The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 2411-3741CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, April 07, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM Agenda Item 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). Staff Presentation, Public Comment City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 7, 2025 Report #:2411-3741 TITLE 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). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the City Council adopt the Draft 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to growing concerns about light pollution and its impact on both the natural environment and wildlife, the City Council adopted a priority in 2023 and 2024, directing staff to prepare measures to reduce light pollution and protect wildlife. The proposed ordinance is generally consistent with the Dark Sky principles, which focus on reducing unnecessary lighting, directing light where it’s needed, and using warmer, less intrusive light sources. Key elements of the proposed ordinance include requirements for fully shielded outdoor lighting, a maximum color temperature, and the use of timers or motion sensors to ensure that lighting is only on when necessary. The ordinance also includes specific provisions for outdoor lighting in certain areas or for specific purposes. The ordinance has undergone extensive review, resulting in modifications made based on further analysis and understanding of implementation and enforcement impacts. As a result, the ordinance differs from the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations in certain areas, and the differences are described in the Analysis section of this report. Incorporating the Dark Sky principles, staff has prepared a draft ordinance updating the existing lighting standards in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.250 for City Council consideration. The ordinance reflects feedback from the Architectural Review Board (ARB), recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), as well as comments received from the public and internal City staff review. The proposed regulations reflect Palo Alto’s commitment to sustainability, environmental protection, and responsible urban development. BACKGROUND City Council Priority In February 2023, the Council selected and approved the 2023 City Council Priorities and Objectives. Under the Climate Change and the Natural Environment (CC&NE) category, Council directed staff to initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural habitats such as bird friendly glass and wildlife protection from light pollution in accordance with implementation measure CC&NE 6. In January 2024, the Council included “Climate Change and the Natural Environment: Protection and Adaptation” as a continued priority for this year. “Approve a bird friendly glass and wildlife light pollution protections ordinance” is 2024 City Council Objective #35. This report and ordinance address light pollution protections; bird-friendly glass is a separate effort to follow. Lighting and Dark Sky International The term “dark sky” generally refers to movement and achievement of significant reduction in light pollution so that the sky returns or becomes closer to its natural nighttime darkness. Jurisdictions can implement regulations to decrease light pollution, and many cities have adopted “dark sky” ordinances to reduce light pollution. Dark Sky International is a recognized worldwide authority combatting light pollution.1 The organization publishes guidance for communities seeking to achieve a “dark sky” and decrease light pollution. The framework focuses on principles which have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance: 1. Useful: Use light only if it is needed. All light should have a clear purpose. Consider how the use of light would impact the area, including wildlife and their habitat. 2. Targeted: Direct light so it falls only where needed. Use shielding and careful aiming to target the direction of the light beam so that it points downward and does not spill beyond where it is needed. 3. Low Level: Light should be no brighter than necessary. Use the lowest light level required. Be mindful of surface conditions, as some surfaces may reflect more light into the night sky than intended. 4. Controlled: Use light only when it is needed. Use controls such as timers or motion detectors to ensure that light is available when it is needed, dimmed when possible, and turned off when not needed. 1 Link to the DarkSky International Website: https://darksky.org/who-we-are/advocates 5. Warm-colored: Use warmer color lights where possible. Limit the amount of shorter wavelength (blue-violet) light to the least amount needed. Architectural Review Board On February 15, 2024,2 and July 18, 2024,3 the ARB reviewed potential Dark Sky regulations. The ARB suggested approaches for distinctive areas within the city such as foothills and Baylands and explored the creation of a “Light Sensitive Area” to regulate different areas with different lighting standards. Staff considered this concept but concluded that it might be unnecessarily complicated and potentially increase the regulatory requirements in areas of the City that are not significant nighttime light emitters or may result is less stringent regulations in other built-out urban areas in order to different standards from light sensitive areas. Accordingly, this recommendation is not included in the draft ordinance. The ARB also discussed alternative methods for regulating certain lighting requirements, such as string lighting. Staff refined these requirements to eliminate ambiguity and incorporated them into the ordinance. After deliberation at their study sessions, the ARB recommended staff to consider applying the new lighting standards to new construction and “substantial remodels” as defined in 16.17.0704, which has been incorporated into the ordinance. Planning and Transportation Commission On August 28, 2024,5 the PTC considered a Draft Lighting Ordinance. The PTC continued the item to allow for additional staff analysis regarding lighting curfews and technology, appropriate lighting for safety, and lighting needs for specific uses. On October 30, 2024,6 the PTC considered the revised ordinance voted 6-1 to forward the staff recommendation to the City Council with the following modifications: 1. Reinstate the provision that would expand applicability to projects that only include new or replacement of existing luminaires; 2. Add a hardship exception process; 3. Change light trespass allowance from 0.5 to 0.1 footcandle throughout the ordinance; 2 Link to the ARB agenda for the study session on February 15, 2024 (Item #3): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13800 3 Link to the ARB agenda for the study session on July 18, 2024 (Item #3): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13877 4 PAMC Section 16.17.070 defines that "SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL" (AKA 50-50-50 RULE) is any project or projects that affects the removal or replacement of 50% or more of the linear length of the existing exterior walls of the building, and/or 50% or more of the linear length of the existing exterior wall plate height is raised, and/or 50% or more of the existing roof framing area is removed or replaced, over a 3-year period. Any permit(s) applied for will trigger a review of a 3-year history of the project. This review will result in determining if a substantial remodel has occurred. The Chief Building Official or designee shall make the final determination regarding the application if a conflict occurs. 5 Link to the PTC agenda for the public hearing on August 28, 2024 (Item #2): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13702 6 Link to the PTC agenda for the public hearing on October 30, 2024 (Item #2): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13744 4. Reduce time limit on motion sensors from 10 minutes to five minutes; 5. Add definition terminology requested by Sierra Club based on suggested best practices; and 6. Recommend to City Council that further outreach be done at the time of implementation, informing residents of the new regulations; and that regulations for interior commercial lighting be considered in the future. (See Stakeholder Engagement section for more information.) After further staff analysis and discussion about implementation and enforcement, the draft ordinance incorporated some of the PTC recommendations but not all. The analysis section below describes how the draft ordinance differs from the PTC recommendation in more detail. ANALYSIS PAMC Section 18.40.250 includes existing standards the City uses to regulate lighting. The proposed ordinance would amend this section with additional lighting standards to reduce light pollution consistent with Dark Sky principles. The ordinance is structured to regulate lighting through the following subsections: •Applicability •Lighting Standards – Shielding •Lighting Standards – Illumination Level •Lighting Standards – Lighting Control •Special Purpose Lighting Certain provisions of the draft ordinance recommended by staff differ from the PTC’s recommendation. These provisions are detailed below where applicable. Applicability This section specifies that the ordinance applies the lighting standards to new construction, major renovation (per definition of Substantial Remodel), and new outdoor luminaires that require the issuance of a building permit. This differs from the PTC recommendation, which expanded the ordinance to also apply to replacement of outdoor luminaries or lighting systems that require the issuance of a building permit, not just new lighting. Staff’s recommendation, as reflected in the draft ordinance, differs from that of the PTC in order to reduce the enforcement and limit financial costs associated with these smaller projects. Staff considered an exception for projects facing significant financial impact from the new lighting requirements per PTC direction. However, staff determined that separating lighting costs from the entire construction cost or project valuation would be difficult for both applicants and staff responsible for verification. Furthermore, the new standards do not apply to the replacement of existing outdoor lighting or changes to the lighting type or system, which was one of scenarios that led to the concerns of financial burdens. An exception for historic resources has been added to ensure that the new standards do not impair historical integrity. Exemptions To provide flexibility, the proposed lighting ordinance includes a number of exemptions, including illuminated street numbers, temporary or emergency lighting, special events, seasonal displays, and lighting for airport operations. The ordinance includes a provision to address conflicts that may arise with other codes or State laws, and allows the conflicting building, fire, or state/federal law to take precedence. Public facilities may be granted for adjustments to the regulations in the ordinance to ensure efficient operation, maintenance, safety, and security. Lighting Standards – Shielding Directing lighting downwards and minimizing light trespass is one of the Dark Sky principles. The existing lighting requirements address shielding for pedestrian and security lighting, architectural lighting, and lighting fixture location. The update to the ordinance would expand the requirements to encompass all lighting to reduce light pollution. Limited exceptions are included for low-voltage landscape lighting, low-voltage lighting for illuminating outdoor art or public monument, sidewalk-facing lighting on a property line, and string lighting. The maximum light trespass to an adjacent property is currently 0.5 foot-candle in the City’s lighting code. Staff recommends no change to this standard. The PTC recommends 0.1 foot candle, which was adopted in a nearby jurisdiction and reflects the Commission’s interest to minimize light spilling over to adjacent properties. While supporting this interest, staff is concerned that it sets up an unrealistic expectation of essentially no light spilling over to adjacent property and may result in increased complaints to the code enforcement program – taking staff away from other priority cases. Moreover, the California Building and Safety Code stipulates a minimum illumination of 1 foot-candle for exit paths to ensure safe building egress; this standard will prevail where there is a conflict. Balancing the ordinance’s objectives with critical safety considerations, the maximum light trespass level was ultimately maintained at 0.5 foot-candle. Lighting Standards – Illumination Level The ordinance requires the color temperature at maximum of 2,700 Kelvin. This warmer temperature is less likely to disrupt the night environment and can minimize light pollution and glare when combined with other lighting requirements in the draft ordinance. Lighting Standards – Lighting Control The existing lighting requirements encourage the installation of timers and dimmers to reduce light glare for both exterior and interior lighting during nighttime hours. The proposed ordinance requires exterior lights be extinguished or motion-sensor activated by 10:00 p.m., unless the outdoor area is being used. To further minimize unnecessary light use, the proposed regulations require motion sensors to deactivate after a maximum of five minutes. The PTC recommendation included applying the lighting curfew to all new and existing buildings and structures. Staff recommendation, as reflected in the draft ordinance, does not extend this requirement to existing buildings and structures because it presents significant enforcement challenges. Enforcing a lighting curfew on all existing buildings would be extremely complex and resource-intensive and is simply unsupported based on existing staff levels. Moreover, requiring existing lighting fixtures to comply would set up an unrealistic expectation that all existing lighting would comply with the subject ordinance upon ordinance adoption. Because mandatory motion sensors would be a cost burden for property owners, a lighting curfew without them would likely result in widespread non-compliance, increased neighbor disputes, and diminished public support for dark sky initiatives. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance does not apply the lighting curfew to existing buildings and structures. Special Purpose Lighting The Special Purpose Lighting subsection includes new standards for the following five key categories: •Low Density Residential Lighting. The existing lighting requirements from low density residential chapters have been consolidated into this subsection. To avoid requiring lighting plans for low-density residential projects, which are typically not needed for single-family homes, a separate brightness standard is provided in lumens. If the standard were specified in footcandles, lighting plans would be necessary. This lumen level is based on the Dark Sky International’s model lighting ordinance. •Outdoor Security Lighting: Requirements for outdoor security lighting mirror general lighting standards, including requirements for lighting control and shielding. Exceptions for motion sensors are provided where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. •Athletic Facilities Lighting: This section aims to minimize light pollution and disturbance to surrounding areas. Lighting must be focused based on the purpose of the facility, with adjustable intensity for different uses. Lights have specific timer and shutoff requirements. •Automobile Service Station Lighting: Automobile service station lighting is required to be fully recessed or mounted directly to the underside of canopies. The maximum light intensity level for canopies is set at 12.5 foot-candles, which falls within the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommended range of 10 to 15 foot-candles for gas stations.7 •Lighting for Outdoor Space above Ground Floor: The lighting standards from the existing PAMC Section 18.40.230 (Rooftop Gardens) were incorporated into this ordinance for consistency with Dark Sky principles. •String Lighting: A color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin and brightness not exceeding 42 lumens per each light burb is required. 7 IES Recommended Light Levels: https://waypointlighting.com/uploads/2/6/8/4/26847904/ies_recommended_light_levels.pdf Enforcement Existing light fixtures and sources that do not comply with the subject provisions may continue and the ordinance allows for minor replacement and repair. Enforcement of this ordinance will largely occur when staff are reviewing plans for a building permit and upon final building inspection. Proactive enforcement of this ordinance to existing buildings, structures, or properties is not possible with existing resources. Complaints about non-complying properties will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The lighting ordinance update to reduce light pollution is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Environment Element. The vision for the Natural Environment Element is to preserve its natural environment and resources for future generations through sustainable practices, conservation efforts, and climate change adaptation strategies. Policy N-7.5 encourages lighting that protects dark skies and Policy N-1.9 specifically references shielding exterior lighting in the foothills. By improving nighttime visibility, protecting nocturnal wildlife, and enhancing energy efficiency, the updated lighting ordinance aligns with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals of protecting the natural environment and promoting a healthier and more sustainable community. While the lighting ordinance update primarily aims to reduce light pollution, it does not directly relate to any of the key actions of the Palo Alto Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). However, it contributes to one of the goals of “restoring and enhancing resilience and biodiversity of our natural environment throughout the City.” Implementation of the updated lighting ordinance would provide better habitat for nocturnal wildlife species, which would result in protecting the natural environment and promoting a more sustainable environment. Although not explicitly listed as a goal or action in the S/CAP, implementing the updated lighting ordinance could reduce electricity usage over time. This is because outdoor lighting would need to be turned off and controlled by motion sensors after a certain time. This reduction could contribute to a more sustainable community in Palo Alto and support other S/CAP goals and actions. As part of the implementation of Housing Element Program 3.2 (Monitor Constraints to Housing), the City evaluates initiatives proposing new regulations and the impact regulations may impact housing production, if at all. The update to the Lighting ordinance is anticipated to have an insignificant impact on housing production, if any, as it is not directly related to building design and only addresses outdoor lighting. While new housing projects may experience some cost increases and design restrictions due to the ordinance, these are expected to be minimal. Dark sky compliant products are readily available, and effective lighting control technologies exist. However, policy recommendations in this report, particularly with respect to ordinance applicability to existing structures, may be viewed by some as not going far enough to advance dark skies initiatives. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The implementation of the proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any direct fiscal impacts on the City budget. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff conducted two study sessions, one in February and another in July 2024 through the ARB to provide a forum for community members to express their views and concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. In addition, staff have engaged with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to solicit their input on the proposed ordinances. Staff received numerous comment letters from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (formerly known as the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society) and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter on various versions of the draft ordinance presented to the ARB and PTC. The public comments included specific modification recommendations on the multiple versions of the draft Lighting ordinance. Staff received an additional comment letter from a resident who expressed concern that the lighting ordinance update might be too prescriptive, despite supporting responsible outdoor lighting practices and fearing it might reduce the safety of his property. All public comments received for the draft lighting ordinance are in Attachment D. Future Outreach PTC recommended to the City Council that further outreach be done at the time of implementation, informing residents of the new regulations; and that regulations for interior commercial lighting be considered in the future. Unless directed otherwise, staff will inform the project’s interested parties about the ordinance adoption and provide a copy for review. Staff will also prepare information to be shared on the City’s website and at the Development Center regarding the new regulations and communicate as appropriate through other City communication channels. The City Council could also consider additional regulations for interior commercial lighting at future priority-setting sessions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City has reviewed these proposed ordinances in accordance with that authority and criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act. The City, as the lead agency, anticipates that these ordinances will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, which includes actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Updating Lighting Standards (PAMC Section 18.40.250) Attachment B: Model Dark Sky Ordinances Attachment C: Other Jurisdictions on Outdoor Lighting and Dark Sky Regulations Attachment D: Public Comments APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 1 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Replacing 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) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The term “dark sky” generally refers to achievement of signiﬁcant reduc on in light pollu on so that the sky returns or becomes closer to its natural nigh me darkness. B. Adhering to Dark Sky principles, which promote responsible outdoor ligh ng prac ces, can signiﬁcantly reduce light pollu on and mi gate its harmful eﬀects. These principles emphasize using shielded, downward ligh ng, and selec ng appropriate ligh ng colors and intensi es. C. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council priori es, one of which is the Climate Change & Natural Environment – Protec on & Adapta on, and included an objec ve to “approve a bird safe glass and wildlife light pollu on protec ons ordinance.” D. On February 14, 2024, and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted study sessions and provided feedback on the dra Dark Sky Ordinance. E. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and Transporta on Commission reviewed the dra ordinance and provided feedback. However, they did not make a recommenda on and asked staﬀ to return with more informa on and con nued the hearing to a date uncertain. F. On October 30, 2024, the Planning and Transporta on Commission recommended that City Council adopt the ordinance. G. The ordinance aligns with Dark Sky principles and protects the night sky, protec ng wildlife and suppor ng a sustainable and resilient community. SECTION 2. Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) to read as follows: 18.40.250 Lighting (a) Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish exterior lighting standards to reduce light pollution. Exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to: *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 2 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay (1) Reduce light pollution and its adverse effects on the environment, wildlife habitat, and human health; (2) Minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby properties and from adjacent roadways; (3) Provide safe and secure access on a site and adjacent pedestrian routes; (4) Achieve maximum energy efficiency; and (5) Complement the architectural design of the project. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: (1) “Correlated Color Temperature” or “Color Temperature” means a specification of the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number. (2) “Fully Shielded” means a luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane extending from the bottom of the lamp. (3) “Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a luminaire or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a person. (4) “Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source light, often called a “bulb” or “tube.” Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, and low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and arrays. (5) “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are left on when they no longer serve a useful function. (6) “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible light produced by a lamp or emitted from a luminaire (as distinct from “Watt,” a measure of power consumption). (7) “Luminaire” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps, and similar devices, including solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or protect the lamp, permanently installed or portable. (8) “Seasonal ligh ng” means ligh ng installed and operated in connec on with holidays or tradi ons within the me period speciﬁed in Sec on 18.40.250(d)(4). String *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 3 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay ligh ng used outside these periods is not considered seasonal ligh ng and shall be subject to requirements in Sec on 18.40.250(f)(6). (9) “Security lighting” means lighting intended to detect intrusions or criminal activity occurring on a property or site. Also commonly referred to as perimeter lighting. (10) “String lighting” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of tubing resulting in several or many points of light. (c) Applicability. The outdoor lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this Section shall apply to the following projects: (1) All newly constructed structures and buildings; or (2) Structures or buildings proposing a Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070; or (3) New installation of outdoor luminaires requiring a building permit. (d) Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the lighting requirements of the section: (1) Illuminated street numbers; (2) Temporary construction or lighting for emergency personnel; (3) Lighting authorized by a special event, special or temporary use permit; (4) Seasonal lighting during the period of October 15 through January 15 of each year; (5) Lighting for Airport Operations. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict, limit, or otherwise regulate lighting that, in the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager, is prudent or necessary for airport operations, airport safety, or air navigation in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport; or (6) Lighting for Emergency Shelters. Lighting for emergency shelters shall be subject to PAMC 18.14.060. (e) Lighting Standards. (1) Shielding (A) All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded and directed to avoid light trespass. No lighting shall trespass more than 0.5-foot candle as measured at the property line. (B) Exceptions for shielding requirements shall be applied to the following types of lighting: *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 4 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay (i) Low voltage landscape uplighting used to illuminate fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, outdoor art or public monuments provided that they use no more than a 10-watt incandescent bulb or LED equivalent or emit no more than 150 lumens. These luminaires may not direct light towards the public right-of-way; (ii) Sidewalk-facing ligh ng for zero lot line developments, provided the luminaires are motion-activated and automatically extinguish within five minutes without further activation; or (iii) String lighting pursuant to Section 18.40.250(f)(5). (2) Parking Lot Lighting Height. (A) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from grade to top of fixture in parking lots in residential development and 20 feet in parking lots with commercial and mixed-use development. (3) Illumination Level and Color Temperature (A) All light sources shall have a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin or less. (B) The maximum outdoor light intensity on a site shall not exceed an average value of 5 foot-candles. (4) Lighting Control. (A) Lighting Curfew. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two hours after the close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later. (B) All lighting activated by motion sensor shall be set up to extinguish after no more than five minutes without further activation. (C) All lighting shall be automatically extinguished using a control device or system when there is sufficient daylight available, except for lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, or garage entrances. (D) Exceptions for Lighting Control. (i) Any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and driveways area; (ii) Outdoor pathway lights that emit 25 lumens or less; or (iii) Lighting that illuminates a pedestrian pathway (examples include bollard, in-place step, or building mounted), provided that such lighting is a maximum height of four (4) feet above the pathway and fully shielded. *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 5 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay (f) Special Purpose Lighting. The standards in this section shall prevail over any conflicting standard in subsection (e). (1) Low Density Residential Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in the section, the following lighting requirements shall be applicable to projects in R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, NV- R1, or NV-R2. (A) When abutting any residential use, no spillover of lighting to adjacent properties shall be allowed. (B) A maximum of 1,260 lumens shall be allowed for each fully shielded outdoor lighting. No more than 420 lumens shall be allowed for permitted non-shielded outdoor lighting. (C) Skylights shall limit illuminance and glare during night hours. Glare shall be mitigated through the use of translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement. Skylights shall not use white glass. (D) Height for Recreational and Security Lighting. Free-standing lighting shall be a maximum of twelve feet (12’) in height for those that were installed on or after March 11, 1991. (2) Outdoor Security Lighting. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized only the following standards shall apply: (A) Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish after no more than five minutes without further activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by battery or similar backup. (B) Security lighting shall be fully shielded and not be mounted at a height exceeding the limits established in Section 18.40.250, measured from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the luminaire. (C) Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source. (D) Motion-activated security lights shall not use lamps that exceed 100-watt incandescent bulb or LED equivalent, or a maximum of 1,600 lumens. (3) Athletic Facilities Lighting. Outdoor athletic facilities shall conform to the following standards: *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 6 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay (A) Field lighting is provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and viewing stands, and adjacent proximity areas for public safety. (B) Illumination levels shall be adjustable based on the task (e.g., active play vs. field maintenance). (C) Off-site impacts of the lighting will be limited to the greatest practical extent possible. (D) Lights shall be extinguished by 10:30 p.m. except when the facilities are being used for active play and maintenance before or after permitted events, and the lights are equipped with a timer. (E) Timers that automatically extinguish lights shall be installed to prevent lights being left on accidentally overnight. (4) Automobile Service Station Lighting (A) Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed or mounted directly to the underside of the canopy. All luminaires shall be located so that no lighting is directed towards the adjoining property or public rights-of-way. (B) Luminaires are not permitted on top of the canopy fascia. (C) The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average foot- candle of 12.5, when measured at finished grade. (D) No free-standing lighting shall be higher than 15 feet above finished grade. (E) The canopy fascia shall not be illuminated. (5) Outdoor Space Above Ground Floor. These requirements apply to all outdoor spaces located above ground level, including, but not limited to, roo op gardens, roo op restaurants or bars, balconies, and decks. (A) Any lighting shall be shielded from public views and any luminaires shall be fully shielded and no uplighting shall be permitted. (B) Lights shall be dimmable to control glare and placed on timers to turn off after 10:00 p.m. or as permitted pursuant to Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(D) (C) No light trespass shall be allowed more than 0.5 foot-candle as measured beyond the perimeter of the roof deck or other outdoor space above the ground floor. (6) String Lighting. (A) String lighting color temperature shall not exceed 2,700 Kelvin and no individual lamp that is part of a string lighting installation shall exceed a rating of 42 lumens. No string lighting shall be blinking, flashing, or chasing. *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 7 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay (B) For commercial and mixed-use areas, string lighting shall be limited to designated outside dining or display areas or common open space (i.e. courtyard or patio). (7) Parklets. Lighting for any parklets shall comply with the lighting standards established in the Permanent Parklet Program. (g) Prohibited Lighting. The following types of lighting are prohibited except when used by emergency service personnel during an emergency: (1) Outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates; or (2) Searchlights, aerial lasers, or spotlights. (h) Lighting for Signs. See Chapter 16.20 for lighting requirements for signs. (i) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence. Lighting required by the Building Code, Fire Code, or state or federal law shall additionally comply with the requirements of this section, unless these requirements necessarily conflict with the aforementioned Codes and laws. In the event of a conflict, the standards in the applicable Codes and laws shall prevail. (j) Historic Resources. The Director may grant an exception to the requirements of this Section if the applicant provides documentation demonstrating that implementation of the lighting requirements in this ordinance would impair the historical integrity and character-defining features of the building and create an adverse impact to the building’s historical, architectural, and cultural significance. (k) Public Facilities. Public Facilities, including City-owned and operated facilities, shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards of this Section to the extent feasible. The Director may grant adjustments to any applicable lighting standards for such facilities if the adjustment is necessary for the efficient operation, maintenance, or safety of the facility, or to ensure public safety and security; and is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of this Section. A written request for an adjustment, including supporting documentation, shall be submitted and shall be reviewed according to the applicable review procedures in PAMC Section 18.77 associated with the proposed development. SECTION 3. Subsection (e) of Section 18.40.230 (Rooftop Gardens) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): (e) Any lighting shall be shielded from public views and have full cutoff fixtures that cast downward-facing light, or consist of low-level string lights; no up-lighting is permitted. Lights shall be dimmable to control glare and placed on timers to turn off after 10:00 p.m. Photometric diagrams must be submitted by the applicant to ensure there are no spillover impacts into windows or openings of adjacent properties.For lighting requirements, refer to Section 18.40.250. *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 8 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay SECTION 4. Subsection (g) of Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (Low Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): (g) Lighting in R-2 District In the R-2 district, recreational and security lighting shall be permitted only so long as the lighting is shielded so that the direct light does not extend beyond the property where it is located. Free- standing recreational and security lighting installed on or later than March 11, 1991, shall be restricted to twelve feet (12') in height. For lighting requirements, refer to Section 18.40.250. SECTION 5. Subsection (k) of Section 18.12.040 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): (k) Lighting Recreational and security lighting shall be permitted only so long as the lighting is shielded so that the direct light does not extend beyond the property where it is located. Free-standing recreational and security lighting installed on or later than March 11, 1991 shall be restricted to twelve feet (12') in height. Direct light from outdoor fixtures shall only fall on the walls, eaves, and yard areas of the site on which it is located. Outdoor fixtures shall have lens covers or reflectors that direct the light away from the neighboring properties. For lighting requirements, refer to Section 18.40.250. SECTION 6. Subsection (n) of Section 18.28.270 (Additional OS District Regulations) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): (n) Light and Glare Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the night glare. Skylights shall not use white glass. For lighting requirements, refer to Section 18.40.250. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 8. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 9 0160151_kb2_20250319_ay Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, as an action by a regulatory agency to protect the environment. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________                     ____________________________ City Clerk                                                             Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:                                    APPROVED: ____________________________                     ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney                                    City Manager                                                                             ____________________________                                                                    Director of Planning & Development Services Attachment C: Model Ordinance from DarkSky International: https://darksky.org/app/uploads/bsk-pdf- manager/16_MLO_FINAL_JUNE2011.PDF Model Ordinance from Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (in the following pages) Model Lighting Ordinance (Created by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter) Definitions Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter xxxx of this Code, for purposes of this chapter only, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: “Correlated Color Temperature” or Color Temperature is a specification of the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number. “Curfew” means the time of day when lighting restrictions, Citywide or based on zoning district, are in effect. “Directional lighting” means methods of directing light downward, rather than upward or outward, with the intention of directing light where it is needed. “Fully shielded” means a light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane (from the bottom of the lamp). “Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a light fixture or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a reasonable person. “Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source of optical radiation (i.e., “light”), often called a “bulb” or “tube.” Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, and low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and arrays. “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are left on when they no longer serve a useful function. “Light trespass” light that falls beyond the boundary of the property on which it is installed. “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible light produced by a lamp or emitted from a light fixture (as distinct from “Watt,” a measure of power consumption). “Luminaires” means outdoor light fixtures as defined in this Section. “Outdoor light fixtures” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps and similar devices, including solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or protect the lamp, permanently installed or portable; synonymous with “luminaires.” “Outdoor recreational facility” means outdoor athletic and sports areas, such as ball fields, courts, swimming pools, skate parks and similar, but does not mean or include trails or playgrounds “Seasonal lighting” means lighting installed and operated in connection with holidays or traditions; “Security lighting” means lighting intended to detect intrusions or other criminal activity occurring on a property or site. “Skyglow” means the brightening of the nighttime sky that results from scattering and reflection of artificial light by air molecules, moisture, and dust particles in the atmosphere, caused by light directed or reflected upwards or sideways and reduces one’s ability to view the night sky. “String lights” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of tubing resulting in several or many points of light 1. Purpose 1. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate design, placement, color temperature, and light intensity of lighting elements in all zoning districts to reduce light pollution; to protect the dark sky, the natural environment, and public health; and to promote lighting systems and practices that conserve energy and prevent overlighting. As described in the International Dark Sky Association’s 5 Principles for Outdoor Lighting, light should be 1) useful, 2) targeted, 3) low level, 4) controlled, and 5) warm-colored. 2. Applicability 1. General Applicability 1. Requirements (Section 3) apply to all new and/or replacement outdoor lighting fixtures installed in residential or nonresidential properties from the effective date of the ordinance, whether attached to structures, poles, the earth, or any other location, unless exempted in Section 2.3 or in Section 3. 2. Nonresidential properties are encouraged to minimize outdoor light pollution from their interior lights. If interior light is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel, nonresidential properties shall comply with Section 3.6.1. 3. The following types of lighting are not allowed except in emergencies by police, fire, or medical personnel or at their direction: floodlights; outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates; search lights; spotlights; high-intensity discharge lighting for recreation courts on private property; aerial lasers. 4. Lighting within the public right-of-way for the principal purpose of illuminating public streets or traffic control are not regulated by this ordinance. 2. Existing Lighting 1. Existing lighting must comply with the new lighting standards 5 years after the effective date of the ordinance. Any non-compliant lighting still in place after the compliance deadline shall remain extinguished at all times. 2. The following requirements shall be complied with within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance: 1. Outdoor light fixtures that have the ability to be redirected, shall be directed downward so as to minimize sky glow, glare, and eliminate light trespass onto adjacent properties. 2. Outdoor light fixtures that have adjustable dimmers with color temperature that exceeds twenty-seven hundred (2,700) Kelvin shall be dimmed to comply with Section 3 to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent properties. 3. Light fixtures that are replaced within the first 5 years of the effective date of the ordinance shall meet the standards (i.e., color temperature and illumination limit) in Section 3. 4. Extensions: A property owner may apply for a 6-month extension of this deadline by submitting a request to the Planning Director or equivalent thirty (30) days before the compliance deadline detailing why an extension is needed. Any noncompliant lighting shall remain extinguished while the request is pending. Upon demonstration of good cause for providing a property owner additional time to comply with the requirements of this section, the Planning Director or equivalent may extend the property owner’s time to comply and/or may require a plan for compliance that requires partial compliance in advance of full compliance. For purposes of this section, the term “good cause” shall mean a significant financial or other hardship which warrants an extension or conditional extension of the time limit for compliance established herein. In no instance shall the Planning Director issue an extension of the compliance period in excess of one year’s time. 3. California Building Code 1. All lighting must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code including Title 24 of the Building Code. 2. All outdoor lighting shall comply with California Building Code Title 24 Lighting Zone One (LZ1). 3. Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this ordinance, the standards in the California Building Code shall prevail. 3. Outdoor Lighting Standards 1. Exemptions 1. Seasonal lighting 1. Temporary Seasonal lighting is allowed from October 15 to January 15 only. 2. Such lighting is exempt from Section 3.3-3.6 and must be extinguished by 11pm. 2. Aircraft navigation lights such as those attached to radio/television towers and other lighting required by the State of California or the U.S. federal government. 3. High intensity and/or special purpose lighting is governed by Section 4. 2. Correlated Color Temperature 1. The correlated color temperature of outdoor luminaires shall not exceed 2700 K. Luminaries rated at or below 2200 K are encouraged for better nighttime visibility, protection of wildlife, and reduction of glare and light pollution. 3. Shielding 1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be fully shielded and directed downward except as otherwise specified. 2. Exceptions 1. Low-voltage Landscape Lighting: Low-voltage landscape lighting, such as that used to illuminate fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not have to be shielded fixtures, provided that they use no more than 150 lumens. 2. Outdoor Art: Low-voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art do not have to be shielded fixtures. 3. Greenhouse Lighting: At or under 200 lumens, a fixture can be unshielded as long as no light shines outside the structure or is visible from another property or the sky. 4. Lighting Control Requirements 1. All outdoor lighting shall be controlled by motion-sensors or be fully extinguished by 11:00 p.m. or when people are no longer actually present in exterior areas, whichever is earlier, except 1. Lighting of outdoor art shall be fully extinguished by 11:00 pm 2. Where required by the California Building Code or state law, any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and driveway areas that are required to remain illuminated after 11:00 p.m. 3. Lighting of a minimal appropriate intensity, allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate past 11:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit 4. Outdoor solar-powered pathway lights without controls that are 25 lumens or less 2. All lighting activated by motion-sensors shall extinguish no more than 5 minutes after activation. Owners of such equipment shall (1) maintain it in good working order; and (2) adjust the trigger threshold appropriately such that it only triggers on large objects like people. 3. Controls shall be provided that automatically extinguish all outdoor lighting when sufficient daylight is available using a control device or system such as a photoelectric switch, astronomic time switch, or equivalent functions from a programmable lighting controller, building automation system, or lighting energy management system, all with battery or similar backup power or device, except 1. Lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, garage entrances. 5. Illumination Levels 1. Lighting in which any single luminaire exceeds 20,000 lumens or the total lighting load exceeds 160,000 lumens shall not be installed or used without a conditional use permit. 6. Limits to Offsite Impacts 1. No exterior light or combination shall cast light exceeding zero point one (0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source, except if two adjacent properties are non-residential, or function as a shopping center, and agree to coordinate lighting. 2. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way. 3. Indoor Lighting of Nonresidential Properties 1. Businesses that involve the direct retailing of goods to the general public may have downward directed, low voltage, and fully shielded lighting for window displays. 2. Any lighting device located on the inside of a window which is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel with intermittent fading, flashing, blinking, rotating, or strobe light illumination is prohibited. 3. Properties are encouraged to draw blinds and/or turn off non-essential indoor lighting at night. 4. Interior lights shall be extinguished or motion-sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. or within two hours after the business is closed, whichever is earlier. 7. Outdoor Security Lighting 1. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized, the following standards shall apply: 2. Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device, except where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish no more than 5 minutes after activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by battery or similar backup. 3. Security lighting shall be downward directed, fully shielded, and not be mounted at a height that exceeds 12 feet, measured from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture. 4. Floodlights shall not be permitted. 5. Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass. 6. Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed a maximum of 1,600 lumens. 8. Service Station Canopies 1. The following standards shall apply to service station canopy lighting, in addition to all other applicable standards. 2. Service station canopies shall not be transparent or translucent. 3. Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed into the underside of the canopy. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct rays from adjoining properties or public rights-of-way. 4. Light fixtures shall not be mounted on top of the fascia of such canopies. 5. The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average maintained foot-candle (horizontal) of 12.5, when measured at finished grade. Luminaires shall be of a low level, indirect diffused type. 6. No luminaire shall be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. 7. The fascia of such canopies shall not be illuminated, except for approved signage in compliance with Section 5. 4. High Intensity and/or Special Purpose Lighting 1. Conditional use permits 1. Lighting installations that do not comply with lighting standards may be allowed if a conditional use permit is obtained. 2. To obtain a conditional use permit, applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting installation meets the following requirements: 1. Demonstrates through third-party review that the intended function cannot be achieved through the requirements of this ordinance. 2. Is at the lowest illumination levels that meet the requirement of the task. 3. Has sustained every reasonable effort to mitigate the effects of light on the environment and surrounding properties, supported by a signed statement describing the mitigation measures. 4. Employs lighting controls to reduce lighting at a project-specific curfew time to be established in the Permit. 5. Complies with the lighting standards in the ordinance after the project-specific curfew. 6. The permit must demonstrate that the applicant is making every reasonable effort to adhere to the code requirements. 2. String Lighting 1. String lighting shall not be 1. Blinking and/or chasing lights. 2. Secured with materials or in a manner that will puncture the skin or restrict the growth of any living landscape feature. 3. Attached to a fence in a manner that permits light trespass to adjacent property. 4. Allowed to emit no more than 42 lumens. 5. A correlated color temperature of more than 2,700 K 2. Residential Areas: In addition to Section 4.2.1, string lighting is permitted subject to the following requirements: 1. It shall not illuminate more than fifty (50) percent of the rear yard or 500 sq. ft., whichever is more restrictive. 2. It shall not be visible from a public right-of-way. 3. It shall be used primarily to illuminate patio areas. 4. It shall be extinguished by 11:00 p.m. 3. Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Areas: String lighting may be permitted subject to the following requirements, with approval of the Planning Director or equivalent: 1. Any development or property is permitted to submit one application for string lighting, which shall include all uses of string lighting on the development or property. 2. It shall not illuminate an area greater than five (5) percent of the building(s) footprint of a shopping center and fifteen (15) percent for a freestanding commercial building not part of a shopping center. 3. It is limited to designated outside dining or display areas. 4. It is extinguished two (2) hours after the close of business. 3. Outdoor Recreational Facilities 1. Lighting at public and private outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to playing fields, arenas, tracks, and swimming pools, will be fully shielded to the greatest practical extent to reduce glare, safety hazards, light trespass, and light pollution. 2. Such lighting shall meet all of the following requirements. 1. Provide levels of illuminance that are adjustable according to task, allowing for illuminating levels not to exceed nationally recognized Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). standards according to the appropriate class of play, as well as for lower output during other times, such as when field maintenance is being actively performed 2. Be provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and adjacent viewing stands, and not for any other application, such as lighting a parking lot. 3. Must be extinguished by 11:00 pm or within one (1) hour of the end of the active play, whichever is earlier. 4. Shall be fitted with motion sensors and/or mechanical or electronic timers to prevent lights from being left on accidentally overnight. 3. Illumination levels shall be designed to be no higher than recommended for Class IV play, as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society publication ANSI/IES RP-6-20, as amended. 1. design and installation adheres to the IDSA’s Criteria for Community Friendly Outdoor Sports Lighting 2. Height? 5. Sign Lighting 1. All externally or internally illuminated signs, advertising displays, and building identification shall be extinguished at 11:00 p.m. or within one (1) hour of the end of normal business hours, whichever occurs first. 2. Externally Illuminated Signs 1. Externally illuminated signs shall be lit only from the top of the sign, with fully shielded luminaires designed and installed to prevent light from spilling beyond the physical edges of the sign. 2. All external sign illumination must comply with the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) requirements of this ordinance. 3. Internally Illuminated Signs: 1. Outdoor internally illuminated signs (whether free standing or building mounted) shall be subject to all the following requirements: 1. The internally illuminated portion of the sign cannot be white, cream, off-white, light tan, yellow or any light color unless it is part of a registered logo that does not have an alternate version with dark tones. Light tone colors such as white, cream, off-white, light tan, yellow or any light color are permitted in the logo only, provided that such colors in the logo shall represent not more than 33% of the total sign area permitted. 2. The internal illumination, between sunset and sunrise, is to be the lowest intensity needed to allow the sign to be visible and shall not exceed 50 nits (=170 lumens). 3. Size limit: The luminous surface area of an individual sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. 4. Electronic message displays are discouraged and shall comply with outdoor lighting curfews stipulated in this ordinance. 5. Moving and/or flashing text or images are prohibited.ApplicabilityNew [3] and existing [4] streetlights 6. Streetlight RequirementsStreet lighting must consist of fully shielded fixtures, directed downward to meet particular need and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-ways to avoid light trespass. [1] 7. Street lighting shall have a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin or less (Cupertino and Los Gatos). [1] 8. The lumen output of each streetlight shall be the lowest reasonable lumen output to meet safety standards but in no case greater than 10,000 lumens. [4] References [1] Communication with Public Works Directors in Cupertino, Los Gatos [2] Flagstaff Ordinance: https://www.codepublishing.com/AZ/Flagstaff/html/Flagstaff13/Flagstaff1312003.html#13.12.003 https://flagstaffdarkskies.org/dark-sky-solutions/dark-sky-solutions-2/outdoor-lighting-codes/ [3] County of LA Rural ordinance https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT22PLZO_DIV4COZOSUDI_CH22.80RUOULIDI#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Outdoor%20Lighting%2 0District,and%20preserving%20the%20nighttime%20environment Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance: https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/29389/Attachment-2_Malibu-Municipal-Code-Ch-1741?bidId= Brisbane’s Staff Report + Dark Sky Ordinance: https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/brisbaneca-meet-af1c62b805bd463ea43072d7018a7c98/ITEM-Attachment-001-5913cc8fb5de4f06a173268ed08d5a49.pdf Cupertino’s Dark Sky and Bird Safe Design Ordinance: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-96605 Other Jurisdictions on Outdoor Lighting/Dark Sky Standards: • City of Cupertino (Chapter 19.102: Glass and Lighting Standards): https://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cupertino#/d3ef8742-594e-4e92-bb0d- 0fbb09d855bd/68dadeb1-0691-4c82-a9e1-11e6e40f268f • Portola Valley (Lighting Ordinance): https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/11163/636699440999530000 • Woodside (Section 153.213 Outdoor Lighting): https://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CD_ORD_TITXVLAUS _CH153ZO_153.213OULI • Sunnyvale (Moﬀett Park Speciﬁc Plan – Section 6.6.9 Exterior Lighting, Document Pages 179- 180): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/ﬁ/gz3cr91d1xyd073x6ligg/SMPSP_FinalPlan_MidRes.pdf?rlkey=5 vg3c42cc0o6935btgxzwatgp&e=1&dl=0 • Brisbane (Dark Sky Ordinance): https://www.brisbaneca.org/cd/page/dark-sky- ordinance#:~:text=On%20January%2018%2C%202024%2C%20the,reasonable%20restrictions%2 0on%20outdoor%20lighting. Comments on ARB version of Proposed Ordinance Review Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvas.org> Sun 7/28/2024 1:49 PM To: Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Dash Leeds <dashiell.leeds@sierraclub.org>; Julianne Wang <julianne.junyanw@gmail.com> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. July 28, 2024 Dear Kelly, We have reviewed the proposed lighng ordinance (the version that was available to the ARB) and our comments are Available Here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qx7FHXwGwm46ms-PuX1Ap4RBAFRqouByALIV91EfJvw/edit? usp=sharing Please note that we are sll looking at this, and comparing with our Model Lighng Ordinance Ordinance, Available Here: hps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nqe19ColokeJGwsWsXCwZz9- Mx2mrTaJQwYLzmeepfg/edit#heading=h.406ajo23pzbb) Thank you so much, shani Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 22221 McClellan Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 650-868-2114 advocate@scvas.org July 28, 2024 Dear Kelly, We have reviewed the proposed ordinance (the version that was available to the ARB) and our comments are attached, Please note that we are still looking at this, and comparing with our Model Lighting Ordinance Ordinance (Available Here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nqe19ColokeJGwsWsXCwZz9- Mx2mrTaJQwYLzmeepfg/edit#heading=h.406ajo23pzbb) Thank you so much, shani Lighting (Repeal PAMC Section 18.40.250) Consider adding: ● Please include Lumens caps (e.g., allowed amount of lumens per improved acre) to limit over-lighting. Malibu’s ordinance has Lumen caps, often 850 lumens. Brisbane has a maximum lumen/square foot. Our Model Lighting ordinance suggests: ○ Illumination Levels: Lighting in which any single luminaire exceeds 20,000 lumens or the total lighting load exceeds 160,000 lumens shall not be installed or used without a conditional use permit. ● Please add regulations for parking garages? Our Model Ordinance requires Lighting Controls for Lighting under canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, and garage entrances. ● The ordinance should include a restriction on the total amount of unshielded lighting allowed on a property. This would capture string lighting, for example. Comments on the proposed ordinance (ARB version): (a) Purpose. “The intent of this section is to establish exterior lighting standards to reduce light pollution. Exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to:” ● Comment: It's unclear why the preamble specifically calls out "exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting". The statement in section (c) says that the ordinance applies to "require separate planning approval". It's just odd that the phrasing in (a) is so specific, and omits many other potential exterior lighting areas. ● Suggestion: Consider replacing “Exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to:” with “Exterior lighting should aim to accomplish the 5 Principles for Outdoor Lighting, directing light light to be 1) useful, 2) targeted, 3) low level, 4) controlled, and 5) warm-colored and” (1) Reduce light pollution and its adverse effects on environment, wildlife habitat, and human health. ● Comment: The Night Sky, visibility of stars, is important. ● Suggestion: Add “the night sky” or replace “environment” with “the night sky” (4) Achieve maximum energy efficiency. ● Comment: The important thing is to reduce overlighting in time and space that wastes energy. We are concerned with specifying “Maximum efficiency” as it may lead to installation of very fixtures of high Correlated Color Temperature, which conflicts with the intent of this section. ● Suggestion: Replace “Achieve maximum energy efficiency” with: “promote lighting systems and practices that conserve energy and prevent overlighting” (b) Definitions. Notwithstanding the definitions in Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code, for purposes of this chapter only, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: (b) (1) “Correlated Color Temperature” or “Color Temperature” means a specification of the color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number. ● Comment: This wording confuses color temperature with the hue of light. ● Suggestion: Replace: "Warmer color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher number." with the more accurate "Sources that appear warm or yellowish have lower CCT values, and sources that appear cool or blue have higher values". (2) “Dark Sky Compliant or Equivalent” means a light fixture from which all light emitted, directly or indirectly, is projected below a horizontal plane. ● Comment: this could confuse property owners. No one owns the term "dark sky compliant", so words like that appear in sales literature and on product packaging for lighting that doesn't meet the stated definition here. Someone could make an honest effort to comply and still fail because "dark sky compliant" is essentially a meaningless term. ● Suggestion: Remove this definition, replace with specific requirements. (5) “High Intensity Lighting” ● Comment: This term is ambiguous in that it implies a number or other metric that explains why the "intensity" is "high". A veteran lighting consultant we talked to stated that he has never before seen an instance where this term was intended to refer specifically to outdoor sports lighting. (9) “Luminaires” ● Suggestion: Please make clear that this term does not include poles or mounting surfaces. (11) “Security lighting” ● Comment: There's no consistent evidence that lighting can "detect intrusions or other criminal activity occurring on a property or site". It may help people feel secure, and perhaps the intent is to deter rather than detect criminal activity. There is no evidence to suggest that works, either. (c) Applicability For the purposes of this Section, all new structures and exterior modifications that require separate planning approval shall comply with the lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this section ● Comments/Suggestions: Expand Applicability to Existing Fixtures ○ A recent feature of several adopted Dark Sky Ordinances is the application of Dark Sky standards to existing lighting fixtures, as seen in Malibu and Brisbane. Existing, non- compliant lighting that can be adjusted without replacing the fixture should be brought into compliance within a short grace period of time. Lighting that requires new fixtures or installations should be allowed a grace period of up to 5 years. Addressing existing lighting will empower neighbors affected by light pollution to seek resolution through code enforcement if needed. ○ The proposed ordinance suggests a 10 PM curfew for new permitted buildings, but does not apply to existing structures. We ask for a curfew on outdoor lighting to apply to existing buildings. If only new buildings are subject to curfew, the result will be a patchwork of compliance that undermines the ordinance's goals. It's also unfair for new structures to comply while existing structures do not. (d) Lighting Guidelines (1) Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. ● Comment: Here, too, we are not sure why the bullet calls out "lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways". Rather, all exterior lighting should follow the guidelines. (2) Unnecessary continued illumination, such as illuminated signs or back-lit awnings, should be avoided. Internal illumination of signs, where allowed, should be limited to letters and graphic elements, with the surrounding background opaque. Illumination should be by low intensity lamps. ● Comment: we recommend against using language in ordinances like "should be avoided". Either something complies with the law or it doesn't. Language that is only advisory and not binding shouldn't appear in statutory law. Also, the use of "low intensity" here is like the objection above to "high intensity lighting" -- there is no metric that establishes what either "high" or "low" is. Please be specific! (e) Lighting Standards (1) Shielding ● Suggestion: lead with a statement like "Unless specifically exempted by subsection (E) of this section". (1)(D) No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way ● Comment: This is a good standard. We wonder how this may be enforced. Is a citizen complaint , if someone complains. Is the attestation of code compliance staff that they observe glare sufficient to establish a violation? (they usually do n (1)(E)(ii): Low voltage lighting used to illuminate outdoor art or public monuments that do not have to be shielded fixtures. ● Question: Does lightning of art have to comply with curfew directions? ● Comment/Suggestion: "Low voltage lighting" needs a number, like the 150-lumen limit in item (E)(i). (1)(E)(iii): Lighting located on property lines (including zero lot line developments), provided it is controlled by a motion sensor that automatically extinguishes the lights within 10 minutes of activation. ● Comment/Suggestion: 10 minutes is a long time for a light to be on when controlled by a motion sensor. We recommend no more than 5 minutes. Also, the onus should be on the owner of the equipment to ensure that the trigger threshold is set such that it does not trigger inappropriately (due to, e.g., small animals) (2) Lighting Height: (2)(A) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from grade to top of fixture in parking lots in residential development and 20 feet in parking lots with commercial and mixed- use development. ● Comment: Seems redundant with subsection (e)(1)(b). Is there any substantial difference? (3) Illumination Level (3)(A) All light sources shall be Dark Sky Compliant or Equivalent and have a maintained correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less. ● Comment: confusing in that this standard is about color temperature, not illumination level. It should be in its own subsection. ● Comment: There is no sound reason to ask for 3000K for outdoor lighting. Lighting should not exceed 2700K. PA should not use an industrial indoor safety for outdoor lighting. To our human eyes, there is no difference between these two color temperatures in terms of discerning the environment. But many genera of wildlife, however, are far more sensitive to bluer color temperatures than we are, including birds, fish, insects, and sea turtles. For example, migratory birds use blue-green spectrum light for navigation. High kelvin lights in the city can disorient them, especially in an important stopover like San Francisco Bay. It seems that inertia from times that 2700K were hard to procure has a daunting effect here - LED technology has improved and we should not stick to old harmful technology when alternatives are available. If Los Altos and San Jose can require 2700K for outdoor lighting, so can Palo Alto. (3)(B) Where the light source is visible from outside the property boundaries on an abutting residential use, such lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting property line. ● Comment: This standard only envisions that light trespass can occur "on an abutting residential use". This should change in two respects. First, the nature of the use shouldn't matter (residential or any other use). And second, it shouldn't be limited only to "abutting" properties. The light trespass threshold should not be exceeded on ANY other property line, whether abutting or not. ● Comment/Suggestion: Why not prohibit light sources from being visible from a) above and b) beyond the property line? That would reduce glare and light trespass, and allow public/neighbors to address one of the most common complaints. It will also ensure that shielding is effective. ● Suggestion: Replace with Brisbane’s ordinance for this standard: ”Unless exempt from the ordinance or from the shielding requirements in the ordinance, no light source (e.g., light bulb) may be directly visible from off-site.” (3)(C) The maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained value of 5 foot-candles. Areas of higher or lower levels of illumination should be indicated on project plans. ● Comment: This statement is ambiguous: "Areas of higher or lower levels of illumination should be indicated on project plans." Does this mean it's possible for the allowed illuminance to exceed 5 foot-candles? If so, perhaps don't state 5 fc as a "shall not exceed" in the first place? ● Comment: Brisbane has a maximum 1.75 Lumens per sq. ft. of Developed area. Is this a better measure? ● Comment: May need to exempt sport fields, where the IES recommended practice potentially prescribes more than this (4)(A) All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m. or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later. ● Comment: We are very supportive of this standard, but it is not clear how the presence of people is determined… ● Comment: Are there any exceptions that the City can envision? We hope there are none. (4)(B) All lighting activated by motion sensor shall be set up to extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation. ● Comment: Same as above, the 10-minute allowance here should be no more than 5. (4)(E) Exceptions. (E)(ii) Lighting of an appropriate intensity, allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate past 10:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit; and ● Comment: What is "an appropriate intensity"? Who decides that? (f) Special Purpose Lighting (f)(1) Outdoor Security Lighting. Security lighting may be provided when necessary to protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized only the following standards shall apply: ● Comment: who decides when lighting is "necessary to protect persons and property"? The property owner? (f)(1)(i) Security lighting shall be controlled by a programmable motion-sensor device, except where continuous lighting is required by the California Building Code. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation. Automated controls shall be fully programmable and supported by battery or similar backup. ● Comment: Again, 5 minutes should suffice. (f)(1)(iii) Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter, such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source. ● Comment: Same concerns as before about how the light trespass threshold and measurement point is defined. Security lighting should not cause trespass on any other property, whether "adjacent or nearby" or not. (f)(1)(iv) Motion-activated security lights shall not use luminaires that exceed 100-watt incandescent bulb or LED equivalent, or a maximum of 1,600 lumens. ● Comment: Since there is no cap on installed lumens on any property, setting a threshold like this isn't very meaningful. Under this provision, a property owner could install as many security lights as they like as long as no individual source exceeded 1600 lumens. ● Suggestion: Provide a cap on lumen (see above) (f)(3) Gasoline Service Station Lighting (f)(3)(i) Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed or mounted directly to the underside of the canopy. All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct rays from adjoining properties or public rights-of-way. ● Comment: Instead of limiting trespass to "adjoining properties", it should be limited to "any property". (f)(3)(iii) The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average maintained foot- candle (horizontal) of 12.5, when measured at finished grade. ● Comment: It's unclear where the 12.5 foot-candle figure comes from, but seems ok. Is this what local gas stations in Palo Alto currently use? (f)(4) String Lighting (f)(4)(i) String lighting is not considered holiday or seasonal lighting. ● Comment: Thank you for this clarification. (f)(4)(ii) String lighting must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin or 42 lumens and shall not be blinking or chasing. ● Comment: This is so confusing… why 3000K and not 2700? What Is the "42 lumens" limit here per lamp? Per unit length of string? Total emission of all lamps on the string? Brisbane has “String lights (max. 300 lumens per string) when used in occupied decks or patios.”. ● Why is string lighting in residential areas not required to turn the lights off at 10PM? people use string lighting as ornaments on fences, trees etc. A curfew is very much needed. (f)(4)(iii) For nonresidential areas, string lighting shall be extinguished at 10:00 pm or 2 hours after close of business, whichever is later. ● Comment: The reason for allowing string lighting to remain on up to "2 hours after close of business" is unclear. If, as in item (iv), its use is limited to "outside dining or display areas or common open space (i.e. courtyard or patio)", why should it be allowed to remain on after the business closes to the public? (f)(5) Lighting near Streams. In addition to lighting standards established in Section 18.40.250(e), lighting near streams shall conform to the following requirements: (f)(5)(i) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. ● Comment: We need to see how this is addressed in the Creek protection ordinance update. At a minimum, we should require absolutely no light trespass into a stream and its associated riparian corridor. This means within the banks plus any riparian vegetation as defined by the dripline of riparian trees. (f)(5)(ii) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized. ● Comment: "should be maximized" isn't really meaningful unless something like a minimum allowable distance is stated. Otherwise this is sufficiently subjective as to be meaningless. At a minimum, this should entail the creek within its banks plus any riparian vegetation as defined by the dripline of riparian trees, and setback requirements that are likely to be specified in the upcoming Creek protection ordinance, whichever is widest! (g) Prohibited Lighting. The following types of lighting are prohibited except emergencies by police, fire, or medical personnel or at their direction: ● Comment: how are "emergencies" defined? Declared emergencies by local civil authorities? Or some other mechanism? (g)(2) Lighting that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot or substantially interferes with use or enjoyment of that lot. ● Comment: The meaning of the word "unnecessarily" is unclear. Who decides what is necessary? (h) Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the lighting requirements of the section: (h)(2) Temporary construction or emergency lighting ● Comment: We have seen very bright, unshielded construction and security lights on construction sites with offensive glare on large construction projects that lasted several years. ● Suggestion: The term "temporary" should be defined here. ● Suggestion: The term “construction lighting” should be defined. The ordinance should clarify the Construction lighting should only be allowed at the hours construction actually occurs. The definition should exclude security lighting at a construction site from the definition of construction lighting. Security lighting at a construction site should abide by the ordinance. ● (h)(3) Short-term lighting authorized by a special events or special use permits ● Comment: This seems like it needs more detail or a more thorough description of the procedure in terms of how permits will be evaluated in order to ensure that "temporary" lighting doesn't become effectively "permanent". Season and location are important: a laser show in the baylands during spring or fall bird migration seasons, for example, could be disastrous. (h)(4) Seasonal lighting during the period of October 15 through January 15 of each year ● Question: Is seasonal lighting subject to curfew? Why not set a curfew? ● Comment: An October 15 start to the "seasonal lighting" season seems very early and is well within the fall bird migration in Palo Alto. ● Comment: We have heard that setting a fixed range of calendar dates for this type of lighting that correspond to certain religious holidays might run afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. ● Suggestion: Disallow seasonal lighting during migration and nesting seasons. This provides a biological, rather than cultural basis: ○ Nesting season: Feb. 1 - August 31. ○ Spring Migration: March - mid June ○ Fall Migration: August - mid November. ○ Remaining period when seasonal lighting is ok: Mid November - February 1st. (h)(6) Lighting for Airport Operations. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict, limit, or otherwise regulate lighting that, in the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager, is prudent or necessary for airport operations, airport safety, or air navigation in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. ● Comment: This section should just refer to lighting required by the FAA and not leave the decision up to "the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager". The FAA rules are very prescriptive and ensure safe operations of airports. !"#$%&%%'"('!"#$%)%%'"*"$%++!,-)+./0%1234534246172589: 8!;;$;.<==$""$;(8!;;$;.)<==$""$;*,$>?@!!)+./AB+=%+CD%;;$?%+(D%;;$?%+)B+=%+*<$>?8!B)+./ <%+C<$>(,$>),%+*,$>?@!!)+./A<#!CE%>(E%>)<#!*<$>?8!B)+./AD!=%"F..%+"(G!=%")%..%+"*"$%++!,-)+./A9$%H%++%$+!(=$,#!%G?%++%$+!*.=!$),=/AI$! %J(.'*'%J!+,#$%,"),=/AK$"<!$;(L$"),!$;*"$%++!,-)+./A!'J,!%*",J!")+.(!'J,!%*",J!")+./1!!,#=%;"M462ENOP<&8QP<RNBD$;<==%;";8B P+'$;!;,%)@'?ASTUVWXYZV[\]^_`\abc\d\e`f^ghcb_bif]\g^bhf[^bcd`e\j`f\bekl^m`if\bi]bhbn^e\ed`ff`m[_^ef]`egma\mo\edbea\eo]k %!+<#!$+<#!;.!;'<==$""$;%+"C0#%P!;!<!+!R!%>N$+'B$!;,%!;'#%P$%++!<-&=!8+$%!<#!@%+L'$%%p%;'+"$;,%+%.+!$'%?+>+'%,$"$;+%q$+%#!!$.#"+,%"-%?>"#$%'%'!;'=!$;!$;!,++%!%',+%=@%+!+%?4r22E)0#$"$"!"$.;$?$,!;,==$=%;=$;$=$s$;.$.#@$;!;'@+%,$;.#%;!+!;$.#%;J$+;=%;C!;'$L$.+%!>-%;%?$-#+,==;$>!;'#%"++;'$;.%,">"%=")K%#!J%L=!G++%,==%;'!$;"$=@+J%#%'+!?+'$;!;,%CL#$,#L%#@%>L$,;"$'%+)8%!"%"%%#%!!,#%'%%+?+++%,==%;'!$;")P$;,%+%>C !"#$%&%%'"<;"%+J!$;<+'$;!+P$%++!<-&=!8+$%!<#!@%+D$!;;%K!;.F;J$+;=%;!B'J,!,>B""$"!;P!;!<!+!R!%>N$+'B$!;,% SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES October 29, 2024 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Comments on the Draft Dark Sky Ordinance Dear Chair Chang and Commissioners, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter are organizations united by our shared commitment to the protection of the environment, nature, and open space. We have been advocating for a reduction of light pollution in the region, and have engaged with the City of Palo Alto Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission in promoting human and environmental health through reducing and preventing the proliferation of artificial light at night. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your decision to require that all light sources be fully shielded and maintain a correlated color temperature of 2700K. This is a significant commitment to minimizing light pollution and protecting the natural night environment, and it will greatly benefit both our community and the surrounding ecosystems. We have two major recommendations to improve the draft ordinance, which we hope you will consider. 1. Reinstate applicability to include new luminaires (light fixtures) and replacement lighting Staff removed, “(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system.” We recommend reinstating this provision. For buildings that cannot comply with this standard, we recommend adding a hardship exemption (see below). The hardship exemption could read as follows: For any structures that are unable to meet the standards of this chapter due to financial hardship or technical infeasibility, they may apply to the Planning Director for an exemption, provided the applicant still complies with the standards of this Chapter to the greatest extent practicable. Why this is important: Without new or replacement lighting fixtures being subject to the ordinance, Palo Alto’s light pollution will not reduce over time, therefore failing to achieve the expressed purpose of the ordinance. This creates a loophole which allows new development to replace dark sky-compliant luminaires with non-compliant luminaires after initial construction. Without any requirements for new and replacement lighting, this ordinance effectively has no teeth or ability to affect the lighting situation in Palo Alto over time. This provision, which was present in earlier drafts of Palo Alto’s Dark Sky ordinance, should be reinstated. There was some concern expressed by PTC Commissioners that certain older multi-family buildings may not be able to easily modify their lighting due to these structures having older wiring systems. We believe that a hardship exemption (see above) can be written for edge cases such as this without diluting the requirements for buildings that can comply with dark sky standards. Examples of Applicability from other cities’ Dark Sky Ordinances that include new and replacement lighting include the following. - Cupertino: “New or replacement exterior lighting” - Brisbane: “All outdoor light fixtures installed or replaced after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall comply with this chapter.” - Malibu: “All outdoor light fixtures installed after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with this chapter.” - San Louis Obispo: “no modification or replacement shall be made to a nonconforming fixture unless the fixture thereafter conforms to the provisions of this section.” 2. Prohibit light trespass entirely rather than establishing a threshold (which may be difficult to enforce and allow nuisance lighting) The standard would read as follows: "No direct glare from a light source shall be visible from any other property or public right of way". Palo Alto’s Current Draft: “No lighting shall trespass more than 0.5-foot candle as measured at the abutting property line.” Why this is important: 0.5 foot candle (Palo Alto’s current draft limit) is still a lot of light. Light sources at or even below 0.5 foot candle can often be the source of nuisance complaints. Palo Alto could instead take the very simple approach that Brisbane took by prohibiting light trespass entirely. This makes light trespass requirements easier to enforce for the City, and easier for residents to understand when they install their own lighting systems. Should Palo Alto decide to allow some light trespass, we include language from Cupertino, which uses a more stringent threshold. Examples of more stringent light trespass language from other cities’ Dark Sky Ordinances - Brisbane: “Light trespass is prohibited” - Cupertino: “No exterior light, combination of exterior lights, or activity shall cast light exceeding zero point one (0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with the illumination level measured at the property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source, except if two adjacent properties are non-residential, or function as a shopping center, and agree to coordinate lighting.” In addition, we have listed a few minor clarifications and suggestions. 3. Change the duration of motion sensor lighting to deactivate after 5 minutes of inactivity instead of 10 minutes 5 minutes should be sufficient to allow for any activity, especially considering that motion sensor technology will keep lights on when there is continuous activity on a site. ○ The 10-minute duration is currently used in ■ (e) Lighting Standards (1) Shielding (iii) ■ (f) Special Purpose Lighting (A) 4. Add definitions for the following terms ○ “Low intensity lamps” ■ Used in (d) Lighting Guidelines (2) ○ “Low voltage” ■ Used in (e) Lighting Standards (C) (i) and (ii) ○ “Short term lighting” ■ Used in (h) Exemptions (3) 5. Replace “fixture” with “luminaire” in all places where “fixture” is used “Light fixture” should be added to the definition of “Luminaire”. These terms are used interchangeably, so clarifying the definition will help avoid confusion between the two terms. 6. Clarify language regarding string lighting As currently written, the draft could be interpreted as requiring either 2,700 Kelvin or 42 lumens. Our recommendation is to clarify that both the 2,700 Kelvin and 42 lumens requirements apply and that they are not mutually exclusive. ○ Current draft: (5) String Lighting (A): “String lighting must not exceed 2,700 Kelvin or 42 lumens, and shall not be blinking or chasing.” ○ Recommended language (changes in red): String lighting must not exceed 2,700 Kelvin and no individual lamp that is part of a string lighting installation may exceed a rating of 42 lumens, and shall not be blinking or chasing. Thank you for your time and consideration, Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Julianne Wang Environmental Advocacy Assistant Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Outlook Registering Opposition to “Bird Friendly” Creek Ordinance From Tom Fountain <fountain@cs.stanford.edu> Date Mon 11/4/2024 9:24 PM To Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc Kristin Sato <kristinsato@yahoo.com> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Cha: My wife and I are residents and property owners in Crescent Park. We previously shared with you and Commissioners of the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) our opposition to the proposed Stream Corridor Protection ordinance in our letter of October 5, 2024. As you might imagine, we were shocked to subsequently learn following the October 30, 2024 PTC meeting that our property is now also subject to the proposed new Bird Friendly Design Standards related to buildings near creeks. First, we want to register our strenuous objection to the new proposed Bird Friendly Design Standards. The ordinance should not be scoped to include developed urban areas such as our property. If protecting birds in urban areas is needed, why is the burden limited to only a few hundred residences? Requiring “Bird Friendly Treatments” dramatically reduces the desirability, value, and safety of properties impacted by these requirements in this setting. It is hard to imagine living in a house in such a developed area, so close to one of the Bay Area’s primary freeways, yet be unable to have unobstructed windows. Finally, the extreme nature of this proposed new ordinance is likely to not only negatively impact housing values but meaningfully suppress future improvements in the neighborhood. With an aging property base, we fear owners will prefer to allow properties to deteriorate rather than sacrifice their ability to have normal windows. The code as written is entirely inappropriate for urban areas. We respectfully ask staff to address the scope and severity of the requirements in preparing staff’s report and the draft ordinance for the City Council; at a minimum, we ask that you appropriately capture the extremely strong opposition of homeowners to this proposed ordinance. I have rarely seen a community band together so quickly to fight a local ordinance. Second, we want to similarly register our opposition to the proposed new Dark Sky Regulations. While supportive of responsible outdoor lighting practices in general, the ordinance proposed is too extreme and proscriptive in the lighting standards required. For our property in particular, the lighting restrictions significantly reduce the safety of our property. This is especially acute given the repeated threat from unhoused persons, intentional and/or accidental wildfires in the creek, and increasing criminal activity. We strongly ask for much greater community discussion on which of these many new regulations are truly needed. Finally, we are deeply disappointed and outraged by the City’s constant onslaught of new ordinances seeking to reduce our rights. We have only lived in the City of Palo Alto for the last 18 months and have been aghast by the City’s handling of this and other matters. In this case, we were not even 11/5/24, 9:58 AM Registering Opposition to “Bird Friendly” Creek Ordinance - Cha, Kelly - Outlook about:blank 1/2 notified of the proposed bird friendly ordinance. Worse, the Commission unexplainably expanded the scope of this ordinance dramatically, and without community discussion. This marks the second occasion in just the last month that the City has utterly failed in notifying homeowners and engaging in public outreach. The result is disastrous for us as city residents. We are entirely lost to understand why the City’s agenda appears to be driven by outside interests. We are similarly left wondering if this is yet another vehicle for stifling development in the insane fight between cities and the state, with us left as collateral damage. Taken together, we are offended by the speed with which staff and commissioners appear to be railroading through the Stream Corridor Protection and Bird Friendly Design Standard ordinances. We will provide detailed opposition statements ahead of each future meeting on these topics. We ask the city to take a more measured and thoughtful approach to regulating development in the city. We are overwhelmed by the massive number of new proposed regulations that materially undermine our enjoyment, value, and safety of living in this city. Respectfully, Tom Fountain and Kristin Fountain 11/5/24, 9:58 AM Registering Opposition to “Bird Friendly” Creek Ordinance - Cha, Kelly - Outlook about:blank 2/2 Lighting Ordinance Update City Council April 7, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 Purpose •Council Priority 2024: Climate Change & Natural Environment: “Initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural habitats such as bird safe glass and wildlife protection from light pollution.” •Dark Sky principles: an effort to return the sky to its natural dark sky, to the extent feasible, by reducing light pollution. 2 Draft Ordinance (includes PTC feedback) •Applies to new construction, major renovation, and new outdoor lighting. •Lighting Standards: •Fully shielded lighting directed downwards. •Warmer lights at a maximum of 2700 Kelvins. •Lighting curfew at 10:00 p.m. or motion sensor to turn off within 5 minutes (reduced from 10 minutes per PTC). •Low Density residential lighting measured in lumen. •Includes exemptions and exceptions. •Specific requirements for special purpose lighting. 3 PTC Recommendation Elements of PTC recommendation that are partially included in Draft Ordinance: •PTC recommended expanding applicability to new and replacement of existing lighting. •Apply only to new luminaires, to reduce impact on enforcement and cost burden on small projects. •PTC recommended a hardship exception process for historic resources and financial burden. •Exception for historic resources included only, given difficulty in differentiating lighting cost to establish financial burden. 4 PTC Recommendation Elements of PTC recommendation not included in the Draft Ordinance: •Change light trespass allowance from 0.5 foot-candle to 0.1. •Maintain previous staff recommendation at 0.5 due to difficulty of implementation. Additional action PTC recommended for consideration: •Further outreach at the time of implementation, and possible future efforts for interior commercial lighting. 5 Public Feedback •Feedback received at Architectural Review Board and Planning & Transportation Commission hearings. •Numerous comments from environmental advocates supported the effort and asking for more, including request that existing lighting comply with new regulations. •Community member concerns that the new outdoor lighting regulations are too prescriptive and negatively impact safety. 6 Staff Recommendation & Next Steps •Adopt the Draft Ordinance to implement new outdoor lighting regulations: •Updating PAMC Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), and •Amending PAMC Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230. •Next steps: •Second reading of the ordinance. •Additional outreach explaining new regulations. KELLY CHA Senior Planner Kelly.Cha@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2155 18 From: To: Marie-Jo Fremont Council, City Subject: Date: Item 18: Please protect our city from light pollution - City Council Meeting April 7, 2025 Monday, April 7, 2025 10:25:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, Other cities such as Brisbane and Cupertino have already adopted sensible lighting ordinances. Palo Alto also needs to adopt a strong and thoughtful lighting ordinance to reduce unnecessary energy consumption, improve the residents’ quality of life, and protect the natural habitats. Please direct staff to: Retain the current protection of waterways Incorporate the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations, including: Making the ordinance applicable to all lighting fixtures and systems (new or replacements) Implementing a “lights-out” curfew to prevent unnecessary nighttime lighting Reducing the light trespass allowance to 0.1 foot-candle (not 0.5 foot- candle, which is so much brighter and unnecessary) Thank you for your leadership and commitment to making our city healthier and more sustainable. Marie-Jo Fremont From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject: Date: Attachments: FW: please vote for the dark skies Monday, April 7, 2025 8:43:56 AM image.png Good morning City Council, Forwarding the below public comment letter that was received to our inbox. Thank you, City Clerk’s Office From: Rani Fischer <ranifisc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:37 AM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvbirdalliance.org> Subject: please vote for the dark skies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Council, I am a resident of Sunnyvale with a cautionary tale. About five years ago, I had light from a half mile away pouring into my living room all night from the lights illuminating an office building for aesthetic purposes. I asked the City of Sunnyvale to stop them, but they couldn't because Sunnyvale's lighting ordinance did not apply to non-residential areas, and this light was from an office park. I wrote a letter to the Mercury News. https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx? guid=55302a53-7199-4e48-b529-824f2aff25d9&appcode=SAN252&eguid=35e4c100- 7292-4da7-afaa-794640fd5fca&pnum=24# It worked in that the Fortinet building lowered the angle of its light so that it did not affect me, and subsequently the birds flying overhead as much. I drove around last night and was happy to see that the Fortinet building had no facade lighting on it anymore. Light pollution is a major problem, as you can see from this photograph of the South Bay I took from the top of Mt. Hamilton at 10pm two years ago. It's hard to change light bulbs, as funny as that sounds. It's easy to create an ordinance for future projects, but to make a dent in the current lighting situation takes energy and courage. The good thing about fighting light pollution is that the solutions are not expensive: changing to dimmer light bulbs, unscrewing every other light bulb on a street, or simply flipping the switch off. If you create a strong ordinance that addresses current lighting, then other cities will follow because they look to Palo Alto as a leader. Thank you for your dedication to the health and beauty of your city and for taking the time to consider dark skies. Sincerely, Rani Fischer Chair of the Environmental Advocacy Committee Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance From: To: Avroh Shah Council, City Subject: Date: Item 18: Please protect our city from light pollution Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:15:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, I hope you are doing well. My name is Avroh Shah, and I am a member of the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition (PASCC). I am writing to you in regards to agenda item #18 on the 4/7 City Council meeting. I have never been able to see the milky way in Palo Alto, and was hopeful that the dark sky ordinance would be strong enough for me to see some more stars. However, after reading through it, I am doubtful. I was concerned that the proposed ordinance only applies requirements to future buildings and major remodels, exempting current structures. As someone who has always deeply valued the accessible nature preserves that surround Palo Alto, I was also concerned by the sheer volume of light spillage that this ordinance would allow and I am worried about the impacts of light pollution in our nature preserves. I do support this ordinance, but I believe that it could be much, much stronger; specifically, it could apply towards current commercial buildings, and impose a lights-off curfew on them too. Seeing the stars shouldn't be a luxury. Warmly, Avroh From: To: Eileen McLaughlin Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Council, City Cc: Subject: Date: Carin High; Gail Raabe; Renzel, Emily; LaRiviere, Florence Comments, Dark Skies Ordinance, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Sunday, April 6, 2025 5:24:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. April 6, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Members of the Palo Alto City Council Transmitted by email RE: Item 18, 04/07/2025, Dark Skies Ordinance Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of Council: The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge is pleased that you are considering a city-wide ordinance to implement Dark Skies priorities in Palo Alto. It is an action that will provide multiple benefits across the City including reduced disruption of circadian rhythms and health of both the community and wildlife. Citizens Committee wishes to draw your attention to a significant omission. Nowhere does the ordinance specify protection of wildlife in the ecological spaces on which they depend: creeks, parks and particularly the Baylands. Parks provide eco-niche habitats throughout the city. Creeks do as well and are major wildlife corridors for nocturnal and fish species. The Baylands can be characterized as a treeless landscape naturally exposed only to moonlight. Species native to that habitat include nocturnal foragers such as the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. For them artificial illumination is deadly. The City has substantial public service operations adjoining the Baylands. Each of these have lighting needs that must be provided. The ordinance reinforces that the City do so in accordance with city-wide illumination standards. Unfortunately as the operations adjoin the Baylands and as the ordinance lacks any wildlife protection, Baylands wildlife will be put at particular risk. Under Exemptions (Draft Ordinance, p.3, Section 2 (d)5) the airport is given broad authority to elect exemptions for “operations” sans any operation-specific designations. We agree that certain lighting requirements of airport operation are critical for providing safe landings, takeoffs, taxiing and to fulfill FAA requirements. But the airport services and its property serve numerous non- flight operations (maintenance, training, materials storage, vehicle parking) where more typical dark skies lighting standards can and should apply. It is uniquely significant that the airport has shoreline wetlands within its own boundaries. Other than its Embarcadero Road frontage, it is surrounded by wetlands which include those present in the golf course. All of these wetlands serve shoreline wildlife nocturnally for foraging, nesting, roosting and mobility. As it is for humans, wildlife circadian rhythms and essential behaviors are disrupted by artificial lighting which also introduces excessive exposure to nocturnal predators. The airport, golf course, Geng Road recreation facilities, the RWF, the City facilities on East Bayshore Road and any other operations adjoining the Baylands need to implement wildlife-protective dark skies rules that eliminate, as much as possible, light trespass. Wetlands to be protected include the Duck Pond, Harbor Marsh, Baylands soughs, the Emily Renzel wetlands, the Palo Alto Flood Basin and those lands within the golf course and airport properties. For the same reasons, the wildlife corridors and eco-niches of creeks and parks require like protection from light trespass. Citizens Committee urges you to improve the Dark Skies Ordinance to include specific requirements to protect wildlife and their habitats in the City of Palo Alto. Respectfully, Eileen McLaughlin Board Member Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge CC: Carin High, Co-Chair, CCCR Gail Raabe, Co-Chair, CCCR From: To: Carl Thomsen Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject: Date: Proposed new lighting ordinance (18.40.250). Sunday, April 6, 2025 3:41:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am writing to voice my objection to the new proposed lighting ordinance. I apologize for sending a second email on this topic but I reviewed the proposal in more detail and also went outside at night to observe the lighting situation. I did not drive around the entire city but what was clear to me from the area I did observe was that the major source for light “pollution” in the residential neighborhoods was the streetlights. I didn’t see any support documents showing what the actual benefits this ordinance would be in terms of reduction in “light pollution”. If this doesn’t have any significant benefit other than a feel good “we’re saving the environment” then it shouldn’t be adopted. I would assume that the committee proposing this ordinance reviewed actual arial photos of Palo Alto at night to document the current source of the light pollution and this ordinance is a result of those reviews. If not, this is the proverbial “the emperor had no clothes”. I am quite sure that in terms of dark sky goals that the light from household windows, cars on the streets (including 101 adjacent to Palo Alto, streetlights, and buildings that keep there lights on all night for safety or other purposes contribute significantly more to light pollution than what this ordinance tries to address. Great headlines that Palo Alto has adopted the recommendations of the International Dark Light organization but no noticeable reduction on “light pollution”. Another consideration is that the City of Palo Alto has a priority providing more housing. This is one more ordinance impacting the cost of building housing in the City. You may say this doesn’t have any or a minimal impact but it’s one more regulation to require review and compliance. Each “minor” impact on the housing cost adds up over time if not in actual material and build costs, then in design time, approval time and inspection time. Small incremental changes add up and discourage contractors from even wanting to build in an area with excessive codes. Finally, I noted in the proposed ordinance that “public facilities may be granted for adjustments to the regulations in the ordinance to ensure efficient operation, maintenance, safety, and security”. For what reason would public facilities be excluded from an ordinance and private facilities and properties not be given the same exclusion. Isn’t it equally important that private properties are granted exceptions for “efficient operation, maintenance, safety, and security”. Light pollution is light pollution whether it comes from a public or private building. This is a great example of government exempting themselves from laws that everyone else has to follow. Do as I say, not as I do. It’s a clear example of why citizens have lost confidence in the political system. Well, I haven’t lost confidence in our local leadership and hope you will seriously consider the issues I have raised. For all of the above reasons I strongly recommend a no vote on this light pollution ordinance. Sincerely, Carl Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive From: To: Annette Herz Council, City Subject: Date: Please protect our city from light pollution Sunday, April 6, 2025 11:10:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto Councilmembers, My Name is Annette Herz, I am a local resident and CA certified naturalist, who understands the link between our biodiversity and our own human well-being ! Please strengthen the proposed Dark Sky Ordinance !!! Please ask city staff to Apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting. Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. You have the power to help save us ! Thank you, Annette From: To: Darlene Yaplee Council, City Cc:Darlene E. Yaplee Subject: Date: Item 18: Please Protect Our City from Light Pollution Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:45:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address.i Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable Members of the City Council, I vividly remember years ago being on a plane where one side allowed smoking and the other did not—and on other flights, smokers were seated in the back while non-smokers were in front. These arrangements, though well-intentioned, failed to prevent smoke from drifting throughout the cabin. That experience has always stayed with me, and it’s a powerful analogy for light pollution: without meaningful, comprehensive protections, the effects spill over and harm everyone. This is why it’s so important that Palo Alto adopts a strong lighting ordinance. To be effective, it must address the true nature of light pollution—how it spreads beyond property lines and affects neighborhoods, ecosystems, and the night sky. Some have raised concerns about enforcement. But in many cases, including this one, the value of an ordinance lies in setting a clear standard and guiding behavior—even when daily enforcement is not the primary mechanism. Neighboring cities like Brisbane and Cupertino have already adopted thoughtful lighting ordinances. Palo Alto should be a leader in this space as well—helping reduce unnecessary energy consumption, protect wildlife habitats, and preserve the quality of life for residents. I urge the Council to: Direct staff to incorporate the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations, including: Broad applicability to newly installed and replacement lighting fixtures and systems A meaningful “lights-out” (curfew) requirement to prevent unnecessary nighttime lighting A reduced light trespass allowance to 0.1 foot-candle Ensure continued protection of our waterways, recognizing their ecological and community value Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to making Palo Alto a healthier, more sustainable city. Sincerely, Darlene Yaplee From: To: Lyn Heideman Council, City Subject: Date: Please strengthen the proposed “Ordinance Updating Lighting Standards” Sunday, April 6, 2025 12:13:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am so grateful that I moved to Palo Alto almost 20 years ago. And I am so proud of all that Palo Alto and the state of California have done to set a model for sustainable living and protecting the health of people, wildlife, and the environment. I have read “Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Updating Lighting Standards (PAMC Section 18.40,” which was posted online in late March. I very much appreciate all that you’re doing and am writing to encourage you to strengthen the ordinance. The ordinance should also apply to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures. > Under the current ordinance, all properties are subject to a standard limiting light trespass to no more than 0.5 foot-candles at the property line. The proposed ordinance, however, applies this restriction only to new buildings, major remodels, and lighting systems that require a permit. The result? Existing properties would no longer be subject to any enforceable limits on light trespass. > This change removes an important safeguard that currently protects all residents from excessive and disruptive lighting. Citywide light trespass limits help to ensure that all residents--regardless of when their home was built or last renovated--are protected from intrusive lighting. To prevent unnecessary night-time lighting: (1) set appropriate lights-out requirements for outdoor lighting and (2) prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. > Let’s not lose sight of the reasons for the “dark skies ordinance” and ensure we meet those commitments: human health, nature and wildlife, reduced energy use, and restoring the beauty of the night. > Studies show that artificial light at night disrupts sleep, hormone regulation, and overall health. It’s linked to increased risks of certain cancers, diabetes, heart disease, and mood disorders. > Light pollution also disrupts the natural environment. Artificial light at night interferes with animal movement: for example, it disorients migrating birds, leading to exhaustion, disrupted navigation, even often deadly collisions with buildings. It also throws off the timing of key ecological processes and behaviors: it alters feeding, mating, and nesting behaviors; when migration or nesting starts; or when flowers bloom and pollinators emerge. > Light pollution wastes energy. Light pollution is contrary (1) to sound sustainability principles and (2) to the purpose of dark skies of using light only where/when it is needed and at the lowest level needed. >.Light pollution steals the beauty of the night from us, of experiencing our world in darkness: the stars, the moon, the sounds of night-time animals, the stillness. Thank you very much for your consideration, Lyn Heideman From: To: Diane McCoy Council, City Subject: Date: Please protect our city from light pollution Saturday, April 5, 2025 5:21:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto Council Members. My name is Diane McCoy. I am a 47 year resident of Palo Alto. I taught Special Education and First Grade at El Carmelo School for 37 years. Now retired, I am a volunteer for Environmental Volunteers, SCVBA, Avenidas and the PAHS PAWS program. I am so grateful to have these opportunities in our city. I also greatly and almost daily enjoy the Palo Alto Baylands, Byxbee Park, Renzel Wetlands, Foothills Park and my neighborhood park, Eleanor Pardee Park. I treasure these spaces. Because these places, along with my neighborhood, is of such value I am writing to ask you to strengthen the proposed Dark Sky Ordinance: -Please apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission. -Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting. -Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. Thank you, Diane McCoy Greer Road, Palo Alto From: To: Carl Thomsen Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject: Date: Proposed new lighting ordinance (18.40.250) Saturday, April 5, 2025 4:30:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed new lighting ordinance (18.40.250). Due to prior commitments, I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on Monday and express my concerns and objection to this proposal in person, so I am writing this email to document my opinion. I hadn’t seen anything about this new ordinance until just a few days ago. We live along the San Francisquito Creek on Edgewood Drive with our fence directly adjacent to the creek. We have lighting in the front and back of our house that goes on at night to help protect us from a home or car robberies. We installed this lighting many years ago at the recommendation of the Palo Alto police department after we did have a home invasion. We regularly read about auto break-ins in our area. Fortunately, we have only had one auto break- in while our car was in our driveway. We have a front light and a front camera to deter potential criminals. Without the lighting, the camera would be pretty useless. The proposal notes that many cities have adopted Dark Sky ordinances but there is no indication if these are urban or rural locations. I found 6 cities listed when I searched for cities with dark sky ordinances plus Malibu mentioned several times. What came up on my search was lots of information from the International Dark Sky Association on how to draft ordinances. The fact that this ordinance only applies to new construction or major remodels seems like an easy way to get this passed without really considering the implications. It’s proverbial kicking the can down the road. If this is important to the city priorities, then why not have it apply to all existing dwellings? I would imagine there would be a lot more input from citizens of Palo Alto if that were the case. I for one would much rather see the City of Palo Alto enforcing existing traffic laws than spending any time and money enforcing or mediating issues related to a Dark Sky initiative (not to mention the time and money already spent discussing and drafting this proposed ordinance). We are part of a large urban area, not a rural community. Let’s focus on urban issues like roads, sidewalks, robberies, speeding and safe streets to name a few. The City of Palo Alto has limited resources; let’s not spend any more time or money on this proposal. I believe these proposed changes to the lighting ordinance will negatively impact our safety. I strongly urge a no vote on the proposal. Sincerely, Carl Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive From: To: Tom Fountain Council, City Cc:Cha, Kelly Subject: Date: Opposition to Proposed Lighting Ordinance Saturday, April 5, 2025 1:13:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and am writing to register my objection to the proposed lighting ordinance scheduled for first reading on Monday, April 7, 2025. While the intent behind the proposed ordinance is laudable in seeking to protect the environment through lighting standards, the ordinance as drafted is overly restrictive. I highlight the following: Applicability of the ordinance: Highly restrictive lighting codes are most appropriate for sensitive ecosystems. The Architectural Resource Board (ARB) was correct in recommending we regulate areas differently based on the environment’s light sensitivity. Staff’s conclusion that such differentiation is “unnecessarily complicated” fails on its face. Even a cursory reading of our municipal codes shows that we frequently differentiate based on hundreds of dimensions, certainly including the type of area. Highly restrictive code such as contained in this proposed ordinance are only applicable to the rural areas and not to the urbanized center. This ordinance should be applied to the area west of Junipero Serra Blvd as originally intended. If such differentiation is too “complicated” as claimed by Staff, I submit that at a minimum we should follow the ARB’s recommendation to differentiate between residential and commercial buildings, with the restrictions proposed in this ordinance most appropriate for commercial projects. Insufficient security and safety protections: The proposed ordinance fails to adequately prioritize and protect the safety and security of Palo Alto residents in urbanized areas. The limitations on hours of operation, light output, requirements for motion sensors, and requirements that each controller be “fully programmable” are too restrictive to provide adequate safety for some residents facing acute threats. I have unfortunately been the frequent victim of crime, or had my house threatened, by the growing unhoused population residing next to my home. Effective lighting is my most effective method of safeguarding my property and family. Moreover, the inability to provide sufficient safety lighting around pools, walkways, and driveways (given hours, output, etc.) creates unfair personal risk. In a proposed ordinance that goes to great lengths to allow “special” conditions for even an airport, how is there no accommodation for a basic front porch light? Do we just expect that no child or guest will ever arrive late? Unintended consequences: As acknowledged by Staff in the report, lighting ordinances are fraught with peril from unintended consequences. One such unintended consequences is the likely neighbor disputes. I’ll offer my own experience as an example, but having talked with many fellow residents, it is clear I am not alone. I have unfortunately faced countless complaints filed against my home by neighbors for everything from “we don’t like a [traditional] house style” to “I eyeballed the property line and the surveyor is wrong.” Having invested tens of thousands of dollars responding to these baseless claims, not a single one has ever been upheld. You don’t believe we will face constant neighbor complaints about a whole raft of perceived lighting violations? Responding to and investigating these complaints will be a waste of city resources. This is exactly why such an ordinance is too extreme for an urbanized area. The unintended consequences likely extend to many other situations. For instance, this ordinance appears to prohibit even temporary colored holiday lights. The proposed ordinance is too restrictive and too limiting for an urbanized setting. Impact on housing development: We can likely all acknowledge our state (and region) faces a desperate need for greater housing production and better affordability. While Staff concludes the impact on development is low, I ask the City Council to consider the cumulative impact of our many similarly restrictive requirements already in effect (with yet more under consideration). Each and every “special” requirement unique to Palo Alto drives up the cost of living and drives down the availability of housing. Many “low” individual impacts cumulatively create a “high” impact on new housing production. Is there any wonder housing is so expensive and likely unaffordable for our children? In a time of such crisis, must we further reduce the availability and quality of housing in our area? Again, the immediate cure is simple. Apply the ordinance to the sensitive areas and/or limit it to commercial properties. Technical failures: The proposed ordinance is incompatible with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate lighting restrictions for homes in areas east of Junipero Serra Boulevard. As advocated elsewhere throughout this letter, we should rescope this ordinance to the area contemplated originally by the Comprehensive Plan and where it applies most – the light sensitive areas in the foothills. For the foregoing reasons and others cited in prior correspondence with the Planning & Transportation Committee and City Staff, I oppose the lighting ordinance update and ask you to redirect Staff to better address these issues. Sincerely, /s/ Tom Fountain From: To: Susan Thomsen Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject: Date: Proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinances: Updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), Saturday, April 5, 2025 9:17:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This message needs your attention The subject has non-English characters.i Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Palo Alto, It has just come to my attention via an email from a neighbor that a proposed new lighting ordinance will be before the Council on Monday, April 7, that will impact all residents of Palo Alto and that comprehensive input to the City of Palo has been given by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. I do not believe the City of Palo Alto adequately informed me about the ordinance. It appears that members of the Audubon Society and Sierra Club must have been informed as they certainly were able to give a lot of input into the contents of the ordinance. It seems to me that as a resident of Palo Alto, at the very least, I should have received a mailer about this ordinance. I also believe a community meeting should have been called to get residents’ input as the updates to the lighting ordinance clearly would affect their properties. Because I only learned about this ordinance 3 days before the scheduled meeting, I am unable to attend the meeting because of a prior commitment. I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinance Updating Section 18.40.250 because it protects wildlife at the expense of Palo Alto citizens. This past fall I wrote to you in opposition to creating a wildlife corridor in our backyard because we live along San Francisquito Creek and when we first moved into our house, a man entered our yard via the creek and proceeded to knock down our side door while my kids and I were getting ready for school and work. When I met eyes with the man when he was outside our glass door, he proceeded to break it down. Luckily, our deadbolt allowed us time to get out the front door, but the police told me the man was most likely after me. At the time the Palo Alto police would not come into our house until they had a dog unit with them. I will never forget that incident even though it occurred in 1981. At the time we were told that outside lighting, an alarm, and a dog were the best deterrents to criminals and now the City of Palo Alto is proposing to control security lighting at the expense of the security of us citizens. I implore you to reconsider the proposed updating of the new lighting ordinance 18.40.250 requiring shielding of security lights and timers of 5 minutes on light sensors. We live in a neighborhood by the San Francisco Creek that needs all the deterrents possible to add to our feeling of safety including good lighting. The safety of Palo Alto citizens should be your first priority. Sincerely, Susan Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive Palo Alto, California From: To: Dashiell Leeds Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Veenker, Vicki Cc:Clerk, City; City Mgr; James Eggers; Mike Ferreira; Gita Dev; shani@scvbirdalliance.org; Cha, Kelly; director@scvas.org Subject: Date: April 7 agenda item 18, Sierra Club and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance comments on the draft dark sky ordinace Friday, April 4, 2025 2:26:55 PM Attachments:April 7th Agenda item 18, SCVBA SCLP comments on Draft PA Dark Sky Letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, We have supported Palo Alto in its efforts to create a Dark Sky ordinance by sharing research and model ordinance language with City staff, the Architectural Review Board and Planning & Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commissioners (PTC), in their October 30th motion, made an effort to recommend strong ordinance language that reflects the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting, but the April 7th proposed ordinance has not incorporated some of the most critical PTC recommendations. Our recommendations for Dark Sky applicability, lighting curfews, and light trespass thresholds are based on adopted Dark Sky policies in California, including ordinances from Cupertino, Malibu, and Brisbane. The draft ordinance to be heard by Los Altos City Council on April 8th 2025 also includes language consistent with these recommendations. Our recommendations are reflected in the October 30th PTC motion. Please read the attached letter for our full recommendations. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES Re: City Council April 7th agenda item 18: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance comments on the draft Dark Sky ordinance Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter are organizations united by our shared commitment to the protection of the environment, nature, and open space. Context The introduction of LED lighting has induced vast improvements to energy consumption per lighting fixture (luminaire) and increased longevity of luminaires. These advances reduced the cost of lighting, resulting in more lighting overall. Furthermore, the spectrum of LED luminaires includes a high proportion of light in the blue (short wavelength) spectrum, which is harmful to human and environmental health. To prevent and reduce light pollution through the proper application of quality outdoor electric lighting, DarkSky International developed the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting1: 1 https://darksky.org/resources/guides-and-how-tos/lighting-principles/ We have supported Palo Alto in its efforts to create a Dark Sky ordinance by sharing research and model ordinance language with City staff, the Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commissioners (PTC), in their October 30th motion, made an effort to recommend strong ordinance language that reflects the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting, but the April 7th proposed ordinance has not incorporated some of the most critical PTC recommendations. Our recommendations for Dark Sky applicability, lighting curfews, and light trespass thresholds are based on adopted Dark Sky policies in California, including ordinances from Cupertino, Malibu, and Brisbane. The draft ordinance to be heard by Los Altos City Council on April 8th 2025 also includes language consistent with these recommendations. Our recommendations are reflected in the October 30th PTC motion. Content of this letter Our letter includes the following information, in order. A. A list of items in the October 30th PTC motion B. A summary of our recommended amendments to the April 7 draft ordinance C. A detailed background and analysis of each of our recommendations A. PTC Motion of October 30, 2024 (passed 6:0:1 with Commissioner Hechtman absent): ●Reinstate the provision that would expand applicability to projects that only include new or replacement of existing luminaires: Rejected by staff. ●Add a hardship exception provision that could consider technical feasibility, consistency with a historic structure, or financial burden: Rejected by staff. ● ● ● ● Change light trespass allowance from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles (FC) throughout the ordinance: Rejected by staff. Reduce time limit on motion sensors from 10 minutes to five minutes: Accepted by staff. Add definition terminology requested by Sierra Club based on suggested best practices. Accepted by staff. Recommend to City Council that further outreach be done at the time of implementation, informing residents of the new regulations; and that regulations for interior commercial lighting be considered in the future. In addition, the PTC approval included a city-wide lights out requirements that included existing lighting (curfew). Applicability narrowed by staff. ● B. The following is a summary of the amendments we recommend to be made to the April 7th draft ordinance. Most of these recommendations mirror the PTC understandings and their motion of Oct 30, 2025. 1) Applicability -Follow the PTC motion of October 30th to reinstate: “(c)(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system”. Consistent with the October 30th PTC motion, develop a hardship exception provision that could consider technical feasibility or financial burden. - 2) Curfew -Reinstate the curfew language that was presented to the PTC on October 30th: “(4)(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies to all new and existing buildings and structures and luminaires, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two (2) hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” -Note: The underlined language “and luminaires” was added by us (and was not originally in the October 30th motion) to include all outdoor lighting that is not exempt from this ordinance or regulated by state code in curfew requirements. 3) Light Trespass -Implement the October 30th PTC motion to “change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance” 4) Protecting Streams and Baylands -Ensure that no light trespass occurs into the Baylands Nature Preserve east of Highway 101. -Retain the protections that the current municipal code provides to riparian ecosystems section 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection “(3) Requirements Within streamside review area (g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.” -If possible, include “(4) Guidelines Within Streamside Review Area (a) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized.” 5) Seasonal Lighting Apply a unique curfew to Seasonal lighting (midnight - 8AM) 6) Findings and Declarations and Purpose Language Add the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to the Findings and Declarations and Purpose sections of the ordinance. C. A detailed breakdown of each of our recommended improvements 1. Applicability The April 7th draft restricts the applicability of the ordinance to new construction, substantial remodels, and new luminaires requiring a building permit. Without applying the ordinance to new and replacement luminaires, Palo Alto cannot effectively reduce light pollution. Over time, old lighting fixtures are likely to be replaced with new non-compliant lighting fixtures, and many new fixtures may be added that do not require a permit. This is likely to increase light pollution in the city. In addition, this is a departure from other recently adopted Dark Sky Ordinances such as Cupertino’s, Malibu’s and Brisbane’s ordinances, which include new and replacement luminaires. This is also a departure from the initial draft of Palo Alto’s ordinance (October 28th PTC draft), and a dismissal of the October 30th PTC motion. August 28th PTC draft ordinance, Applicability language “(c) Applicability. For the purposes of this Section, except as otherwise provided in Subsection 18.40.250(3)(4)(A) below, the following projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this Section: (1) All newly constructed structures and buildings (2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code, on existing structures or buildings (3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system” (emphasis added) In the October 30th draft ordinance presented to PTC, Section (c) Applicability (3) was removed. However, PTC motioned during the October 30th meeting to reinstate that language. The October 30th PTC Motion asked staff to ●Reinstate the original language of “Section (c) Applicability (3)” from the August 28th ordinance draft, which reads as follows: “(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system, and ●Consider a “hardship exception provision” that could consider technical feasibility, consistency with a historic structure, or financial burden. In the April 7th draft, staff has not reinstated section (c)(3) as requested. Instead, the draft April 7th ordinance proposes the following language: “(3) New installation of outdoor luminaires requiring a building permit.” Staff reasoning in rejecting the PTC motion (April 7th staff report) ● This is done “in order to reduce the enforcement and limit financial costs associated with these smaller projects”, and ●Staff considered an exception for projects facing significant financial impact from the new lighting requirements per PTC direction. However, staff determined that separating lighting costs from the entire construction cost or project valuation would be difficult for both applicants and staff responsible for verification. Furthermore, the new standards do not apply to the replacement of existing outdoor lighting or changes to the lighting type or system, which was one of scenarios that led to the concerns of financial burdens. An exception for historic resources has been added to ensure that the new standards do not impair historical integrity. Our response ● ● The Dark Sky ordinance, like many other regulations, does not require active enforcement. The ordinance simply provides a recourse to residents who are negatively impacted by light pollution. Furthermore, other cities that apply Dark Sky requirements to all new and replacement lighting, such as Cupertino and Brisbane, have not reported any issues with the enforcement of their standards. Applying Dark Sky standards to only permitted luminaires (as staff suggests in the April 7th draft) could increase the complexity of enforcement rather than reducing it. Residents cannot know whether they have recourse to complain when a light is bothering them, since they cannot know whether that nuisance lighting source was permitted. If a resident complains about nuisance lighting under the April 7th draft, staff may need to check to see whether the building in question has received any permits recently, and then check those permits to determine which fixtures were installed under that permit, and whether those fixtures are the ones causing the nuisance lighting from the complaint. The April 7th draft not only is less effective at reducing light pollution, it is also more difficult for residents to understand and is potentially more complicated for the City to enforce. ● ● Furthermore, if Dark Sky standards apply only to permitted lighting, then Palo Alto cannot hope to meaningfully reduce light pollution. Residents and businesses will continue to add new or replace existing fixtures with non- comforming luminaires. Unless the applicability extends to all lighting, the April 7th draft cannot stop existing property owners from installing flashing lights, strobe lights, or flood lights and other non-compliant luminaires that increase light pollution and light trespass into neighboring properties. Applying Dark Sky standards to all new and replacement luminaires (as was done in the October 30th PTC motion) creates a universal standard that can more easily be understood by the public and by staff. For this reason, such recommended language is commonplace in adopted Dark Sky ordinances. ●Per the October 30th PTC motion, the City can consider including a hardship exception for existing structures to provide recourse for property owners seeking to replace existing lighting. This would cover edge-cases such as certain very old multi-family buildings that may require extensive re-wiring when replacing old luminaires with new Dark Sky compliant luminaires. Proposed Amendment -Consistent with the October 30th PTC motion, reinstate applicability language as motioned by the PTC on October 30th: “(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system” Consistent with the October 30th PTC motion, develop a hardship exception provision for existing buildings that could consider technical feasibility or financial burden. - 2. Curfew The April 7th draft lighting curfew language stems from the applicability of the ordinance and therefore applies the lighting curfew only to new and replacement luminaires that were installed under a building permit. This approach creates an inconsistent landscape where some properties remain illuminated all night long, while a relatively smaller number of properties must comply with curfew requirements. This is contrary to the Dark Sky principle of using light only when it is needed, will not achieve reductions in light pollution, and will not protect human residents or migratory birds. Furthermore, it could create confusion among residents and businesses. This inconsistent curfew landscape could present an enforcement challenge to the City, since any complaints about non-compliance will require staff to check permits and identify which specific lighting fixtures received permits and therefore must comply with the curfew. This also presents an unclear situation for residents, who can’t know whether a nuisance source of lighting must comply with the ordinance. Previous versions of Palo Alto’s ordinance (the October 30th PTC draft) contained a curfew that specifically applied to all new and existing buildings and structures. This approach is easier for residents to understand, likely easier to enforce, and more effective at reducing light pollution. At the October 30th PTC meeting, in response to Commissioners' questions, staff assured the PTC that curfew requirements apply to all new and existing buildings and structures (see the language in bold below). Oct 30th Draft Language presented to PTC, Section “(e) Lighting Standards (4) Lighting Control (A) Lighting Curfew. ”Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies to all new and existing buildings and structures, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two (2) hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” This language was removed AFTER the PTC meeting, by staff in their April 7th draft. The curfew requirements in the April 7th draft are now restricted to the new applicability clause of the ordinance, limiting curfew requirements to only apply to the following: (1) All newly constructed structures and buildings, or (2) Structures or buildings proposing a Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070, or (3) New installation of outdoor luminaires requiring a building permit. April 7th Draft Language presented to City Council: Section (e) Lighting Standards (4) Lighting Control (A) Lighting Curfew. “All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two hours after the close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” Staff reasoning and our responses ● Staff reasoning: The cost of enforcement is “unsupported based on existing staff levels.” ○Our response: Active policing is not required or recommended. There is no support for an assumption that staff will receive many complaints, and if they do, that just proves that this ordinance is truly necessary. ●Staff reasoning: Requiring existing lighting fixtures to comply would set up an unrealistic expectation that all existing lighting would comply with the subject ordinance upon ordinance adoption. ○Our response: Under the October 30th language, existing fixtures would need to comply with the lighting curfew, but not other provisions of the ordinance, because the curfew language has its own unique applicability clause that specifically applies to existing structures and buildings. Furthermore, the curfew language allows for lights to remain on until two hours after the close of business, or until people are no longer present, whichever is later. Businesses that are open late or receive late night foot traffic would therefore have their operations unaffected by the curfew. This sets a reasonable expectation for the public and makes the ordinance easy for them to understand. ○In contrast, under the April 7th language, only permitted fixtures would need to comply with the curfew. This leads to situations where two identical fixtures, for two identical use cases, in two side-by-side locations, could have different curfew requirements, merely because one fixture was installed with a building permit and the other was not. This could make the ordinance incomprehensible to the public and prevent them from establishing any reasonable expectations regarding the lighting curfew. ●Staff reasoning: Mandatory motion sensors would be a cost burden for property owners, a lighting curfew without them would likely result in widespread non- compliance, increased neighbor disputes, and diminished public support for Dark Sky initiatives. ○Our Response: Motion sensors are not mandatory in the ordinance. There exist manual options as well as automatic timer devices that can be used instead of motion sensors. Motion sensors can cost $10-50. Proposed Amendment Reinstate the curfew language that was presented to the PTC on October 30th, in section (e)(4) as follows: ● “(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies to all new and existing buildings and structures and luminaires, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two (2) hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” -Note: The underlined language “and luminaires” was added by us (and was not originally in the October 30th motion) to include all outdoor lighting that is not exempt from this ordinance or regulated by state code in curfew requirements. 3. Light Trespass In the October 30th PTC meeting, PTC motioned to “change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance.” However, Staff did not change the 0.5 foot candles (FC) requirement. This allows for light many times brighter than the full moon to trespass into adjacent properties. Staff reasoning ● “The maximum light trespass to an adjacent property is currently 0.5 foot- candle in the City’s lighting code. Staff recommends no change to this standard.” ● ● The PTC recommends 0.1 FC, which was adopted in nearby jurisdictions and reflects the Commission’s interest to minimize light spilling over to adjacent properties. While supporting this interest, staff is concerned that it sets up an unrealistic expectation of essentially no light spilling over to adjacent property and may result in increased complaints to the code enforcement program, taking staff from other priority cases. Moreover, the California Building and Safety Code stipulates a minimum illumination of 1 foot-candle for exit paths to ensure safe building egress; this standard will prevail where there is a conflict. Balancing the ordinance’s objectives with critical safety considerations, the maximum light trespass level was ultimately maintained at 0.5 foot-candle.” Our response ● ● Cupertino uses a 0.1 FC standard, and Brisbane has a standard of zero trespass. 0.5 FC as an allowable light trespass number is as much as 25 times brighter than the light from a full moon (measured at .02 FC). The threshold for impacts to snowy plovers is 0.005 FC, so even 0.1 is impactful to the natural environment. The City must comply with the state building code, but it can and should reduce light trespass where lighting is not mandated by state law. If it results in many complaints to code enforcement, then the ordinance is doing exactly what it is ● Proposed Amendment Implement the October 30th PTC motion to “change the light trespass from 0.5- to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance”. intended to do, i.e., provide better livability and environmental health in Palo Alto. 4. Protecting streams and Baylands Light at night devastates natural ecosystems. The existing ordinance recognizes this, and includes requirements and guidelines to reduce light impacts on streams. These protections are critical, yet they have been stripped from the language of the ordinance. We are aware that a new steam protection ordinance is under development in Palo Alto, but until this new ordinance is adopted, the existing protections should remain in effect, and be expanded to protect other natural resources such as Baylands ecosystems. Proposed Amendment -Ensure that no light trespass occurs into the Baylands Nature Preserve east of Highway 101. -Retain the protections that the current municipal code provides to riparian ecosystems section 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection “(3) Requirements Within streamside review area (g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.” -If possible, include the existing language: “(4) Guidelines Within Streamside Review Area (a) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized.” 5. Seasonal Lighting The April 7th Draft Language exempts seasonal lighting during the period of October 15th through January 15th of each year from all of the requirements of the ordinance. October 15th occurs during bird migration season. With new holiday lighting innovations that increase lighting overall, we believe that protections for migratory birds and the Dark Sky is warranted. We recommend establishing a unique curfew for seasonal lighting, rather than exempting it from curfew requirements entirely. Proposed Amendment ●Apply a unique curfew to Seasonal lighting (midnight - 8AM) 6. Add the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to the Findings and Declarations and Purpose sections of the ordinance. These principles, from DarkSky International, are the basis for Dark Sky policy objectives, and should be included in the ordinance. As shown in the image on page 1 of this letter, these principles state that lighting should be useful, targeted, low level, controlled, and warm-colored. Proposed Amendment -Add the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to the Findings and Declarations and Purpose sections of the ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus Dashiell Leeds Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter From:Daniel Hansen To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Cc: Subject: Date: Francois, Matthew; Lanferman, David; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Cha, Kelly Proposed Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250) Friday, April 4, 2025 1:15:20 PM Attachments:Edgewood Neighbor Alliance Letter Regarding Dark Sky Ordinance.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Please see the attached letter submitted on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance regarding the Proposed Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250). Best regards, Daniel Hansen April 4, 2025 VIA E-MAIL [City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org; Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org] Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinances: Updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 and New Outdoor Lighting Regulations (18.40.140) Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: We, the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance, are writing in objection to the proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinance updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 and New Outdoor Lighting Regulations (18.40.140) as they apply to properties on Edgewood Drive. We have four primary concerns:  Safety and Security. The proposed ordinance does not sufficiently take into account the requirements for safety and security of Palo Alto residents in the urbanized areas, particularly those residing along San Francisquito Creek.  Inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan. Application of the proposed ordinance to residents in the urbanized areas east of Junipero Serra Boulevard is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  Lack of Community Outreach. The City has failed to conduct adequate outreach to impacted residents, such as holding a community meeting and soliciting residential feedback by mailer. The Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommended process to inform residents after implementation is backwards.  Unintended Consequences.The proposed ordinance will result in unintended consequences including creating a platform for neighbors and environmental activists to harass homeowners and distracting police and code enforcement officers from meaningful duties. I.Safety and Security Edgewood Drive is Unique The characteristics of San Francisquito Creek along Edgewood Drive are unique in that on the other side is East Palo Alto, which has no barriers to access to the creek, no meaningful creek Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 2 regulation, and limited resources for enforcement. There is literally nothing preventing people from entering the creek from the East Palo Alto side. As a result, Palo Alto homeowners along Edgewood Drive, and the larger neighborhood, contend with – and have for years – homeless encampments, noise, trash, human waste, trespass, fire risk and crime. Encampments and Crime. It is unfortunate but San Francisquito Creek has become an area favored for encampments, likely due to the ease of access to the creek from the East Palo Alto side. Attached at Exhibit A are some of the emails and pictures sent to then Mayor Stone and others regarding encampments last summer and fall as well as pictures of other prior encampments. People living in these encampments chop down trees, pollute the creek with garbage and human waste, make noise (including screaming) and, most alarmingly, burn open fires. San Francisquito Creek in this area is bounded by eucalyptus trees, which are notoriously flammable, and thus our neighborhood is one errant ember away from a fire disaster. As you will see in the attached emails, then Mayor Stone acknowledged our “immediate safety concerns” and that this was an “urgent issue.”1 Just last week an encampment, this time on the Palo Alto side of San Francisquito Creek, was erected and later removed by Palo Alto police. We thank former Mayor Stone for his prompt response and directing the chief of police to respond. Apart from encampments, the creekside properties on Edgewood Drive have been the subject of burglaries, trespass, loitering, etc., from the criminal element originating from the creek. Many of our homes have been burglarized, trespassed and had items stolen. A few of the many police reports are attached at Exhibit B. These describe burglaries, attempted burglaries, prowlers and other events. Last October, Palo Alto police arrested a man for attempted murder for beating another man with a golf club in San Francisquito Creek.2 On October 29, 2024, a homeless man jumped a back fence of a creekside home on Edgewood Drive and tried to steal a container of fuel. He was intercepted by the homeowner and then Palo Alto Police. Among other things, we have witnessed car burnings on Woodland Ave and routinely hear gunshots from the East Palo Alto side. Residents have found bullets in their swimming pools and yards.3 Palo Alto has previously recognized the unique circumstances of properties on Edgewood Drive. The City’s fence ordinance, for example, allows 10-foot fences on Edgewood along the creek for security and privacy. See PA Code 16.24.020(d). Also, the City implemented overnight parking restrictions in response to residents of the apartment complexes on Woodland Avenue in 1 Email dated October 2, 2024 from Greer Stone to Eliza Edelman. See Exhibit C. 2 See news article at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Police-Department/Police-Arrest-Suspect-in- Golf-Club-Attack 3 Palo Alto has not followed through on its plan to have a centralized crime mapping site, which would be helpful for our security. The Comprehensive Plan provides, “S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real-time local crime mapping function to promote neighborhood safety.” Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 3 East Palo Alto crossing the Newell bridge and parking along Edgewood Drive and neighboring streets. See PA Code 10.51 et seq.4 Lighting is Essential for Safety and Security. Lighting in our backyards and surrounding areas is the primary and key deterrent to crime and unhoused individuals jumping our fences. We need the ability to light our yards and fencing areas including the tops of fencing, and keep the lights on. We also need the ability to keep a front porch light on. Why the ordinance does not include a specific exception for porch lighting, like it does for “street numbers,” is baffling.5 Our children need to be able to see a door is clear of trouble from a distance at all times. The proposed ordinance would only allow security lighting “when necessary to protect persons or property.” Who decides what is “necessary?” It would further require motion sensors on all security lighting and limit the amount of light that can shine over fences. Motion sensors, however, have limited reach, do not always work, can be tricked or bypassed and can be tripped by animals or birds, creating false alarms. A limit of 0.5 candles of “light trespass” over a fence is insufficient (as well as confusing as no one knows what 0.5 candles means). Our primary security fencing faces East Palo Alto for which there are no adjacent properties. Thus light extending over that fencing in the interests of safety should not be an issue. And our neighbors understand and appreciate the need for lighting of rear and side yards and porches. Edgewood Drive Homes Should be Exempt. The homes along Edgewood Drive should be exempt from the proposed ordinance due to their unique circumstances and safety requirements or, at minimum, be exempt from the limitations on security, timing and side lighting. Safety is the City’s paramount duty to its residents and properties along Edgewood are particularly vulnerable. II.The Proposed Ordinance is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate adopting “dark sky” ordinances to urbanized residential homes. Policy N-7.5, on which the staff and environmental groups rely, states in its entirety the following: Policy N-7.5 Encourage energy efficient lighting that protects dark skies and promotes energy conservation by minimizing light and glare fromdevelopment while ensuring public health and safety. Policy N-7.5 says to “encourage energy efficient lighting.” There is no authorization to implement ordinances or restrict development. Consistent with this policy, the City should look 4 Non-permitted cars are still regularly parked along Edgewood at night because the City’s police enforcement of the parking ordinance is virtually non-existent. 5 The exception in 18.40.250(e)(4)(D)(i) for “building entrances” applies only for timing control and is unclear if it includes homes and porches. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 4 for ways to encourage use of energy efficient lighting (such a tax rebates), not compel it by regulation. The other reference from the Comprehensive Plan cited by staff is Program N7.5.1. This Program states that “All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: … Include exterior lighting that is low-intensity and shielded from view.” Thus, the most the Comprehensive Plan contemplates for building restrictions on lighting is for development west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Application of the proposed ordinance to the urbanized areas east of Junipero Serra is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and thus the City lacks authority to adopt it. It is black- letter law that a city’s adoption of zoning and development ordinances must be consistent with its comprehensive plan.6 Limiting lighting in residential housing is not a top priority for the City Council. City staff readily admit that the proposed lighting ordnance “does not directly relate to any of the key actions of the Palo Alto Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP).” The City has bigger issues to tackle, such as housing, encampments and safety. III.Lack of Community Outreach. The City has not conducted adequate outreach to potentially impacted residents. The PTC recommended that community outreach be conducted after implementation of the ordinance. That is absurd and backwards. Community outreach and input should be solicited before the ordinance is adopted, not after it is implemented. It is troubling that City staff directly solicited input from the Audubon Society and Sierra Club on the ordinance,7 but did not do so from Palo Alto residents. City staff did not send out written mailers of the proposed ordinance or hold community meetings with residents, like it has with the proposed “creek corridor” ordinance. All staff did was post it under a usual agenda item 6 “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) A city’s general plan is effectively the “constitution for future development” in the community, and any zoning ordinance or other subordinate land use action must be consistent with the general plan. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, 545-546 [zoning amendment that was inconsistent with the general plan adjudged to be void ab initio].) In order to be deemed “consistent,” the zone change must actually be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan.” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378-79 [county abused its discretion in adopting a specific plan that permitted development without “definite affirmative commitments to mitigate” impacts to traffic and housing contrary to policies and objectives set forth in its general plan].) 7 Staff writes in the mini-packet, “In addition, staff have engaged with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to solicit their input on the proposed ordinances.” Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 5 on the City’s byzantine website and trust that residents are savvy enough to find it and understand how it impacts them. Then, to dampen impact, residents are limited to a 3-minute statement at a public hearing. Residents should get equal or more access to staff and floor time than the Audubon Society and Seirra Club. The process follow by staff is clearly inadequate given the circumstances. Further, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended against extending the proposed lighting ordinance to residential homes. The ARB got it right. Why the PTC chose to ignore the ARB’s recommendation is unclear and unsupported. In the interest of fairness and transparency, and in view of the scope of the proposed ordinance and the rejection by the ARB, the City Council should direct staff to solicit residential input, including sending a direct mailer and holding community meetings, and have the ordinance reconsidered by the newly constituted PTC. We witnessed the same overreach by the PTC last October with respect to the proposed “Bird-Friendly Ordinance,” which is scheduled to be considered by the Council in May. The ARB unanimously rejected application of the ordinance to residential homes because of the burden and expense on homeowners and lack of available commercially made windows. The PTC, however, ignored the ARB’s position and recommended extension of the ordinance to residential properties within 300 feet of a natural creek. The PTC did this in response to the request of Ms. Kleinhaus of the Audubon Society (who was sitting with City staff and invited to speak by a commissioner), and without any commissioner inviting, hearing from or considering homeowners’ concerns and without any scientific evidence that the ordinance would protect species of birds living in Palo Alto. We, along with our lawyers at Rutan & Tucker, will be responding to the proposed Bird- Friendly Ordinance in due course. We trust that in the meantime the City Council will reject the PTC’s misdirected recommendations here and revert the proposed lighting ordinance for further and direct community input and reconsideration by the PTC. IV.Unintended Consequences. The proposed ordinance has unintended consequences that require it be reconsidered and streamlined. Apart from putting our families are risk, the ordinance with its detailed and technical specifics will create a platform for neighbors and environmental activists to harass homeowners and distract police and code enforcement officers from their meaningful duties. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, it is easy to envision people or groups complaining to the city police, fire department and code enforcement personnel. They could also use this ordinance as a proxy to harass each other. Here are some examples: -When abutting residential use, “no spillover of lighting to adjacent properties shall be allowed.” Complaint: the light is spilling over. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 6 - - - - - - - All light sources “shall have a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin or less.” Complaint: the color temperature of a light is too high. No more than “420 lumens shall be allowed for permitted non-shielded outdoor lighting.” Complaint: the light is too intense. The “maximum outdoor light intensity on a site shall not exceed an average value of 5 foot-candles.” Complaint: the light density is too high. Low voltage luminaires “may not direct light towards the public right-of-way.” Complaint: the plant light is directed at the sidewalk. Security lighting may be provided “when necessary to protect people or property.” Complaint: the lighting is unnecessary. Security lighting shall “extinguish after no more than five minutes” after activation. Complaint: the lighting stays on too long. Security lighting cannot “trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property.” Complaint: the light trespasses too much into other property. The Council should think carefully before turning the neighborhood into to a complaint factory. An ordinance of this nature should be introduced slowly over an extended period of time to avoid unintended consequences. It is clear from the language that the draft ordinance was intended to apply to commercial buildings, not residential homes. The City should start with commercial buildings and parking lots and move to residential properties later. This will allow the City and staff time to monitor its impact on safety and use of enforcement resources and benefits versus burdens. If the proposed ordinance proceeds, it should apply only to new construction. If it applies to existing homes or replacement lights, the impact to residents would be immense, expensive and confusing. Sincerely, EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE By, its representative, _____ Daniel Hansen Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 7 cc:Matthew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP David Lanferman, Rutan & Tucker, LLP Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Ed Shikada, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 8 Exhibit A Emails and Pictures Regarding Encampments From: Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 11:20 AM To: Code Enforcement <codeenforcement@cityofepa.org>; <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Lenin Melgar Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Fatima Khan <fkhan@cityofepa.org>; Diana Tran <dtran@cityofepa.org>; Jay Farr <jfarr@cityofepa.org>; Clean City <cleancity@cityofepa.org>; Darryl Hall <dhall@lifemoves.org> Cc: Subject: Re:Woodlawn UPDATE Hello Darryl, I'm sorry to bother you on a Sunday, but there were some loud screaming of woman crying going on around Woodland area of the creek bank. A man yelling at "Karvina" (was what we can capture). There seems to be something violent going on there. We started hearing loud yelling (fighting?) voices between a man and a woman during the day yesterday. And this morning (a few minutes ago), clearly crying sobbing sound is heard. We cannot see what is going on due to branches obscuring, and people are probably under the tarp. Would you or your folks be able to help this woman soon? On Monday, August 5, 2024 at 11:20:53 AM PDT, Darryl Hall <dhall@lifemoves.org> wrote: Good morning team I’m at the Woodland Ave. A male client responded The client refused to come out and talk to me and said he needs no service Darryl Sent from iPhone Darryl Hall 650-730-4840 Dhall@lifemoves.org 1 From: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 7:31 PM To: Cc:Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Good evening, everyone. Thank you for bringing this serious issue to my attention and for sharing the video. Since receiving this information yesterday, I’ve been actively reaching out to staff and other officials to understand the jurisdictional complexities and coordinate an effective response. After speaking with the SFCJPA Executive Director, Palo Alto’s Fire and Police Chiefs, and the Mayor of East Palo Alto, it’s clear the encampment falls under EPA’s jurisdiction. However, just because EPA has jurisdiction doesn’t mean Palo Alto shouldn’t do everything we can to help mitigate the risks to our residents and your properties. I spoke with the EPA Mayor again this evening, and we both agreed that this is an issue our cities should tackle together, with EPA taking the lead given the encampment is in their jurisdiction. We’re currently organizing a meeting between our city managers and police chiefs to explore how Palo Alto can assist in clearing these encampments. I’m optimistic that, with the necessary political will, we can address this issue promptly. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. I’m committed to working with all our partners to resolve this and will keep you updated on our progress. Best, Greer Greer Stone Mayor City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-575-0405 E-mail: Greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 From: Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:49 PM To: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Update: as we’ve feared for months, and have been warning about, tonight there is a FIRE in the creek behind our homes! The Menlo Park Fire Department is responding now. Please act with urgency to clear the encampment. 1 From: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 9:38 AM To: Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Good morning,. Thank you for that additional information and context. That’s helpful information to have while I speak with city staff members and our regional partners. I had a follow up discussion with Margaret Bruce yesterday, she’s the executive director of the SFCJPA, a regional body that I vice chair. We recently facilitated a Homeless Encampments Working Group. That group has met twice to discuss various issues associated with homeless encampments. Going forward, it will be a standing item on the regular monthly managers/executives meeting to ensure opportunities to share best practices and information.The issues the group has discussed so far are practices and policies regarding clearing homeless encampments and sharing maps to help figure out jurisdictions when homeless encampments are reported. My understanding of the jurisdictional issue here is complicated. Most of the creek is in private ownership, but in some places, there are easements for flood control maintenance, and there are some county or city-owned areas as well. It's a complex quilt of jurisdictions. I will continue to engage in discussions with staff and regional partners and I will update you as I get more information. Looking into funding opportunities from the state is also a possibility, given that Governor Newsom announced that he will be providing $1 billion in Encampment Resolution funding. I will look into possibilities of Palo Alto seeking some of those funds to help with this growing concern. Be well, Greer Greer Stone Mayor City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-575-0405 E-mail: Greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 On Oct 2, 2024, at 9:54 PM, Dear Mayor Stone, wrote: Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response. We are very encouraged to hear that you will make it a priority to follow up with all the agencies involved to develop a collaborative plan that restores safety to our neighborhood. This is the type of attention and action we've been asking for a very long time, and we so appreciate your understanding and willingness to engage and help. To aid in your effort, the other people that we've been in contact with that are acutely aware of the situation besides Kevin Lewis (who was the point person working with the EPA Mayor and City Attorney) are Diana Tran and Fatima Khan (Environmental Services) and Jay Farr (Public Works Supervisor), as well as Lenin Melger, Code Enforcement Officer. As to offering services to the campers - the team sent Daryl Hall from LifeMoves on 8/5/2024 down into the creek to talk to the person living in the encampment (there are more now) and offer him aid and services. He reported that, "they male client refused to come out and talk to me and said that he needs no services." I believe this was one of several attempts made to offer aid. I understand that Governor Newsome has acknowledged the problem our state is facing with regard to encampments and has offered funds to local municipalities to take action and clean up encampments like this one. Thank you again for making this a priority and being willing to work to address this important issue. Best regards, 2 From: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 2:52 PM To: Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Dear , Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns, and I truly appreciate the care and detail you've provided in your email. I understand the deep connection you have to Palo Alto as a lifelong resident and the seriousness of the situation affecting your family, neighbors, and community. The safety and well- being of our residents are top priorities, and I hear your concerns about the encampments in the creekbed behind your home. Homelessness is a complex and challenging issue that requires coordination across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. As you’ve described, the creek lies between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, which means that cooperation between our two cities, along with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other regional agencies, is crucial to address this problem effectively. I understand your frustration about the lack of progress and the buck-passing that you’ve encountered. It is unacceptable for residents to feel unsafe in their own homes and neighborhoods, and it is essential that we take action. I will personally ensure that this issue is raised at the appropriate level with both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto officials, as well as the relevant departments involved. I understand you’ve already had contact with Kevin Lewis, Public Works Supervisor in East Palo Alto, and I will make sure that we follow up with him to understand the scope of their efforts and to coordinate Palo Alto’s role in resolving this situation. I will also request that our Public Safety and Public Works teams coordinate closely with East Palo Alto officials to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable response that prevents further encampments from being set up in this area. In addition to addressing the immediate safety concerns, we will also be mindful of finding longer-term solutions for the broader issue of homelessness in our region. It’s important that we not only focus on enforcement but also support services and resources for those who need help in transitioning out of homelessness. Thank you again for bringing this urgent issue to our attention. I will make it a priority to follow up with all the agencies involved to develop a collaborative plan that restores safety to your neighborhood. I will keep you and your neighbors informed of any developments as we work to resolve this. 1 Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any further concerns or additional information that might assist in this process. Be well, Greer Greer Stone Mayor City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-575-0405 E-mail: Greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 2 From: Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 12:38 PM To: greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; kiely.nose@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Creek Encampment photos Here are the photos taken today of the encampments behind our home at Edgewood Dr, in Palo Alto. It is in front of Woodland Ave, East Palo Alto. Unfortunately the video is too large to send. I'm happy to show you in person if you'd like to come over and see for yourselves. Best regards, 1 2 3 This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 4 From: Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 12:24 PM To: ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; kiely.nose@cityofpaloalto.org; greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Dear Mayor Stone and City Manager Shikada, My name is , and I am a life-long Palo Alto resident. I was born at Stanford Hospital, was raised in Palo Alto on Greenwood Ave., and after going away for college and starting a family of my own moved back to raise my own family here., and my family and I live up the street on Edgewood Drive. It's been a lifelong dream of mine to be able to give my children the privilege of growing up in Palo Alto - such a SAFE, open-minded, educated community. However over the past few years, Palo Alto doesn't feel like the idyllic place I grew up in. We live on Edgewood Drive, and our backyard butts up onto the creek. In the past few years, a group of unhoused individuals have taken over the creekbed behind our house and my neighbors and have set up encampments that are dangerous and threatening our homes and safety. They have gone largely unchallenged. As you can see from the photos and videos I took just this morning, they have created elaborate structures-trashed the creekbed, have propane tanks and fires regularly, throw trash and litter and feces into the creek, and often have loud arguments and fights that make my children fearful and come inside, unable to feel safe in our own backyard. Several of our homes - including mine - have been broken into an burglarized from people gaining access to our homes through the creek. Our neighbor this summer was harassed and physically threatened by the creek dwellers behind their home. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO CLEAN UP THE CREEK, AND ERADICATE THE ENCAMPMENTS THAT ARE MAKING US UNSAFE. The encampment I'm writing about is in the creek behind my home at: Edgewood Dr, Palo Alto and in the creek in front of: Woodland Ave, East Palo Alto We have been reaching out to agencies in Palo Alto (Public Works, code enforcement, Police), and East Palo Alto (public works, police, code enforcement) and the Sillicon Valley Water District, and all anyone ever does is PASS THE BUCK. The group we've been in the most contact with that actually returned my calls and has observed the situation first hand on the ground is Kevin Lewis, Public Works Supervisor, East Palo Alto. At one point over the summer, he told me they were contacting a company to come through and clean out the encampments. He said it is expensive and they could only afford to do it once, and will need help and cooperation from Palo Alto moving forward. I'm BEGGING you to please work together to clean up the encampments, and return a sense of safety to residents on BOTH sides of the creek. We are unable to 1 take care of this pressing issue ourselves as citizens and are relying on our government officials to intervene and take care of pressing safety concerns when they occur for their constituents. Please, please take action. I have copied my concerned neighbors that also have encampments in the creek behind their homes, as we are ALL invested in seeing progress on this issue. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 2 From: Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org> To: Cc: Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 at 09:56:58 AM PDT Subject: Creek encampment and trash Woodland Ave area Good morning, Thank you for contacting us again. We do not have enforcement powers, but coordinate with our member entities. It is very frustrating because when one area is cleared, the encampment moves to another area of the creek. I do know that this encampment has been brought to the attention of the City Manager. I will inquire about an action plan- the individual did not want to move to a shelter, so there may be a basis for removal in addition to the water quality concerns. Certainly the creek is a dangerous place to be during winter storms. We will be in the creek in this area next week and will inspect from the creek bed. Thanks, Tess Byler, PG, CHG San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Original message: ************************************************************************* Hi - It's not just a trash, illegal dumping, but dwelling on the creek, with "development" of the bank dirt, campfire, equipment, etc. visible from backside of properties side of the bank. Along Woodland Ave. Details of whom we've been working with recorded on: Edgewood (3 houses) - on the EPA Given the issue is right at the cusp of the two cities and two counties, we're not sure who else can help. There's a lot of debris and bank digging / deforming happening, not to mention human waste into the creek. Hope you give this some attention to get the issue addressed. Thank you. *Please note my new work cell phone: 650-304-4998* Tess Byler, Certified Hydrogeologist CA #928 Stormwater QSD CA #25311 Senior Project Manager San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 750 Menlo Avenue, Suite 250 1 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Direct line: 650/643-1454 This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 2 On Jun 10, 2024, at 8:39ꢀAM,wrote: Hello Gerald, The progress this person is making on the encampment unimpeded is alarming and very concerning. From our discourse, we understood you were taking action to remove the encampment, and clean up the creekbed. Please let us know when we can expect this to happen. Thank you, On Jun 9, 2024, at 1:46ꢀPM,> wrote: Hi Gerald, There is definitely someone living there now. They're dug stairs down the side of the creek. One picture shows jeans and other clothes strewn about the creek. The other picture shows large water storage tank and bins and bags filled with clothes (and if you zoom in to the left of the white water tank you can see someone partially obscured by the trees. I am growing more concerned about this site. What timeframe can we expect action? 5 On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 4:35 PM > wrote: Hi Gerald, It appears the pallet work in the creek is continuing. Now it is in the creek and appears to be trying to obstruct the creek flow. See the attached photo. This is getting more concerning. Please update us with your plans for addressing this problem. 6 On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:32 AM, > wrote: Good morning Gerald, I'm writing this morning with an update, that because none of the construction materials have been cleaned up since we met, the individual moved the material two doors down and this weekend constructed a dwelling as pictured in the creek at Woodland Ave. , opposite Edgewood. We are very concerned about this development. The neighbors to my right have also sent me photos of more material dumped in the creek behind their house as well. This situation needs to be addressed immediately as there is currently a dramatic escalation of encampment activity going on in this area of the creek. After our conversation, I was told that the City of East Palo Alto would be sending a crew over to the creek last Friday 5/24/24 to clean up the materials that were being dumped there. No action was taken. Please follow through and get this cleaned up ASAP, and help keep our neighborhoods safe. Thank you, 7 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 9 Exhibit B Police Reports CONTROLLED DOCUMENT PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT DO NOT DUPLICATE CONTROLLED DOCUMENT PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT DO NOT DUPLICATE CONTROLLED DOCUMENT PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT DO NOT DUPLICATE Case number 23-03046 Officer T. Chang On one summer morning of 2023, one middle age (35~40) white male jumped over the private property on Edgewood Drive back fence from the San Francisquito creek. He walked across that property's backyard towards the property building, spotted by the owners, then hurried over to jump over the side yard fence to Edgewood Drive. The creek was dry. After the property owner met eyes with him, prowler hurried over through the side yard to climb and jump over the front yard fence to access Edgewood Drive. Owner confronted the prowler as he shouted back to exchange some words. He walked towards Newell Road once on Edgewood Drive. Case Number 23-02704 Officer D. Amani Summer of 2023. One prowler jumped over the back fence of the property on Edgewood Drive from the San Francisquito Creek side, at least twice that day per video camera on the property. It is unclear how often he's been jumping over the fence to that or other properties prior to that day. He was seen on another video clip to have also climbed in and walked around the yard in the morning. As he was jumping over the driveway gate from inside our yard to Edgewood Drive that evening, he was spotted by neighbors who were walking their dog. The neighbors notified us and we then called the police about this intrusion. Our camera showed that he had taken our garden shears during the time he was in our yard earlier that same morning. Unclear if other items in the yard were taken. From: To: Preeva Tramiel Council, City Subject: Date: Dark Skies over Palo Alto Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:24:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company.i Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Please strengthen the Dark Sky Ordinance. We deserve good health and a view of the stars! Preeva Tramiel, 767 Addison Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 659-208-3580 Sent from my phone, excuse brevity and typos and autocorrect From: To: Catherine Whitman Council, City Subject: Date: KCBS Radio taped telephone interview request Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:26:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company.i Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hi, I am a reporter with KCBS Radio in San Francisco and I'd like to see if a member of the City Council is available for a brief taped telephone interview this morning to talk about the Light Pollution law. Please get back to me as soon as possible as I am on deadline. Thanks so much! Cathy Whitman KCBS Radio News Reporter/Editor/Producer Audacy | San Francisco 88 Kearny Street San Francisco, CA 94104 O: +1 415-765-4074 catherine.whitman@kcbsradio.com AudacyInc.com KCBS | Alice 97.3 | 95.7 The Game | ALT 105.3 | The New Q102.1 | Channel Q From: To: Frank Wiley Council, City Subject: Date: Objection to Dark Sky Regulations... Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:53:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I'm sure there are a few ardent self-appointed conservationists that see this as a vital issue - but to most residents it's just a dangerous nuisance regulation that would create a good deal of resentment if it was ever enforced.... One would hope that the city council had more important issues to discuss than trying to black-out the city at night. Frank Wiley 955 Roble Ridge Rd, Palo Alto, Ca 94306