Palo Alto looks to ban construction near creeks

"This quibble notwithstanding, all nine council members agreed that the updated Comprehensive Plan should include stronger protections for local creeks and streams."

If the nine council member were really looking to strongly protect local creeks and streams, then they would have voted for the protection last night rather than "explore".

Liz Kniss made the motion to protect the creeks, then pulled back when Greg Scharff reminded her there are creeks that go through Stanford University lands, in particular, Stanford Research Park. Liz Kniss pulled back from going with the stronger language and opted to go with "explore".

Developer monies.

This is good news. The next step is to remove all of the concrete from all of the creeks that flow down into the bay. That concrete is a significant barrier to the movement of wildlife between the baylands and the mountains and in many areas it creates wildlife islands and pinch-points which in turn causes inbreeding and that in turn causes the demise of the wildlife in the region.

I think the headline "Palo Alto looks to ban construction near creeks" is somewhat misleading.

After consideration of recommendations from the CAC the City Council decided to explore looking into an expanded
setback for new construction near creeks west of Foothill, that is consistent with county, regional and other municipal standards, of 150 feet.

"Banning construction near creeks" is, of course , a much much broader restriction, and nothing close to something that that was approved last night.

I watched most of that part of last night's meeting. It went on too long. Study...explore...study...explore. Council could have easily gone with the first motion by Liz Kniss, for 150 feet. Then it got bogged down by amendments and amendments to amendments. Now more time will be taken up by a very busy, too busy, PT&C and staff. And whatever is settled on for inclusion in the Comp Plan could be overruled by future ordinances, just like what happened the last time around. CC, get back to working on the really hard issues and questions confronting you. Remember them?...affordable housing, infrastructure, traffic, et al. So, I guess this latest decision will delay the final draft and approval of the updated Comp Plan, until the right setback number gets plugged in? Sad waste of time!

Building so close to the creek should NEVER have been allowed in the first place.

After the floods of the 1970s, when I was a small child, residents knew THEN that it was a horrible mistake!

About time! If Stanford is in Palo Alto, it should abide by Palo Alto's rules. Why back off stronger language because of Stanford lands?

The major creek that divides Santa Clara and San Mateo County starts on Stanford Land at the Dam at the top. The Dam is over 100 years old but SU refuses to take it down. We have had numerous discussions about the removal or replacement of the dam but no resolution. They have to be included in the discussion and resolution since they are the at the head of the creek.
And they have to respond with a more responsible approach since we are not in the drought phase and are now in the heavy weather phase.

See Web Link for free links to online watershed maps.

I commend the Council for efforts to set even slightly greater protection for the buffer zones to town waterways, and thus the creeks and rivers themselves, as well as the Bay. These enhance the experience of all residents of PA.
There is no question that an even slightly enhanced buffer zone is long overdue. The "quibble" might best be decided by going witht the Santa Clara County decision of 150 feet. Native vegetation in that zone would provide bank stabilization as well as habitat for birds and other native wildlife.
It's not often that Massachusetts is 50 years ahead of CA on sound, evidence based environmental policy.
In the 1960s Massachusetts passed The Wetlands Protection Act in order to protect for the public these valuable riparian zones. Please see: Mass.gov
Energy and Environmental Affairs
Protecting Wetlands in Massachusetts
(or just Google "Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act")
What the PA Council is proposing is far less extensive than the MA state protections. and is a belated very small effort going forward in understanding the importance of the watercourses to the entire Palo Alto community and all of the natural and wildlife resources and erosion/flood control values that might be promoted by this even slightly enhanced zone.