HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-14 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Special Meeting
Wednesday, August 14, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Amended Agenda – Revised Item Order and Time Estimates
Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if
attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)
Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and available
for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are
referencing in your subject line.
Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as
present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten
(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not
to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all
combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and
Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Five(5) minutes per speaker.
2.Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain Municipal
Code Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail Preservation
Ordinance, Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related Development
Standards and Application Processes. 5:40 PM – 6:40 PM
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140) 6:40 PM – 8:00 PM
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Five(5) minutes per speaker.
4.Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) (4a) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) Section 18.40.250
(Lighting) and (4b) Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird‐Friendly Design).
8:00 PM – 9:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of January
31, 2024
6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of February
28, 2024
7.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 8,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
Public Comments
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingWednesday, August 14, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid5:30 PMAmended Agenda – Revised Item Order and Time EstimatesPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Five(5) minutes per speaker.
2.Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain Municipal
Code Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail Preservation
Ordinance, Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related Development
Standards and Application Processes. 5:40 PM – 6:40 PM
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140) 6:40 PM – 8:00 PM
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Five(5) minutes per speaker.
4.Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) (4a) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) Section 18.40.250
(Lighting) and (4b) Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird‐Friendly Design).
8:00 PM – 9:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of January
31, 2024
6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of February
28, 2024
7.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 8,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
Public Comments
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingWednesday, August 14, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid5:30 PMAmended Agenda – Revised Item Order and Time EstimatesPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Five(5) minutes per speaker.
2.Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain Municipal
Code Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail Preservation
Ordinance, Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related Development
Standards and Application Processes. 5:40 PM – 6:40 PM
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140) 6:40 PM – 8:00 PM
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:
Five(5) minutes per speaker.
4.Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) (4a) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) Section 18.40.250
(Lighting) and (4b) Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird‐Friendly Design).
8:00 PM – 9:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of January
31, 2024
6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of February
28, 2024
7.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 8,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
Public Comments
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingWednesday, August 14, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid5:30 PMAmended Agenda – Revised Item Order and Time EstimatesPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain MunicipalCode Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail PreservationOrdinance, Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related DevelopmentStandards and Application Processes. 5:40 PM – 6:40 PMSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo AltoMunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140) 6:40 PM – 8:00 PMACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.4.Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto MunicipalCode (PAMC) (4a) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) Section 18.40.250(Lighting) and (4b) Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird‐Friendly Design).8:00 PM – 9:30 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of January
31, 2024
6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of February
28, 2024
7.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 8,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
Public Comments
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingWednesday, August 14, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid5:30 PMAmended Agenda – Revised Item Order and Time EstimatesPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain MunicipalCode Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail PreservationOrdinance, Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related DevelopmentStandards and Application Processes. 5:40 PM – 6:40 PMSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo AltoMunicipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140) 6:40 PM – 8:00 PMACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.4.Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto MunicipalCode (PAMC) (4a) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) Section 18.40.250(Lighting) and (4b) Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird‐Friendly Design).8:00 PM – 9:30 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of January31, 20246.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of February28, 20247.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 8,2024COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTOTHER INFORMATION
Public Comments
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2407-3316
TITLE
Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
This document includes the following items:
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Upcoming PTC Agenda Items
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to
notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the
availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-
judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for
the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff.
Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-
of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
UPCOMING PTC ITEMS
August 28, 2024
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
Parking Programs Update: Amendment of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.54,
Parking Facility Design Standards, and Titles 2 and 10 to Amend Bicycle Parking
Standards in Multifamily Dwellings and Update Laws Relating to Pedestrians, Cyclists,
and other Mobility Devices
September/October 2024
Amendments to the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in the Palo Alto Zoning Code to
Implement Housing Element Program 3.4
Stream Corridor Ordinance Review and Recommendation
660 University Avenue: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Community/Planned
Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) Ordinance and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a mixed-
use building
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 7
Planning & Transportation Commission
2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2024 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled
1/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
2/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
2/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
3/13/2024 5:00 PM Hybrid Special
Joint Meeting w/ HRC
3/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman
4/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
4/15/2024 5:30 PM Hybrid Joint Meeting w/ Council
4/24/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/8/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Lu
5/29/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/12/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/26/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
8/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
8/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/9/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/30/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/13/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled
2024 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Cari Templeton
Keith Reckdahl
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
Bryna Chang
George Lu
Doria Summa
Allen Akin
Keith Reckdahl
Cari Templeton
George Lu
Bryna Chang
July August September October November December
Allen Akin
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
George Lu
Bart Hechtman
Keith Reckdahl
Cari Templeton
Bryna Chang
George Lu
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
Cari Templeton
Item 1
Attachment A - 2024
Schedule & Assignments
Packet Pg. 8
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 11
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2406-3170
TITLE
Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain Municipal Code
Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail Preservation Ordinance,
Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related Development Standards and
Application Processes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC):
(1) Review and discuss the City’s retail consultant’s recommendations related to retail
resiliency (Attachment A); and,
(2) Endorse the consultant’s recommendations or alternative recommendations to the City
Council Retail Committee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June, staff authorized its consultant Michael Baker International (MBI) to prepare additional
deliverables to present to the PTC for endorsement of recommendations ranked by priority.
The PTC review and discussion on August 14 is intended to focus on recommending the 15
zoning amendment recommendations in Attachment A, or a subset of these recommendations.
On May 8, 2024, the PTC reviewed the completed MBI Retail Study (Study) and its 20
recommendations and requested that staff encourage Council to move forward with ‘two quick
fixes’ to Title 18 in June 2024. Staff has not yet presented the Study to City Council. The
verbatim minutes from May 8 PTC1 show the range of comments from the PTC members as
individuals. Some Commissioners accepted the report’s strategies and others noted additional
opinions. Staff intends to present the PTC’s recommendations to the Council Retail Committee
1 Link to Verbatim Minutes from May 8, 2024 PTC meeting:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-
transportation-commission/2024/ptc-05.08.24-draft-verbatim-minutes-bgh-and-taa-revisions.pdf
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 9
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 11
(Committee) on September 18, 2024. The Committee2, on May 15, 20243, received and
accepted a staff report regarding near- and medium-term initiatives focused on enhancing
retail and hotel uses, and indicated a need for concrete/near-term solutions. The action
minutes reflect that no action was taken.
BACKGROUND
The MBI Retail Study provides the background conditions, understanding, best practices,
community and stakeholder engagement, and policy discussions and regulatory implications
that led to the development of the recommended zoning strategies.
PTC
The PTC conducted six study sessions to receive presentations and deliberate on policies and
strategies in a workshop format. The May 8, 2024 PTC report has links to reports, videos and
presentations. The October through April meetings of the PTC featured these topics:
•October 25, 2023: Introduction/check in including reviewing the scope of work
•January 31, 2024: Peer cities comparison and stakeholder interviews results
•February 28, 2024: Formation of a PTC Ad Hoc
•March 13, 2024: Presentation regarding strategies and policy recommendations
•March 27, 2024: Recommendations for strategies
•April 24, 2024 Session: Continued discussion on retail strategies; the staff report
includes excerpt verbatim minutes from the March 27th PTC session
The PTC’s seventh session on the retail study was held on May 8. Though it was originally
intended to enable the PTC to provide recommendations regarding the Study to Council, the
PTC did not make a formal motion on May 8. The PTC received the report, provided individual
comments, and expressed support for the ad hoc committee to prepare a letter to Council
suggesting two ‘quick fixes’ to move forward on but not endorsing all 20 recommendations that
had been organized around seven primary strategies, which were:
1. Conduct a comprehensive zoning cleanup of a mature, complex code
2. Create streamlined and predictable approval processes
3. Limit the Retail Preservation ordinance
4. Allow non-retail uses on ground floor with limitations
5. Repeal office conversion and construction limitations
6. Relax formula retail
7. Ease the parking regulations
PTC Ad Hoc Committee
2 Council Retail Committee is Councilmembers Burt, Kou, and Lythcott-Haims.
3 Link to May 15, 2024 Council Retail Committee agenda, presentation and report
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14928
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 10
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 11
The PTC retail ad hoc committee4 last met on April 30, 2024, when it reviewed and discussed
Retail Study Report Appendix C5 in preparation for the PTC’s first review of Appendix C. The PTC
retail ad hoc had previously grouped its proposals into four categories and discussed these with
the full PTC on April 24, 2024: (1) Simplify Rules, (2) Reduce Uncertainty, (3) Relax Restrictions,
(4) Beyond Zoning. After May 8, the PTC ad hoc retail committee drafted a memorandum to
Council for the targeted June Council meeting; formalization of the letter was paused due to
postponement of the presentation to Council.
Council Extension of Ordinance #5517
On June 3 and June 17, 2024, City Council adopted an extension of ‘temporary’ Ordinance
#5517 from June 16, 2024, to June 30, 20256. Ordinance #5517, which Council had extended on
December 12, 2022, to June 16, 2024, had temporarily updated Title 18 definitions, broadened
permitted uses, and provided limits on certain uses through updates to the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) thresholds. The amendments were intended to promote retail activity and
decrease commercial vacancies. Amendments were to the ‘eating and drinking’ establishments,
‘personal service’, ‘retail services’ and ‘take-out service’ definitions. The threshold floor area for
requiring a CUP increased for ‘commercial recreation’, ‘medical office’ and some ‘personal
services’ uses in commercial districts. The temporary ordinance included the Council’s
additional amendments for exceptions to the floor area thresholds for certain uses located
along University Avenue, California Avenue and Town & Country Village Shopping Center. The
changes reserved more significant policy recommendations to future PTC public hearings and
analysis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachments A (Recommendations Table) and B (Unique and Alternative Active Ground Floor
Uses) reflect two of MBI’s work efforts since the May 2024 PTC meeting. MBI also proceeded
with a comparison of the proposed recommendations to the draft ordinance7 that was
prepared and presented to the PTC and Council in fall 2022.
15 Zoning Amendment Recommendations
MBI’s 15 suggested recommendations (reduced from 20) are provided in the table, Attachment
A. These are also summarized in the analysis section of this report. The first two
recommendations are the ‘two quick fixes’ the PTC noted during the May 8 PTC meeting. The
PTC may wish to place these draft recommendations into three categories for ease of
recommendation: (1) ‘yes/proceed’ recommendations, (2) ‘maybe/needs more discussion’
recommendations, and (3) ‘no/not recommended’ recommendations.
4 PTC retail ad hoc is PTC Chair Bryna Chang, Vice Chair Keith Reckdahl, and Commissioner Allen Akin
5 Appendix C is the assessment of parking conditions and the implications of State Assembly Bill AB 2097
6 Link to Council June 17, 2024 packet
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14311
7 The 2022 draft ordinance was reviewed by the PTC but not recommended
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 11
Item No. 2. Page 4 of 11
The recommendations table includes the primary rationale and arguments for each individual
zoning change. After the PTC meeting, the table will be incorporated into the retail study to
present to the Council Retail Committee, along with a list of the recommendations in the retail
study’s executive summary.
Unique and Alternative Active Ground Floor Uses
Attachment D is a presentation showing several examples of unique and alternative/unique
retail and active ground floor uses. The document provides information about these uses and
in some cases, shows where these uses were discovered. The uses include:
•Bank coffee shops
•Pet Salon
•Arcade Bar
•Micro Retail
•Pottery (color me mine)
•Small format stores
•Combined stores (Tesla and Nordstrom)
•Experienced based retail (Sonos) limited product display
•Build your own birch box
•Nescafe Sleeping Pods
•Medical retail
•VR experience
•Art sales/gallery
•Small hand made items production and sale (e.g. candles)
•Concept retail stores
•Pop up stores (temporarily operating for 60 days)
•Vacant building maintenance (“Vacant to Vibrant” in San Francisco)
ANALYSIS
The consultant recommendations below include near-term, medium-term, and long-term
recommendations. The near-term (NT) items, 1-8 below, are anticipated to be implemented
within six months. The medium-term (MT) items 9-13 are anticipated to be implemented
within 18 months. The long-term (LT) items 14 and 15 are anticipated to be initiated over the
next two to three years. The term or timeline starts with Council authorization and securing
funding to authorize a consultant to proceed if needed. The rationale or justification for each
recommendation is noted in the table (and briefly noted below). The PTC’s ‘two quick fixes’ are
the first two recommendations in the table.
1: Amend Parking Regulations to Allow/Exempt Change of Use/Conversion from Parking (NT)
As noted, this would be of particular benefit to properties lying outside the AB 2097 radii.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 12
Item No. 2. Page 5 of 11
It removes a major constraint on changes of use to respond to market demands and effectively
incentivizes retail and active, popular, retail-supportive uses. Consultant justification for this
includes:
•Sites are already developed. Increased parking would come at expense of building area,
desired uses, or amenities.
•Demand in excess of parking capacity is largely self-regulating in urbanized
environments.
•People will use more distant alternative parking or not patronize the location. Becomes
a business decision for the property owner.
•Provides relief for areas outside the influence of AB 2097.
•Allows property owners to experiment with new uses to fill in vacancies.
2: Relax the Formula Retail Restrictions (NT)
The recommendation is to only have franchise restrictions on restaurant uses and increase the
threshold for ‘franchise’ from 10 to 50 such businesses in California or the United States. The
item suggests the City might want to consider limiting the number of formula retail
establishments in certain areas to ensure a balance between formula and non-formula uses.
Consultant justification for this item is:
•The City’s existing rule for what constitutes a franchise is ten or fewer businesses in the
U.S. and requiring a CUP effectively limits nearly all franchise businesses, limits
innovation, and successful and attractive businesses from contributing to overall health
and vibrancy.
•The existing rule assumes (without evidence) that franchises are harmful.
•The proposed revisions and limits would allow the best of such uses and avoid the worst
aspects of large franchises.
•Many cities have established limits on the number of formula uses in certain areas
to balance with non-formula uses.
3: Repeal the Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO) Section 18.40.180 (NT)
The recommendation points out the redundancy with the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R)
combining districts for University and California Avenue, and notes the PTC agreed the RPO is
not needed beyond University and California Avenues.
Consultant justification for this item is:
•The RPO (c. 2015) effectively extended the provisions of, and is redundant with, the GF
and R Combining District limits for University and California Avenues, and Midtown. This
leads to confusion, complication, excess floor retail floor area, and vacancies.
•A majority of the PTC agreed RPO is not needed beyond University and California
Avenues.
•There is a need to allow a reduction of excess retail space city-wide.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 13
Item No. 2. Page 6 of 11
•RPO may contribute to (requires) increased and prolonged vacancies and blighting
effects.
•RPO may limit normal adjustments and responses to market demand;
substantially limits natural concentrations and groupings of complementary uses.
•RPO appears to constrain business and property owners; limits options for reuse.
•Relief is effectively nonexistent and could be impossible via entirely subjective
standards and criteria and virtually impossible standard of unconstitutional taking
of all economic value of the property.
4: Amend Parking Regulations – Extend AB 2097 to the Entire CD-C Zone (NT)
This recommendation is to add the CD-C zoned parcels Downtown that are outside the radius of
AB 2097; most of these parcels fall within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Three
parcels are outside of the assessment district. The justification is to ensure the 16 parcels would
not have to follow the parking requirements at the “blended rate” of 1 space/250 square feet,
and therefore create more equitable development conditions for all CD-C parcels.
Addresses that fall outside the AB 2097 radius are:
•Lytton: 550 and 556 (in parking assessment district but outside AB 2097)
•Tasso: 415, 417, 425, 435 (in parking assessment district but outside AB 2097)
•University:
o 555, 567 (north side, in parking assessment district but outside AB 2097)
o 570, 581 (north side, outside parking assessment district and outside AB 2097)
o 546, 550, 564, 568, 578 (south side, in parking assessment district, outside AB 2097)
•Hamilton:
o 537, 555, 565 (north side, within parking assessment district, outside AB 2097)
o 524 (south side, outside parking assessment district and outside AB 2097)
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 7 of 11
The City Council is expected to have a discussion regarding AB 2097 during the August 12, 2024
Council meeting, which may also inform this discussion.
5: Create Comparative Zoning Use Table (Revise the What Use Where Handout) (NT)
MBI had prepared a table of uses permitted and conditionally permitted in the commercial
districts and combining districts. The table was included as Appendix D beginning on packet
page 138 of the May 8, 2024 PTC packet. Staff recently began updating the ‘What Use Where’
handout which had been pulled from the website when the “temporary” Ordinance #5517 was
first adopted. The handout never included columns for the Retail and Ground Floor combining
districts, as these were complicated with nuanced regulations not easily shown on a simple
handout. The updated handout will reflect recent updates to zone district names (such as the
change from RM15 to RM20), and Council’s recent approval to extend Ordinance #5517.
Staff’s update to the handout will be helpful as a basic document to then show an annotated
version reflecting the MBI recommendations, if the PTC supports these. The handout is
intended to improve stakeholders’ understanding and ease of use, help identify internal
conflicts, inconsistencies, gaps and opportunities to simplify and clarify the code and identify
opportunities to consolidate, simplify, or eliminate excessive or redundant provisions.
6: Revise Chapter 18.30 Combining Districts to Allow Practical Waivers and Adjustments (NT)
This would amend the GF and R combining districts to use the Alternative Viable Use Standard
(18.40.180(c)(1)(B)) from RPO. Midtown also is subject to GF combining district. This would
eliminate the unconstitutional taking standard of section (a) Economic Hardship.
Consultant justification is that unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard is
unreasonable and is a disproportionate and unrealistic standard. The proposed standard is a
typical best practice. The proposed method of relief is proportionate to the potential impact.
7: Allow Non-Retail Uses on Ground Floor with Limitations: Part 1 (NT)
This would create a more flexible ‘Retail-like’ definition and use tables to allow non-retail uses
at the non-street facing locations, on side streets, when vacancy exceeds 10% subject to limits.
Consultant justifications for this item include:
•Need to allow more retail-supportive uses on the ground floor.
•Allows more complementary uses on the ground floor while preserving the optimal
street-facing spaces for active, pedestrian-oriented uses.
•Amended definition is based on the desired outcome, allowing new or innovative
uses that are not otherwise listed or defined.
•Allows supplementary mechanisms to provide additional flexibility if needed
to allow and encourage use of persistent and extensive ground floor vacancies.
•Conditional standards are not likely to be "gamed" if set at levels that reflect and
justify the need for action and are not met easily or can be manipulated unilaterally
by an individual business or property owner (e.g., if vacancies in the zoning district
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 2. Page 8 of 11
exceed 10% for 12 months or more).
•Removes extra cost and delay of CUP for uses that are not obviously detrimental to
the district's vitality, or uses whose potential operations and impacts do not vary
greatly and are dependent upon the particular unique operation.
8: Allow Non-Retail Uses on Ground Floor with Limitations: Part 2 (NT)
This would increase fitness, spas, and exercise facilities floor area threshold for a CUP from
1,800 to 3,000 square feet to match the industry average and allow other viable active uses
without a CUP such as pet grooming, beauty shops, nail salons, barbershops, small learning
centers, day care and medical office with retail component, lifestyle, health services; and if
necessary, require a CUP for certain uses in excess of a maximum size.
Consultant justification for this item is that a 3,000-square-foot facility is an industry standard
size for exercise and fitness studios without a CUP and these uses generate strong foot traffic
and sales to nearby uses.
9: Repeal or Amend Office Conversion and Construction Limitations (MT)
This item contains two different options. The first option is to repeal annual office limits.
The second option is to relax PAMC Section 18.40.210 Annual Office Limits has three associated
approaches:
A. Repeal limits on upper-level office uses; Retain only office use conversion
limits on ground level. Consider maximum percentage of the street-facing façade to
ensure a minimum percentage for retail and retail-like uses; AND
B. Allow ground-floor office uses behind retail frontages; AND
C. Section 18.40.210 Annual Office Limit should be revised to replace the
unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard of (e) Economic Hardship
Waiver or Adjustment, with a practical difficulty standard like that recommended for
the RPO, R and GF Combining Districts.
Consultant justifications for this item include:
•It is no longer necessary. Excessive vacancies (400,000+ square feet) of office uses are
not a realistic or significant threat of forcing out retail.
•GF and R combining districts retain limits on office uses on the ground floor on
University or California Avenues.
•Retaining and relaxing would retain 50,000 sf of new or converted office per year.
•Ensures balance of complementary uses. Similar technique used for the CN and CS
Districts per 18.16.050(b)(1)(A).
•Upper-level office uses and workers are primary customers of University and
California Avenues.
•Unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard for relief is too high,
punitive, virtually impossible to achieve, and disproportionate to the real or
perceived threat.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Item No. 2. Page 9 of 11
Staff notes this represents a departure from current City policy that may require further
discussion and analysis; hence it is a mid-term recommendation.
10: Amend 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions (CN, CS Districts) (MT)
This item is to eliminate or amend the 5,000-square-foot maximum office floor area per lot.
Consultant justifications for this item are that:
•This standard has no proportionality to the size of the lot and potentially creates severe
inequities. It would only be okay if all the lots are the same size.
•Any limitation of office use floor areas should be proportionate to the size of the site or
building to ensure an equitable impact allowed by the 25% FAR in section (b)(1)(A).
11: Amend Parking Regulations (MT)
Reduce minimum parking regulations and conduct use surveys toward resetting standards.
Consultant justification for this item, includes:
•Eliminates wasteful, underutilized, or excessive parking.
•Standards need to be based on actual demand.
•Standards do not need to and should not accommodate all potential demand.
12: Amend Parking Regulations (MT)
This item is to amend the parking requirements to implement the AB 2097 exemption of
minimum parking requirements within a half mile of transit, for clarity. This recommendation is
in progress since, on May 29, 2024, the PTC recommended code amendments referencing AB
2097 and as noted above, on August 12, 2024, the City Council is scheduled to discuss AB
2097including the following items:
(1) Enabling the city to require a TDM plan for all projects with reduced parking pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65863.2 (AB 2097, 2022).
(2) For projects within one-half mile of public transit, as defined in California Government
Code Section 65863.2, no automobile parking shall be required, but loading a bicycle
parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with this Section.
(3) Projects providing no automobile parking pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65863.2 shall provide at least one (1) on-site, short-term loading space for
passenger vehicles, to be used by taxicabs and similar transportation and delivery
services.
(4) AB 2097 location boundaries and,
(5) Discussion and possible direction regarding electric vehicle and accessible parking
spaces.
13: Standards for Specified Retail Uses (MT)
This item is to amend Section 18.76.015 to replace subjective additional CUP approval criteria
with objective standards or performance criteria. Consultant justifications for this item are:
•Provides certainty, accuracy, shorter and predictable approval processes and timelines.
Existing standards are entirely subjective.
•These are fine as reasons to approve, but not as reasons to deny an application.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 17
Item No. 2. Page 10 of 11
•They make proving compliance nearly impossible.
14: Amend Parking Regulations (LT)
This item suggests the City develop an ordinance to unbundle parking from the price of rent for
qualifying residential properties, consistent with Assembly Bill AB 1317, which the Governor
signed into law in October 2023 (Civil Code 1947.1). The state rule requires owners of rental
properties consisting of 16 or more residential units to rent or sell parking spaces separately
rather than automatically including the parking space rent within the rent, for properties that are
issued a certificate of occupancy permit on or after January 1, 2025. The cited benefits of
unbundling include that existing parking spaces will be more efficiently used, that non-drivers are
not required to pay for parking they don’t need and that the market value of land used as parking
becomes clear. Though this item is noted as a long-term recommendation, there is the potential
and perhaps a need for the item to be brought forward prior to January 1, 2025.
15: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update (LT)
This item is long term recommendation that would require resources to accomplish, and
includes the following components:
1. Conduct a comprehensive review, revision, and update of the zoning code to ensure it
functions efficiently, equitably, and as intended.
2. Integrate the use and development standards of the combining districts into the use and
development standard tables.
3. Reduce, simplify, and standardize the many and unnecessarily subtle differences and
restrictions on personal service uses between the R and GF Combining Districts and the
CD-C, CD-N, CS, and CC zones.
4. Streamline and standardize the standards. Reevaluate the need and effect of the precise
standards and whether they are consistent with the broader goal of a health
commercial corridor.
5. Amend the code to replace subjective criteria with objective standards.
Consultant justifications for this item include:
•The code should be clear, well-organized, intuitive, and user-friendly.
•The existing code is virtually unknowable, overly complex, internally inconsistent,
and hard to understand, implement, and enforce.
•An updated code is important to overall understanding, implementation, and
enforcement.
•An updated code is important to the ease of use and reputation of the City within
the business community.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
Item No. 2. Page 11 of 11
The outreach included six stakeholder interviews with landowners, businesses, and Chamber of
Commerce, peer city interviews with City of Santa Monica, City of Los Altos, City of Redwood
City, and PTC Study Sessions and Ad Hoc PTC Sessions. During the many PTC meetings, there
were very few public comments. There have not been any additional stakeholder interviews
following the May 2024 PTC meeting. Public comments during the PTC meeting on August 14,
2024 will be shared with the Council Retail Committee and City Council.
The PTC had reviewed the Study but has not resumed its review began in 2022 of a ‘permanent’
ordinance to replace the interim ordinance. The PTC retail Ad Hoc Committee drafted a letter to
the City Council but did not finish drafting the letter.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The study does not represent a project under CEQA. No zoning ordinance changes have been
prepared to date.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Recommended Zoning Amendments (Prepared by MBI)
Attachment B: Staff Report to Retail Committee May 15, 2024
Attachment C: June 17, 2024, Council Second Reading of Ordinance #5517 Extension
Attachment D: Unique and alternative/unique retail and active ground floor uses (MBI)
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 19
Palo Alto Retail Revitalization – Zoning Recommendations August 6, 2024
1
NUMBER ZONING RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION START-COMPLETION TIME
1 Amend Parking Regulations (18.52.030)
Amend 18.52.030(d) Additions or Changes of Use to
allow/exempt change of use or conversion of existing floor area
to retail or retail-like uses from minimum parking requirements.
Removes a major constraint on changes of use to respond to market demands.
Effectively incentivizes retail and active, popular, retail-supportive uses.
Sites are already developed. Increased parking would come at expense of building area, desired uses, or amenities.
Demand in excess of parking capacity is largely self-regulating in urbanized environments. People will use more distant alternative parking
or not patronize the location. Becomes a business decision for the property owner.
Provides relief for areas outside the applicability of AB 2097.
Allows property owners to experiment with new uses to fill in vacancies.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
2 Relax the Formula Retail Restrictions (18.04 Definitions)
1. “Formula retail ” definition (57.6) should be revised from
applicability to all franchise uses to apply only restaurant uses,
and to increase the threshold to qualify as a Formula Restaurant
without requiring a CUP should be increased from 10 to 50 such
businesses in the United States. Consider limiting to 50 in
California.
2. If additional control over such uses is deemed necessary,
the City could consider limiting the number of formula retail
establishments in certain areas to ensure a balance between
formula and non-formula uses.
10 or fewer in U.S. and requirement for CUP effectively limits nearly all franchise businesses.
Limits innovation, successful and attractive businesses from contributing to overall health and vibrancy.
Assumes (without evidence) that franchises are harmful.
Proposed revisions and limits allow best of such uses and avoid worst aspects of large franchises.
Many cities have established limits on the number of formula uses in certain areas to balance with non-formula uses.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
3 Repeal the Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO) (18.40.180)The nature of retail has been changing, which has increased turnover and vacancies of many retail spaces and commercial corridors. The
COVID-19 pandemic accelerated some of the shift to e-commerce and led to the failure of many retail and other commercial businesses.
RPO (c. 2015) effectively extended the provisions of and is redundant with GF and R Combining District limits for University and California
Avenues, and Midtown. This leads to confusion, complication, excess floor retail floor area, and vacancies.
RPO is not needed beyond University and California Avenues. There is a need to allow a reduction of excess retail space city-wide. The 2023
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Study indicated that there is a large amount of vacant commercial and retail space that
exceeds the current and foreseeable market demand for retail.
RPO contributes to increased and prolonged vacancies and blighting effects by preventing alternative uses.
RPO substantially limits normal adjustments and responses to market demand and substantially limits natural concentrations and
groupings of complementary uses.
RPO severely limits options for business and property owners.
Relief is effectively nonexistent and could be impossible via entirely subjective standards and criteria and virtually impossible standard of
unconstitutional taking of all economic value of the property.
Contributes to frustration, negative and punitive results, and the perception and reputation of Palo Alto as hostile to business.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
Item 2
Attachment A: Zoning
Recommendations for 8-14 PTC
Packet Pg. 20
Palo Alto Retail Revitalization – Zoning Recommendations August 6, 2024
2
NUMBER ZONING RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION START-COMPLETION TIME
4 Amend Parking Regulations
Extend AB 2097 exemption to Entire CD-C Zone
Within Downtown, there are 16 parcels in the CD-C district on University Avenue that lie just northeast of the half-mile radius from a high-
quality transit stop that are not exempt from the parking requirements by AB 2097.
Unless the provisions of AB 2097 are extended, these parcels will remain subject to minimum parking requirements and the Commercial
Downtown Assessment District standards of 18.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
To ensure equitable development conditions for all parcels in the Downtown area, it is recommended that uniform regulations be applied
to the entirety of the CD-C districts in the Downtown area.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
5 Create Comparative Zoning Use Table
Prepare comprehensive comparative zoning use tables to clarify
what and how uses are allowed in each zoning and combining
district. ("What Uses Allowed Where")
There are subtle differences and restrictions on allowed uses that warrant evaluation of their need and effect on protecting or restricting a
healthy commercial corridor. A comparative use table improves understanding and ease of use for all stakeholders: staff, applicants,
property owners, residents.
The table will help identify internal conflicts, inconsistencies, gaps and opportunities to simplify and clarify the code.
The table will help identify opportunities to consolidate, simplify, or eliminate excessive or redundant provisions.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
6 Revise 18.30 Combining Districts to allow Practical Waivers
and Adjustments
1. Amend Section 18.30(A).070 of the R Combining District for
California Avenue to:
A. Eliminate the unconstitutional taking standard of section
(a) Economic Hardship; and
B. Add the Alternative Viable Active Use standard from
18.40.180(c)(1)(B) of the RPO.
2. Amend Section 18.30(C) GF Combining District Regulations
to provide a practical difficulty standard the same as the R
Combining District:
A. Add the Alternative Viable Active Use standard from
18.40.180(c)(1)(B) of the RPO.
Unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard is unreasonable and is a disproportionate and unrealistic standard.
Proposed practical difficulty standard is a common best practice.
The proposed method of relief is proportionate to the potential impact.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
Item 2
Attachment A: Zoning
Recommendations for 8-14 PTC
Packet Pg. 21
Palo Alto Retail Revitalization – Zoning Recommendations August 6, 2024
3
NUMBER ZONING RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION START-COMPLETION TIME
7 Allow Non-retail Uses on Ground Floor with Limitations (part
1)
1. Amend the definition of “retail-like” (125.1) to include the
following performance-based uses: “commercial uses that are
accessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian
clientele, and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity,
including but not limited to include retail shops, eating and
drinking establishments, commercial recreation and
entertainment, personal and convenience services, financial
institutions, cultural institutions, galleries, and hotel lobbies.”
2. Amend the use tables to allow non-retail uses:
▪ In back office, not street-facing locations (i.e., behind retail
or storefronts)
▪ On side streets, off of University and California Avenues
▪ When vacancies exceed threshold (by percentage and/or
duration, e.g., when vacancies exceed 10% in district for more
than 12 months)
▪ Subject to limits (concentration, size, proximity), e.g.:
▪ Minimum 25% ground-floor commercial
▪ Maximum 15% of total floor area
▪ Maximum 30% of all street frontage within 300-foot
radius
▪ Maximum 50% of street frontage per building > 100-foot
frontage
The extensive and persistent ground-floor vacancies suggest that alternatives or modifications to the restrictions may be appropriate.
There is a need to allow more retail-supportive uses on the ground floor.
The proposed amendments allow more complementary uses on the ground floor while preserving the optimal street-facing spaces for
active, pedestrian-oriented uses.
The proposed amended definition is based on the desired outcome, allowing new or innovative uses that are not otherwise listed or
defined.
NOTE: Supplementary mechanisms can provide additional flexibility to allow and encourage use of persistent and extensive ground floor
vacancies.
Conditional objective standards are not likely to be "gamed" if set at levels that reflect and justify the need for action and are not met
easily or can be manipulated unilaterally by an individual business or property owner (e.g., if vacancies in the zoning district exceed 10% for
12 months or more).
Removes extra cost and delay of CUP for uses that are not obviously detrimental to the district's vitality, or uses whose potential
operations and impacts do not vary greatly and are dependent upon the particular unique operation.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
Possibly Mid-term
(up to 18 months)
for additional limits
8 Allow Non-retail Uses on Ground Floor with Limitations (part
2)
3. Increase fitness, spas, exercise without a CUP from 1,800 to
3,000 square feet to match the industry average.
4. Allow other viable active uses without a CUP:
▪ Examples: pet grooming, beauty shops, nail salons,
barbershops, small learning centers, day care
▪ Medical office with retail component, lifestyle, health
services
5. If necessary, require a CUP for certain uses in excess of a
maximum size.
Adjusts to allow the 3,000-square-foot industry standard size of exercise and fitness studios without a CUP.
These uses generate strong foot traffic and sales to nearby uses.
Near-term
(within 6 months)
Item 2
Attachment A: Zoning
Recommendations for 8-14 PTC
Packet Pg. 22
Palo Alto Retail Revitalization – Zoning Recommendations August 6, 2024
4
NUMBER ZONING RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION START-COMPLETION TIME
9 Repeal or Amend the Office Conversion and Construction
Limitations
1. Repeal Section 18.40.210 Annual Office Limits; OR
2. Relax Section 18.40.210 Annual Office Limits:
A. Repeal limits on upper-level office uses; Retain only
office use conversion limits on ground level. Consider maximum
percentage of the street-facing façade to ensure a minimum
percentage for retail and retail-like uses; AND
B. Allow ground-floor office uses behind retail frontages;
AND
C. Section 18.40.210 Annual Office Limit should be revised
to replace the unconstitutional taking of all economic value
standard of (e) Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment, with
a practical difficulty standard like that recommended for the
RPO, R and GF Combining Districts.
No longer necessary. Excessive vacancies (400,000+ square feet) of office uses are not a realistic or significant threat of forcing out retail.
GF and R combining districts retain limits on office uses on ground floor on University or California Avenues.
Retaining and relaxing options would retain the limit of 50,000 sf of new or converted office per year.
Ensures balance of complementary uses. Similar technique used for the CN and CS Districts per 18.16.050(b)(1)(A).
Upper-level office uses and workers are primary customers of University and California Avenues.
Unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard for relief is too high, punitive, virtually impossible to achieve, and disproportionate
to the real or perceived threat.
Lack of reasonable relief creates negative results, impression, and reputation that deters investment and desired results.
Mid-term
(within 18 months)
10 Amend 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions (CN, CS Districts):
Eliminate or amend the 5,000-square-foot maximum office floor
area per lot.
This standard has no proportionality to the size of the lot and hence creates potential inequities. The standard is only equitable if all lots
are the same size.
Any limitation of office use floor areas should be proportionate to the size of the site or building to ensure an equitable impact as allowed
by the 25% FAR in section (b)(1)(A).
Landlords may be deterred from converting vacant ground-floor office space to retail because the 5,000 sf max office limit may prevent
converting the space back to office.
Mid-term
(within 18 months)
11 Amend Parking Regulations
1. Reduce the minimum parking requirements.
2. Conduct parking use surveys as a basis to reset standards to
appropriate levels based on the actual need and demand.
Proposed amendment eliminates wasteful, underutilized, or excessive parking.
Standards should be based on actual demand.
Minimum standards do not need to accommodate 100% of the projected or peak demand.
Mid-term
(within 18 months)
12 Amend Parking Regulations
Amend the parking requirements to implement the AB 2097
exemption of minimum parking requirements within a half-mile
of transit.
Codifies state law. The law still applies without amendments. Codifying AB 2097 will allow to provide equity for properties outside AB 2097
influence per Recommendation 4.
Provides clarity to users, applicants, property owners, staff.
Mid-term
(within 18 months)
13 Amend Standards for Specified Retail Uses
Amend Section 18.76.015 to replace subjective additional CUP
approval criteria with objective standards or performance
criteria.
Provides certainty, accuracy, shorter and predictable approval processes and timelines.
Existing standards are entirely subjective. These are fine as reasons to approve, but not as reasons to deny an application. They make
proving compliance nearly impossible.
Mid-term
(within 18 months)
Item 2
Attachment A: Zoning
Recommendations for 8-14 PTC
Packet Pg. 23
Palo Alto Retail Revitalization – Zoning Recommendations August 6, 2024
5
NUMBER ZONING RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION START-COMPLETION TIME
14 Amend Parking Regulations
Develop ordinance to unbundle parking from residential
development.
AB 1317, passed in October 2023, focuses on unbundling parking in California, requiring owners of qualifying residential properties in
Counties of Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, and Ventura to
separate parking costs from rent, i.e., renting or selling parking separately rather than automatically including it with the price of building
space.
Benefits of unbundling include:
• Existing parking spaces will be more efficiently used.
• Non-drivers are not required to pay for parking they don’t need.
• The market value of land used as parking becomes clear.
Long-term
(up to 3 years)
15 Conduct a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
1. Conduct a comprehensive review, revision, and update of
the zoning code to ensure it functions efficiently, equitably, and
as intended.
2. Integrate the use and development standards of the
combining districts into the use and development standard
tables.
3. Reduce, simplify, and standardize the many and
unnecessarily subtle differences and restrictions on personal
service uses between the R and GF Combining Districts and the
CD-C, CD-N, CS, and CC zones.
4. Streamline and standardize the standards. Reevaluate the
need and effect of the precise standards and whether they are
consistent with the broader goal of a healthy commercial
corridor.
5. Amend the code to replace subjective criteria with
objective standards.
The code should be clear, well-organized, intuitive, and user-friendly.
The existing code is virtually unknowable, overly complex, internally inconsistent, and hard to understand, implement, and enforce. This
sometimes results in lengthy processing times, difficult implementation, variable application and interpretation, and errors.
An updated code is important to overall understanding, implementation, and enforcement.
An updated code is important to the ease of use and reputation of the City within the business community.
Long-term
(up to 3 years)
https://mbakerintl-my.sharepoint.com/personal/dwery_mbakerintl_com/Documents/Desktop/Baker/Palo Alto/2024-8-14 PTC/2024-8-6 Zoning Recommendations for 8-14 PTC.docx
8/6/2024
Item 2
Attachment A: Zoning
Recommendations for 8-14 PTC
Packet Pg. 24
Palo Alto Special Use Examples
(Draft 6/28/24)
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 25
Bank Coffee Shops
Capitol One Café – San Diego
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 26
Pet Salon
Mucky Pup Studio Dog & Cat Grooming Heather Tuthill– Oakland Top Dog – San Diego
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 27
Arcade Bar
Coin Haus – La Mesa Coin-Op – San Diego
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 28
Micro-retail Space
Coffee shop, barbershop/hair salon, boutique retail store – San Diego
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 29
Do It Yourself Cakemix
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 30
Color Me Mine- Pottery
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 31
Small Format Stores
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 32
Combined Stores- Tesla and Nordstrom
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 33
Sonos: Extremely Personalized Audio Experience
- Experience-based retail
- Minimum product display
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 34
Build your own Birchbox
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 35
Nascafe Sleeping Pods
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 36
Medical Retail
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 37
AR VR Experience
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 38
Art Sale- Gallery
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 39
Small handmade items production and sale
Candle,
soap etc.
producti
on and
sale
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 40
Concept Retail Stores
https://www.insider-trends.com/50-most-beautiful-concept-
stores-from-around-the-world/
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 41
Pop-Up Uses
City and County of San Francisco
• SEC. 205.1. TEMPORARY USES: SIXTY-DAY LIMIT.
• A temporary use may be authorized for a period
not to exceed 60 days for any of the following uses:
• (d) Pop-Up Retail, which is a temporary Retail
Use permitted within either a vacant commercial
space or a space occupied by a legally established
Commercial Use. If the Pop-Up Retail use is in a
Residential District then the temporary Pop-Up Retail
use may not serve alcohol or have hours of operation
past 10:00 pm, and such use shall not be permitted
within six months of the date a prior Pop-Up Retail
use began its occupancy of the same commercial
space.
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 42
Vacant Building Maintenance
City and County of San Francisco
• ‘Vacant to Vibrant’
City of San Jose
• Chapter 17.38 - MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION OF NEGLECTED VACANT OR
ABANDONED BUILDINGS
•City-funded program helping small businesses, entrepreneurs, artists, and culturalorganizations activate vacant storefronts.
City of Ontario• It shall be unlawful for any building or structure, whether residential, commercial,
industrial, or historic, to be vacant for more than one hundred and eighty calendar days • Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program•If the director determines that a property is subject to this chapter, director shall
send a notice and require the owner of any vacant or abandoned building or structure
to register the property into the neglected vacant or abandoned building monitoring
program within ten calendar days of the date of the notice to register.
•Will support small businesses looking to grow into a brick-and-mortar store withinthe next 1-2 years
•Seeking a mix of creative and innovative businesses which are interested in testingout their concepts and new products. (Artisanal specialty food or retail).•The Owner of a Vacant or Abandoned Property or Storefront subject to registration
shall pay the Neglected Vacant or Abandoned Building and Storefront Monitoring
Program fee as set forth in the schedule of fees adopted by resolution of the City
Council. Payment of the monitoring program fee shall be made to the City at the same
time the Owner submits the registration form to the City.
Item 2
Attachment B: Palo Alto Special Use
Examples
Packet Pg. 43
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 14
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2402-2651
TITLE
Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conduct a study
session to review and provide feedback on the update of the Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance (PAMC Section 18.40.140).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The update to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance is a Council priority. Staff has worked
with a consultant to analyze different approaches to the ordinance update. Staff has:
•Considered expansion of setbacks and riparian areas next to streams/creeks, and how to
manage future development beyond the current code allowances in the riparian area
•Researched the state regulatory environment,
•Analyzed riparian protection approaches in other jurisdictions, and
•Confirmed best practices from issue area experts and other stakeholders including the
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Staff will use feedback provided at this study session to develop a draft ordinance for PTC and
the City Council consideration. This study session is intended to relay how the ordinance could
change, which properties the ordinance changes may impact, what the amendments would do
to adjust current processes, and to present policy topics that could be controversial to enable
the PTC to identify topics it believes are the most critical for discussion.
Staff requests the PTC consider five key policy topics:
1. Applicability/Types of Development
2. Exemptions
3. Setback Distances
4. Stream Conditions
5. Deviation Process
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 44
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 14
The presentation to the PTC will provide staff recommendations and further detail on these five
topics, in addition to other criteria. These include key terms to be considered, provisions from
other jurisdictions with stream protection standards, and the existing conditions report. Staff
anticipates presenting the draft ordinance to the PTC on September 25, 2024, to request the
PTC's recommendation to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Council Priorities
On March 4, 2024, the City Council adopted 78 Council Priority Objectives. The update to the
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance is included as one of objectives under the category
“Climate Change & Natural Environment: Protection & Adaptation.” Council directed staff to
prepare zoning changes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies related to creek
protection. This objective has remained a Council priority for the last three years. Staff
anticipates bringing a draft ordinance to the City Council for adoption in October 2024.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), adopted in November 2017, includes several policies
related to creek protection. The Comp Plan recognizes the City’s creeks and riparian areas as
“valuable resources for natural habitat, connectivity, community design, and flood control” that
require protection and enhancement. As part of this recognition, the City’s Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance was identified for an update to reflect the importance of these
resources.1
Policy N3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the protection of the city’s creeks from the
impacts of future buildings, structures, impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and
preserve their function as habitat connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback
requirements that account for existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property
ownership and flood control potential. Policy N3.3 contains three programs that define the
potential ordinance update:
•Program N3.3.1 calls for the exploration of an ordinance update that expands the current
50-foot setback along creeks to 150 feet for properties west of Foothill Expressway. The
Program also references establishing design recommendations for development of sites
within the setback, exemption opportunities for single-family properties, and appropriate
setbacks and conservation measures for undeveloped parcels.
•Program N3.3.2 calls for similar consideration of expanded setbacks east of Foothill
Expressway.
1 The Comprehensive Plan uses the term “creek” rather than “stream,” except when discussing the update of the
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. However, given that the update of the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
is the subject of this undertaking, the term “stream” will be used within the context of this report and the ordinance.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 45
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 14
•Program N3.3.3 calls for the minimization of impacts in all creeks by limiting recreational
trails to one side of natural riparian corridors, and by thoughtfully designing of lighting
near riparian corridors.
Attachment A includes two Comprehensive Plan maps that show the creeks potentially affected
by this ordinance update.
Existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
The existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.40.140 (Attachment B). The code requires streamside review for properties abutting a stream
or within 50 feet of the top of a stream bank. This applies to development within all zoning
districts, with some exceptions and limitations for projects in residential zoning districts.
In addition to the streamside review area, the existing ordinance includes requirements for the
“slope stability protection area,” which is measured 20 feet landward of top of bank or to a point
measured at a 2:1 ratio landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater. Within the slope
stability protection area, all structures, including decks, swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and
parking lots are prohibited. The slope stability area is intended to maintain the structural integrity
of the bank, and functions like a setback because it does not allow any structures. Conversely,
the streamside review area is an area subject to discretionary design review, with requirements
and guidelines for elements such as vegetation, lighting, and building materials.
Regulatory Framework
Numerous federal, state, and regional regulations govern the protection of streams and their
corridors. These include the Clean Water Act, which requires permits for work impacting U.S.
Waters, and the Porter-Cologne Act, regulating waste discharge. The California Department of
Fish and Wildlife also regulates streambed alteration. These regulations provide a framework for
the City of Palo Alto to manage stream-side property in accordance with community goals, while
adhering to federal and state guidelines. The city has also endorsed the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (Valley Water) Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines, which may inform updates
to local stream protection ordinances. More details on the regulatory framework can be found
in the Existing Conditions report (Attachment B).
ANALYSIS
This section provides an analysis of matters pertinent to the update of the Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance to facilitate discussion with the PTC. The section includes identification of
key terms, analysis of stream protection standards in other jurisdictions, and selected findings
from the Existing Conditions Report prepared for this project.
Key Terms
As noted above in the summary of the existing Streamside Corridor Protection Ordinance, the
ordinance uses the term "streamside review area" which it defines as “all properties abutting a
stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank, except those properties
separated from the stream by a public street.” For purposes of discussion, other terms should
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 46
Item No. 3. Page 4 of 14
be defined, and ideally included in an update to the ordinance. Staff has assembled working
definitions for key terms. The definitions have been derived from the Comp Plan, the Santa
Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User Manual Guidelines and Standards
for Land Uses Near Streams, and other streamside corridor protection ordinances from other
communities. The draft terms and definitions are included in Attachment D.
Other Jurisdictions
In considering the update to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, staff conducted a
comparative analysis of existing stream regulations in other jurisdictions.
Table 1 provides a comparison of stream setbacks and riparian buffers in other jurisdictions.
Although many of the jurisdictions have setbacks in the range of 20 to 25 feet, some have
broader setbacks, ranging from 100 to 200 feet.
Table 1: Comparison of Stream Setbacks and Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area
City of Berkeley 25 ft. minimum setback generally, measured from centerline of
creek
City of Fremont 200 ft. (hill area only); 30 ft from centerline or 20 ft. from top of a
bank
City of Oakland 20 ft.
County of Marin 100 ft. minimum setback from top of bank and 50 ft from edge of
riparian vegetation
City of San Carlos 25 ft from top of bank
City of San Jose 100 ft. minimum setback generally, measured from top of bank or
outside dripline of riparian corridor vegetation
County of Santa Cruz 50 ft. (perennial) and 30 ft. (intermittent) minimum setback
generally, measured from the mean rainy season bankfull flowline,
plus all riparian woodlands
Town of Woodside 25 ft. from top of bank or 50 ft. from centerline
Some jurisdictions have different standards for differing site conditions. In Fremont, the setback
for hilly areas (200 feet from centerline or 20 feet from top of bank) and the rest of the city (30
feet) varies. Santa Cruz distinguishes between perennial and intermittent streams. Riparian
vegetation and buffers are also addressed in some of the regulations. Both the City of San Jose
and County of Marin measure setbacks either from the top of bank or from the edge of riparian
vegetation.
The basis for measurements varies but is typically either measured from the top of bank, or
centerline of a stream. However, this does not provide confirmation on the location of the top
of bank, which can change over time as part of stream dynamics. Top of bank and toe of bank
are the bases for setbacks under Palo Alto’s current ordinance. Measurement from the
centerline could allow use of GIS data, assuming GIS data is available for the centerlines of the
streams.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 47
Item No. 3. Page 5 of 14
Measurement from the top of bank is likely to require an engineered survey with possible field
verification by a qualified biologist or surveyor. For new construction projects in most cities, an
engineered survey of the property is typically prepared regardless, so that requirement would
not be particularly onerous. However, requiring a field verification by a qualified biologist for a
relatively small modification to an existing property could be burdensome. But this would only
be required where the applicant intends to expand the building footprint towards the top of
bank within the setback area.
Determining the extent of riparian vegetation can be accomplished through a variety of means.
The most thorough approach would involve a qualified biologist, but qualified surveyors are
also able to document the extent of woody tree canopy and the locations of significant trees.
More informally, the outline of the tree canopies can provide a more general guidance for
determining the outward edge of riparian vegetation (tree canopy) where it extends to and
over the top of bank. However, while a few jurisdictions include standards measured from the
edge of woody riparian vegetation (i.e. tree canopy that extends beyond the top of bank), this
could discourage property owners from preserving important riparian habitat beyond the top
of bank areas.
Key Findings in the Existing Conditions Report
An Existing Conditions Report was prepared by Environmental Collaborative and Good City
Company (Attachment C) and published in July 2024. The document:
•Provides a summary of the current regulatory framework protecting streams,
•Describes the existing network of creeks in Palo Alto and the City’s Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance,
•Reviews development requirements and guidelines for streams protected under the
ordinance,
•Identifies limitations in current mapping of protected streams,
•Summarizes riparian protections used by local agencies in the Bay Area as reported by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
•Provides information on existing conditions along protected streams mapped by the City,
and
•Makes recommendations for further review and refinement of the ordinance.
Current stream mapping in Palo Alto primarily focuses on major streams, but there are
discrepancies with data from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, highlighting the need for
verification. While setbacks are measured from the top of the stream bank, available data is
plotted to the centerline, necessitating field verification.
Conditions along protected streams vary considerably, with more heavily modified channels
downstream of El Camino Real and to Foothill Expressway. Analysis suggests a 150-foot setback
west of Foothill Expressway would encompass mostly vegetation, while a 50-foot setback east
of Foothill Expressway would include many smaller parcels and a significant amount of existing
vegetative cover.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 48
Item No. 3. Page 6 of 14
The Existing Conditions Report includes potential recommendations to consider, which include:
•Establishing a range of setback requirements,
•Exploring different setbacks based on location and habitat values,
•Providing clear definitions, and
•Clarifying stream identification processes.
These findings align with the Comp Plan’s goals and policies for stream corridor protection.
DISCUSSION
Discussion and input from the PTC on the following key topics will provide staff and the
consultant team with clear guidance on how to update the existing Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance. Staff requests PTC input on key questions for the following topics:
1. Applicability/Types of Development
2. Exemptions
3. Setback Distances
4. Stream Conditions
5. Deviation Process
1. Applicability/Types of Development:
Which types of development and land uses should be subject to the updated ordinance?
The existing Stream Corridor Protection ordinance has broad applicability to development in all
zones, except for more specific provisions to development in the R-1, R-2 or RMD zones. The
existing ordinance makes no distinctions between various site contexts and conditions in the
City (foothills west of Foothill Expressway, flat/urban area east of Foothill Expressway, and the
area near the Baylands east of Highway 101) or types of development (single-family
residential, multifamily/mixed-use and nonresidential).
Staff would like PTC input on whether the updated ordinance should make greater distinction
between single-family residential, multifamily residential, and mixed use and nonresidential
development as each relates to streams and riparian buffers.
Staff recommendation: Apply regulations to all types of development, but with exceptions for
some single-family home projects. This approach would be consistent with the existing
Streamside Protection Ordinance, which currently exempts development in R-1, R-2 or RMD
zones that do not require discretionary review but does not exempt single-family projects that
require discretionary review such as two-story single-family homes in the R-1 zones, or
applications for variances or conditional use permits. Staff recommends that a 20-foot slope
stability protection area be maintained for all development, including projects that do not
require discretionary review, so that the integrity of stream bank can be maintained.
Alternatively, other options to consider for discussion include:
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 49
Item No. 3. Page 7 of 14
Alternative A: Apply regulations to all types of development regardless of zoning district. This
would be the most comprehensive approach, with stream protection measures applicable to all
new development, including single-family homes. However, depending on the size of the
setback and the proportion of the site it covers, it may be onerous to owners of single-family
homes, and could inhibit multifamily residential development. The impacts on single-family
homes could be mitigated by exploring a way to exempt them (discussion #2 below), or by
considering different criteria for exemptions to reduce the burden on some single-family
homes.
Alternative B: Apply regulations to multifamily residential and commercial development. This
would distinguish single-family residential development as being different in impacts to streams
compared to multifamily and commercial development. The rationale would be that
multifamily and commercial development would have a wider range of site planning options
and would make more of an impact on riparian vegetation compared to individual single-family
homes. However, this could be considered a constraint to multifamily residential development,
which could be contrary to goals of increasing housing supply.
2. Exemptions
Should single-family zoning districts be exempted from the regulations?
The current ordinance exempts landscape projects involving less than three cubic yards of
earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian vegetation or with remedial creek
bank stability work; interior construction; and replacement of utility service laterals. Staff
recommend that exemptions also be allowed for building improvements or reconstruction that
do not expand the building footprint further into the streamside setback, and for retaining walls
less than three feet in height above grade. These exemptions would be intended to allow
homeowners to make relatively modest improvements to their properties that would have little
or no impact on the stream and riparian vegetation.
The Comp Plan Program N3.3.1 specifies that the update to the Stream Protection Ordinance
should establish “conditions under which single-family property and existing development are
exempt from the 150-foot setback.” The current ordinance exempts developments in the R-1,
R-2 or RMD zoning districts that do not require discretionary review, such as duplexes, building
permits, and first floor additions to existing R-1 zone homes. Program N3.3.1 also references
the possibility of exploring exemption opportunities for single-family residential properties.
Staff recommendation: Exempt properties in R-1, R-2, RMD zoning districts and existing
development only along channelized/urban streams east of Foothill Expressway and west of
Highway 101. This approach would recognize the more urbanized pattern of the neighborhoods
east of Foothill Expressway, and presumably the fewer opportunities for enhancing riparian
vegetation along urban streams. It would focus specifically on channelized streams in which
there are limited options for enhancing riparian vegetation. However, it would not exempt
single-family residentially zoned properties east of Foothill Expressway and west of Highway
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 50
Item No. 3. Page 8 of 14
101 that are adjacent to natural streams, in recognition of the need to maintain the integrity of
the stream bank and riparian vegetation along natural streams.
Alternatively, other options include:
Alternative A: Exempt properties in R-1, R-2, RMD zoning districts and existing development
only east of Foothill Expressway and west of Highway 101, including those along natural
streams. Similar to the staff recommendation, this approach would recognize the more
urbanized pattern of the neighborhoods east of Foothill Expressway, and presumably the fewer
opportunities for enhancing riparian vegetation along urban streams. However, it would also
exempt properties located along natural streams. Instead, it would focus protection and
enhancement of riparian areas along the natural streams in the areas west of Foothill
Expressway and east of Highway 101.
Alternative B: Exempt properties in R-1, R-2, RMD zoning districts and existing structures
from the streamside setback. This would focus stream corridor protection on new multi-family
residential (three or more housing units) and commercial development but would not create a
burden for new and existing single-family residential properties, duplexes, or existing
multifamily and commercial development. This option would still apply to single-family homes
and other uses in the Residential Estate (RE) and Open Space (OS) zoning districts.
3. Setback Distances
Should properties west of Foothill Expressway follow the 150-foot setback distance from creeks
suggested in the Comp Plan, and what setback should properties east of Foothill Expressway
follow?
The Comp Plan provides direction to explore a 150-foot setback and a native riparian
vegetation border of 30 feet along the stream bank for areas west of the Foothill Expressway.
This is also consistent with Santa Clara County General Plan policy for unincorporated rural
areas.
The current Streamside Corridor Protection ordinance specifies a 20-foot slope stability
protection area in which all structures, including decks, swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and
parking lots are prohibited. There is also a 50-foot streamside review area which presumably
would allow some of the types of uses that are not allowed in the slope stability protection
area, such as decks and swimming pools.
The Comp Plan suggests a 150-foot setback from creeks. The term “setback” is more stringent
and implies a prohibition of structures. Should that be the preferred approach, the 20-foot
slope stability setback area in the current ordinance would no longer be applicable.
For properties east of Foothill Expressway, the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection
Collaborative Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams suggests a setback of 40 feet
from top of bank for urbanized areas. This would be consistent (if not larger than) other
municipalities listed in Table 2 above, such as Fremont (20 feet), San Carlos (25 feet), County of
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 51
Item No. 3. Page 9 of 14
Santa Cruz (30-50 feet), and Woodside (25 feet), but less than County of Marin (100 feet) or San
Jose (100 feet).
Staff seeks input on setback distances for properties east of Foothill Expressway, as well as
confirmation or discussion of the Comprehensive Plan suggestion of imposing a 150-foot creek
setback for properties west of Foothill Expressway and including streams in this discussion and
input.
Staff recommendation: Require a 150-foot setback for properties west of Foothill Expressway
and east of Highway 101, and a 40-foot setback for properties east of Foothill Expressway and
west of Highway 101. This would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy that
suggest exploring the 150-foot creek setback and include the same setback for areas east of
Highway 101. It is also consistent with the recommendations of the Santa Clara Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines for the 40-foot setback.
Alternatively, other options include:
Alternative A: Maintain the 20-foot slope stability protection area but allow greater flexibility
within the rest of the setback. This would ensure the slope stability protection area would be
maintained to protect the integrity of the stream bank but allow some structures within the
setback such as decks and swimming pools, provided they do not encroach into the slope
stability protection area. It would allow greater flexibility for use of the 150-foot and 40-foot
setback areas but could conflict with the objective to protect riparian vegetation.
Alternative B: Enable variable setbacks for properties east of Foothill Expressway and west of
Highway 101. This option would allow a range of different setbacks for the urbanized area east
of Foothill Expressway and west of Highway 101, with the setback determined by type of
stream and/or a formula based on lot depth. This would have the advantage of “right-sizing”
the urban stream setback to better match site conditions but could be a more complicated
regulation to manage than applying a uniform urban stream setback. Depending on the
methodology chosen, this approach could include additional technical studies to submit along
with other application submittals which will increase time and cost for submittal preparation,
increase the uncertainty of the project for the applicant, increase complexity to review
submittal and determine the appropriate setback, and increase potential inconsistent decisions
among different staff or across different projects.
In summary, the recommendation and alternatives are:
Staff
Recommendation
Alternative A Alternative B
West of Foothill Expressway 150 feet 20-foot slope
stability
protection area,
150 feet setback
150 feet
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 52
Item No. 3. Page 10 of 14
with some
structures
allowed
East of Foothill Expressway and
west of Highway 101
40 feet 20-foot slope
stability
protection area,
40-foot setback
with some
structures
allowed
Variable setback,
based on stream
type and/or lot
depth
East of Highway 101 150 feet 150 feet 150 feet
4. Stream Conditions
Should urban streams have riparian vegetation requirements?
For most of the area west of Foothill Expressway, as well as Bayland areas east of Highway 101,
streams are in a relatively natural state. There are some channelized or culverted portions, but
those are mostly in the areas of roadway crossings.
In the more urbanized areas of the city east of Foothill Expressway and west of Highway 101,
there are three typical conditions:
•Natural Stream: A stream that remains in a natural or mostly undisturbed state.
•Channelized/Urban Stream: A stream that has been straightened and/or enlarged for
the purposes of storm runoff control or ease of navigation; may include lining of
streambanks with a retaining material such as concrete; and has typically lost some or
all natural features.
•Culverted Stream: A stream or portion of a stream located underground in a fully
enclosed engineered structure such as a pipe or concrete box.
The existing ordinance focuses on natural streams, but it provides little direction for
channelized or urban streams. Opportunities for riparian vegetation may be limited along
channelized streams, particularly in instances where paved maintenance roads run alongside
the stream and where back yard fences abut these roads. Attempting to reintroduce riparian
vegetation into the stream channel could also create conflicts with flood control objectives.
Culverted streams are underground, so the opportunity to introduce streamside riparian
vegetation is not immediately available. However, in terms of long-term planning, there could
be consideration of setbacks above, and extending out from, culverted streams in order to
allow future daylighting projects. A daylighting project would most likely be a capital project
rather than implemented through the zoning code, but the zoning code could establish
setbacks to facilitate such a project in the future. If no surface stream is visible but expanded
setbacks are required due to the presence of an underground stream with an uncertain
potential for daylighting, this approach may be burdensome for property owners.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 53
Item No. 3. Page 11 of 14
Staff recommendation: Require riparian vegetation to be maintained along natural creeks,
but not along channelized streams. This would continue to promote riparian vegetation along
natural streams but recognize the limited opportunities for introducing riparian vegetation
where the stream has been channelized for flood control purposes.
An alternative option is provided below:
Alternative A: Require introduction of riparian vegetation within the streamside setback for
new development along all types of streams. This option would require riparian vegetation
when a property is fully redeveloped but would not apply to existing development. Restrictions
would apply to ensuring new vegetation would not conflict with flood control. It could slowly
reintroduce riparian vegetation but would not be onerous to existing development.
5. Deviation Process
Should there be a new process modeled after the Standard Staff Review process (e.g.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Variance), Low Density Residential Review process (Individual
Review (IR)/Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and ‘other’ permits), or Architectural Review
(AR, including the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE))? Or should specific creek setback
exception eligibility criteria and findings be added to those existing processes?
The current Streamside Corridor Protection ordinance provides some exceptions and allows
some deviations from its requirements. The distinction between an exemption and a deviation
is that an exemption is objectively identified and not applicable by category or definition,
whereas a deviation would represent a request to relax a standard or allow an exception based
on particular site conditions such as the type of waterway (including whether it is a channelized
or natural creek or intermittent or other type of stream).
The current ordinance includes a process to allow deviations from the slope stability protection
area requirements. The ordinance does not identify what types of deviations would be
acceptable; rather, it provides performance standards to ensure that the integrity of the stream
bank is maintained. Requests are made to the Director of Public Works based on performance
criteria provided in the ordinance.
PAMC Title 18 Zoning enables minor deviations from development standards. One example is
the HIE (PAMC 18.12.120) process that allows for development standards flexibility for home
improvements or minor additions to existing one or two-family residence in the R1, RE, R2, and
RMD zones. There are limits to the exception or deviation, such as limitations on expansion of
square footage or amount of encroachment into setbacks. Staff require the applicant to post
the site and staff sends notices only to adjacent neighbors who then have 21 days to submit
comments, after which a proposed Directors decision is mailed to them. A Director’s Hearing
may occur if a timely request is received from the applicant or adjacent neighbors. A second
Director’s decision is appealable to Council and the item is placed on Council’s Consent
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 54
Item No. 3. Page 12 of 14
Calendar. This framework could be adapted to allow minor encroachments into stream
setbacks, such as for a retaining wall or a small building addition.
The DEE (PAMC 18.76.050) works in a similar fashion to the limits of HIE, in that it is for minor
changes to setbacks, etc. DEEs are not used for low density residential projects, but are used for
other project types, primarily those which require Architectural Review (AR) by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB). The DEE process is the same as the AR process (PAMC
18.77.070), usually with an ARB hearing followed by the Director’s decision, which can be
appealed directly to the City Council.
The Variance process (PAMC 18.76.030) allows for larger deviations and approval findings are
more difficult to make than findings for HIEs and DEEs. Variances follow the “Standard Staff
Review” process that also applies to CUPs and Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions (PAMC
18.77.060). Unlike the HIE, notices of a proposed director’s decision using the Standard Staff
Review process are posted on site and mailed to owners within a 600-foot radius not less than
21 days following deemed complete application. Any hearing requests are presented to the
PTC, followed by placement on the Council’s consent calendar for final action. This framework
could be adapted to allow for more significant encroachments into stream setbacks, such as a
larger building addition, deck, or swimming pool where site conditions create an unusual
constraint.
Staff recommendation: Provide clear provisions in the ordinance update for allowing
deviations from requirements, particularly if larger setbacks are adopted. Furthermore, allow
for a tiered approach with both minor and major deviations from setback requirements,
based on the Home Improvement Exception (HIE), Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), and
Variance frameworks. This would reduce non-conforming conflicts on developed lots. Should
deviations be allowed, staff recommend a clear process for submitting requests, review
procedures, and for these processes to be modeled on existing procedures. The HIE and DEE
process would be the framework for processing minor deviations, such as fences and small
additions, while the Variance process framework would be used for larger deviations such as
larger building additions, swimming pools, etc.
Alternatively, another option could be:
Alternative A: Allow for only minor deviations from setback requirements. Only minor
deviations would be allowed, similar to the limitations specified in the HIE and DEE.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will consider revisions to the Stream Protection Corridor Ordinance based on comments
from the PTC and community members. The draft ordinance is scheduled to be presented to
the PTC in September 2024. Council consideration is tentatively scheduled for October 2024.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 55
Item No. 3. Page 13 of 14
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff and consultant engaged with Palo Alto Neighborhood Associations, conducted a virtual
Community Information Session, and conducted outreach to partnering agencies like San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley
Water) to understand some of the concerns from the community and standards and procedures
from partnering agencies.
•Neighborhood Associations. Initial outreach to Palo Alto neighborhood associations
regarding the stream corridor project revealed varying levels of interest and concerns.
Some leaders expressed support and desired to stay informed, while others offered
contacts for additional stakeholders. One person supported a 150-foot setback west of
Foothill but emphasized the need for flood control measures east of Foothill due to
denser development. At least four of the neighborhood association representatives
attended the community information session.
•Community Information Session. A community information session on March 5, 2024, saw
diverse opinions on the proposed stream corridor ordinance update. While most
attendees supported the update and increased setbacks, concerns were raised about
balancing private property development with riparian improvements. Varying setback
distances were suggested for different areas, with a 150-foot setback favored west of
Foothill Expressway. Additionally, flood risk mitigation, "dark sky" measures, and bird
safety were advocated for. However, opinions on dog parks within the setback area were
divided.
•Valley Water. Meetings with Valley Water revealed a significant shift in 2006 where
regulatory authority for areas beyond the stream bank in Palo Alto transitioned from
Valley Water to the City. This led to the development of guidelines for land use near
streams, emphasizing the importance of protecting riparian corridors. Notably, Valley
Water frequently receives inquiries from Palo Alto residents seeking clarity on streamside
property regulations.
At the time of staff report preparation, three comment letters were received (Attachment E). The
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter submitted a
comment letter dated February 1, 2024; they recommended allowing some recreational uses but
not inappropriate activities like lighted ball fields or dog parks within the proposed stream
corridor setback. A February 26th letter from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
commented on the existing ordinance, focusing on protecting wildlife and riparian species. John
Guislin, a virtual information session attendee, submitted comments on March 8, 2024,
suggesting that mitigating the flooding risk on San Francisquito Creek and restoring channelized
creeks to a natural environment to support wildlife should be higher priorities, and pointing out
that changing the creek setback in highly developed area would not have a significant impact on
wildlife or residents.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 56
Item No. 3. Page 14 of 14
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is a study session to inform and receive comments from the public, and receive PTC
feedback; therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. The City
anticipates the ordinance will be in accordance CEQA criteria and exempt per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15308, which includes actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the
environment.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
This is a study session, and no alternative actions are required.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Creek Maps from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Attachment B: Existing Stream Protection Corridor Ordinance (PAMC 18.40.140)
Attachment C: Existing Conditions Report
Attachment D: Draft Terms and Definitions
Attachment E: Public Comments Received as of July 3, 2024
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Kevin Gardiner, Consultant
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 57
Menlo Park
|ÿ82
%&'(280
£¤101
OregonExpy
ElCaminoReal
UniversityAve
PageMillRd
AlmaSt
Embarcadero Rd
Middlefield Rd
San Francisquito Creek Watershed
Matadero CreekWatershed
Adobe CreekWatershed
San FranciscoBay Watershed
Barron Creek Watershed
Source: Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc.,and the San Francisco Estuarty; PlaceWorks, 2015.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Creeks
Underground culverts & storm drains
Engineered channels
Historical creeks
Tidal marsh, circa 1850
Flood control channels
Tidal marsh, now water
Freshwater marsh, modern
Willow groves, circa 1850
City Limit
Artificial bodies of water
Bay or slough
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N
N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T
M A P N -3
C R E E K S A N D W A T E R SH E D S
Item 3
Attachment A - Comp
Plan2030_CreekMaps
Packet Pg. 58
Foothill Expressway Mountain View
Los Altos Hills Los Altos
§¨¦280
PageMillRoad
Stanford
Lands
§¨¦280
M A P N -4
A R E A W H E R E N A T U R A L C R E E K S E T B A C K A P P L I E S
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N
N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T E L E M E N T
0 1 2 Miles
Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016.
Creeks
Area where Natural Creek Setback Applies
Single Family Residential
Streamside Open Space
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Item 3
Attachment A - Comp
Plan2030_CreekMaps
Packet Pg. 59
18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection
(a) Purpose
The purpose of the water resources protection measures specified below is to provide site planning and development
standards designed to preserve riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding
and bank erosion, and minimize storm water pollution. The further intent of the regulations and guidelines is to consider
these factors in site planning early in the review process.
(b) Water Resources Protection for Streamside Properties
(1) Streamside Review Area Defined
"Streamside review area" means all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank,
except those properties separated from the stream by a public street.
(2) Applicability of Streamside Review Area Requirements and Guidelines
For parcels within the streamside review area, the following types of developments are subject to these requirements and
guidelines listed in subsections (3) and (4) below.
(a) Development in all zones except the R-1, R-2 and RMD districts;
(b) Development in the R-1, R-2, or RMD zones requiring discretionary review, including but not limited to:
(i) Individual review for a new two-story home
(ii) Individual review for a new second story on an existing house, where an expansion or change in the building
footprint results
(iii) Variances, including for fences
(iv) Home Improvement Exceptions; and
(c) Development requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the R-1, R-2, or RMD zones.
The following projects are exempt from streamside review area requirements and guidelines:
(a) Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian vegetation or with remedial
creek bank stability work deemed necessary by the director of public works;
(b) Interior construction; or
(c) Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside the protected areas is not readily available.
(3) Requirements Within streamside review area
(a) Slope stability protection area. All development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area. The
slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio
of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater.
The following structures/uses shall not be allowed within the slope stability protection area:
(i) All structures (including accessory structures);
(ii) Decks of any height;
(iii) Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs; and
(iv) Parking lots.
Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the director of public works where the applicant provides a geotechnical
slope stability analysis, demonstrating that the proposed development would not threaten the stability of the stream bank
slope, require introduction of hardscape in order to maintain the stream bank slope, or be at risk of damage from future bank
stability or erosion, and demonstrating how maintenance and repair of the stream could be provided with the proposed
development in place, subject to compliance with requirements (b) through (i) below and with all applicable zoning setbacks.
(b) New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward from the top of bank.
(c) All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved
by the director of planning and development services. Replacement planting shall be required when native riparian
vegetation is approved for removal.
(d) Planting of non-native invasive plant species is not permitted. Prohibited plant material is listed in the Santa Clara
Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative's User Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams.
(e) Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream.
(f) Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment
shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream, provided that the director may allow noise-producing
Item 3
Attachment B - Existing
SCPO
Packet Pg. 60
equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions and/or other setback requirements make compliance impractical.
(g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.
(h) Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion.
(i) All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the current version of the Santa Clara
Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams.
(4) Guidelines Within Streamside Review Area
(a) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized.
(b) Bright colors and glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas should
be avoided.
(c) Lot Measurement Along Watercourses
No portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot
be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage
easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such lot which is bounded,
in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or
drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and
related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse.
Provided the expansion of an existing easement over a lot adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood
Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002 shall not alter
the calculation of lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-January 1,
2002 easement had not been created.
(Ord. 5494 § 3, 2020: Ord. 4934 § 3 (part), 2007)
Item 3
Attachment B - Existing
SCPO
Packet Pg. 61
Stream Protection Ordinance Update
Existing Conditions Report
July 2024
Prepared by:
With Environmental Collaborative
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto
Stream Protection Ordinance Update
Existing Conditions Report
July 2024
Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Background........................................................................................................................................... 1
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR STREAM PROTECTION ...............................................................................................3
CREEKS IN PALO ALTO .....................................................................................................................................................6
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance ................................................................................................ 7
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................................................7
CURRENT SCPO MAPPING OF MAJOR STREAMS ........................................................................................................9
CURRENT SCPO SETBACK STANDARDS ......................................................................................................................11
Summary of RWQCB Riparian Buffers Study..................................................................................... 12
Review of SCPO Setback Data ........................................................................................................... 12
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 14
Appendix A: Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance.......................................................................... 17
Appendix B: Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area ............................................................. 21
Cover image credit: James Martin, 2024
i
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 63
Introduction
This Existing Conditions Report was prepared by Environmental Collaborative and Good City
Company as an initial task in the process of reviewing and updating the City of Palo Alto’s
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.140).
The document provides a summary of the current regulatory framework protecting streams,
describes the existing network of creeks in Palo Alto and the City’s Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance (SPCO), reviews development requirements and guidelines for streams protected
under the SCPO, identifies limitations in current mapping of protected streams, summarizes
riparian protections used by local agencies in the Bay Area as reported by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), provides information on existing conditions along protected
streams mapped by the City, and makes recommendations for further review and refinement of
the SCPO.
This report was prepared based on a review of available data and mapping, coordination with
Good City Company, input from City of Palo Alto staff, and a field reconnaissance survey
conducted on April 10, 2024. Geographic Information System (GIS) data available from the City
and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) was reviewed and used to analyze
conditions associated with the mapped streams, and better understand opportunities in
revising setback requirements in the current SCPO. The single-day field reconnaissance served
to confirm the varied conditions of streams in Palo Alto where accessible from roadways and
public areas, although no detailed sampling or mapping was performed as part of this effort.
Background
Goals, policies, and programs from the Natural Environment Element of the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan 20301 (CP 2030) recognize the importance of conserving and enhancing
creeks in recognition of their important values as natural habitat, role in connectivity and
defining community character, and their flood control function. Policy N-3.3 calls for protecting
the City’s creeks from the impacts of future development and preserving their role for habitat
connectivity by establishing appropriate setbacks. Programs N3.3.1, N3.3.2 and N3.3.3 all call
for updating the City’s Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) to refine setback
standards and development regulations, as well as to explore ways to further minimize impacts
on wildlife habitat and movement opportunities. These CP 2030 policies and programs include:
1 City of Palo Alto, 2017. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 13. Amended on December 19, 2022.
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 1
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 64
Policy N-3.3: Protect the city’s creeks from the impacts of future buildings, structures,
impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and preserve their function as habitat
connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback requirements that account for
existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property ownership and flood control
potential.
Program N3.3.1: Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore 150 feet
as the desired stream setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of
Foothill Expressway. This 150-foot setback would prohibit the siting of buildings and
other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaped
areas within 150 feet of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor
activities and pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where
there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the
setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 30 feet along the
creek bank.
The update to the Stream Protection Ordinance should establish:
• Design recommendations for development or redevelopment of sites within the
setback, consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and significant net
improvements in the condition of the creek.
• Conditions under which single-family property and existing development are
exempt from the 150-foot setback.
• Appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures for undeveloped parcels.
Program N3.3.2: Examine the development regulations of the Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement to establish appropriate setback
requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks
east of Foothill Expressway. Ensure that opportunities to provide an enhanced riparian
setback along urban creeks as properties are redeveloped or improved are included in
this evaluation.
Program N3.3.3: For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to
minimize impacts on wildlife by:
• Limiting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian
corridors.
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 65
• Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to
maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and
direct lighting away from the riparian corridor.
Regulatory Framework for Stream Protection
In addition to the local requirements under the SCPO and controls associated with obligation
for proposed land use changes to conform with the CP 2030, state and federal regulations also
serve to protect streams and other aquatic habitats. These include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Following is a summary of key regulations that serve
to protect streams and other water bodies.
Clean Water Act: The Corps is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.). These waters, and
their lateral limit, include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent
wetlands. The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the
ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) or the limit of adjacent wetlands. The OHWM means the
line on the banks or shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical
characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the
character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area. Any
permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the U.S., whether natural or human-
made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction.
Waters of the U.S. fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters
include waterbodies and watercourses generally lacking plant cover, such as rivers, streams,
lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands are aquatic habitats that support
hydrophytic wetland plants and include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and
other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently
inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are
categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities.
Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics
are classified as other waters of the U.S.
Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable
water of the U.S. and are not tributary to waters of the U.S. are termed “isolated.” Isolated
wetlands may be jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or
foreign commerce. The Corps may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands
depending on specific circumstances.
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 3
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 66
Figure 1. Open Space and Water Bodies (Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 4.3-3)
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 67
In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps before
placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Prior to issuing the permit, the
Corps is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of
the Federal Endangered Species Act if the project may affect federally listed species.
All Corps Section 404 permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this regulatory program is administered by the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB. Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the
U.S. must apply for water quality certification from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The San
Francisco Bay RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland,
streambed, or other jurisdictional area.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act: Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of
the State’s waters. The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands, as well as
waters and wetlands that are regulated by the Corps. Therefore, even if a project does not
require a federal permit, it still requires review and approval by the RWQCB. When reviewing
applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the
“beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to
protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements into
projects that will require discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, the
RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices.
Jurisdiction of the RWQCB typically extends to the top of bank (TOB) for creeks or to the outer
edge riparian vegetation canopy cover beyond the TOB, similar to the limits of the CDFW.
Streambed Alteration Agreement Under California Fish and Game Code: The CDFW is
responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), which includes
regulations to protect streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed
Alteration Agreement process under Section 1600 to 1606 of the CFGC. The CFGC stipulates
that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change
the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW,
incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CDFW’s
jurisdiction extends to the TOB and typically extends to the outer edge of riparian vegetation
canopy cover beyond the TOB.
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 5
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 68
Creeks in Palo Alto
As described in the Biological Resources section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)2 on
the CP 2030, three main watersheds encompass most of Palo Alto: the San Francisquito Creek
watershed, the Matadero Creek watershed, and the Adobe Creek watershed. All the creeks in
these watersheds flow to San Francisco Bay and enter the bay at the Palo Alto Baylands. The
largely undeveloped southernmost portion of Palo Alto flows into the upper reaches of the
Stevens Creek watershed, which eventually discharges into the Bay near Long Point, north of
Moffett Field Naval Air Station. Figure 1 (Comprehensive Plan Figure 4.3-3) from the EIR
shows the location of the major creeks in Palo Alto. Their locations and general conditions are
summarized as follows:
• San Francisquito Creek forms the northern border of the City adjacent to Menlo Park
and East Palo Alto. The main tributaries to San Francisquito Creek are Corte Madera
Creek (which extends into other jurisdictions such as Portola Valley and Stanford
University property), Bear Creek (in Woodside and Menlo Park), and Los Trancos Creek
(in Portola Valley and unincorporated Santa Clara County including Stanford). Upstream
of Highway 101 the creek and its tributaries are generally natural channels; downstream
of Highway 101 to San Francisco Bay the San Francisquito Creek channel has been
engineered for flood control purposes and is bordered by vertical flood walls for a
distance of about a half mile with a heavily rocked earthen levee system continuing out
to the Bay.
• The Matadero Creek watershed includes the mainstem of Matadero Creek together with
Deer Creek, Arastradero Creek, Santa Rita Creek, the Stanford Channel, and Mayfield
Slough. Except for the Stanford Channel located near Hanover Street and Page Mill
Road, the watershed consists of natural channels upstream of El Camino Real.
Downstream of El Camino Real to Highway 101 the creeks are concrete-lined
engineered channels. Downstream of Highway 101, Matadero Creek is a natural channel
that supports dense riparian vegetation and coastal salt marsh where tidal influence
creates saline conditions.
• The Adobe Creek watershed drains south Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and Los Altos. Barron
Creek is part of this watershed; it flows through south Palo Alto to meet Adobe Creek
just before it enters the bay. Both Adobe Creek and Barron Creek are mostly natural
channels upstream of El Camino Real and are in engineered, paved channels
downstream of El Camino Real to Highway 101. Downstream of Highway 101, both
creeks are natural channels that support dense riparian vegetation and coastal salt
marsh where tidal influence creates saline conditions.
2 PlaceWorks, 2016. Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto, Volume 1: Draft EIR.
February 5.
6 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 69
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Summary
The City’s current SCPO (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.140) was significantly
amended in 2007 and was last updated in 2020. The SCPO is intended to preserve riparian
habitat, protect improvements from damage from flooding and bank erosion or migration, and
minimize storm water pollution. The full text of the current SCPO is contained in Appendix A.
The SCPO establishes a “streamside review area” for creeks protected under the ordinance. All
properties abutting or located within 50 feet from the TOB of a protected creek are subject to
the requirements and guidelines defined in the SCPO. These requirements and guidelines are
largely based on specifics identified in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams3
prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative), a
cooperative decision-making process for which the City of Palo Alto is a member. The
requirements and guidelines of the SCPO pertain to proposed development in all zoning
districts within the City, including discretionary review for proposed development in R-1, R-2
and RMD zoning districts, consisting of but not limited to:
• Individual review for a new two-story home;
• Individual review in some cases4 for a new second story on an existing house, where an
expansion or change in the building footprint is proposed;
• Variance, including for fences;
• Home Improvement Exceptions; and
• Development requiring a Conditional Use Permit in these zoning districts.
Exceptions from streamside review area requirements and guidelines consist of projects that
are:
• Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian
vegetation or with remedial creek bank stability work deemed necessary the Director of
Public Works;
• Interior construction; or
3 Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, 2005. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, A
Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County. August,
revised July 2006.
4 See Municipal Code Section 18.12 for greater detail.
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 7
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 70
• Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside of protected areas is not
readily available.
The SCPO call for restrictions on development inside a “slope stability protection area”, which
extends to a point 20 feet landward from the TOB or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1
(horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater. The following uses
are not allowed within the slope stability protection area:
• All structures (including accessory structures);
• Decks of any height;
• Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs; and
• Parking lots.
Exceptions to these restrictions within the SCPO may be granted by the Director of Public
Works where an applicant provides a geotechnical slope stability analysis that demonstrates
the proposed development would not threatened the stability of the creek bank, require
introduction of hardscape to maintain the bank, or be at risk of damage from future bank
stability or erosion, and demonstrates how maintenance and repair of the creek could be
provided with the proposed development in place, subject to compliance with the following
requirements and all applicable zoning setbacks:
• New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward from the TOB;
• All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the TOB shall be retained unless its
removal is approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
• Replacement planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is approved for
removal.
• Planting of non-native invasive plant species is not permitted. Prohibited plant material
is listed in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s User
Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses near Streams.
• Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the TOBs of a stream.
• Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing
mechanical equipment shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the TOB of a stream,
provided that the Director may allow noise producing equipment closer than 50 feet
where site conditions and/or other setback requirements make compliance impractical.
• Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.
• Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosions.
8 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 71
• All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the
current version of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User
Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Stream.
As part of the streamside review, regulated proposed developments must also conform with
the following guidelines:
• Distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be
maximized.
• Bright colors or glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams
or riparian areas should be avoided.
• Lot measurement along watercourses.
Finally, the SCPO states that “no portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or
top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot be ascertained, of any natural
watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage
easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of
any such lot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river,
stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement, for those
portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and
related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or TOB, of
such watercourse. Provided the expansion of an existing easement over a lot adjacent to San
Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002, shall not alter the calculation of
lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-
January 1, 2002, easement had not been created.”
Current SCPO Mapping of Major Streams
Under current practices, the SCPO is applied to parcels that contain a streamside review area
along perennial and intermittent streams mapped on the City’s GIS dataset as “Water Features
Palo Alto.” These include the main stems of San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron
Creek, and Adobe Creek, together with the tributary Los Trancos Creek, Buckeye Creek,
Standford Channel, and Deer Creek. While these represent the major drainages in Palo Alto,
review of the City’s GIS data and comparison to other mapping sources indicate that there may
be errors in the location of some of these features or that additional tributary drainages may
be present that are not currently mapped or regulated under the SCPO. This includes GIS
mapping available from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 9
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 72
Figure 2. Comparison of Creek Layers along Los Trancos and Adobe Creeks (red
lines show mapped creeks from the City’s GIS layer, yellow lines show alignments
available from data from SCVWD)
Figure 3. Comparison of Creek Layers along Stevens Creek (red lines show
mapped creeks from the City’s GIS layer, yellow lines show alignments available
from data from SCVWD)
10 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 73
For comparison purposes to demonstrate differences in the available GIS data on creeks, the
following images in Figures 2 and 3 show clips of mapped streams from a portion of Palo Alto
west of the Foothill Expressway from the City’s GIS and the SCVWD’s datasets. In Figure 2, Los
Trancos Creek is the drainage on the left side of the clip and the upper reaches of Alamo Creek
are on the right site. Figure 3 shows the upper drainages in the Stevens Creek watershed. In
both clips, the red lines show mapped creeks from the City’s GIS layer typically used in
applying the SCPO, while the yellow lines show alignments available from data from the
SCVWD. There are considerable differences in the location and alignment of some of the
mapped drainages, as well as their lengths and in some areas, discrepancies in the number of
tributaries. On two different parcels shown in this example in Figure 2, the mapped creek
alignments fall on different sides of existing structures. Numerous additional tributary
drainages are evident in Figure 3 according to the SCVWD creek data. These differences in
mapping could have major implications on development applications and applicability of the
various requirements under the SCPO, demonstrating the importance of verifying the current
location of existing drainages, including TOB, as part of the review process.
Current SCPO Setback Standards
The current SCPO identifies several minimum setback standards for proposed improvements
where a protected creek and streamside review area are present on a regulated parcel. These
include the following setback standards:
• Establishment of a slope stability protection area 20 feet landward from TOB or to a
point measured at a 2:1 ratio landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater, within
which all structures, decks, swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and parking lots shall be
restricted unless allowed by approved exceptions.
• Restrictions on loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary
noise-producing mechanical equipment closer than 50 feet from TOB, unless allowed by
approved exceptions.
• New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward of TOB.
• Protection of all native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from TOB unless removal is
approved, and replacement plantings are provided.
• Requirement that only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between TOBs of a
stream.
• Planting on non-native invasive plant species is not permitted.
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 11
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 74
Summary of RWQCB Riparian Buffers Study
The most comprehensive review of riparian buffers in the Bay Area was conducted by the San
Francisco RWQCB in 2003 as reported in the Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San
Francisco Bay Area (LGRB).5 While considerable time has passed since this survey was
completed, and local agencies have undoubtedly refined and expanded riparian buffer
protections, the LGRB continues to provide useful information relevant to updating the City’s
SCPO. The LGRB concluded that buffer distances in the Bay Area vary greatly and that it was
likely that many of these buffer distances were not based upon specific thresholds designed to
satisfy water quality and habitat considerations. But at the time of the survey in 2003,
respondents indicated that approximately 38% of stream buffer policies required a 33-foot or
greater minimum buffer distance.
Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary, but most of the
scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet from TOB for this purpose6, with
larger distances to protect important wildlife habitat values and connectivity functions. The
LGRB points out the importance of preserving headwater drainages, commonly referred to as
ephemeral streams, as a critical step in environmental protection, which has been largely
overlooked, as appears to be the case with the SCPO in Palo Alto. Finally, the LGRB points out
the importance of engaging the public in the process of adopting or refining stream buffer
protections, so that community concerns can be addressed and scientific justification for land
use restrictions provided as part of the process. Staff from the RWQCB have indicated that they
are currently in the process of providing an update in providing guidance around riparian
protections,7 which will focus on stream buffer recommendations rather than updating the
status of current practices for local agencies in the Bay Area. A copy of the LGRB is contained in
Appendix B.
Review of SCPO Setback Data
To better understand the implications of revising setback standards under the SCPO, GIS data
for streams protected under the City’s “Water Features Palo Alto” layer were analyzed against
variables of 1) setback distance from protected streams, 2) a range of parcel sizes, and 3)
location west and east of Foothill Expressway. To provide a better understanding of flexibility in
5 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2004. Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay
Area. July.
6 Jones & Stokes, 2002. Stream Setback Technical Memorandum. October 18.
7 Hunt, Lisa, Water Resource Control Engineer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2024. Personal
communication with James Martin, Principal of Environmental Collaborative on March 28.
12 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 75
siting proposed improvements on individual parcels, data was further subdivided into a range
of parcel sizes – those under ½ acre, from ½ to 2 acres and over 2 acres. Vegetation and
lifeform data available from the SCVWD lidar data from 2020 was then used as a basis for
better understanding conditions along the City’s protected streams and the effects of
providing setbacks for 50, 100 and 150 feet from the centerline of mapped streams. While
setbacks under the SCPO are established from the TOB, available GIS data is plotted to the
centerline of the stream, not the TOB as data for TOB would need to be field verified by a
qualified biologist and may change over time.
Conditions varied considerably along protected streams in Palo Alto. In general, the Matadero,
Barron, and Adobe Creek channels have been heavily modified for flood control purposes
across the urbanized valley floor of Palo Alto downstream of El Camino Real and to Foothill
Expressway along some drainages. These reaches of the protected streams tend to be
bordered by urban development, until they pass under Highway 101 and reach the remnant
riparian and marshlands along the shore of San Francisco Bay. Upstream of Foothill
Expressway, most of the protected streams remain in a natural condition except where I-280
and other roadway crossings have culverted these reaches. Some residential, institutional, and
recreational uses border these creeks and their tributaries, but most of the adjacent lands
retains natural cover and these areas remain largely open for wildlife movement along the
creek corridors and surrounding uplands.
Data from the GIS analysis of the City’s protected stream layer provides some quantification of
existing conditions and opportunities for expanding existing protections under the SCPO. The
number of parcels with mapped protected streams in the City ranged from 3,976 when a 50-
foot setback distance from stream centerline was used, to a total of 6,637 when a 150-foot
setback was used. It should be noted that the GIS layer of mapped protected streams captures
all parcels within the prescribed setback distances, even where a parcel may be separated from
the stream by a roadway or an intervening parcel. As a result, the total number of parcels that
would be subject to the SCPO is likely lower than those reported here, but the available data
nevertheless is useful in understanding differences between the more urbanized areas and
those with more natural habitat, the implications of increasing setback distances, and existing
cover types within these setbacks along mapped protected streams. Under the 150-foot
setback distance, there were a total of 1,888 parcels that intersect with one of the City’s
mapped protected streams west of Foothill Expressway. Of these, 31 were parcels under ½ acre
in size, 188 were from ½ to 2 acres, and 1,699 were greater than 2 acres. This 150-foot setback
along the mapped protected streams west of Foothill Expressway encompasses an area of
about 1,493.2 acres. Of this total, only 18.38 acres were mapped as “Developed” based on the
SCVWD cover data, with about 3.5 acres of open water, about 1.1 acre of vineyard or other
agricultural cover, and the remainder supporting native and non-native vegetation.
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 13
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 76
Applying this same 150-foot setback to the City’s mapped protected streams east of Foothill
Expressway demonstrates the largely developed condition through the urbanized areas of Palo
Alto. Under the 150-foot setback distance, there were a total of 4,749 parcels that intersect
with one of the City’s mapped protected streams. Of these, 2,151 were under ½ acre in size,
430 were from ½ to 2 acres, and 1,468 were greater than 2 acres. The 150-foot setback along
mapped protected streams east of Foothill Expressway encompasses an area of about 1,233.2
acres. Of this total, 338.4 acres are mapped as “Developed” or “Barren” based on the SCVWD
cover data, with about 168.1 acres of open water or tidal mudflats, and the remainder
supporting native and non-native vegetation. An estimated 355.8 acres of this vegetative cover
is comprised of coastal salt marsh in the Baylands downstream of Highway 101. The majority of
the remaining vegetative cover is composed of non-native forest indicative of mature
landscaping in yards and along tree-lined streets, which occupies and estimated 111.3 acres
within this 150-foot setback distance from mapped protected streams.
Applying a 50-foot setback to the City’s mapped protected streams east of Foothill Expressway
reduces the total affected parcels and associated cover types. Under the 50-foot setback
distance, there were a total of 2,690 parcels that intersect with one of the City’s mapped
protected streams. Of these, 1,421 were under ½ acre in size, 300 were from ½ to 2 acres, and
969 were greater than 2 acres. The 50-foot setback along mapped protected streams east of
Foothill Expressway encompasses an area of about 451.3 acres. Of this total, 67.3 acres are
mapped as “Developed” or “Barren” based on the SCVWD cover data, with about 98.2 acres of
open water or tidal mudflats, 117.2 acres of coastal salt marsh downstream of Highway 101,
and 54.9 acres of non-native forest, with the remaining 113.7 acres supporting other non-
native or native vegetative cover types.
The GIS data of mapped protected streams reflects assumptions made in the CP 2030
regarding opportunities for larger setbacks and resource protections west of Foothill
Expressway and more challenges with smaller parcel sizes and greater development intensities
east of Foothill Expressway. Less of the setback areas are developed and still support primarily
native habitat west of Foothill Expressway and much of the creek corridors east of Foothill
Expressway have been modified by past flood-control improvements, are crossed by major
roadways including Highway 101 and El Camino Real and are bordered by urbanization rather
than natural habitat.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The City’s current SCPO serves to recognize the value of major streams in Palo Alto and
provides an important framework for their protection. However, Policy N-3.3 and Programs
14 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 77
N3.3.1, N3.3.2 and N3.3.3 from the Natural Environment Element of the CP 2030 all call for
updating the SCPO with the objective of refining setback standards, reviewing the adequacy of
development restrictions, and exploring ways to further minimize impacts on wildlife habitat
and movement opportunities. These considerations include:
1) Establishing a range of setback requirements from protected streams to reflect the
range in habitat values, land use characteristics, and other factors (see Policy N-3.3).
2) Exploring the appropriateness of providing a 150-foot setback along natural creeks in
open space and areas west of the Foothill Expressway, as well as a border of native
riparian vegetation at least 30 feet along the creek bank (see Program N3.3.1).
3) Examining appropriate setback for creeks east of the Foothill Expressway that reflect the
varied natural and channelized conditions of these drainages while providing
opportunities for an enhanced riparian setback as properties are redeveloped or
improved (see Program N3.3.2).
4) Updating the SCPO to further minimize impacts on wildlife, including limiting the
development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors and requiring
careful design of lighting adjacent to natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance
between nighttime lighting and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor (see
Program N3.3.3).
All of these considerations would serve to improve the habitat protections provided by the
SCPO. Any increases in development setbacks beyond those currently specified in the SCPO
would serve to protect existing vegetation and wildlife habitat values where natural habitat
remains, while reducing the risk of disturbance to the sensitive riparian corridors as a result of
short-term construction and long-term occupation and management. Understandably, these
refinements to the SCPO development restrictions and guidelines must be balanced with the
rights of private property owners where protected streams are present.
During preparation of this Existing Conditions Report, limitations with the current SCPO and
available mapping data became apparent, which should be considered as part of the ordinance
update. These consist of the following:
Definition of Stream: No definition of “stream” or “protected stream” is provided in the
current SCPO or could be found in the City’s Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 4932 calls
for the City to conform with the Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams, which contains a definition of stream within the User Manual, however,
the Municipal Code was not updated to explicitly adopt the definition of stream used in
the User Manual. Providing a definition of stream in the Municipal Code language would
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 15
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 78
reinforce what is regulated under the future stream protection ordinance and help
clarify the issue for private property owners and the interested public.
Identification of Protected Streams: Differences in mapping of protected streams
used by the City and data available through other sources demonstrate uncertainties in
the location, alignment and tributaries that warrant consideration as part of the SCPO.
These differences in mapping could have major implications on development
applications and applicability of the various requirements under the SCPO,
demonstrating the importance of verifying the current location of existing drainages as
part of the ordinance compliance review process. However, it should be acknowledged
that these streams and their defined banks are subject to natural forces and may shift
over time, underscoring the importance of field verification in certain instances.
Protection of Unmapped Drainages: The current SCPO focuses on major creeks and
tributaries, generally the known perennial and intermittent drainages in Palo Alto.
However, headwater or ephemeral streams provide important water quality filtration
functions and can provide important linkages between aquatic and upland habitat.
Including protection of currently unmapped features would be an important
consideration as part of updating the SCPO. Development setback standards from
ephemeral streams could be considerably less than those for intermittent and perennial
drainages, where the primary goal is to provide sediment filtration. Some segments of
ephemeral drainages may be part of a larger native woodland or contain bands of
woody riparian vegetation that warrant protection beyond their primary role in recharge
and sediment filtration functions.
GIS Data from Assigned Setbacks: The GIS data related to setbacks of from 50 to 150
feet from mapped protected streams is useful in understanding existing conditions and
need for greater protections, where feasible and reasonable. Some of this data has its
limitations, such as the inclusion of parcels separated from nearby streams or with an
intervening parcel under different ownership, conditions where the SCPO would not
apply. But the available GIS data is overall very useful and can be used to better
understand the extent of existing development, presence of absence of native
vegetative cover, and other variables to be considered as part of updating the SCPO.
Within limitations, this data can be further applied to respond to questions and
concerns as the review process for updating the SCPO proceeds.
16 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 79
Appendix A: Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 17
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 80
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 81
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 82
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 83
Appendix B: Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 21
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 84
Local Government Riparian Buffers in
the San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
July 2004
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 85
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
3
3
4
6
8
Background
Purpose
Why Establish Creek Buffers?
Regulatory Context
Political Reality
Methodology 9
9Limitations of Study
Results 11
Findings 12
12
13
Typical Issues of Controversy
Approaches to Regulation
Discussion 16
16
16
18
Summary of Analysis
Analysis/Priority for Regional Board Outreach and Implementation
The Role of Community Outreach
References 19
APPENDICES 20
21
23
27
28
A. Riparian Resources and Erosion Control Survey
B. Summaries of Buffer Policies and Stream Protection Approaches
C. Relevant factors when evaluating a stream buffer policy:
D. Graphical Summary of Results
2
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 86
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Background
As indicated in the Plan for California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (Plan),
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) supports local
agency efforts to reduce erosion and sedimentation and protect riparian areas. The Plan calls on
local agencies to:
• Develop a technical assistance program for project design that will include guidelines
for designing projects that avoid wetlands and riparian areas
• Develop a framework linking stream, hydrological, and ecological function to
beneficial uses
• Develop criteria for protecting ecological functions and other beneficial use of streams
• Draft Stream Protection Policy
The Water Board is currently working to support local agency efforts to enact stream
protection regulations that protect and restore natural stream function. As part of that effort, the
Water Board published A Primer on Stream and River Protection for the Regulator and
Program Manager (April 2003), which discusses the link between channel stability and water
quality and outlines ways to avoid excessive erosion and sediment deposition.
The Water Board has also prepared a draft Stream Protection Policy that contains the following
objectives for riparian buffer zones:
Buffer zones shall be maintained or enhanced to protect stream functions. Examples of
ways in which buffer zones protect stream functions include: removing agricultural and
urban stormwater pollutants, reducing sediment from upland sources, stabilizing stream
banks, minimizing changes to the hydrograph by infiltrating stormwater runoff,
metering stream baseflow, and supporting vegetation which provides nutrients and
shade.
Purpose
This survey of local government efforts to regulate land use for the protection of water quality
and habitat for aquatic species was conducted in order to:
1) Determine what land use regulations and management measures local jurisdictions are
already undertaking to protect riparian corridors;
2) Inventory riparian buffer widths and the methods used to calculate the width of the
buffers
3) Identify obstacles to establishing riparian protection regulations
4) Make recommendations for local governments regarding riparian buffer regulations
with the goal of drafting a model ordinance. This can serve as a point of departure for
local jurisdictions crafting new or revised ordinances.
3
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 87
Many Bay Area cities and counties have riparian protection policies, rules, or ordinances and
others are considering adopting such rules. As the embarks on Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) development and implementation and the issuance of Phase 2 Urban Stormwater
Permits, we are interested in knowing how local jurisdictions regulate land use to protect water
quality and preserve aquatic habitat.
Other topics that will be addressed in this study are:
• The number of cities and counties that are currently working on or considering
proposing riparian setback ordinances.
• The key areas of controversial issues that have arisen over riparian buffers in each
community
Why Establish Creek Buffers?
Stream buffers can be effectively established through a variety of planning tools, including
overlay zoning, creek setback ordinances, and conservation easements. The preparation of
local regulations typically involves several components. The first step is to develop the purpose
and need for the regulation. Purposes and needs statements contained in ordinances typically
cite public safety, hazards reduction, health, and other compelling traditional “police powers”
of local government. Protection of environmental habitats has been added to these purposes
recently because responsibilities for complying federal and state laws, including the federal
Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the state Porter Cologne and Endangered
Species Acts, are increasingly being shifted from federal and state levels to local levels. The
next section describes the regulations, which must have a clear and logical connection to the
purposes just described. Other sections typically describe enforcement provisions, variances
allowed, and often an appeals process.
Riparian zones perform many ecological functions important to enhancing water quality, water
quantity, biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and flood capacity. The stream channel itself
conveys runoff, supports aquatic plants and animals, provides groundwater recharge, and
supplies water to trees and plants that typically thrive in the riparian zone.
Stream buffers are an effective way to physically protect and separate a stream or wetland from
future disturbance or encroachment. A network of stream buffers acts as a right-of-way during
floods and sustains the integrity of stream ecosystems and habitat (Center for Watershed
Protection, www.cwp.org/aquatic_buffers.htm). Riparian forest and wetland buffers, if
properly maintained, appear to have a significant capacity to mitigate some of the effects of
development. Riparian buffers protect stream function, protect habitat, and provide additional
capacity for flood flow conveyance.
4
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 88
The Water Board’s Watershed Management Initiative identifies the following major non-point
source problems in the San Francisco Bay Region, many of which can be partially or fully
addressed through establishment of riparian buffers:
• Elimination of natural channels, including loss of wetlands, wildlife, fisheries and
riparian areas;
• Increased sedimentation due to construction activities and land clearing;
• Unmitigated changes in hydrology that upset the geomorphic equilibrium of
streams, causing destabilization and erosion of channels, and more frequent
flooding;
• Increased pollutant loads associated with urban activities;
• Impairment of fish habitat from water diversions and fish passage barriers due to
the construction of in-channel reservoirs and diversion structures, the sedimentation
of channels, and the removal of vegetation; and,
• Increased pollutant loads associated with agricultural activities.
Stream Function
The riparian zone functions to decrease sedimentation by intercepting sediment and debris in
root zones before sediment-laden runoff enters the stream system. The capture of sediments
has the added benefit of trapping particle-bound chemicals and pollutants, preventing them
from degrading aquatic environments. Also, the vegetation within a creek buffer will decrease
erosion and allow for increased soil infiltration by stabilizing stream banks and slowing flow
velocities. In some settings, intact riparian areas will remove pollutants traveling in stormwater
or groundwater.
Riparian Habitat
The riparian zone is an ecotone, or transition zone, between aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
Because riparian zones contain both aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species they have
unusually high species diversity. Riparian zones are also important migratory corridors. A
continuous buffer provides migratory and wildlife corridors, which are of particular value in
protecting amphibians and waterfowl populations, as well as fish spawning and nursery areas.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California has lost 90 percent or more of its
wetlands, which includes riparian communities. This is despite the fact that according to
government biologists, riparian communities in the Western states, such as California, provide
habitat for up to 80 percent of western wildlife species. It is estimated that about 50 percent of
endangered species require wetlands at some point in their life cycle.
Flood Conveyance
Riparian zones form the part of the floodplain that is closest to the edge of the water body and
are the most frequent areas to be inundated. To minimize property damage, it is advantageous
for local regulations to include the entire 100-year floodplain within the riparian buffer to
reduce flood risks.
5
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 89
Regulatory Context
Federal Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401
The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards review applications for water quality
certifications under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA Section 401 is
tied to CWA Section 404, which requires federally issued permits for all proposed fill and
dredge activities in waters of the United States. Section 401 gives states the authority to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Section 404 permit to ensure that federally permitted
actions are consistent with state law. Section 404(b)(1) provides guidance for evaluating
project alternatives. It calls for first avoiding impacts, and then minimizing impacts to assure
that there is no net loss of fully functional streams, wetlands, and/or water bodies.
Implementation of stream protection regulations can go a long way to avoiding impacts and
can ease the Section 404/401 permit process for projects. Additionally, projects that avoid all
impacts, or potential impacts to waters of the State will not require 401 water quality
certification.
California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Act provides both immediate and long-term authority for the
protection of the physical integrity of river and stream environments. The Act directs regional
boards to regulate impacts to waters of the State by the issuance of Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) for any activity that results in a waste discharge that directly or
indirectly impacts waters of the State. WDRs can and are being used to maintain and promote
stable waterways. When used to condition discharges such as fill into a water body, WDRs
may encourage a balance between erosion, sediment transport, and deposition as a means of
avoiding the degradation of water quality. In the past, WDRs were primarily used to regulate
point source discharges of liquid or solid waste to land (e.g., septic tank discharges, landfill
operations, etc.) However, WDRs are an appropriate means to regulate discharge of waste
including fill material, sediment and changes in flow to waterways.
Each of the nine Regional Boards has a master policy document that describes the legal,
technical, and programmatic foundation used for protecting water quality. In the Bay Area, this
Water Quality Control Plan, or “Basin Plan,” details beneficial uses that are directly related to
the concern of the physical integrity of stream and river channels. While there are many
beneficial uses provided by aquatic ecosystems, the uses best preserved by riparian buffers are:
cold freshwater habitat for trout and anadramous salmon and steelhead; fisheries migration
including unimpeded river flows; preservation of rare and endangered species; and protection
of wildlife habitat. These beneficial uses can be effectively protected and maintained through
riparian and wetland land use regulation at the local level.
6
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 90
Federal Clean Water Act Sections 303(d)
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires identification of impaired water bodies (those that do not
meet water quality objectives or support designated beneficial uses). Many water bodies in the
Bay Area have been listed under Section 303(d) as impaired and the Water Board is
developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to address these impairments. TMDLs
create a plan to attain the designated water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses for
impaired water bodies. Impairment due to excess sediment, nutrients, and pathogens are
common in the Bay Area.
The Water Board is developing TMDLs to address impaired water bodies in the Bay Area. We
are encouraging a broad watershed management approach that allows for flexibility in attaining
water quality goals and objectives. The TMDL may combine the concept of load allocations
with aggressive Best Management Practice programs and local “commitments to action” tied to
measurable factors such as extents of riparian setbacks, riparian canopy coverage, and stable
vegetated stream banks. TMDLs provide an opportunity to identify and apply locally based
remedies to improve watershed conditions.
Endangered Species Act
The Regional Board works cooperatively with the California Department of Fish and Game
and the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) to assist in the protection of threatened and endangered species. In June 2000,
NMFS adopted regulations affecting fourteen groups of salmon and steelhead listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other listed aquatic species found in the
Bay Area include freshwater shrimp, red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and other non-
salmonid fish. In addition to aquatic species there are a number of threatened and endangered
birds and mammals that use sensitive riparian and wetland habitat for vital life functions. The
ESA provides a variety of tools for saving species threatened with extinction. Review of
activities that could affect endangered aquatic species is facilitated by proactive riparian and
wetland land use policies.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the potential environmental
impacts of projects be evaluated and that mitigation measures be developed to reduce any
identified significant impacts. CEQA requires evaluation of hydrologic, water quality, and
biotic resource impacts. Mitigation measures, developed on a project-by-project basis, often
include riparian buffers. Local stream protection policies and ordinances limit development in
riparian areas and can alleviate the need to conduct a project-specific impact analysis.
7
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 91
Political Reality
Many cities and counties in the Bay Area are struggling to adopt stream protection policies and
ordinances to provide a mechanism for complying with the wide range of water quality and
endangered species regulations discussed above. However, in many jurisdictions there is
concern that riparian buffers could result in undesirable restrictions on private property. These
concerns can be addressed through ordinance exceptions or variance provisions. It is important
for local government to initiate a stakeholder outreach and education program prior to
releasing a draft ordinance for the decision-making body to consider.
On the other hand, in some communities concerned citizens and environmental groups may
believe that the riparian protections are not stringent enough or that enforcement mechanisms
are weak. The success of riparian buffer regulation lies with the community. The community
must be educated about the benefits of riparian protection, what the proposed regulations will
and will not allow, how exceptions to the regulations are permitted, and finally, who will
implement and enforce the ordinance.
8
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 92
M E T H O D O L O G Y
In February 2003, a “Stream Protection and Erosion Control Survey” (Appendix A) was
drafted by the Water Board with the intent of being administered to staff in city and county
planning departments. In an effort to identify policies that contribute to sediment reduction and
aquatic habitat protection throughout the San Francisco Bay region, questions were asked
regarding stream and tree protection, and hillside development policies. San Francisco Estuary
Project Interns Orrin Cook and Brendan Thompson conducted phone and email surveys
between March and November 2003. At times, planning staff deferred questions to their
jurisdictions’ public works or community development departments, who then replied to the
survey questions. Between March and May 2004, the data were fact-checked to ensure that the
results were current.
The survey questionnaire consisted of nine questions, and question results were entered into an
Excel spreadsheet and then summarized. For survey question #1, which asks if a given General
Plan contains policies about the protection of riparian resources, a threshold was established
whereby if the General Plan had a clear statement about restricting development in the riparian
zone, then an affirmative answer would be assigned. All affirmative responses from city and
county staff were checked with that jurisdictions General Plan to ensure the threshold was
satisfied. For some of the cities that did not respond to the survey, we were able to access their
General Plans online. These cities were included in the survey results for question #1. If the
General Plan could not be accessed, then the question was not assigned a response.
Survey question #3 asks if a municipality has a zoning ordinance regarding riparian buffers. If
a stream buffer policy existed in the jurisdictions zoning ordinance, municipal code, or
supplemental policy document, an affirmative response was assigned. General Plan policies
were not included. “Easement” and “setback” policies were included in our definition of a
stream buffer. For all of the questions, responses were confirmed by checking the
corresponding policy document.
During our study, we discovered that the initial scope of the survey was too broad, given the
available resources. Information was gathered on tree protection policy, hillside development
policy, and flood hazard issues (see Appendix D). Once much of these data were gathered, it
was evident that there was not enough information for analytical applications. Later survey
participants were given an abbreviated survey that only asked the questions of the survey that
applied to issues of stream resource protection.
Limitations of Study
The survey began with the intention of finding several meaningful, quantitative descriptions to
describe stream, tree, and hillside protection policies in the 85 incorporated cities and nine Bay
Area counties within the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2).
Not surprisingly, the absence and presence and characteristics of these policies were not clear-
cut, and did not lend themselves to be easily summarized within discrete categories.
Consequently, the only absolute quantitative data we can report from this survey is the number
9
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 93
of jurisdictions with some form of riparian buffer policy in their city and county codes. We
also provide a range of buffer widths prescribed by local regulation, as well as a percentage of
jurisdictions with tree protection ordinances and hillside development ordinances (Appendix
D).
We intended to develop a rating system that would evaluate the effectiveness of the stream
buffer policies. This proved to be unmanageable, as the effectiveness of a given stream buffer
policy is a function of many variables. For a list of stream buffer policy characteristics that
would be used to develop evaluative criteria of a given policy, see Appendix C. Additionally,
we were unable to determine how closely or effectively a given jurisdiction was following their
stream protection policies. It is possible that some communities protect their riparian areas
more effectively through their design review process than other communities who have an
established buffer policy. Although it is difficult to assess the success of these buffer policies,
it can be said that vague definitions of allowable land use in buffer zones, or liberal granting of
variances do not lend themselves to an effective buffer policy.
We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided by participants. We interviewed
senior planners, principal planners, planning directors, city planners, planning managers,
assistant planners, and various staff in public works departments. It is also possible that certain
participants’ unfamiliarity or inexperience could have resulted in inaccurate survey replies.
The reported results reflect conditions that were accurate at the time the surveys were
conducted. The information was gathered between March 2003 and May 2004. Since the time
interviews were done, General Plans may have been updated or new ordinances may have been
implemented.
10
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 94
R E S U LT S
With 89% of cities reporting, 41% have some form of a stream buffer policy in their municipal
code, zoning ordinance, or supplemental policy document. Of the nine counties in the Region 2
jurisdiction, with San Francisco County not responding, 75%, or 6 of 8 have a stream buffer
policy established. After examining the General Plans of 81% of the 85 Region 2 cities, we
determined that 32% of those cities have General Plans describing an implementation policy
that restricts development within riparian zones. A summary of some local stream buffer
policies and stream protection approaches is provided in Appendix B.
Of the 59% of cities that do not have a stream buffer policy, 4% are working to adopt such
policies, 7% are considering the possibility, 80% are not considering adopting one, and for 9%,
it is unknown whether or not they are working on or considering a buffer policy.
See Appendix D for a graphical summary.
11
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 95
F I N D I N G S
Typical Issues of Controversy
Property Encroachment
Fear of private property encroachment is the most common contention raised at the mention of
stream buffer policy. Enactment of a policy has the perceived potential to restrict property
owners of some uses or activities on portions of their parcels. This becomes less of an issue in
communities with large lots; in cities with small lots, the buffer would have a greater effect on
a landowners’ “reasonable use,” thereby making the implementation of a stream buffer policy
much more difficult. Planners expressed a need to accommodate property owners who may
have small parcels, or parcels with a high ratio of total property line adjoining a creek.
Cupertino is the only city found with a buffer policy that establishes buffer widths based on lot
size. In Cupertino, lots less than one acre in size must provide a 50-foot stream buffer zone;
sites over one acre must leave 100-foot buffers. Some policies reflect other methods of
protecting landowners. In 1990, when the City of San Ramon established a 100-foot stream
buffer ordinance within “resource conservation areas,” properties that were already parceled
prior to conservation district approval were precluded from the ordinance.
In a very small percentage of jurisdictions, a proposed, amended, or approved stream buffer
ordinance has met opposition from members of the community. Amidst concerns and debate
from citizens opposed to regulation of private property, Napa County Supervisors adopted a
stream setback Revision Ordinance that ambitiously expanded upon an existing stream buffer
policy (see Appendix B). The Board of Supervisors then withdrew the ordinance after critics of
the new policy submitted a referendum petition. According to a senior planner from the
County, resistance came from private property owners who thought that the county was taking
land unjustifiably. Private landowners argued that the science behind the stream buffer
guidelines might not be valid. The fate of the ordinance was determined by a countywide vote
in March 2004, whereupon it was defeated. The City of Portola Valley in San Mateo County
has also been having difficulty increasing an existing 20-foot from creek center setback policy,
due to property owner opposition.
Many landowners have misconceptions about existing and proposed riparian buffer ordinances.
Often landowners assume that their land will be transferred to public ownership. In addition,
landowners are often unfamiliar with existing land use restrictions and state and federal law
pertaining to wetland fill and stream alteration. (Some existing regulations are described in the
Introduction). The goal of riparian buffer regulation is to reinforce at the local level Section
404 and Section 401 CWA regulations on all streams (see introduction, pg. 6) and to further
provide for a setback from the top of bank to allow for improved water quality, to promote
riparian habitat values, and to protect stream banks from erosion.
A Napa county planner noted that if the county could start the entire process again, it would
have “done more public scoping and more public education.” He emphasized the need for open
workshops and town meetings with scientists present, since planners and commissioners are
12
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 96
often now well versed in stream science. Doing this, he said, would have allowed the public to
better understand the environmental benefits of a stream buffer ordinance.
Jurisdictional resistance
Some communities, and more often community groups, have pressured their city or county to
adopt a stream buffer ordinance or make an existing ordinance more stringent. However, these
groups have occasionally met opposition from the city or county. The governing body often
cites a lack of funding, departmental resources, or political will to pursue stream protection
legislation. Instead, jurisdictions frequently respond to political pressure by focusing on the
design review or permit process as a way to limit development within riparian zones. Though
these results may be beneficial, the sincerity of their efforts can sometime be viewed as
questionable. As one county senior planner stated, “If you throw enough money at [a proposed
development], anything is possible.” This approach also leads to a case-by-case approach to
stream setbacks that can be inconsistent and inefficient.
In similar respect to the aggrieved property owner who must compromise development
potential because of a riparian buffer, jurisdictions may tend to perceive the buffer as an
expensive policy that further depletes an already finite reservoir of developable land. One city
planner suggested that setting aside and preserving riparian areas would reduce the amount of
land available for development, thereby adversely affecting housing availability and
affordability.
Development and a riparian buffer need not always be at odds with one another. We learned
from the survey of one instance where the passage of a proposed large residential development
would have been facilitated by the presence of a riparian buffer ordinance. The city’s
conditions of approval for the development were being heavily contested partly due to public
demand for a significant level of riparian protection. If the city had already had a riparian
buffer ordinance in place prior to the project introduction, the developer would have presented
a different plan at the outset, and the conflict could have been greatly diminished, or avoided
entirely. Aside from providing the developer with a level of certainty, the city would be
alleviated of the need for extra analysis within the CEQA process. Cities can provide
incentives, such as housing density bonuses, for development that avoids riparian areas.
Approaches to Regulation
Throughout the region, cities are employing various tools to regulate riparian zones. No two
are quite the same. Appendix B describes some representative policies that demonstrate the
wide range of riparian resource management.
The 59% of cities without a stream buffer policy do exercise some regulation of development
in their riparian areas. When asked whether or not they regulate land use in riparian zones
beyond state and federal law, planners often responded affirmatively, noting that through
development permits and CEQA processes, riparian areas are protected. This “case-by-case,”
or “project-by-project” approach to riparian regulation may result in inconsistent and
13
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 97
inadequate riparian protection. Some planners earnestly described community and planning
commission support for protection of riparian resources. It was likely in many of these cities
that unwritten buffer policies and other riparian protection guidelines were adhered to by the
planning departments, and that even in the absence of an ordinance or formal policy, the
watercourses were in good health. In other cases, a case-by-case approach is tantamount to not
having a riparian protection policy. In municipalities or counties where the planning
commission is more supportive of development, or community interest in preserving riparian
zones is lacking, the absence of a formal policy will contribute to degradation of the riparian
areas. Without a formal policy, adequate long-term creek stewardship is not assured.
Virtually all the cities in the Bay Area without a stream buffer ordinance have within their
General Plan a paragraph that acknowledges and praises the value of their creeks. Far fewer
have implementation policies that attempt to actively preserve those waterways. The General
Plan of Colma contains a recommended stream setback that does not have specific
implementation policies. When a development project comes under review by the planning
department, the General Plan recommended stream setback is referenced as an attempt to
establish some degree of riparian protection. While such a policy is not as reliable as a
code/ordinance, it provides a tool for riparian preservation where a code or ordinance does not
exist. It is also an alternative approach to riparian protection for communities where a riparian
buffer ordinance is not yet a political possibility. Contra Costa County also has a stream buffer
policy within their General Plan. This policy is stronger than the aforementioned, because the
policy is not “recommended,” but rather states that setback areas “shall be provided.”
The City of San Jose has a stream buffer policy that is neither in the code nor the General Plan.
The city administers a riparian buffer policy through use of a “riparian corridor study”
document that describes suggested buffer widths. The document recommends a 100-foot
setback, but exemptions are given that may reduce the setback to 50-foot distances.
Some cities protect watercourses by requiring that development projects near riparian areas
obtain a special permit. Although a stream buffer requirement is not part of the regulatory
process, this approach ensures that every project adjacent to a creek will be evaluated in terms
of avoiding watercourse impacts. The permit will typically have conditions of development
that are designed to protect riparian functions. Jurisdictions that claim to effectively protect
creeks through the design review process could adopt a permit requirement, thereby providing
assurance that potential creeks impacts are receiving due consideration. The city of Oakland
uses this permit approach (see Appendix B).
There is much variability among the established stream buffer ordinances. Stream buffers are
measured from either the top of the stream bank, the centerline of the creek, or sometimes from
the outward edge of riparian vegetation. Measuring the buffer from the outward edge of
vegetation has the potential to discourage property owners from preserving their riparian
zones. Some ordinances use the dimensions of the stream channel to formulate a buffer width,
and the calculations can get rather complicated (see Lafayette, Appendix B). Operative
assumptions within these policies are that steeper and deeper channels require wider buffer
widths. The cities of Orinda and Lafayette in Contra Costa County, and the County of Napa
have such policies.
14
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 98
Many policies apply only to waterways that are specifically identified in the text of the codes.
These policies are excellent for high-profile waterways, but can leave headwater and other
unnamed tributaries unprotected.
While not stream buffer policies per se, some cities and counties have floodplain ordinances
that will leave a stream buffer as a consequence of limiting development within FEMA or
high-risk flood zones. Contra Costa County has a Floodplain Management Ordinance that
incidentally protects riparian areas by prohibiting development within a one- to two-foot
elevation range above a FEMA or Floodplain Administrator-determined base flood elevation.
This approach doesn’t specifically target preservation of riparian functions, and will leave
higher-elevation watercourses unprotected by the ordinance.
15
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 99
D I S C U S S I O N
Summary of Analysis
Responses to our survey indicate that some city and county planning departments lack
awareness of stream issues and functions. Many of the established stream buffer policies have
ineffective or sub-optimal buffer distances for effective sediment and pathogen filtration
functions. An effective buffer would require increasing buffer distances with gradients; few of
the policies we researched account for this need. Also, many of the policies do not mandate
that buffers apply to the entire jurisdiction, but rather to special zoning districts and/or areas
within the cities and counties.
Most survey participants informed us that their jurisdiction’s General Plan addressed the
protection of riparian areas. Upon inspection, the Plans did often have excellent objectives to
protect creeks, but the implementation measures lacked a detailed performance standard. In the
cities without riparian protection policies, planners often justified their absence by citing the
lack of riparian areas within their community.
Analysis/Priority for Water Board Outreach and Implementation
There are many areas in which the Water Board can provide regional leadership. Many city
and county planners have a vague familiarity with stream issues. While some planning
departments are extremely knowledgeable and competent in riparian science, many planners
we spoke with were unaware of stream issues relevant to Water Board goals.
Before the Water Board encourages the adoption of stream buffer policy by local jurisdictions,
there must be an effort to educate the community on the water quality, habitat, and property
protection benefits of stream buffers. It will be easier to argue the relevance of adopting such
policies within cities or counties that still have significant amounts of undeveloped area.
However, cities that have either reached, or have nearly exhausted, their reserve of developable
land will need to be convinced why their communities would benefit from the enactment of a
stream buffer policy.
During the survey, planners from these heavily urbanized or “built-out” cities acknowledged
not having or planning stream buffer policies, and justified this by mentioning that the scant
developable land is generally devoid of drainages, and all existing watercourses are already in
culverts, channelized, or underground. In their opinion, there is no need to adopt an ordinance
to protect streams where there are none to protect. Only the most obvious of open-channel,
flowing waterways are considered creeks. One city was devoid of riparian protection because,
in the planner’s words, “we don’t have too many riparian zones.” This situation appears to be
quite common, and is most likely a major reason why riparian issues are perceived as non-
existent or irrelevant. An “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” mentality is present, where the role of
watercourses in non-point source/sediment transportation is overlooked. The lack of awareness
of creek functions may inhibit any beneficial regulations from being considered or enforced. In
16
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 100
a built-out community, a riparian buffer policy is critically needed to protect the remaining
riparian areas from future re-zoning and/or development intensification.
Survey participants had varying levels of familiarity with the stream protection policies in their
jurisdictions’ General Plans, municipal codes, and zoning ordinances. A thorough knowledge
of municipal code and zoning ordinance regulations was typical. However, often when
planners were asked to summarize and evaluate the level of protection of riparian resources in
their General Plans, they appeared to be unfamiliar with the associated policies. The apparent
lack of familiarity on the part of some planners with these portions of their General Plans
suggests that the Plan is not often referenced for riparian protection guidance. The Water
Board should encourage actions that are consistent both with local General Plans and with code
requirements. An annual training of General Plan policies for planning department employees
would be a good way to ensure that the Plan has a role in the decision-making process.
The Water Board should require jurisdictions to include a clear, outlined vision for the
protection of their riparian areas in their General Plans. The General Plan policy must serve as
guidance for each jurisdiction, and be known and used for decision-making purposes by the
corresponding planning department. Implementation measures must be drafted using the active
voice (word choice such as “will” and “require,” not “should” and “encourage”). We found
many General Plan policies for riparian protection were written using a passive voice,
suggesting that waterways protection was not a significant priority.
Buffer Distances
Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary, but most of the
scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose (Jones & Stokes
2002). Although any buffer distance from the top of bank is helpful for maintaining channel
stability, a minimum 33-foot riparian buffer is required for contributing to a significant
reduction in sediment levels (Corely et. al. 1999, Peterson et. al. 1992, as cited in Jones and
Stokes 2002). In Bay Area cities, approximately 38% of stream buffer policies require a 33-
foot or greater minimum buffer distance (Appendix D). The buffer distances in the region vary
greatly, and it is likely that many were not chosen based upon specific buffer thresholds
designed to satisfy water quality considerations. A scientifically based approach can help
quantify buffer-induced benefits to water quality, thereby allowing the Board to more easily
quantify TMDL reduction amounts when communicating with the region cities.
17
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 101
Preserving headwater drainages is a critical step in environmental protection and must be
conveyed. The culverting and filling of these typically ephemeral watercourses will
concentrate flows and destabilize creek channels downstream. Within the assorted stream
buffer policies we reviewed, “first-order” or “headwater” streams were not specifically
identified as watercourses to be protected. However, these streams would be subject to
protection in the jurisdictions in which buffer policies identify ephemeral streams as part of the
stream network. An additional and important level of protection is given to these streams in the
jurisdictions that require wider buffer widths with increasing slope. These streams are typically
regulated under sections 404 and 401 of the CWA for fill or alteration of the channel.
Grading and Hillside Ordinances
Another possibility for protecting headwater streams is through local grading and hillside
development ordinances. Many jurisdictions either prohibit or limit development beyond a
particular average slope threshold. These regulations have the effect of incidentally protecting
first-order drainages, but are not a guarantee that these headwater streams will be preserved.
While a potentially important tool for maintaining the functional integrity of higher-elevation
riparian zones and for reducing erosion, these policies are limited to areas that meet a locally
determined slope threshold, and therefore, are not substitutes for a stream buffer policy.
However, communities that are built-out at lower elevations could provide a significant level
of protection for their creeks by implementing protection within their grading policies in lieu of
formal stream buffer regulations.
The Role of Community Outreach
Jurisdictions looking to adopt a stream buffer ordinance should, in general, open the process
for public participation and comment. Governments that do not address community concerns
or provide scientific justification face the possibility of public outcry and backlash similar to
what happened in Napa County. Community outreach and education is especially key in areas
where lack of information or misinformation has formed a foundation of opposition. This can
include areas with strong agricultural communities or areas with expensive hillside lots.
18
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 102
R E F E R E N C E S
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size
Requirements - A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878-882.
Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Principals of Watershed Protection.
http://www.cwp.org.
Center for Watershed Protection. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection.
http://www.cwp.org.
Center for Watershed Protection. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(4): 155-163; 1(1): 19-
21.
Corely, C.J., G.W. Frasier, M.J. Trlica, F.M. Smith, and E.M. Taylor, Jr. 1999. Technical Note:
Nitrogen and phosphorous in runoff from two montane riparian communities. Journal of Range
Management: 52 (6): 6000-6005.
Dahl, T.E., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Wetlands
Losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s A Report to Congress.
Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An Ecosystem
Perspective of Riparian Zones. BioScience 41:540-551.
Heraty, M. 1993. Riparian Buffer Programs: A Guide to Developing and Implementing a
Riparian Buffer Program as an Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice. Metropolitian
Washington Council Government U.S. EPA Office of Oceans, Wetlands, and Watersheds 152
pp.
Jones & Stokes. October 18, 2002. Stream Setback Technical Memorandum.
L.R. Johnson Associates. 1989. Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management, A Status
Report on the Nations’ Floodplain Management Activity. April.
Petersen, R.C., L.B.M. Petersen, and J. Lacoursiere. 1992. A building block model for stream
restoration. pp. 293-309. In: River Conservation and Management., P.J. Boon, P. Calow and
G.E. Petts (eds). Chichester: John Wiley.
Verpeet, Karen. 2001. Protecting Streams and Riparian Habitat, Sonoma County, California.
Sonoma Ecology Center, July.
19
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 103
A P P E N D I X E S
20
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 104
APPENDIX A
Riparian Resources and Erosion Control Survey
1. Does your General Plan contain policies about protection of riparian resources?
Do you consider them to be weak, moderate, or strong? Why?
2. Do you regulate land use in riparian zones, beyond State and Federal law? If yes, how?
3. Does your municipality have a zoning ordinance regarding riparian buffers (e.g. biotic resources district, stream
conservation area, erosion control ordinance, floodplain regulations)?
• If yes, please answer the following questions:
When was the ordinance first approved?
Do you feel that the ordinance is generally weak, moderate, or strong in protecting the riparian corridor?
How is the regulated stream network defined? (in the General Plan, USGS blue-line streams, other
regulatory definition?)
Where is the setback measured from? (stream center line, top of bank, edge of riparian corridor)
What are the various stream categories? (upland, urban, lowland)
What are the setback distances?
What are the provisions for exceptions or variances?
• If no, is your community currently working to approve such an ordinance?
• If not, is your community currently considering a riparian buffer ordinance?
4. Does your municipality have a heritage tree ordinance?
If yes, please answer the following questions:
Has the ordinance been effective in preserving riparian trees?
Do residents generally comply with the ordinance?
What are the provisions for exceptions or variances?
5. Does your municipality have an ordinance that specifically regulates hillside development?
If yes, please answer the following questions:
Is there a maximum allowable slope for development?
How effective are these regulations at reducing soil erosion (weak, moderate, or strong?)
6. Does your community have unresolved flood hazard related to creeks? Please explain.
21
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 105
Are there any plans for flood control projects?
7. What are the main controversies, if any, regarding riparian protection in your community? (property rights
advocates, environmental groups want better protection, etc.)
8. Has there been any litigation regarding your stream protection regulations?
9. How can we get a copy of your General Plan or stream/tree/hillslope regulations?
Additional comments:
22
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 106
APPENDIX B
Summaries of Buffer Policies and Stream Protection Approaches
Oakland, Alameda County
In December 1997 the City of Oakland amended their Stormwater Ordinance to include a
heightened level of protection to the city’s many riparian areas. While not a setback policy, the
ordinance requires that construction and development projects nearby creeks first obtain a
“creek protection permit” from the city. In order to get permit approval, the applicant must
meet criteria and guidelines that are intended to either minimize or avoid negative impacts to
the creek area and its natural functions. Activities that are typically not allowed by the city
include: construction of structures across a creek; agricultural activities on the creek banks; any
disturbance of the creek channel and flow; removal of tree canopies, and the installation of
structures on the creek bank.
The City is amending the ordinance to include more-specific standards and guidelines for the
development of creekside properties. The standards and guidelines will include criteria
regarding slope, soils, flows and types of vegetation, and provide guidance on appropriate
setbacks and mitigation measures for development. The amended ordinance will also provide a
detailed map of creekside properties subject to the policy.
Fremont, Alameda County
In November 2002, Fremont adopted Measure T that among other things stated, “No
development shall be located within a riparian corridor except for otherwise permitted flood
control, erosion control, water supply, transportation facilities, fences or hiking or equestrian
trails. ‘Riparian corridors’ are the areas within 200 feet from the center of a permanent or
intermittent stream bed.” Measure T, however, was geared only at the zone delineated as “Hill
Area,” which included the Open Space zone and two residential districts. The 200-foot buffer
is not applied elsewhere in the city. Other riparian areas in Fremont are protected via the
Fremont General Plan and the design review process. A General Plan implementation policy
requires that as part of a development application, the “extent and characteristics of riparian
corridors shall be carefully assessed to a minimum distance of 100 feet from the center of the
creek bed.”
23
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 107
Lafayette, Contra Costa County
The City of Lafayette has a creek setback policy in their municipal code that prohibits
construction of structures within a creek setback area. The creek setback area is determined by
calculating a creek setback line based on the creek depth, steepness of bank, and topography of
the top of bank. Project plans must show that proposed work is outside the calculated setback
area before the city will issue a building permit. Exceptions are granted if a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils analysis certifies that there is no likelihood of a hazard to persons
or property resulting from the proposed construction.
From the City of Lafayette Creek Setback Requirements:
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from
an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1
(horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the
toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as
follows:
Channel Depth
(Feet)
Top of Bank Setback
Minimum Width (Feet)
0 – 6 12 each side
15 each side
18 each side
21 each side
6 – 12
12 – 18
18 – 21
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is
the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank.
(2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the
structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times
the channel depth.
24
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 108
Fairfield, Solano County
In 1992, Fairfield updated their stream protection policies to include a Creekside Ordinance
that mandated at least a 200-foot “steam environment zone” that includes “the stream bed,
stream banks, and a riparian zone at least 50 feet wide, measured from the top of the channel
bank.” In practice, the 200-foot requirement can be split between adjacent property owners in a
variety of ways, depending on when one owner bought his/her lot and if it was registered with
the city before Fairfield’s first ever stream ordinance in the 1970s. The ordinance applies to
eight major stretches of creek and does not apply to low-order drainages, although the City
“would still consider these setbacks when dealing with smaller scale streams with any
significant riparian coverage.”
Sonoma County
Sonoma County zoning code provides “streamside conservation area” protection to all
waterways that are designated as “riparian corridors” in the Open Space Element of the
General Plan. The width of the conservation area is determined based upon classification of
urban, upland, flatland, or Russian River riparian corridors. The corridors in urban and upland
areas have a 50-foot from top of bank conservation area, while streams traversing level flatland
areas are required to have a 100-foot wide conservation area. Russian River riparian corridor
conservation areas extend 200 feet from the top of bank. New buildings cannot be built within
the conservation area, unless the lot would be rendered undevelopable as a result of the setback
or develop were designed in such a way as to avoid impacts to riparian habitat. Agricultural
setbacks are half the distance of the building setbacks.
In terms of setback-width distances, Sonoma County requires one of the greatest in Region 2.
Since the policy only protects the corridors identified in the General Plan, many waterways of
all types are left unprotected by the zoning code. The General Plan is currently being updated,
and many additional streams are proposed to be designated as riparian corridors. The urban and
upland riparian corridor widths are also proposed to be widened to 100 feet from top of bank.
Planning Commission hearings on these proposals are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2004.
25
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 109
Napa County
The Napa County Conservation Regulations has been in use since 1991. They use slope
percentage adjacent to creeks to formulate required setbacks that range from 35–150 feet.
Protected waterways include: those designated by “a solid line or dash and three dots symbol”
on the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map; watercourses with well-defined channels at
least four-feet deep; and banks steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) with hydrophilic
vegetation or specific streams specified by resolution by the County Board of Supervisors.
The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to adopt a Stream Setback Revision
Ordinance on April 8, 2003. This ordinance would have, among other things, increased
standard stream setbacks for non-residential projects to 100 to 150 feet on all Class I streams
depending on slope, 75 to 150 feet on all Class II streams depending on slope, and 25 feet on
all Class III streams. Community critics of the policy, led by property owners who felt the
ordinance imposed on their land ownership rights, successfully organized a referendum
petition, and the Board of Supervisors reversed their adoption of the policy. The Board of
Supervisors decided to put the issue before Napa County voters. The Ordinance was presented
as Measure P in March 2004, and was voted down with a 65% majority.
26
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 110
APPENDIX C
Relevant Factors When Evaluating Stream Buffer Policies
A city or county with a setback policy is not necessarily more effective at protecting riparian
habitat and functions than a city without a policy. The mindfulness and determination on the
part of city and county planners to be aware of potential riparian impacts from all development
projects is a vital part of riparian protection. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a given stream
buffer or setback policy is a function of several factors, and a successful ordinance will address
some or all of these criteria:
• Buffer width
• Level of enforcement
• Type of watercourses protected
• Breadth of application (i.e., entire city, special districts)
• Provisions for, and frequency of, exemptions and/or variances
• Inclusion of specific directives in General Plan
• Riparian vegetation protection
• Mitigation standards
• Clarity of purpose, goals
• Clarity of definitions
27
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 111
Appendix D
Graphical Summary of Results
28
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 112
RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Stream Buffers
76 of 85 (89%) of cities reporting
Without or not considering
stream buffers
45 (59%)
With stream
buffers
31 (41%)
No current
plans to
adopt stream
buffer policy
36 (80%}
Unknown
10%Not known/
unsure
4 (9%)Variable-
width stream
buffers Working on
policy12 (44%)
Fixed-width 2 (4%)
stream
buffers
15 (56%)
Policy under
consideration
3 (7%)
Item 3
Attachment C - ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 113
RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Stream Buffer Protection in
General Plan
Yes
22 (32%)
No
47 (68%)
*69 of 85 (81%) of cities reporting
RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Tree
Ordinance
Yes
No 44 (70%)
19 (30%)
*63 of 85 (73%) of cities reporting
RWQCB Region 2 Cities - Hillside
Ordinance
No
20 (36%)Yes
36 (64%)
*56 of 85 (65%) of cities reporting
30
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 114
31
Item 3
Attachment C -
ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 115
Variation in Bay Area Stream Buffer Distances (fixed width)
Yountville (Hopper Creek only)
Fremont (hill area only)
San Ramon (upland areas only)
Berkeley
Portola Valley
Woodside (greater distance of the two)
Woodside (greater distance of the two)
Alameda County
San Jose
Measured from
center of creek
Measured from
top of bankLos Altos Hills
Albany
San Rafael
San Carlos (3 creeks only)
San Anselmo
Novato
Fairfax
Benicia
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
distance (feet)
Item 3
Attachment C - ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 116
Variation in Bay Area Stream Buffer Distances (variable width)
Marin County (district)
Napa County (slope)
Sonoma County (stream designation)
Calistoga (slope)
San Jose (exception criteria)
Cupertino (lot size)
Half Moon Bay (stream type)
San Rafael (acreage)
Ross (structure type)
Fairfield (historical development)
Sonoma (specific creek)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
top of bank distance (feet)
Item 3
Attachment C - ExCondRpt_Jul2024
Packet Pg. 117
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update
Draft Terms and Definitions
“Stream” means any number of natural watercourses flowing from the hill areas to San
Francisco Bay in which water flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed
or channel having banks; usually characterized by a distinct channel and a band of
dense vegetation along the banks. This may include watercourses having a surface or
subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish and/or aquatic
life.
“Channelized Stream” means A stream that has been straightened and/or enlarged for
the purposes of storm runoff control or ease of navigation; may include lining of
streambanks with a retaining material such as concrete.
“Culverted Stream” means a stream or portion of a stream located underground in a
fully enclosed engineered structure such as a pipe or concrete box.
“Natural Stream” means a stream that remains in a natural or mostly undisturbed state.
“Urban Stream” means a stream segment that runs through a developed area and has
typically lost some or all natural features, and may be partially or fully channelized.
“Riparian Buffer” means land next to a stream or river within which development shall
be controlled. It is often vegetated, usually with trees and shrubs, that serves as habitat
and a protective filter for streams. This typically begins at top of bank and extends the
radius specified in this chapter to form a continuous buffer of uniform width.
“Bank” means any embankment, dike, levee, wall or similar feature of natural or man-
made origin which adjoins or parallels any watercourse and which has as a function the
confinement of the water of said watercourse.
“Toe of Bank” means the point in a channel where the slope of the bank meets the
streambed.
“Top of Bank” means a stream channel boundary where a majority of normal
discharges and channel forming activities takes place. The top of bank boundary will
contain the active stream channel, active floodplain, and their associated banks.
Figure 1 below illustrates various examples of stream conditions.
Item 3
Attachment D -
Definitions
Packet Pg. 118
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update
Draft Terms and Definitions
FIGURE 1: EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING TOP OF BANK
Source: Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User Manual Guidelines and
Standards for Land Uses Near Streams
Item 3
Attachment D -
Definitions
Packet Pg. 119
From: Jane Mark <jmark@openspace.org>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 2:53 PM
To: jdennis@goodcityco.com
Cc: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org>; Gretchen Laustsen <glaustsen@openspace.org>
Subject: FW: March 5 2024 - Stream/Creak Corridor Protection Ordinance Virtual Meeting
Jeremy,
Hope your 2024 year is going well. We have been receiving your email notifications for the City of Palo
Alto’s Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. Our Midpen Planner Melissa Borgesi will attend the March
4th virtual meeting.
We have reviewed the draft ordinance with our Natural Resources Department, and staff recommend
that the ordinance include a definition of “native” species or further defined as native to the region. In
addition, under Section 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection we have these comments (see yellow
highlighted comments from Midpen):
18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection
(b)Water Resources Protection for Streamside Properties
(3)Requirements within streamside review area
(b)New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward from the top of bank.
Midpen Comment: New fences should be designed as to not stop the movement of wildlife (aka
wildlife-friendly fencing should be provided).
(d)Planting of non-native invasive plant species is not permitted. Prohibited plant material is
listed in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative's User
Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams.
Midpen Comment: Recommend removing the word “invasive” in section (d).
(g)Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.
Midpen Comment: We also recommend that there would be additional language to restrict lighting
within riparian corridors to protect the aquatic species and other sensitive species, such as the
prohibition for uplighting.
Please let us know if we should submit these comments on official letterhead, or if this email suffices.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jane
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 120
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 121
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 122
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 123
DATE: February 1st, 2024
SUBJECT: Implementing Comprehensive Plan Policies and ProgramsProtections for
Creeks and Riparian Corridors
Prepared by: Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
________________________________________________________________________
GOALS:
Riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat and
connectivity for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife. Disturbances caused by the siting of
buildings and other structures, lighting, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, ornamental
landscaped areas, and native vegetation removal near the top of a creek bank degrade water
quality and cause bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding. These
effects, in addition to being destructive to wildlife habitat and being visually displeasing, can
lead to costly building repairs and destruction of property, loss of property value, and danger to
human life.
The Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 recognizes the critical importance of creeks and their
corridors, and includes GOAL N-3: Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and
riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas and elements of community
design. This goal is developed into several policies and programs that focus on the need to
update Palo Alto's existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance and implement additional
protections for the City’s waterways and riparian corridors.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Palo Alto’s existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (18.40.140) is outdated, and it does
not provide adequate protection to the city’s waterways and their riparian corridors. The
shortcomings of the current ordinance and the discrepancy between the ordinance and the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan were evident in the process that eventually entitled a development at
575 Los Trancos Road on November 13, 2023. On January 23 2023, Council sent the project for
reconfiguration with wider setbacks and additional protections to Los Trancos Creek and its flora
and fauna. At this meeting, the motion (Burt moved, Kou seconded, Motion passed: 4-2, Tanaka,
Lythcott-Haims No, Lauing Recused) “Request that staff return to Council with a plan and
timeline amend the Zoning code Comprehensive Plan Policy N.3.3. and Program N3.3.1.”
The existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance also failed to provide direction for
redevelopment efforts such as the Fry’s site and Creekside Inn.
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 124
Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 recognizes the critical importance of creeks and their
corridors, and includes GOAL N-3 Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and
riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas and elements of community
design. This Goal recognizes in Policy N-3.1: All creeks are valuable resources for natural
habitats, connectivity, community design, and flood control, and need different conservation and
enhancement strategies. Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto,
including natural creek segments in the city’s open space and rural areas, primarily west of
Foothill Expressway; creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural
characteristics; and creek segments that have been channelized. And offers “Pursue
opportunities to enhance riparian setbacks along urban and rural creeks as properties are
improved or redeveloped”. Policy N-3.2 augments the above with the aspiration to Prevent the
further channelization and degradation of Palo Alto’s creeks.
The Comprehensive Plan GOAL N-3 into policies and programs. Creek setbacks are specifically
discussed within Policy N-3.3 Protect the city’s creeks from the impacts of future buildings,
structures, impervious surfaces and ornamental landscaping and preserve their function as
habitat connectivity corridors by establishing a range of setback requirements that account for
existing creek conditions, land use characteristics, property ownership and flood control
potential.
Policy N-3.3 provides programs:
Program N3.3.1 Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore 150 feet
as the desired stream setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west
of Foothill Expressway. This 150-foot setback would prohibit the siting of buildings
and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and ornamental
landscaped areas within 150 feet of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or
intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways along
natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian
environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at
least 30 feet along the creek bank. The update to the Stream Protection Ordinance
should establish:
● Design recommendations for development or redevelopment of sites within
the setback, consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and significant net
improvements in the condition of the creek.
● Conditions under which single-family property and existing development
are exempt from the 150-foot setback.
● Appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures for undeveloped
parcels.
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 125
Program N3.3.2 Examine the development regulations of the Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance, with stakeholder involvement to establish appropriate setback
requirements that reflect the varying natural and channelized conditions along creeks
east of Foothill Expressway. Ensure that opportunities to provide an enhanced
riparian setback along urban creeks as properties are redeveloped or improved are
included in this evaluation.
The Comprehensive Plan includes additional policies and programs that recognize the
importance of creeks and riparian corridors, and direct the development of ordinances,
stewardship programs and monitoring programs, and discuss the scope of collaborative work
with other agencies (Appendix 1. Additional Comprehensive Plan policies and programs). An
update on the way the city implements policies, and the status of programs, is needed.
An updated, comprehensive and robust Creek Protection ordinance will also contribute to the
City’s ongoing “Climate Change & Natural Environment: Protection and Adaptation” priority.
Protection of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities,
natural habitat areas, and elements of community design will protect the natural environment for
Palo Alto residents. Protecting and stewarding water quality in creeks will likewise advance
environmental protections and help comply with state clean water requirements.
The staff report for the 2024 Council Retreat and priority session (January 29, 2024) shows that
staff expects to complete, by the end of 2024, a zoning code amendment that should implement
Programs N3.3.1. and N3.3.2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Consider allowed recreational uses within the proposed setback. Some activities that are
inappropriate adjacent to creeks, especially relatively natural creeks. Ball fields that
require lighting and dog parks are examples of inappropriate recreation within a creek
setback.
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 126
2) Lighting along streams and baylands can be considered in this ordinance, but it may be
more appropriate to address it in detail in a Dark Sky and Bird Safety ordinance.
3) In addition to the zoning changes described above, include in future staff reports a
progress report, best practices employed by staff, and analysis on the status of Policy
N3.4 Program N3.4.1, Policy N-3.5 and Program N3.6.1:
Policy N-3.4 Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose
integrity provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and
preserve these corridors. (Is the City monitoring and preserving the corridors?)
Program N3.4.1 Develop a community creek stewardship program to promote
existing creek clean-up days, organize new events, and increase appreciation of
riparian corridors.
Policy N-3.5 Preserve the ecological value of creek corridors by preserving native plants and
replacing invasive, non-native plants with native plants. Palo Alto relies on nonprofit
partners/volunteers to do this work. This has limitations.
Policy N-3.6 Discourages bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by
minimizing site disturbance and nearby native vegetation removal on or near creeks and by
reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in their
watersheds.
Program N3.6.1 Review and update the Grading Ordinance to ensure that it
adequately protects creeks from the erosion and sedimentation impacts of
grading
Resources:
1. Existing ordinance
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-80331
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing-
Policies-Projects/2030-Comprehensive-Plan
3. Santa Clara County General Plan (Book 2) recommends a setback of 150-feet in rural
areas.
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/GP_Book_B.pdf Page o-24 (PDF page
96/272) - many policies, including:
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 127
R-RC 37 Lands near creeks, streams, and freshwater marshes shall be considered to be in
a protected buffer area, consisting of the following:
1. 150 feet from the top bank on both sides where the creek or stream is predominantly in
its natural state;
2. 100 feet from the top bank on both sides of the waterway where the creek or stream
has had major alterations; and
3. In the case that neither (1) nor (2) are applicable, an area sufficient to protect the
stream environment from adverse impacts of adjacent development, including impacts
upon habitat, from sedimentation, biochemical, thermal and aesthetic impacts.
R-RC 38 Within the aforementioned buffer areas, the following restrictions and
requirements shall apply to public projects, residential subdivisions, and other private
non-residential development:
a. No building, structure or parking lots are allowed, exceptions being those minor
structures required as part of flood control projects.
b. No despoiling or polluting actions shall be allowed, including grubbing, clearing,
unrestricted grazing, tree cutting, grading, or debris or organic waste disposal, except for
actions such as those necessary for fire suppression, maintenance of flood control
channels, or removal of dead or diseased vegetation, so long as it will not adversely
impact habitat value.
c. Endangered plant and animal species shall be protected within the area.
4. Valley Water Collaborative guidance for development near streams was a result of too
many compromises. https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-
district/permits-working-district-land-or-easement/guidelines-and-standards-land-use-
near-streams
5. 575 Los Trancos Action minutes: Jan 23,2023, Palo Alto City Council
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1061
6. Has the Grading Ordinance been updated? The Water Board recommends a minimum
setback of 33-ft for sedimentation.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/publications_forms/documents/bufferre
port1204.pdf
“Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary, but most
of the scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose (Jones
& Stokes 2002). Although any buffer distance from the top of bank is helpful for
maintaining channel stability, a minimum 33-foot riparian buffer is required for
contributing to a significant reduction in sediment levels (Corely et. al. 1999, Peterson et.
al. 1992, as cited in Jones and Stokes 2002).” -- “Local Government Riparian Buffers in
the San Francisco Bay Area”, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,
page 17,
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 128
7. San Jose riparian policy study (old document but not outdated - but the science of creek
corridors is still sound and relevant)
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15579/636681333297900000
8. San Jose degraded policy, nor a good model…
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12815/636669915138100000
Item 3
Attachment E -
Comments
Packet Pg. 129
Item No. 4. Page 1 of 11
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2402-2652
TITLE
Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) and
Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City
Council adopt the draft ordinances updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section
18.40.250 (Lighting) and adding a new section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As directed in accordance with the Implementation Plan for the 2024 City Council Priorities and
Objectives, and implementation of Comprehensive Plan Program L6.3.1, staff has drafted
ordinances to reduce light pollution and protect avian species. The draft lighting ordinance
modifies the existing lighting standards to reduce light pollution in alignment with Dark Sky
principles. The draft bird-friendly design standards ordinance requires bird-friendly design
principals to be incorporated into building design to better protect avian species.
The draft ordinances reflect:
•The feedback received from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) study session from
July 18, 2024,
•A review of model ordinances from Dark Sky International and the Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society,
•Consultation with architects and designers, conversation with retailers and suppliers,
•Technical assistance provided by consultants, and
•Research on regulations implemented in other jurisdictions.
Staff will consider revisions to the draft ordinances based on the PTC recommendations to the
City Council. The City Council consideration is tentatively scheduled for September 2024.
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 130
Item No. 4. Page 2 of 11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a Council-directed code amendment updating the City’s lighting
standards and introducing new bird friendly design standards.
Lighting Ordinance
The draft ordinance updates the City’s existing lighting standards (18.40.250) to address light
pollution through several key measures. The proposed amendments align with Dark Sky
principles, promoting reduced light pollution overall. To ensure consistent enforcement and
simplify compliance for property owners, these regulations would apply uniformly across the
entire city.
The ordinance mandates shielding for all new exterior lighting fixtures to further minimize light
trespass. While maintaining the foot-candle measurement as the primary means of controlling
light trespass, the ordinance introduces a new color temperature limit of 3,000 Kelvin. To
further reduce excess lighting, the ordinance mandates automatic extinguishment or motion-
sensor activation for exterior lights by 10:00 p.m. or whenever people are not present,
whichever is later.
Bird-Friendly Design
To enhance bird safety, the draft ordinance would amend Chapter 18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) to create a new section establishing bird friendly design standards. The
ordinance includes a requirement to comply with at least one of three Bird-Friendly Treatment
options for all applicable buildings. Having several options to choose from provides more
flexibility for applicants. These principles go beyond limiting untreated glass on building
facades. They also encourage alternative approaches approved by qualified professionals and
promote broader design practices that reduce bird collisions. Some exemptions are
recommended for historic structures, small ground-floor retail storefronts, and particular
residential projects.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2014, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) received a presentation (Attachment D)
from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society entitled “Building with Birds in Mind.” Since that
time, requirements related to bird safety have been applied on a case-by-case basis through
conditions of approval.
In February 2023, the Council selected and approved the 2023 City Council Priorities and
Objectives. Under the Climate Change and the Natural Environment (CC&NE) category, Council
directed staff to initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural habitats such as bird
friendly glass and wildlife protection from light pollution in accordance with implementation
measure CC&NE 6.
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 131
Item No. 4. Page 3 of 11
In January 2024, the Council included “Climate Change and the Natural Environment: Protection
and Adaptation” as a continued priority for this year. “Approve a bird friendly glass and wildlife
light pollution protections ordinance” is 2024 City Council Objective #35.
Planning and Development Services has worked with advocates, researched the topics,
collaborated across departments, and consulted with Michael Baker International (MBI). MBI
staff provided additional background information and expertise on bird-friendly design, to
prepare the draft ordinance. Conversation with architects, designers, retailers, and suppliers
further informed the current version.
The ordinance builds upon and incorporates existing lighting standards codified in PAMC
Section 18.40.250 (Attachment A) as well as input from stakeholders related to light pollution
and avian safety in the built environment.
Architectural Review Board Study Sessions
On February 15, 20241, the ARB reviewed the concept presented by staff for both Dark Sky and
Bird Friendly Design regulations. The ARB expressed its opinion that staff should explore
differentiated management approaches for distinctive areas within the city (e.g., foothills,
Baylands, and urbanized areas) for both ordinances. In addition, the ARB recommended
exempting residential uses from the Bird Friendly Design ordinance to avoid hindering housing
production efforts with added high costs to features such as windows for multi-family uses and
burdensome costs to small projects, such as single-family uses. With respect to lighting, the
ARB requested staff investigate alternative methods for regulating brightness level (e.g. per
square foot, per acre for lots, and per foot for string lights) to ensure a more equitable
application of the ordinance.
On July 18, 2024,2 the ARB reviewed draft ordinances for both Lighting and Bird Friendly Design
regulations. Staff presented draft ordinances and discussion items for feedback. These items
related to the applicability of both topics and potential exemptions for the bird-friendly design
regulations.
The ARB suggested using the existing definition of “substantial remodel” for the applicability
section of both ordinances. They also expressed a preference for a size limitation as a
regulatory mechanism, aiming to reduce the burden of implementing these new standards,
particularly for single-family homeowners. Further details on how the ARB's feedback has been
incorporated are described in the Analysis section below.
Lighting and DarkSky International
1 Link to the staff report for the study session on February 15, 2024:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-
review-board/2024/arb-2.15-dark-skies-bird-safety.pdf
2 Link to the staff report for the study session on July 18, 2024:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-
review-board/2024/arb-7.18-dark-skies-bird-safe-glass.pdf
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 132
Item No. 4. Page 4 of 11
The term “dark sky” generally refers to movement and achievement of significant reduction in
light pollution so that the sky returns or becomes closer to its natural nighttime darkness.
Jurisdictions can implement regulations to decrease light pollution, and many cities have
adopted dark sky ordinances in an effort to reduce light pollution.
DarkSky International is a recognized worldwide authority combatting light pollution.3 The
organization publishes guidance for communities seeking to achieve a “dark sky” and decrease
light pollution. The framework focuses on five principles, which have been incorporated into
the proposed ordinance:
1. Useful: Use light only if it is needed. All light should have a clear purpose. Consider how
the use of light would impact the area, including wildlife and their habitat.
2. Targeted: Direct light so it falls only where needed. Use shielding and careful aiming to
target the direction of the light beam so that it points downward and does not spill
beyond where it is needed.
3. Low Level: Light should be no brighter than necessary. Use the lowest light level
required. Be mindful of surface conditions, as some surfaces may reflect more light into
the night sky than intended.
4. Controlled: Use light only when it is needed. Use controls sch as timers or motion
detectors to ensure that light is available when it is needed, dimmed when possible, and
turned off when not needed.
5. Warm-colored: Use warmer color lights where possible. Limit the amount of shorter
wavelength (blue-violet) light to the least amount needed.
Bird-Friendly Design
Bird-friendly glass regulations are intended to protect the natural environment by enhancing
bird-safety features in the built environment. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a policy
and associated program related to bird-friendly design.
•Policy L-6.3: Encourage bird-friendly design.
o Program L6.3.1: Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that
minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions.
Through the draft ordinance, the City seeks to establish regulations to reduce avian mortality as
it relates to the built environment, particularly windows and other glass features on buildings.
The ordinance would implement the Comprehensive Plan policy and establish uniform
standards for development applications, eliminating the need for a case-by-case approach.
ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinances incorporate comments from the July ARB study session, the
provisions included in model ordinances from Dark Sky International and the Santa Clara
3 Link to the DarkSky International website: https://darksky.org/who-we-are/advocates
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 133
Item No. 4. Page 5 of 11
Audubon Society for Dark Sky regulations (Attachment C), and a review of regulations on both
Dark Sky and bird-friendly design from other jurisdictions (Attachment D).
Lighting Ordinance
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 includes standards for lighting. Staff
updated this section to include additional lighting standards to achieve a reduction in light
pollution and for consistency with Dark Sky principles. The updated ordinance has the following
components:
•Applicability
•Shielding
•Illumination Level
•Lighting Control
•Special Purpose Lighting
Applicability
During the study session with the ARB in July 2024, a draft of the Lighting Ordinance, which
would apply new lighting standards to all new structures and exterior modifications requiring
separate planning approval, was presented. However, staff were concerned that this broad
scope could burden property owners seeking minor alterations, especially those unrelated to
lighting. To address this, staff presented the ARB with three alternative definitions for the
ordinance’s applicability, seeking feedback on the appropriate level of regulation to balance
effectiveness with minimizing cost and maintenance burdens for property owners.
The ARB recommended the use the existing definition “Substantial Remodel” from Section
16.14.070 of the Building Code which is broadly defined as any project altering 50 percent or
more of the exterior wall linear length, exterior wall height, or roof framing area. Staff is
supportive of this recommendation and the approach is reflected in the draft ordinance text.
“Substantial Remodel” strikes a balance by ensuring that the ordinance covers significant
projects where lighting changes are likely to be impactful while exempting smaller
modifications.
In addition, the ARB suggested creating a “Light Sensitive Area” designation, similar to the “Bird
Sensitive Area” in the Bird Friendly Design ordinance (definition of the “Bird Sensitive Area” can
be found in the draft ordinance, Attachment B). However, rather than delineating specific areas
within city limits, staff has opted for an additional criterion focusing on modifications to
outdoor lighting. The draft ordinance now applies to new construction, substantial remodels,
and any installation, replacement, or alteration of outdoor lighting fixtures or systems.
Shielding
Existing lighting requirements address shielding for pedestrian and security lighting,
architectural lighting, and lighting fixture location. Staff recommend expanding these
requirements to encompass all light fixtures to reduce light pollution. Limited exceptions are
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 134
Item No. 4. Page 6 of 11
proposed for low-voltage landscape lighting, low-voltage lighting for illuminating outdoor art or
public monuments, lighting on a property line, and string lighting.
Illumination Level
Following the recommendations from Dark Sky International and the Santa Clara Audubon
Society, staff initially proposed maximum brightness requirements measured in lumens.
Lumens are a measurement unit of lighting brightness, commonly used in other jurisdictions,
but can be a complex concept for enforcement purposes. Therefore, the proposed ordinance
text retains the existing foot-candle measurement as the primary means to mitigate light
trespass from exterior lighting to adjacent properties.
In addition to maintaining the foot-candle measurement, staff also considered color
temperature limitations. While initial discussions with environmental advocates from the Santa
Clara Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter favored a 2,700 Kelvin limit due
to its reported wider availability, public safety concerns emerged during conversation with
other jurisdictions. Specifically, there were concerns about a lower color temperature
potentially affecting visibility in public spaces. A minimum color temperature of 4,000 Kelvin is
recommended for any outdoor lighting for public safety purposes. Staff confirmed this
information with the City of Palo Alto public safety staff. Taking these concerns into account,
along with practices in neighboring jurisdictions with dark sky ordinances, staff determined a
3,000 Kelvin limit offered a balanced approach by providing adequate visibility in the exterior
space, while minimizing light pollution. However, the PTC could consider a higher limit, such as
4000 Kelvin, for areas where safety is a particular concern as this is the preferred temperature
for surveillance in public spaces.
Lighting Control
The existing lighting requirements encourage the installation of timers and dimmers to reduce
light glare for both exterior and interior lighting during nighttime hours. Additionally, shielding
of interior lighting fixtures to prevent glare and light trespass beyond the property line is
required. Building on these existing guidelines, staff propose enhanced lighting control
measures for all outdoor lighting. The proposed ordinance would require extinguishment of
exterior lights or motion-sensor activation by 10:00 p.m., or whichever time comes later when
there is no person present in the outdoor area. To further minimize unnecessary light usage,
the motion sensors would deactivate after a maximum of 10 minutes.
Special Purpose Lighting
The Special Purpose Lighting Subsection introduces new standards for and addresses four key
categories: outdoor security lighting, outdoor recreational facilities lighting, gasoline service
station lighting, and string lighting.
•Outdoor Security Lighting. Requirements for outdoor security lighting mirror general
lighting standards, including requirements for lighting control and shielding. The
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 135
Item No. 4. Page 7 of 11
provision prohibits the use of floodlights and limits luminaires to a maximum of 100
watts or 1,600 lumens, whichever is lower.
•Outdoor Recreational Facilities Lighting. Lighting for any outdoor recreational facilities
or athletic facilities lighting would need to adhere to Illuminating Engineering Society
(IES) guidelines based on the type of activity and should only illuminate the playing
surface and stands. Light levels should be adjustable for different tasks, and off-site light
pollution minimized. Lights must be off by 10:30 p.m., unless in use for active play, in
which case timers must be installed to prevent accidental overnight illumination.
•Gasoline Service Station Lighting. Consistent with general lighting standards, service
station lighting requires all fixtures in the ceiling of canopies to be fully recessed or
mounted directly to the underside. This regulation aims to minimize light spillover by
prohibiting light fixture placement on top of the fascia. The maximum light intensity
level for canopies is set at 12.5 foot-candles, with a maximum luminaire height of 15
feet above finished grade.
•String Lighting. String lighting prohibits blinking or chasing effects. Consistent with other
outdoor lighting, a color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or brightness not exceeding 42
lumens per each light burb is required. In commercial and mixed-use areas, string
lighting is restricted to designated outdoor dining or display areas, or to common open
space and would be subject to Director approval.
Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance
The draft ordinance would establish a new section 18.40.280 under PAMC Chapter 18.40 for
the Bird-Friendly Design standards. The new section has the following components:
•Applicability
•Bird-Friendly Treatment
•Bird-Friendly Treatment Location
•Alternative Compliance
•Exemptions
The conversations with glass retailers, suppliers, and manufacturers revealed that bird-friendly
treated glass is rarely requested for residential buildings. While some local retailers were aware
of bird-friendly standards (e.g., fritted or patterned glass), they confirmed these options are not
readily available and require special orders.
Retailers and suppliers did not provide specific cost data, but they unanimously confirmed that
treated glass is more expensive than standard glass. There are some general estimates of the
cost of implementing bird-friendly design from the “Building Safer Cities for Birds” report by
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 136
Item No. 4. Page 8 of 11
Yale Law School and the American Bird Conservancy.4 Although the cost may vary based on
specific project requirements, building types, and local conditions, the report estimates that the
overall cost increase for implementing bird-friendly design in new construction is approximately
two to ten percent. This cost increase would include not only the treated glass itself but also
other bird-friendly design elements, such as window patterns, screens, and building
orientation.
Furthermore, single-family homes and other smaller residential properties typically have less
glass surface area and are less reflective than larger non-residential buildings, posing a lower
risk of bird collisions. Retrofitting existing homes with bird-friendly treatments could be
particularly difficult and expensive.
Considering these factors, staff drafted the ordinance to balance bird protection with the
potential burden on property owners, particularly those with smaller buildings such as single-
family homes. The ordinance prioritizes bird safety in high-risk areas (designated Bird Sensitive
Areas) and for larger glass installations, while exempting smaller residential projects and less
hazardous situations through clearly defined applicability criteria.
Applicability
Similar to the Lighting standards, the phrase "exterior modifications that require a separate
planning approval" was replaced with "substantial remodel" to allow more flexibility for single-
family homeowners or other property owners seeking minor alterations. In addition, the
current draft states that only new construction or substantial remodels proposed within a Bird
Sensitive Area are subject to these regulations. A Bird Sensitive Area is defined as a 300-foot
buffer around water features, parks, or open spaces exceeding one acre, as well as areas east of
Highway 101 and west of Foothill Expressway. This type of buffer, commonly used in urban
planning, has been successfully implemented in other cities for bird-friendly design.
During the ARB study session on July 18, 2024, concerns were raised about exempting all single-
family homes outside the Bird Sensitive Area, as even smaller structures with large glass areas
could pose a risk to birds. Therefore, the current draft ordinance, consistent with the ARB
feedback, requires any new or replacement fenestration (unbroken glass) that is 24 square feet
or larger to comply with Bird Friendly Design standards, regardless of the building type or
location. This size-based approach aims to balance the need for bird protection with flexibility
for smaller residential projects. Standard window sizes vary by type of window, but common
widths range from two to four feet and common heights range from three to six feet.
While a size-based regulation may not be perfect (as birds can collide with smaller windows
too), it is a reasonable compromise that addresses the most significant risks while minimizing
the burden on homeowners. The ordinance also requires Bird Hazard Installations (e.g., glass
awnings, handrails) and Fly-through Hazards (openings that birds might try to fly through) to
4 “Building Safer Cities for Birds” report by Yale Law School and the American Bird Conservancy:
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/building_safer_cities_for_birds.pdf
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 137
Item No. 4. Page 9 of 11
comply with Bird Friendly Design standards, regardless of size or location, as these pose a
particularly high risk of bird collisions.
The definition of Bird Sensitive Area was simplified to include specific geographic areas east of
Highway 101 and west of Foothill Expressway since the 300-foot buffer. This change was made
because the previous 300-foot buffer zone already encompassed most of these areas, which
have a higher risk of bird collisions due to their expansive vegetation and proximity to the
shoreline. This simplification aims to make the ordinance clearer and easier to apply, while still
effectively protecting areas where bird collisions are most likely to occur.
Bird-Friendly Treatment
Bird-friendly treatment includes three options for making buildings safer for birds, requiring at
least one option for compliance.
•Fenestration and glazing: This is the most common and effective way to address bird
collisions, as most occur due to reflectivity on glass or glazing. It provides specific design
standards for patterns on fenestration or glass.
•Exterior features: Permanent features like screens, shutters, or shading devices can
minimize glare and reflection. This option is often more approachable for single-family
homeowners or smaller developments than fenestration/glazing treatments (which may
not be readily available) or threat factor analysis (described below).
•Threat factor: This system, developed by the American Bird Conservancy and architects,
quantifies the risk a material poses for bird collisions. Staff proposes a threat factor of
15 or below, consistent with the U.S. Green Building Council's Bird Collision Deterrence
Pilot Program.
Bird-Friendly Treatment Location
Similar to requirements in other jurisdictions, staff included proposed limitations on where the
Bird-Friendly Treatment should be incorporated at minimum:
•Below 40 Feet: Bird-Friendly Treatment should be incorporated on no less than 90
percent of the facade’s surface area between the existing grade and 60 feet above.
•Above 40 Feet: Bird-Friendly Treatment should be incorporated on no less than 60
percent for the portion of the facade exceeding 40 feet in height.
The initial height threshold staff considered was similar to other jurisdictions, such as San
Francisco and Cupertino, at 60 feet. However, after further analysis, including voluntary
requirements on bird-friendly design in the California Green Buildings Standards Code
(CALGreen), staff adjusted the threshold to 40 feet. This aligns with CALGreen standards and is
deemed more appropriate for Palo Alto. Aligning the City’s standards with CALGreen standards
is consistent with ARB recommendations.
Exemptions
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 138
Item No. 4. Page 10 of 11
The draft ordinance exempts a few building types from the bird-friendly design standards.
These exemptions include:
•Historic Structures: Buildings with historical designation are exempt, recognizing the
importance of preserving cultural heritage.
•First-Floor Retail Storefronts: Storefronts on the ground floor, up to 14 feet in height,
are exempt to avoid undue burden on small businesses.
•100% affordable housing projects: 100% affordable housing project, as defined in
Section 18.32.030, are exempt from the requirements for Bird-Friendly Treatments. This
exemption acknowledges the financial constraints faced by these projects, which
prioritize providing essential affordable housing while operating within limited budgets.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will forward the PTC’s recommendation to the City Council for consideration and adoption
of these ordinances in September 2024.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinances is not anticipated to have any direct fiscal
impacts on the City budget.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff have actively engaged with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to solicit their input and expertise on the proposed
ordinances. Staff also conducted two study sessions, one in February and another in July 2024,
through the ARB's regular meeting schedule to provide a platform for community members to
express their views and concerns regarding the proposed ordinances.
At the time of staff report preparation, staff received two comment letters from the Santa Clara
Valley Audubon Society (Attachment F). The email from June 28, 2024 included comments and
suggestions on the draft Lighting ordinance while the email from June 30, 2024 includes
comments and suggestions on the draft Bird-Safe Design ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed these proposed ordinances in accordance with that authority and criteria
set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act. The City, as the lead agency, anticipates
that these ordinances will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15308, which includes actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may:
1. Forward the staff recommendation to City Council with modifications.
2. Take no action on the draft ordinances and provide direction on desired changes.
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 139
Item No. 4. Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft ordinance Updating Lighting Standards (PAMC Section 18.40.250)
Attachment B: Draft ordinance Introducing Bird-Friendly Design standards (PAMC Section
18.40.280)
Attachment C: Model Ordinances from Dark Sky International, Santa Clara Audubon Society,
and American Bird Conservancy
Attachment D: Dark Sky and Bird Friendly Design regulations from Other Jurisdictions
Attachment E: Map of Bird Sensitive Area
Attachment F: Comments from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 140
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40
(General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to Adopt Dark Sky Regulations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The term “dark sky” generally refers to movement and achievement of significant
reduc o in light pollu on so that the sky returns or becomes closer to its natural
nigh me darkness.
B. Adhering to Dark Sky principles, which promote responsible outdoor ligh ng prac ces,
can significantly reduce light pollu on and mi gate its harmful effects. These principles
emphasize using shielded, downward ligh ng, and selec ng appropriate ligh ng colors
and intensi es.
C. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council priori es, one of which
is the Climate Change & Natural Environment – Protec on & Adapta on, and included
an objec ve to “approve a bird safe glass and wildlife light pollu on protec ons
ordinance.”
D. On February 14, 2024 and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted
study sessions and provided feedback on the dra Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance.
E. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and Transporta on Commission recommended City
Council to adopt the ordinance.
F. The ordinance aligns with Dark Sky principles and protects the night sky, protec ng
wildlife and suppor ng a sustainable and resilient community.
SECTION 2. Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced with a
new Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) to read as follows:
18.40.250 Lighting
(a) Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish exterior lighting standards to reduce light
pollution. Exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including
fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to:
(1) Reduce light pollution and its adverse effects on environment, wildlife habitat, and
human health.
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 141
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
(2) Minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby properties and from
adjacent roadways.
(3) Provide safe and secure access on a site and adjacent pedestrian routes.
(4) Achieve maximum energy efficiency.
(5) Complement the architectural design of the project.
(b) Definitions. Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code, for
purposes of this chapter only, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
(1) “Correlated Color Temperature” or “Color Temperature” means a specification of
the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K).
Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are
a higher number.
(2) “Fully Shielded” means a light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner
that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or
indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below
the horizontal plane (from the bottom of the lamp).
(3) “Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a light fixture or indirectly from
reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a reasonable
person.
(4) “Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source of optical radiation (i.e., “light”), often
called a “bulb” or “tube.” Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity
discharge (HID) lamps, and low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-
emitting diode (LED) modules and arrays.
(5) “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but
not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and
security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are
left on when they no longer serve a useful function.
(6) “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible
light produced by a lamp or emitted from a light fixture (as distinct from “Watt,” a
measure of power consumption).
(7) “Luminaires” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps, and similar devices,
including solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or
protect the lamp, permanently installed or portable.
(8) “Seasonal ligh ng” means ligh ng installed and operated in connec on with holidays
or tradi ons. String lighting is not considered holiday or seasonal lighting.
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 142
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
(9) “Security lighting” means lighting intended to detect intrusions or other criminal
activity occurring on a property or site. Also commonly referred to as perimeter
lighting.
(10) “String lighting” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of
tubing resulting in several or many points of light.
(c) Applicability. For the purposes of this Section, except as otherwise provided in Subsection
18.40.250(3)(4)(A) below, the following projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting
standards and guidelines set forth in this Section:
(1) All newly constructed structures and buildings
(2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code, on existing
structures or buildings
(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting
fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system
(d) Lighting Guidelines.
(1) Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the
lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and be designed to focus
illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.
(2) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated signs or back-lit awnings,
should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed, should be limited
to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding background opaque.
Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
(e) Lighting Standards.
(1) Shielding
(A) All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded, directed downward to meet the
particular need, and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-way to avoid
light trespass.
(B) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in low activity or residential parking lots and 20 feet in
medium or high activity parking lots.
(C) Light fixtures shall be located at least three feet from curbs and ten feet from
driveways or intersections, to avoid obstructing clear sight distance triangles.
(D) No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a
public right-of-way.
(E) Exceptions for shielding requirements shall be applied to the following types of
lighting:
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 143
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
(i) Low voltage landscape lighting such as that used to illuminate fountains,
shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not have to be shielded fixtures and
may use uplighting, provided that they use no more than ten (10) watt
incandescent bulb or LED equivalent or a maximum of 150 lumens, and
not directed toward the right-of-way.
(ii) Low voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art or public monuments
that do not have to be shielded fixtures.
(iii) Lighting located on property lines (including zero lot line developments),
provided it is controlled by a motion sensor that automatically
extinguishes the lights within 10 minutes of activation.
(iv) String Lighting pursuant to Section 18.40.250(e)(3)
(2) Lighting Height.
(A) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in parking lots in residential development and 20 feet in
parking lots with commercial and mixed-use development.
(3) Illumination Level
(A) All light sources shall be Fully Shielded and have a maintained correlated color
temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less.
(B) When abutting residential use, such lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as
measured at the abutting property line.
(C) The maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained average
value of 5 foot-candles. Areas of higher or lower levels of illumination should be
indicated on project plans.
(4) Lighting Control. Lighting controls shall be implemented to avoid unnecessary
outdoor lighting. Automated control systems, such as motion sensors and timers,
shall be used to meet the outdoor lighting requirements.
(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies
to all new and existing buildings and structures, unless otherwise approved. All
outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by
10:00 p.m., 2 hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present
in exterior areas, whichever is later.
(B) All lighting activated by motion sensor shall be set up to extinguish no more than
10 minutes after activation.
(C) All lighting shall be automatically extinguished using a control device or system,
including but not limited to photocells or photocontrols, when there is sufficient
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 144
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
daylight available, except for lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels,
parking garages, or garage entrances.
(D) Exceptions for Lighting Control.
(i) Any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and
driveways area required to remain illuminated after 10:00 p.m. by the
California Building Code or state law.
(ii) Lighting of an appropriate intensity, allowed in conjunction with uses that
are permitted to operate past 10:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit;
and
(iii) Outdoor solar powered pathway lights that are 25 lumens or less.
(iv) Lighting that illuminates a pedestrian pathway (examples include bollard,
in-place step, or building mounted), provided that such lighting is a
maximum height of four (4) feet above the pathway, fully shielded, and
downward directed.
(f) Special Purpose Lighting.
(1) Outdoor Security Lighting. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to
protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized only the following
standards shall apply:
(A) Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device,
except where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. All
lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish no more than 10 minutes after
activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by
battery or similar backup.
(B) Security lighting shall be downward directed, fully shielded, and not be mounted at a
height exceeding the limits established in Section 18.40.250, measured from the
adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture.
(C) Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted
only if such lights do not result in light trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an
adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property
line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point
nearest to the light source.
(D) Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed 100-watt
incandescent bulb or LED equivalent, or a maximum of 1,600 lumens.
(2) Outdoor Recreational Facilities Lighting. For Outdoor Recreational Facilities and/or
athletic fields shall conform to the following standards:
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 145
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
(A) Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) lighting guidelines according to the
appropriate class of play or activity.
(B) Field lighting is provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and
viewing stands, and not for any other applications like lighting a parking lot.
(C) Illuminance levels must be adjustable based on the task (e.g., active play vs. field
maintenance).
(D) Off-site impacts of the lighting will be limited to the greatest practical extent
possible.
(E) Lights must be extinguished by 10:30 p.m. except when the facilities are being used
for active play and the lights are equipped with a timer.
(F) Timers that automatically extinguish lights must be installed to prevent lights being
left on accidentally overnight.
(3) Gasoline Service Station Lighting
(A) Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed or mounted directly
to the underside of the canopy. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield
direct rays from adjoining properties or public rights-of-way.
(B) Light fixtures shall not be mounted on top of the fascia of such canopies.
(C) The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average
maintained foot-candle (horizontal) of 12.5, when measured at finished grade.
(D) No free-standing lighting shall be higher than 15 feet above finished grade.
(E) The fascia of such canopies shall not be illuminated.
(4) String Ligh ng.
(A) String lighting must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin or 42 lumens, and shall not be blinking
or chasing.
(B) For commercial and mixed-use areas, string lighting shall be limited to designated
outside dining or display areas or common open space (i.e. courtyard or patio), and
subject to Director approval.
(5) Lighting near Streams. In addition to lighting standards established in Section
18.40.250(e), lighting near streams shall conform to the following requirements:
(A) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.
(B) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should
be maximized.
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 146
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
(6) Parklets. Lighting for any parklets should comply with the lighting standards
established in the Permanent Parklet Program.
(g) Prohibited Lighting. The following types of lighting are prohibited except emergencies by
police, fire, or medical personnel or at their direction:
(1) Outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates.
(2) Lighting that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot or substantially interferes with
use or enjoyment of that lot.
(3) Searchlights, aerial lasers, or spotlights.
(h) Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the lighting requirements of
the section:
(1) Illuminated street numbers on a building façade
(2) Temporary construction or emergency lighting
(3) Short-term lighting authorized by a special events or special use permits
(4) Seasonal lighting during the period of October 15 through January 15 of each year
(5) Lighting for Airport Operations. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to
restrict, limit, or otherwise regulate lighting that, in the reasonable judgment of the
Airport Manager, is prudent or necessary for airport operations, airport safety, or air
navigation in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport.
(i) Lighting for Signs. See Chapter 16.20 for lighting requirements for signs.
(j) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence.
To the extent permitted by Building Code, Fire Code, or state or federal law such lighting
shall additionally comply with the requirements of this section, unless those requirements
conflict with the aforementioned Codes and laws. In the event of a conflict, the standards in
the applicable Codes and laws shall prevail.
(k) Public Facilities. At the discretion of the Director, adjustments from the lighting
requirements may be granted for public facilities if the deviation is necessary for the
operational efficiency, maintenance, or safety of the facility, and remains consistent with
the overall intent and purpose of the lighting standards.
(l) Public Rights-of-Way. Lighting in public rights-of-way shall comply with the standards
established in Title 16.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of
the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 147
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160151_kb2_20240806_ay
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines,
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a
significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, as an action by a regulatory agency to
protect the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
Item 4
Attachment A: Dark Sky
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 148
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_kb2_20240806_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Bird Friendly
Design Standards
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On November 13, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and it included
a policy encouraging bird-friendly design, and a program to develop guidelines for bird-friendly
building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the poten al for collisions.
B. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council priori es, one of which is the
Climate Change & Natural Environment – Protec on & Adapta on, and included an objec ve to
“approve a bird safe glass and wildlife light pollu on protec ons ordinance.”
C. On February 14, 2024 and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted study
sessions and provided feedback on the dra ordinance.
D. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and Transporta on Commission recommended City Council to
adopt the dra ordinance.
E. The Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance is essen al to reduce bird mortality rates by reducing the
possibility of bird collisions with buildings, thereby contribu ng to a healthier and more resilient
environment for all.
F. The Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance provides clear and consistent standards, streamlining the
approval process by reducing the need for case-by-case review of individual projects.
SECTION 2. Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design Standards) of Chapter 18.40 (General
Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code added to read as
follows:
18.40.280 Bird-Friendly Design Standards
(a) Purpose. The intent of this chapter/section is to establish bird-safe design standards for
glass to minimize hazards for birds and to reduce the potential for collisions.
(b) Definitions.
(1) “Bird Sensitive Area” means (A) areas east of Highway 101, (B) areas west of Foothill
Expressway, or (C) areas that are within 300 feet of waterways; within 300 feet of
any open water larger than one acre; or within 300 feet of public and private parks
and open space larger than one acre and dominated by vegetation, including
vegetated landscaping, forest, meadows, grassland, or wetlands.
Item 4
Attachment B: Bird
Friendly Design
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 149
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_kb2_20240806_ay
(2) “Bird-Safe Treatment” means permanent treatment to glass that provides visual
cues to birds and reduces the likelihood of bird collisions.
(3) “Bird Hazard Installations are defined as monolithic glazing and/or glass panels that
provide a clear line of sight through such elements, including, but not limited to: (A)
Glass awnings, (B) Glass handrails and guards, (C) Glass wind break panels, (D) Glass
acoustic barriers, (E) Parallel glass elements with a distance of 17 feet or less
between them, or (F) Glass elements within 12 feet of a glass corner (perpendicular,
acute, or obtuse).
(4) “Threat Factor” refers to the Material Threat Factor system developed by the
American Bird Conservancy and a team of architects in 2010. Materials are assigned
a score between 1 and 100 representing the level of risk the material poses in
causing bird collisions, the lower the score, the lower the collision risk.
(c) Applicability. For the purposes of this section, the following projects shall comply with the
bird-safe building design requirements set forth in this section:
(1) All newly constructed structures and buildings within the Bird Sensitive Area
(2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code, within the Bird
Sensitive Area
(3) Any new or replacement fenestration or Bird Hazard Installations, including Fly-
though Hazard and Fly-through Conditions, that is unbroken and 24 square feet or
larger, regardless of their height above the existing grade
(d) Bird-Friendly Treatments. At least one of the following Bird-Safe Treatments shall be
incorporated into a building elevation according to Section 18.40.280(d):
(1) Fenestration and Glazing. Patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened,
or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material shall be on an
exterior glass surface.
(A) For patterns using dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be
at least a 1/4 inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any
direction.
(B) For patterns using If the pattern utilizes lines, they must be at least 1/8 inch in
width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart.
(C) Frit, ceramic ink, or other marker types must be obscured and permanent.
(2) Exterior Features. Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed
permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap
larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Exterior features include, but are not limited
to, metal screens, insect screens, shutters, window grilles, fixed solar shading such
as louvres, and exterior insert, brise soleil, or solar screens.
Item 4
Attachment B: Bird
Friendly Design
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 150
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_kb2_20240806_ay
(3) Threat Factor. A weighted average of all the Threat Factors of materials on a building
elevation, including non-glass materials, must meet 15 or less.
(e) Bird-Friendly Treatment Location. All applicable structures or buildings shall incorporate
one of the Bird-Safe Treatments listed in Section 18.40.280(c) to conform to the following
standards:
(1) No less than 90 percent of a building elevation between the existing grade and 40
feet above the existing grade shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments listed in
Section 18.40.280(c).
(2) No less than 60 percent of a building elevation between 40 feet above the existing
grade and top of the building height shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments
listed in Section 18.40.280(c).
(f) Alternative Compliance. Property owners or applicants may request an alternative
compliance to requirements established in Sections 18.40.280(d) and 18.40.280(e),
recommended in a report by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to meet the requirements
and intent of this section. The qualified biologist or ornithologist shall have a degree in
wildlife biology or specialization in ornithology and have experience in bird-friendly building
design. The alternative compliance shall be subject to Director approval.
(g) Lighting. All projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to
Section 18.40.250 of the Municipal Code.
(h) Exemptions. The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d):
(1) Any historic structure located within the City’s Historic Districts or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory or the State or National Historical Registers including new
additions
(2) First floor retail storefronts up to 14 feet in height
(3) 100% affordable housing projects as defined in Section 18.32.030
(i) California Building Code. All windows, doors, or other features must comply with the
requirements of the California Building Code including the fire hazard severity zone
regulations in California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen). Should a conflict exist
with the provisions of this section, the standards in the California Building Code shall
prevail.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of
the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Item 4
Attachment B: Bird
Friendly Design
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 151
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_kb2_20240806_ay
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines,
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a
significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, as an action by a regulatory agency to
protect the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
Item 4
Attachment B: Bird
Friendly Design
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment C:
Model Ordinance from DarkSky International: https://darksky.org/app/uploads/bsk-pdf-
manager/16_MLO_FINAL_JUNE2011.PDF
Model Ordinance from Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (in
the following pages)
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 153
Model Lighting Ordinance
(Created by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter)
Definitions
Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter xxxx of this Code, for purposes of this chapter only, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: “Correlated Color Temperature” or Color Temperature is a specification of the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer color
temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number. “Curfew” means the time of day when lighting restrictions, Citywide or based on zoning district,
are in effect. “Directional lighting” means methods of directing light downward, rather than upward or
outward, with the intention of directing light where it is needed. “Fully shielded” means a light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane (from the bottom of the lamp).
“Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a light fixture or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a reasonable person.
“Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source of optical radiation (i.e., “light”), often called a “bulb” or “tube.” Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, and low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and
arrays. “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but not limited
to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are left on when they no longer serve a useful function.
“Light trespass” light that falls beyond the boundary of the property on which it is installed. “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible light produced by a lamp or emitted from a light fixture (as distinct from “Watt,” a measure of power consumption).
“Luminaires” means outdoor light fixtures as defined in this Section.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 154
“Outdoor light fixtures” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps and similar devices, including solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or protect the lamp,
permanently installed or portable; synonymous with “luminaires.” “Outdoor recreational facility” means outdoor athletic and sports areas, such as ball fields, courts, swimming pools, skate parks and similar, but does not mean or include trails or playgrounds
“Seasonal lighting” means lighting installed and operated in connection with holidays or
traditions;
“Security lighting” means lighting intended to detect intrusions or other criminal activity
occurring on a property or site. “Skyglow” means the brightening of the nighttime sky that results from scattering and reflection
of artificial light by air molecules, moisture, and dust particles in the atmosphere, caused by light directed or reflected upwards or sideways and reduces one’s ability to view the night sky.
“String lights” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of tubing resulting in several or many points of light
1. Purpose
1. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate design, placement, color temperature, and light intensity of lighting elements in all zoning districts to reduce light pollution; to protect the dark sky, the natural environment, and public health; and to promote lighting systems and practices that conserve energy and prevent overlighting. As described in the International Dark Sky Association’s 5 Principles
for Outdoor Lighting, light should be 1) useful, 2) targeted, 3) low level, 4) controlled, and 5) warm-colored. 2. Applicability
1. General Applicability
1. Requirements (Section 3) apply to all new and/or replacement outdoor
lighting fixtures installed in residential or nonresidential properties from the effective date of the ordinance, whether attached to structures, poles, the earth, or any other location, unless exempted in Section 2.3 or in
Section 3. 2. Nonresidential properties are encouraged to minimize outdoor light pollution from their interior lights. If interior light is visible beyond the
boundaries of the lot or parcel, nonresidential properties shall comply with Section 3.6.1. 3. The following types of lighting are not allowed except in emergencies by
police, fire, or medical personnel or at their direction: floodlights; outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates; search lights; spotlights; high-intensity discharge lighting for recreation courts on private property; aerial lasers.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 155
4. Lighting within the public right-of-way for the principal purpose of illuminating public streets or traffic control are not regulated by this ordinance. 2. Existing Lighting
1. Existing lighting must comply with the new lighting standards 5 years after the effective date of the ordinance. Any non-compliant lighting still in
place after the compliance deadline shall remain extinguished at all times. 2. The following requirements shall be complied with within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance: 1. Outdoor light fixtures that have the ability to be redirected, shall be directed downward so as to minimize sky glow, glare, and
eliminate light trespass onto adjacent properties. 2. Outdoor light fixtures that have adjustable dimmers with color temperature that exceeds twenty-seven hundred (2,700) Kelvin
shall be dimmed to comply with Section 3 to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent properties. 3. Light fixtures that are replaced within the first 5 years of the effective date
of the ordinance shall meet the standards (i.e., color temperature and illumination limit) in Section 3. 4. Extensions: A property owner may apply for a 6-month extension of this
deadline by submitting a request to the Planning Director or equivalent thirty (30) days before the compliance deadline detailing why an extension is needed. Any noncompliant lighting shall remain extinguished
while the request is pending. Upon demonstration of good cause for providing a property owner additional time to comply with the requirements of this section, the Planning Director or equivalent may extend the property owner’s time to comply and/or may require a plan for compliance that requires partial compliance in advance of full compliance. For purposes of this section, the term “good cause” shall mean a significant financial or other hardship which warrants an extension or conditional extension of the time limit for compliance established herein. In no instance shall the Planning Director issue an extension of the compliance period in excess of one year’s time. 3. California Building Code
1. All lighting must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code including Title 24 of the Building Code.
2. All outdoor lighting shall comply with California Building Code Title 24 Lighting Zone One (LZ1). 3. Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this ordinance, the standards
in the California Building Code shall prevail. 3. Outdoor Lighting Standards
1. Exemptions
1. Seasonal lighting 1. Temporary Seasonal lighting is allowed from October 15 to
January 15 only. 2. Such lighting is exempt from Section 3.3-3.6 and must be extinguished by 11pm.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 156
2. Aircraft navigation lights such as those attached to radio/television towers and other lighting required by the State of California or the U.S. federal
government.
3. High intensity and/or special purpose lighting is governed by Section 4. 2. Correlated Color Temperature
1. The correlated color temperature of outdoor luminaires shall not exceed 2700 K. Luminaries rated at or below 2200 K are encouraged for better
nighttime visibility, protection of wildlife, and reduction of glare and light pollution. 3. Shielding
1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be fully shielded and directed downward except as otherwise specified. 2. Exceptions 1. Low-voltage Landscape Lighting: Low-voltage landscape lighting, such as that used to illuminate fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not have to be shielded fixtures, provided that they use no more than 150 lumens.
2. Outdoor Art: Low-voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art do not have to be shielded fixtures. 3. Greenhouse Lighting: At or under 200 lumens, a fixture can be
unshielded as long as no light shines outside the structure or is visible from another property or the sky. 4. Lighting Control Requirements
1. All outdoor lighting shall be controlled by motion-sensors or be fully extinguished by 11:00 p.m. or when people are no longer actually present in exterior areas, whichever is earlier, except 1. Lighting of outdoor art shall be fully extinguished by 11:00 pm 2. Where required by the California Building Code or state law, any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and driveway areas that are required to remain illuminated after 11:00 p.m. 3. Lighting of a minimal appropriate intensity, allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate past 11:00 p.m., with a
conditional use permit 4. Outdoor solar-powered pathway lights without controls that are 25 lumens or less
2. All lighting activated by motion-sensors shall extinguish no more than 5 minutes after activation. Owners of such equipment shall (1) maintain it in good working order; and (2) adjust the trigger threshold appropriately
such that it only triggers on large objects like people. 3. Controls shall be provided that automatically extinguish all outdoor lighting when sufficient daylight is available using a control device or
system such as a photoelectric switch, astronomic time switch, or equivalent functions from a programmable lighting controller, building automation system, or lighting energy management system, all with battery or similar backup power or device, except 1. Lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, garage entrances.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 157
5. Illumination Levels
1. Lighting in which any single luminaire exceeds 20,000 lumens or the total lighting load exceeds 160,000 lumens shall not be installed or used without a conditional use permit. 6. Limits to Offsite Impacts
1. No exterior light or combination shall cast light exceeding zero point one
(0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source, except if two adjacent properties are non-residential, or function as a shopping center, and agree to coordinate lighting. 2. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way. 3. Indoor Lighting of Nonresidential Properties 1. Businesses that involve the direct retailing of goods to the general public may have downward directed, low voltage, and fully shielded lighting for window displays.
2. Any lighting device located on the inside of a window which is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel with intermittent fading, flashing, blinking, rotating, or strobe light illumination is
prohibited. 3. Properties are encouraged to draw blinds and/or turn off non-essential indoor lighting at night.
4. Interior lights shall be extinguished or motion-sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. or within two hours after the business is closed, whichever is earlier. 7. Outdoor Security Lighting
1. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized, the following standards shall apply: 2. Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device, except where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish no
more than 5 minutes after activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by battery or similar backup. 3. Security lighting shall be downward directed, fully shielded, and not be
mounted at a height that exceeds 12 feet, measured from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture. 4. Floodlights shall not be permitted.
5. Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass. 6. Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed a
maximum of 1,600 lumens. 8. Service Station Canopies
1. The following standards shall apply to service station canopy lighting, in addition to all other applicable standards. 2. Service station canopies shall not be transparent or translucent.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 158
3. Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed into the underside of the canopy. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct rays from adjoining properties or public rights-of-way. 4. Light fixtures shall not be mounted on top of the fascia of such canopies. 5. The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average maintained foot-candle (horizontal) of 12.5, when measured at
finished grade. Luminaires shall be of a low level, indirect diffused type. 6. No luminaire shall be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade.
7. The fascia of such canopies shall not be illuminated, except for approved signage in compliance with Section 5. 4. High Intensity and/or Special Purpose
Lighting
1. Conditional use permits
1. Lighting installations that do not comply with lighting standards may be
allowed if a conditional use permit is obtained. 2. To obtain a conditional use permit, applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting installation meets the following requirements:
1. Demonstrates through third-party review that the intended function cannot be achieved through the requirements of this ordinance. 2. Is at the lowest illumination levels that meet the requirement of the
task. 3. Has sustained every reasonable effort to mitigate the effects of light on the environment and surrounding properties, supported by
a signed statement describing the mitigation measures. 4. Employs lighting controls to reduce lighting at a project-specific curfew time to be established in the Permit. 5. Complies with the lighting standards in the ordinance after the project-specific curfew. 6. The permit must demonstrate that the applicant is making every
reasonable effort to adhere to the code requirements. 2. String Lighting
1. String lighting shall not be 1. Blinking and/or chasing lights. 2. Secured with materials or in a manner that will puncture the skin
or restrict the growth of any living landscape feature. 3. Attached to a fence in a manner that permits light trespass to adjacent property.
4. Allowed to emit no more than 42 lumens. 5. A correlated color temperature of more than 2,700 K 2. Residential Areas: In addition to Section 4.2.1, string lighting is permitted subject to the following requirements: 1. It shall not illuminate more than fifty (50) percent of the rear yard or 500 sq. ft., whichever is more restrictive. 2. It shall not be visible from a public right-of-way. 3. It shall be used primarily to illuminate patio areas.
4. It shall be extinguished by 11:00 p.m.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 159
3. Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Areas: String lighting may be permitted subject to the following requirements, with approval of the Planning
Director or equivalent: 1. Any development or property is permitted to submit one application for string lighting, which shall include all uses of string
lighting on the development or property. 2. It shall not illuminate an area greater than five (5) percent of the building(s) footprint of a shopping center and fifteen (15) percent
for a freestanding commercial building not part of a shopping center. 3. It is limited to designated outside dining or display areas.
4. It is extinguished two (2) hours after the close of business. 3. Outdoor Recreational Facilities
1. Lighting at public and private outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to playing fields, arenas, tracks, and swimming pools, will be fully shielded to the greatest practical extent to reduce glare, safety hazards, light trespass, and light pollution. 2. Such lighting shall meet all of the following requirements.
1. Provide levels of illuminance that are adjustable according to task, allowing for illuminating levels not to exceed nationally recognized Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). standards according to the
appropriate class of play, as well as for lower output during other times, such as when field maintenance is being actively performed 2. Be provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and
adjacent viewing stands, and not for any other application, such as lighting a parking lot. 3. Must be extinguished by 11:00 pm or within one (1) hour of the
end of the active play, whichever is earlier. 4. Shall be fitted with motion sensors and/or mechanical or electronic timers to prevent lights from being left on accidentally overnight. 3. Illumination levels shall be designed to be no higher than recommended for Class IV play, as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society publication ANSI/IES RP-6-20, as amended. 1. design and installation adheres to the IDSA’s Criteria for Community Friendly Outdoor Sports Lighting 2. Height? 5. Sign Lighting
1. All externally or internally illuminated signs, advertising displays, and building identification shall be extinguished at 11:00 p.m. or within one (1) hour of the end of normal business hours, whichever occurs first. 2. Externally Illuminated Signs 1. Externally illuminated signs shall be lit only from the top of the sign, with fully shielded luminaires designed and installed to prevent light from spilling beyond the physical edges of the sign.
2. All external sign illumination must comply with the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) requirements of this ordinance. 3. Internally Illuminated Signs:
1. Outdoor internally illuminated signs (whether free standing or building mounted) shall be subject to all the following requirements:
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 160
1. The internally illuminated portion of the sign cannot be white, cream, off-white, light tan, yellow or any light color unless it is part
of a registered logo that does not have an alternate version with dark tones. Light tone colors such as white, cream, off-white, light tan, yellow or any light color are permitted in the logo only,
provided that such colors in the logo shall represent not more than 33% of the total sign area permitted. 2. The internal illumination, between sunset and sunrise, is to be the
lowest intensity needed to allow the sign to be visible and shall not exceed 50 nits (=170 lumens). 3. Size limit: The luminous surface area of an individual sign shall
not exceed 50 square feet. 4. Electronic message displays are discouraged and shall comply with outdoor lighting curfews stipulated in this ordinance. 5. Moving and/or flashing text or images are
prohibited.ApplicabilityNew [3] and existing [4] streetlights
6. Streetlight RequirementsStreet lighting must consist of fully
shielded fixtures, directed downward to meet particular need and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-ways to avoid light trespass. [1]
7. Street lighting shall have a correlated color temperature of
2,700 Kelvin or less (Cupertino and Los Gatos). [1]
8. The lumen output of each streetlight shall be the lowest reasonable lumen output to meet safety standards but in no case greater than 10,000 lumens. [4]
References [1] Communication with Public Works Directors in Cupertino, Los Gatos [2] Flagstaff Ordinance: https://www.codepublishing.com/AZ/Flagstaff/html/Flagstaff13/Flagstaff1312003.html#13.12.003 https://flagstaffdarkskies.org/dark-sky-solutions/dark-sky-solutions-2/outdoor-lighting-codes/
[3] County of LA Rural ordinance https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT22PLZO_DIV4COZOSUDI_CH22.80RUOULIDI#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Outdoor%20Lighting%2
0District,and%20preserving%20the%20nighttime%20environment Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance: https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/29389/Attachment-2_Malibu-Municipal-Code-Ch-1741?bidId=
Brisbane’s Staff Report + Dark Sky Ordinance: https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/brisbaneca-meet-af1c62b805bd463ea43072d7018a7c98/ITEM-Attachment-001-5913cc8fb5de4f06a173268ed08d5a49.pdf Cupertino’s Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96605
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 161
P.O. Box 249, The Plains, VA 20198 (regular, registered, or certified mail)
8255 E. Main Street, Suites D & E, Marshall, VA 20115 (physical address; use for deliveries)
tel: 540-253-5780 | fax: 540-253-5782 | email: info@abcbirds.org | website: abcbirds.org
American Bird Conservancy Model Bird-Friendly Building Guidelines
October 2023
These model guidelines are intended to be a starting point for cities, towns, villages, counties,
states, universities, businesses, and any other entity interested in regulating or guiding building
construction to reduce bird collisions with glass. They describe a truly bird-friendly building.
Summarized simply, these guidelines are based on a 100/100/100 framework: 100% of all glass
and other building materials should be bird friendly in the first 100 feet of 100% of buildings.
The guidelines also specifically include making bird friendly all hazardous features and materials
that cause collisions no matter where they are found.
Any group that adopts these guidelines as written will be at the leading edge of creating a bird-
friendly built environment. However, many groups considering such guidelines will be
interested in softening the language to exempt certain types of buildings or to reduce the
amount of bird-friendly materials required. In anticipation of this, American Bird Conservancy
(ABC) has created a discussion of the issues to be considered when revising this model (see
ABC’s Legislation, Ordinances, and Codes).
This model will be most commonly adopted as an ordinance to modify municipal building codes
and is therefore written in that format. However, the text can be easily adapted to fit other
building guidance formats.
ABC will revise these guidelines as new science, materials, techniques, and technologies
become available, so please make sure that you have the most current version before you
begin the process of creating your own guidelines. The most recent version can be found on
ABC’s website (see ABC’s Legislation, Ordinances, and Codes).
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 162
2
PROPOSAL NUMBER:
PROPOSAL NAME: Bird-Friendly Building Design Requirements
SPONSOR(S):
PURPOSE: This building ordinance has been created to address the role of the (MUNICIPALITY)’s built
environment in the annual loss of up to 1 billion birds due to glass collisions in the United States.
WHEREAS, birds provide valuable and important ecological services,
WHEREAS, (MUNICIPALITY) has recorded (XXX) species of resident and migratory bird species,
WHEREAS, birding is a hobby enjoyed by 46 million Americans with an annual $107 billion total
industry output in the United States,
WHEREAS, as many as 1 billion birds may be killed by collisions with windows every year in the United
States,
WHEREAS, new buildings can be designed to reduce bird deaths from collisions without significant
additional cost,
WHEREAS there exist strategies to mitigate collisions on existing buildings,
WHEREAS witnessing a collision is an upsetting, sad event,
WHEREAS no person wants to live or work in a building that kills wildlife,
WHEREAS façades with more than 30% glass usually increase costs and CO2 emissions from heating
and cooling,
WHEREAS, bird-friendly practices can go hand-in-hand with energy efficiency improvements,
And WHEREAS (ANY ADDITIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPALITY),
NOW, THEREFORE, the (LEGISLATIVE BODY) of the (MUNICIPALITY) does hereby ordain as follows:
1. Section (XX.XXX) of the (MUNICIPALITY)’s General Ordinances is created to read as follows:
a. DEFINITIONS
i. Glass: All glass, including spandrel glass.
ii. Reflective and/or Transparent Non-Glass Materials: Any non-glass materials that
are transparent or highly reflective, including but not limited to plexiglass and
polished metal.
iii. Bird Activity Zone: The zone between 0 and 100 feet above grade.
iv. Auxiliary Structures: Structures that pose significant collision risks to birds
wherever they are found, including but not limited to:
1. Transparent or highly-reflective:
a. Railings, including balconies
b. Noise barriers
c. Wind barriers (including in parking structures)
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 163
3
d. Transportation or weather shelters, including both private and
public bus and train stops
2. Small, stand-alone buildings that present conditions that can be both
transparent and reflective:
a. Gazebos
b. External ticket booths
3. Any other free-standing glass, plexiglass, or other clear, transparent, or
highly-reflective free-standing structure
v. High-Risk Building Features:
1. Skyways/skywalks
2. All floors of building connectors
3. All outside corners where a bird can see in one side of the building and
out the other (“fly-through conditions”) within 30 feet of the corner
4. All interior corners within 30 feet of the corner
5. Glazing adjacent to courtyards
6. Atria, open and enclosed
7. Three floors of glazing adjacent to any green roof or partial green roof
vi. Major Renovations and Additions Involving Glass: Any renovation in the Bird
Activity Zone that:
1. Replaces at least 25% of a structure’s existing glass or other transparent
or reflective materials, or
2. Adds any new glass or transparent or reflective materials
vii. Bird-Friendly Glass: Glass or materials that meet any of the following conditions:
1. Any product with an American Bird Conservancy Material Threat Factor
Rating ≤ 30. Visit birdsmartglass.org to view the continuously-updated
database
2. Any product that follows American Bird Conservancy’s Prescriptive
Rating Criteria (abcthreatfactor.org)
3. Glass with exterior surface (surface 1) obstructed and effectively covered
by building-integrated structures that do not have gaps larger than 12” in
any dimension, including non-glass double-skin facades, metal screens,
fixed solar shading, exterior insect or solar screens, and other features as
determined by the (BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR SIMILAR) that meet
these conditions.
4. Continuous-surface materials, including spandrel glass and polished or
brushed metals, whose surface 1 gloss reading follows the ABC
Prescriptive Rating Criteria (abcthreatfactor.org) to ensure that they do
not produce strong reflections).
b. REQUIREMENTS
i. 100% of the glazing for all building types must be Bird-Friendly Glass for the
following projects:
1. All new construction in the Bird Activity Zone.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 164
4
2. Major Renovations and Additions Involving Glass and Reflective and/or
Transparent Materials in the Bird Activity Zone.
3. All Auxiliary Structures regardless of whether the rest of the building or
project triggers these bird-friendly building requirements.
4. All High-Risk Building Features regardless of whether the rest of the
building or project triggers these bird-friendly building requirements.
Item 4
Attachment C: Model Ordinances
(PTC_20240814_Att_C_ModelOrdinances)
Packet Pg. 165
Other Jurisdic�ons on Outdoor Ligh�ng/Dark Sky Standards:
• City of Cuper�no (Chapter 19.102: Glass and Ligh�ng Standards):
htps://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cuper�no#/d3ef8742-594e-4e92-bb0d-
0�b09d855bd/68dadeb1-0691-4c82-a9e1-11e6e40f268f
• Portola Valley (Ligh�ng Ordinance):
htps://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/11163/636699440999530000
• Woodside (Sec�on 153.213 Outdoor Ligh�ng):
htps://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CD_ORD_TITXVLAUS
_CH153ZO_153.213OULI
• Sunnyvale (Moffet Park Specific Plan – Sec�on 6.6.9 Exterior Ligh�ng, Document Pages 179-
180):
htps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gz3cr91d1xyd073x6ligg/SMPSP_FinalPlan_MidRes.pdf?rlkey=5
vg3c42cc0o6935btgxzwatgp&e=1&dl=0
• Brisbane (Dark Sky Ordinance): htps://www.brisbaneca.org/cd/page/dark-sky-
ordinance#:~:text=On%20January%2018%2C%202024%2C%20the,reasonable%20restric�ons%2
0on%20outdoor%20ligh�ng.
Other Jurisdic�ons on Bird Safe Design Standards:
• City of Cuper�no (Chapter 19.102: Glass and Ligh�ng Standards):
htps://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cuper�no#/d3ef8742-594e-4e92-bb0d-
0�b09d855bd/68dadeb1-0691-4c82-a9e1-11e6e40f268f
• City of San Francisco (Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings): htps://sfplanning.org/standards-bird-
safe-buildings
• City of Sunnyvale (Bird-Safe Building Design Guidelines):
htps://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1542/638273438333130000
• City of Sunnyvale (Moffet Park Specific Plan – Sec�on 5.4.2 Bird Safe Design, Document Pages
124-125):
htps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gz3cr91d1xyd073x6ligg/SMPSP_FinalPlan_MidRes.pdf?rlkey=5
vg3c42cc0o6935btgxzwatgp&e=1&dl=0
Item 4
Attachment D: Other Jurisdictions
(PTC_20240814_Att_D_OtherJurisdictions)
Packet Pg. 166
Middlef
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Cowper
S
t
r
e
e
t
Waverle
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Alma Str
e
e
t
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Louis R
o
a
d
Hy 10
1
S
o
u
t
h
Ross Ro
a
d
Hy 10
1
N
o
r
t
h
Webster
S
t
r
e
e
t
Bryant S
t
r
e
e
t
Chann
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
East B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
Sand Hi
l
l
R
o
a
d
Page M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Hamilt
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Oregon
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Linco
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
San A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
o
a
d
Unive
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Newell
R
o
a
d
Seale A
v
e
n
u
e
South C
o
u
r
t
High S
t
r
e
e
t
Charlesto
n
R
o
a
d
Park Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
East Mea
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
Stanfo
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Colorado
A
v
e
n
u
e
West B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
Hanover
S
t
r
e
e
t
Miranda
A
v
e
n
u
e
Foothill Expressway
Fabia
n
W
a
y
Home
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Greer R
o
a
d
Ramona
S
t
r
e
e
t
Edgewo
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Loma Ve
r
d
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Evere
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Church
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Arastradero R
o
a
d
Matad
e
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lowell
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cente
r
D
r
i
v
e
Tennys
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Los R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Califo
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Barro
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hillv
i
e
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
Palo A
l
t
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Welch Road
Kings
l
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Maybe
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wilkie
W
a
y
Hanse
n
W
a
y
Coleri
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron S
t
r
e
e
t
Ely Place
Orego
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Man
u
e
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Amaril
l
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mario
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Emerso
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
North C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pitman Avenue
Grove A
v
e
n
u
e
Laguna A
v
e
n
u
e
Ferne
A
v
e
n
u
e
Nelson
D
r
i
v
e
Porter D
r
i
v
e
Castillej
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hale St
r
e
e
t
Chima
l
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
Colleg
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Amherst
S
t
r
e
e
t
Seneca S
t
r
e
e
t
Lane 66
Bowdoin
S
t
r
e
e
t
Stockton
P
l
a
c
e
Harker Avenue
Deer
C
r
e
e
k
R
o
a
d
Embarc
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Ames
A
v
e
n
u
e
El Do
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
La Par
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Clark W
a
y
Grant
A
v
e
n
u
e
Birch St
r
e
e
t
Hawth
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Harri
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Clara D
r
i
v
e
Coyote Hill Road
Columbi
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Geor
g
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Rhode
s
D
r
i
v
e
San A
n
t
o
n
i
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Camb
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Olive A
v
e
n
u
e
El Vera
n
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
La Donn
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
El C
a
m
i
n
o
W
a
y
Parkinson Avenue
Kipling
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pasteur Drive
Heat
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Kellog
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Alger Dr
i
v
e
Florale
s
D
r
i
v
e
Oxfor
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Forest Avenue
Monro
e
D
r
i
v
e
Greenwood Avenue
Cornell S
t
r
e
e
t
101 Or
e
g
o
n
-
E
m
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
a
m
p
N
o
r
t
h
Boyc
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Sherm
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Oberlin S
t
r
e
e
t
Amaranta
A
v
e
n
u
e
Donald Dr
i
v
e
West C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
o
a
d
Urban L
a
n
e
Harvard
S
t
r
e
e
t
Iris Way
Wilton
A
v
e
n
u
e
Dana Aven
u
e
Fife Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
Fulton S
t
r
e
e
t
Sutherlan
d
D
r
i
v
e
Lamb
e
r
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
(none
)
Vineyard Lane
Josin
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Marsha
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
David Av
e
n
u
e
Williams
S
t
r
e
e
t
Geng
R
o
a
d
101 O
r
e
g
o
n
-
E
m
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
a
m
p
S
o
u
t
h
Old A
d
o
b
e
R
o
a
d
Orme St
r
e
e
t
El Carm
e
l
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Parksid
e
D
r
i
v
e
Mont
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Walnut Drive
Princeton
S
t
r
e
e
t
Maddu
x
D
r
i
v
e
Curtne
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Sherid
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Jacara
n
d
a
L
a
n
e
Wild
w
o
o
d
L
a
n
e
Elsinor
e
D
r
i
v
e
Morris D
r
i
v
e
Stanl
e
y
W
a
y
Maripo
s
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ferna
n
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Miller A
v
e
n
u
e
Lelan
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Moren
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Barbara
D
r
i
v
e
Creeks
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
Sutter A
v
e
n
u
e
Edlee
A
v
e
n
u
e
Marga
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ventur
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Arbutu
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Chauc
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Nath
a
n
W
a
y
Shopp
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Walte
r
H
a
y
s
D
r
i
v
e
Jacks
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Willmar Drive
Kenneth
D
r
i
v
e
Martin Avenue Patric
i
a
L
a
n
e
Whitcle
m
D
r
i
v
e
Cereza
D
r
i
v
e
Paul A
v
e
n
u
e
Towle
W
a
y
Guinda
S
t
r
e
e
t
Transp
o
r
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Old T
r
a
c
e
R
o
a
d
Ilima W
a
y
Lane 2
1
Santa A
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Bruce D
r
i
v
e
Briarw
o
o
d
W
a
y
Encin
a
G
r
a
n
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
Faber
P
l
a
c
e
Comm
e
r
c
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
Lois Lane
Los P
a
l
o
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ruthv
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Miramo
n
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Gailen Aven
u
e
Laguna W
a
y
West M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
Whitsell
S
t
r
e
e
t
Janice W
a
y
Scripps A
v
e
n
u
e
Southa
m
p
t
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Pomona Av
e
n
u
e
Warre
n
W
a
y
Yale Stre
e
t
Ivy Lane
Rorke W
a
y
Evergre
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
Stelling
D
r
i
v
e
Ashton
A
v
e
n
u
e
New M
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
L
a
n
e
McKe
l
l
a
r
L
a
n
e
Robb Road
Jeffer
s
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Dake Av
e
n
u
e
Arboretum R
o
a
d
Santa R
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Addi
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Saint C
l
a
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Rincon
a
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Moshe
r
W
a
y
Second St
r
e
e
t
Encina Avenue
Seminole W
a
y
Aleste
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Silva Av
e
n
u
e
Kelly Wa
y
Indian D
r
i
v
e
Quarry
R
o
a
d
Manuela Court
Garlan
d
D
r
i
v
e
Hubbartt Drive
Christ
i
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
Kings Lane
Bryson
A
v
e
n
u
e
Oak H
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fabian Street
Murdoc
h
D
r
i
v
e
Deodar
S
t
r
e
e
t
Nevad
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Madis
o
n
W
a
y
Sequoia A
v
e
n
u
e
Southw
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Lane 3
3
East M
e
a
d
o
w
C
i
r
c
l
e
Vista A
v
e
n
u
e
Hilba
r
L
a
n
e
Lupine
A
v
e
n
u
e
Campe
s
i
n
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Poe S
t
r
e
e
t
La Calle
Park A
v
e
n
u
e
Chestn
u
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cypress
L
a
n
e
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
Mumfor
d
P
l
a
c
e
Kenda
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Robl
e
R
i
d
g
e
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
Thain Wa
y
Sycamore
D
r
i
v
e
Vernon
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Celia
D
r
i
v
e
Denni
s
D
r
i
v
e
Washi
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Orteg
a
C
o
u
r
t
Manzan
a
L
a
n
e
Ash Stre
e
t
De Soto Drive
Rambow
D
r
i
v
e
Portag
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bryant
C
o
u
r
t
Elwell
C
o
u
r
t
Torreya
C
o
u
r
t
Parad
i
s
e
W
a
y
Manuela Way
Cork O
a
k
W
a
y
Magnolia
D
r
i
v
e
Coastlan
d
D
r
i
v
e
Stern
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wellsb
u
r
y
W
a
y
Mitchell
L
a
n
e
Fallen L
e
a
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
Evere
t
t
C
o
u
r
t
Peppe
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Charle
s
M
a
r
x
W
a
y
Community Lane
Thoma
s
D
r
i
v
e
Wells Avenue
Fieldin
g
D
r
i
v
e
Tulip Lane
Acaci
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Berrye
s
s
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Tasso St
r
e
e
t
Stone L
a
n
e
Lane B E
a
s
t
Lytton
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lane 8 W
e
s
t
Coulombe
D
r
i
v
e
Mark Tw
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mapl
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
El Cerrit
o
R
o
a
d
Whitm
a
n
C
o
u
r
t
Lane B W
e
s
t
Lane D
W
e
s
t
Dinah
'
s
C
o
u
r
t
Gaspar C
o
u
r
t
Prim
r
o
s
e
W
a
y
Irven
C
o
u
r
t
Tanland
D
r
i
v
e
May Co
u
r
t
Baker Aven
u
e
Morton
S
t
r
e
e
t
Murray W
a
y
Melvil
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Corin
a
W
a
y
Lane 3
0
Palm
S
t
r
e
e
t
Green
m
e
a
d
o
w
W
a
y
Blair C
o
u
r
t
Saint Mi
c
h
a
e
l
D
r
i
v
e
Gilman
S
t
r
e
e
t
Wellesley
S
t
r
e
e
t
Thornw
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Wright
P
l
a
c
e
El Cajon
W
a
y
Holly O
a
k
D
r
i
v
e
Pistach
e
P
l
a
c
e
Sandra
P
l
a
c
e
Peral La
n
e
Florenc
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ensign W
a
y
Ben Lom
o
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
Dartmout
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Bret Ha
r
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Erstw
i
l
d
C
o
u
r
t
Arcadia Place
Sain
t
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
D
r
i
v
e
Ramos W
a
y
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
Layne
C
o
u
r
t
Drake
W
a
y
Timlo
t
t
L
a
n
e
Flowers
L
a
n
e
Lindero Drive
Simkin
s
C
o
u
r
t
Marlo
w
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Shaun
a
L
a
n
e
Lane 5 Ea
s
t
none
Dixon Pl
a
c
e
Maybell W
a
y
Altaire Walk
Corpora
t
i
o
n
W
a
y
Midtow
n
C
o
u
r
t
Avalon C
o
u
r
t
Lane 12
W
e
s
t
Ashby Drive
El Capitan
P
l
a
c
e
Keats
C
o
u
r
t
Scott Str
e
e
t
Staunton
C
o
u
r
t
Higgins
P
l
a
c
e
Aztec W
a
y
Plum Lane
Ellswo
r
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
Shar
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
Randers
C
o
u
r
t
Paulse
n
L
a
n
e
Adobe Place
Amhe
r
s
t
W
a
y
Kent Place
East G
r
e
e
n
w
i
c
h
P
l
a
c
e
Pena Cour
t
Tevis Place
Park Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Fulton S
t
r
e
e
t
Page M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Nevad
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
High St
r
e
e
t
Melvill
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sheri
d
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona
S
t
r
e
e
t
South C
o
u
r
t
Kipling
S
t
r
e
e
t
Oregon
A
v
e
n
u
e
Emers
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Matad
e
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
North
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bryant S
t
r
e
e
t
Fulton S
t
r
e
e
t
Byron S
t
r
e
e
t
Hawth
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Miran
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron S
t
r
e
e
t
Guinda
S
t
r
e
e
t
Footh
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Fulto
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Hy 10
1
N
o
r
t
h
Ramona
S
t
r
e
e
t
Moren
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lytton
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ramona
S
t
r
e
e
t
Addiso
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Emerson
S
t
r
e
e
t
Tasso St
r
e
e
t
San A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
o
a
d
Kingsl
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Oregon
A
v
e
n
u
e
Santa
R
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Park Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
South C
o
u
r
t
Emerso
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ash Stree
t
Colorado
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wilkie
W
a
y
Orego
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Georgi
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Dana AvenueByron S
t
r
e
e
t
Emerso
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
High S
t
r
e
e
t
This map is a product of City of Palo Alto GIS
[
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles
Bird Safe Design OrdinanceBird Sensitive Areas - East of Foothill Expressway and West of Highway 101
Bird Sensitive Area
Parks
City Limit
Item 4
Attachment E: Bird Sensitive Areas
(PTC_20240814_Att_E_BirdSensitiveArea)
Packet Pg. 167
July 28,2024
Dear Kelly,
We have reviewed the proposed Lighting ordinance (the version that was available to the ARB)and our
comments are attached,
Please note that we are still looking at this,and comparing with our Model Lighting Ordinance Ordinance
(Available Here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nqe19ColokeJGwsWsXCwZz9-Mx2mrTaJQwYLzmeepfg/edit#hea
ding=h.406ajo23pzbb)
Thank you so much,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Comments on Lighting Ordinance (ARB version)
Lighting (Repeal PAMC Section 18.40.250)
Consider adding:
●Please include Lumens caps (e.g.,allowed amount of lumens per improved acre)to limit
over-lighting.Malibu’s ordinance has Lumen caps,often 850 lumens.Brisbane has a maximum
lumen/square foot.Our Model Lighting ordinance suggests:
○Illumination Levels:Lighting in which any single luminaire exceeds 20,000 lumens or the
total lighting load exceeds 160,000 lumens shall not be installed or used without a
conditional use permit.
●Please add regulations for parking garages?Our Model Ordinance requires Lighting Controls
for Lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels,parking garages,and garage entrances.
●The ordinance should include a restriction on the total amount of unshielded lighting allowed
on a property.This would capture string lighting,for example.
Comments on the proposed ordinance (ARB version):
(a)Purpose.
“The intent of this section is to establish exterior lighting standards to reduce light pollution.Exterior
lighting of parking areas,pathways,and common open spaces,including fixtures on building facades and
free-standing lighting should aim to:”
●Comment:It's unclear why the preamble specifically calls out "exterior lighting of parking areas,
pathways,and common open spaces,including fixtures on building facades and free-standing
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 168
lighting".The statement in section (c)says that the ordinance applies to "require separate
planning approval".It's just odd that the phrasing in (a)is so specific,and omits many other
potential exterior lighting areas.
●Suggestion:Consider replacing “Exterior lighting of parking areas,pathways,and common open
spaces,including fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to:”with
“Exterior lighting should aim to accomplish the 5 Principles for Outdoor Lighting,directing light
light to be 1)useful,2)targeted,3)low level,4)controlled,and 5)warm-colored and”
(1)Reduce light pollution and its adverse effects on environment,wildlife habitat,and human health.
●Comment:The Night Sky,visibility of stars,is important.
●Suggestion:Add “the night sky”or replace “environment”with “the night sky”
(4)Achieve maximum energy efficiency.
●Comment:The important thing is to reduce overlighting in time and space that wastes energy.
We are concerned with specifying “Maximum efficiency”as it may lead to installation of very
fixtures of high Correlated Color Temperature,which conflicts with the intent of this section.
●Suggestion:Replace “Achieve maximum energy efficiency”with:“promote lighting systems and
practices that conserve energy and prevent overlighting”
(b)Definitions.Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code,for purposes of
this chapter only,the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
(b)(1)“Correlated Color Temperature”or “Color Temperature”means a specification of the color
appearance of the light emitted by a light source,measured in Kelvin (K).Warmer color temperatures are
a lower number,and cooler color temperatures are a higher number.
●Comment:This wording confuses color temperature with the hue of light.
●Suggestion:Replace:"Warmer color temperatures are a lower number,and cooler color
temperatures are a higher number."with the more accurate "Sources that appear warm or
yellowish have lower CCT values,and sources that appear cool or blue have higher values".
(2)“Dark Sky Compliant or Equivalent”means a light fixture from which all light emitted,directly or
indirectly,is projected below a horizontal plane.
●Comment:this could confuse property owners.No one owns the term "dark sky compliant",so
words like that appear in sales literature and on product packaging for lighting that doesn't meet
the stated definition here.Someone could make an honest effort to comply and still fail because
"dark sky compliant"is essentially a meaningless term.
●Suggestion:Remove this definition,replace with specific requirements.
(5)“High Intensity Lighting”
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 169
●Comment:This term is ambiguous in that it implies a number or other metric that explains why
the "intensity"is "high".A veteran lighting consultant we talked to stated that he has never
before seen an instance where this term was intended to refer specifically to outdoor sports
lighting.
(9)“Luminaires”
●Suggestion:Please make clear that this term does not include poles or mounting surfaces.
(11)“Security lighting”
●Comment:There's no consistent evidence that lighting can "detect intrusions or other criminal
activity occurring on a property or site".It may help people feel secure,and perhaps the intent is
to deter rather than detect criminal activity.There is no evidence to suggest that works,either.
(c)Applicability
For the purposes of this Section,all new structures and exterior modifications that require separate
planning approval shall comply with the lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this section
●Comments/Suggestions:Expand Applicability to Existing Fixtures
○A recent feature of several adopted Dark Sky Ordinances is the application of Dark Sky
standards to existing lighting fixtures,as seen in Malibu and Brisbane.Existing,
non-compliant lighting that can be adjusted without replacing the fixture should be
brought into compliance within a short grace period of time.Lighting that requires new
fixtures or installations should be allowed a grace period of up to 5 years.Addressing
existing lighting will empower neighbors affected by light pollution to seek resolution
through code enforcement if needed.
○The proposed ordinance suggests a 10 PM curfew for new permitted buildings,but does
not apply to existing structures.We ask for a curfew on outdoor lighting to apply to
existing buildings.If only new buildings are subject to curfew,the result will be a
patchwork of compliance that undermines the ordinance's goals.It's also unfair for new
structures to comply while existing structures do not.
(d)Lighting Guidelines
(1)Lighting of the building exterior,parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity
and energy use adequate for its purpose,and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid
excessive illumination above the light fixture.
●Comment:Here,too,we are not sure why the bullet calls out "lighting of the building exterior,
parking areas and pedestrian ways".Rather,all exterior lighting should follow the guidelines.
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 170
(2)Unnecessary continued illumination,such as illuminated signs or back-lit awnings,should be avoided.
Internal illumination of signs,where allowed,should be limited to letters and graphic elements,with the
surrounding background opaque.Illumination should be by low intensity lamps.
●Comment:we recommend against using language in ordinances like "should be avoided".Either
something complies with the law or it doesn't.Language that is only advisory and not binding
shouldn't appear in statutory law.Also,the use of "low intensity"here is like the objection above
to "high intensity lighting"--there is no metric that establishes what either "high"or "low"is.
Please be specific!
(e)Lighting Standards
(1)Shielding
●Suggestion:lead with a statement like "Unless specifically exempted by subsection (E)of this
section".
(1)(D)No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way
●Comment:This is a good standard.We wonder how this may be enforced.Is a citizen complaint ,
if someone complains.Is the attestation of code compliance staff that they observe glare
sufficient to establish a violation?(they usually do n
(1)(E)(ii):Low voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art or public monuments that do not have to be
shielded fixtures.
●Question:Does lightning of art have to comply with curfew directions?
●Comment/Suggestion:"Low voltage lighting"needs a number,like the 150-lumen limit in item
(E)(i).
(1)(E)(iii):Lighting located on property lines (including zero lot line developments),provided it is
controlled by a motion sensor that automatically extinguishes the lights within 10 minutes of activation.
●Comment/Suggestion:10 minutes is a long time for a light to be on when controlled by a motion
sensor.We recommend no more than 5 minutes.Also,the onus should be on the owner of the
equipment to ensure that the trigger threshold is set such that it does not trigger inappropriately
(due to,e.g.,small animals)
(2)Lighting Height:
(2)(A)Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from grade to top of fixture
in parking lots in residential development and 20 feet in parking lots with commercial and mixed-use
development.
●Comment:Seems redundant with subsection (e)(1)(b).Is there any substantial difference?
(3)Illumination Level
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 171
(3)(A)All light sources shall be Dark Sky Compliant or Equivalent and have a maintained correlated color
temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less.
●Comment:confusing in that this standard is about color temperature,not illumination level.It
should be in its own subsection.
●Comment:There is no sound reason to ask for 3000K for outdoor lighting.Lighting should not
exceed 2700K.PA should not use an industrial indoor safety for outdoor lighting.To our human
eyes,there is no difference between these two color temperatures in terms of discerning the
environment.But many genera of wildlife,however,are far more sensitive to bluer color
temperatures than we are,including birds,fish,insects,and sea turtles.For example,migratory
birds use blue-green spectrum light for navigation.High kelvin lights in the city can disorient
them,especially in an important stopover like San Francisco Bay.It seems that inertia from times
that 2700K were hard to procure has a daunting effect here -LED technology has improved and
we should not stick to old harmful technology when alternatives are available.If Los Altos and
San Jose can require 2700K for outdoor lighting,so can Palo Alto.
(3)(B)Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries on an abutting residential
use,such lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting property line.
●Comment:This standard only envisions that light trespass can occur "on an abutting residential
use".This should change in two respects.First,the nature of the use shouldn't matter
(residential or any other use).And second,it shouldn't be limited only to "abutting"properties.
The light trespass threshold should not be exceeded on ANY other property line,whether
abutting or not.
●Comment/Suggestion:Why not prohibit light sources from being visible from a)above and b)
beyond the property line?That would reduce glare and light trespass,and allow
public/neighbors to address one of the most common complaints.It will also ensure that
shielding is effective.
●Suggestion:Replace with Brisbane’s ordinance for this standard:”Unless exempt from the
ordinance or from the shielding requirements in the ordinance,no light source (e.g.,light bulb)
may be directly visible from off-site.”
(3)(C)The maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained value of 5 foot-candles.Areas
of higher or lower levels of illumination should be indicated on project plans.
●Comment:This statement is ambiguous:"Areas of higher or lower levels of illumination should
be indicated on project plans."Does this mean it's possible for the allowed illuminance to exceed
5 foot-candles?If so,perhaps don't state 5 fc as a "shall not exceed"in the first place?
●Comment:Brisbane has a maximum 1.75 Lumens per sq.ft.of Developed area.Is this a better
measure?
●Comment:May need to exempt sport fields,where the IES recommended practice potentially
prescribes more than this
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 172
(4)(A)All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m.or
when people are no longer present in exterior areas,whichever is later.
●Comment:We are very supportive of this standard,but it is not clear how the presence of
people is determined…
●Comment:Are there any exceptions that the City can envision?We hope there are none.
(4)(B)All lighting activated by motion sensor shall be set up to extinguish no more than 10 minutes after
activation.
●Comment:Same as above,the 10-minute allowance here should be no more than 5.
(4)(E)Exceptions.
(E)(ii)Lighting of an appropriate intensity,allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate
past 10:00 p.m.,with a conditional use permit;and
●Comment:What is "an appropriate intensity"?Who decides that?
(f)Special Purpose Lighting
(f)(1)Outdoor Security Lighting.Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons
and property.When security lighting is utilized only the following standards shall apply:
●Comment:who decides when lighting is "necessary to protect persons and property"?The
property owner?
(f)(1)(i)Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device,except where
continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code.All lighting activated by motion sensors
shall extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation.Automated controls shall be fully
programmable and supported by battery or similar backup.
●Comment:Again,5 minutes should suffice.
(f)(1)(iii)Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter,such as a fence line,are permitted only if such
lights do not result in light trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property,with the
illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the
adjacent lot,at the point nearest to the light source.
●Comment:Same concerns as before about how the light trespass threshold and measurement
point is defined.Security lighting should not cause trespass on any other property,whether
"adjacent or nearby"or not.
(f)(1)(iv)Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed 100-watt incandescent
bulb or LED equivalent,or a maximum of 1,600 lumens.
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 173
●Comment:Since there is no cap on installed lumens on any property,setting a threshold like this
isn't very meaningful.Under this provision,a property owner could install as many security lights
as they like as long as no individual source exceeded 1600 lumens.
●Suggestion:Provide a cap on lumen (see above)
(f)(3)Gasoline Service Station Lighting
(f)(3)(i)Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed or mounted directly to the
underside of the canopy.All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct rays from adjoining
properties or public rights-of-way.
●Comment:Instead of limiting trespass to "adjoining properties",it should be limited to "any
property".
(f)(3)(iii)The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average maintained
foot-candle (horizontal)of 12.5,when measured at finished grade.
●Comment:It's unclear where the 12.5 foot-candle figure comes from,but seems ok.Is this what
local gas stations in Palo Alto currently use?
(f)(4)String Lighting
(f)(4)(i)String lighting is not considered holiday or seasonal lighting.
●Comment:Thank you for this clarification.
(f)(4)(ii)String lighting must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin or 42 lumens and shall not be blinking or chasing.
●Comment:This is so confusing…why 3000K and not 2700?What Is the "42 lumens"limit here
per lamp?Per unit length of string?Total emission of all lamps on the string?Brisbane has
“String lights (max.300 lumens per string)when used in occupied decks or patios.”.
●Why is string lighting in residential areas not required to turn the lights off at 10PM?people use
string lighting as ornaments on fences,trees etc.A curfew is very much needed.
(f)(4)(iii)For nonresidential areas,string lighting shall be extinguished at 10:00 pm or 2 hours after close
of business,whichever is later.
●Comment:The reason for allowing string lighting to remain on up to "2 hours after close of
business"is unclear.If,as in item (iv),its use is limited to "outside dining or display areas or
common open space (i.e.courtyard or patio)",why should it be allowed to remain on after the
business closes to the public?
(f)(5)Lighting near Streams.In addition to lighting standards established in Section 18.40.250(e),lighting
near streams shall conform to the following requirements:
(f)(5)(i)Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 174
●Comment:We need to see how this is addressed in the Creek protection ordinance update.At a
minimum,we should require absolutely no light trespass into a stream and its associated
riparian corridor.This means within the banks plus any riparian vegetation as defined by the
dripline of riparian trees.
(f)(5)(ii)The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be
maximized.
●Comment:"should be maximized"isn't really meaningful unless something like a minimum
allowable distance is stated.Otherwise this is sufficiently subjective as to be meaningless.At a
minimum,this should entail the creek within its banks plus any riparian vegetation as defined by
the dripline of riparian trees,and setback requirements that are likely to be specified in the
upcoming Creek protection ordinance,whichever is widest!
(g)Prohibited Lighting.The following types of lighting are prohibited except emergencies by
police,fire,or medical personnel or at their direction:
●Comment:how are "emergencies"defined?Declared emergencies by local civil
authorities?Or some other mechanism?
(g)(2)Lighting that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot or substantially interferes with use or
enjoyment of that lot.
●Comment:The meaning of the word "unnecessarily"is unclear.Who decides what is
necessary?
(h)Exemptions.
The following types of lighting are exempt from the lighting requirements of the section:
(h)(2)Temporary construction or emergency lighting
●Comment:We have seen very bright,unshielded construction and security lights on
construction sites with offensive glare on large construction projects that lasted several
years.
●Suggestion:The term "temporary"should be defined here.
●Suggestion:The term “construction lighting”should be defined.The ordinance should
clarify the Construction lighting should only be allowed at the hours construction
actually occurs.The definition should exclude security lighting at a construction site from
the definition of construction lighting.Security lighting at a construction site should abide
by the ordinance.
●
(h)(3)Short-term lighting authorized by a special events or special use permits
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 175
●Comment:This seems like it needs more detail or a more thorough description of the
procedure in terms of how permits will be evaluated in order to ensure that "temporary"
lighting doesn't become effectively "permanent".Season and location are important:a
laser show in the baylands during spring or fall bird migration seasons,for example,
could be disastrous.
(h)(4)Seasonal lighting during the period of October 15 through January 15 of each year
●Question:Is seasonal lighting subject to curfew?Why not set a curfew?
●Comment:An October 15 start to the "seasonal lighting"season seems very early and
is well within the fall bird migration in Palo Alto.
●Comment:We have heard that setting a fixed range of calendar dates for this type of
lighting that correspond to certain religious holidays might run afoul of the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause.
●Suggestion:Disallow seasonal lighting during migration and nesting seasons.This
provides a biological,rather than cultural basis:
○Nesting season:Feb.1 -August 31.
○Spring Migration:March -mid June
○Fall Migration:August -mid November.
○Remaining period when seasonal lighting is ok:Mid November -February
1st.
(h)(6)Lighting for Airport Operations.Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict,limit,
or otherwise regulate lighting that,in the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager,is prudent
or necessary for airport operations,airport safety,or air navigation in connection with operations
at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport.
●Comment:This section should just refer to lighting required by the FAA and not leave
the decision up to "the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager".The FAA rules are
very prescriptive and ensure safe operations of airports.
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 176
July 30,2024
Dear Kelly,
We have reviewed the proposed Bird Friendly Design ordinance (the version that was available to the
ARB)and our comments are attached,
Please note that we are still looking into how other cities solved some of the issues that Palo Alto is
struggling with
Thank you so much,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Comments on Bird Friendly Design (ARB version)
Please note that our advocacy focused on discouraging people from installing architectural elements that
are hazardous to birds anywhere in the city.If someone wishes to install such a structure,they should
ensure that it is visible to birds.
18.40.280 Bird Safe Design Standards (new section)
●Comment:Consider using “bird-friendly”instead of “bird safe”,and correct throughout the
document.
(a)Purpose.The intent of this chapter/section is to establish bird-safe design standards to minimize
hazards for birds and to reduce the potential for collisions.
(b)Definitions.
●Suggestion:Add a definition for “Glazing:All glass,including spandrel glass as well as Reflective
and/or Transparent Non-Glass Materials,including but not limited to plexiglass and polished
metal.
(1)“Bird Sensitive Area”means areas that are within 300 feet of waterways;within 300 feet of any open
water larger than one acre;or within 300 feet of public and private parks and open space larger than one
acre and dominated by vegetation,including vegetated landscaping,forest,meadows,grassland,or
wetlands.
●Comment:Why not use Palo Alto’s geography here?
○Suggestion:In Palo Alto,areas East (Bayside)of Highway 101 and West (hillside)of
Foothill Expressway should be specified as “Bird Sensitive Areas”
●Comment:Areas along creeks are especially sensitive…
○Suggestion:Areas that are within 300 feet of natural waterways as measured from the
Top of Bank or Dripline,whichever is greater (this applies primarily to Adobe and San
Francisquito creeks)
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 177
●Comment:The 1 acre requirement for “public and private parks and open space larger than one
acre and dominated by vegetation,including vegetated landscaping,forest,meadows,grassland,
or wetlands”makes no sense.We’d be ok with removing this (which will remove many homes
from the requirements of this section)IF
○our 2 suggestions in this section above are included,and
○hazardous architectural elements city wide are required to implement bird friendly
design (we’ll discuss later..
(2)“Bird-Safe Treatment”means permanent treatment to glass that provides visual cues to birds and
reduces the likelihood of bird collisions.
●Suggestion:Add:Bird friendly treatments must include at least one or a combination of the
following -exterior screens,grilles,shutters,or bird-friendly patterns that are visible to birds
from the exterior of the structure.
●Suggestion:Add a definition:“Bird-friendly Pattern”-A pattern on glazing on exterior surface
(Surface 1),intended to reduce bird collisions.The pattern must be visible to birds from the
exterior of the structure and have lines,circular,or square markers or other patterns at least
0.25 inches in width or diameter,and spaced at most two inches apart.
(3)“Bird-friendly Material”means a material or assembly that has,or has been treated to have,a
maximum threat factor of 25 in accordance with the American Bird Conservancy Bird Collision
Deterrence Material Threat Factor Reference Standard,or with the American Bird Conservancy
Bird-friendly Materials Evaluation Program at Carnegie Museum’s Avian Research Center test protocol,or
with a relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)standard.
●Comment:A threat factor of 25 is high.We should not go beyond 22.
●Suggestion:Exclude UV from any Bird Friendly material list.It simply does not work during low
light hours,when birds are most active.Also,many species of birds f==do not see UV.
(4)“Bird Hazard Installations”mean monolithic glazing installations that provide a clear line of sight on
the exterior of buildings,including,but not limited to,glass awnings,glass handrails and guards,glass
wind break panels,or glass acoustic barriers.
●Suggestion:Replace with:“Bird Hazard Installations”mean glazing installations that provide a
clear line of sight on the exterior of buildings and structures,including:
(A)“Fly-through Hazard”means one or more panels of glass that provide a clear line of sight through
such elements creating the illusion of a void leading to the other side for a fly-through condition.
●Suggestion:Replace with:
(A)“Fly-through Hazard”means one or more panels of glass that provide a clear line of sight
through such elements creating the illusion of a void leading to the other side for a structure.
Fly-through Hazard including,but not limited to:
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 178
●Glazed awnings,
●Glazed handrails and guards
●Gates
●Glazed windbreak panels,fences,acoustic barriers.
●Glazed weather shelters,including transportation and bus shelters
(B)“Fly-through Conditions”means open pathway for flight through and between site structures.
Flythrough conditions exist in the following two circumstances:
●When the distance between parallel glass is 17 feet or less.
●Within 12 feet from a corner where there is convergence of two glass sides creating a
perpendicular,acute,or obtuse corner.
●Comment/suggestion:17 feet between parallel glass panes is not enough.San Jose uses 30ft or
more.
●Suggestion:“When a clear flight path to from one level to to another or to a skylight is visible
from a window or an entryway”.
Suggestion:Add section C:
“High Risk structures”means architectural elements and structures that pose significant collision
risks to birds wherever they are found,including but not limited to:
●Greenhouses,
●Skyways/skywalks,
●All floors of building connectors
●Glazing adjacent to courtyards or atria,open and enclosed
●Sliding doors
●Fenestration with more than 40%window-to-wall window to wall ratio on any facade
●Fenestration that extend longer than one facade level (more than 1 story)
(2)“Threat Factor”refers to the Material Threat Factor system developed by the American Bird
Conservancy and a team of architects in 2010.Materials are assigned a score between 1 and 100
representing the level of risk the material poses in causing bird collisions,the lower the score,the lower
the collision risk.
●Comment:This seems out of place?Is it needed at all?
(c)Applicability.All newly constructed buildings or properties being altered or renovated that require a
separate planning approval shall comply with the bird-friendly building design elements and features set
forth in this section.
●Suggestion:Replace with “All new construction including buildings and other structures,
building additions,and/or building alterations and renovations that require a separate
planning approval shall comply with the bird-friendly building design elements and
features set forth in this section.
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 179
(d)Bird-Safe Treatments.At least one of the following Bird-Safe Treatments shall be incorporated into a
building elevation according to Section 18.40.280(d):
(1)Fenestration and Glazing.Patterns that are etched,fritted,stenciled,silk-screened,or
otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material shall be on an exterior glass surface.
●Suggestion:Replace with:(1)Fenestration and Glazing.Bird-friendly Pattern that is textured,
etched,fritted,stenciled,silk-screened,or otherwise permanently incorporated into the glazing
on an exterior glass surface.
(A)For patterns using dots or other isolated solid shapes,each dot or shape must be at least a
1/4 inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any direction.
●(B)For patterns using If the pattern utilizes lines,they must be at least 1/4 inch in width and
spaced no more than 2 inches apart.
○Suggestion:Replace with:“(B)For patterns using vertical or horizontal lines,the lines
must be at least 1/4 inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart.
●(C)Frit,ceramic ink,or other marker types must be opaque and permanent.
(2)Exterior Features.Panes with exterior screens,shutters or shading devices installed permanently over
windows,structures,or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension.
Exterior features include,but are not limited to,metal screens,shutters,window grilles,fixed solar
shading such as louvres,and exterior insert,brise soleil,or solar screens.
●Suggestion:Louvers do not work well without additional protection.Please consider removing?
(3)Threat Factor.A weighted average of all the Threat Factors of materials on a building elevation,
including nonglass materials,must meet 15 or less.
●Comment:this must be per facade.I have seen terrible designs with a lot of glazing facing
habitat but the building,overall,met the threat factor of 15.
●Suggestion:Please remove.
(e)Bird-Safe Treatment Location.All applicable buildings shall incorporate one of the Bird-Safe
Treatments listed in Section 18.40.280(c)to conform to the following standards:
●Suggestion:Please remove the words “one of the”(they can potentially use more than one)
●Suggestion:Please replace “buildings”with “buildings and structures”
●Suggestion:Consider a better word than “applicable”?
●Question:Does this apply to all non-single-home-residential,regardless of location,correct?If
not -it should.
(1)No less than 90 percent of a building elevation between the existing grade and 40 feet above the
existing grade shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments listed in Section 18.40.280(c).
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 180
●Question:the word elevation appears several times.Do you mean facade?Does it need to be
defined?
●Comment/Suggestion:Most cities in our area use 60-ft and Palo Alto should not weaken this
standard.The reason is that we have tall trees and canopy (hence the name Palo Alto).Please
use 60-ft.
●Comment/Suggestion:Green walls and green roofs are known to attract birds.Add:
○ALL Glazing adjacent to any green roof or partial green roof,within 30-ft above and
below the green roof shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments listed in Section
18.40.280
(2)No less than 60 percent of a building elevation between 40 feet above the existing grade and top of
the building height shall incorporate one of bird-safe treatments listed in Section 18.40.280
●Question:why 60%?Cupertino has no more than 5%.
(f)Alternative Compliance.Property owners or applicants may request an alternative compliance to
requirements established in Sections 18.40.280(d)and 18.40.280(e),recommended in a report by a
qualified biologist or ornithologist to meet the requirements and intent of this section.The qualified
biologist or ornithologist shall have a degree in wildlife biology or specialization in ornithology and have
experience in bird-safe building design.The alternative compliance shall be subject to Director approval.
(g)Bird-Safe Design Standards.All projects shall:
●Question:What is meant by Projects?Please define as buildings and structures?
(1)Use building materials with a reflectance level of 20 percent or below for all building façade and
exterior when using reflective materials.
●Comment:This seems complicated.More research is needed.
(2)Bird Hazard Installations,including Fly-through Hazards and Conditions,and High Risk structures shall
be constructed of Bird-friendly Materials regardless of their height above the existing grade.
●Comment/Suggestion:replace with “Bird Hazard Installations,including Fly-through Hazards and
Conditions,and High Risk structures shall be constructed of Bird-friendly Materials regardless of
their location and/or height above the existing grade.
(3)Lighting.All projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to Section
18.40.250 of the Municipal Code.
●Comment/Suggestion:Remove the word “outdoor”
(h)Exemptions.The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d):(
1)Any historic structure located within the City’s Historic Districts or listed on the City’s Historic
Inventory or the State or National Historical Registers including new additions
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 181
(2)First floor retail storefronts up to 14 feet in height
(3)100%affordable housing projects as defined in Section 18.32.030
(4)Single-family homes outside of the Bird Sensitive Area
●Comment/Suggestion:Single family homes should not be exempt from addressing Bird Hazard
Installations.They have a choice,and can build lovely homes with no death traps for birds.
(i)California Building Code.All windows,doors,or other features must comply with the requirements of
the California Building Code including the fire hazard severity zone regulations in California Green
Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen).Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this section,the
standards in the California Building Code shall prevail.
Item 4
Attachment F: Public
Comments
(PTC_20240814_Att_F_SCVAS)
Packet Pg. 182
Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2407-3317
TITLE
Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of January 31, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
BACKGROUND
Draft summary minutes from the January 31, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the August 14, 2024 meeting date.
The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 5
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 183
Item No. 6. Page 1 of 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2407-3318
TITLE
Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of February 28,
2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
BACKGROUND
Draft summary minutes from the February 28, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission
(PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the August 14, 2024 meeting
date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 6
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 184
Item No. 7. Page 1 of 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
Report #: 2407-3319
TITLE
Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 8, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
BACKGROUND
Draft summary minutes from the May 8, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the August 14, 2024 meeting date.
The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 7
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 185
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 186
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 187
But while other U.S. news outlets lose interest in Israel’s war on Gaza and
uncritically pass along Israeli propaganda, we’re doubling down, partnering with
courageous reporters in the war zone to expose the truth, while hiring additional
political reporters to help hold the Biden administration accountable for enabling the
slaughter.
The Intercept is committed to reporting on the war in Gaza without shading
the facts or providing political cover for any politician or government — but
this reporting relies on donations from members like you.
That’s why we’re asking you today: Please donate $10 to help The Interceptcontinue to report the truth about Israel’s U.S.-backed war in Gaza.
STAND WITH THE INTERCEPT →
Thank you,
The Intercept team
The Intercept is a recognized 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
The Intercept’s mailing address is:
P.O. Box 9201
New York, NY 10008
The Intercept is an award-winning nonprofit news organization dedicated to holding the powerful
accountable through fearless, adversarial journalism. Our in-depth investigations and unflinching
analysis focus on surveillance, war, corruption, the environment, technology, criminal justice, the media
and more. Email is an important way for us to communicate with The Intercept’s readers, but if you’d like
to stop hearing from us, click here to unsubscribe from all communications. Protecting freedom of the
press has never been more important. Contribute now to support our independent journalism.
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 188
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 189
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 190
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public Comments
Packet Pg. 191
Item {{item.number}}
PTC 8.14 Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 192