Hoping to turn down the lights at night to protect wildlife and reduce glare from neighboring properties, Palo Alto officials are set to adopt a “dark sky” ordinance with a broader reach and more stringent requirements than the law they were mulling earlier this year.
In doing so, however, they are confronting two key challenges. Criticisms from residents who claim that turning down the lights will make their homes less secure at night and an acknowledgement from City Hall staff that the new law would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.
The new dark-sky ordinance, which the City Council plans to consider on Nov. 10, would create a midnight curfew for most types of outdoor light and create a more stringent standard for light trespass between adjacent properties. Currently, the threshold for light trespass is 0.5 foot-candle, with one foot candle connoting enough light to illuminate a square foot of space with a lumen of light. Palo Alto’s new standard for light trespass would become 0.1 foot-candle.
In adopting the new rules, Palo Alto is taking cues from other Bay Area cities that have recently upgraded their ordinances to reduce light pollution. Portola Valley and Woodside both have regulations that govern what types of outdoor light fixtures are permitted. Brisbane adopted an ordinance last year that, among other things, established a 10 p.m. curfew for outdoor lighting, with exceptions for building entrances, exits and parking areas and for properties that use motion sensors that extinguish the lights 10 minutes after activation. Brisbane also established a compliance schedule that requires all commercial and residential properties to be compliant with the new lighting standards by 2029 and 2034, respectively.
The law that Palo Alto is now considering represents a significant departure from the one that councilmembers discussed and ultimately rejected in April. At that time, staff from the Department of Planning and Development Services urged a lighter touch when it comes to tackling light pollution. Critics contended that the proposal would be toothless and, in some ways, counterproductive.
The most glaring difference between the former ordinance is the area of applicability. The prior version would have applied only to new construction, major remodels and situations in which property owners are installing new lighting fixtures. That ordinance was panned by environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance for being grossly insufficient because of the narrow scope.
Shani Kleinhaus, an environmental advocate at the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, suggested at an April public hearing that because of its applicability criteria, the ordinance would actually degrade the protection from light pollution that residents currently enjoy. Specifically, residents would no longer have the ability to file complaints against neighbors who exceed light standards without installing new equipment.
“Basically, any existing property is now exempt,” Kleinhaus said.
Councilmember Greer Stone argued at that time that the proposed ordinance will have virtually no effect if it’s not applied to replacements of existing lighting structures. The city’s Planning and Transportation Commission reached a similar conclusion when it had reviewed the ordinance last fall and deemed it too lax to be effective.
“We know this could take 50 to 100 years in some cases, depending on the structures,” Stone said during the April discussion.
The new ordinance, by contrast, would apply to new installations and replacements of existing lighting structures. Existing fixtures that have the technical capacity to be dimmed into compliance with the new rules must be adjusted accordingly within two years. Those that do not have that ability must ultimately be replaced. The ordinance gives residential properties 10 years to install lights that conform to the new standards, while nonresidential properties would have five years to achieve compliance.
“Any existing lighting that has not been brought into compliance with the Code by these deadlines must remain extinguished (off) until it meets the new lighting standards,” the new report states.
For Palo Alto staff, a key challenge is enforcement. The report from the Department of Planning and Development Services makes it clear that the city does not have sufficient resources to enforce the new lighting ordinance, particularly since most of the violations are expected to occur at night, when code enforcement officers are generally off duty. The report also notes that the compliance timelines established in the proposed ordinance are “unlikely to result in full compliance within specified periods.”
“Staff remains concerned about establishing regulatory standards that cannot be reliably enforced, as this may lead to unrealistic expectations in the community regarding the extent of compliance that can be achieved,” the report states.
Given the staff limitations, city leaders are banking on education and voluntary compliance to achieve compliance. This means sending out educational materials to property owners informing them of the dark-sky ordinance as well as template letters that residents can use to diplomatically request that their neighbors turn down the lights, either by dimming or shielding their lighting fixtures.
Councilmember Pat Burt suggested the new law could have a significant impact, even in the absence of strict enforcement or absolute compliance. Burt likened the dark-sky ordinance to speed limits. Most drivers exceed the posted speed limits, he noted, and most police officers don’t issue speeding tickets to drivers that go 1 mph above the speed limit.
“We have a real range of rules that we put out there with expected voluntary compliance that can be very effective — not anywhere near a 100% compliance, but they can have a real significant impact,” Burt said.
While the new ordinance makes significant overture toward concerns from councilmembers and environmentalists, some property owners are taking a dim view toward the new law. The biggest locus of opposition is in the community around Edgewood Drive, close to the San Francisquito Creek. Earlier this year, residents have been complaining about homeless encampments that have popped up in this area, including at Timothy Hopkins Park, and argued that the outdoor lights are vital to ensure security.
Tom Fountain, who lives in the area, contended in a letter to planning staff that the lighting ordinance would make the neighborhood less safe.
“I am terrified of the safety issues my wife and young daughter will face returning to a dark house, trying to take out the trash through a dark backyard, as they are forced to navigate an unlit pool, or are unable to see criminal accessing our yard,” Fountain wrote to the city several weeks after the council’s April discussion. “Through expensive renovations we can mitigate some of the safety issues caused by this poor ordinance, some of the most severe will remain.”
To address these concerns, the proposed ordinance exempts Edgewood Drive from the new lighting standards. This despite a determination by the Palo Alto Police Department that the calls for service in this area were not significantly higher than in other parts of the city. Planning staff pointed to the neighborhood’s “unique characteristics that could justify different lighting standards.” These include the neighborhood’s proximity to the creek, its lot arrangements and the fact that it borders another jurisdiction, East Palo Alto.
“While crime data do not support the designation of specific areas as high security risk zones, staff recognize some residents may have heightened perceptions of safety concerns based on local conditions or experiences,” the report from planning staff states.
This story originally appeared in Palo Alto Weekly. Gennady Sheyner is the editor of Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online. As a former staff writer, he has won awards for his coverage of elections, land use, business, technology and breaking news.