October 21, 2026
To: Palo Alto Mayor and City Council
Re: Adopt Baylands Stream Setbacks Now and Plan Cohesively for Long-Term Resilience
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Bay Alive Campaign, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge urge the Council to adopt the proposed 150-foot stream setback in the Baylands at its October 26 meeting. This immediate action should be part of a cohesive approach to protecting the Baylands’ ecological functions and preserving space for long-term adaptation to sea level rise.
Palo Alto is just beginning a multi-year process, together with Santa Clara County, Valley Water, and other shoreline cities, to develop a subregional sea level rise adaptation plan. Meanwhile, individual local land-use decisions made now can expand or constrain future adaptation options. Land preserved as open space, wetlands, creek buffers, or other low-intensity uses can provide flood-management benefits today while preserving room for habitat migration, future flood protection infrastructure, and other resilience measures. Conversely, new permanent development can create additional assets requiring protection and consume space that Palo Alto will need for shoreline adaptation as sea levels and groundwater levels continue to rise. Land-use decisions should therefore be considered together, with attention to their combined effects on the Baylands and on future adaptation options.
This is particularly important east of Highway 101, where space is already limited. Flood protection, habitat migration, and nature-based adaptation require preserving sufficient space in appropriate locations on and near the Bay. The long-term adaptive value of lands east of Highway 101 should therefore be a core consideration in major land-use decisions.
We ask the City Council to apply this principle through the following actions.
Adopt the proposed 150-foot stream setback in the Baylands at the October 26 meeting, without weakening its protections through broader exemptions, as recommended by staff in the ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection), Item 8.
Direct staff to evaluate a 150-foot setback or other protective land-use measures for land adjacent to Baylands wetlands.
Decline the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to restore eligibility for multifamily housing in ROLM(E) through a Conditional Use Permit, where adding housing would expose more residents and property to future flooding, increase flood-protection obligations, and potentially constrain shoreline adaptation.
Rededicate the full 10-acre Measure E site as parkland and restore the entire 2.4-acre area as functional upland habitat, strengthening wildlife movement, refuge, and long-term adaptation opportunities.
Recommendations and Rationale
Adopt the proposed 150-foot Baylands stream setback and retain protective limits on exemptions.
We appreciate the City’s work to update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s long-standing creek-protection framework. Policy N3.3 calls for setbacks that protect creeks from development impacts, preserve their function as habitat-connectivity corridors, and account for flood-control potential. Program N3.3.1 directs the City to explore 150-foot setbacks west of Foothill Expressway, while Program N3.3.2 calls for consideration of appropriate setbacks east of Foothill Expressway. Protecting creek corridors upstream also helps filter polluted runoff and reduce sediment entering waterways, thereby improving water quality downstream and in the Bay1.
We strongly support staff’s recommendation to establish a 150-foot streamside setback in the Baylands, defined in the proposed ordinance as the area east of Highway 101. This setback preserves space for riparian and marsh habitat and wildlife movement while maintaining flexibility for flood management and future sea level rise adaptation. We urge Council to retain the two important limits on exemptions included in the proposed ordinance.
Keep the road and trail exemption limited to the Central Area. The draft exempts projects on properties separated from streams by public or private streets, alleys, paved public trails, or paved service roads only between Foothill Expressway and Highway 101. Retaining this geographic limit preserves streamside protections where roads and trails parallel waterways in the Baylands.
Keep the floodwall exemption limited to properties directly abutting a qualifying floodwall2. A nearby floodwall should not exempt other properties from streamside protections. Keeping this exemption narrow preserves more land for habitat, flood management, and future adaptation.
We also support the proposed slope-stability protections. These protections help maintain bank integrity, accommodate shifting stream banks, and preserve access for maintenance and repair. Together, these provisions help preserve the physical space around Baylands waterways that Palo Alto may increasingly need as conditions change.
Develop setback protections for land adjacent to Baylands wetlands
The proposed 150-foot stream setback recognizes the importance of protecting land alongside waterways. The same principle should extend to Bayland wetlands that fall outside the ordinance’s definition of a stream. Lands adjoining the Emily Renzel Wetlands and other wetlands provide habitat, high-tide refuge, transition space, and future adaptation opportunities similar to those protected by stream setbacks. These lands also buffer wetlands and wildlife from polluted runoff, artificial light, noise, and disturbance from people and pets.
We ask Council to direct staff to evaluate a 150-foot setback or other protective land-use measures for land adjacent to Baylands wetlands, including wetlands not covered by the stream corridor provisions. Protecting these adjoining lands would preserve space for wildlife and habitat migration as sea levels rise, and help prevent development from constraining future adaptation options.
Do not expand residential development potential in ROLM(E)3
We urge Council to adhere to Palo Alto’s State-approved Housing Element, which does not depend upon expanding housing sites in ROLM(E), while declining to expand residential eligibility in ROLM(E).
On August 26, 2026, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended allowing multifamily housing in ROLM(E) only through a Conditional Use Permit. However, it also recommended that Council consider a future Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove housing as a potential use, at least in ROLM(E), in order to preserve local decision making in this vulnerable and environmentally sensitive area as State housing laws continue to evolve.
Staff describes the proposed ordinance as correcting an inadvertent omission and restoring a pre-2024 allowance. Regardless of how the inconsistency arose, opening a pathway for housing before resolving the PTC’s recommendation to consider its removal could create commitments that are difficult or impossible to reverse.
ROLM(E) properties lie within the Baylands Master Plan area, near wetlands and the Baylands Nature Preserve, where environmental sensitivity warrants particular caution. Adding housing would expose more residents and supporting infrastructure to known future flooding and groundwater hazards, increase long-term protection obligations, and potentially constrain habitat migration and shoreline adaptation. Retaining existing residential-use restrictions would also preserve the City’s ability to establish the wetland setbacks and other protective measures requested above.
A citywide balance among important public needs does not require every zone to accommodate every goal. Preserving land-use flexibility here would protect options for the sea level rise adaptation planning Palo Alto is now beginning.
Rededicate the full Measure E site as parkland
When this item comes to Council in November, we urge you to adopt the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation to rededicate the full 10-acre Measure E site as parkland. Staff previously recommended reserving approximately 2.4 acres adjacent to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for possible future treatment facilities. Protecting the existing plant is essential. Keeping adjoining land open would preserve flexibility for future flood protection, while adding facilities could create further infrastructure requiring protection as sea levels rise.
The City’s Measure E Site Assessment concludes that the 2.4-acre area already supports habitat and wildlife movement and identifies targeted enhancement as an effective ecological resilience strategy. Opportunities include restoring upland scrub, nesting habitat, and pickleweed mats along Emily Renzel Wetlands. We ask the City to restore the entire 2.4-acre area as functional upland habitat supporting wildlife movement and high-tide refuge. Rededication and restoration would strengthen these existing functions while preserving transition space between wetlands and uplands as sea levels rise.
Preserve choices now so Palo Alto can adapt
These decisions arise through different City processes, but together they shape Palo Alto’s ability to adapt to sea level rise. Choices made now can preserve room for future solutions or make adaptation more difficult and costly.
We ask Council to apply a consistent approach across land-use decisions east of Highway 101: protect and restore existing habitat, preserve space around waterways and wetlands, avoid exposing more people and infrastructure to flooding and rising groundwater, and retain land needed for future flood protection and nature-based adaptation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Bay Alive Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Eileen McLaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Amanda Bancroft,
Advocacy & Engagement
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/publications_forms/documents/bufferreport1204.pdf
2 The floodwall itself: Section 18.40.140(b)(6), p. 3, defines it as an artificial barrier extending above the top of bank, designed to increase a creek’s capacity during high flows and prevent flooding. It is “usually made of concrete,” so concrete is not mandatory.
3 Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict - Embarcadero Eligibility for the exemption: Section (d)(7), p. 6, requires the property to directly abut a floodwall installed or maintained by a regional agency, such as Valley Water.