HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2512-5628CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, April 06, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
15.Adoption of Recommendations by the Policy & Services Committee Implementing
Changes to Meeting Procedures Related to Teleconferencing, Remote Public
Participation, Translation and Interpretation Assistance, and Expanded Public Outreach;
CEQA Status – Not a Project. Staff Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Clerk
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2512-5628
TITLE
Adoption of Recommendations by the Policy & Services Committee Implementing Changes to
Meeting Procedures Related to Teleconferencing, Remote Public Participation, Translation and
Interpretation Assistance, and Expanded Public Outreach; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy & Services Committee recommends the City Council:
1. Decline the use of expanded alternative teleconferencing for Boards, Commissions, and
Committees (BCCs),
2. Receive an update on changes to remote public participation and provide direction on the
format for general public comment for City Council and Council Committee meetings,
3. Approve the Two-Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy (Attachment A),
4. Approve the following practices as reasonable assistance for third party translation and
interpretation services, and
a. Arrange a space for interpreters at the meeting location, upon written request to
the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting,
b. Provide public speakers using interpretation extra time. Staff recommends
providing twice as much time for individuals using interpretation, or an amount of
time determined by the presiding officer,
c. Allow the public to use their own devices to access translation or interpretation
devices, and
d. Loan city devices to the public to access translation or interpretation services upon
written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting.
5. Direct the City Clerk to implement the following outreach practices
a. Share information about agenda notification newsletters with community groups
and organizations such as neighborhood associations, non-English news media,
service organizations,
b. Post informational resources in the King’s Plaza and Council Chambers posting
board and other public-facing City facilities with QR codes linking to the Agendas
webpage, newsletter sign-up page, meeting participation guide, and translation services
webpage, and
c. Translate the Meeting Participation Guide1 into the two most commonly spoken
non-English languages as reported by the American Community Survey.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2025, the California State Legislature adopted SB 707, which amended the Brown Act to
modernize remote participation and expand public access to meetings. This report provides an
overview of SB 707 requirements, identifies areas where the City is already compliant, and
outlines recommended policy and operational updates where changes are required.
The Policy & Services Committee (P&S) unanimously recommended not authorizing expanded
alternative teleconferencing for BCCs, while supporting staff recommendations related to
translation, outreach, and related provisions.2 Because SB 707 requires 3this report is not
agendized on consent .
The primary policy considerations before the City Council include whether to authorize expanded
alternative teleconferencing for BCCs, how to implement remote public comment requirements,
and adoption of policies and practices related to meeting disruptions, translation, and outreach.
BACKGROUND
The enactment of SB 707 brought notable changes to the Brown Act, the law that ensures public
access and participation in local legislative body meetings. The bill is intended to modernize
public meetings in light of newer technology and expand public participation and engagement.
The updates concern expanded BCC teleconferencing, remote public participation, third-party
translation assistance, and public outreach. Certain provisions only affect the City Council’s
meetings, while others apply to all Brown Act bodies. Some requirements went into effect on
January 1, 2026, but others are not operative until July 1, 2026 to give agencies time to plan
implementation.
The table below summarizes SB 707’s key updates and P&S’s implementation recommendations.
1 City of Palo Alto Meeting Participation Guide: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/city-
charterprocedures/2025-meeting-participation-guide.pdf
2 Policy & Services Committee, February 10, 2026 Action Minutes:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=85416&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
Topic Summary
Applicable
Meeting
Bodies
Effective
Date
BCC Expanded
Alternative
Teleconferencing
Council could authorize BCCs to meet fully virtually
for up to six months at a time. The P&S Committee
did not recommend authorizing this form of
teleconferencing.
BCCs 1/1/26
Remote Public
Participation and
Public Comment
SB 707 requires the City Council provide a two-way
audiovisual or telephonic platform. The City’s use
of Zoom for City Council, Council Committees, and
BCCs exceeds this requirement. The City Council
must update its practices to allow for remote
general public comment by 7/1/26. Staff
recommends allowing remote general public
comment for Council Committees to maintain
consistency across meeting bodies. P&S directed
staff to evaluate dividing general public comment
into two sections. In-person comments will be
heard at the beginning of the meeting and remote
comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.
City
Council
7/1/26
Disruption of
Remote Public
Access Policy
The City Council must recess and attempt to
restore remote access if Zoom is disrupted during
a meeting. The City Council must adopt a
disruption policy describing these procedures by
7/1/26. P&S recommended adoption of the policy
(Attachment A).
City
Council
7/1/26
Third-Party
Translation and
Interpretation
Assistance
SB 707 requires the City Council to provide
reasonable assistance to individuals receiving
third-party translation and/or interpretation at
meetings. It does not require the City to provide
translation and/or interpretation services. P&S
recommended arranging space for interpretation
to occur, allotting extra public comment time for
individuals using interpretation, allowing
individuals to use their own devices for
interpretation and loaning City devices for
translation upon advance request.
City
Council
7/1/26
Outreach Efforts SB 707 requires cities to make reasonable efforts
to encourage participation from groups that
traditionally do not engage in public meetings.
P&S recommends continuing existing outreach
practices and enhancing transparency and
accessibility by clarifying how community
City
Council
7/1/26
members may request language assistance and
participate remotely, consistent with SB 707’s
intent to broaden civic engagement.
ANALYSIS
The following section details Brown Act changes brought by SB 707 that will affect the City and
staff’s recommended implementations. The City’s current practices already satisfy or surpass
some of SB 707’s requirements (detailed in Attachment B), but others will require a change in
practice or policy.
Expanded Alternative Teleconferencing for Eligible Subsidiary Bodies (effective January 1, 2026)
Following COVID-19, the State Legislature amended the Brown Act to allow members of
legislative bodies to participate in meetings remotely under specific circumstances (i.e. “just
cause” or “emergency circumstances”) with fewer noticing requirements than traditional Brown
Act teleconferencing. This form of teleconferencing, which does not require remote attendance
locations to be published on the agenda or accessible to the public, is referred to as alternative
teleconferencing. The City Council incorporated SB 707’s changes, detailed in Attachment B, to
alternative teleconferencing in its most recent Procedures and Protocol Handbook update.7
SB 707 allows the City Council to authorize an additional form of remote participation, called
expanded alternative teleconferencing, for eligible subsidiary bodies, a category that includes the
City’s BCCs. Commissioners are permitted to use alternative teleconferencing regardless of the
City Council’s decision regarding expanded alternative teleconferencing. Council Committees are
not eligible because SB 707 does not permit Councilmembers to use expanded alternative
teleconferencing. Expanded alternative teleconferencing would allow BCC members to attend
remotely without opening their location to the public and without just cause, subject to the
minimum requirements listed below. Unlike alternative teleconferencing, expanded alternative
teleconferencing does not require a quorum to attend from a singular physical location and
therefore could allow a fully virtual meeting. This provision is optional and requires affirmative
Council action to implement.
The City Council may authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing for up to six months and
every six months thereafter. To authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing, the City Council
must take formal action approving the expanded use of alternative teleconferencing for a period
of up to six months, and include findings that Council has:
Considered the circumstances of the subsidiary body,
Determined that teleconferencing would enhance public access,
Ensured publication of remote and physical access and comment options, and
7 City Council, February 9, 2025, Agenda Item #12; Staff Report # 2601-5874
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=85860
Determined that teleconferencing would promote attraction, retention, and diversity of
eligible board or commission members.
Meetings held via expanded alternative teleconferencing must meet the requirements below.
The City Council may impose additional requirements but may not remove requirements.
The subsidiary body must provide a staffed physical meeting location where the agenda
is posted and members of the body or public may attend and participate in-person,
Elected officials may not use this section to appear remotely, and
Remote members must appear visibly on camera, with limited exceptions.
While expanded alternative teleconferencing may improve flexibility and accessibility for BCC
members, staff notes that in-person meetings provide important benefits that support the City’s
public engagement goals. Face-to-face meetings facilitate stronger communication between
Commissioners, staff, and community members, promote relationship-building, and allow for
more dynamic public dialogue.
Further, a significant expansion of alternative teleconferencing presents compliance and
administrative challenges. The City has eight BCCs addressing diverse subject areas ranging from
stormwater management to arts and culture. These bodies are supported by staff from multiple
departments, many of whom support BCC meetings infrequently. The Brown Act’s
teleconferencing requirements are complex, and expanded alternative teleconferencing adds
additional procedural obligations that increase the risk of inadvertent non-compliance.
The P&S Committee did not recommend authorizing expanded alternative teleconferencing for
BCCs. If the City Council wishes to authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing, staff
recommends that it be implemented thoughtfully and incrementally, with clear, administrable
rules and defined evaluation criteria. Staff suggests beginning with a modest pilot approach. For
example, Council could authorize one specific Board or Commission to conduct a limited number
of fully virtual meetings within a six-month period, allowing staff and the body to evaluate
impacts on public participation, meeting quality, and administrative workload before considering
broader implementation. Implementation of expanded teleconferencing may require additional
staff training and coordination across departments, particularly for BCCs supported by
decentralized staff.
Remote Public Participation and Public Comment (effective July 1, 2026)
SB 707 mandates City Council meetings include an option for remote public participation and
accept remote public comment via a two-way telephonic or audiovisual platform. Palo Alto
already uses Zoom for its City Council, Council Committee and BCC meetings, which surpasses
the new requirements. However, the City Council will have to adjust its general public comment
practices. The City Council currently accepts general public comment for non-agendized items
only in-person and accepts public comment on agendized items in-person and remotely. The City
Council must allow remote general public comment beginning on July 1, 2026. This requirement
does not apply to BCCs or Council Committees. Although not mandated by SB 707, staff
recommends also accepting remote general public comment at Council Committee meetings to
maintain consistency across City Council meeting bodies. Staff will communicate the change to
the public prior to the effective date and update agenda materials and internal practices to
comply with this provision.
Policy on Disruption of Remote Public Access (effective July 1, 2026)
If a disruption prevents public participation through Zoom, City Council shall recess open
session for at least one hour and attempt in good faith to restore service or adjourn the
meeting,
City Council may meet in an agendized closed session during the recess,
Open session may not reconvene until at least one hour has passed or service is
restored, whichever comes first, and
If service is not restored, City Council may resume after adopting, by roll call vote, a
finding that good faith efforts were made to restore service and that the public interest
in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access.
Staff from the City Clerk, City Attorney, and IT departments collaborated on the attached draft
policy (Attachment A). The draft policy details the good faith efforts staff shall make to restore
service, which may include:
Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software,
Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment,
Attempting alternative connection methods,
Contacting necessary support staff or service providers, and/or
Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available.
The Policy & Services Committee recommended the City Council approve the attached
disruption policy.
Third-Party Translation and Interpretation Assistance (effective July 1, 2026)
As revised, the Brown Act requires the City Council to reasonably assist community members
providing or receiving translation and interpretation services from third parties at City Council
meetings. These requirements do not apply to Council Committees or BCCs. While SB 707
requires some jurisdictions to translate their agendas, agenda translation is not required in Palo
Alto at this time.
The City must make available to the public a physical posting space where members of the public
may post their own translations of the City Council’s agendas. The City will provide notice that
these translations are provided by third parties, and that the City cannot verify the content or
accuracy of publicly provided agenda translations. Staff recommends authorizing the City Clerk
to designate an appropriate posting board for this purpose. Staff currently recommends making
the King Plaza posting board available for translated agendas and will post instructions and
guidelines for how the public may utilize the space.
Arrange a space for interpreters at the meeting location, upon written request to the City
Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting,
Provide public commenters using interpretation extra time. Staff recommends providing
twice as much public comment time for individuals using interpreters, or an amount of
time determined by the presiding officer,
Allow the public to use their own devices to access translation or interpretation services,
and
Loan City devices to the public to access translation or interpretation services upon
request. Requests for City devices must be made in writing to the City Clerk at least 24
hours before the meeting. Information on borrowing City devices may be found on the
City Clerk’s Translation Services webpage9.
Outreach to Underrepresented Groups (effective July 1, 2026)
10” SB 707 provides examples of
such groups, including media organizations, civil rights groups, and neighborhood organizations,
including those that serve non-English-speaking communities.
Publishes City Council agenda and agenda packet 11 days before meeting, rather than the
minimum required 72 hours for regular meetings and 24 hours for special meetings,
9 City of Palo Alto Translation Services: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting-
Groups/Translation-Services
10 California Gov. Code Section 54953.4:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=54953.4.
Provides physical agenda packets for public review at Mitchell Park and Rinconada
libraries, in addition to posting agendas in King’s Plaza (accessible 24/7) and in Council
Chambers,
Displays prominent link on city homepage to webpage with meeting schedule and agenda
materials,
Distributes a weekly newsletter of published agendas and meetings sent to over 1,500
people and prominently displays newsletter sign-up link on agenda website,
Maintains a City website explaining the format of public meetings and how the public may
participate,
Publishes all City Council and Council Committee agendas, rather than only special
meetings, in Palo Alto Weekly and Daily Post,
Enables automatic translation of the City website into Spanish or simplified Chinese,
Enables automatic translation of HTML agendas for all meeting bodies into over 200
languages,
Offers free access to Wordly, a real-time audio and text translation service supporting
over 50 languages, upon written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the
meeting. The public may use own device or borrow a City device to receive verbal and/or
written interpretation. Instructions for requesting and using Wordly service are available
on the City Clerk’s website, and
Livestreams public meetings on YouTube and broadcasts on local cable television.
Given the priorities of SB 707, staff recommends continuing the above efforts, taking the
following additional actions, and continually updating and improving practices based on
effectiveness:
Share information about agenda notification newsletters with community groups and
organizations such as neighborhood associations, non-English news media, service
organizations,
Post informational resources in the King’s Plaza and Council Chambers posting board and
other public-facing City facilities with QR codes linking to the Agendas webpage,
newsletter sign-up page, meeting participation guide, and translation services webpage,
and
Translate the Meeting Participation Guide13 into the two commonly spoken non-English
languages as reported by the American Community Survey.
These efforts are consistent with the City’s broader goals of transparency, accessibility, and
inclusive civic engagement.
13 City of Palo Alto Meeting Participation Guide: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/city-
charterprocedures/2025-meeting-participation-guide.pdf
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Policy: Disruption of Two-Way Remote Public Access Service
1. Purpose
This policy establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the telephonic or internet services that provide
two-way remote public access to meetings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, as required by the Brown
Act (Gov. Code § 54953.4). If state law is subsequently amended, the amended terms of state law will apply.
2. Definitions
For purposes of this policy:
“Disruption” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from
attending or observing the meeting via a two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform.
“Remote access services” means the two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform
used to provide real-time remote public attendance and participation in meetings. Services that allow
remote observation but not participation of meetings, such as a television broadcast or livestream, are
not included.
3. Applicability
This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto at which remote
public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act.
4. Procedures in the Event of a Service Disruption
4.1. Response to Service Disruption
If the Presiding Officer or Clerk becomes aware of a disruption to the agency’s remote access services that
prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely:
1. The Presiding Officer or Clerk shall immediately announce the disruption to the public.
2. The Presiding Officer may then call for a recess of the open session or convene the legislative body in
an agendized closed session. The Presiding Officer will make the following, or a substantially similar,
announcement:
“The City is experiencing a disruption of its remote access service that prevents remote public
participation. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council will recess the meeting for at least
one hour or until services are restored, whichever comes sooner. If service is not restored after one
hour, the City Council may either vote that the public interest in continuing the public meeting
outweighs the public interest in remote access and reconvene or adjourn the meeting.”
3. Staff shall begin efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.
4. The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is
sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing.
4.2. Efforts to Restore Service
The agency shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:
Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software
Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment
Attempting alternative connection methods
Contacting necessary support staff or service providers
Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available
5. Reconvening the Open Session
5.1. Timing
The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as
soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.
5.2. If Service Is Restored
If the remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall
continue as normal.
5.3. If Service Is Not Restored
If service has not been restored after one hour, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto may reconvene and:
1. Adjourn the meeting; or
2. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting, by roll call vote, the following, or a substantially
similar, finding:
“The City of Palo Alto has made good faith efforts to restore remote access services in accordance
with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest
in remote public access.”
Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may continue the open session.
6. Recordkeeping
The Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including the following:
The nature and time of the disruption
That good faith efforts to restore service were made in accordance The time the meeting was reconvened
(if applicable)
Any finding adopted pursuant to Section 6.3
7. Review and Updates
This policy may be amended by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto at a noticed public meeting in open session,
not on the consent calendar.
1
0
4
2
4
City Practices Already in Alignment with SB 707
This attachment describes SB 707 requirements that are satisfied by current City practices and by recent
updates and do not need additional implementation.
Alternative Teleconferencing (effective January 1, 2026)
Before 2020, the Brown Act only permitted members of Brown Act bodies to attend meetings remotely if
the member published their remote address on the agenda, allowed public access at their remote
location, and posted the agenda at their remote location, among other requirements. This open location
form of remote attendance is referred to as “standard teleconferencing.” SB 707 does not change this
form of teleconferencing.
During the Covid-19 state of emergency, the Brown Act permitted members to attend meetings remotely
without opening their location to the public if they complied with another set of requirements. After the
state of emergency ended, the legislature continued to experiment with narrow reasons (i.e. “just cause”
or “emergency circumstances”) that a member could attend remotely without publishing the remote
meeting location or making the location open to the public. This is referred to as “alternative
teleconferencing” and was established by AB 2449 (2021-2022). Other rules apply to alternative
teleconferencing, such as the requirement to participate by video throughout the meeting.
SB 707 extends and revises the alternative teleconferencing provisions of AB 2449. Some notable changes
include:
Extends expiration date to 2030,
Removes the procedural differences between attending remotely due to “just cause” or
“emergency circumstances,”
Expands “just cause” to include certain military service obligations,
Modifies the annual limit on attendance by alternative teleconference based on the body’s
frequency of regular meetings, and
Requires meeting minutes to identify specific provision a member relies on to participate
remotely.
The City Council adopted the updated provisions as part of its most recent Procedures & Protocols
Handbook update.
Brown Act Distribution (effective January 1, 2026)
SB 707 converts a previously optional authority into a mandate. Cities are now required to provide the
Brown Act to elected and appointed members of legislative bodies, including City Council and BCCs. The
City Clerk’s Office provides the Brown Act as part of the reference materials given to all new
1 February 9, 2026 City Council Action Minutes:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=86544&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
1
0
4
2
4
commissioners during their orientation and will incorporate this mandate into new Councilmember
onboarding practices.
Remote Member Participation as an Accommodation (effective January 1, 2026)
A member of any legislative body may now participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a
disability. The member’s participation counts as in-person for quorum purposes. Members using this form
of teleconference must:
Disclose the presence of anyone over the age of 18 with them and their relationship to that
person, and
Use audio and visual technology, unless a physical condition related to their disability results in a
need to participate only through audio.
City Clerk staff will coordinate on an as-needed basis with members using this form of teleconference.
Remote Public Attendance
SB 707 requires certain legislative bodies to offer a remote public participation option. In Palo Alto, the
City Council is the only legislative body required to provide a remote option. Existing City Clerk practice
surpasses this requirement. Palo Alto currently uses Zoom to host meetings and take comments on
agendized items at all City Council, Council Committees, and BCC meetings. The City also livestreams
meetings to YouTube and broadcasts to local cable television as additional viewing options for the public.
Website Requirements (effective July 1, 2026)
SB 707 requires a city’s homepage to include a prominent link to a public meeting webpage. The webpage
must include or link to:
a general explanation of the public meeting process,
an explanation of how to provide in-person or remote verbal or written public comment,
a calendar of all public meetings with the times, dates, and locations, and
a link to posted agendas.
A link to the City’s Meeting Agendas and Minutes page3 is prominently displayed on Palo Alto’s homepage
and complies with these requirements. In addition to the Agendas page, the City Clerk’s Office also
maintains a Resources for Meeting Attendance4 webpage. This page includes information about City
Council meeting structure, public comment procedures, FAQs, City Council and BCC meeting frequencies,
and resources for remote attendance.
The City Clerk’s Office’s online newsletter meets new requirements regarding electronic meeting agenda
distribution. A city must now provide a system to electronically accept and fulfill requests for meeting
agendas and display a sign-up link on the City Council’s homepage. The City Clerk’s Office sends a weekly
3 City of Palo Alto Meeting Agendas and Minutes: https://PaloAlto.gov/CouncilAgendas
4 City of Palo Alto Resources for Public Meetings: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting-
Groups/Resources-for-Meeting-Attendance
1
0
4
2
4
newsletter with information about City Council and Council Committee meetings and events, including
direct links to all published agendas and notifications of amended or supplemental materials. The
newsletter is currently distributed to over 1,500 individuals, and the public may sign up online via a
prominent link on the Meeting Agendas and Minutes page.
Implementation of Brown Act Changes
April 6, 2026 Paloalto.gov
Presenters:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Background
1
•SB 707 amends the Brown Act to modernize remote participation and expand public
access.
•P&S unanimously recommended implementation strategies. This report is not agendized
on consent per standard practice because certain provisions cannot be approved on the
consent calendar.
Staff is seeking Council direction on:
1
1.Expanded teleconferencing for Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs),
•P&S recommendation: Do not authorize this form of teleconferencing
2.Remote general public comment structure for City Council and Council Committee
meetings,
•P&S recommendation: Explore dividing general public comment into an in-person
portion at the start of the meeting and a remote portion at the end of the meeting
3.Two-Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy (Attachment A),
•P&S recommendation: Adopt policy describing procedures (Attachment A)
Staff is seeking Council direction on (con’t):
1
4.Third-Party Translation/Interpretation Assistance, and
•P&S recommendation:
•Make posting space in King’s Plaza and Council Chambers available for publicly-
translated agendas
•Arrange space for translation to occur upon request
•Provide additional public comment time for translation
•Allow use of personal devices for translation services
•Loan City devices for translation services upon request
Staff is seeking Council direction on (con’t):
1
5.Expanded Outreach
•P&S recommendation:
•Continue current engagement practices
•Post meeting resources at agenda posting boards and other public-facing City
locations
•Translate certain existing informational resources into Spanish and Chinese
•Share newsletter information with community groups and organizations
Mahealani Ah Yun
City Clerk
Mahealani.Ahyun@paloalto.gov
650-329-2571
From:Scott O"Neil
To:Council, City
Subject:April 6, Action 15: Meeting Procedures
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 11:22:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am writing on the topic of the changes to meeting procedures being considered on April 6.
First, a note on geography. While Palo Alto is a uniformly rich city, it does have a noticeable
wealth gradient. City Hall is located near the far North end of the city, surrounded by the
most expensive land and the wealthiest families, including some actual billionaires.
Meanwhile, the city is most aggressively planning for more economically diverse multifamily
development at the far South end the city.
You rarely see me in chambers, because I live on the southernmost fringe of the city. My
household has one car, which is mostly reserved for my wife's use. On those occasions when
you have seen me in chambers, I have generally rode my bike uptown to be there. If I lived
where Mark Zuckerberg lives, you would see much more of me. I live in multifamily housing. I
live where the city is considering planning for residential highrises.
As you are considering dumping public comment from me -and people like me- for items not
on the agenda to the very end of the meeting, when everyone has left and many
Councilmembers are sure to be sleepily scrolling on their phones, I ask you to keep all of that
in mind. I'm not going to pretend I used that public comment window much when it was
available to me, but I wouldn't consider reopening it at the end of the meeting to be
reopening it at all.
I am aware of the hate bombing problem, and I am sympathetic to it. If it were not for the
geography, I would see no tension between what I hope are shared values and the action
contemplated.
Which is to say that it seems to me that this issue reveals our built environment to itself be a
moral problem. How strange it is that Palo Alto has a centrally located downtown, and yet
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
were it so inclined. I'm not going to pretend City Hall would be moved over one this issue.
But if we're considering how a city should be laid out that reflects our values, and
contemplating what sorts of investments we might need to make in the coming decades --
doesn't this seem like something we should be looking for an opportunity to fix?
-Scott O'Neil