Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-07 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 18 Regular Meeting April 7, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None. Absent: None. Special Orders of the Day 1. Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission. CEQA Status – Not a project. The clerk provided the results of the appointments to the Human Relations Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission as follows. Human Relations Commission First Round of Voting for One (1) vacancy on the Human Relations Commission with a partial term ending October 31, 2025. Sunanda Amishra: Jonake Bose: Lu Sridhar Karnam: Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, Lauing, Stone, Reckdahl, Burt Jessica Nelson: Aji Oliyide: Candidate Sridhar Karnam receiving 6 votes is appointed to a partial-term (Seat 7) expiring October 31, 2025. Utilities Advisory Commission First Round of Voting for Two (2) vacancies on the Utilities Advisory Commission with full terms ending March 31, 2028. Craig Barney: Rachel Croft (Incumbent): Lu, Reckdahl, Veenker, Lauing, Stone, Lythcott-Haims, Burt Claude Ezra: Lythcott-Haims SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Phil Metz (Incumbent): Lu, Reckdahl, Veenker, Lauing, Stone, Burt Olgu Tanriverdi: Barry Wolf: Candidate Rachel Croft receiving 7 votes is appointed to a full-term (Seat 1) expiring March 31, 2028. Candidate Phil Metz receiving 6 votes is appointed to a full-term (Seat 4) expiring March 31, 2028. Closed Session 2. POTENTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR FACILITIES: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION (Review and Approval of PCI DSS Audit Report) Consultation with: Kate Murdock, City Auditor; Darren Numoto, IT Director Authority: Cal. Govt Code 54957(a) MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 5:35 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 5:57 P.M. Mayor Lauing announced that Council received and approved the PCI Audit Report. PCI DSS Audit Report APPROVED: 7-0 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor Lauing announced they would be moving 18 ahead of 17. He reported they were starting the second quarter of the calendar year. He put on the table pacing toward having three meetings a month with a reminder that concise is nice. Councilmember Burt advocated that the more important thing was not having meetings extend past 10:30 rather than reducing the number of meetings but both would be great. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Councilmember Reckdahl noted that the Finance Committee looked at fire issues the past week. He stated only one fire truck was unused which showed him that fire protection was a whole web of fire engines that cooperate. He opined adding a fire engine would be good. He mentioned most of the fire calls were medical so adding an ambulance would improve their fire protection. They gave motions to direct Staff to continue planning for the hiring to support the extra engine at Fire Station 4. They were given direction to start planning for constructing an organization for a civilian single role ambulance. They also directed them to evaluate funding for adding a daytime ambulance. Those would be evaluated by Staff. Councilmember Stone reported the City Schools Liaison Committee met the week before. They discussed the proposal of a partnership with the JED foundation. The Committee voted unanimously to refer the discussion of JED to City Council. The school district did not decide at the time to move forward with their own JED partnership. He looked forward to it coming back to the City and hoped the school district would reconsider. Councilmember Burt provided an update that Caltrain had announced moving forward with an intrusion program looking comprehensively on how to restrict access at the whole corridor. He shared the MTC received their committee assignments. His were legislative and he was selected vice chair of the Planning Committee. He reported the VTA strike was ruled to have been illegally done by a local judge so VTA employees and the ATU union had returned to work. The issues had not been resolved. Vice Mayor Veenker noted the Hands Off! rallies held the previous Saturday that reminded her of their resolution talking about various ways of responding to changes in federal administration policy. She wanted to remind her colleagues if they became aware of opportunities Council should consider, there was a protocol for doing that. The county and the County of San Francisco were aware of the streamlined protocol and would hopefully keep them apprised of opportunities. She mentioned the Climate Sustainability Committee meeting held the prior Friday which presented a rosier picture about funding and the financial side of attaining the 80 x 30 goals. She reported that it was budget time at the Northern California Power Agency. They were on the executive committee so could help impact key decisions for the administration of that agency. They were in the process of negotiating joint procurement of additional solar and battery storage resources for the City. She stated Staff ran down with some charts looking clearly at those resources. She said there would be a great deal of planning and projecting their needs forward as they electrify and as some other solar contracts were running out in the near term. She noted there would be many Earth Day celebrations in the current month. She mentioned that earthday.org had asked them to participate with them. She would be doing a livestream earthday.org with some other city representatives the next week putting Palo Alto front and center on their Sustainability and Climate Action work. She thanked everyone involved in the recognition and honoring of the legacy of Joe Simitian at the Lucy Stern Community Center the prior weekend. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Consent Calendar MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Mayor Lauing to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-16. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 3. Approval of Minutes from March 17, 2025 and March 24, 2025 Meetings 4. Approval of a Revised Revenue Agreement with the County of Santa Clara to Enable the County to Execute an Operating Agreement with LifeMoves for Operations of Palo Alto Homekey 5. Approval of Partnership Agreement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in an Amount Not to Exceed $94,640 to Provide Unlimited Transit Access Available Through the Clipper BayPass Pilot Program to City of Palo Alto Employees Through December 31, 2025; CEQA Status - Not a Project. 6. Approval of Effluent Transfer Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Town of Los Altos Hills; CEQA Status - Not a Project 7. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C24189061 with Wells Fargo for Lockbox Services for a Period of One Year; CEQA Status: Not a Project 8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract No. S23184191 with 3-GIS, LLC in the Amount of $132,000 for a Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Amount of $375,748, and Approving the Optional Two Year Extension of the Term Through August 14, 2027 to Provide Software Licensing and Technical Support of Services Related to Fiber-to-the- Premises (FTTP); and Authorize a Contingency Amount of $50,000 for Additional Integration Support Services if Needed. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 9. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract Number C21181509 with SCS Field Services in the amount of $46,203 for a New Not-to Exceed Amount of $417,012, and to Extend the Contract Through October 10, 2025, to Provide Continuous Gas Monitoring and Reporting Services for the City’s Closed Landfill; CEQA Status - Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 10. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25192033B with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $9,994,970 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $999,497 for the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station and West Bayshore Road Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvement Projects, Capital Improvement Program Project (SD-21000, SD-20000, SD-23000, and PO-05054), and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Stormwater Management Fund; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(d), 15302(c) and Section 15303 11. Approval of a Purchase Order with Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $290,947 for the Purchase of a 14 Foot Trailer with a RapidView Closed-Circuit Television Crawler Camera System, Utilizing a Cooperative Purchase Agreement, as Part of the Storm Drainage System Replacement and Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Project No. SD-06101; and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Stormwater Management Fund and Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund; CEQA Status - Exempt Under Sections 10560 and 10561 12. Approval of a Purchase Order with Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $520,020 for the Purchase of a 2024 All-Electric Ford E-Transit Van with a Closed-Circuit Television Crawler Camera System, Utilizing a Cooperative Purchase Agreement, as Part of the Fiscal Year 2024 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Project (VR-24000); CEQA Status – Exempt Under Sections 10560 and 105671 13. Approval of Three Professional Service Agreements: Contract No. C25193590A with 4Leaf, Inc., Contract No. C25193590B with CMI Contractors, Inc., and Contract No. C25193590C with Park Engineering, Inc, in the Aggregate Amount Not-to-Exceed $6 Million for a Period of Three Years for On-Call Field Inspections and Construction Management Services to Support Electric and Fiber Utilities’ Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) Including the Grid Modernization Project; CEQA Status: Not a project. 14. Approval of Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee Recommendation to Approve and Authorize the CAO Committee Chair to Negotiate a New Professional Services Contract with Municipal Resources Group (MRG) for Council Appointed Officer Performance Evaluation Services and to Approve and Authorize City Manager or Designee to Execute Negotiated Contract in an Amount Not to Exceed $208,500 for a Period of up to 3 Years– CEQA Status: Not A Project 15. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) to Modify the Housing Incentive Program, Affordable Housing Incentive Program, and Retail Preservation Ordinance (Housing Element Programs 3.3A, B, and D; 3.4A-D; and 6.2A). (FIRST READING: March 3, 2025, PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott- Haims absent) 16. SECOND READING: Ordinance Amending Various Chapters of Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Clarify Existing Regulations and to Implement Recent State Housing Laws (FIRST READING: March 17, 2025; PASSED 7-0) SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, City Manager called attention to Item 5, the partnership agreement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission to implement a Bay Pass for City employees. He provided a slide presentation including a transition in the City’s URL, upcoming wildfire preparedness public discussions, transportation planning engagement, study of the Quiet Zones at the Churchill, Meadow and Charleston Road crossings, upcoming Earth Day Festival and notable tentative upcoming Council items. Public Comment 1. Teresa L., board president of the Palo Alto Arts Center Foundation provided a slide presentation about the Arts, Culture and Creativity month. 2. Bret B., Palo Alto resident, extended an invitation to a celebration of the life of Hans de Lannoy at Cubberley on July 26. He noted a parade planned in his honor on May 17 in San Ramon. 3. Ken H. expressed disappointment that the school district took no action regarding the JED proposal at the city schools meeting. 4. Henry E. talked about the dangers to pedestrians due to bicyclists riding on sidewalks and the lack of appropriate street markings in Palo Alto. He wanted to see the pedestrian moved to a higher plane of acknowledgement and public policy. 5. Evan R. spoke about his opposition to the addition of a restroom in Eleanor Pardee Park. Action Items 18. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 (Zoning) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations; CEQA Status -- Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). Kelly Cha, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation about the lighting ordinance update including the purpose, draft ordinance including PTC feedback, PTC recommendations, public feedback, Staff recommendation and next steps. Councilmember Stone had concern they were passing an ordinance where certain provisions like lighting control would have no actual effect or impact on the goals of this ordinance for several decades when the existing structures were being replaced. He was curious why Staff did not think this would not work in Palo Alto. He asked if there were examples of cities that had SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 done what Los Altos and Brisbane had done and cities that had done it the way Staff was proposing. Ms. Cha thought the major concern for Staff was enforcement and implementation. They had reached out to Brisbane which was the most recent city that had adopted the Dark Sky Ordinance who informed them they have a lot of inquiries they had to handle as well as some enforcement concerns but the major concern was they may have to compete with other housing priorities or other City Council priorities when there were limited resources for enforcement. She stated they had reached out to a lot of cities within Santa Clara County who had the Dark Sky Ordinance or a similar outdoor lighting ordinance. They were not able to get much empirical data from them. Brisbane reported awareness of reducing light pollution had increased. They expressed concern around enforcement because they got a lot of complaints from the commercial existing facilities who do not have to comply with the new regulations until later so education to increase awareness was important. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Planning Director, added this was a first step in working toward this. The most reasonable and efficient method seemed to be working through their existing permitting process. Otherwise, complaints about compliance in terms of existing lighting would be fed through their code enforcement officers and that process. Staff’s current recommendation was to work to implement this in a way that worked within the existing process. City Manager Shikada added code enforcement was an oversubscribed service. There were other issues that code had been challenged to keep up with. It was a resource allocation question but he would not understate the magnitude of service requests they would expect for this type of regulation. Mayor Lauing had questions about the 0.5 light trespass allowance. He asked if they ever go out and do measurements on a site. He asked why it was hard to show the different trespass allowances in different light-sensitive areas. He queried if a curfew would be harder to enforce than a light fixture. Ms. Cha said 0.5 was the existing requirement for light trespass. She stated building code required one-foot candle for pathways for safety. The current existing light requirement prohibited light trespass for the properties adjacent to residential. This was for making it practical for commercial and nonresidential lighting that might require a higher level of lighting for their business. She assumed that might be why the 0.5 was there. She commented the Lighting Ordinance Update went to PTC and ARB along with the Bird Friendly Design Ordinance. That particular ordinance included bird sensitive areas which divided the City into three different areas. When they applied the same logic to the lighting ordinance, it did not make sense to them because the more stringent requirements would be applied to Foothills and Baylands. The intent was to reduce light pollution and the most lights exist within the area in between. The more stringent requirements might be too difficult for the Palo Alto communities so they decided to just propose one set of requirements for the City. She explained turning off a SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 light was easy and a motion sensor could control the timing but there were concerns over enforcement because it was during the night and they may receive some complaints they might not be able to confirm right away. There could also be scenarios where someone might forget or the motion sensor might have some technical issues leading to complaints and the enforcement resources would have to be shared for that particular complaint. Assistant Director Armer remarked those measurements were currently enforced through a lighting plan that was part of either the planning or building permit application rather than going out and doing the light monitoring. It was designed by the applicant before installation. She stated they ensure the installation was done consistent with what was listed in their plans but they did not measure the lighting. Councilmember Burt inquired what the Staff’s perspective was in this process. He observed they had a range of rules with expected voluntary compliance that could have a significant impact. He queried to what degree was the concept of adopting these rules thought of as being educational and voluntary compliance versus strict enforcement. City Manager Shikada replied the staff report explained the difference in recommendations and it was within the Council’s prerogative to choose either the ARB or PTC’s recommendation. He stated it was Staff’s responsibility to point out feasibility issues which was the context in which the recommendation was presented. He added the threshold Staff was recommending would track with the types of projects that would be issued a permit. Part of the rationale was to tie to something that would require a permit and provide the mechanism for education and ultimately enforcement. He advised there was nothing to preclude Council from adopting a 10 PM curfew but establishing an ordinance making it regulatory would result in calls to the police department to respond to those concerns at night. Assistant Director Armer said some of the regulations were proposed as proposed. She offered the 10 PM curfew as an example stating it was the type of regulation that could be voluntarily complied with. Staff would enforce it as part of the material submitted for the building permit and not as a response to an existing situation. Councilmember Reckdahl was confused why the new code was considered burdensome. He did not believe people would be able to tell the difference in 0.5 and 0.1-foot candles. He asked if there was any obligation to someone who goes through the process and installs light fixtures to keep them compliant. He observed once the lights were installed, they could have it removed with no permit required and get around any lighting requirement. Ms. Cha clarified it was not considered burdensome. They were just continuing the existing requirement as they had not received any particular complaints about the light trespass. The reason they kept the existing requirement was that it was difficult to implement the 0.1 because it was very little lighting available and they felt it might be difficult to enforce. She stated people would have to provide a lighting plan that would prove they could meet that particular requirement. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Assistant Director Armer added they had concerns from the current planning team looking at what they would be able to realistically implement. She explained that as a light shines down on a particular area, it fades out and reduces over a certain distance. Those can be targeted and have shielding but there would always be a little spread and getting it down to a level of 0.1 was very difficult. They look at the lighting designs as they are submitted to ensure the numbers shown at the property lines comply with these objective standards. She confirmed people were required to comply with the approved light installation plans. City Manager Shikada remarked code enforcement would be called in to verify whether any installation was consistent with their permit. Assistant Director Armer added if they replaced it and there was a complaint, they would look at the building permit to ensure it was consistent with what was approved. City Manager Shikada clarified Staff was trying to explain the rationale for the recommendation before the Council. He felt it was becoming adversarial in terms of the process through which the Staff work was done to prepare the ordinance as well as what the implementation would look like. Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to know the impacts of getting rid of LED lights to comply with the correlated color temperature of 2700 Kelvin or less. She asked if there were options for color corrected LED lights. Assistant Director Armer explained they had some exceptions for some energy efficient fixtures. There were some components included in the ordinance to recognize different sustainability goals and benefits to different types of implementation. She did not know the details of color corrected LED lights but believed there were some options. Ms. Cha indicated the staff report included that even though there may be some concerns with the energy efficiency. We have a like a few that's applied to them and over time, it might save some energy consumption under the policy implications. She confirmed the consideration was that while they might not have efficient night bulbs, because of the curfew there is less use of them. Public comment: 1. Daniel H. speaking on behalf of (8): DeAnna H., Jason E., Lisa H. (Zoom), Tom W. (Zoom), Jeffrey S., Cynthia S. (Zoom), Adam S. (Zoom) talked about the nuisance of encampments in their neighborhood due to open access to the creek. He played a recording of an encampment. He described why they believed this ordinance put their safety and security at risk, was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, lacked meaningful outreach and input from the residents and had unintended consequences. They needed the ability to light their yards in their neighborhood. He described how motion sensors could be ineffective. He advised City Council should encourage efficient lighting through tax rebates or guidelines. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 2. Doria S. clarified that the PTC action the prior year was 6-0 with 1 member absent and 2 members that voted then were on the dais at that time. She shared concerns including that the proposed ordinance only applied to newly constructed structures, buildings proposing a substantial remodel and new installations requiring a building permit. She stated changing 0.1 foot candle to 0.5 was not made for this draft ordinance. She pointed out that light trespass regulation was already enforced at night and that zero light trespass would be much easier to enforce. 3. Bing W. shared an NIMH study about the health consequences of artificial light at night. 4. Sherry L. (presentation) speaking on behalf of (5): Linda R., Tristan R., Alan K., Drey K. hoped Council would work harder on the Dark Skies policy. She provided images demonstrating light pollution in her neighborhood. She asked that the lighting policy address not only new construction and big remodels but also address excessive amounts of LED lighting in existing places. She suggested having exceptions in high crime areas. She also asked to set a curfew for holiday lights. 5. Dashiell L. speaking on behalf of (5): Junyan W., Margaret H., Jennifer H., Ngan N. indicated the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter along with Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance had sent a letter the week before that went over recommended improvements to the ordinance they hoped Council would consider. He discussed their recommendations and provided a handout summarizing them. 6. Shani K. speaking on behalf of (5): Annette G., Nadia N., Jeff L., Cece K. and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance provided an example of how the applicability of the ordinance would degrade the protections residents and the environment in Palo Alto currently enjoy. Without regulation of new or replacement fixtures in existing buildings, structures and yards there would be increase in light pollution. She provided documents with recommendations which she discussed. 7. Hamilton H. commented in the current ordinance, 18.40.140, providing stream corridor protection should be preserved in the new ordinance since there is no separate stream side ordinance. He did not see any of the changes posing an enforcement problem. He aligned his comments with the Planning Commission recommendations and the suggestion made by the Sierra Club and the Valley Bird Alliance. He encouraged Council to adopt the recommendations as part of a new ordinance. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 8. Herb B. discussed how the proper procedure was not followed in proposing the zoning code amendment. He indicated there were three issues: The open space areas, establishing certain standards and the LED streetlights causing light pollution. 9. Aram J. (Zoom) declared the City needed to have informational sessions with the citizens. 10. Karen H. (Zoom) encouraged Council’s support for the PTC recommendations pursuant also to the letter received from Audubon and the Sierra Club. She hoped City leaders would not compromise city values and health policies for the lack of code enforcement staff. 11. Eileen M. (Zoom), Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, appreciated the comments of the importance of there being an acknowledgement through the Dark Skies Ordinance that open spaces must be protected. Her organization had submitted a letter addressing the issues that had been raised. She talked about light pollution in the Baylands and appreciated having it covered in the ordinance. 12. Jeff G. (Zoom) was concerned the bare minimum approach recommended by Staff would have very little impact. He supported the unanimous PTC , Sierra Club and Bird Alliance recommendations. He opined the ordinance should apply to all new and replacement fixtures and the curfew should apply everywhere. He advised continuing with further public outreach and adjusting the guidelines as appropriate. 13. Winter D. (Zoom) associated herself with the comments and expertise of the Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance. She pointed out one of the 2025 Council priorities was climate action, adaptation and natural environment protection and this proposal was included in that. She advised educating the public was an important part of this. Councilmember Burt thought it would be difficult to try to redesign the ordinance that night. His inclination was for them to give direction to return to the Planning and Transportation Commission with whatever recommendations they wanted for reconsideration. He described alternative enforcement mechanisms he was interested in. He emphasized that the Baylands, stream side and Foothills had less lighting but were the most sensitive areas. He reiterated that this was an underappreciated public health and youth mental health issue, the concerns of people on Edgewood Drive were real and LED lighting was both a plus and a minus. He thought there were ways they could have an ordinance with significant benefits and not present the significant burden on the enforcement staff. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Vice Mayor Veenker concurred with Councilmember Burt. She had questions about the LED streetlights. She wanted to revisit including replacements. She wanted to see the financial costs considered. The lower foot candles made sense to her. She thought the curfew for existing was compelling. She was interested in a high crime area exception and thought it would take some more crafting than they could do that night. She was curious on Staff’s thoughts on referring back to the PTC. Assistant Director Armer replied that the LED streetlights were not part of the applicability of this regulation. City Manager Shikada thought there was a question in terms of fitting it in with existing priorities but that was subject to Council direction as well as input from the PTC. He advised whatever extent the Council could focus aeras of further review would be helpful. Councilmember Stone questioned if there was any kind of consideration around only exempting the lights that were FAA regulated at the airport and if it applied at other City facilities. He agreed with revisiting the streetlights. He queried how they were ensuring that the protections that the existing ordinance afforded to residents and the environment were not being eroded by the proposed ordinance. He had concerns that this had been a Council priority since 2023 and felt they had not advanced and may be doing harm to the Dark Sky regulations. He agreed they were not ready to adopt the proposed ordinance. He had concerns about existing protections. Ms. Cha replied that was the language that was provided from the staff that maintains airports from their attorney to ensure all of their operational lighting in addition to what is regulated under FAA is exempted because of operational reasons. She stated it did apply to other City facilities. They had a language that would allow some deviation depending on the operational reasons but it was still consistent with the intent of the ordinance. She remarked the stream corridor protection ordinance had language that would prevent lighting toward the streams. That would remain until that was updated. Staff’s plan was to bring a stream ordinance update with the updated lighting requirements. City Manager Shikada provided an example where the Dark Sky regulation would present some safety concerns and thought similar situations could apply at the airport. Assistant Director Armer explained one of the difficulties they found when looking at the existing rules was that they were not clear as to the applicability. Staff was working to fix that in the more precise language proposed. She thought that was something that needed to be clarified as to what the Council would like this to apply to. Mayor Lauing observed it was sad to be at this point after this many years. He pointed out the purpose of the ordinance was to reduce lighting and he did not think they were doing that. He welcomed the acknowledgement of the enforcement issue. He thought the solution was getting to the more egregious items and enforcing those. He thought having a grace period was another concern. He thought they should allow exceptions in high crime areas. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Councilmember Lu thought the existing ordinance was mostly reasonable. He realized the issue was complicated and got more confusing with more enforceability challenges. He opined the issue of the hardship exemption and applicability to existing homes had not be clearly linked. He noted that many other cities did not apply uniformly to existing homes. He thought there were compromises that might be acceptable for Council and the community in that vein. He had concern for having limited lighting and fencing in high crime areas. He thought the midnight curfew was reasonable. Councilmember Reckdahl observed this tended to be controversial but did not need to be. The primary goals were pointing lights down, having outdoor lights on motion detectors and not using bright colors, which were simple things. The details of phasing that in were a little harder. From a security standpoint, motion detectors could be on 24 hours a day. If that was not sufficient, he suggested having a crime hardship exemption. He suggested having a cutoff date and uniformity might be better from an enforcement standpoint. He thought they were going backward by repealing the trespass limit. He advised they should be looking at interior lighting in businesses at night. He noted they did not address spillage in the creeks or the Baylands and was important. He wanted to see it go back to PTC and be refined. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Mayor Lauing to direct staff to return to Council with an ordinance that incorporates the following changes: A) Ensure protections in the existing code are not eroded for existing outdoor lighting in all zoning districts. a. Retain the Requirements and Guidelines that the current municipal code provides to riparian ecosystems section 18.40.140. B) Require this ordinance apply to all new or replacement outdoor lighting consistent with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) motion of October 30th to include: a. “Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system” and; b. for replacement lighting fixtures on buildings and structures, develop a hardship exception provision that would consider technical feasibility or financial burden to only apply to replacements on existing buildings and structures; and c. any existing nonconforming lighting after 10 years for residential and 5 years for nonresidential shall remain extinguished until brought into compliance with this ordinance. C) Existing luminaires that have the technical capacity to be adjusted to comply with the ordinance without a need to change the fixture should comply within two (2) years of the effective date of the ordinance (i.e: fixtures that have existing dimmers, adjustable directionality, timers, Correlated Color Temperature adjusters, motion sensors, etc.). D) Amend Section (4)(A) to include specific application of the curfew to all new, replacement, and existing outdoor luminaires. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 a. Citywide and Holiday lighting curfew of midnight. E) Implement the October 30th PTC motion regarding light trespass to change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance. F) Incorporate into Section 1.B. Findings and Declarations, and Section 2 (a) Purpose, the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting. One of the sections should include the full language of the principles. G) Develop an exception for special security concerns. H) Staff to return with recommendations on compliance mechanisms that would reduce the need for code enforcement – such as self-certification under business licenses, education through Utilities inserts, and potential adoption of a tool similar to Brisbane’s Good Neighbor Letter. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 17. Potential Support or Sponsorship of a Senate Bill 457 (Becker) Regarding Housing Accountability Act Reforms (Item Continued from March 24, 2025 City Council Meeting) City Manager Shikada stated they provided a supplemental memo for awareness that provided the list of Builder’s Remedy applications the City received as well as the dates upon which those were received, when preliminary and formal applications were received, and when the applications were deemed complete. It also noted a tolling agreement where the clock stopped with respect to the application of any change in law. Mayor Lauing stated the bill was filed by the Senator so that would proceed into the senate process regardless of what they did. Their options were simply to sponsor it, endorse it or pass entirely. Carley Shelby, Townsend Public Affairs Senior Associate, clarified the key differences between a regular support position versus a sponsorship. She indicated the measure would move to the Senate Housing Committee April 29. From there if it did pass it would not have a fiscal impact on the state and would go directly to the floor. Councilmember Burt commented he thought they could either support or sponsor depending on the interests of the Council given that it was already submitted. He suspected there would be other entities supporting the measure in the coming weeks. Public Comment: 1. Hamilton H. asked Council to support SB 457. 2. Amie A. urged Council not to support or sponsor this legislation as proposed. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 3. Nadia N. urged Council to support SB 457 and reject the fear-mongering and mischaracterizations by those opposing this legislation. 4. Kevin K. spoke in support of SB 457. 5. Herb B. opined Council needed the city attorney’s opinion as to whether this bill would apply retroactively to the Builder’s Remedy projects currently before the City and any others that would come before the City before the date the amendment would be adopted. 6. Shani K. spoke on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance. She declared SB 457 was needed to save open space and habitat and prevent sprawl of development in rural areas. 7. Aram J. (Zoom) talked about the fact that the Builder’s Remedy was a blunt instrument for a reason. He recommended everyone read “Just Action” written by Richard and Leah Rothstein. He requested negotiating allowing low-income people be able to live in the Menlo Park and Mollie Stone Towers. 8. Green F. (Zoom), Policy and Advocacy Director for Green Foothills, discussed a situation in the unincorporated part of Santa Clara County. She stated SB 457 would be a simple and reasonable clarification of the Builder’s Remedy that could save time and trouble by knocking out applications that would never go anywhere. 9. Manuel S. (Zoom) spoke on behalf of SV@H. He explained concerns about the proposal for the City to support SB 457. He respectfully asked Council not support SB 457 and instead continue advancing solutions that move Palo Alto forward. 10. Scott O. (Zoom) discussed reasons he was asking Council not to support SB 457. 11. Michael Q. (Zoom) opined Council was not clear on how the bill would affect the community and he agreed they needed to consult the city attorney about how this bill would affect the City’s pipeline. 12. Winter D. (Zoom) spoke about her support for SB 457 and urged Council to support the bill. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Sabrina Bertadillo, Sen. Becker Office, explained this bill aimed to prevent the misuse of Builder’s Remedy while continuing to provide strong incentives for cities to develop and adopt compliant housing elements on a timely basis. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims inquired approximately how many units of housing were represented by the nine Builder’s Remedy projects on the chart. She asked if they knew how many would be impacted by SB 457. She wanted to know about the accuracy of the Townsend Report about one of the Builder’s Remedy projects demanding a 3000 gallon a minute increase. She requested somebody from Planning give a sense of what extent the nine Builder’s Remedy applications were compliant with their objective standards. She asked for more information on how many of the 9 had resubmitted under AB 1893. City Manager Shikada replied they did not have that information but would look into it. He confirmed that information was provided by Staff to Townsend. Molly Stump, City Attorney, stated they did not definitively know how many would be impacted by SB 457 because there was a lot of the legislative process still to come. Whatever advice they would give to process these applications would depend on what actually becomes the law. Assistant Director Armer commented it looked like roughly 2000 units were included in the Builder’s Remedy projects with 13% BMR. She stated in terms of compliance with their regulations, it varied widely. They were working to try and bring all of the Builder’s Remedy projects forward in as best compliance as possible by trying to identify issues not in compliance and find ways to comply. The chart showed a number of projects had reached tolling agreements and the effort there was to try and have them go through the standard process. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, did not believe they had received any formal request to update applications. They anticipated those to come in as projects got better defined. Councilmember Lu asked for a recap of thoughts on amendments. He advised they needed to correct flagrant fouls and balance that with housing laws incentivized. He worried that Builder’s Remedy projects would be so uncertain that they would almost never be submitted so would never be a motivator for cities to move faster. He asked for thoughts on that and ensuring that some penalties from the Builder’s Remedy could still apply to some cities. He was interested in a version of this bill that would apply a grace period for the first six months to year after the deadline but after that point when cities had not complied for an extended period of time, allowed the Builder’s Remedy they had already seen. Ms. Bertadillo explained they had not yet committed to any specific amendments. She believed some of the amendments being proposed were to ensure that the applications that were applied to 1893 would be covered under this bill so it would work retroactively and void those applications if they fell under this bill. She indicated this bill did not aim to eliminate Builder’s Remedy. They wanted to ensure that agencies were treated equitably and their exposure to the Builder’s Remedy was not dependent on ‘HCDs review timelines. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 Councilmember Stone stated SB 457 was a common sense reform that would restore balance, reward good faith planning, help balance the needs of the community while delivering much needed housing to the region. Vice Mayor Veenker advised they needed to consider not just the projects but the bill’s broader policy impacts and the politics of getting it done. She talked about some policy goals of the bill that made sense. She also discussed her views on how the effort to get rid of loopholes might have some loopholes of its own. She opined it would be more logical to use the date of submission. She described their experience of adopting the Housing Element on April 15, sending it on July 26 and it being approved on August 20. She was curious about Staff’s thoughts on that. She wanted to know what Section 65943 was and how it defined a complete application. She wanted to ensure they were not viewing this just through the lens of Palo Alto. Because it was statewide, they needed to consider less pro housing cities that could abuse this if they were allowed to set unrealistic standards. She thought it would be interesting to create a complete application template. She expressed there was concern that a city could slow down on finding the application complete. She felt like they should go with the last day that the applicant acted before the city deemed it complete. City Manager Shikada indicated in the context of legislation, it was a question of what appropriate milestone would be used for this purpose. Assistant Director Armer added that the initial submittal after the April 15 adoption was actually in May. There was authorization to make some minor adjustments in response to initial comments from HCD which did occur over the following couple of months. Assistant City Attorney Yang commented Section 65943 defined a complete application as one that had met all of the elements of a local agencies checklist and would function as a formal application. He said that different cities could have different checklists but all cities were required to have a published checklist which generally contained the same information with small variations. Mayor Lauing indicated this was not about RHNA but had to do with the flagrant fouls. He aligned with Councilmember Stone’s comments. He thought it was the right way to go and they should support the senator in trying to make these corrections. He thought they Councilmember Reckdahl echoed Councilmember Stone’s and Mayor Lauing’s comments. He saw the bill as fixing Builder’s Remedy. He did not think they had to sponsor it but supported supporting the bill. Councilmember Burt addressed the public policy part of the bill and provided his viewpoints. He thought it was a sound policy. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims viewed the bill as overly broad and she worried what it might do to their nine Builder’s Remedy projects. She asked that the senator’s office and her colleagues in favor of the bill consider taking a step back and developing a more targeted SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/07/2025 amendment that would get at the flagrant fouls and have a better chance of making it all the way through the California legislature to the governor’s desk. She wanted to think about what sponsorship or support would do to Palo Alto’s reputation. She worried it would put the plans for San Antonio Road at risk. Councilmember Lu thought asking for the sponsors plans, intent and thoughts about amendments was useful. He agreed there were plausible loopholes that needed clarification. Councilmember Burt remarked SB 457 was sound public policy and would become more refined through the legislative process. He stated Builder’s Remedy was bad public policy and punitive and this bill would correct that. Vice Mayor Veenker explained why she was not optimistic the bill could get through in the current environment in Sacramento, especially with respect to housing policy. She hoped there was an openness to considering a template or form for what a complete application would be as part of this. Mayor Lauing was not concerned that developers would retreat if they support the bill. He provided his views on why he was in support of it. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to: A. Approve a Support position on SB 457; and B. Designate the Mayor as the representative to provide testimony in support of the Bill. MOTION PASSED: 4-3, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, Lu no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 P.M.