BY EMILY MIBACH
Daily Post Staff Writer
A countywide agency that oversees local government agencies has decided that the city of East Palo Alto should take over the scandal-ridden East Palo Alto Sanitary District, which has dragged its feet at making renovations that would allow new development.
The crux of the issue is that the sewer agency’s five-member board has, by refusing to upgrade sewers, become a land-use agency, deciding which projects can be built and which ones will die.
This led to the city and sewer district being at odds for years. East Palo Alto City Manager Melvin Gaines and Mayor Lisa Gauthier both told the LAFCo board on Wednesday that the city has tried to work with the sewer district but to little avail. They also pointed out that the sewer district has effectively blocked development projects that the city council, residents and other city commissions have painstakingly vetted. Examples include the Primary School campus slated for Weeks Street, a new campus for the Ravenswood Health Clinic, Sobrato’s new office building for Donohoe Street and University Avenue and a housing and office project for 2331 University Ave.
This led to the city and developers asking the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, called LAFCo, to conduct a review of the sewer district and see whether the district should stay as is, or be run by the city. LAFCo is a state-mandated agency and its board consists of members of the public and elected officials. The agency reviews and approves jurisdictional boundary changes including annexations. LAFCo also decides whether cities can combine police or fire departments, for instance.
The LAFCo board held a meeting in East Palo Alto on Wednesday and unanimously decided the sewer district ought to be part of the city.
But it’s not a done deal. For 30 days after the board’s vote, any side of the conflict can ask the board to reconsider based on new or additional information that LAFCo’s board didn’t consider at the hearing, according to LAFCo Executive Director Rob Bartoli.
After that 30-day window, landowners or ratepayers can protest LAFCo’s decision. If 25% of voters or landowners in the district object to the takeover, residents will go to the ballot box to decide the fate of the district.
A group called “Residents for an Independent Sanitary District” has filed forms with the county to raise money for a campaign, but the latest filing shows that no money has been raised yet. The group also wrote a letter to LAFCo objecting to the possibility of the city running the district. The 11 signers of the letter are Webster Lincoln, Niambi Lincoln, Grant Blackburn, Sharifa Wilson, Chuck Bernstein, David Rages, Edrick Haggans, Elizabeth Jackson, Angah Miessi, Jerry Chang and Gail Wilkerson.
But if neither of those things happens, then East Palo Alto officials will work with sewer district employees on the transition. The city plans to have West Bay Sanitary District, which already covers a portion of town, contract with the city to run the day-to-day operations of the sewer district.
An unsigned statement sent to the Post by the sewer district says the city seeks to “incentivize developers at the expense of current residents” and unfairly shift the cost of increasing sewer capacity for new development onto current ratepayers. The sewer district says its current connection fee of $14,464 per dwelling unit, or equivalent, will “eventually pay for system expansion.”
However, a report attached to the city’s application says the highest the average residential sewer bill will go during a 5-year period is up to $839 annually.
City officials have expressed a desire to increase the cost to $690 annually once taking over the district and 5% annually in the years to follow. The sewer district in 2019 approved the rate hike but never went through with charging it.
This is excellent news. Residents of East Palo Alto deserves fair, competent, and transparent utilities. Getting rid of the EPASD is a step in the right direction.
This is not a done deal. It’s unfortunate that this reporter and others try to promote the situation as such. Close examination of the various LAFCo reports demonstrate that the City has been unable to manage the proposed developments.
The real reason behind the development problems is that people have relied on the work of consultants, engineers, and project managers who have not done their jobs correctly. This includes the City;s Master Plan upgrade (800 new residences and over 100acres of commercial development planned for areas currently served by 6-inch diameter sewer pipes. This has been known for 70 years.
The Light Tree project, the Primary School Weeks Street site (situated on arsenic contaminated soil and groundwater, and the City wants to require them to fix the failed storm drain system on Weeks. This street floods at every rain, and is the result of the City’s deferred maintenance of the storm drains. (Plus the main pump station at O’Connor was in total disrepair).
And how about the Light Tree affordable housing project having to construct a huge water tank at Clarke and East Bayshore because the water system inherited by the City from San Mateo County can’t deliver enough water at adequate pressure to meet national fire fighting standards.
The Ravenswood Business District. The City has been trying to develop this are since incorporation. Current plans are for developments that would bring 30,000-35,000 people per day there – except the existing street grid can’t accommodate that traffic. That area would have been developed decades ago if the streets could support it. Past studies show that necessary access routes would require the removal of nearly 250 homes. Past Council wanted to do that on behalf of Sun Microsystems. The effort was blocked and those council members were voted out at the community’s earliest convenience.
Dennis, the story never said it was a done deal. It said, “ But it’s not a done deal. For 30 days after the board’s vote, any side of the conflict can ask the board to reconsider based on new or additional information that LAFCo’s board didn’t consider at the hearing ….”
So Dennis why would you misrepresent what’s in a story we can all read? In other words, why would you lie about something that can easily disproven?
Here’s what the headline says,”East Palo Alto Sanitary District loses its independence; city will take control of sewer system. This implies that it is a foregone conclusion.
How about this one:”The crux of the issue is that the sewer agency’s five-member board has, by refusing to upgrade sewers, become a land-use agency, deciding which projects can be built and which ones will die.”
Where is the information to back this assertion?
The city can’t coordinate development, and it’s not EPASD’s fault. Additionally, this fictional tale falls apart in the face of the numerous development projects moving forward. (EPACANDO/965 Weeks, Sycamore/4-story office which includes new JobTrain center, commercial office on Bayshore at IKEA, Woodland Park’s 444-unit residential development adjacent to University Circle, approximately 60 other residential units.) The District is also completing design of the new trunk line, and has engaged in the upsizing of the central mainline on Beech, Clarke, and Green Streets.
I hope this factual representation will offer you credible contrast to the stories fabricated by the City and unfortunately the Daily Post.
That headline reflects what actually happened. Lafco made a decision. It wasn’t a suggestion or an idea. It’s a decision with a basis in law. You don’t like what happened (they’re taking away your fiefdom) but it actually happened.
Instead of sulking and blaming the messenger, you have two options — suing (an unwise use of district funds) or getting the owners of 25% of the assessed value in properties in the district to sign a petition to stop Lafco. Time is running out on Option 2 — you had 30 days starting when the decision was made.
You won’t succeed on either front. It’s time to start looking for a new job. Given how you’ve treated people in this district, nobody is going to shed a tear that you’re gone.
Dear person with the last name “F”. Any time that you would like to come out of hiding and debate the issues, bring it. Step to it, or stand aside.
Oh, you sound like Mr. Tough Guy now. What are you going to do? Beat me up?
I’ve gone to the EPA San office before and asked for you. They said you weren’t around because don’t live here anymore.
Dennis ALWAYS misrepresents the facts. Along with the fact he has continued on the EPASD board that controls EPASD, even though he does not live in the area served by EPASD (a requirement for serving on the board).
I had already lived here 26 years by the time your house was built.
If I don’t live within the District, then where do I live?
The offer still stands.
When was that? Whom did you speak to? Did you leave a message so that I could respond to you?
WE heard the same from the WBSD GM. He claimed that EPASD had four system overflows (SSO) that he was aware of. He never gave a date, time, or location of any of them. Additionally, as a wastewater industry professional, supposedly dedicated to protecting the public from sewage overflows, why didn’t he report the SSO’s?
If you are really interested in meeting with me, please contact EPASD at 650 325-9021. I live close by, and can usually schedule something at your convenience. Our GM, Mr. Okupe would also be glad to assist you in your inquiries. Thank you fro hanging in there and engaging in this conversation.
This process is not complete. EPASD has many options available to it, an our community will defend itself against this attack on our political sovereignty.
The City and many prospective developers suffer from a lack of viable, quality work from consultants and project managers entrusted with the fate of development. Theses people, rather than own their mistakes and restore integrity, have chosen to blame EPASD for their mistakes.
This can readily be witnessed by the City’s General Plan revision that included an environmental (CEQA) checklist. The City’s Planning Department and Engineer stated that there would be “No Significant Impact” on EPASD facilities from zoning changes that would allow 800 residences and over 100 acres of commercial development in an area served by 6-inch diameter sewer pipes.
The examples of negligence and mismanagement by the City and developers are utterly obvious and numerous. So… blame EPASD. The City can’t manage development, and it isn’t EPASD’s fault.
The main the City’s attack on our community hasn’t gone unnoticed. Thy want homeowners and tenants to fund new facilities for outside developers. The REAL numbers demonstrate that the City will raise sewer rates initially $50/month on the way to $250. This monthly increase will be reflected in rent increases passed through by landlords. Each apartment pays as much as a house.
Finally, the irony of Council members such as Ruben Abrica and Carlos Romero, who know that the City initially relied on tenant votes to acquire political power, now have set them off on the curb like a red-haired step child.
Our community won’t roll over for this, and EPASD will prevail. Stay tuned.
Those who wish to participate and have the opportunity to ask questions and engage in dialogue with EPASD are invited to attend out Rate Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 28, at 6:00 pm. Consult epasd.com for zoom link and other info. Thank you.
Dennis-There is documented evidence & the reason the LAFCo board voted unanimously to bring EPASD under the city of EPA as a subsidiary. This is after multiple years that LAFCo attempted to make recommendations to EPASD that would make it self sufficient, while providing safe sewer service & planning for future accommodation to no avail. EPASD has no one to blame but themselves for the result.
The hearing is set for the week between Christmas and New Year’s? Really? That seems like you’re trying to duck public participation, like when you locked the building during a board meeting, and a judge had to tell you that was wrong. God, I hope this district is dissolved as soon as possible, and that it’s directors never run for public office again.
Dixie Lee:
EPASD is self-sufficient, while providing safe sewer service viable planning for future accommodation. The documentation is available from EPASD.
Kelly:
LAFCo sets the hearing dates. EPASD was required, by law, to request a Reconsideration Hearing within a tight time period after LAFCo’s recent decision. LAFCo then has a legally defined time period within which they must schedule the Reconsideration Hearing.
The EPASD office are always locked. There is a bell/buzzer that is wrung for admittance. The judge’s findings did not include any evidence that anyone had ever been excluded from any of our meetings due to locked doors and lack of access.
Come to one of our meeting and see for yourself. EPASD Special Board Meeting Wednesday, November 29th at 6:00 pm.
Thank you.
Dennis-Funny that LAFCo saw it quite differently-unanimous vote. Your public relations letter out to rate payers is full of the same liability statements:
1. “It calls for increasing the annual sewer rates from $600 to well over $1200 per year.” The city has stated they want to raise the rate between $680-690 the first year, then 5% increases annually thereafter for about 5 years in order to get the necessary work done on the aged sewer piping that has not adequately been addressed by EPASD to date.
2. “When the city approved the General Plan 2017…EPASD was not directly consulted”. Not true & the city attorney has the documentation to back it up. EPASD never responded. And the argument that the city sent it to EPASD but a previous General Manager does not fly. If it is addressed to EPASD, it calls for a response, period.
Dennis instead of trying to hold on to your lucrative board position & medical benefits, you would be better served looking for another post retirement financial avenue, in a location closer to where you live.
I have lived in East Palo Alto for nearly 50 years. I voted for incorporation twice. The City has consistently demonstrated that it can not manage the underground water utilities it inherited from San Mateo County. Deferred maintenance and outright neglect of these vital utilities is evidenced by the chronic flooding of Weeks Street, and the need for The Light Tree affordable housing project to spend considerable extra funds to install a large water tank to provide enough pressure and volume to meet nation fire safety standards. This may not have ever happened if it weren’t for the integrity of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District.
The City readily admits that it is incapable of managing EPASD’s facilities. They are addicted to the notion that, as the EPASD Board, they can raise Sewer Service Charges, which are collected on the property tax roll. They will be passed through to renters.
As for the General Plan – why would the City make up a story about EPASD, rather than actually consulting the District? What kind of quality work is that?
Dennis-Your statement, “the city readily admits that it is incapable of managing EPASD’s facilities” is an absolute lie.
And Dennis you have not actually lived in East Palo Alto for some time-you live alternately with your partner in ?Campbell & then at times in the Humboldt area. At times you have used Edrivk’s address or your ex-wife, but neither of which have actually been your primary residence.
Dennis, you ought to have a talk with Judge Marie Weiner who in a January 13, 2023 written ruling found that the EPASD board repeatedly violated the Brown Act and locked the building during “public” meetings. I’m sure you can convince her that the board has high ethics and always obeys the law.
Dennis-AB 1234 Ethics training, Office of CA Attorney General.