1441 Edgewood Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94301
April 26, 2025
Kelly Cha
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Outdoor Lighting Update (“Dark Sky”)
Dear Ms. Cha:
I shared in my prior letters to you and city staff (“Staff”), the Planning & Transportation Committee (“PTC”), and the City Council for the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) my opposition to the proposed lighting ordinance currently under consideration. I watched with great sadness the City Council on April 7, 2025 pass a motion to incorporate even more egregious conditions into the poorly drafted outdoor lighting ordinance, particularly the expansion to cover any existing light after 10 years.
As Staff prepares a new draft ordinance responsive to the City Council’s motion, I ask Staff to consider the following:
Deep security concerns. Residents of Edgewood Dr have a valid and deep concern about safety and security given the frequent and repeated crime we and our property face, the growing unhoused population living immediately adjacent in the San Francisquito Creek (“Creek”) combined with the City’s unwillingness or inability to address the growing issue, and our immediate proximity to East Palo and the spillover impact of frequent crime. The most obvious remedy is to exempt houses on this street from the ordinance or significant portions of the ordinance. While I appreciate Staff’s concern with defining a “high crime” neighborhood, it is vital that the City Council’s direction to address those with “special security concerns” provides adequate relief for homeowners abutting the Creek to install and operate sufficient lighting to protect ourselves. 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 criminals accessing our yard. Through expensive renovations we can mitigate some of the safety issues caused by this poor ordinance, some of the most severe will remain. Fear for our safety and security is heightened when combined with the other ordinances also under consideration – imagine being forced to no longer allowed have adequate outdoor lighting, no longer allowed to maintain a fence separating you from criminals and unhoused population, and then having to cover your windows in dots so you cannot even see the criminals concealed in the darkness with unfettered access to your backyard. These ordinances, individually and collectively, greatly compromise our safety and security. Please understand these fears are very real for us; we have even started to look at buying firearms and obtaining conceal and carry permits just so we can come home at night!
- 2 -
Cost to comply exception / legal challenges and taking claim. With the expansion to cover all existing fixtures, the City must add an exception for properties that would incur excess cost to comply. After years of planning and building, I recently completed construction of my brand new home which I previously expected to be our family’s “forever” home. The preliminary estimate to comply with the new draft code as written requires that I destroy approximately $90,000 of lighting (and fan) materials and spend approximately $210,000 in new materials and labor. (This is just for the fixtures and related costs. The systems upgrades described later add further to this loss.) In 10 years, this would represent approximately $350,000 or more of expense (based on forecasted inflation rates). I can only imagine how much worse that will get with most of these fixtures and luminaires manufactured overseas. Imposing such extraordinary costs on homeowners is patently unfair. Would you want to have to work for 1-2 years just to comply with a new ordinance passed by the city? While my costs may be greater than some others, the cost to completely replace exterior lights for homeowners across Palo Alto is likely to be extremely high and grossly underestimated by City Council. Do we really want to pass this cost to so many homeowners? Do we really want to produce this much waste? A hardship exemption for only a temporary period of time, or requiring proof of financial distress, is wholly insufficient to remedy this loss. A cost to comply exemption is needed. Absent such an exception, it is paramount Staff and the City Attorney advise the City Council that passing such an ordinance leaves the city liable for a takings claim. While it is not my preference, please understand that passing an ordinance with a present value cost to me of $210,000 leaves me with no recourse but to challenge of the ordinance’s validity in court and assert a takings claim against the City for the entirety of this loss.
Shielding standard for non-confirming lighting after 10 years. The overwhelming majority of the costs noted above arise from the shielding requirement applied to non-conforming lights after 10 years.
One of the primary stated objectives of the ordinance is to reduce light pollution and minimize visual impact to neighbors. If the 10 year restriction is included in the next draft ordinance, I strongly recommend and beg to allow non-shielded lights so long as their lux output (as measured at the property border) satisfies the light trespass requirements (previously 0.5 lux but now proposed to be 0.1 lux). Like many homeowners, this would mean I would not be required to replace every fixture and could instead replace the luminaire and/or use dimming to bring existing fixtures into compliance. While this would not completely solve glare, this would meet the primary objectives of the ordinance with far reduced cost to homeowners. Moreover, this would further benefit the community since many fixtures would then have the “technical capacity” to comply under the 2 year window rather than waiting the full 10 years.
Lighting output measurement lumens vs lux. Most of the restrictions in the proposed ordinance 18.40.250 are written with regard to “lumens” of output. The original draft ordinance applied to new construction or new luminaires. As such, “lumens” was chosen presumably to make it easier for buyers to select luminaires with said rated lumens output (and for Staff to validate those specs during Planning). Now that the code will extend to existing luminaires, it is vital the code also express the limits in lux. It is my understanding that measuring lumen must be performed in a laboratory. I am told it is not practical to measure lumen output of an existing luminaire in the field. The could would therefore set a standard that could not be objectively measured by code enforcement either. Moreover, lumen is often the theoretical maximum which - 3 -
is reduced by the quality of the actual luminaire, the power system, distance, and other factors.
One important benefit of expressing output in lux is that it will also allow lighting designers to construct systems with dimmed lights. Most lighting systems are better served running well below 100% of maximum output to extend the lifetime of transformers and luminaires, therefore reducing cost and waste. Most importantly, it will fixtures with luminaires that cannot comply by lumen to comply through dimming. For example, I have two outdoor fan with a down light, adjustable color that can be made to work at 2700K or less, but with lumen that is too high. The manufacturer does not make a down light that meets the lumen requirements. The light, however, is dimmable and could remain if a lux threshold were established.
Conflict in 18.40.250(f)(1)(B) with 18.40.250(e)(1). The draft ordinance 18.40.250(f)(1)(B) states that “No more than 420 lumens shall be allowed for permitted non-shielded outdoor lighting.” The drafting suggests the intent of this section is to allow non-shielded low voltage outdoor lights so long as the luminaire is less than or equal to 420 lumens. Section 18.250(f)(1) also states that low density outdoor residential lights are subject both to that constraint and all others. Section 18.40.250(e)(1)(B) states that all lights must be fully shielded unless it is low voltage up-lights with no more than 150 lumen. This presents a conflict that must be resolved. In the context of this ordinance, the 420 lumens output is most appropriate limit.
Exemptions for front porch. The draft ordinance 18.40.250(d) provides a list of exemptions, including for illuminated street numbers. This exemption presumably recognizes the legitimate public safety need for first responders to locate a property in the event of an emergency. I would contend that providing safety lighting at a property’s front door is a similar legitimate public safety need. Lighting at a home’s primary ingress and egress is of importance to guests, first responders, and others. For most properties, it is impractical to install motion sensors on a front porch. Given this ordinance is being applied to an urban center, lighting the front porch should be exempted, at least with regard to curfew.
Outdoor security light output. The outdoor security lighting output proposed in
18.40.250(f)(2)(D) is limited to 1,600 lumens. First, this is grossly inadequate for security light output over large areas. The result would force homeowners to install multiple security lights, which is both expensive and likely to be worse for light pollution (not to mention potentially more false positives). Instead, this section for outdoor security lights should be limited only to lux light trespass only as already provided in 18.40.250(f)(2)(C). Therefore, sub-paragraph (D) should be removed. It is worth nothing this change would greatly aid Edgewood residents with a legitimate safety need.
Outdoor security light programmability. The draft code 18.40.250(f)(2)(A) requires outdoor lights to be “fully programmable.” It is entirely unclear from the code, common knowledge, or from consulting experts as to what “fully programmable” means with respect to an outdoor security light. This statement should be removed.
- 4 -
Outdoor kitchen lighting. The draft code 18.40.250(e)(3)(A) requires all outdoor lights to be 2,700K or less. Lighting professionals routinely recommend 3,000K for kitchens for safety. As with others, my brand new construction followed the lighting professionals’ recommendation and installed 3,000K luminaires in down lights at the outdoor kitchen (with all other outdoor lights of 2,700K). To promote safety, and in consideration that these are not decorative lights but instead task lights for preparing food, it would be reasonable to allow 3,000K luminaires in such down lights when they illuminate an outdoor kitchen.
Control light sensor. The draft code 18.40.250(e)(4)(C) requires lighting control systems to have a light sensor. As noted elsewhere, I recently built a new home. The residence includes a whole-house lighting control system from a well-known manufacturer. The professional lighting designers hired for the project all systematically recommended against a light sensor on the roof for the whole house system given their poor sensitivity and likelihood of failure. They instead all universally recommended time-based automation. In fact, the most common light sensor from the manufacturer used was discontinued years ago because they are so infrequently installed in today’s lighting control systems. The draft code already provides for time-based extinguishing of lights. Therefore, the only practical purpose of this provision is with regard to when lights are allowed to turn on. I therefore recommend adding a time-based alternative to a light sensor.
Again, as a practical example, it will cost me approximately $25,000 to add a light sensor to the lighting control system (if I am unable to find the discontinued part, otherwise the cost will likely be over $1m to replace the entire lighting system), whereas it is a simple program change to set the lights to not come on until after a specific time of morning.
As noted at the start, I strongly oppose the current ordinance requested by the City Council. I am even more concerned about the cumulative impact of these ordinances: lighting update, bird design standard, and stream protection. Taken together, they effectively condemn my new home as unlivable while incurring massive costs.
The foregoing analysis offers several areas where this specific proposed lighting code update could be made substantially less burdensome without materially impacting the stated objectives.
Sincerely,
Tom Fountain
1441 Edgewood Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94301
May 4, 2025
Kelly Cha
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Outdoor Lighting Update (“Dark Sky”)
Dear Ms. Cha:
I am writing as a follow-up to my letter of April 26, 2025 regarding the City of Palo Alto’s (the “City”) proposed lighting update. As shared previously, I strongly oppose the proposed ordinance and was deeply disturbed by the direction of the City Council on April 7, 2025.
I spent my weekend attempting to apply the proposed ordinance to each of the outdoor luminaires and lamps on my property. As Staff prepares a new draft ordinance responsive to the City Council’s motion, I ask Staff to consider the following recommendations in addition to those shared previously:
Measuring light output and promoting hex filters. The draft ordinance currently expresses lamp output limits in lumen. As noted in my prior letter, once extended to existing lamps, it is vital to instead measure the foot-candles (or lux) at the property border or express these limits as the maximum measured output in foot-candles at a specific distance. I also noted previously the importance of allowing field measurements to encourage dimming. This would significantly reduce the cost to property owners since existing lamping is often dimmable.
With or without either of these improvements to the draft code, please also consider allowing lighting designers to account for hexagonal cell louver filters (sometimes called “honeycomb” filters). Such filters significantly reduce glare and typically reduced effective light output by 20- 25% even though, by definition, the lamp’s lumen output is unchanged. Limiting output to a measured foot-candle value would account for filters without further change. If limits remain only in the lamp’s manufacturer-specified lumen, consider instead limiting output to the product of the lamp’s lumen times the effective light output if filtered. Alternatively, the lumen could be expressed both with and without a filter. For example, the low-voltage lighting might be limited to 150 lumen without a filter and 200 lumen when a hexagonal cell louver filter is installed. As a result, some property owners could install filters in existing luminaires and lamps rather than having to replace the entire luminaire and/or lamp. Taking hex filters into account would reduce the cost to comply with this proposed ordinance while simultaneously reducing glare and better achieving the stated objectives of the ordinance.
Clarify low-voltage shield exception in 18.40.250(e)(1)(B)(i). The draft ordinance section
18.40.250(e)(1)(B)(i) is intended to provide an exception for unshielded low-voltage lighting.
The current draft states this exception applies only to “low voltage landscape uplighting” (underlined for emphasis). Limiting this exception to only “uplighting” is confusing and - 2 -
unnecessary. Presumably “uplighting” means anything that is not “Fully Shielded” but that is ambiguous from the context. Moreover, lighting designers should be encouraged, not discouraged, from using low voltage downlights even if they fail to fully satisfy the “Fully Shielded” definition. Consider as an example the FX Luminaire LED Wall Light (hƩps://www.fxl.com/product/wall-and-step-lights/designer/mo). Only one faceplate, the one identified as WW, qualifies as “Fully Shielded,” none would be easily identifiable as “uplighting,” yet all should be in the scope intended by the low-voltage shield exception.
Striking the word “uplighting” resolves this drafting issue.
Correct fully shielded security lighting in 18.40.250(f)(2)(B). The draft ordinance
18.40.250(f)(2) is intended to allow outdoor security lighting that meets certain standards.
Section 18.40.250(f)(2)(B) establishes a height standard. The statement also requires that luminaire be “fully shielded”. Based on the definition of “Fully Shielded” provided in this draft ordinance, effectively no security light could comply. Compliance would require the light be installed such that lamps point straight down. Any projection “forward” of the luminaire would result in the lamp breaking the required plane extending from the bottom of said lamp. The requirement that these lights be “fully shielded” should be removed from this ordinance. If the intent of this phrase is to encourage security lights be aimed in a downward direction, then it should say so rather than reference “fully shielded” which has a specific definition.
Address security perimeter lighting in 18.40.250(f)(2)(C). City Council directed Staff to replace all references to 0.5 foot-candle of spillover with 0.1 foot-candle of spillover. This change, even if applied elsewhere, should not be applied to this section. A limitation of 0.1 foot- candle effectively eliminates the use of security lighting near a fence. Even if aimed down, reflected light off other surfaces will exceed this threshold. It is untenable to have security lighting so limited where it is needed to illuminate an area near a fence.
Correct typo shielding exception in 18.40.250(e)(1)(iii). Section 18.40.250(e)(1)(iii) provides an exemption for string lights and erroneously refers to 18.40.250(f)(5). It should instead refer to
18.40.250(f)(6).
Thank you for your continued work to craft an ordinance that does not create such negative impact to city residents.
Sincerely,
Tom Fountain