HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-09 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, October 09, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
6:00 PM
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 Commission 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.Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental Assessment:
Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the
Environment). 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of May 29,
2024
4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes
of July 10, 2024
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of August 14,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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 COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, October 09, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning 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 toten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agreenot to 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 Commission 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.Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental Assessment:
Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the
Environment). 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of May 29,
2024
4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes
of July 10, 2024
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of August 14,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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 COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, October 09, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning 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 toten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agreenot to 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 Commission 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.Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental Assessment:
Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the
Environment). 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of May 29,
2024
4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes
of July 10, 2024
5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of August 14,
2024
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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 COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, October 09, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning 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 toten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agreenot to 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments.ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal Code(PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental Assessment:Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of theEnvironment). 6:10 PM – 8:10 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of May 29,20244.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutesof July 10, 20245.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of August 14,2024COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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: October 9, 2024
Report #: 2409-3497
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:
Upcoming PTC Agenda Items
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
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
quasijudicial 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.
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
UPCOMING PTC ITEMS
October 30, 2024
Draft Ordinance for Dark Skies/Lighting and Bird-Friendly Design
Study Session on Scootershare/Bikeshare Program
November 13, 2024
Annual Comprehensive Plan Reporting
Housing Element Implementation Programs
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Attachment B: 2025 Meeting Schedule
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Transportation Commission
2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
5
6
5
3
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 5:30 PM Hybrid Special
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
11/20/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Tentative Special
11/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
12/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/18/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Tentative Special
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
Cari Templeton
Keith Reckdahl
Bart Hechtman
Bryna Chang
George Lu
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
Cari Templeton
Item 1
Attachment A: PTC 2024
Schedule & Assignments
Packet Pg. 7
Planning & Transportation Commission
2025 Meeting Schedule
5
6
5
4
2025 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
1/15/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special
1/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
2/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
2/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
3/12/2025 5:00 PM Hybrid Regular
3/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
4/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
4/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/14/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/28/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/11/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/24/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
Item 1
Attachment B: PTC 2025
Schedule
Packet Pg. 8
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 10
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 9, 2024
Report #: 2407-3215
TITLE
Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental Assessment: Exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City
Council adopt the Draft Ordinance updating the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section
18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the 2024 City Council Priority and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan policies for
creek protection, this item is an update of the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to better
protect and enhance the City's creeks and riparian areas. The existing ordinance has been in
place for many years and requires an update to reflect current best practices of stream corridor
protection.
The proposed ordinance update would expand the current 20-foot setback along creeks to 150
feet for properties west of Foothill Expressway and east of Highway 101. An expansion in
setback from 20 to 40 feet is proposed for the area between Foothill Expressway and Highway
101. The update would also establish varying regulations within the setback; exemption
opportunities for certain improvements to single-family properties; appropriate setbacks and
conservation measures for undeveloped parcels; and a two-tiered exception processes. Staff
conducted a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in August
2024 and drafted an ordinance incorporating the feedback received. Staff will continue to
consider input from the PTC and revise the ordinance as needed before presenting it for
adoption at the City Council hearing, tentatively scheduled for November 2024.
BACKGROUND
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 9
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 10
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 the objectives under the category
“Climate Change & Natural Environment: Protection & Adaptation.” The City Council directed
staff to update the existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies related to creek protection.
Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), adopted in November 2017, includes
several policies related to creek protection. The Comprehensive 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
preservation of the City’s creeks’ 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 refer to the potential ordinance update:
•Program N3.3.1 calls for the exploration of an ordinance update that expands setbacks
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.
•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 careful lighting design near riparian
corridors.
Attachment B includes two Comprehensive Plan maps that show the creeks potentially affected
by this ordinance update.
Existing Stream Corridor Protection Regulations
The existing Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, which is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.40.140 (Attachment C), requires streamside review for properties abutting a
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 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 10
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 10
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 (horizontal: vertical) ratio landward from the toe of bank, whichever is
greater. Within the slope stability protection area, all structures are prohibited, including decks,
swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and parking lots. 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.
Upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, the existing Stream Corridor Protection provisions
of PAMC Section 19.40.140, will be repealed and replaced (Attachment A). The crosswalk table
comparing the existing and proposed ordinances that show which existing provisions remain in
the proposed ordinance can be found in Attachment D.
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 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 E).
Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session
On August 14, 2024, the PTC conducted a study session on the Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance update. Staff presented a brief background on the project and research for PTC
consideration for study session discussion.
A comparative analysis of stream setback and riparian buffer regulations in various jurisdictions
within the San Francisco Bay Area was provided. While most jurisdictions have setbacks of 20-
25 feet, some are as large as 100-200 feet. Some jurisdictions have different standards based
on factors like hilly areas or perennial/intermittent streams. The points from which setbacks are
measured in other cities vary, including top of bank, centerline, or edge of riparian vegetation.
Top of bank measurement is likely to require surveys, potentially with field verification.
Determining riparian vegetation extent can involve biologists, surveyors, or tree canopy
outlines.
In addition to the comparative analysis of other jurisdictions, staff provided key findings from
the Existing Conditions Report, which was published in July 2024 (Attachment E). An Existing
Conditions Report was prepared to assess stream protection in Palo Alto. It summarized
regulations, described the creek network, and reviewed development guidelines. The report
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 11
Item No. 2. Page 4 of 10
identified limitations in current stream mapping and compared riparian protections across the
Bay Area. It also detailed the existing conditions along protected streams and provided
recommendations for further review and refinement of the Stream Corridor Protection
Ordinance. Key findings include discrepancies in stream mapping, varying conditions along
streams, and the need for potential adjustments to setback requirements and definitions.
Staff recommendations and additional alternatives were presented to the PTC on five topics:
Applicability, Exemption, Setback Distance, Stream Condition, and Exception Process. The PTC
generally supported the staff recommendations but also raised questions and offered
suggestions.
•Applicability: The PTC supported staff recommendation of applying regulations to all
types of development, with exceptions for some single-family home projects. The PTC
also suggested exploring exemptions for multi-family residential and nonresidential
development, similar to those granted to some single-family home projects.
•Exemption: The PTC supported the staff recommendation of exempting properties in R-
1, R-2, RMD zoning districts and existing development only along channelized streams
east of Foothill Expressway and west of Highway. The PTC also supported exploring
exemptions for some multi-family residential and nonresidential development.
•Setback Distance: The PTC supported the staff recommendation to require a 150-foot
setback for properties located west of Foothill Expressway and east of Highway 101, and
a 40-foot setback for properties between Highway 101 and Foothill Expressway. While
there was consensus on the areas requiring a 150-foot setback, concerns were raised
about the 40-foot setback proposed in the Urbanized Areas (west of Highway 101 and
east of Foothill Expressway). Noting that other cities have smaller setbacks (20-25 feet),
the PTC questioned the rationale for Palo Alto's larger setback and whether it might be
perceived as overly burdensome.
•Stream Condition: The PTC supported the staff recommendation to require riparian
vegetation to be maintained along natural creeks but not along channelized streams.
Staff received feedback suggesting that culverted creeks should be excluded from
riparian vegetation considerations.
•Exception Process: The PTC supported the staff recommendation to allow exceptions
from requirements, particularly if larger setbacks are implemented. The PTC also
supported a tiered approach, distinguishing between minor and major deviations from
setback requirements, based on existing processes such as the Home Improvement
Exception (HIE). The PTC recommended that the process for exceptions not be based on
the variance framework and suggested that staff review San Jose’s regulatory
framework.
More detailed information on how the PTC feedback has been addressed and incorporated into
the Draft Ordinance are discussed in the Analysis section.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 12
Item No. 2. Page 5 of 10
ANALYSIS
The Analysis section provides a summary of the draft Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
(Attachment A) and rationale behind the staff recommendations.
Applicability
The existing ordinance defines the Streamside Review Area 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.” The Draft Ordinance merges this definition with
“Streamside Setback,” as there was no longer a functional difference with the setback
expanded to 150 feet.
The Draft Ordinance expands the applicability of the exiting regulation. Based on the feedback
from the PTC, the Draft Ordinance requires compliance for any development in all zoning
districts except R-1, R-2, and RMD. For developments in R-1, R-2, or RMD zoning districts. For
development in R-1, R-2, and RMD zoning districts, the requirements apply only to those
developments requiring discretionary review.
Furthermore, staff recommends an approach to address one-story developments that might
encroach further into the Streamside Setback. The existing regulations, applying only to
developments requiring discretionary review, excludes all one-story development. To address
this, the Draft Ordinance includes a provision that would require new construction or additions
in the R-1, R-2, or RMD zoning district that encroach further into the Streamside Setback to
comply with the proposed regulations, even if no other discretionary approval would otherwise
be required.
Exemptions
The Draft Ordinance provides some exemptions from the Streamside Ordinance requirements.
The existing regulations include exemptions for properties separated from the stream by a
public street; certain landscaping or stream bank stability when it involves less than three cubic
yards of earthwork; interior construction or alterations; and utility service lateral replacements.
In addition to existing exemptions, the Draft Ordinance includes exemptions for retaining walls,
small storage buildings, and building improvements that are not encroaching further into the
Streamside Setback than the existing condition. These are generally considered to have a
minimal impact on the stream environment. Therefore, exempting them from the streamside
review requirements reduces the regulatory burden on property owners while still protecting
the stream corridor.
The current ordinance exempts developments in the R-1, R-2 or RMD zoning districts that do
not require discretionary review. For consistency with Comprehensive Plan Program N3.3.1,
the draft ordinance incorporates a two-tiered exception process that provides flexibility to
address a range of development scenarios and site conditions. An alternative would be a
blanket exemption for single-family properties, but this could pose risks to riparian habitat. The
two-tiered exception process offers a balanced approach that protects valuable streamside
resources while allowing for responsible development.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 13
Item No. 2. Page 6 of 10
The Draft Ordinance further exempts existing development along channelized streams in
Urbanized Areas (east of Foothill Expressway, west of Highway 101). This approach, which was
supported by the PTC at the study session, recognizes the more urbanized pattern of the
neighborhoods east of Foothill Expressway, and presumably the fewer opportunities for
enhancing riparian vegetation along these channelized streams. It focuses specifically on
channelized streams in which there are limited options for enhancing riparian vegetation.
However, it does not exempt properties east of Foothill Expressway and west of Highway 101,
in recognition of the need to maintain the integrity of the stream bank and riparian vegetation
along natural streams.
Streamside Development Regulations
This section outlines the specific development standards that apply to properties located near
streams. The primary goal of these requirements is to protect and enhance the riparian habitat
and water quality of the streams. The different setback distances for Streamside Setback,
Riparian Buffer, and Slope Stability Protection Area are defined in this section. The
requirements cover various aspects of development, including vegetation management, paving
restrictions, fence construction guidelines, limitations on specific uses and structures, grading
regulations, and provisions for exceptions from the requirements.
Table 1 outlines the required Streamside Setbacks and Riparian Buffers for different types of
streams (natural, channelized, and culverted/underground) in three distinctive areas within
Palo Alto. Both areas are measured from top of bank. Stream Setback is a larger area where
certain development activities are prohibited or restricted. In contrast, Riparian Buffer is the
more immediate vegetated area adjacent to the stream, intended to protect water quality and
provide habitat, and therefore includes more strict protections.
Table 1: Streamside Regulations
Streamside Setback (ft)(1)Riparian Buffer (ft)
Open Space and Rural Areas (west of Foothill Expressway)
Natural Stream 150 30
Channelized Stream 150 none
Culverted/Underground
Stream
n/a none
Urbanized Areas (east of Foothill Expressway, west of Highway 101)
Natural Stream 40 20
Channelized Stream 40 none
Culverted/Underground
Stream
None none
Baylands Areas (east of Highway 101)
Natural Stream 150 30
Channelized Stream 150 none
Culverted/Underground
Stream
n/a none
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 7 of 10
NOTES:
(1) For natural streams and channelized streams in all locations, a Slope Stability Protection Area shall be
maintained consisting of 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.
As shown in the Table 1 above, natural and channelized streams have streamside setbacks of 40
feet in Urbanized Areas (east of Foothill Expressway, west of Highway 101) and 150 feet in
Open Space and Rural Areas (west of Foothill Expressway) and Baylands (east of Highway 101).
Open Space and Rural Areas and Baylands Areas have the largest setbacks and buffers,
reflecting the greater ecological sensitivity of these areas as well as recognizing the ecological
importance of the wetlands. A smaller setback distance is proposed for the Urban Areas,
acknowledging the existing development and infrastructure in these areas.
At the August 2024 study session, the PTC supported the staff recommendation to 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. However,
there were some concerns about having a 40-foot setback for properties west of Foothill
Expressway and east of Highway 101. Research on other jurisdictions suggests that
requirements typically range from 20 to 25 feet, except in hilly areas. However, the staff
recommendation is consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection
Collaborative Guidelines. To address concerns related to burdens that this might place on some
property owners, staff are proposing a two-tiered exception process, with the minor exception
process being ministerial based on specific criteria. More information on the proposed
exception process for the streamside properties is provided under “Exceptions” section below.
Alternatively, the PTC could consider making a recommendation for a reduced Streamside
Setback for channelized stream in the Urbanized Areas.
Consistent with the feedback received from the PTC, the Streamside Setback is not applicable
to culverted/underground streams. This is because streamside setbacks are established to
protect existing and potential corridor habitats which are unlikely to exist for underground
streams.
In addition to the Streamside Setback and Riparian Buffer, the table notes that a Slope Stability
Protection Area must be maintained for all natural and channelized streams, regardless of
location. This area extends 20 feet landward from the top of the bank or at a 2:1 slope from the
toe of the bank, whichever is greater.
Riparian Buffer General Requirements
The Riparian Buffer Requirements prioritize the preservation of native vegetation and
ecological integrity. As a more stringent zone within the Streamside Setback, it prohibits any
structures and allows only native plants to protect and restore vital ecosystems. This helps
ensure clean water, healthy wildlife populations, and resilient landscapes in the face of
increasing environmental challenges. All existing native plants must be retained unless removal
is authorized, and any removed plants must be replaced. The introduction of non-native or
invasive species is strictly prohibited, and only native riparian vegetation is permitted for new
plantings. Ornamental landscaping is not allowed within the Riparian Buffer zone of natural
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 2. Page 8 of 10
streams. When fences are necessary, they must be wildlife-friendly, set back from the bank,
and adhere to specific material and construction standards.
During the PTC study session, the only concern related to Riparian Buffer, or riparian
vegetation, was whether the property owners would be burdened with maintaining the
vegetation. However, staff clarified their intention to ensure that existing or newly added
riparian vegetation is not damaged or intentionally removed for reasons other than maintaining
the riparian habitat.
Streamside Setback General Requirements
Streamside setback requirements are designed to balance the need for development with the
critical importance of environmental protection near waterways. These requirements ensure
that a portion of native vegetation is preserved, although some removal and replacement with
native species are allowed. Ornamental landscaping is permitted, but only with non-invasive
plants to promote biodiversity.
Fences that conform to the regulations outlined in PAMC Chapter 16.24 are also permitted.
Structures such as loading docks and septic systems must maintain a minimum distance of 50
feet from the stream bank, although exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis.
Buildings near streams should minimize their visual impact by avoiding the use of bright colors
and reflective finishes. By adhering to these streamside setback requirements, the regulations
seek to protect the delicate ecosystems of our waterways while still allowing for responsible
development.
Exceptions
Larger setbacks from streams would provide ample opportunities to maintain or protect the
riparian habitat that could be significantly impacted by development, especially in areas with
substantial vegetation and water presence. Even in channelized creeks and streams, evidence
of riparian habitat is often present. However, the goal of protecting these habitats can conflict
with development in urban areas, which provide the community with homes and other
essential services.
In order to mitigate some burdens on owners of properties along streams, the ordinance
includes a two-tiered exception process so that property owners can more easily obtain
approval for minor modifications or adjustments to the setback requirements, while still
ensuring adequate protection for riparian habitats.
The minor exceptions would be provided for low-density residential development in the R-1, R-
2, or RMD zoning districts as long as certain criteria are met. The exceptions would generally
allow encroachment up to 15 feet into the required streamside setback for certain structures
like the primary building, basement, and legal and nonconforming walls. They may also allow an
alternative stream setback that is closer to the average of the existing setbacks of the adjoining
properties, and may allow some horizontal and vertical (height of an existing wall) extensions.
Staff considered the San Jose Riparian Ordinance before finalizing the findings for minor
exceptions.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Item No. 2. Page 9 of 10
Major exceptions may be granted to those requests not accommodated by the minor exception
process. The process is largely modeled after the existing Home Improvement Exceptions
process, which involves a discretionary review and can be approved at the Director level, with
the option for a Director’s hearing if requested. The request would necessitate the submission
of supporting documentation to demonstrate compliance with the required findings, which
generally include: the absence of a reasonable alternative to avoid encroaching into the
setback area, the encroachment will not significantly harm the streamside environment, and
granting the exception will not negatively impact nearby properties.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will consider revisions to the Stream Protection Corridor Ordinance based on
recommendations from the PTC. The Draft Ordinance is tentatively scheduled to be presented
to the City Council in November 2024.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any direct fiscal
impacts on the City budget.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff and the project consultants engaged with Palo Alto Neighborhood Associations, conducted
a virtual Community Information Session, and conducted outreach to regional agencies
including 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.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 17
Item No. 2. Page 10 of 10
•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.
Three comment letters were received prior to the study session in August 2024 (Attachment G)
and are summarized as follows: the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club
Loma Prieta Chapter recommended allowing some recreational uses but not activities like
lighted ball fields or dog parks within the proposed stream corridor setback. The Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District focused on protecting wildlife and riparian species. A community
information session attendee suggested that mitigating the flooding risk and restoring
channelized creeks should be higher priorities while pointing out that changing the creek
setback in a highly developed area would not have a significant impact. No additional comment
letters were received at the time of staff report preparation.
In preparation for the PTC hearing on October 9, 2024, a courtesy notice was sent at least 10
days prior to the hearing to inform property owners and tenants of properties within 300 feet
of any stream in Palo Alto.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed the proposed ordinance in accordance with that authority and criteria set
forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as the lead agency,
anticipates that this ordinance 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. Recommend the City Council adopt the Draft Ordinance with modifications.
2. Take no action on the Draft Ordinance and provide direction on desired changes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance
Attachment B: Creek Maps from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Attachment C: Existing Stream Protection Corridor Ordinance (PAMC 18.40.140)
Attachment D: Crosswalk Matrix Comparing Existing and Proposed Ordinances
Attachment E: Existing Conditions Report
Attachment G: Public Comment Letters
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
***Not Yet Adopted***
1
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Replacing
Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection and Review) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
declares as follows:
A. On November 13, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which
recognizes the value of its creeks and riparian areas for habitat, connectivity, design, and flood
control. Specifically, Policy N3.3 aims to mitigate development impacts on creeks by establishing
setback requirements and preserving their function as habitat corridors.
B. On March 5, 2024, a virtual Community Information Session was conducted to inform about the
ordinance update effort and to receive feedback from the community.
C. On April 4, 2024, an informational report was prepared to inform the Architectural Review
Board about the ordinance update effort.
D. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and Transporta on Commission conducted a study session and
provided feedback and direc on in preparing for the dra ordinance.
E. On October 9, 2024, the Planning and Transporta on Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt the dra ordinance.
F. The updated Stream Corridor Protec on Ordinance intends to preserve and strengthen water
and riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by poten al stream flooding
and bank erosion, and minimize storm water pollu on.
G. The updated Stream Corridor Protec on Ordinance provides a be er balance between
development and conserva on by establishing varying streamside setback distances for different
areas of the City.
SECTION 2. Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection and Review) 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 as follows:
18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection and Review
(a) Purpose
The purpose of the natural resources protec on measures specified below is to provide site planning
and development standards intended to preserve and strengthen water and riparian resources, protect
improvements from damage caused by poten al stream flooding and bank erosion, and minimize storm
water pollu on.
(b) Definitions
Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this
sec on:
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 19
***Not Yet Adopted***
2
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
(1) “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.
(2) “Fence” means an artificially constructed barrier or wall of any material or combination of
materials erected to physically separate properties, provide privacy, or provide security or
confinement.
(3) “Fence, Wildlife-Friendly” means a fence that allows for safe passage of wildlife over or under
the fence, and is visible especially to hooved animals and birds.
(4) “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 distance
specified in this chapter to form a continuous buffer of uniform width.
(5) “Riparian Vegetation” means:
(A) Native vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a watercourse.
(B) Vegetation growing on or near the banks of a stream or other body of water on soils that
exhibit some wetness characteristics during some portion of the growing season.
(C) Vegetation which occurs along watercourses, and is structurally or floristically distinct
from nearby, non-streamside vegetation.
(D) Terrestrial vegetation that grows beside rivers, streams, and other freshwater bodies and
that depends on these water sources for soil moisture greater than would otherwise be
available from local precipitation.
(6) “Slope Stability Protection Area” means the area in which all development shall be excluded,
subject to the provisions of this chapter. 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.
(7) “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.
The presence of a stream is determined by one or more of the following criteria:
(A) As designated by the City of Palo Alto as shown on maps maintained by the City;
(B) As designated by a solid line or dash and three dots symbol on the largest scale of the
USGS maps most recently published or any replacement to that symbol;
(C) As designated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District as shown on maps maintained by
the District;
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 20
***Not Yet Adopted***
3
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
(D) As designated on the most recent maps maintained by Santa Clara County;
(E) As determined by a survey of the property by a licensed land surveyor.
(F) On a site plan which may be required by a permitting agency using the Criteria to Verify
or Identify a Watercourse as a Stream set forth in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources
Protection Collaborative User Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near
Streams.
(8) “Stream, Channelized” 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.
(9) “Stream, Culverted/Underground” means a stream or portion of a stream located
underground in a fully enclosed engineered structure such as a pipe or concrete box.
(10) “Stream, Natural” means a stream that remains in a natural or mostly undisturbed state.
(11) “Streambank Erosion” means to the wearing away or removal of soil and other material, such
as rock and vegetation, from the stream bank.
(12) “Streamside Setback” means the area measured from top of bank in which the siting of
buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental
landscaped areas is regulated by this Section.
(13) “Toe of Bank” (Figures 1 and 2) means the point in a channel where the slope of the bank
meets the streambed.
(14) “Top of Bank” (Figures 1 and 2) means a stream channel boundary, which is determined as
follows:
(A) "Stream with Defined Bank.” Top of bank is the line connecting all the points where there
is substantial grade change between the stream bank and the property as determined by
a qualified biologist or otherwise determined at the discretion of the Director.
(B) “Stream without Defined Bank.” Where there is no defined bank and the slope from the
streambed is less than 2:1, top of bank is considered the one-hundred-year storm surface
elevation established in the most recent flood insurance study for the City of Palo Alto or
the water surface elevation as calculated by a qualified biologist.
(C) “Channelized Stream.” Where a fully channelized stream exists, top of bank is the highest
edge of the engineered channel.
//
//
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 21
***Not Yet Adopted***
4
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
FIGURE 1: TOP OF BANK, STREAM WITH DEFINED BANK
FIGURE 2: TOP OF BANK, STREAM WITHOUT DEFINED BANK
(15) “Wall, Retaining” means a structural wall designed to hold in place a mass of soil so that it can
be retained at different levels on each side of the wall, and/or restrain a slope.
(c) Applicability.
The following types of developments are subject to this Section:
(1) Development in all zoning districts except the R-1, R-2 and RMD districts.
(2) Development in the R-1, R-2, or RMD zoning districts that:
a. Require discretionary review; or
b. Propose to encroach further into the Streamside Setback than the existing condition
(Figure 3).
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 22
***Not Yet Adopted***
5
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
FIGURE 3: ENCROACHMENTS INTO STREAMSIDE SETBACK
(d) Exemptions
The following projects are exempt from this Section:
(1) Properties separated from the stream by a public street;
(2) Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian
vegetation or with remedial stream bank stability work deemed necessary by the director of
public works;
(3) Retaining walls less than three feet in height that are located outside of the Slope Stability
Protection Area;
(4) Interior construction or alterations;
(5) Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside the protected areas is not
readily available.
(6) Storage buildings not greater than 120 sq. ft.;
(7) Building improvements that do not expand the building footprint further into the Streamside
Setback.
(8) expansion of existing development along channelized streams in Urbanized Areas.
(e) Requirements Within the Streamside Setback and Riparian Buffer
Table 1: Streamside Setback and Riparian Buffer Regula ons
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 23
***Not Yet Adopted***
6
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
Streamside Setback ()(1) Riparian Buffer ()
Open Space and Rural Areas (west of Foothill Expressway)
Natural Stream 150 30
Channelized Stream 150 none
Culverted/Underground
Stream
n/a none
Urbanized Areas (east of Foothill Expressway, west of Highway 101)
Natural Stream 40 20
Channelized Stream 40 none
Culverted/Underground
Stream
none none
Baylands Areas (east of Highway 101)
Natural Stream 150 30
Channelized Stream 150 none
Culverted/Underground
Stream
n/a none
NOTES:
(1) For natural streams and channelized streams in all loca ons, a Slope Stability Protec on Area shall
be maintained consis ng of 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ra o of
2:1 (horizontal: ver cal) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater.
FIGURE 4: STREAMSIDE REVIEW ELEMENTS
(1) Streamside Setback Requirements:
(A) Vegetation
(i) Existing native riparian vegetation within the Streamside Setback shall be retained
unless its removal is approved by the Director. Replacement planting shall be required
when native riparian vegetation is approved for removal.
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 24
***Not Yet Adopted***
7
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
(ii) Planting of non-native invasive plant species within a riparian corridor or adjacent to a
riparian corridor shall not be 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, or other species that will negatively impact the
area, to the satisfaction of PDS and SCVWD.
(iii) Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a
stream or within the Riparian Buffer.
(iv) Installation of new ornamental landscaping shall be allowed provided plantings are
non-invasive species.
(v) Removed trees shall be replaced with native riparian trees following the replacement
ratios of the tree technical manual.
(B) Fences.
(i) Fence shall conform to PAMC 16.24.
(ii) In the areas west of Foothill Expressway, Wildlife-Friendly Fences shall have at least
one gate which can be opened in the event an animal become trapped and needs to
be released.
(C) Uses and Structures.
(i) No buildings or structures shall be permitted in the Streamside Setback without an
exception pursuant to subdivision (e)(4).
(ii) 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 of Planning and Development Services
may allow equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions and/or other setback
requirements make compliance impractical; the Director shall not allow noise-
producing (50 dBA or greater) equipment closer than 50 feet unless located within an
enclosure to reduce noise impacts.
(iii) Septic tanks and leach fields may not be located closer than 50 feet from the top of
bank.
(iv) No more than Light Reflectance Value (LRV) of 83 of building finishes on buildings
facing streams or riparian areas shall be allowed.
(D) Grading. Pursuant to Chapter 16.28, a Grading Permit is generally required for all work
within 100 (one hundred) feet of top of bank.
(2) Riparian Buffer General Requirements:
(A) Vegetation
(i) All native riparian vegetation within the Streamside Setback shall be retained unless
its removal is approved by the Director. Replacement planting shall be required when
native riparian vegetation is approved for removal.
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 25
***Not Yet Adopted***
8
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
(ii) Planting of non-native invasive plant species within a riparian corridor or adjacent to a
riparian corridor shall not be 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, or other species that will negatively impact the
area, to the satisfaction of PDS and SCVWD.
(iii) Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a
stream or within the Riparian Buffer.
(iv) Installation of new ornamental landscaping shall not be permitted within the Riparian
Buffer of Natural Streams.
(v) Removed trees shall be replaced with native riparian trees following the replacement
ratios of the tree technical manual.
(vi) Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. If within
outboard stream bank slope, irrigation must be bubbler or drip-type systems, and
must be used for establishment purposes only.
(B) Fences
(i) New Wildlife-friendly fences shall not be constructed within the Slope Stability
Protection Area unless an exception is granted by the Director of Public Works
pursuant to 18.40.140(e)(4)(B).
(ii) Fence materials shall conform to PAMC 16.24.
(iii) In the areas west of Foothill Expressway, Wildlife-Friendly Fences shall be allowed
with the following specifications:
I. Distance from ground to top of fence shall not exceed 40 inches (total fence
height).
II. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the fence shall be at least 18
inches.
III. Fence posts shall be spaced at intervals no greater than 16 feet.
IV. Fences shall be constructed with a top rail wooden bar for visibility and to
prevent entanglement.
V. If a wire fence, wires shall be spaced at least 12 inches apart, shall be smooth,
and shall be kept tight.
VI. Fences shall have at least one gate which can be opened in the event an animal
become trapped and needs to be released.
(C) No buildings or structures shall be allowed without an exception pursuant to subdivision
(e)(4).
(3) Slope Stability Protection Area:
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 26
***Not Yet Adopted***
9
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
(A) In all instances a Slope Stability Protection Area shall be maintained consisting of 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.
(B) No structures or uses are permitted within the Slope Stability Protection area unless an
exception is granted by 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.
(4) Exceptions
(A) Minor Exceptions.
(i) Minor deviations shall be granted as part of a proposed improvement or addition to
an existing single-family or two-family structure, or accessory structure, or both, in the
RE, R-1, RMD, or R-2 district, under all of the following conditions:
I. The required Stream Setback covers more than 40 percent of the parcel.
II. The deviation would not result in removal of existing riparian vegetation.
(ii) Projects meeting the criteria of subsection (i) above may be granted up to three of the
following deviations, not to exceed the specified limits:
I. To allow the primary building to encroach up to 15 feet into the required stream
setback.
II. To allow a basement to encroach, along with above grade floor area, up to 15 feet
into a required stream setback.
III. To allow an alternative stream setback to be the average of the existing setbacks of
the adjoining property or properties, rather than the stream setback requirement
in Table 1.
IV. To allow a legal non-conforming building wall that encroaches up to 15 feet into
the required stream setback to be extended up to one-quarter of the length of the
existing wall or ten feet, whichever is shorter.
V. To allow a horizontal extension (pursuant to Section 18.12.050(a) (Setback/Yard
Encroachments and Projections) of a portion of an existing legal nonconforming
building wall that is more than twelve feet above grade into the required stream
setback. Such horizontal extensions must remain within the height and daylight
plane limits for the district unless an HIE or variance for a height or daylight plane
encroachment is granted (pursuant to Section 18.12.120).
VI. To allow an increase in the height of an existing legally non-conforming building
wall that encroaches into the stream setback. Such vertical extensions must remain
within the height and daylight plane limits for the district unless an HIE or variance
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 27
***Not Yet Adopted***
10
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
for a height or daylight plane encroachment is granted (pursuant to Section
18.12.120).
VII. To allow similar minor exceptions, when determined by the director to be similar in
magnitude and scope to those listed in subsections (I) through (VI) above.
Provided, under no circumstances may such exceptions exceed the limits
established in subsections (I) through (VI) above.
(B) Major Exceptions. A Major Exception may be granted for those requests that do not meet
the criteria for a Minor Exception, as outlined in Section 18.40.140(e)(4). Applicants
requesting a Major Exception from a required Stream Setback must submit documentation
supporting all of the following findings:
i. There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed project that avoids or reduces
the encroachment into the setback area;
ii. The reduced setback will not significantly reduce or adversely impact the streamside
environment;
iii. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to properties that
are adjacent, upstream, downstream, or on the opposing bank.
(C) Major Exception Review Process. Notwithstanding PAMC 18.77.075(a), any Major Deviation
requests shall follow the review process set forth in 18.77.075:
(f) 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. Lot area shall be defined per 18.04.030 (85).
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence,
clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the
Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 because adoption of this ordinance is an
action to protect the environment.
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 28
***Not Yet Adopted***
11
0160156_kb2_20241002_ay16
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City A orney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Ordinance
Packet Pg. 29
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 2
Attachment B: Creek Maps from the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Packet Pg. 30
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 2
Attachment B: Creek
Maps from the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan
Packet Pg. 31
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 2
Attachment C: Existing
Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance
(PAMC 18.40.140)
Packet Pg. 32
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 2
Attachment C: Existing
Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance
(PAMC 18.40.140)
Packet Pg. 33
Page 1 of 3
Existing Ordinance Proposed Draft Ordinance
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.
18.40.140 (a). The last sentence was removed.
(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,
18.40.140(e) provides varying setback areas for the
streamside review
except those properties separated from the stream by a public street.18.40.140(d)(1)
(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;18.40.140(c)(1)
(b) Development in the R-1, R-2, or RMD zones requiring discretionary review, including but not
limited to:18.40.140(c)(2)
(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.
Removed. Described in 18.40.140(c)(2)
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
18.40.140(d)
Item 2
Attachment D: Crosswalk Matrix
Comparing Existing and Proposed
Ordinances
Packet Pg. 34
Page 2 of 3
Existing Ordinance Proposed Draft Ordinance
(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.
18.40.140(e)(3)
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.
18.40.140(e)(3)(B)
(b) New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward from the top of bank.
Modified provisions on fences provided in:
18.40.140(e)(1)(B)
18.40.140(e)(2)(B)
(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.
Slightly modified provision in 18.40.140(e)(1)(A)(i)
(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.
18.40.140(e)(1)(A)(ii)
(e) Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream.18.40.140(e)(2)(A)(iii)
Item 2
Attachment D: Crosswalk Matrix
Comparing Existing and Proposed
Ordinances
Packet Pg. 35
Page 3 of 3
Existing Ordinance Proposed Draft Ordinance
(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 equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions and/or
other setback requirements make compliance impractical.
18.40.140(e)(1)(C)(i)
(g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.Removed. Will be discussed in the Lighting
ordinance.
(h) Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion.18.40.140(e)(2)(A)(vi)
(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.
Removed
(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.
Removed. Will be discussed in the Lighting
ordinance.
(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.
18.40.140(f)
Item 2
Attachment D: Crosswalk Matrix
Comparing Existing and Proposed
Ordinances
Packet Pg. 36
Stream Protection Ordinance Update
Existing Conditions Report
July 2024
Prepared by:
With Environmental Collaborative
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 37
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 38
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 39
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 40
• 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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 41
Figure 1. Open Space and Water Bodies (Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 4.3-3)
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JULY 2024
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 42
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 43
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 44
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 45
• 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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 46
• 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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 47
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 48
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 49
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 50
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 51
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 52
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 53
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 54
Appendix A: Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 17
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 55
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 56
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 57
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 58
Appendix B: Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area
PALO ALTO STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCE UPDATE 21
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 59
Local Government Riparian Buffers in
the San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
July 2004
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 60
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 61
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 62
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 63
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 64
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 65
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 66
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 67
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 68
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 69
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 70
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 71
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 72
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 73
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 74
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 75
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 76
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 77
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 78
A P P E N D I X E S
20
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 79
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 80
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 81
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 82
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 83
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 84
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 85
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 86
Appendix D
Graphical Summary of Results
28
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 87
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 2
Attachment E: Existing Conditions
Report (July 2024)
Packet Pg. 88
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 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 89
31
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Conditions Report (July
2024)
Packet Pg. 90
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 2
Attachment E: Existing Conditions
Report (July 2024)
Packet Pg. 91
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 2
Attachment E: Existing Conditions
Report (July 2024)
Packet Pg. 92
Item 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 93
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 94
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 95
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 96
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 97
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 98
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 99
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 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 100
Item 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 101
Item 2
Attachment G: Public
Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 102
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 9, 2024
Report #: 2410-3557
TITLE
Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of May 29, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
BACKGROUND
Draft verbatim minutes from the May 29, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the October 3, 2024 meeting date.
The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAlto PTC.
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 103
Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 9, 2024
Report #: 2410-3558
TITLE
Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of July
10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
BACKGROUND
Draft verbatim and summary minutes from the July 10, 2024 Planning & Transportation
Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the October 3,
2024 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at
bit.ly/PaloAlto PTC.
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 104
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: October 9, 2024
Report #: 2410-3559
TITLE
Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of August 14, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
BACKGROUND
Draft summary minutes from the August 14, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the October 3, 2024 meeting date.
The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAlto PTC.
ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate
Item 5
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 105