Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-08 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 15 Regular Meeting December 8, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 p.m. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Councilmember Reckdahl arrived at 5:33 p.m. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims arrived during Closed Session. Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order. The Clerk called roll declaring five present. The Clerk noted there was an agendized teleconference location which was not being used. Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject: Initiation of litigation in one case Authority: Potential Exposure to Litigation Under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of potential cases: 1, as Plaintiff. 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION Swinerton v. City of Palo Alto (JAMS Reference #:5100003409) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) 3. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject: Potential litigation regarding 156 North California Avenue, as set forth in letter(s) from Holland & Knight LLP dated September 3, 2025 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) Number of potential cases: 1, as Defendant. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:34 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada declared there were no agenda changes. Public Comment 1. Avroh S. (Presentation) spoke of the negative health effects of natural gas and requested that health information on the website be easily accessible to residents. 2. Sven T. (Presentation) discussed the negative health effects of natural gas and provided a list of restaurants using induction stoves. 3. Sarah S. (Presentation) mentioned the benefits of induction stoves and urged folks to switch from gas to induction. 4. John M., a member of Quiet Zones Palo Alto, requested that funding quiet zones be a priority. 5. Benjamin N. requested their neighborhood be quieter as it related to train horns. 6. Victor N. discussed train horns interfering with sleep and health. 7. Robin T. pleaded that quiet zone funding be prioritized. 8. Andrea G. requested there be a public relations campaign related to the negative effects of gas stoves. 9. Sylvia F. discussed noise pollution impacting health and urged Council to consider budgeting for quiet zones. 10. Brad A-S. spoke of the problems related to vanlording and detached trailers and asked that businesses and others be treated as stakeholders. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 11. Jennifer L. provided copies of the San Francisco Airport Environmental Impact Report to the City Clerk for Council’s review, which contained ways to measure success on noise reduction. Jennifer L. requested that action be taken, that weight be given to the people’s voices who experienced the impacts and that quiet zones be funded ASAP. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Stone had spoken at the North American Summit in New Orleans last week to combat antisemitism. Councilmember Burt was on a panel for the Move Bay Area Summit on December 5 in San Jose and accentuated the Caltrain City Partnership Program as it related to transit passes, which was well received and was being looked at as a model throughout the region to drive transit use. Councilmember Burt would be Vice Chair at Caltrain in 2026. Vice Mayor Veenker would again serve as the Vice Chair of the Bay Area Air District Board and expected to continue to Chair the Policy, Grant and Technology Committee. The nitrogen oxide omitting appliance rules were scheduled to be phased in in 2027 and the President of the Santa Clara County Cities Association expected to hold an informational meeting in 2026. If anyone had questions, Vice Mayor Veenker would be happy to provide information. Vice Mayor Veenker had been reelected as Treasurer of the League of California Cities Peninsula Division Executive Committee and reappointed to the statewide Public Safety Committee, which monitored policymaking on wildfires and public safety, and she would be happy to liaise with folks concerning that. Mayor Lauing commented that he would Chair the newly created ad hoc committee for oversized vehicles, which would meet weekly. It was expected that there would be a broader report on December 15. Consent Calendar 4. Adoption of Emergency and Regular Ordinances Prohibiting Unattached Trailer Parking and Vanlording and a Resolution Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule Imposing Penalties; CEQA status – not a project. 5. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2451 Cowper Street [25PLN-00102]: Appeal of Director’s Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application to Allow Deconstruction of an Existing Single- Family Residence and Detached Garage and to Construct a 2,380-Square-Foot Two-Story Residence. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-family Residential). CEQA Status: Exempt in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15303. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 6. Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the Professional Services Agreement between the Northern California Power Agency and the Cities of Palo Alto and Santa Clara for Electric Transmission, Generation and Regulatory Consulting Services in a Not to Exceed Amount of $657,500 over a five-year contract term ending December 31, 2030; CEQA Status: Not a Project. 7. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C25192924 with Concordia, LLC in the amount of $65,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed $696,966 for additional services associated with development of the Cubberley Master Plan; CEQA Status – CEQA will be completed as part of this project. 8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 5 to Contract Number C14151181 with SAP Public Services in the Amount of $334,355 for SAP Maintenance and Support for One Year, ending December 2026; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 9. FIRST READ: Adoption of an Ordinance Renewing the Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481; CEQA status – not a project. 10. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Interim Ordinance to Extend Interim Ordinance 5645 of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Chapters of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 21 (subdivisions and other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement SB 9 and Other State Housing Laws. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 11. Acceptance of Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year 2025 and Adoption of a Resolution Making Statutory Findings for all Development Impact and In- Lieu Fee Funds; CEQA status - Not a Project. 12. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and Setting February 9, 2026 for a Public Hearing for Objections to the Proposed Weed Abatement; CEQA status: exempt, CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. 13. Approval of General Services Contract Number C26195709 with Corodata Records Management, Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $120,000 for Off-Site Records Storage and Management Services for a Period of Five Years, CEQA Status- Not a Project. 14. Recommend City Council Approval of the CSD Equipment & Materials Inventory Management and Building Permit & Inspection Fees Audits as recommended by the Policy & Services Committee and Extension of the Deadline for several FY2025 Task Orders SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 Public Comment: 1. Michael P. (Item 4) urged Council to take action related to sewage and unsafe driving conditions and requested that the funds for signage and a study be invested in the community instead. 2. Jeanette B. (Item 4) agreed with Michael P. and asked that health and safety issues on Embarcadero Road be considered. Jeanette B. offered a solution as it related to parking. Jeanette B. voiced that her business was being impacted by unenforced regulations. 3. Loren B. (Item 4) remarked that businesses were suffering due to the presence of RVs and the lack of parking enforcement and urged Council to remove the item from the Consent Calender and to return it to staff for rework. Loren B. requested that RVs be banned from parking in business districts. 4. Bob M. (Item 4) of the Adobe Meadow Neighborhood Association had observed issues with parking, waste, theft of water and electricity, and safety. Bob M. requested borrowing language from Menlo Park and San Mateo’s regulations and that RVs be banned ASAP. 5. Herb B. (Item 4) requested that Planned Home Zoning Districts be included within the definition of residential to Section 10.44.020 of the Code. Herb B. felt that residential zones should include certain PC Zoning Districts. Herb B. had submitted a letter related to allocating parking space. 6. Meg T. (Item 4) urged Council to quickly address driver safety and sanitation as it related to RVs. 7. Roger S. (Item 4) spoke of RVs negatively impacting car dealerships. Roger S. suggested there be diagonal parking on Embarcadero and Faber. Roger S. requested that the laws be followed. 8. Dana D. (Item 4) urged that Council not adopt the draft ordinance. Dana D. felt the vanlording language could invite litigation. Dana D. was mildly opposed to the detached trailers amendment. Dana D. suggested that “located within a residential zone or public facility zone” be stricken from Section 10.44.020. 9. Mark W. (Zoom) (Item 5) spoke on behalf of the appellant and requested that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar. The appellant had sent an email describing the reasons for the appeal. Mark W. had also sent a letter. The appellant wanted to know the steps that would be taken to provide protection from exposure to hazardous materials and construction noise. 10. National Vehicle (Zoom) (Item 4) suggested that funding for signage and enforcement of laws be spent on legal and well-managed safe parking spaces and pathways to housing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 National Vehicle requested that Item 4 be rejected and that work be done with vehicle residents, local advocates and partners to build solutions. Mayor Lauing commented the $5M or $6M signage cost the public referenced for Item 4 was actually the cost for all street signage. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-14. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 4. MOTION PASSED ITEM 4: 6-1. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims voted no. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 5-14: 7-0 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims explained why she voted no on Item 4. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims heard residents’ concerns with RVs and regulations not being enforced. Staff was moving forward with greater practical enforcement. As a member of the OSV Ad Hoc, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was concerned that there had not been recruitment of more safe parking. Vehicle dwellers who worked in the community should be allowed to live with dignity. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada provided photos of the holiday celebrations on December 6. The City website had a new AI chatbot assistant to aid in finding information and feedback was requested as it was being Beta tested. The annual test of the emergency alert system would occur at noon on December 18. For the next month, folks could complete survey related to the library system – paloalto.gov/librarysurvey. Council would address grade separation on December 10 and there would be a staff presentation and public comments. On December 15, Council would deliberate and potentially take action on rail grade separation but there would be no public comment. There would also be an action item related to 1680 Bryant Street historic designation and a study session on the Cubberley Community Center Project. Council’s annual reorganizational meeting was scheduled for January 5. The first business meeting would be on January 12 with a couple study sessions and a discussion of the turf study. Council was scheduled to meet on January 20 for a study session and 2 action items. Council’s annual retreat would occur on January 24. Action Items 15. REINTRODUCED FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 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) Senior Planner Kelly Cha provided an update on the Lighting Ordinance. Staff had prepared draft lighting regulations largely consistent with the dark sky lighting principles from Dark Sky International. The draft ordinance in Attachment A of the report reflected Council’s direction from April 2025. The only difference was the exemption on special security concerns, which was modified to a neighborhood-specific exemption because there were no designated high-crime areas in Palo Alto to establish thresholds. Staff had included an exemption describing the Edgewood neighborhood. Since April 2025, staff had conducted an outreach meeting with Palo Alto businesses to gather feedback and the high cost of retrofitting existing lighting to comply with the new requirement was a concern. The Sierra Club had submitted a letter with modified views on this particular requirement. Senior Planner Cha stated that businesses were concerned with safety issues associated with a lighting curfew and potential conflicts with state and federal laws, such as OSHA regulations. The draft ordinance included additional curfew conditions that would allow outdoor lighting to remain on. There was also an exception to allow lighting to remain on for critical access points for residential and commercial properties. The draft ordinance included a conflict precedence provision on state and federal law, which would cover OSHA regulations. Planner Cha outlined the modifications that staff was requesting be made to the draft ordinance exemption sections. Upon adoption, a second reading would be prepared and the new requirements would become effective on the 31st day of the second reading. In the meantime, staff would prepare educational and informational materials and update the project website. Public Comment: 1. Dashiell L., Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, on behalf of 12 (Presentation), Drey K., Tris R., Diane M., Linda R., Margaret H., Lyn H., Connie C., Inna M., Jo Ann M., Alan K., Laura M., Ceci K., discussed what the ordinance would and would not do. The Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance proposed that the curfew start time be 11 p.m., that the language related to permit applicability and transition to requirements being applied to all new and replacement lighting be done away with, that hazardous and prohibited lighting types be prohibited everywhere, that the retrofit requirement be removed for existing outdoor lighting and that the timeline for the easily adjustable fixtures be 1 year. 2. Daniel H. on behalf of 8 (Presentation), DeAnna H. (Zoom), Lisa H. (Zoom), Pooja K. (Zoom), Frada S. (Zoom), Cynthia S. (Zoom), Mohit T. (Zoom), Cindy W. (Zoom), Nancy Y. (Zoom), stated that the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance supported the ordinance with the exemption. There was a typographical error in the definition with respect to the exemption as it related to pulling language from the Fencing Ordinance. Prohibited SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 lighting did not address holiday lighting, such as spotlights, etc. Regarding encampments, Daniel H. spoke of the lack of creek and woodland barriers and noted that some places consisted of only a short wall, which could be traversed. There were also encampments on the Palo Alto side between back fences and the floodwall and the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance hoped the gap could be plugged. Edgewood residents had reported crime in the area. The ordinance appeared to lack any scientific basis, which was especially important to the Bird-Friendly Ordinance. Daniel H. suggested that independent experts provide scientific information to help support ordinances of this nature. 3. Avroh S. (Presentation) opposed light pollution and supported the ordinance, which was a step in the right direction. 4. Herb B. felt the proposals did not address shielding LED lights providing light pollution nor did it provide for LED lights with warm color temperature. 5. Mark L. was concerned about limiting light at property lines to 0.1 footcandles and questioned if residents knew the meaning of that. Mark L. suggested the City set up an area to demonstrate the mandated light levels. 6. Junyan W. asked Council to expedite the Dark Sky Ordinance to remove light pollution. Junyan W. noted that some bird data could be collected. 7. Rani F., Chair of the Environment Action Committee for the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, commented that several organizations and residents had submitted letters and/or spoken this year requesting that Council adopt protective measures to safeguard nature and the sky. Rani F. requested that Council adopt the ordinance with the Bird Alliance’s proposed amendments. 8. Claire E. asked that the City’s street, roadway and bikeway lights not be exempt, that warm-colored lights be used or there be dimming or shielding, and that the lights at Mayfield be turned off when the field was not in use. 9. Doria S. associated her comments with the important changes Dashiell L. spoke of and the opinions of the Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance. 10. Tiffany G., Senior Managing Director of Stanford Research Park, felt it was unreasonable to require businesses to retrofit existing buildings to comply with the proposed standards unless discretionary approval was being sought from the City. Tiffany G. explained why upgrading lighting could be cost prohibitive in some cases. As the proposed lighting standards would place an additional burden on tenants’ operations and budgets, Tiffany G. requested that Council consider applying the new lighting standards to new construction or when a substantial remodel was proposed or when installing new outdoor lighting requiring a building permit. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 11. Darlene Y. (Zoom) strongly supported adopting a robust dark sky lighting ordinance and requested that the recommendations from the Bird Alliance and Sierra Club be adopted. 12. Winter (Zoom) expressed that a strong, robust and serious ordinance was needed. Winter was concerned about the riparian corridor of Bol Park and the Creekside Inn development. The City should be serious about dark skies in parks and public spaces. 13. Isabelle N. (Zoom) supported the adoption of a strong lighting ordinance by shielding outdoor lights, using warmer and lower intensity lighting and reducing unnecessary nighttime lighting. 14. Bryna C. (Zoom) aligned her comments with the Sierra Club and Bird Alliance. The ordinance should apply to all newly installed or replaced outdoor lighting, not just projects requiring a building permit. Citywide bans for lasers, etc., should apply to Edgewood. The residential curfew for outdoor lighting should be 11 p.m. 15. Nova J. (Zoom), a member of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, urged Council to support the Dark Sky Ordinance along with the modifications proposed by the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance. 16. Serena (Zoom) spoke on behalf of Grassroots Ecology, which supported Palo Alto’s Dark Sky Ordinance, and requested that Council adopt a strong ordinance to protect birds, people, ecosystems and the night sky, including the 5 recommendations presented by the Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance. 17. Gu J. (Zoom) spoke of bird migration and urged Council to adopt a strong lighting ordinance, including turning off nonessential lights by 11 p.m., applying light rules consistently across the city and ensuring that all replacement fixtures would meet compliance standards. 18. Karen H. (Zoom) was aligned with the comments of Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance. The ordinance should not apply to only permitted lighting. Karen H. suggested the City first focus on the City’s buildings and buildings in the Baylands and that a meaningful ordinance supporting good health be adopted. 19. Jeff G. (Zoom) was aligned with the comments of Dashiell L. Jeff G. requested that the recommendation be reasonable, practical, flexible and not onerous. It should apply to all fixtures. Removing the retrofit requirement and the curfew being 11 p.m., made sense. The rules should apply across the city. 20. Deepika M. (Zoom), a member of the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition, supported the ordinance and spoke of the negative effects of light pollution. Mayor Lauing noted many public comments were submitted by email, which would be included in the deliberations. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to incorporate the changes on Slides 7 and 8 and the 5 recommendations of Dashiell L., particularly including all new fixtures even those without a building permit and removing the retrofit requirement. Councilmember Reckdahl supported 5- minute motion detector timers. Councilmember Reckdahl felt a lighting curfew of 2 hours after vacating an area was excessive and asked why it was not 1 hour. As the ordinance would prohibit light trespass across a property line, Councilmember Reckdahl asked if light would be allowed to shine on a solid fence on a property line. Assistant Planning and Development Services Director Jennifer Armer answered that the lighting curfew of 2 hours related to the end of business hours. Light could shine on a solid fence on a property line because it would not go over the property line. Senior Planner Cha added, regarding the lighting curfew of 2 hours, that staff did not want to impose anything that would increase safety concerns as activities might occur after the close of business. Councilmember Stone inquired if building permits were often required when changing existing outdoor luminaries. Assistant Director Armer stated that in most cases a single-family home replacing an outdoor light fixture would require a building permit. Senior Planner Cha added that replacement of a bulb would probably not be a trigger. Councilmember Stone suggested removing the building permit requirement and to essentially require replacement at end of life. Councilmember Stone was concerned about totally exempting city street and roadway lights and questioned what the implication would be to adopt a replacement schedule for warm lighting for streetlamps. Assistant Director Armer explained that staff tried to make the ordinance as enforceable as possible but staff would not object to removing the building permit requirement. City Manager Ed Shikada responded that streetlights were primarily for safety. Modifying the City’s lighting requirements would be a multimillion dollar expenditure and between now and when funds would be available to do a comprehensive replacement, staff’s ability to respond to possible complaints about not meeting the ordinance would be unmanageable. Councilmember Stone wanted to consider a replacement schedule for warm lighting for streetlamps in the future. Councilmember Lu queried if replacing a gas water heater with an electric one would mean that lighting fixtures would be under review since replacing the water heater would trigger a building permit. Councilmember Lu asked how a hardship case would be determined and how the 0.1 footcandles would be calculated. Understanding the amount of light produced by 0.1 footcandles would be helpful. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 Assistant Director Armer answered that a review would be triggered only if replacing existing lighting fixtures. As part of a permit, staff would request a lighting plan to show what a lighting measurement would be at a boundary. Senior Planner Cha explained how a hardship case would be determined. Director Lait stated an analysis would need to be done to demonstrate compliance with the footcandle measurement. Councilmember Lu suggested streamlining the light plans to outline the rules of thumb if using standard bulbs. Councilmember Lu asked if rooftop bars needed to turn lights off at 10 p.m. Director Lait replied that rooftop bar lighting had to be off at 10 p.m. Councilmember Lu wanted the turning off of rooftop bar lighting to be commensurate with other businesses, such as some amount of time after the curfew. Councilmember Lu questioned how outdoor lighting would be handled for folks working during curfew hours at large office buildings at the Research Park. Senior Planner Cha replied that the adopted curfew would apply to everyone. Motion sensors or timers should be used to control late-night lighting. Councilmember Lu noted that some businesses, such as Tesla, were basically 24/7 operations and such might be treated on a case-by-case basis as it was not obvious how the ordinance would be applied as written. Director Lait stated if a complaint was received staff would assess how egregious the complaint was before taking enforcement action. Such circumstances as mentioned by Councilmember Lu would be part of the outreach campaign with residents and businesses. Based on the ordinance language, there would not be a limitation on curfew in the event of ongoing activity. There were also exceptions for parking areas and accessways. Councilmember Lu mentioned that many businesses in Palo Alto had scientific instruments, etc., that needed monitoring. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if there were ways to phase in shielding or directionality around streetlights and if City-owned sports fields would be subject to this ordinance. The lights at the sports fields should be turned off or be on motion sensors. Vice Mayor Veenker inquired if lights would be allowed to stay on for private businesses operating 24 hours a day. Safety lighting meant a lot to folks working during curfew hours and motion sensors would only light up where a person was walking. Vice Mayor Veenker concurred with the Sierra Club recommendations related to replacement lighting not being permitted and that easily adjustable fixtures comply within a year. Vice Mayor Veenker preferred that the curfew be midnight. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if the curfew applying to the Edgewood neighborhood included the creek. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 Director Lait replied that streetlights were not studied due to cost implications. Council could address streetlights outside of this ordinance. The lights would be allowed to remain on for private businesses operating 24 hours a day. Parking areas, entryways and access points would be exempt from the curfew requirements. City Manager Shikada presumed that sports fields would not operate after the curfew time noted in the ordinance. The existing exemption in the ordinance applied only to facilities operating overnight. Senior Planner Cha responded that the Edgewood exemption defined the single-family properties along San Francisquito Creek fronting Edgewood Drive. Those properties would be exempt from lighting requirements but they would be subject to the lighting curfew and prohibited lighting. All other requirements would be exempt except as part of the exemption modifications. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims queried how holidays would differ from the rest of the year. Senior Planner Cha responded that holidays were defined with an exception between October 15 to January 15. Usually front yard lights would be exempt. The type of lights used would be exempt but there would be a curfew. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims addressed the Lunar New Year and stated that certain major religious and cultural holidays should not be codified over others. Councilmember Lythcott- Haims questioned if the Dark Sky Ordinance would apply to commercial properties that kept interior lights on all night and how such lighting might impact the lack of dark sky. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported a cutoff time of 11 p.m. The Good Neighbor Letter idea was a good idea but the line reading “I would be willing to help with the cost” should not be included. The Research Park concerns were appreciated as redoing lighting within a certain time frame could be expensive for many businesses. It would be better to apply such to new construction, significant remodels and lighting renovations. The Edgewood exception was concerning. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked why that area was being held to a different standard, why the exceptions would not apply to other areas backing on to San Francisquito Creek and the legal basis for treating Edgewood differently. Senior Planner Cha answered that the ordinance would only apply to outdoor lighting. Interior lighting was usually regulated by building code. Assistant Director Armer had no information on how interior lighting might impact dark skies. Director Lait noted that the Edgewood exception was in response to Council’s direction. City Attorney Molly Stump added that the legal standard on this type of distinction was called rational basis, which provided the City discretion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang commented that the basis for the distinction related to problems affecting that particular neighborhood and there was evidence for that stretch of the creek but not for others. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if exemptions could be made for other neighborhoods. Assistant City Attorney Yang replied that exemptions for other neighborhoods would be a policy question for Council. Mayor Lauing stated the overall goal of the Dark Sky Ordinance was for the city to be closer to its natural nighttime darkness level. Mayor Lauing understood there were 2 areas of concern, which were that the ordinance would be applied too broadly across the city to existing and new buildings and that it would not be enforceable. If gradual adoption of the new provision was not required in existing buildings, the mark for a true dark sky would not be met because new projects were too small of a fraction on their own to make progress. Mayor Lauing discussed taking a community-based approach with educational materials communicating the importance of protecting the dark sky to assist with voluntary compliance as there was a lack of resources to enforce the ordinance. Councilmember Burt supported requiring residential fixture upgrades upon applying for a building permit and grandfathering in existing fixtures. The Electrical Efficiency Program had incentives that would help folks convert to fixtures with dimmers, timers, etc., before being obligated to. Councilmember Burt wanted this referred to the Utilities Department to explore incentive programs. Councilmember Burt suggested the curfew be 1 hour after vacating and 2 hours after closure. Councilmember Burt asked if Edgewood would be allowed to have blinking lights, etc. The cost of light studies was concerning and some form of objective standards might ease that burden. Councilmember Burt asked if over the next year there might be adjustments to the ordinance. Director Armer replied that Edgewood would not be allowed to have blinking lights, etc. Director Lait responded that there was no intention to adjust the ordinance. Councilmember Burt suggested that public feedback be accumulated so certain patterns could be addressed. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to adopt the proposed ordinance with staff’s recommended changes and include the following changes: 1) Amend Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A), removing the curfew start time of 12:00 a.m. and adding a curfew start time of 11:00 p.m. 2) Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor luminaires. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 3) Amend Section 18.40.250(L)(1), removing the words “two years” and replacing it with the words “one year,” shortening the compliance period for adjustable existing lighting fixtures to one year. 4) Amend Section L(2)(A) and (B) and L(3) to remove the retrofit requirement. 5) Refer to the Utilities Department to evaluate electric efficiency incentives related to voluntary retrofits of existing fixtures. 6) Request staff to evaluate objective standards as an alternate to cost of the lighting study. 7) Under the business curfew, retain the 2-hour-after closure and limit the after-vacancy to one hour. 8) Outdoor space above ground floor Section F(4)(B) revised to be consistent to other curfews in this ordinance. Councilmember Stone remarked that adopting a Dark Skies Ordinance was a natural extension of Palo Alto’s values. The measures were not extreme but balanced public safety with being good stewards of the environment. Councilmember Reckdahl agreed with Councilmember Stone. Councilmember Burt offered amendments that the Utilities Department evaluate electric efficiency incentives related to voluntary retrofits of existing fixtures, that staff evaluate objective standards as an alternate to the cost of a light study and under the business curfew to retain the 2-hour-after closure and limit the after-vacancy to 1 hour. Councilmember Stone accepted the amendments. Councilmember Lu preferred the 12 a.m., curfew. Removing the retrofit requirement could mean strict burdens or deliberate noncompliance. Director Lait noted that the 1-year compliance timeframe was meant to address timers, etc. Based on the motion, the requirements to comply with the ordinance within 5 or 10 years for the different categories would be removed. Councilmember Lu asked if a substantial indoor remodel of a restaurant, for example, would mean that all the requirements would apply – a lighting plan, etc. Director Lait answered that a project qualifying as a substantial remodel, which was a reference to Title 16, would trigger compliance with the ordinance and it could include interior work being done at a certain threshold. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 15 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/08/2025 Councilmember Lu expressed there could be unintended costs to small businesses if there was not a phase-in timeline. Councilmember Lu offered a friendly amendment to strike Number 4 from the motion. Councilmembers Stone and Reckdahl did not accept the amendment. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims discussed why she would not support the motion with the Edgewood exemption. Vice Mayor Veenker inquired if it would be a violation to leave front porch lights on after 11 p.m. Vice Mayor Veenker preferred that the curfew be 12 a.m. Senior Planner Cha replied that leaving lights on at building entrances and driveway and walkway areas after 11 p.m., would not be a violation. There were also exceptions for shielding and low landscaping lights. Councilmember Lu queried if outdoor lighting for rooftop bars should be off by 10 p.m. Director Lait responded there were City regulations limiting operating hours between 10 p.m., and 6 a.m. Director Lait believed the rooftop standard was designed to be in concert with that standard, which applied to some commercial areas adjacent to residential properties. That was not specifically considered in this ordinance. Council could adjust that. Councilmember Lu made a friendly amendment that curfews for outdoor space above ground be identical to other curfews in the ordinance. Councilmember Stone agreed with Councilmember Lu. Councilmember Stone would accept the amendment if the language achieved that goal. Director Lait stated that staff would take the concept and craft language for the second reading. Director Lait understood that the curfew for above-ground outdoor space should mirror the 11 p.m., curfew. Councilmember Reckdahl accepted the amendment. Vice Mayor Veenker referenced Number 5 of the motion and queried why the Utilities Department would do the evaluation as opposed to John Abendschein. Councilmember Burt answered that he did not know how the work would be distributed but it was a Utilities program. MOTION PASSED: 6-1. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims voted no. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.