By Christian Mignot

A decision on the Creekside Protection Ordinance for the city of Los Altos was postponed to another day as residents turned out in force to oppose the proposed law at a Thursday Los Altos Planning Commission meeting.

So many residents attended the public hearing at city hall that many were forced to sit on the floor or to strain their necks from the clogged doorways to hear the discussion.

All present felt that they had come to argue for their rights as property owners, and their determination to halt the passing of the Creekside Protection Ordinance was clear from the constant angry remarks and interruptions.

In front of a hostile crowd, a patient Associate Planner David Kornfield presented his staff report to planning commissioners, outlining the details of an ordinance designed to protect the state of the environment around all creeks.

The law would force owners with properties that abut the creeks to surrender a setback area measured as all land within 25 feet from the top of the creek banks rather than property lines, usually designated as the middle of the creeks. Such land would be used for easier maintenance of the creeks and would allow the riparian habitat to flourish.

On subdivided properties, the law would put in place a creek protection easement, established by a site-specific study of the creekside area. In the easement or setback area, residents would no longer be able to build any accessory structures such as swimming pools, gazebos and terraces.

Additionally, all building structures within such areas would be deemed nonconforming, and would be permitted to stay and be extended as long as their nonconformity was not increased.

The top of the creek bank, and subsequently the setback and easement areas, would need to be determined by qualified engineers hired at the property owner’s expense.

“Our goal in passing this law is constant with the general plan adopted by the city since 1986,” Kornfield said. “The adopted general plan goal is to preserve and protect natural areas which are valuable natural resources.” The law would apply to all four creeks in Los Altos: Adobe, Hale, Permanente and Stevens; and will affect approximately 500 residences in the area. It would reinforce laws already put in place by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which require all permits to be approved by the district and provide jurisdiction for the district for up to 50 feet from the top of the creek bank.

Concerns of the residents were numerous, and during the open floor session, each point brought up to counter the ordinance was greeted with resounding applause. The biggest problem for all was that property values would be severely impacted, with the total building area on each property being reduced. Some residents asked whether the city would be willing to provide compensation for the loss of land value.

“There will be a very negative effect on my property value based on the arbitrary decisions of someone else,” said David Curley, a resident with a property on Adobe Creek, referring to difficulty involved in pinpointing the exact location of the creek bank on certain properties.

Many residents found certain parts of the proposed ordinance to be unclear, with the exact location of the creek bank, and thus the setback area, being of greatest concern. For some owners, their entire properties were down sloping into the creek, so they found it quite amusing to think that their entire property could be considered nonconforming.

Residents also brought to attention the disparity between the setback areas for backyards and sideyards giving onto the creeks. For backyards, the ordinance demands 25 feet from the top of the creek bank, yet for sideyards it cuts away everything within 10 feet from the bank.

“It would seem to me that the creek doesn’t know the difference between back and side yards,” said Commissioner Kate Disney.

In many instances, creeks in the area are used to cut boundaries between cities, such as Adobe Creek for Palo Alto and Los Altos. In such instances, the new ordinance would apply only to one side of the creek, the Los Altos side, while the Palo Alto side would be restriction free.

Linda Zip, who owns a property that abuts Adobe Creek, said if the new measure really was to benefit the quality of the creek environments, then it would need to apply to other cities as well to be effective.

“I don’t understand why my Palo Alto neighbors, whose swimming pool runs to the edge of the creek and who have rusting pool equipment lying in the creek, will be free to do as they wish, while I will have to give up a portion of my land to protect the biotic environment,” she said.

A few residents, whose houses were nonconforming, raised the possibility that their residences might be destroyed in earthquakes, in which case they would be forbidden to rebuild on setback areas, resulting in a complete repositioning of the house.

And the law itself could have changing implications for properties, as the creek bed and banks shift slightly every year. Properties whose boundaries might have originally been the middle of the creek might eventually contain the entire bed in many years.

“We all want to protect the creek and we all value the creek,” said Marge Bruno, whose property gives onto Adobe Creek. “But this ordinance is ill-conceived and needs to go back to the drawing board for a lot more work.”

Any further discussion of the Creek Protection Ordinance will have to wait until the Sept. 19 planning commission meeting.