Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-13 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 13, 2026 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 76, 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 General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. 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@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. 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@PaloAlto.gov 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. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. 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: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters in Titles 16, 18, and 21 to Address Changes in State Law and Direction from City Council Regarding Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. CEQA Status: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 3.Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of April 8, 2026 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT   OTHER INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and availible for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting.   A.Public Comment PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov. 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@PaloAlto.gov. 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: May 13, 2026 Report #: 2605-6334 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 Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) 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. UPCOMING PTC ITEMS Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 May 27, 2026 CIP Annual Report Parking Program Update & Downtown Parking Modernization Initiatives ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Planning & Transportation Commission 2026 Meeting Schedule 1 1 3 6 3 2026 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 1/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James 2/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Chang 3/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Special James, Ji 3/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James, Templeton 4/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/13/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 5/27/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/10/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 6/24/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/12/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/26/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 11/18/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 11/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 12/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2026 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Todd James Forest Peterson Todd James Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman July August September October November December Council Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Summer Break Kevin Ji Todd James Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Item 1 Attachment A - 2026 PTC Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 13, 2026 Report #: 2603-6064 TITLE Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters in Titles 16, 18, and 21 to Address Changes in State Law and Direction from City Council Regarding Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. CEQA Status: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Receive public testimony and review the draft ordinance (Attachments A and B); and 2. Recommend that City Council adopt the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 2025, the City Council adopted the City’s latest ADU ordinance, which addressed comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifying conflicts between State law and the City’s previous ADU/JADU ordinance.1,2 At that time, the City Council also directed staff to explore (1) increasing the maximum allowed size of ADUs from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, and (2) options to allow ADUs to be sold separately from the primary home. Following Council’s adoption of the City’s most recent ADU/JADU ordinance, the State legislature adopted new ADU/JADU provisions to further incentivize dwelling unit production. 1 May 12, 2025 Council Meeting (Action Item #10): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16092 2 Ordinance 5656: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48336&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 The Draft Ordinance (clean version in Attachment A and annotated version in Attachment B) updates the City’s regulations for consistency with relevant State law. Attachments C and D include draft language to increase ADU size and allow for separate sale of ADUs, respectively. BACKGROUND 5 The following components require amendments to the City’s ADU regulations, or affect the amendment process: Assembly Bill (AB) 1154 (effective January 1, 2026) Senate Bill (SB) 9 (effective January 1, 2026) SB 543 (effective January 1, 2026) 5 HCD ADU Handbook: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/adu-handbook- update.pdf Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 e. Specifies the number of allowable ADUs described under Government Code section 66323 per lot (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (a)) to allow for four accessory dwelling units to be constructed on site. f. Clarifies that fire sprinklers are not required for a JADU if the primary residence does not have fire sprinklers and that the addition of a JADU cannot trigger the requirement for fire sprinklers (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (d)). g. Adds section 66333.5, which specifies that if a local agency fails to submit an adopted JADU ordinance to HCD within the 60-day timeline or fails to respond to HCD’s findings regarding their ordinance within the 30-day timeline, that ordinance is null and void and the local agency must only apply State ADU Law when processing applications for JADUs. Past Council Direction At the time Council adopted Ordinance 5656, the City’s most recent ADU/JADU Ordinance, they also directed staff to investigate the feasibility of expanding the maximum allowable size for ADUs. Under State law, the maximum allowable size for a detached ADU is 1,200 square feet where the City’s current maximum is 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit, attached or detached. Council also directed staff to evaluate allowing ADUs to be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit which was established in 2024 under SB 477 as an opt-in option for all jurisdictions in California; qualified nonprofit corporations were permitted to do this under SB 477 without a jurisdiction opting-in. These items are discussed in more detail below with draft code language provided in Attachment C. ANALYSIS State Law Changes The changes required under AB 1154 and SB 9 are minimally impactful to the City’s current ADU regulations and processes, as these are either polices currently in place or can easily be adopted. SB 543 is impactful to how Planning staff review permits for ADU/JADUs, which is discussed in more detail below. Changes to Calculating Square Footage for ADU/JADUs For projects in low-density residential development, like single family homes and ADU/JADUs, the City’s current zoning code calculates the allowable floor area, lot coverage, and square footage used to calculate maximum size and impact fees based on the exterior stud wall of the structure. Generally, the purpose for calculating square footage this way was to manage the overall size and massing of a structure. SB 543 now requires jurisdictions, for ADU/JADUs only, to measure these areas based on interior livable space when determining maximum size and development/school impact fee calculations. Interior livable space is defined in Government Code Section 66313(a) as: “a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.” This definition does not include separated utility or storage areas where the space is not intended for human habitation. State law does not address how the interior or exterior demising walls of Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 the ADU/JADU should be captured or calculated against the property.7 As shown in the examples below, this change can produce a significant difference where 750 square feet is a trigger for paying development impact fees (500 square feet for school impact fees): Image 1: Exterior Stud Wall Measurement (Current) Source: ACS Architects Image 2: Interior Livable Area Measurement Source: Kohler Architects 7 Currently, PAMC 18.09.040(e) provides that walls shared between the primary home and attached ADUs are fully counted towards the primary home’s FAR and lot coverage. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Since 2020, the average unit size of ADUs has gradually increased from a range of 400 to 500 square feet to a range of 550 to 600 square feet. Changing how this square footage is counted will likely continue this trend and may result in additional increases in total structure size. HCD has not provided official guidance on how interior or exterior walls should be considered, but staff believe that a reasonable interpretation of the State’s intent is to include the interior walls towards the floor area and lot coverage for an ADU/JADU (Image 2), and so the draft ordinance reflects this understanding and maintains a simplified calculation. When speaking with local architects, their preference is to exclude the interior walls from the unit’s floor area and lot coverage limits, as an incentive to ADU/JADU development. The exterior walls will not count towards the square footage for the unit, nor to the site’s development limits. Introducing Appeals to ADU/JADU Permits Allowable Number of ADU/JADUs One Attached/Conversion ADU, one Detached ADU, and one JADU to be built using Section 66232 standards (PAMC Section 18.09.030, Table 1); Plus one ADU built using Section 66314 standards (PAMC Section 18.09.040 Table 2).9 9 See bottom of page 18/55 in the HCD ADU Handbook Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 Codifying Local Practice for Table 1 Detached ADUs In addition to the changes detailed above, the draft ordinance includes one change to Table 1 to clarify staff’s interpretation and implementation of its provisions with respect to detached ADUs. Because Table 1 does not include the local bonus/exemption of 800 square feet offered in Table 2, any ADUs proposed under Table 1 are counted against the standard available FAR and lot coverage on a site. That said, FAR and lot coverage cannot be used to constrain or deny proposed Table 1 ADUs of up to 800 square feet. For example, if a site has 2,500 square feet of total development potential and an existing single-family home of 2,000 square feet, an 800 square foot Table 1 ADU would “use up” any remaining development potential, limiting future expansion of the primary home. Even though the ADU exceeds the available FAR in this scenario, the City would still be required to permit it under State law. A homeowner could avoid these impacts on future development potential by instead proceeding under Table 2 (including local tree protection/privacy measures), which offers the local bonus/exemption. In a scenario involving new construction of a single-family home, however, staff have not counted the square footage of a Table 1 detached ADU against the development potential of the primary home, effectively allowing a homeowner to “max out” the primary home while concurrently constructing an 800 square foot detached ADU under Table 1. The reasoning has been that a homeowner could easily achieve this same outcome by first constructing the primary home and then submitting a subsequent application for the ADU. Rather than subject the homeowner and neighboring residents to this two-step process and extended construction schedule, staff have allowed applicants to construct all dwellings simultaneously. Previous Council Direction Increasing ADU Maximum Size to 1,200 Square Feet When Council adopted Ordinance 5656, they directed staff to study the feasibility of increasing the maximum allowable size for an ADU from 1,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet in Table 2. The City’s current regulations list a maximum ADU size of 800 square feet (PAMC Section 18.09.030, Table 1, for new detached ADUs) and 1,000 square feet (PAMC Section 18.09.040, Table 2 for both attached and detached ADUs).11 ADU’s larger than 800 square feet are most likely to be proposed on larger lots, where the size of a primary dwelling will not be meaningfully constrained by a larger ADU that exceeds the City’s 800-square-foot bonus/exemption. ADU’s that exceed the City’s bonus square footage must use the allowable floor area and lot coverage for the site to build the ADU, which reduces the potential size of the primary home. Lots equal to and larger than 21,500 square feet in the Single Family (R-1) and Residential Estate (RE) districts can accommodate a primary home and a 1,200-square-foot ADU as the allowable floor area for these lots is 7,200 square feet, but the maximum house size is 6,000 square feet. This allows these property owners the ability to develop an ADU without using the City’s bonus square footage allowances or deducting from the primary home’s allowable square footages. In general, applicants have expressed an 11 Note - there is no maximum size for attached/conversion ADUs under Table 1, but they must fit within the space of an existing or proposed primary residence. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 interest in maximizing the floor area for the primary home and building the largest ADU possible using the City’s bonus square footage allowances under Table 2 (up to 800 square feet). It is rare that they express an interest in building a smaller home to build a larger ADU up to 1,000. Allowing Separate Sale for ADUs 13 which required jurisdictions to allow certain ADUs developed by qualified nonprofit corporations to be sold separately from the primary unit and allowed jurisdictions to extend this option to all other ADUs. Since then, roughly 10 jurisdictions in California have passed ordinances allowing for separate sale of ADUs, and more appear to be poised to adopt ordinances in the coming year. While San Jose was the earliest jurisdiction to extend separate sale to all ADUs in 2024, their staff noted only two applications had been approved and two more were currently under review since 2024. Other jurisdictions (such as San Jose, Santa Cruz, and more recently Berkely and City of San Diego) have either recently adopted ordinances or have experienced a similar low volume of projects despite early adoption of an ordinance. While members of the public have reached out to City staff since 2024 on this topic, it is unclear whether the City would see a significant volume of applications for separate ownership, if allowed. In comparison, since the adoption of SB 9 (2021) procedures 13 AB 1033 language was incorporated into GC Section 66340-66342: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chap ter=13.&article=4. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 in 2021, the City has received 38 applications. It is worth noting that the City could decide to allow ADUs to be sold separately on lots created under SB 9, resulting in a total of four individual owner units. Require units to be deed restricted to be affordable to a designated Area Median Income; Require the units to only be used for residential purposes (i.e. no short-term rental/commercial purpose (daycare) even if consistent with the underlying zoning); or Require a hearing process for decision making instead of an administrative process. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 The adoption of the draft ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), because it constitutes amendments to the City’s zoning code to conform with preemptive State law, including Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) and Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ATTACHMENTS Report Author & Contact Information PTC15 Liaison & Contact Information 15 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 Ordinance No. _____ SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 17     *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 SECTION 2. Chapter 18.09 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through): 18.09.010 Purpose 18.09.020 Applicable Zoning Districts 18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 18     *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 iv. ADUs created by conversion of portions of existing multi-family dwellings not used as livable space. v. Up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. vi. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling. (b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are summarized in Table 1. Regulations set forth in section 18.09.040 do not apply to units created under 18.09.030. The minimum and maximum sizes indicated in Table 1 do not prohibit units that are greater than 800 square feet. These sizes simply serve to distinguish when a unit transitions from regulations set forth in Table 1 and section 18.09.030 to regulations set forth in Table 2 and section 18.09.040. Table 1: Development Standards for Units Described in Government Code Section 66323 Single-Family Multi-Family Conversion of Space Within the Existing Space of a Single-Family Home or Accessory Structure Construction of Attached ADU and/or JADU Within the Proposed Space of a Single- Family Home New Construction of Detached ADU Conversion of Non-Habitable Space Within Existing Multi- family Dwelling Structure Conversion or Construction of Detached(4) ADU on a site with Existing Multi-family Structure Conversion or Construction of Detached(4) ADU on a site with Proposed Multi- family Structure Number of Units Allowed 1 Attached ADU, 1 Detached ADU, and 1 JADU 25% of the existing units (at least one) Up to 8 (not to exceed the number of existing units on the lot) 2 Minimum size(1)150 sf Maximum size(1)N/A2 8007 sf N/A Setbacks N/A, if condition is sufficient for fire and safety 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; underlying zoning for front setback N/A 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; underlying zoning for front setback Daylight Plane N/A N/A Maximum Height(3)N/A Underlying zone standard for Single Family Home (ADU must be within allowable space of Single-Family Home)16(5)N/A 16(5)(6) Parking None State Law 66323(a)(1)66323(a)(1)66323(a)(2)66323(a)(3)66323(a)(4) Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 19     *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 Reference (1)Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area. (2)The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square feet. See PAMC 18.09.030(h) for additional information. (3)Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling. (4)Units must be detached from primary dwellings but may be attached to each other. (5)A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. (6)A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. (7)Square footage of a detached ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage of a proposed single-family home. (c) Development standards stated elsewhere in this Section or Title 18, including standards related to FAR, lot coverage, and privacy, are not applicable to ADUs or JADUs that qualify for approval under this section. When there is an ADU or JADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C). (d) For ADUs and JADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 1 and this section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot coverage, and maximum house size. The interior and exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size requirements. (e) The establishment of ADUsaccessory dwelling units and JADUsjunior accessory dwelling units pursuant to this section shall not be conditioned on the correction of non-conforming zoning conditions; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the Chief Building Official to require correction of building standards relating to health and safety. Upon request of the owner for a delay in enforcement, the Chief Building Official shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 20     *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (f)The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an ADUaccessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an ADUaccessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily dwelling. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements. (g) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more. (h) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, attached units shall not have an interior access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. (i)Conversion of existing living area or an existing accessory structure pursuant to Government Code section 66314(d)(7) may include reconstruction in-place of a non- conforming structure, so long as the renovation or reconstruction does not increase the degree of non-compliance, such as increased height, envelope, or further intrusion into required setbacks. An expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure may be provided to accommodate ingress and egress. Any addition to the existing accessory structure that is not limited to providing for ingress and egress to the unit, and that exceeds the envelope of the existing accessory structure shall be subject to Section 18.09.040. (j) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in emergency response. (k) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341. (l) Replacement parking is not required when an off-street parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU or JADU. (m)JADUs shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.09.050. (n) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the Planning Director identifying the reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 21     *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 be placed on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of a timely filing. Any decision from the Council is final. 18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards (a) This section shall govern applications for ADUs that do not qualify for approval under section 18.09.030 and for which the City may impose local standards pursuant to Government Code section 66314. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square feet, at the heights stated in Table 2, with a four foot side and rear setbacks. (b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Table 2. These regulations do not limit the height of existing structures converted into ADU unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond any existing legal, non-conforming condition. Table 2: All other Units Attached Detached Number of Units Allowed1 1 Minimum size 150 sf Maximum size 900 sf (1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms); no more than 50% of the size of the single- family home 900 sf (1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms) Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; Daylight Plane Underlying zone standard per footnote (7) N/A Maximum Height3 Res. Estate (RE)30 feet Open Space (OS)25 feet All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7) Parking None Square Footage Exemption when in conjunction with a single family home(4) Up to 800 sf (1) An attached andor detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed under Table 1 and PAMC 18.09.050(f)a JADU on a lot with an existing or proposed Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 22     *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 single family home. One attached or detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed under Table 1 on an existing or proposed multifamily building. (2) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area. (3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling. (4) Lots with both an attached and detached ADU may exempt a maximum combined total of 800 square feet of both ADUs from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations. Any square footage that exceeds this exemption shall contribute to the FAR, Lot Coverage, and (if attached) Maximum House Size calculations for the subject property. This exemption is not afforded to lots with existing or proposed multifamily dwellings. (5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. (6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. (7) A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the underlying zone district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling. These ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height. (c) A single-family or multifamily dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be constructed on the lot in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. (d) Interior livable space for ADU square footage shall not be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations for a lot with an existing or proposed single family home, up to the amounts stated in Table 2. ADU sSquare footage in excess of the exemptions provided in Table 2 shall be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations for the lot. (e) When there is an ADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C). (f) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Attached units shall not have an interior access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). (g) For ADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 2 and this section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 23     *NOT YET APPROVED* 8 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 coverage, and maximum house size. The interior and exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size requirements.Reserved (h) For properties listed in the California Register of Historical Resources compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be required. (i) Noise-producing equipment such as air conditioners, water heaters, and similar service equipment that exclusively serves an ADU may be located anywhere on the site, provided they maintain the underlying front yard setback requirements of the property and, if the property is a corner lot, a 10-foot street-side setback. All such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided that a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the city’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. All service equipment must meet the city’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code. (j) Setbacks (1) Detached units shall maintain a minimum three-foot distance from the primary unit, measured from the exterior walls of structures. (2) A basement or other subterranean portion that serves an ADU may encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling provided the following conditions are met: (A) Newly constructed basement walls are no closer than four feet to an adjacent interior side or rear property line. (B) A new lightwell associated with a basement shall not be placed closer than four feet to an adjacent interior property line. When visible from the right of way, these facilities shall be screened from view with vegetation. (C) Habitable ADU basements shall contribute toward the unit’s total allowable floor area. Any floor area in excess of the exemptions provided in this Section shall contribute to the total allowable limits for the site. (3) Projections, including but not limited to windows, doors, mechanical equipment, venting or exhaust systems, are not permitted to encroach into the required setbacks, with the exception of a roof eave of up to 2 feet. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 24     *NOT YET APPROVED* 9 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (4) For corner lots developed as a single-family home, when an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously with the construction of a new ADU, the homeowner may elect to build all structures to a 10-foot street-side setback and a 16-foot front yard setback, regardless of the presence of a more restrictive special setback, unless a fire or life-safety regulation requires a greater setback. Pursuant Government Code section 66321(b)(3), a street-side setback may not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit. (5) When an existing, legal, nonconforming structure is converted or reconstructed to create an ADU, any portion of the ADU that is in the same location and falls within the building envelope of the original structure shall not be subject to the development standards stated in this Section. Any portion of the ADU that is in a different location or exceeds the envelope of the original structure shall comply with the development standards stated in this Section. (6) Notwithstanding the development standards stated in Table 2 and paragraph (5) above, when an existing, legal, non-conforming structure is converted in- place to an ADU, the envelope of the structure may be modified to encroach further into a setback or daylight plane as follows: (A) The height of the existing structure may be increased by no more than one linear foot in height commensurate to the existing roofline of the structure provided the height of the addition does not exceed 12 feet from grade. The roofline shall not be changed to a style other than what currently exists on the structure. (B) Each non-conforming wall may be expanded by no more than six inches in thickness based on its existing location and configuration, as measured to exterior surface of the material, to provide for greater insulation and energy requirements provided that a minimum of one foot is maintained between the addition and an adjacent interior property line. An existing wall of a structure that does not currently have a separation of one foot from a parallel property line shall not be expanded outward. (C) All other additions not specified here shall follow the standard setbacks for the ADU identified in Table 2. (k) Design (1) Except on corner lots, where feasible, ADUsthe unit shall not have an entranceway facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the entranceway to the ADUaccessory unit is Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 25     *NOT YET APPROVED* 10 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 located in the rear half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located toward the interior side or rear yard of the property. (2) Privacy (A) Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring property line. Second story decks and balconies shall utilize screening barriers to prevent views towards an adjacent interior property line. These barriers shall be a minimum five-foot, six-inch height from the floor level of the deck or balcony and shall not include perforations of any kind that would allow visibility between properties. (B) Windows on a second floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space, excluding those required for egress, shall have a five-foot sill height as measured from the second-finished floor level, or utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the entirety any window that faces an adjacent interior property line. (C) Windows on a second finished floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space, shall be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy. (D) Where feasible, egress windows on the first and second finished floor of an ADU shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the whole window. (E) If the first finished floor of an ADU is two feet or more above grade, then first floor windows shall include the following: i. Non-egress, operable windows facing an adjacent interior property line shall have a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit; ii. Non-egress, non-operable windows facing an adjacent interior property line shall have the lower half of window(s) (minimum of five feet above the first finished floor) utilize obscuredopaque glazing. (F) Where feasible, the use of skylights (whether operable or not) shall be used in lieu of operable windows that face adjacent interior properties. (G) No exterior lighting shall be mounted above seven feet. All lighting mounted on walls shall be directed downwards and shall not direct light towards adjacent interior property lines. Any ground lighting shall not direct light upwards to the building or sky. (l) Parking (1) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 26     *NOT YET APPROVED* 11 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (2) When parking is provided, the unit shall have street access from a driveway in common with the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts, excessive paving, and elimination of street trees, unless separate driveway access will result in fewer environmental impacts such as paving, grading or tree removal. (3) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction of new ADU, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements identified in Chapter 18.10 and 18.12 do not need to be provided. Two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the property. (4) If covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of the covered parking area for the ADUaccessory dwelling unit is 220 square feet. This space shall count towards the total floor area for the site but does not contribute to the maximum size of the unit. Any attached garage shall not have an interior access point to the ADU (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). (m) Landscape (1) For the purposes of this subsection (m), “protected tree” means: (A) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty- four inches) above natural grade. (B) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (C) Any tree of any species, other than a Coast Redwood Tree, fifteen inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. A “protected tree” does not include a tree of any species on the Exempt Species List put forth by the Department of Urban Forestry and available on the City’s website. (D) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a current or previously completed development project. (E) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 27     *NOT YET APPROVED* 12 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 between the property owner and a responsible government agency or recorded as a deed restriction. (F) Any heritage tree previously designated by the city council. (G) Any tree previously planted as a replacement mitigation tree. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, the construction of an ADU shall not impact any protected tree, on the subject property or any adjacent lot by requiring: (A) Removal of more than twenty-five percent of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period; or (B) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period; or (C) Trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree protection zone of a tree in a way that foreseeably leads to the death of the tree. For the purposes of this subsection (m), "tree protection zone" means the area defined by a circle with a radius ten times the diameter of the trunk when measured four and one-half feet (fifty- four inches) above natural grade. (3)If an action prohibited by section 18.09.040(m)(2) is necessary to allow the construction of an ADU that meets the minimum standards set forth in state law, the tree shall be replaced according to the objective requirements identified in the Tree Canopy Replacement Table of the Palo Alto Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. (4) The construction of an ADU must comply with applicable objective standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the protection of trees during construction. Compliance with this subsection (4) shall not delay or cause the denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use permit. (n) Miscellaneous requirements (1) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in emergency response. (2) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341 and PAMC 21.09. (3) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more. (4) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 28     *NOT YET APPROVED* 13 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements. (5) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the Planning Director identifying the reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall be placed on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of a timely filing. Any decision from the Council is final. 18.09.050 Additional Requirements for JADUs (a) A JADU may be created on a lot in a single-family residential zone with an existing or proposed single family residence. A JADU shall be attached to or created within the walls of an existing or proposed primary dwelling, including enclosed uses within the residence, such as an attached garage. (b) The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring the following components: A cooking facility with appliances, and; food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit. i.JADUs may share sanitation facilities (bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.) with the primary unit. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. In this instance, the floor area and lot coverage associated with shared space shall count towards the primary unit’s maximum allowances only. The combined sanitation facilities between the units shall include shower, toilet, and sink fixtures at a minimum and shall conform to the minimum requirements specified in the Building Code. (c) For the purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation or for the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new unit. (d) The owner of a parcel proposed for a JADU shall occupy as a primary residence either the primary dwelling or the JADU. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization or if the required bathroom for the JADU is provided in the unit, rather than inside the primary home. (e) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a JADU, the owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that includes a prohibition on the sale of the Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 29     *NOT YET APPROVED* 14 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, identifies that if the unit is rented it shall be rented for no shorter term than 30 days, isrequires owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (d) above, and restricts the size and attributes of the JADU to those that conform with this section. (f) JADU incentive. The existing or proposed primary dwelling unit shall be afforded bonus square footage equal to the square footage of a proposed JADU when a JADU is constructed on site, provided the JADU meets the following requirements: 1) The JADU must conform to the underlying zoning district’s development standards for single family homes. 2) The maximum number of units on site shall not exceed fivefour (threetwo ADUs, one JADU, and one primary home). 3) The maximum size of the JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet. 4) The total maximum bonus/exempt floor area provided for the site under Section 18.09.040 and 18.09.050 may not exceed 800 square feet. 5) The exterior entryway to the JADU shall not face the same direction as the entrance to the primary home. 6) All egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must utilize obscureopaque glazing on the whole window. 7) All non-egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must have a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit. 8) All noise producing equipment associated with the JADU must comply with the noise regulations in PAMC 9.10. 9) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction of new JADU using these provision, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements do not need to be provided. Instead, two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the property. SECTION 3. Subsection (g) of Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of Title 16 (Building) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through): (g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size of interior livable space. Any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet of interior livable space or more shall be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit; SECTION 4. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. 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 Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 30     *NOT YET APPROVED* 15 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 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 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), because it constitutes amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance to conform with preemptive State law, including Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) and Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, as well as other minor and non- substantive amendments. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. Item 2 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (Clean Version)     Packet Pg. 31     *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 Ordinance No. _____ SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 32     *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 SECTION 2. Chapter 18.09 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through): 18.09.010 Purpose 18.09.020 Applicable Zoning Districts 18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations Commented [GS1]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 33     *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 iv. ADUs created by conversion of portions of existing multi-family dwellings not used as livable space. v. Up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. vi. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling. (b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are summarized in Table 1. Regulations set forth in section 18.09.040 do not apply to units created under 18.09.030. The minimum and maximum sizes indicated in Table 1 do not prohibit units that are greater than 800 square feet. These sizes simply serve to distinguish when a unit transitions from regulations set forth in Table 1 and section 18.09.030 to regulations set forth in Table 2 and section 18.09.040. Table 1: Development Standards for Units Described in Government Code Section 66323 Single-Family Multi-Family Conversion of Space Within the Existing Space of a Single-Family Home or Accessory Structure Construction of Attached ADU and/or JADU Within the Proposed Space of a Single- Family Home New Construction of Detached ADU Conversion of Non-Habitable Space Within Existing Multi- family Dwelling Structure Conversion or Construction of Detached(4) ADU on a site with Existing Multi-family Structure Conversion or Construction of Detached(4) ADU on a site with Proposed Multi- family Structure Number of Units Allowed 1 Attached ADU, 1 Detached ADU, and 1 JADU 25% of the existing units (at least one) Up to 8 (not to exceed the number of existing units on the lot) 2 Minimum size(1)150 sf Maximum size(1)N/A2 8007 sf N/A Setbacks N/A, if condition is sufficient for fire and safety 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; underlying zoning for front setback N/A 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; underlying zoning for front setback Daylight Plane N/A N/A Maximum Height(3)N/A Underlying zone standard for Single Family Home (ADU must be within allowable space of Single-Family Home)16(5)N/A 16(5)(6) Parking None State Law 66323(a)(1)66323(a)(1)66323(a)(2)66323(a)(3)66323(a)(4) Commented [GS2]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 34     *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 Reference (1)Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area. (2)The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square feet. See PAMC 18.09.030(h) for additional information. (3)Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling. (4)Units must be detached from primary dwellings but may be attached to each other. (5)A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. (6)A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. (7)Square footage of a detached ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage of a proposed single-family home. (c) Development standards stated elsewhere in this Section or Title 18, including standards related to FAR, lot coverage, and privacy, are not applicable to ADUs or JADUs that qualify for approval under this section. When there is an ADU or JADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C). (d) For ADUs and JADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 1 and this section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot coverage, and maximum house size. The interior and exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size requirements. (e) The establishment of ADUsaccessory dwelling units and JADUsjunior accessory dwelling units pursuant to this section shall not be conditioned on the correction of non-conforming zoning conditions; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the Chief Building Official to require correction of building standards relating to health and safety. Upon request of the owner for a delay in enforcement, the Chief Building Official shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code. Commented [GS3]: SB 543 Commented [GS4]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 35     *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (f)The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an ADUaccessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an ADUaccessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily dwelling. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements. (g) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more. (h) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, attached units shall not have an interior access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. (i)Conversion of existing living area or an existing accessory structure pursuant to Government Code section 66314(d)(7) may include reconstruction in-place of a non- conforming structure, so long as the renovation or reconstruction does not increase the degree of non-compliance, such as increased height, envelope, or further intrusion into required setbacks. An expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure may be provided to accommodate ingress and egress. Any addition to the existing accessory structure that is not limited to providing for ingress and egress to the unit, and that exceeds the envelope of the existing accessory structure shall be subject to Section 18.09.040. (j) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in emergency response. (k) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341. (l) Replacement parking is not required when an off-street parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU or JADU. (m)JADUs shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.09.050. (n) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the Planning Director identifying the reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 36     *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 be placed on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of a timely filing. Any decision from the Council is final. 18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards (a) This section shall govern applications for ADUs that do not qualify for approval under section 18.09.030 and for which the City may impose local standards pursuant to Government Code section 66314. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square feet, at the heights stated in Table 2, with a four foot side and rear setbacks. (b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Table 2. These regulations do not limit the height of existing structures converted into ADU unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond any existing legal, non-conforming condition. Table 2: All other Units Attached Detached Number of Units Allowed1 1 Minimum size 150 sf Maximum size 900 sf (1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms); no more than 50% of the size of the single- family home 900 sf (1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms) Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; Daylight Plane Underlying zone standard per footnote (7) N/A Maximum Height3 Res. Estate (RE)30 feet Open Space (OS)25 feet All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7) Parking None Square Footage Exemption when in conjunction with a single family home(4) Up to 800 sf (1) An attached andor detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed under Table 1 and PAMC 18.09.050(f)a JADU on a lot with an existing or proposed Commented [GS5]: SB 543 Commented [GS6]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 37     *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 single family home. One attached or detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed under Table 1 on an existing or proposed multifamily building. (2) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area. (3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling. (4) Lots with both an attached and detached ADU may exempt a maximum combined total of 800 square feet of both ADUs from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations. Any square footage that exceeds this exemption shall contribute to the FAR, Lot Coverage, and (if attached) Maximum House Size calculations for the subject property. This exemption is not afforded to lots with existing or proposed multifamily dwellings. (5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. (6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. (7) A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the underlying zone district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling. These ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height. (c) A single-family or multifamily dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be constructed on the lot in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. (d) Interior livable space for ADU square footage shall not be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations for a lot with an existing or proposed single family home, up to the amounts stated in Table 2. ADU sSquare footage in excess of the exemptions provided in Table 2 shall be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations for the lot. (e) When there is an ADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C). (f) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Attached units shall not have an interior access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). (g) For ADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 2 and this section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot Commented [GS7]: SB 543 Commented [GS8]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 38     *NOT YET APPROVED* 8 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 coverage, and maximum house size. The interior and exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size requirements.Reserved (h) For properties listed in the California Register of Historical Resources compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be required. (i) Noise-producing equipment such as air conditioners, water heaters, and similar service equipment that exclusively serves an ADU may be located anywhere on the site, provided they maintain the underlying front yard setback requirements of the property and, if the property is a corner lot, a 10-foot street-side setback. All such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided that a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the city’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. All service equipment must meet the city’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code. (j) Setbacks (1) Detached units shall maintain a minimum three-foot distance from the primary unit, measured from the exterior walls of structures. (2) A basement or other subterranean portion that serves an ADU may encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling provided the following conditions are met: (A) Newly constructed basement walls are no closer than four feet to an adjacent interior side or rear property line. (B) A new lightwell associated with a basement shall not be placed closer than four feet to an adjacent interior property line. When visible from the right of way, these facilities shall be screened from view with vegetation. (C) Habitable ADU basements shall contribute toward the unit’s total allowable floor area. Any floor area in excess of the exemptions provided in this Section shall contribute to the total allowable limits for the site. (3) Projections, including but not limited to windows, doors, mechanical equipment, venting or exhaust systems, are not permitted to encroach into the required setbacks, with the exception of a roof eave of up to 2 feet. Commented [GS9]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 39     *NOT YET APPROVED* 9 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (4) For corner lots developed as a single-family home, when an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously with the construction of a new ADU, the homeowner may elect to build all structures to a 10-foot street-side setback and a 16-foot front yard setback, regardless of the presence of a more restrictive special setback, unless a fire or life-safety regulation requires a greater setback. Pursuant Government Code section 66321(b)(3), a street-side setback may not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit. (5) When an existing, legal, nonconforming structure is converted or reconstructed to create an ADU, any portion of the ADU that is in the same location and falls within the building envelope of the original structure shall not be subject to the development standards stated in this Section. Any portion of the ADU that is in a different location or exceeds the envelope of the original structure shall comply with the development standards stated in this Section. (6) Notwithstanding the development standards stated in Table 2 and paragraph (5) above, when an existing, legal, non-conforming structure is converted in- place to an ADU, the envelope of the structure may be modified to encroach further into a setback or daylight plane as follows: (A) The height of the existing structure may be increased by no more than one linear foot in height commensurate to the existing roofline of the structure provided the height of the addition does not exceed 12 feet from grade. The roofline shall not be changed to a style other than what currently exists on the structure. (B) Each non-conforming wall may be expanded by no more than six inches in thickness based on its existing location and configuration, as measured to exterior surface of the material, to provide for greater insulation and energy requirements provided that a minimum of one foot is maintained between the addition and an adjacent interior property line. An existing wall of a structure that does not currently have a separation of one foot from a parallel property line shall not be expanded outward. (C) All other additions not specified here shall follow the standard setbacks for the ADU identified in Table 2. (k) Design (1) Except on corner lots, where feasible, ADUsthe unit shall not have an entranceway facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the entranceway to the ADUaccessory unit is Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 40     *NOT YET APPROVED* 10 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 located in the rear half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located toward the interior side or rear yard of the property. (2) Privacy (A) Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring property line. Second story decks and balconies shall utilize screening barriers to prevent views towards an adjacent interior property line. These barriers shall be a minimum five-foot, six-inch height from the floor level of the deck or balcony and shall not include perforations of any kind that would allow visibility between properties. (B) Windows on a second floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space, excluding those required for egress, shall have a five-foot sill height as measured from the second-finished floor level, or utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the entirety any window that faces an adjacent interior property line. (C) Windows on a second finished floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space, shall be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy. (D) Where feasible, egress windows on the first and second finished floor of an ADU shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the whole window. (E) If the first finished floor of an ADU is two feet or more above grade, then first floor windows shall include the following: i. Non-egress, operable windows facing an adjacent interior property line shall have a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit; ii. Non-egress, non-operable windows facing an adjacent interior property line shall have the lower half of window(s) (minimum of five feet above the first finished floor) utilize obscuredopaque glazing. (F) Where feasible, the use of skylights (whether operable or not) shall be used in lieu of operable windows that face adjacent interior properties. (G) No exterior lighting shall be mounted above seven feet. All lighting mounted on walls shall be directed downwards and shall not direct light towards adjacent interior property lines. Any ground lighting shall not direct light upwards to the building or sky. (l) Parking (1) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 41     *NOT YET APPROVED* 11 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (2) When parking is provided, the unit shall have street access from a driveway in common with the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts, excessive paving, and elimination of street trees, unless separate driveway access will result in fewer environmental impacts such as paving, grading or tree removal. (3) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction of new ADU, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements identified in Chapter 18.10 and 18.12 do not need to be provided. Two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the property. (4) If covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of the covered parking area for the ADUaccessory dwelling unit is 220 square feet. This space shall count towards the total floor area for the site but does not contribute to the maximum size of the unit. Any attached garage shall not have an interior access point to the ADU (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). (m) Landscape (1) For the purposes of this subsection (m), “protected tree” means: (A) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty- four inches) above natural grade. (B) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (C) Any tree of any species, other than a Coast Redwood Tree, fifteen inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. A “protected tree” does not include a tree of any species on the Exempt Species List put forth by the Department of Urban Forestry and available on the City’s website. (D) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a current or previously completed development project. (E) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 42     *NOT YET APPROVED* 12 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 between the property owner and a responsible government agency or recorded as a deed restriction. (F) Any heritage tree previously designated by the city council. (G) Any tree previously planted as a replacement mitigation tree. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, the construction of an ADU shall not impact any protected tree, on the subject property or any adjacent lot by requiring: (A) Removal of more than twenty-five percent of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period; or (B) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period; or (C) Trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree protection zone of a tree in a way that foreseeably leads to the death of the tree. For the purposes of this subsection (m), "tree protection zone" means the area defined by a circle with a radius ten times the diameter of the trunk when measured four and one-half feet (fifty- four inches) above natural grade. (3)If an action prohibited by section 18.09.040(m)(2) is necessary to allow the construction of an ADU that meets the minimum standards set forth in state law, the tree shall be replaced according to the objective requirements identified in the Tree Canopy Replacement Table of the Palo Alto Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. (4) The construction of an ADU must comply with applicable objective standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the protection of trees during construction. Compliance with this subsection (4) shall not delay or cause the denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use permit. (n) Miscellaneous requirements (1) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in emergency response. (2) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341 and PAMC 21.09. (3) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more. (4) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 43     *NOT YET APPROVED* 13 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements. (5) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the Planning Director identifying the reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall be placed on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of a timely filing. Any decision from the Council is final. 18.09.050 Additional Requirements for JADUs (a) A JADU may be created on a lot in a single-family residential zone with an existing or proposed single family residence. A JADU shall be attached to or created within the walls of an existing or proposed primary dwelling, including enclosed uses within the residence, such as an attached garage. (b) The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring the following components: A cooking facility with appliances, and; food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit. i.JADUs may share sanitation facilities (bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.) with the primary unit. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. In this instance, the floor area and lot coverage associated with shared space shall count towards the primary unit’s maximum allowances only. The combined sanitation facilities between the units shall include shower, toilet, and sink fixtures at a minimum and shall conform to the minimum requirements specified in the Building Code. (c) For the purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation or for the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new unit. (d) The owner of a parcel proposed for a JADU shall occupy as a primary residence either the primary dwelling or the JADU. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization or if the required bathroom for the JADU is provided in the unit, rather than inside the primary home. (e) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a JADU, the owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that includes a prohibition on the sale of the Commented [GS10]: SB 543 Commented [GS11]: AB 1154 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 44     *NOT YET APPROVED* 14 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, identifies that if the unit is rented it shall be rented for no shorter term than 30 days, isrequires owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (d) above, and restricts the size and attributes of the JADU to those that conform with this section. (f) JADU incentive. The existing or proposed primary dwelling unit shall be afforded bonus square footage equal to the square footage of a proposed JADU when a JADU is constructed on site, provided the JADU meets the following requirements: 1) The JADU must conform to the underlying zoning district’s development standards for single family homes. 2) The maximum number of units on site shall not exceed fivefour (threetwo ADUs, one JADU, and one primary home). 3) The maximum size of the JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet. 4) The total maximum bonus/exempt floor area provided for the site under Section 18.09.040 and 18.09.050 may not exceed 800 square feet. 5) The exterior entryway to the JADU shall not face the same direction as the entrance to the primary home. 6) All egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must utilize obscureopaque glazing on the whole window. 7) All non-egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must have a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit. 8) All noise producing equipment associated with the JADU must comply with the noise regulations in PAMC 9.10. 9) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction of new JADU using these provision, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements do not need to be provided. Instead, two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the property. SECTION 3. Subsection (g) of Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of Title 16 (Building) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through): (g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size of interior livable space. Any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet of interior livable space or more shall be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit; SECTION 4. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. 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 Commented [GS12]: AB 1154 Commented [GS13]: SB 543 Commented [GS14]: Staff clarification to incentivize use of this provision. Mirrored in 18.09.040(l)(3). Commented [GS15]: SB 543 Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 45     *NOT YET APPROVED* 15 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 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 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), because it constitutes amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance to conform with preemptive State law, including Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) and Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, as well as other minor and non- substantive amendments. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Ordinance (Annotated Version)     Packet Pg. 46     *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 Attachment C – Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership 1.Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU 18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards Table 2: All other Units Attached Detached Number of Units Allowed1 1 Minimum size 150 sf Maximum size 1,200900 sf (1,000 sf for minimum of two or more bedrooms for 1,000 sf or greater unit); no more than 50% of the size of the single- family home 1,200900 sf (1,000 sf for minimum of two or more bedrooms for 1,000 sf or greater unit) Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; Daylight Plane Underlying zone standard per footnote (7) N/A Maximum Height3 Res. Estate (RE)30 feet Open Space (OS)25 feet All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7) Parking None Square Footage Exemption when in conjunction with a single-family home(4) Up to 800 sf Commented [GS1]: Council Direction Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership     Packet Pg. 47     *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 2.Establish Section 21.09. (Parcel Maps for Separate Sale of ADUs) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) 21.09.010 Purpose and Applicability The intent of this Chapter implements Government Code Section 66342, herein referred to as Assembly Bill 1033 (AB 1033). The purpose of this Part is to apply objective local development standards for subdivisions covered by AB 1033. This Part is applicable only so long as AB 1033 is operative. Where this Chapter or AB 1033 conflict with any other provisions of this Code, this Chapter and AB 1033 shall control. Any development standard or requirement not specifically addressed by this Chapter or AB 1033 must conform to all other provisions of this Code and all other objective policies and requirements governing subdivisions. 21.09.020 Permit Required Pursuant to Government Code Section 66342, this Chapter provides for the streamlined approval for conversion of existing or new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) into condominiums. These condominiums shall be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence only under the conditions outlined in this Chapter or pursuant to Government Code Section 66341. No condominium conversion to a project shall be permitted in any district unless permitted in such district and without obtaining approval of a Parcel Map pursuant to the provisions of this Title and Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 21.09.030 ADU Condominium Requirements To achieve the purposes of this Chapter, all projects shall conform to the following requirements: (a) The Director of Planning is authorized to promulgate regulations, forms, and/or checklists setting forth application requirements for a parcel map for this Chapter. (b) A maximum of three ADU condominium units shall be allowed on lots that presently allow ADUs, and could include attached ADU(s) and/or a detached ADU(s) built in accordance with Chapter 18.09 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units). In conjunction with the ADU condominium, the parcel map approved pursuant with this Chapter may also include the subdivision of up to two primary dwelling units, in conformance with Senate Bill 9 implementation, into condominiums. The allowance for joint SB9 and ADU Condominium applications shall not exceed a total of four condominium units on each R-1 or RE lot under any circumstances. (c) All structures and buildings included as part of a condominium project shall conform to the building and zoning requirements applicable to the zoning district in which the Commented [GS2]: Council Direction (AB 1033) Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership     Packet Pg. 48     *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 project is proposed to be located. Designation of individual condominium units shall not be deemed to reduce or eliminate any of the building and zoning requirements applicable to any such buildings or structures. (d) The condominium shall be created pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the Civil Code). (e) The condominium shall be created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) and all other objective requirements of this Chapter. (1) Neither a subdivision map nor a condominium plan shall be recorded with the county recorder without each lienholder’s consent. The following shall apply to the consent of a lienholder: (A) A lienholder may refuse to give consent. (B) A lienholder may consent provided that any terms and conditions required by the lienholder are satisfied. (2) Prior to recordation of the initial or any subsequent modifications to the condominium plan, written evidence of the lienholder’s consent shall be provided to City staff and the county recorder along with a signed statement from each lienholder that states as follows: “(Name of lienholder) hereby consents to the recording of this condominium plan in their sole and absolute discretion and the borrower has or will satisfy any additional terms and conditions the lienholder may have.” (3) The lienholder’s consent shall be included on the condominium plan, or attached to the condominium plan that includes the following information: (A) The lienholder’s signature. (B) The name of the record owner or ground lessee. (C) The legal description of the real property. (D) The identities of all parties with an interest in the real property as reflected in the real property records. (E) The lienholder’s consent shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the real property is located. (f) An ADU shall be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence only under the conditions outlined in this Chapter, Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and under the applicable conditions of Government Code Section 66341. Prior to approval of a parcel map, a home or property owners’ association or similar entity shall be formed for any condominium project. The association shall, at a minimum, provide for the administration, management and maintenance of all common areas including Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership     Packet Pg. 49     *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 landscaping, drive aisles and parking areas, maintenance of the exterior of all buildings, pool or common roof, the collection of dues, payment of public utilities not billed separately to each unit, and enforcement of standards within the project. (1) The owner of a property or a separate interest within an existing planned development that has an existing association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code, shall not record a condominium plan to create a common interest development under Section 4100 of the Civil Code without the express written authorization by the existing association. (2) For purposes of this subparagraph, written authorization by the existing association means approval by the board at a duly noticed board meeting, as defined in Section 4090 of the Civil Code, and if needed pursuant to the existing association’s governing documents, membership approval of the existing association. (g) The applicant shall prepare a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall be recorded and apply to each owner of a condominium unit within the project. The CC&Rs shall be recorded at, or prior to, the time of parcel map approval, and shall include all applicable conditions of approval and requirements of the City. The CC&Rs shall, at a minimum, provide: (1) That any amendment to the CC&Rs related to the conditions of approval or other requirements of this Chapter may not be approved without prior consent of the City. (2) That there shall be an entity created (e.g., a property or homeowners’ association) which shall be financially responsible for and shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. (3) A provision containing information regarding the conveyance of units and any assignment of parking, an estimate of any initial assessment fees anticipated for maintenance of common areas and facilities, and an indication of appropriate responsibilities for maintenance of all utility lines and services for each unit. (4) A provision addressing the payment of utilities including water, sewer, gas and electricity by the homeowner or through the association. (5) A provision requiring that any owner who rents his/her condominium unit shall conform to the homeowners’ association which is responsible for management of the common areas and enforcement of the CC&Rs. (6) That rental of any dwelling unit created by the parcel map shall be for a term longer than 30 consecutive days. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership     Packet Pg. 50     *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (h) In addition to such covenants, conditions, and restrictions that may be required by the Department of Real Estate of the State of California pursuant to Title 6 (Condominiums) of the Civil Code or other State laws or policies, the organization documents shall provide for the following: (1) Conveyance of units. (2) Management of common areas within the project. (3) A proposed annual operating budget containing a reserve fund to pay major anticipated maintenance, repair, or replacement expenses; and indicating the association fees needed for the operating budget and reserve fund. (4) FHA regulatory agreement, if any. (i) If an accessory dwelling unit is established as a condominium, the homeowner shall notify providers of utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and electricity, of the condominium creation and separate conveyance. (j) Prior to approval of the parcel map, a safety inspection of the ADU(s) shall be conducted as evidenced through issuance of a final Building Permit or a housing quality standards report from a building inspector certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development when applicable, and which conforms to current Building Code and Fire Code requirements. (k) The Director of Planning shall cause a notice of the pending application to be posted at the site of the proposed ADU Condominium and for notice to be mailed to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property. (l) The Director of Planning shall ministerially review and approve a parcel map for an ADU Condominium if they determine that the parcel map application meets all requirements of this Chapter, Chapter 18.09, and Title 21. The Director of Planning shall deny a parcel map application that does not meet any requirement of this Chapter, Chapter 18.09, and Title 21. (m)In addition to other application submittal requirements created by the City and published on its website, the following information shall be provided: (1) Statement regarding current ownership of all improvements and underlying land. (2) A site plan and boundary map showing the location of all existing or proposed: easements, structures, mature and/or scenic trees, and other improvements upon the property. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership     Packet Pg. 51     *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160107_20250417_ms29 1 2 6 3 (3) Dimensions and location of each building or unit and the location of all fences and walls. (4) The location, size, and design for all common areas, including all facilities and amenities provided within the common areas for use by unit owners. (5) Location and condition for all paved areas, including pedestrian walkways. (6) Maintenance plan of all buildings and common areas and facilities. (n) The Director of Planning shall determine the appropriate fee required for an application for parcel map for an ADU Condominium, which may be the fee currently established for a Preliminary Parcel Map, Parcel Map, or SB 9 application. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft Text for 1,200-Square-Foot ADU and to Allow Separate ADU Ownership     Packet Pg. 52     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 13, 2026 Report #: 2603-6057 TITLE Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City Council adopt the draft ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The draft ordinance in Attachment A responds to a City Council Priority and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan policies for creek protection, seeking to better protect and enhance the City’s creeks and riparian areas. The existing ordinance has been in place for more than two decades and City staff recommends an update to reflect current best practices of stream corridor protection. The draft ordinance endeavors to present a balance between protecting and preserving the beneficial aspects of streams (including flood prevention, riparian corridors, and habitats) and providing options for property owners to reasonably utilize their properties. For the Urbanized Area, which encompasses most of the built-out areas of the City, the draft ordinance presents a 25-foot streamside setback. This is a reduction from the previously recommended 30 feet, responding directly to previous PTC discussion and public comments. This does not reduce the existing Slope Stability Protection Area requirements, which are retained to maintain the structural integrity of stream banks and structural safety, and may in some cases be more than the 25-foot streamside setback. For the Open Space and Rural Area, the area defined west of Foothill expressway, staff continues to recommend maintaining a 150-foot streamside setback for both perennial (year- round) and intermittent streams, consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. However, Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 53     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 recognizing that applying a uniform 150-foot setback could significantly impact established residential neighborhoods, staff recommendation includes allowing a smaller setback for those lots containing, or in close proximity to, ephemeral streams, as defined in the draft ordinance. This approach utilizes the ephemeral nature of the stream as the regulatory trigger, directly addressing site conditions and providing necessary regulatory relief for less environmentally sensitive areas. BACKGROUND 1 staff presented a revised draft ordinance that included a 30-foot streamside setback in the Urbanized Areas, the area between Foothill Expressway and Highway 101, and 150-foot setback elsewhere, and retained the existing slope stability protection area requirements for properties near streams. Staff also included a provision allowing the use of the smaller streamside setback from the Urbanized Area in established residential neighborhoods within the Open Space and Rural Areas without requiring an exception process. The staff proposal included a list of exemptions, as well as findings for the exception process, for the PTC to discuss. ANALYSIS 1 August 27, 2025, PTC Staff Report Packet (Item #3), starting on Page 24 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 54     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 The draft ordinance (Attachment A) reflects feedback received from the PTC and community members, as well as further staff analysis and coordination. This Analysis section details key revisions proposed by staff in comparison to the draft ordinance reviewed by the PTC in August 2025. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 55     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 Many initial methods considered would have created more complexity and confusion in the implementation of the updated ordinance. Rather than establishing yet another boundary delineator, introducing a matrix of varying setback distances, or drafting neighborhood-specific exceptions, staff proposes that lots containing or in close proximity to ephemeral streams within the Open Space and Rural Area be permitted to utilize the standard Urbanized Area setback distance by right, without requiring a formal exception process. This utilizes the ephemeral nature of the stream as the regulatory trigger, directly addressing the physical site conditions. A potential drawback of utilizing ephemeral streams as the trigger for reduced setbacks is the risk of unintended application. This approach could inadvertently allow parcels zoned for Public Facilities or Open Space to also utilize the smaller setback. Staff prepared maps of impacted residential neighborhoods within the Open Space and Rural Areas to facilitate PTC discussion. These maps are located in Attachment C. Alternative 1: Limiting the shorter setback only to residentially zoned properties with or near ephemeral streams: There may be other parts of the Open Space and Rural Areas that could have ephemeral streams. As this effort was to mitigate significant impacts in existing residential neighborhoods, the recommendation can further limit the properties that can utilize the shorter setback by restricting it to properties that are residentially zoned and contain, or are in close proximity to, ephemeral streams. This would minimize the unintended consequences of having a shorter setback applied to environmentally sensitive areas with lush riparian habitat. Alternative 2: Keep the 150-foot buffer and allow a shorter setback only with the exception process: Although certain streams may be ephemeral and appear insignificant, they can still overtop and flood during heavy rain events, effectively becoming floodplains during high-flow periods. Also, regional FEMA maps indicate that some creeks in the area originating in the hills and flowing into neighboring jurisdictions are designated as Flood Zone A. Because these zones lack detailed hydraulic studies, the exact flood limits have not been officially established. In addition, the Open Space and Rural Areas generally feature steeper terrain than the rest of the city; this increases the risk of these ephemeral streams flooding structures and behaving like perennial streams during heavy rainfall. If this alternative is chosen, the exception process should allow a shorter setback of 25 feet only if the applicant hires licensed geotechnical and hydrological engineers to prove the site is safe for construction closer to the stream. Alternative 3: Relocating the Delineation Line (from Foothill Expressway to I-280): Moving the boundary line west would successfully capture the entire Esther Clark Park neighborhood within the Urbanized Area, allowing them to utilize the reduced setback. However, the drawback is that this approach would leave the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood in the Open Space and Rural Area, offering them no regulatory relief other than the exception process in the Draft Ordinance. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 56     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 Alternative 4: Utilizing the RE (Residential Estate) Zoning District: Using the RE zoning district as the trigger for a reduced setback would broadly capture both the Esther Clark Park and Palo Alto Hills neighborhoods. The drawback to this approach is that a small number of lots within Palo Alto Hills are zoned OS (Open Space). Under this alternative, those specific OS-zoned properties would be excluded and would still be required to undergo the standard permit process, and request for an exception. Slope Stability Protection Area At the August 2025 hearing, the PTC received a public request from property owners in the Edgewood neighborhood seeking an exemption from the Slope Stability Protection Area, citing security concerns related to a nearby encampment. The primary request was to allow fencing to be constructed closer to the creek to avoid a zone where persons can access between the fence and the creek. This requested exemption would be in addition to the exemption from the Streamside Setback, already included in the Draft Ordinance. The Slope Stability Protection Area was established to ensure the safety of both the stream bank and any structure proposed within these Slope Stability Protection Area. Having an exception process to request to construct structures within this area, which needs to be approved by the Public Works Director, not only allows City staff to thoroughly review individual proposals, but it also facilitates crucial coordination with regional agencies, including, but not limited to, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. This collaborative review ensures that any proposed structures within the protection area do not interfere with agency operations or future environmental plans. The primary purpose of retaining the Slope Stability Protection Area is to maintain the structural integrity of the natural stream bank. It ensures that the weight of new development does not threaten bank stability or put the property owner at risk from natural erosion and eventual slope failure. If buildings are constructed too close to the creek, it inevitably necessitates the future introduction of concrete retaining walls just to keep the bank from collapsing. Additionally, this area provides a critical physical buffer, guaranteeing that maintenance staff have the necessary space to access and repair the stream corridor. The Slope Stability Protection Area aligns directly with the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. This regional document defines the area as a crucial safety factor, ensuring that the heavy weight of buildings, pools, or parking lots does not trigger landslides or catastrophic bank cave-ins. Because the location of the top of bank naturally shifts and erodes over time, the Slope Stability Protection Area gives the stream the necessary room to move and evolve without immediately threatening private property. There are no changes proposed to the existing requirements for fences within the Slope Stability Protection Area. New fences where none currently exist within the Slope Stability Protection Area are strictly prohibited unless an exception is granted by the Director of Public Works according to the Slope Stability Protection Area exception process prescribed in the draft Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 57     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 ordinance. With the exception approval, however, no fences shall be allowed to be closer than five feet from the top of bank. Repair and replacement of existing fences will be permitted pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.70. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 58     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 Property owners stressed that applying a uniform 150-foot setback would render a significant portion of their parcels effectively unusable, particularly for smaller lots and the few remaining undeveloped properties. Additionally, some comments highlighted that restricting development to this extent contradicts broader goals and state policies aimed at increasing housing. Furthermore, commenters criticized the proposed exception process as a costly and time-consuming approach that unfairly shifts the burden of biological assessments onto homeowners. Residents also requested provisions to ensure the new rules do not retroactively penalize existing structures and landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW POLICY IMPLICATIONS Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 59     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 impacts. Program N3.3.1 requires a border of native riparian vegetation of at least 30 feet along the creek bank. The draft ordinance achieves this by creating the Slope Stability Protection Area, which mandates a 30-foot protection zone for Open Space and Rural Areas, within which only native riparian vegetation is allowed, and new ornamental landscaping is prohibited. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 60     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 9 9 5 0 2 9 5 0 2 3. Recommend the City Council not approve the draft ordinance and leave the current regulations in place. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Attachment B: Response to PTC Feedback from August 2025 hearing Attachment C: Assorted maps for discussion Attachment D: Public Comment Letters AUTHOR/TITLE: Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 61     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 1 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 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 residents about proposed updates to the stream protection ordinance 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 reviewed a dra ordinance and provided comments. F. On February 6, 2025, a hybrid Community Workshop was conducted to solicit community feedback on the dra ordinance. G. On August 27, 2025, the Planning and Transporta on Commission reviewed a dra ordinance and provided feedback but con nued the discussion to a date uncertain. H. On May 13, 2026, the Planning and Transporta on Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the dra ordinance. I. 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. J. The updated Stream Corridor Protec on Ordinance provides a 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 Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 62     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 2 (a) Purpose. The purpose of the natural resources protection measures specified below is to preserve and strengthen water and riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, and minimize storm water pollution. (b) Definitions. Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: (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) “Baylands Area” means the area within the City Limits that is east of Highway 101. (3) “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. (4) “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. These fences shall have the following specifications: (A) Distance from ground to top of fence shall not exceed 40 inches (total fence height). (B) The distance from the ground to the bottom of the fence shall be at least 18 inches. (C) Fence posts shall be spaced at intervals no less than 8 feet. (D) Fences shall be constructed with a solid top rail (such as wooden or vinyl plant or metal bar) for visibility and to prevent entanglement. (E) Fences shall have at least one gate which can be opened in the event an animal becomes trapped and needs to be released. (5) “Floodwall” means an artificial barrier, usually made of concrete, that is designed to increase the capacity of a creek to contain water during high flow events and prevent flooding. (6) “Open Space and Rural Area” means “the area within the City Limits that is west of Foothill Expressway. (7) “Qualified Biologist” means at minimum a professional who possesses a relevant college bachelor’s degree and the appropriate education, training, and at least two years of relevant work experience to expertly evaluate project impacts on living organisms and biological resources. This individual must have demonstrated regional expertise and the practical capacity to conduct biological surveys, monitor project Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 63     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 3 activities, provide environmental education to construction personnel, and prepare regulatory compliance documents like CEQA reports. (8) “Riparian Vegetation” means native plant life that occurs in and/or adjacent to watercourses, typically growing on or in the vicinity of the banks, in soils that exhibit wetness characteristics during part of the growing season. This vegetation is structurally or floristically distinct from nearby, non-streamside plant communities and relies on water sources for soil moisture levels greater than what is available through local precipitation alone. (9) “Riparian Vegetation, Woody” means vegetation that are distinguished from herbaceous vegetation by the presence of “tough, fibrous stems and branches covered with bark,” such as trees, shrubs, and vines. (10) “Service Road” means roads that limit general public access, primarily designed and used to provide personnel and equipment from public agencies like Santa Clara Valley Water District with access to their facilities for operation, maintenance, and repair. (11) “Slope Stability Protection Area" means the area where development is generally prohibited, to preserve riparian vegetation, strengthen the streamside ecosystem, and protect against bank instability. The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point measured at the rise over run ratio of 1:2 landward from the toe of the bank, but no less than the following distance from the top of the bank: (A) 20 feet for Urbanized Areas, or (B) 25 feet for Baylands Area and Open Space and Rural Areas. (12) “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; (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; or Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 64     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 4 (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, or criteria set forth by the permitting agencies. (13) “Stream, Channelized” means a stream or portion of a stream whose course has been intentionally altered, usually straightened or enlarged for the purposes of storm runoff control, flood control, or ease of navigation. It could include widening, deepening, straightening, or lining the channel with materials like concrete. (14) “Stream, Ephemeral” means a watercourse that flows only in direct response to precipitation (rainfall) and does not have continuous flow during dry periods. (15) “Stream, Natural” means a stream or portion of a stream that remains in a natural or mostly undisturbed state. (16) “Streamside Setback” means the area measured from top of bank in which the siting of structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and landscaped areas is regulated by this Section. (17) “Toe of Bank” (Figures 1 and 2) means the point in a channel where the slope of the bank meets the streambed. (18) “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 adjacent land, as determined by a qualified biologist or otherwise determined by the Director. For fully channelized streams. For channelized streams, where a fully engineered channel exists, the top of the bank is defined as the highest edge of that channel. (B) “Stream without Defined Bank.” Where there is no defined bank and the slope from the streambed is less than the rise over run ratio of 1:2, top of bank is considered the one-hundred-year water surface elevation calculated by a qualified hydrologist or hydraulics engineer. FIGURE 1: TOP OF BANK, STREAM WITH DEFINED BANK Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 65     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 5 FIGURE 2: TOP OF BANK, STREAM WITHOUT DEFINED BANK (19) “Urbanized Area” means the area within the City Limits that is between Foothill Expressway and Highway 101. (20) “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) Requires discretionary planning approval (including, but not limited to Single Family Individual Review, Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits); or Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 66     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 6 (B) Proposes to locate closer to a stream than the existing condition. (d) Exemptions. The following projects are exempt from this Section except for the slope stability protection area requirements under Section 18.40.140(g): (1) Interior construction or alterations; (2) Retaining walls less than three feet in height that are located outside of the Slope Stability Protection Area; (3) Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with riparian vegetation that is native to the region or with remedial stream bank stability work deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works; (4) Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside the protected areas is not available; (5) Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Chapter 18.09; (6) Projects located on properties separated from the stream by a public or private street or alley or paved public trail or service road; or (7) Any properties that are behind floodwalls that were installed or maintained by regional agencies like the Santa Clara Valley Water District. (8) Any single-family properties adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 67     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 7 (e) Streamside Setback. The Streamside Setback distances are outlined in Table 1 as measured from top of bank. Table 1: Streamside Setback Urbanized Area 25 feet(1) Open Space and Rural Area(2) 150 feet(1) Baylands Area 150 feet(1) (1) Applicable proper es must comply with both the streamside setback and the Slope Stability Protec on Area requirements (see Sec ons 18.40.140(b) and (g)). Where the required Slope Stability Protec on Area distance exceeds the streamside setback, the greater distance shall govern. (2) Within the Rural and Open Space Areas, proper es with ephemeral stream(s) may be allowed to apply the Streamside Setback of the Urbanized Area. (f) Streamside Setback Requirements. Unless otherwise required under Section 18.40.140(g), the following requirements shall be applicable to the Streamside Setback areas: (1) Vegetation (A) The following vegetation shall be allowed: (i) Native riparian vegetation. (ii) Non-riparian or non-native vegetation, provided that such species are: (I) non-invasive; (II) located on the structure side of any existing or future fencing (away from the stream); and (III) irrigated in a manner that will not adversely affect mature oaks and other woody riparian vegetation within the setback area. (B) The following vegetation shall be prohibited: (i) Invasive species (ii) Prohibited plant material as listed in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative's User Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. (iii) Other species that are deemed detrimental to the area by the City. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 68     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 8 (C) Existing Riparian Vegetation, including Woody Riparian Vegetation, shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. Replacement of Riparian Vegetation shall be required if removal was approved by the Director. (D) For any trees removed, replacement with native riparian trees shall be required following the replacement ratio pursuant to Chapter 8.10. (E) The following requirements shall be applied to the soil area: (i) No synthetic cover or fill shall be allowed and shall not be covered with synthetic cover or fill, including but not limited to plastic (nylon, polypropylene or polyethylene, rubber) and ground cover such as artificial turf or weed barriers. (ii) Irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent soil erosion. (iii) For irrigation systems within outboard stream bank slope, it must be bubbler or drip-type systems and used for establishment purposes only. (2) Fences. (A) New fences in the Streamside Setback shall conform to Chapter 16.24. (B) Within the Open Space and Rural Area and the Baylands Area, only Wildlife-Friendly Fences shall be permitted within the Streamside Setback area. (3) Structures and improvements. (A) No new Buildings, Structures, or similar improvements (excluding fences) shall be permitted in the Streamside Setback without an exception pursuant to Section 18.40.140(h)(1). (B) No more than 25 percent of the Streamside Setback area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, of impermeable paving or surface shall be allowed. (C) Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment, septic tanks, and leach fields shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank. (4) 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. (g) Slope Stability Protection Area Requirements. In addition to the requirements under 18.40.140(f), the following requirements shall be required within the Slope Stability Protection Area: (1) Only native riparian vegetation shall be allowed. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 69     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 9 (2) No new ornamental landscaping shall be permitted. (3) No new Buildings or Structures, including but not limited to, fences; decks of any height; swimming pools, spas, sports courts, and hot tubs; and parking lots or impermeable paving, shall be allowed unless an exception is granted by the Director of Public Works pursuant to 18.40.140(h)(2). (h) Exceptions (1) General Findings. Applicants requesting an exception from a required Streamside Setback must submit documentation supporting all of the following findings: (A) A qualified biologist has prepared an Environmental Assessment that identifies any Riparian Vegetation, including Woody Riparian Vegetation, affected by the project, delineates habitat and work limits, and prescribes avoidance/minimization measures and, if necessary, compensatory mitigation; and (B) There is no physically or legally feasible alternative for the proposed project configuration that completely avoids or minimizes the encroachment into the setback area. (2) Slope Stability Protection Area Exceptions. No structures are permitted within the Slope Stability Protection area unless an exception is granted by the Director of Public Works. (A) The applicant must provide a geotechnical slope stability analysis demonstrating that maintenance and repair of the stream could be provided with the proposed development in place, and at least one of the following: (i) The proposed development would not threaten the stability of the streambank slope; or (ii) The proposed development includes the introduction of hardscape to maintain the streambank slope; or (iii) The proposed development would not be at risk of damage from future bank instability or erosion. (B) The exception shall be subject to compliance with the following requirements: (i) New fences shall be constructed with a minimum of five feet landward from the top of bank. (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 may allow equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions or other setback requirements make strict compliance not possible; 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. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 70     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 10 (iii) 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. (3) Exception Review Process. Notwithstanding Section 18.77.075(a), exception requests shall follow the review process set forth in 18.77.075. If the request is combined with another permit application that requires a greater level of review than the procedures described in Section 18.77.075, the exception request will be reviewed in accordance with the process for review of the other permit application(s). (i) Capital Improvement Programs or other Projects Performed by Public Agencies. (1) Capital Improvement Programs or any other projects performed by the City or other public agencies, including but not limited to Cities of Menlo Park or East Palo Alto, San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Caltrain, and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), shall comply with the requirements of this Section to the extent feasible. The Director may grant adjustments or exemption to any applicable requirements for such facilities if the adjustment is necessary for the efficient operation, maintenance, or safety of the facility, or to ensure public safety and security; and is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of this Section. A written request for an adjustment or exemption, including supporting documentation, shall be submitted and shall be reviewed according to the applicable review procedures in Chapter Section 18.77 associated with the proposed development. (2) Routine maintenance in accordance with regulatory permits and done within the creek as part of repair or restoration in advance of or following storms events shall be exempted from the requirements of this Section. (j) Non-complying Facilities. Any facilities, including fences, rendered legal and non- conforming or non-complying by this Section shall be subject to Chapter 18.70, which covers requirements for maintenance, repair, and replacement. (k) 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 Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 71     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 11 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). (l) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence. Other requirements applicable to development near streams by the Building Code, Fire Code, regulations of other regional agencies with purview, or state or federal law shall additionally comply with the requirements of this section, unless these requirements necessarily conflict with the aforementioned Codes, regulations, and laws. In the event of a conflict, the standards in the applicable Codes, regulations, and laws shall prevail. 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. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. // // // // // // // // SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project application deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Any project completed pursuant to such application Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 72     ***Not Yet Adopted*** 0160188_20260506_ay16 12 shall be deemed a legal non-conforming structure and/or use, subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.70. 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 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 73     Staff Response to PTC Feedback from August 27, 2025 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Page 1 of 3 Topic PTC Feedback Draft Ordinance Reference Staff Response Definition Requested definition of qualified biologist 18.40.140(b)(7) Definition included Reference Map of stream corridors and proposed streamside setback n/a The map showing the proposed streamside setback is included in Attachment C. Reference Maps should have legend when provided n/a Legend included in the attached maps. Exemption Confirm whether the road abutting the Matadero Creek referenced in one of public comment letters is a service road for Valley Water n/a A maintenance road is located north of Matadero Creek and it is used by Valley Water for their operation and maintenance. Exemption Any differences in lot characteristics for properties along San Francisquito Creek between Marlowe St to Southwood Dr n/a There is no distinctive characteristics for the properties along San Francisquito Creek between Marlowe St to Southwood Dr. The properties along San Francisquito Creek are all within 100-year flood plain and are located on a higher elevation. General Comparison of/relationship between the goals or direction and the draft ordinance n/a The staff report includes a Policy Implications section illustrating how the Draft Ordinance is consistent with existing City policies. Slope Stability Protection Area Riparian vegetation should be encouraged but not mandated within the Slope Stability Protection Area 18.40.140(f) This is an existing requirement that is transferred over to the update. “Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream." No changes made to the Draft Ordinance. Streamside Setback 30-foot buffer is not feasible for the Urbanized Area. A lot of public comments agreed with 25-foot buffer. 18.40.140(e) The Streamside Setback for the Urbanized Area now shows 25 feet to reflect feedback from the PTC as well as the community feedback. Exemption Properties “behind” floodwalls, not properties “protected by” floodwalls. If most of the properties in the Urbanized Area are behind floodwalls, they all should be exempted. 18.40.140(d)(7) Exemption added Item 3 Attachment B - Response to PTC Feedback from August 2025 hearing     Packet Pg. 74     Staff Response to PTC Feedback from August 27, 2025 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Page 2 of 3 Streamside Setback No support for allowing a smaller setback to the RE neighborhood within the Open Space and Rural Area 18.40.140(e), Table 1 The established residential neighborhood within the Open Space and Rural Area has streams that are usually intermittent or ephemeral. A provision allowing a smaller setback added. Streamside Setback More analysis on the Urbanized Area similar to the Open Space and Rural Area lot size threshold analysis n/a With the Draft Ordinance, the properties within the Urbanized Area are required to design their property with the 25-foot streamside setback in addition to other applicable development standards. The Draft Ordinance also provides a long list of exemptions as well as a process to request an exception. Exemption Support the exemption on the Edgewood neighborhood without expanding it to another area 18.40.140(d)(8) No changes needed. Exception Findings are problematic. (1) Reasonable alternative. Needs more thought to make it workable. (2) Special circumstances. Essentially a variance finding and most of his special circumstances cases was that the property has a creek going through. It would not really work for this Stream ordinance. (3) Qualified biologist. 18.40.140(h)(1) The reference to “reasonable” alternative changed to “physically or legally feasible” alternative, and the special circumstance finding was removed. A definition for qualified biologist added and kept the environmental assessment finding. General Requirements Riparian vegetation should be allowed for the area between fences and creek bank but not behind the fences 18.40.140(f) The riparian vegetation is not a requirement and only required when the property owner would like to add new vegetation. No changes made. Exemption Exemption related to service road should remove the width requirement 18.40.140(d)(6) An exemption related to service roads added. Item 3 Attachment B - Response to PTC Feedback from August 2025 hearing     Packet Pg. 75     Staff Response to PTC Feedback from August 27, 2025 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Page 3 of 3 Streamside Setback The lot threshold analysis map should be prepared with aerial maps overlaid so that how the setback is impacting the properties there. Assorted maps were prepared for PTC discussion including the requested map(s). See Attachment C. Exemption Should be changed to “or paved public trail or a service road” 18.40.140(d)(6) The requested incorporated into the draft ordinance. Exception “Maximum extent possible” should be reconsidered 18.40.140(f)(1)(C) The requested incorporated into the draft ordinance. Slope Stability Protection Area Changing the materials of fences would be considered a new fence? Any changes to the fences will be reviewed with the regulations at the time of the application submittal. Streamside Setback Allow 30-foot setback for the entire Esther Clark Park neighborhood (Part of the amendments of the failed motion) 18.40.140(e), Table 1 Staff recommendation allows lots with ephemeral stream(s) within the Open Space and Rural Area to use the smaller setback of the Urbanized Area. The staff report includes multiple alternatives for the PTC to consider. Streamside Setback Exclude the Esther Clark Park neighborhood from the Open Space and Rural Area, and move this into the Urbanized Area (part of the amendments of the failed motion) Exemption Straw poll: Exemption of the Slope Stability Protection Area for the Edgewood 18.40.140(d) No changes have been made to the existing Slope Stability Protection Area. The City has no special security concerns to allow for such an exemption, as these requirements are in place to ensure bank stability and structural safety. Please refer to the Analysis section of the staff report for more details on the staff position on the Slope Stability Protection Area requirements. Exemption Straw poll: Exemption of the Slope Stability Protection Area for the rest of the City Slope Stability Protection Area Straw poll: 5-foot setback for fences with exception granted should not be applied to the ENA Item 3 Attachment B - Response to PTC Feedback from August 2025 hearing     Packet Pg. 76     * *Some properties may be developed with a smaller setback. See the draft ordinance to find out which properties could be subject to a smaller setback Item 3 Attachment C - Assorted Maps for Discussion     Packet Pg. 77     1111 25' buffer 150' buffer*c:::J Subareas N Ao 3,000 6,000 Feet For Reference Only: This map provides general information about the location of creeks and streams within the City limits. However, it does not guarantee their precise location on any specific property. Anyone proposing a project potentially impacted by a creek or stream must have a qualified professional identify its accurate location. Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Streams and Creeks in the Open Space and Rural Areas *Some properties may be developed with a smaller setback. See the draft ordinance to find out which properties could be subject to a smaller setback Item 3 Attachment C - Assorted Maps for Discussion     Packet Pg. 78     --Streams 150' buffer* f" J City Limits -PF LJR-1 ORE RP For Reference Only: This map provides general information about the location of creeks and streams within the City limits. However, it does not guarantee their precise location on any specific property. Anyone proposing a project potentially impacted by a creek or stream must have a qualified professional identify its accurate location. Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Esther Clark Park neighborhood -Zoning and Lot Size 0 300 600 Feet *Some properties may be developed with a smaller setback. See the draft ordinance to find out which properties could be subject to a smaller setback Item 3 Attachment C - Assorted Maps for Discussion     Packet Pg. 79     150' buffer* ,-_ � City Limits For Reference Only: This map provides general information about the location of creeks and streams within the City limits. However, it does not guarantee their precise location on any specific propenty. Anyone proposing a project potentially impacted by a creek or stream must have a qualified professional identify its accurate location. Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Esther Clark Park neighborhood - Aerial view *Some properties may be developed with a smaller setback. See the draft ordinance to find out which properties could be subject to a smaller setback Item 3 Attachment C - Assorted Maps for Discussion     Packet Pg. 80     --Streams 150' buffer* f" J City Limits Dos -PF DRE For Reference Only: This map provides general information about the location of creeks and streams within the City limits. However, it does not guarantee their precise location on any specific property. Anyone proposing a project potentially impacted by a creek or stream must have a qualified professional identify its accurate location. Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Palo Alto Hills neighborhood - Zoning and Lot Size 5224104.43 \ ) 0 400 I 800 Feet I J *Some properties may be developed with a smaller setback. See the draft ordinance to find out which properties could be subject to a smaller setback Item 3 Attachment C - Assorted Maps for Discussion     Packet Pg. 81     Streams 150' buffer* For Reference Only: This map provides general information about the location of creeks and streams within the City limits. However, it does not guarantee their precise location on any specific propenty. Anyone proposing a project potentially impacted by a creek or stream must have a qualified professional identify its accurate location. Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update Palo Alto Hills neighborhood - Aerial View *Some properties may be developed with a smaller setback. See the draft ordinance to find out which properties could be subject to a smaller setback Item 3 Attachment C - Assorted Maps for Discussion     Packet Pg. 82     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 83     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 84     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 85     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 86     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 87     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 88     Palo Alto Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) Update Technical Information on the Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Relevant to SCPO Update Jeff Watt December 18, 2025 1 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 89     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 90     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 91     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 92     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 93     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek, November 2025 Conditions Source of remaining “natural” creek is underground storm sewer system discharge from Los Altos Hills. Shallow/narrow creek along boundary between Los Altos Hills residences and Esther Clark Park. Habitat and all new vegetation along creek in Esther Clark Park destroyed by City of Palo Alto through annual maintenance practices. Creek flows through fully fenced yards in Esther Clark Park Neighborhood. •Creek is ~2’-5’ deep and dry in most locations for much of the year •Creek is segmented into isolated fragments and does not function as a continuous riparian corridor 6 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 94     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 95     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 96     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 97     •Some inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information in public-facing materials may distort stream classification and setback outcomes •The Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek appears to have been misclassified under the proposed ordinance relative to its actual physical and functional characteristics •Use of Foothill Expressway as a dividing line for setback requirements relies on a geographic proxy that does not adequately reflect site-specific stream conditions •The proposed setback for the tributary is not consistent with Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards or approaches used by neighboring jurisdictions •The existing 20-foot setback for the tributary meets County Collaborative Guidelines for minor or ephemeral streams, even when including the additional setback recommended for larger lots •Reliance on the variance process to address routine exceptions is not an appropriate substitute for clear, condition-based standards and will result in unnecessary administrative burden Recap: Key Messages and Concerns 10 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 98     Supporting Material 11 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 99     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 100     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 101     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 102     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 103     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 104     Topographic Views of Watershed and Original Natural Channel Maps 17 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 105     Sources •City of Palo Alto •City of Los Altos •Town of Los Altos Hills •Santa Clara Valley Water District •Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards, revised July 2006 •Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program •Watershed Characteristics Report prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, revised August 2003 •Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity by Janet M. Sowers, 2004 •USGS maps and stream symbol definitions 18 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 106     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 107     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 108     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 109     Draft dated 28 January – Via email from Ellen Shay - 10h49 J. Shore Mark-up – 15h00 Here are my ideas so far for things to write, call, email, etc. Feel free to add things, change things, take out things in your own emails. I am a resident of the Esther Clark Park (ECP) neighborhood. I was surprised to learn very recently about the proposed update to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) and the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance, and then even more surprised to learn how few ECP residents were even aware of these pending ordinances. Of the approximately 39 ECP properties affected by SCPO, only a few owners were aware of SCPO until very recently or, for that matter, the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance, which would affect all ECP residents. Now that a lot more residents are aware, it feels like the Esther Clark Park community is coming to the realization that legally sufficient—but clearly ineffective—notice to residents regarding land use regulations that would deprive residents of significant property rights is viewed by the City as fair. The limited outreach by City officials to ECP residents has been woefully inadequate given the profound impacts of these ordinances to residents. We have recently learned that the proposed 150-foot stream setback for properties west of Foothill Expressway has been talked about for years and was adopted in 2017 as a goal in the Comprehensive Plan at the behest of environmental advocates. The Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance is also directed at areas West of Foothill and East of 101. The Comprehensive Plan made arbitrary lines at West of Foothill and East of 101, perhaps in part on the assumption that the areas’ larger than average lots could accommodate larger setbacks. The math is this: a 150-foot radius creates a square area of 70,685 square feet. That is 1.6 acres. That is just from one point on a creek bank. The consultants who generated the Existing Conditions report don't seem to have visited Esther Clark Park and our Barron Creek tributary. There are many errors, including in the mapping. One of my ECP neighbors, Jeff Watt, has done a lot of research about Barron Creek and wrote a report, which he presented to Kelly Cha and Jennifer Armer in early December 2025. Our tributary is classified as an “ephemeral creek,” and it has been heavily modified for decades. Page 16 of the Existing Conditions report says that "...setbacks standards from ephemeral streams could be considerably less....". The suggestion by environmental advocates that each and every applicable development or improvement that might encroach on the 150-foot setback on any lot in ECP’s RE Zone should be assessed as part of a variance-type review process and conditioned on its substantiated biological impact on the habitat of ECP’s ephemeral tributary is ridiculous. The time and resources required of both residents and City staff would be disproportionately burdensome compared to the environmental benefit. The City of Palo Alto does not seem to have the resources to make accurate biological assessments. So, despite the prospect of an uncertain outcome, the considerable upfront application burden of time and expense would have to be borne by the property owner. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 110     Draft dated 28 January – Via email from Ellen Shay - 10h49 J. Shore Mark-up – 15h00 Property values are determined by present and future conditions. Lots that are difficult or impossible to develop subject to these conditions would lose millions in value. This would constitute a significant taking by the City, for which residents would be compelled to pursue recourse on the basis of inverse condemnation. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 111     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 112     10 feet would be reasonable, but not to the extent of the 150 feet which would cover many of our already existing homes. It will negatively impact the residents and eventually the city financially with minimal or no environmental improvement. I strongly believe the ECP neighborhood should not be included in SCPO.  I hope the city makes the right decision for our citizens. I plan to actively participate in the decision process of SCPO. Again, please, visit our neighborhood to correctly assess the situation. I will be happy to host you at my home and show you the creek from my backyard. Please, call/text me anytime. Thank you very much! Ken Lee   3/31/26, 3:06 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…2/2 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 113     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 114     stream. Nevertheless, as currently contemplated, the proposed 150-foot setback would still be imposed, resulting in a substantial loss of practical use of my property without regard to relevant conditions that materially distinguish it and should be taken into account. I would imagine that there are other property owners who will also be similarly and unfairly impacted based on their own particular site-specific circumstances if a broad uniformly applied standard is adopted. I am troubled not only by the breadth of the proposal but also by the apparent pace at which it is being advanced, despite the number of important variables, unresolved questions, and issues involved. In my view, given the magnitude of the proposal’s potential impact, a more deliberate approach one that fully acknowledges these complexities and emphasizes the collection and careful evaluation of relevant data would lead to a more informed decision-making process and a result that going forward would better serve both the City and the community. My neighbor, Jean-Philippe (who owns adjacent and similarly affected undeveloped property) and I would welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss these concerns with you in person at your convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Lewis Weakland Sent from my iPad 3/31/26, 3:05 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…2/2 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 115     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 116     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 117     I am a resident of the Esther Clark Park (ECP) neighborhood in Palo Alto, . I was surprised to learn very recently about the proposed update to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) and the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance, and then even more surprised to learn how few ECP residents were even aware of these pending ordinances. Of the approximately 39 ECP properties affected by SCPO, only a few owners were aware of SCPO until very recently or, for that matter, the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance, which would affect all ECP residents. Now more residents are aware of the pending SCPO notice to residents regarding land use regulations will deprive residents of significant property rights. The limited outreach by City officials to ECP residents has been woefully inadequate given the profound impacts of these ordinances to residents. We have recently learned that the proposed 150-foot stream setback for properties west of Foothill Expressway has been talked about for years and was adopted in 2017 as a goal in the Comprehensive Plan at the behest of environmental advocates. The consultants who generated the Existing Conditions report don't seem to have visited Esther Clark Park and our Barron Creek tributary. There are many errors, including in the mapping. One of my ECP neighbors, Jeff Watt, has done a lot of research about Barron Creek and wrote a report, which he presented to Kelly Cha and Jennifer Armer in early December 2025. Our tributary is classified as an “ephemeral creek,” and it has been heavily modified for decades. Page 16 of the Existing Conditions report says that "...setbacks standards from ephemeral streams could be considerably less than 150 feet....". The suggestion by environmental advocates that each and every applicable development or improvement that might encroach on the 150-foot setback on any lot in ECP’s RE Zone should be assessed as part of a variance- type review process and conditioned on its substantiated biological impact on the habitat of ECP’s ephemeral tributary is ridiculous. The time and resources required of both residents and City staff would be disproportionately burdensome compared to the environmental benefit. The City of Palo Alto does not seem to have the resources to make accurate biological assessments. So, despite the prospect of an uncertain outcome, the considerable upfront application burden of time and expense would have to be borne by the property owner. Property values are determined by present and future conditions. Lots that are difficult or impossible to develop subject to these conditions would lose millions in value. This would constitute a significant taking by the City, for which residents would be compelled to pursue recourse on the basis of inverse condemnation. I therefore strongly protest that the SCPO should be enacted at this time. The City of Palo Alto needs to make a substantial effort to better understand the implications of the Ordinance and meaningfully modify the proposed setback to 25 feet as outlined in documents that have been submitted to the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Joel Rosenberg Palo Alto, CA 94306 joel@lovetocycle.com Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 118     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 119     insignificant that an underground storm sewer pipe has been installed in the past by the City of Palo Alto along its course. 2- The existing Streamside Protection Ordinance’s main purpose is for protection of the wild life using the gully area. Animals live near the water not in this gully dried 99% of time. Also, no contamination risk exist in the ECP Barron Creek tributary since no traffic is possible next to the creek. 3- The ECP area has never been designated as a flood zone, neither exists any evidence of incidents of landslides or earth movement on the banks of the tributary gully, due to small rain basin. 4- SCPO will dramatically reduce the usable land in ECP area (60% to 100% for this setback plus other border setbacks, appraised to at least 37 acres unusable land of the properties on both sides of the gully).This loss will extremely devaluate ECP properties, which in turn, will reduce the revenues of the city of Palo Alto. 5- SCPO will indeed limit the possibility of building more houses in the ECP area in future which is in incongruity with the state policy for more affordable housing. 6- This in turn, causes limitation to the expansion of businesses, to lower collected taxes and to lower revenue of the City of Palo Alto, which in turn will limit the improvements and repairs, degrading the quality of residency in Palo Alto. 7- By the way SCPO report has inherent inconsistencies which misled and deluded the public and Decision Makers. Therefor the application of such ordinance update to ECP area is unjustified, unwarranted and unnecessary and causes permanent damage, to the residents of ECP, to the City of Palo Alto and its future prosperity and business attractiveness. Notice that the suggestion by environmental advocates that each and every applicable development or improvement that might encroach on the 150- foot setback on any lot in ECP’s RE Zone should be assessed as part of a variance-type review process and conditioned on its substantiated biological impact on the habitat of ECP’s ephemeral tributary is preposterous. The time and resources required of both residents and City staff would be disproportionately burdensome compared to the environmental nonexistent and imaginary benefit. In addition the City of Palo Alto has limited resources 3/31/26, 3:09 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…2/3 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 120     to make accurate assessments for each case. So, despite the prospect of an uncertain outcome, the considerable upfront application burden of time and expense would have to be borne by the property owner. As you are well aware, property values are determined by present and future conditions. Lots that are difficult or impossible to develop subject to these conditions would lose millions in value. This would constitute a significant taking by the City, for which residents would be compelled to pursue recourse on the basis of inverse condemnation, which will in turn waste tax payers resources by the City. Regards Khosrow Panahi 3/31/26, 3:09 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…3/3 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 121     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 122     3. Mapping Inaccuracies and Remnant Channels The city’s stream map does not distinguish between active stream segments and historic or diverted channels. In my neighborhood, watershed flow has long been rerouted into underground stormwater pipes, leaving behind remnant channels. Some piped stream segments are not shown on the map at all, leaving the mistaken impression that remnant channels are carrying all the flow. Applying a 150 foot setback, or any substantial setback at all, to a remnant channel—or worse, a segment that is now a pipe—is an inappropriate outcome. I encourage the Commission to consider ordinance language that would allow administrative discretion for staff to determine when a mapped feature is a substantially diverted or remnant channel, with only a non-obstruction requirement (or minimal buffer) applied in such cases. 4. Inadequacy of the Variance Process The variance process is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing exceptions to an unwarranted large setback or incorrect stream maps. Having navigated the Palo Alto variance process to resolve an error on the city's special setback map, I know firsthand that variances are intentionally difficult to obtain, force residents to justify their request to neighbors who are informed of the variance application, and introduce significant uncertainty, expense, and delay for both homeowners and the city. The characteristics of this tributary—including its diverted and remnant channels—are factual, not exceptional, and should be addressed through clear ordinance language and administrative discretion, not through variance requests. The result of applying a substantial stream setback in my neighborhood—whether 150 feet, 75 feet, 30 feet, or any similar large value—would be to render a significant portion of residential parcels effectively unusable, impose economic harm, and prevent the reasonable and long- established use of these properties—without hydrologic or ecological benefit. This tributary’s hydrologic and ecological conditions warrant a smaller setback than that applied to larger, more natural, continuous, intermittent, or perennial streams elsewhere in the city. Leaving the current 20-foot setback in place exceeds the Collaborative Guidelines for a minor ephemeral stream, and would be both reasonable and science-based. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to presenting further information for the public record at an upcoming PTC meeting when the SCPO is revisited. Sincerely, Jeff Watt 3/31/26, 3:10 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…2/2 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 123     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 124     2. Unequal burden on undeveloped versus developed parcels The proposed setback increase appears to impose a far greater economic burden on owners of undeveloped property, such as mine, than on owners of already developed parcels. In practical terms, the regulation would substantially diminish the residual value of certain undeveloped parcels while leaving similarly situated developed properties largely unaffected. This disparity raises concerns about fairness and proportionality, particularly where large portions of undeveloped parcels are effectively rendered unbuildable or where parcels are so constrained by the setback requirement that their economic utility is significantly compromised. 3. Apparent inaccuracies in stream location data I have recently examined the course of the stream bed running nearest to my property line and it appears that the affected area map provided to property owners by the City of Palo Alto may be inconsistent with the actual course of the ephemeral stream. I am considering engaging a licensed surveyor to obtain accurate, current data. Given the substantial property-value consequences that flow directly from setback placement, it is concerning that the City may be proceeding based on information that may not accurately reflect on-the-ground conditions. 4. Minimal hydrological impact at this location The portion of the stream closest to my property carries minimal water, both in duration and volume. Water is present only a small number of days per year, and even after heavy winter rainfall, the water depth appears to be approximately one to two feet at most. In light of the extraordinary scope of the proposed setback increase and its economic impact, I believe that site-specific hydrological conditions warrant meaningful consideration rather than imposition of an overly broad 150 foot stream setback standard applicable to all parcels west of Foothill Boulevard. 5. Existing development between the stream bed and my parcel There is an intervening residential property between my parcel and the stream bed, including a substantial house, pool, deck, and fencing that runs along the entire length of my property line nearest to the bank of the stream. Given this existing development, 3/31/26, 3:10 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…2/3 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 125     it is unclear how the proposed setback increase would meaningfully advance the underlying objectives of the ordinance update as applied to my property, particularly when weighed against the significant loss of development potential and property value that would result. Although the scope/subject matter of this email and my requested meeting is my particular property-specific concerns, it is worth mentioning that (i) I expect that there are a number of other property owners that will potentially be unfairly impacted by site- specific circumstances of their own; and (ii) I do not want to create the misimpression that I only care about my own property when I am in fact aware and equally concerned about significant existing setback issues that are of a more general rather than individual parcel-specific nature (for example, (a) determining and applying an accurate water-flow definition; and (b) ensuring that the decision-making process includes the collection and careful evaluation of relevant data). I truly appreciate your willingness to meet with me in person - please just let me know a date and time that will be convenient for you to do so. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Lewis Weakland Sent from my iPad 3/31/26, 3:10 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…3/3 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 126     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 127     penalizing property owners who are seeking to contribute to the local housing supply. Thank you for your time and for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, Jean Philippe Emelie Marcos 3/31/26, 3:12 AM Stream Corridor - Cha, Kelly - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADhkN2VhOGI5LTAzMzYtNDFmYS05ZmRmLTJhMTY4MjIwODRhMQAuAAAAAABiDZa4KT3oTr%2ByrBoiIq…2/2 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 128     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 129     Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 130                 !" #" $ % &# '())*(+ ,-*( ./())01-*(23435106(7 9:;:<=<> ?=@<< ABE F(+ .F(+0D-52G550HI7K( L561(6 .M-561(624-NG0347-4(6 OP9 FQR33(11(MSTMH(UMSL4(SV*4S,VSD*((NNJ5K+SW1NN=>SAG*S<=<>0GM)X-K1 (45K *KHK65(M )*4 1KM( ) -( *H56K\5K60 Q( 35K1 ) G(6K6H 55 6 K6105E5 G*(11 *(G* *(H5*MK6H 5 G5K* ) ]*H5*K(1 513*((1KM( TMH(UM J*KI( G*G(*+0 A33*MK6H  -(*H5* H5K6(M 533(11  -( G*G(*+ ]+ ]*(53-K6H *53 )(63( -5 5M/K61 ,56 V*563K1^K D*((0(1( 6)*65( K63KM(61E U( *1 -5 -(_(4GK6 UK ]( *(5K6(M K6 15))`1 G34K6H ,*(54(3K6 *MK6563( *(344(6M5K6  -( W8DX -U(I(*E(*6(M -5 -( 3*K4( M55 -5 -( DK+a1 WK3( *(IK(U(M 51 )5 UK- W566K6H 15)) )* 5*(51 6(5*3K1^K D*(( K6 366(3K6 UK- 15))`1 M(I(G4(66H *MK6563( M 6 *()(3 * (_G(*K(63(0GG*(3K5( -( GG*6K+  4(( UK- + 1 -5 U(56M -( 65*( 56M 1*3( ) -( 3*K4( M55 -5 (M))  363M( -5 -( 5*(51 5*6M ,56 V*563K1^K -KH-N3*K4( 5*(510E( Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 131     4 Daily Post Monday, April 6, 2026 1�I:i%i Burglar repeatedly hits senior VC's home BY �EN CARTWRIGHT home at 1411 Edgewood Drive, police same person -broke in again around 3 could invest, according to his biogra-oat1y Post StattW11ter said. p.m. on March 30. He scaled Johnson's phy for Harvard Business School. One of Palo Alto's first venture capi-The home is owned by Franklin rear fence and took more tools from the "Back then, the valley was still most- talists bad his garage bwglarized twice Pitcher Johnson Jr., 97, who graduat-garage, police said. ly apricot and prune orchards. When we in one week, police said. ed from Stanford in 1950 and started a Altogether, the stolen tools were saw some promising sign, we'd knock The bwglar cut a lock to a gate along renture capital firm in 1962. worth $6,000, police said. .on the door," Johnson said for his bio. a fence backing up to the San Francis-Johnson helped launch around 250 Johnson was unable to comment Johnson went to Palo Alto High quito~Greek.._around 11 a.m. on March busin�sses, including Amgen and Tan-over the phone on Friday. School, taught classes at Stanford Busi- 23, police said-:---,...._ dem Computers, and earned a lifetime Johnson started a venture capital ness School and was a three-term board . The burglar then wen�ieveme11,t. a�ard froJl! the National firm by driving around Santa Clara member for the Foothill-De Anza Co � - ta.ched garage and stole tools belong-Venture Captti1 :.n"soc1ati6rnn 2002. County looking for buildings where munity College District, according to ing to a contractor working on the • The burglar -suspected to be the entrepreneurs might be working so he his bio. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 132                      !  "#$$%&'()&*&+,-./&,$01.#124566567689:6;<=AB#C'B#C.?@&*D&&.EF2#0A"#,,-$#0'"#,,-$#0.H0+#0*D&&.EF2@+#,/K;=LM1&#PQ,$0+&-,,R/@#0?&0<&0S0-T&0C$L&00,?0##U6PUVP6769W6.D1$XJ+DD&,Y67U;Y74Y+&D1&#PR/@#0?&0<&0S0-T&0C$L&00,?0##-/RD@#+#0&74P6UP6768.D1$X^cdefghdijkdldmhnfopkjgjqnedofjpncfjklhmdrhndjmstfuhqndjqejpjvfmnehmouiduwdmljmidmwes/@&0#/+#-,$0+&-,&T@#N0#&+?00-10<0#J-,01-,&,J#KN?@#R/@#0?&0<&0KR?<M,#-E@T0@1.S@-//DD#+#,/@#-,$0+&-,-,x#J#+T#0UVA6769A&,1-/&&J@#1&E&-,@#0#$0C00#$#0#,J#.S@#0#&0#$-,#1T#).I7?+D0#@#,/-F#<&,1-1,-,#,1@&&0E#/0#&+/#T&J/&DDC@#0@1S@#67I7?+D0#@#,/-F#<&,/&#/,1#0<0E0&+ZI.I.U:yOD1&#@#N0#&<0#J-,01-,&,J##zD0#U97$##&/@#1#/-0#1/0#&+/#T&J&,E ‚‚ƒ„-,…†‚{„†| ‚|{‡~|€|‚|„)#/$ˆ@-RzD0#//)&C.‰H/1#/J0-T@#R?<,#-E@T0@1-/,D#,/D&J#000&A&,1@#J0##-,@#,#-E@TD0-+&0-C,,&0&.S@#R?<,#-E@T0@1-/#zD-J-C#zJ1#1$0+@#&0#&ˆ@-RzD0#//)&C)@#0#,&0&J0##/#T&J/&DDCA&//@),,=&DZP4$@#?+D0#@#,/-F#<&,.H/1#/J0-T#1-,@#+&#0-&/@&0#1,U65UV56769A@#L&00,?0##0-T&0C,#-E@T0@1-/+/C~{{|}~|€.S@#/0J#$@#0-T&0C-//0+/#)#0$0+Š/H/‹-/.F#087Œ$@#0-T&0C$)/@0E@,1#0E0,1D-DJF#0/.S@#0#+&-,-,E/+&,&0&$0&E+#,/&0#-/&#1&,11,$,J-J,-,/0-D&0-&,J00-10.H@E@/+#J@&0&J#0- #@#R?<,#-E@T0@1&/@&F-,E&y00&$##‰A--/T&/#1,@#$)-,E:Q-/)-@-,@#?-C$<&Hy Ž|{N#0F-J#L,1&0C‰A&//@),,= Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 133    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tem 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 134                                                                            !   "    #     $%              &            &    '  #    $%($)(&   * +  ,$-,.-$%$)  /   0 & 0 & 1    #            2  3  #              &    #   2        /       2          #       5           60 & 1  6$)(0 & 6$%( ,% %%% 5 $)( 7,% %%% 53 4 6$%( ,% %%% 5 $)( 7,% %%% 5 9   :               #   2  9     :            2    ,$-,.-$%$)              *          2   $+;$< $%$)   '+      2  =,);,> $%$<    ++   2       4                                           Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 135                        !"      #      " $      #%     %& %$ % ' ( )        #    *     + #  #, #    !"    -   .    / %) %*     . .0 1  '"2%  #      .%  ##       *  $      3 %   !"    Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 136     Palo Alto Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) Update Technical Information on the Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Relevant to SCPO Update Jeff Watt December 18, 2025 1 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 137     Background: Esther Clark Park Neighborhood & Tributary of Barron Creek 2 Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek Main stem of Barron Creek Esther Clark Park Neighborhood Note: Adobe and Barron labels should be swapped Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 138     Impact of Proposed SCPO Update on Esther Clark Park Neighborhood •Proposed setback of 150’ from top of bank to structures applies to Esther Clark Park Neighborhood •Current setback requirement is 20’ with streamside review for properties within 50’ of top of bank 3 Key question: Has the Esther Clark Park tributary been appropriately classified under the proposed ordinance? Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 139     Stream Setback Requirements in Neighboring Jurisdictions •Los Altos: •Refers to Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards •20’-25’ for stream with little or no hardening •15’ for “structurally engineered system” •10’-15’ for ephemeral stream (Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek would likely fall in this category) •Add 5’ for large lot size >10,000 sq. ft. → Would typically result in 15’-20’ setbacks for lots like those in the Esther Clark Park Neighborhood •Los Altos Hills: •Adopted Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards •25’ minimum setback for all 12 named creeks •Greater setbacks may be required along “major creeks” 4 Under County Collaborative Guidelines, Esther Clark Park tributary would fall in the smallest setback category Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 140     Characteristics of Palo Alto Streams Characteristic San Francisquito Matadero Abobe Barron1 Esther Clark Park Tributary Watershed area (sq. miles)43 14 11 3 0.4 USGS stream classification2 Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Unmapped/Ephemeral3 Condition on 12/15/20254 Flowing Flowing Dry Dry Dry Headwaters west of 280 Yes Yes Yes No No Primary headwater land use Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Residential Residential Primary headwater flow source Natural runoff Natural runoff Natural runoff Suburban runoff Storm Sewer Discharge Channel upstream of Foothill Exp.Natural Natural Natural Piped/Natural Piped/Natural Channel from Foothill Exp. to ECR5 Natural Natural Natural Piped/Natural N/A Channel from ECR to 101 Natural Engineered Engineered Artificial6/Engineered N/A 1.Barron Creek watershed is typically considered part of Matadero Creek watershed (see maps of Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, City of Pa lo Alto) 2.Based on USGS “blue lines” convention using 2021 Palo Alto Quadrangle, 7.5-minute series 3.Esther Clark Park tributary is unmapped on USGS 2021 Palo Alto Quadrangle. Ephemeral classification based on field observations. 4.Based on observations just northeast (downstream) of Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard except for the Esther Clark Park tributary which was observed just southwest (upstream) of Foothill Expressway 5.El Camino Real 6.Barron Creek was a natural tributary of Matadero Creek prior to the 1940s. An artificial channel now connects it to Adobe Creek near 101, with a flood diversion channel conne cting it to Matadero Creek near the VA Hospital. Esther Clark Park tributary is the smallest, most modified, least natural, driest Palo Alto stream These characteristics are not consistent with streams requiring large setbacks 5 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 141     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek, November 2025 Conditions Source of remaining “natural” creek is underground storm sewer system discharge from Los Altos Hills. Shallow/narrow creek along boundary between Los Altos Hills residences and Esther Clark Park. Habitat and all new vegetation along creek in Esther Clark Park destroyed by City of Palo Alto through annual maintenance practices. Creek flows through fully fenced yards in Esther Clark Park Neighborhood. •Creek is ~2’-5’ deep and dry in most locations for much of the year •Creek is segmented into isolated fragments and does not function as a continuous riparian corridor 6 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 142     Inaccurate Information Shared With Public and Decision-Makers •Labels for Barron Creek and Adobe Creek swapped in material provided to public on current City project website •Barron Creek is typically considered part of Matadero Creek watershed, not Adobe Creek as stated in report •Most of Barron Creek is NOT a natural channel upstream of El Camino Real as suggested on slide and report 7 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 143     Misleading Information Shared With Public and Decision-Makers •Examples of creeks west of Foothill Expressway show natural streams flowing from foothills west of 280 •Not an accurate representation of Esther Clark Park tributary which is a very small ephemeral creek that flows primarily through underground storm sewer infrastructure 8 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 144     •Map shown at 8/27/2025 PTC meeting and creek map on project website do not correctly show creek has been diverted into an underground storm sewer pipe crossing Mesa Ave and along part of Oak Hill Ave •Any streamside setback for piped segments is not meaningful and will likely result in unnecessary variance applications and administrative burden Underground storm sewer pipe not shown on map displayed at PTC meeting Inaccurate Information Used to Define Setbacks 9 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 145     •Some inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information in public-facing materials may distort stream classification and setback outcomes •The Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek appears to have been misclassified under the proposed ordinance relative to its actual physical and functional characteristics •Use of Foothill Expressway as a dividing line for setback requirements relies on a geographic proxy that does not adequately reflect site-specific stream conditions •The proposed setback for the tributary is not consistent with Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards or approaches used by neighboring jurisdictions •The existing 20-foot setback for the tributary meets County Collaborative Guidelines for minor or ephemeral streams, even when including the additional setback recommended for larger lots •Reliance on the variance process to address routine exceptions is not an appropriate substitute for clear, condition-based standards and will result in unnecessary administrative burden Recap: Key Messages and Concerns 10 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 146     Supporting Material 11 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 147     12 Barron Creek watershed is commonly combined with Matadero Creek watershed, not Adobe Creek watershed as stated in Existing Conditions Report City of Palo Alto Watershed Map Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 148     Barron Creek is only Palo Alto stream that is mainly in underground pipes upstream of El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway. Detail of Janet M. Sowers’ 2004 Creek and Watershed Map of Palo Alto 13 Other Palo Alto streams are natural upstream of El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 149     Barron Creek Sub-watershed West of Foothill Expressway Esther Clark Park tributary and sub-subwatershed of Barron Creek not shown Main stem of Barron Creek in sub-watershed B3 Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District •Main stem and Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek originate in residential area of Los Altos Hills east of 280 14 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 150     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Sub-subwatershed •Sub-subwatershed characteristics •Watershed perimeter estimated from USGS National Map, using highest point on ridge surrounding Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek •Note: tributary is not shown on USGS national map •Main stem of Barron Creek is shown to the west of the sub-subwatershed •~1.5 miles long •~0.35 miles wide at widest point •~250 acres comprised of: •~88% Los Altos Hills/Palo Alto residential area (~219 acres) •~ 8% Esther Clark Park (~21 acres) •~4% Gardner Bullis Elementary School (~10 acres) •Upstream (south) area of watershed (>60% of total area) in Los Altos Hills is drained by an underground storm sewer system 15 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 151     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Channel •Channel characteristics •Original natural channel estimated from USGS National Map, using lowest point of valley along length of sub-subwatershed •Upstream ~0.93 miles (~55%) of original natural channel nonexistent – replaced by Los Altos Hills storm sewer system •Los Altos Hills storm sewer discharges into ditch on southwest side of Esther Clark Park from underground drainage pipe •~0.24 miles (~14%) of creek in Esther Clark Park •City of Palo Alto cuts wild grass and tills soil up to edge of creek each year, destroying habitat and new vegetation •~0.44 miles (~26%) of creek and culverts in Esther Clark Park residential neighborhood in Palo Alto •Creek flows through many yards that are fully fenced •~450 feet (~5%) in Palo Alto underground storm sewer drainage pipe under Mesa Ave and Oak Hill Ave Natural channel nonexistent Replaced by underground storm sewer system Creek in Esther Clark Park Underground storm sewer pipe Creek in fenced yards with culverts under streets Los Altos Hills sewer system discharge into ditch Direction of water flow 16 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 152     Topographic Views of Watershed and Original Natural Channel Maps 17 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 153     Sources •City of Palo Alto •City of Los Altos •Town of Los Altos Hills •Santa Clara Valley Water District •Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards, revised July 2006 •Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program •Watershed Characteristics Report prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, revised August 2003 •Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity by Janet M. Sowers, 2004 •USGS maps and stream symbol definitions 18 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 154     Foot h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View Los Altos Hills Los Altos §¨¦280 PageMillRoad Stanford Lands §¨¦280 MAP N-4 AREA WHERE NA TURA L CR EEK SET BA CK A PPLIES 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 0 1 2 Miles Creeks Area where Natural Creek Setback Applies Single Family Residential Streamside Open Space City Limit Sphere of Influence Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 155     Palo Alto Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) Update Data Supporting Classification of Tributary of Barron Creek in Esther Clark Park Neighborhood as an Ephemeral Stream Jeff Watt April 21, 2026 1 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 156     Is Barron Creek Tributary in Esther Clark Park Ephemeral? •Definitions From Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams •Perennial stream: flows all year •Intermittent stream: flows part of the year •Ephemeral stream: only flows in response to rain or a spring •Assessment of Barron Creek tributary in Esther Clark Park (ECP) Neighborhood •Tributary observed at inlet of drainage pipe at Mesa Ave/Oak Hill Ave •Flow monitored before, during and after 2 significant rain events during 2025-2026 season •Event 1: 3-days of rain from Dec. 24, 2025 to Dec. 26, 2025 totaling 3.4” •Event 2: 5-days of rain from Feb. 15, 2026 to Feb. 19, 2026 totaling 4.4” •Flow at confluence of tributary with main stem of Barron Creek and at other named streams in South Palo Alto observed after rain event 2 •Rain totals based on Valley Water Precipitation Sensor at Westwind Community Barn 2 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 157     Barron Creek Tributary Flow: Rain Event 1, 3.4” of Rain 3 12/23: Before rain No flow, creek dry 12/25: After 2.4” rain Flowing, dammed at inlet grate 12/27: 1 day after rain ended Flow reduced to a trickle 12/28: 2 days after rain ended No flow, creek bed drying out Flow completely stopped 2 days after rain event 1 → Ephemeral stream Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 158     Barron Creek Tributary Flow: Rain Event 2, 4.4” of Rain 4 2/15: Before rain No flow, creek dry 2/19: After 4.2” rain Flowing, dammed at inlet grate 2/21: 2 days after rain ended Flow reduced to a trickle 2/23: 4 days after rain ended No flow, creek bed drying out Flow completely stopped 4 days after rain event 2 → Ephemeral stream Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 159     Flow at Streams on 2/26/2026, One Week After Rain Event 2 5 Main stem of Barron Creek flowing ECP tributary completely dry Confluence of Barron Creek main stem and ECP tributary just north of Arastradero Road ECP tributary has less flow permanence than main stems of all streams in South Palo Alto Adobe Creek flowing at Los Altos–Palo Alto Bike PathMatadero Creek flowing at Bol Park Bike Path Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 160     Conclusions •Barron Creek tributary in ECP neighborhood confirmed to be an ephemeral stream •Flows only in response to rain •Flow ceases within 2–4 days after significant multi-day rain events •Dries out completely between rain events •Less flow permanence than all other named streams in Palo Alto •Collaborative Guidelines recommend smallest setback for ephemeral streams •10–15’ with additional 5’ for lots >10,000 sq. ft. (see Chapter 3, page 3.8) •Existing stream setback for ECP neighborhood meets Collaborative Guidelines •Existing setback of 20’ is at high end of recommended range including added 5’ for large lots 6 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 161    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bcdefgchijckclgmenojifipmdcneiombeijkglcqgmcilrsetgpmcipdioiuelmdglnthctvclkilhclvdr%$wK30$%+(%K$$C+(F'$&C$(0BCC1KCLC$31%CK1%(%3$2 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 162     Palo Alto Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (SCPO) Update Technical Information on the Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Relevant to SCPO Update Jeff Watt December 18, 2025 1 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 163     Background: Esther Clark Park Neighborhood & Tributary of Barron Creek 2 Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek Main stem of Barron Creek Esther Clark Park Neighborhood Note: Adobe and Barron labels should be swapped Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 164     Impact of Proposed SCPO Update on Esther Clark Park Neighborhood •Proposed setback of 150’ from top of bank to structures applies to Esther Clark Park Neighborhood •Current setback requirement is 20’ with streamside review for properties within 50’ of top of bank 3 Key question: Has the Esther Clark Park tributary been appropriately classified under the proposed ordinance? Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 165     Stream Setback Requirements in Neighboring Jurisdictions •Los Altos: •Refers to Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards •20’-25’ for stream with little or no hardening •15’ for “structurally engineered system” •10’-15’ for ephemeral stream (Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek would likely fall in this category) •Add 5’ for large lot size >10,000 sq. ft. → Would typically result in 15’-20’ setbacks for lots like those in the Esther Clark Park Neighborhood •Los Altos Hills: •Adopted Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards •25’ minimum setback for all 12 named creeks •Greater setbacks may be required along “major creeks” 4 Under County Collaborative Guidelines, Esther Clark Park tributary would fall in the smallest setback category Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 166     Characteristics of Palo Alto Streams Characteristic San Francisquito Matadero Abobe Barron1 Esther Clark Park Tributary Watershed area (sq. miles)43 14 11 3 0.4 USGS stream classification2 Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Unmapped/Ephemeral3 Condition on 12/15/20254 Flowing Flowing Dry Dry Dry Headwaters west of 280 Yes Yes Yes No No Primary headwater land use Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Residential Residential Primary headwater flow source Natural runoff Natural runoff Natural runoff Suburban runoff Storm Sewer Discharge Channel upstream of Foothill Exp.Natural Natural Natural Piped/Natural Piped/Natural Channel from Foothill Exp. to ECR5 Natural Natural Natural Piped/Natural N/A Channel from ECR to 101 Natural Engineered Engineered Artificial6/Engineered N/A 1.Barron Creek watershed is typically considered part of Matadero Creek watershed (see maps of Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, City of Pa lo Alto) 2.Based on USGS “blue lines” convention using 2021 Palo Alto Quadrangle, 7.5-minute series 3.Esther Clark Park tributary is unmapped on USGS 2021 Palo Alto Quadrangle. Ephemeral classification based on field observations. 4.Based on observations just northeast (downstream) of Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard except for the Esther Clark Park tributary which was observed just southwest (upstream) of Foothill Expressway 5.El Camino Real 6.Barron Creek was a natural tributary of Matadero Creek prior to the 1940s. An artificial channel now connects it to Adobe Creek near 101, with a flood diversion channel conne cting it to Matadero Creek near the VA Hospital. Esther Clark Park tributary is the smallest, most modified, least natural, driest Palo Alto stream These characteristics are not consistent with streams requiring large setbacks 5 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 167     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek, November 2025 Conditions Source of remaining “natural” creek is underground storm sewer system discharge from Los Altos Hills. Shallow/narrow creek along boundary between Los Altos Hills residences and Esther Clark Park. Habitat and all new vegetation along creek in Esther Clark Park destroyed by City of Palo Alto through annual maintenance practices. Creek flows through fully fenced yards in Esther Clark Park Neighborhood. •Creek is ~2’-5’ deep and dry in most locations for much of the year •Creek is segmented into isolated fragments and does not function as a continuous riparian corridor 6 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 168     Inaccurate Information Shared With Public and Decision-Makers •Labels for Barron Creek and Adobe Creek swapped in material provided to public on current City project website •Barron Creek is typically considered part of Matadero Creek watershed, not Adobe Creek as stated in report •Most of Barron Creek is NOT a natural channel upstream of El Camino Real as suggested on slide and report 7 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 169     Misleading Information Shared With Public and Decision-Makers •Examples of creeks west of Foothill Expressway show natural streams flowing from foothills west of 280 •Not an accurate representation of Esther Clark Park tributary which is a very small ephemeral creek that flows primarily through underground storm sewer infrastructure 8 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 170     •Map shown at 8/27/2025 PTC meeting and creek map on project website do not correctly show creek has been diverted into an underground storm sewer pipe crossing Mesa Ave and along part of Oak Hill Ave •Any streamside setback for piped segments is not meaningful and will likely result in unnecessary variance applications and administrative burden Underground storm sewer pipe not shown on map displayed at PTC meeting Inaccurate Information Used to Define Setbacks 9 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 171     •Some inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information in public-facing materials may distort stream classification and setback outcomes •The Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek appears to have been misclassified under the proposed ordinance relative to its actual physical and functional characteristics •Use of Foothill Expressway as a dividing line for setback requirements relies on a geographic proxy that does not adequately reflect site-specific stream conditions •The proposed setback for the tributary is not consistent with Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards or approaches used by neighboring jurisdictions •The existing 20-foot setback for the tributary meets County Collaborative Guidelines for minor or ephemeral streams, even when including the additional setback recommended for larger lots •Reliance on the variance process to address routine exceptions is not an appropriate substitute for clear, condition-based standards and will result in unnecessary administrative burden Recap: Key Messages and Concerns 10 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 172     Supporting Material 11 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 173     12 Barron Creek watershed is commonly combined with Matadero Creek watershed, not Adobe Creek watershed as stated in Existing Conditions Report City of Palo Alto Watershed Map Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 174     Barron Creek is only Palo Alto stream that is mainly in underground pipes upstream of El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway. Detail of Janet M. Sowers’ 2004 Creek and Watershed Map of Palo Alto 13 Other Palo Alto streams are natural upstream of El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 175     Barron Creek Sub-watershed West of Foothill Expressway Esther Clark Park tributary and sub-subwatershed of Barron Creek not shown Main stem of Barron Creek in sub-watershed B3 Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District •Main stem and Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek originate in residential area of Los Altos Hills east of 280 14 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 176     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Sub-subwatershed •Sub-subwatershed characteristics •Watershed perimeter estimated from USGS National Map, using highest point on ridge surrounding Esther Clark Park tributary of Barron Creek •Note: tributary is not shown on USGS national map •Main stem of Barron Creek is shown to the west of the sub-subwatershed •~1.5 miles long •~0.35 miles wide at widest point •~250 acres comprised of: •~88% Los Altos Hills/Palo Alto residential area (~219 acres) •~ 8% Esther Clark Park (~21 acres) •~4% Gardner Bullis Elementary School (~10 acres) •Upstream (south) area of watershed (>60% of total area) in Los Altos Hills is drained by an underground storm sewer system 15 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 177     Esther Clark Park Tributary of Barron Creek Channel •Channel characteristics •Original natural channel estimated from USGS National Map, using lowest point of valley along length of sub-subwatershed •Upstream ~0.93 miles (~55%) of original natural channel nonexistent – replaced by Los Altos Hills storm sewer system •Los Altos Hills storm sewer discharges into ditch on southwest side of Esther Clark Park from underground drainage pipe •~0.24 miles (~14%) of creek in Esther Clark Park •City of Palo Alto cuts wild grass and tills soil up to edge of creek each year, destroying habitat and new vegetation •~0.44 miles (~26%) of creek and culverts in Esther Clark Park residential neighborhood in Palo Alto •Creek flows through many yards that are fully fenced •~450 feet (~5%) in Palo Alto underground storm sewer drainage pipe under Mesa Ave and Oak Hill Ave Natural channel nonexistent Replaced by underground storm sewer system Creek in Esther Clark Park Underground storm sewer pipe Creek in fenced yards with culverts under streets Los Altos Hills sewer system discharge into ditch Direction of water flow 16 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 178     Topographic Views of Watershed and Original Natural Channel Maps 17 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 179     Sources •City of Palo Alto •City of Los Altos •Town of Los Altos Hills •Santa Clara Valley Water District •Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards, revised July 2006 •Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program •Watershed Characteristics Report prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, revised August 2003 •Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity by Janet M. Sowers, 2004 •USGS maps and stream symbol definitions 18 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 180          ! "# $"%&%'()&'*#+, -". - . - , -/  -012345 67 8 6 59:! - ;<=>?@AB>CDEFGHDIJKDLDMHNFOPKJGJQNEDOFJPNCFJKLHMDRHNDJMSTFUHQNDJQEJPHMOUIDUWDMLJMIDMWESb^c_`Yd^Z[eZ_[fYgh`i[j`[[kljYmjYlY]_^_gnYo[jpl_`YjqZ^jrd^jr]Ysbu^l^lrYkiv^mj[mYj_v[u]Yj_[`YZmg]wjY^lY^u^jY]Yll[o_`[]yjkg]^]wY^]koghtjY[t_u`[u^l^ooYw_Ykivg_szY{nYkY_Yjcg]Ykpl_`YjqZ^jrd^jru[tZkiY^ooYw_YkszY{nYo[t]k[]Zv[]Y[_`Yjmj[mdymjg[j_[[tjYoo[j_l_[og]k^]kg]o[jc_`Ycs[tZk_^Zr_[v[tkgjYw_Zvo[jwZ^jgogw^_g[][o_`Yx_jY^cq[jjgk[jdj[_Yw_gYk_[iYkglwtllYk^]km[llgiZvn[_Yk[]_`glw[cg]h~^v€_`iv_`Y[ccgllg[]sx`^v^]kb^c_`YdefjYmjYlY]_^_gnYo[jpl_`YjqZ^jrd^jrsejYlgk]o[jc[_`Yjl^i[t_xqdyszYo[t]k_`^_`^Zo[o_`Ymj[mYj_gYl^jY^ooj[mYj_v[u]Yju^l^u^jY[oxqdyc[ng]h_[u^jkl^k[m_g[]s„}_`Yd qkglwtllYkg]wjY^lg]h_`YlY_i^wr_[„ƒoYY_o[j^ZZmj[mYj_gj[mYj_vug_`_`Yl_jY^ch[g]hk[u]_`YcgkkZY[o_`Ygjmj[mYj_v_`glu[j_v^]k_`Y]l[cYseƒƒo[[_lY_i^wru[tZkw[cmZY_YZvw[]ltcY_`YZkw[]ltcY†„‡[o_`Ymj[mYj_vsbw^]lY]kv[tkg^hj^cl_`^_wZY^jZvn^jgYl^ww[jkg]h_[l`^mY[o_`YZ[_}Z[w^_g[][o_`Yl_jY^c}^]klgˆY[oklYnYj^Z_gcYl_`^_^]^wjYZ[_‰ctl_l_gZZ`^nYj[[c_[itgZk^`[tlY‰vw^]^oo[jkg_‰gl][__jtYs~^]v[o_`Y^ooYw_Ykmj[mYj_v[u]Yjlg]pqvY^jl^]k^jY][_uY^Z_`v}t]ZYll_`YvlYZZ_`Ygjmj[mYj_vs[tglu`^__`glu[tZkcY^]o[jwtjjY]_^]kot_tjY[u]Yjl{Z^]ktlYs~gl_`^_Y‹gl_g]hoY]wYl}itgZkg]hl}m[[Zl}m^_g[lY_wsk[]{_]YYk_[iYr}it_^]vjYm^gjl}jYmZ^wYcY]_}[jjYc[kYZ]YYklwg_v^mmj[n^Zse]v]kg_g[]l}Y_ws^jY]{_^ZZ[uYkszg_`_`YwtjjY]_‚ƒŒ‚„o[[_lY_i^wr_`glgl]YlY_i^wrw[tZk`^nY`thY]Yh^_gnYgcm^w_s Ž]ilm XYZZ[\[]^_`^]ab^c_`Yd^Z[eZ_[fYgh`i[j`[[kljYmjYlY]_^_gnYo[jpl_`YjqZ^jrd^jrsbl_^j_Ykk[g]h_`^_Z^l_\t]Ysbu^l^lrYkiv^mj[mYj_v[u]Yj_[`YZmg]wjY^lY^u^jY]Yll[o_`Yx_jY^cq[jjgk[jdj[_Yw_g[]yjkg]^]wY^]koghtjY[t_u`[u^l^ooYw_Ykivg_szY{nYkY_Yjcg]Yk_`^_^i[t_`^Zo[o•˜••™“š›œš–žž•˜ž ›˜mYjl[]^ZYc^gZ^kkjYlls`Ygjogjl_Yc^gZ_[v[tsŸYm[j_ q |effpŸbf¡bqe yŸ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comment Letters     Packet Pg. 181     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: May 13, 2026 Report #: 2605-6341 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of April 8, 2026 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary and verbatim minutes for the April 8, 2026, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the May 13, 2026, meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed on the City’s website at https://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC ATTACHMENTS None AUTHOR/TITLE: Samuel Tavera, Administrative Associate III Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 182