFPUC can give unused allocations to East Palo Alto

- If cities end up needing allocations that they gave away, East Palo Alto will pay for the water

Giving away unused water to provide housing, jobs, and a school as a temporary measure seems like a no-brainer. What am I missing?

Thank you.

Posted by Jack
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 19, 2016 at 9:17 am

The article stated "About 40 percent of the city's current housing stock is affordable. The city is willing to take on more affordable housing, Gauthier said."

Ms. Gauthier does not speak for all EPA residents on this matter - and IMHO does not speak in the best interests of EPA or San Mateo County. A 40% affordable housing stock in EPA is already a much higher ratio than in other San Mateo County towns. Each town should equally bear the burden of addressing housing for the poor. Studies show that segregation of disadvantaged groups (racial, economic, etc.) hinders improvement. (Think Brown vs. Board of Education). Putting the majority of the county's poor in one city will hinder the ability to bring that group out of poverty into the mainstream American success story.

Obtaining more water for EPA and being allowed it to grow into a town that is prosperous, well-educated, with good schools, safe streets, high-tech employers, nice residential and shopping districts, and "some" low income housing, i.e., a demographics distribution matching surrounding communities, should not be tied to taking on a greater burden of housing the county's poor.

"The poor will always be among us" and it is everyone's and every town's obligation to contribute to this need.

Posted by Jack
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 19, 2016 at 10:49 am


"Posted by Online Name
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jun 20, 2016 at 10:22 pm

FYI: Google,Apple,Facebook,and Sobrato Group, just to name a few, have purchased big tracts of land in E.P.A.

The$e companies will get their water. One way or another."

Would the poster of the above, please help the readers understanding by identifying the big tracts of EPA land in question that have been purchased by Google, Apple, Facebook,others and Sobrato (other than than the 2 known ones - University square/plaza project(s) at University and Donohoe and just West of Chevron on Donohoe).

Thank you.

Posted by Mountain View resident
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 19, 2016 at 12:59 pm

No water for EPA? So is the Four Seasons EPA rooftop swimming pool empty? Web Link

Oh excuse me, it's not Four Seasons EPA, it's Four Seasons 'Silicon Valley'

Posted by James
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 26, 2016 at 6:51 am

I believe the Edenbridge Homes project at Bay and Pulgas is about 51 homes not 155 and the 4 Corners mixed-use project is merely a dream, not a project in progress or one that has a even a developer lined up.

Posted by James
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 26, 2016 at 7:04 am

Regarding the swimming pool comment, FYI, the 4 Seasons Hotel of "Silicon Valley" has contracted with the Palo Alto water agency as a back up to the EPA water agency. It's deep pockets allow that. EPA should allow new development to proceed on that basis, i.e., private procurement of water rights. A recent article on the EPA Sabrato project said the recent SV economic boom largely passed EPA by. EPA should "make hay while the sun shines" before another down cycle. Instead, they are stifling interested developers and also adding further impedements by adding more onerous hoops to jump through relaing to "affordable housing". (recent council resolution to add something on Nov. ballot).

Posted by James
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 26, 2016 at 7:26 am

see quote from other article where EPA council women to her credit recognizes EPA can't bear all peninsula's uty to house the poor. Also note, EPA's economic is in part its own fault. They voted down Sun Microsystems buiding its campus there in the 1980's. That campus is now Faceboik HQ.

“As a council, we’ve stated — and the community has said — affordable housing is a key concern for us,” Gauthier said. “…But I do know that revenue is important as well. We can’t be the total affordable housing community and the community with all the schools and nonprofits. We also need to bring additional revenue in the community.”

"And change is already coming regardless of the city’s position on growth. In the late 1980s, Sun Microsystems tried to build a new campus in the city’s Ravenswood area. But the idea became a political football and it failed to gain enough support on the City Council. Sun ended up building about two miles away, in Menlo Park. Today, it’s the Facebook headquarters"

Posted by James
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 26, 2016 at 7:42 am

Again, quote from SV Bus Journal.

EPA's anti-development policies continues to be a major cause of uts high poverty, high crime status.

See, the new "anti-displacement" ordinance info. Will any developer rebuild if they must let same tenants return at same rent? Do any other Bay area rent control towns havesabrato this? EPA already saw the value of cleaning blighted area when they allowed University Circle, Ikea,Sabrato, and other areas redeveloped under the Redevelopment Agency. All involved displacement.

"City officials say they are taking the issue seriously. A draft update of the city’s general plan includes policyr language on preventing displacement. For instance, new projects on the city’s west side would have to pay relocation assistance to displaced tenants, and offer “right of return” at similar affordability levels. "

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm

James, I'm sorry that you display such a lack of concern for tenants and so little knowledge of city ordinances.

Posted by ?
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Aug 5, 2016 at 7:20 am

"Observers also say another problem is turnover at City Hall. In the last 18 months, the entire executive staff has left and been replaced, while the engineering division saw two-thirds turnover, according to a recent city report. The building division saw 80 percent turnover in seven months, and four chief building officials. Positions regularly sit unfilled. The result? Projects take longer simply because the churn destroys institutional knowledge.

“Since I’ve been doing this development, since 2009 I’ve been through five city attorneys and five city managers,” Lazzarini said."

Water Problems, city employee turnover problems (and unemployment problems?), revenue deficit problems, crimes problems, organized gang problems, flooding problems, infrastructure problems ($43M in improvements needed per 1 study), on and on . . .

Posted by ?
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Aug 5, 2016 at 7:21 am

source for last quote posted

Web Link

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 12 comments | 3,305 views

Banning the public from PA City Hall
By Diana Diamond | 27 comments | 2,408 views

Pacifica’s first brewery closes its doors
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,111 views

Holiday Fun in San Francisco- Take the Walking Tour for An Evening of Sparkle!
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 1,962 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,558 views


Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 30 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away almost $10 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.