Planning commission continues debate on draft stream corridor protection ordinance after hours of public comment

City planning staff returned Aug. 27 to the Planning and Transportation Commission with a draft ordinance intended to update Palo Alto’s municipal code for stream corridor protection; commissioners did not vote to forward the ordinance and instead continued the item to a date uncertain after lengthy questions and public comment.

Senior Planner Kelly Cha presented the draft and said it implements comprehensive plan policies and council priorities. "Tonight, staff is asking the planning and transportation commission to recommend that the city council adopt the draft ordinance, which updates Palo Alto's existing stream quarter protection ordinance," Cha said, and explained staff’s outreach and biologist consultation dating to early 2024.

Key proposed changes in the draft included: establishing a single "streamside setback" distance of 30 feet recommended by project biologists for urbanized areas; enlarging the slope stability protection area in open-space, rural and Baylands areas to 30 feet (from 20 feet); adding applicability to some residential developments not subject to discretionary review; specifying exemptions (including limited exemptions for single-family properties on Edgewood Drive); and an exception process that would require a qualified environmental assessment, demonstration that no reasonable alternatives exist and mitigation.

During the commission’s clarifying round and the subsequent public hearing, staff and consultants described the rationale for simplifying different setback distances and for the 30-foot buffer recommendation. Consultant Kevin Gardner explained technical terms used in the draft, noting, for example, that "outboard versus inboard is refers to when a creek is meandering and turning" and that outboard banks are subject to higher velocities.

Commissioners repeatedly asked for clearer maps, diagrams and data to show how buffers are measured in specific locations (for example, how a 2-to-1 slope measurement is calculated versus a fixed distance), and asked staff to illustrate where the 150-foot rural/Baylands setback would fall on existing parcels. Staff provided an initial map during the hearing showing parcels impacted by the 150-foot buffer; staff later reported the draft metric would affect about 783 urbanized-area parcels and about 139 parcels in open-space, rural and Baylands areas.

Public commenters included homeowners and neighborhood advocates along San Francisquito Creek, the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance and representatives of environmental groups. Many Edgewood residents urged a clear exemption for the neighborhood, citing ongoing trespass and encampment activity, public-safety concerns and existing flood-control work that they said already stabilizes the bank. Daniel Hansen of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance said the group "support[s] this ordinance with the exception of Edgewood." Owners and attorneys representing Edgewood homeowners asked the commission to preserve rights to repair or replace existing fences without discretionary review and to avoid new landscaping restrictions inside existing backyard fences.

Conservation groups urged stronger protections. A Sierra Club representative and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance sought limits on new trails ("limit[ing] the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian corridors") and tighter limits on impervious surfaces placed in setbacks. Sierra Club staff asked the commission to prohibit siting impervious structures within setback areas and said the draft’s allowance of up to 25% impervious coverage in setbacks "is excessive."

After further commissioner discussion about distinctions between natural and channelized streams, the practicality of enforcement, whether flood walls should generate exemptions, and the meaning of several exception findings (for example, what "no reasonable alternative" should require), the commission voted 7-0 to continue the item to a date uncertain so staff can return with additional materials: clearer plan-view maps and overlays showing the 100-year flood surface and existing development, diagrams illustrating "2-to-1" slope calculations versus fixed setbacks, clearer draft language on fences and replacement/repair rules, and an explicit accounting of how many parcels of different lot sizes would be moved between the 150-foot and 30-foot rules.

Action: The commission continued the draft ordinance to a date uncertain, with unanimous consent on the roll call.

What the commission asked staff to provide (sample list) - Scaled plan-view maps that overlay proposed setbacks (30 ft and 150 ft) on aerial imagery and 100-year flood elevations. - Diagrams illustrating how to calculate the 2-to-1 slope-based setback vs. fixed-foot setbacks and the top-of-bank measurement method. - Clarified ordinance text or edits that explicitly allow replacement-in-kind of existing fences without a discretionary slope stability study and that clarify which vegetation and landscaping limits apply inside existing fenced yards. - A parcel-level tabulation showing how many urban and rural parcels would fall under the 150-foot buffer versus the 30-foot urban buffer and how changing thresholds (20,000 sq. ft. vs. 1 acre) affects counts.

Next steps Staff said it will collect the requested technical graphics, parcel tabulations and revised ordinance language and return to the commission for additional consideration prior to any recommendation to City Council.