Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-24 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 30 Special Meeting August 24, 2026 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 Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order. The clerk called the roll and declared all Councilmembers present in chambers. Special Orders of the Day 1. Review Applications and Select Candidates to Interview for Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board (HRB); CEQA Status – Not a Project Deputy City Clerk Nicole Bissell summarized the extended HRB recruitment for 3 full-term vacancies expiring March 31, 2029. Recruitment opened January 13 and closed February 18 with 3 applications. Following Council direction to extend recruitment, the City Clerk’s Office continued outreach and advertising. One applicant withdrew and 1 new application was received, leaving 3 candidates. Under Council’s interview selection process, all candidates are interviewed when there are 6 or fewer applicants. Interviews and appointments are tentatively scheduled for September 9 and September 14, respectively. Council could authorize a different interview process or continue recruitment, although further extension could jeopardize an HRB quorum. Mayor Veenker thanked the City Clerk’s Office and HRB applicants and noted that no motion was required to advance the applicants. With no Council objections, Mayor Veenker directed staff to schedule interviews for all 3 candidates, tentatively for September 9. NO ACTION Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada reported that Item 5 was removed from the Consent Calendar and would return at a later date. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 In-Person Public Comment 1. Herb B. expressed concern that Palo Alto Unified School District discussion and news coverage of a proposed immigration enforcement facility in Gilroy diverted attention from the District’s budget issues and suggested Stanford Stadium as a possible alternative location for the facility. 2. Raymond G., speaking on behalf of Matt S., Kat S., Robin S., George K., Peter B., Diane R., and Mark L-G., discussed historical inequities in American democracy and emphasized the importance of representation for ordinary and working-class residents. The commenter expressed concern about Palo Alto’s affordability and the potential loss of Black representation on the City Council and advocated for affordable housing that provides meaningful access to stability for people who work in the community. The commenter stated that local government should represent people regardless of wealth and noted his candidacy for City Council. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Burt requested an update at the upcoming Council meeting regarding concerns raised in a letter about operations at the Homekey project and whether those issues were significant. Mayor Veenker thanked residents, guests, City staff, PAUSD technical staff, and special guest and Olympic champion Lily Zhang for contributing to the State of the City event. Study Session 2. Semi-Annual City Council Discussion with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) City Manager Ed Shikada introduced the semi-annual discussion with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), including criminal justice and policing trends, policies, training, recent OIR recommendations, and a proposed scope of review for an audit of automated license plate readers (ALPRs). Stephen Connolly, OIR Group, reviewed OIR’s role as the City’s Independent Police Auditor, which has evolved since the relationship began in 2007. OIR audits completed PAPD internal investigations rather than conducting independent investigations. OIR reviews the underlying evidence and the Department’s analysis to assess whether investigations are complete, thorough, and objective and makes recommendations regarding policies, protocols, and practices based on identified issues and policing best practices. Semi-annual public reports provide detailed information regarding reviewed incidents, outcomes, and recommendations as part of the City’s police oversight and transparency process. Mr. Connolly presented OIR’s review for the second half of 2025, which included 4 officer misconduct investigations, 5 incidents of use of force, and 4 firearm-pointing incidents. Two SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 misconduct cases resulted in sustained findings that officers had violated 1 or more policies, while the remaining complaints were determined to be unfounded. OIR found PAPD’s investigations objective and thorough and noted continued improvement in the Department’s holistic review of incidents to identify opportunities for officers to improve or adjust their practices beyond determining whether conduct complied with policy. OIR reviews uses of force resulting in medical attention beyond clearance in the field, a responsibility added to its scope in 2021. Three of the 5 reviewed incidents involved relatively minor injuries. One involved a broken arm resulting from what Mr. Connolly characterized as a standard and relatively minor use of force. Another involved a significant canine bite requiring hospitalization. PAPD determined that all 5 uses of force complied with policy. OIR agreed with those findings but had reservations regarding aspects of the incidents that resulted in recommendations to the Department. Mr. Connolly noted that PAPD was responsive to those recommendations. OIR additionally reviews all incidents in which officers point firearms. Officers are required to document and justify firearm pointing, which is subject to Department review. Mr. Connolly identified timely body-worn camera activation as a continuing concern and noted that PAPD has emphasized the issue and obtained new equipment intended to reduce inadvertent activation failures. OIR will continue monitoring the issue. Michael Gennaco, OIR Group, highlighted 4 major recommendations from the current reporting cycle, including issues related to canine deployments, body-worn camera activation, and more robust, fair, and objective intake interviews by supervisors. Mr. Gennaco noted that no canine bites had occurred in recent months and expressed hope that body-worn camera equipment upgrades would improve activation compliance. Transitioning to the proposed ALPR audit, Mr. Gennaco stated that OIR had developed potential areas of inquiry to define the audit and expanded its resources for the review. Mr. Gennaco introduced OIR team member Teresa Magula, who has experience identifying ALPR-related issues and conducting ALPR system audits throughout California. Teresa Magula, OIR Group, discussed OIR’s experience auditing ALPR systems and emphasized strong internal governance as an essential component of their use. OIR recently audited Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties, which access ALPR data but do not operate their own cameras. Those audits examined governance of data use and access and compliance with state laws governing ALPR use and data sharing. OIR provided model best-practice policies addressing restrictions on sharing data with federal agencies or agencies outside California and preventing use of ALPR data for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care, or individuals seeking medical care. Ms. Magula stated that OIR’s recent audit of Pasadena was more applicable to Palo Alto because Pasadena owns and operates ALPR cameras from Motorola and Flock. OIR examined whether Pasadena’s internal auditing effectively identified data access and sharing within the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 agency and with external California partners and detected uses potentially inconsistent with state law. The audit additionally evaluated camera placement to determine whether cameras disproportionately affected communities with higher populations of people of color, reflected an intent to overpolice or oversurveil those communities, or were supported by operational law enforcement purposes. OIR is working with Pasadena as the City revises its ALPR policy and establishes appropriate safeguards. Ms. Magula explained that OIR audits provide an independent assessment of ALPR system functions, the data produced and stored, retention periods, access to data, internal and vendor controls, the effectiveness of those controls, and the need for additional safeguards. OIR’s audit scope continues to evolve through its work with other jurisdictions and Council input was welcomed in developing the scope of Palo Alto’s audit. Mr. Gennaco discussed growing national and statewide concerns regarding ALPR technology, particularly California restrictions on sharing information for immigration enforcement and concerns regarding access to reproductive care. The central issue was identified as whether the technology’s potential law enforcement benefits outweigh concerns regarding increased surveillance, inappropriate data sharing, and the adequacy of vendor and internal controls governing collection and use of data. OIR’s audit would examine the history of Palo Alto’s ALPR program, including how inappropriate data sharing occurred and why residents were unaware of it. The audit would assess whether sufficient trust could be placed in the vendor and whether internal and vendor controls could prevent recurrence of past problems. Mr. Gennaco welcomed Council’s involvement in developing a flexible scope of work to ensure the audit addresses Council’s specific concerns. Mayor Veenker thanked the OIR team and noted that Palo Alto is 1 of only 2 cities in the County with an IPA reporting to Council twice annually on police officer conduct. Mayor Veenker clarified that the ALPR discussion was agendized as a Study Session to allow Council to provide input on the audit scope, not to make final decisions regarding continued use of ALPRs or the Flock system. Mayor Veenker stated that the audit was intended to provide information necessary for those future decisions and invited Council clarifying questions. Councilmember Burt found the proposed audit scope comprehensive and emphasized the importance of evaluating vendor governance, platform changes, and how effectively the vendor has addressed prior concerns. Councilmember Burt asked whether the audit would quantitatively assess the ALPR program’s contribution to investigative outcomes. Ms. Magula confirmed that PAPD was compiling quantitative data that would be provided to the IPA. In response to additional questions, Ms. Magula stated that the IPA could examine alternative ALPR vendors, programs used by other agencies, and their approaches, although the IPA would have more limited ability to identify different technological solutions serving the same use case. Councilmember Lauing asked how the audit would account for human factors, including individual officers accessing or releasing data contrary to an MOU or applicable law. Ms. Magula explained that the IPA would evaluate MOUs governing data sharing between partner SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 agencies separately from internal policies and audits intended to identify inappropriate actions by individuals. Mr. Gennaco added that the review would assess safeguards for detecting inappropriate database access and whether training and guidance are sufficient to prevent improper access. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims requested that benchmarking include the number of California and Bay Area municipalities that have terminated Flock contracts and removed or covered cameras to provide context regarding actions taken by peer jurisdictions. Ms. Magula agreed and suggested including jurisdictions that do not operate cameras but continue to access ALPR data as end users. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether the audit would examine vendor access to ALPR data and safeguards against vendor misuse. Ms. Magula stated that vendor governance was contemplated in the scope, although the extent of the review would depend on the IPA’s access to vendor information. Vendor internal policies had not been examined in the IPA’s 3 prior ALPR audits and would be a new component of the Palo Alto audit. Councilmember Reckdahl supported including the review. Mayor Veenker questioned whether the audit could assess practices for verifying compliance with data-deletion policies, including whether auditing mechanisms exist to confirm that data are deleted as required. Ms. Magula clarified that the proposed review would examine data within PAPD’s Flock database but would not determine whether the vendor retains data elsewhere. Mayor Veenker requested information regarding available auditing practices, their effectiveness, and compliance with data-deletion requirements. Mayor Veenker inquired about improvements in vendor controls and compliance. Ms. Magula reported significant changes during the past year, including disabling Flock’s national lookup feature for California and terminating direct database access by national fusion centers. Ms. Magula noted that agencies increasingly establish their own governance requirements, including limiting data sharing to regional partners or agencies that conduct internal audits. Mayor Veenker requested that the IPA examine contractual remedies for vendor noncompliance as a means of deterring violations. Ms. Magula stated that agencies, including LAPD, have begun strengthening contract language governing vendor obligations. The IPA could report on evolving contract provisions and modifications, although insufficient time may have elapsed to evaluate their effectiveness. Vice Mayor Stone asked whether ALPR systems have “pattern of life” capabilities that can identify a vehicle’s movements, frequently visited locations, recurring travel patterns, or associations with other vehicles. Vice Mayor Stone asked whether City policies distinguish between using ALPR data for a specific law enforcement investigation and using historical data to reconstruct an individual’s movements over time. Ms. Magula stated that the IPA would review individual searches to determine whether each had a nexus to a legitimate law enforcement purpose and would examine whether ALPR data were used for specific SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 investigations or broader searches of an individual’s patterns over time. Data-retention periods would additionally be evaluated because shorter periods, such as 30 or 7 days, limit the ability to reconstruct historical movements. Prior IPA audits and national studies indicated that ALPR systems were predominantly used for specific investigations rather than broad or long-term tracking. Vice Mayor Stone raised concerns regarding downstream access to Palo Alto ALPR data by other agencies and whether data obtained during the City’s retention period could subsequently be retained or used to reconstruct an individual’s movements. Ms. Magula stated that the IPA could examine the issue through retention policies and requirements imposed through MOUs governing other agencies’ use of Palo Alto data. Councilmember Lu questioned whether the audit would examine raw search logs in addition to City policies. Ms. Magula confirmed that the IPA would review raw logs of internal PAPD searches and searches of Palo Alto data by other jurisdictions. Ms. Magula noted that each search requires a legitimate law enforcement nexus, case number, and crime code and that the audit could verify whether case numbers associated with searches correspond to actual cases, although the data alone might not reveal an individual deliberately entering false information. Councilmember Lu believed that random spot checks would help build community trust. Item 2 Public Comment: 1. Cara S., speaking on behalf of Austin M., Linda B., Nancy B., Kat S., Siohan S., and Steve W., thanked the City for conducting a third-party audit and stated that public awareness and concern regarding ALPR technology and Flock had increased significantly since March 2026. The commenter cited reported misuse of Flock data by law enforcement, unlawful data sharing with federal agencies, and findings calling for stronger ALPR oversight. It was noted that Palo Alto data had been shared with federal law enforcement agencies without PAPD’s knowledge and that numerous jurisdictions, including several locally, had canceled Flock contracts. Concern was expressed that expanded federal surveillance activities increased the risks associated with mass surveillance technology. On behalf of SOS Palo Alto, the commenter requested a more robust audit scope consistent with the questions and recommendations submitted to Council in writing. 2. Tim M., speaking on behalf of Brandon D., Judy H., Vladimir I., Leonor D., and Calshal V., requested that the City immediately cover its ALPR cameras during the audit and expand the audit scope to examine false-positive rates. The commenter cited reported false-positive rates from other law enforcement agencies and expressed concern that the audit should independently evaluate the technology’s disadvantages rather than presume its value. It was argued that ALPR data collection creates surveillance and privacy risks that cannot be fully prevented through auditing after the fact and could further erode public trust. The commenter requested substantially shorter data- retention periods if the City continues using ALPRs and maintained that concerns extend SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 beyond Flock to ALPR technology generally. Tim M. urged the City to prioritize public trust and discontinue collecting data that cannot be adequately protected. 3. Brian E., speaking on behalf of An A., David C., Monica T., Kassie S., Laurel M., and Federica A., requested that the City cover its Flock cameras during the audit. The commenter expressed concerns regarding Flock’s transparency and trustworthiness and cited an incident in Los Altos involving federal searches of local ALPR data that Flock reportedly denied. The commenter raised concerns regarding Flock’s contractual ownership and control of cameras and raw footage and the potential sharing of data with third parties. The commenter maintained that an audit would not adequately protect residents from those risks. 4. Brian J. expressed concern that the City cannot fully control or verify access to ALPR data stored on vendor-controlled servers. The commenter stated that audit logs may not capture all access, including potential backdoor access, and that City policies cannot ensure vendor compliance. Brian J. maintained that data breaches are inevitable and may occur without the City’s knowledge. 5. Winter D. cited El Cerrito’s experience with Flock cameras remaining operational after its contract ended and expressed concern regarding the City’s ability to control or oversee Flock’s technology. The commenter disputed claims that Flock has reduced crime in Palo Alto, noting that crime rates have historically fluctuated. The commenter maintained that Flock had endangered and damaged the City and hoped the audit would assist in determining whether the City could recover damages for Flock’s breach of contract. 6. Will O. expressed concern that ALPR cameras across multiple municipalities record individuals’ locations and make that information available to law enforcement for extended periods. The commenter characterized the data collection as invasive and unnecessary and encouraged the City to thoroughly examine the risks associated with the technology. Will O. urged the City to remove ALPRs from its policing practices entirely. 7. Annie G. questioned whether the use of Flock technology was consistent with constitutional protections and expressed concern that its continued use threatened those protections. Annie G. urged Council not to support Flock. 8. KBT urged the City to cover its ALPR cameras and cancel the Flock contract. The commenter expressed concern that ALPR data could be accessed for federal immigration enforcement and argued that public resources should address the underlying causes of crime rather than fund surveillance. KBT urged the City to discontinue its use of mass-surveillance technology. 9. Raymond G. agreed with the prior speakers and expressed concern that ALPR cameras violate residents’ rights. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 10. Renee R. urged the City to cover its ALPR cameras during the audit and cancel the Flock contract. The commenter commended the IPA and Council for examining policies and compliance but maintained that policies are ineffective without consequences for violations. The commenter expressed concern that Flock’s business model derives value from collected data and called for action against mass surveillance. 11. Yung expressed concern that Flock could expand its technology beyond license plate tracking to incorporate additional personal data. The commenter maintained that concerns extend beyond Flock to other ALPR vendors because the technology enables tracking of individuals’ movements. Council was urged to review information from The Institute for Justice regarding reported abuses and errors involving ALPR systems. 12. Henry E. urged the City to remove its ALPR cameras rather than cover them and opposed spending additional resources on the Flock contract or audit. The commenter advocated for a community-based approach to public safety centered on neighbors looking out for one another rather than surveillance technology. The City was urged to reconsider its approach to organizing public safety. 13. Hamilton H. requested additions to the audit scope and expressed concern that most searches of Palo Alto ALPR data originate from outside jurisdictions and may be unrelated to serious crimes. The commenter recommended limiting outside agency searches as narrowly as practical to felony sex crimes and regional theft crimes and expressed concern that Flock’s shared-server architecture increases the risk of federal access. It was suggested that the audit evaluate an alternative system used by Genentech that stores data locally. 14. Gabrielle P. opposed the use of ALPRs in the community and referenced George Orwell’s 1984 to illustrate concerns regarding the consequences of mass surveillance. 15. Pen B. (Zoom), calling from Bloomington, Indiana, described concerns regarding surveillance technology in her community and urged Council to take Palo Alto residents’ concerns regarding rights and safety seriously. The commenter emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust and demonstrating that residents’ concerns are being heard. The City was urged to cover and remove the ALPR cameras. 16. Avram F. (Zoom) cited constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and expressed concern that ALPR use erodes the requirement to establish probable cause before accessing information about individuals. The commenter questioned the value of conducting an audit and maintained that additional guidelines would not adequately address the underlying civil liberty concerns. The City was urged to discontinue use of the cameras rather than proceed with the audit. Councilmember Burt asked when the IPA anticipated completing the audit. Mr. Gennaco stated that the goal was to complete the review within 90 days of the assignment, assuming no delays. Councilmember Burt requested that the IPA consider written and oral public feedback in SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 refining the audit scope and asked whether false-positive rates would be evaluated. Mr. Gennaco confirmed that false positives would be incorporated and that additional public feedback would be reviewed for potential revisions to the scope. Councilmember Burt questioned if the City could limit outside agency searches to more serious crimes and prohibit searches related to traffic stops or lower-level offenses. Mr. Gennaco stated that other jurisdictions were considering similar approaches. Councilmember Burt raised the question of whether Council should adopt interim measures before receiving the IPA audit and, if so, which measures should be implemented. Councilmember Lu supported incorporating certain written public comments from SOS and Hamilton Hitchings into the audit scope to help build community trust. Councilmember Lu requested analysis of whether shorter data-retention periods, such as 1 minute or 1 day, would retain most of the ALPR program’s public safety benefits and whether locally hosted data, similar to Stanford’s approach, would affect safety outcomes. Councilmember Lu supported waiting up to 90 days for the audit results but favored shortening the retention period and restricting the types of crimes for which searches are permitted as interim measures while Council considers the broader use of Flock and other ALPR providers. Vice Mayor Stone agreed with incorporating recommendations from SOS and Hamilton Hitchings and requested that the audit examine searches conducted directly or indirectly on behalf of federal immigration authorities and whether system controls, rather than policies alone, can prevent prohibited access and sharing. Vice Mayor Stone requested further analysis of false positives and their consequences, camera locations and their implications for tracking individuals’ movements, and the program’s effectiveness in solving crime. Vice Mayor Stone asked how quickly the cameras could be disabled or removed. Police Chief James Reifschneider stated that, if directed by Council, PAPD could work with Public Works to remove the cameras from existing City infrastructure rather than wait for the vendor. Chief Reifschneider further reported that PAPD had been implementing improvements within its control, including revised MOUs requiring partner agencies to attest that they have robust processes for auditing officers’ searches. PAPD planned to use a newly available feature allowing restrictions on the types of crimes for which outside agencies may search Palo Alto data and was reevaluating its Northern California partner agencies. Chief Reifschneider clarified that Palo Alto receives intelligence bulletins from NCRIC but has never assigned an officer to an NCRIC task force or maintained an MOU with NCRIC. Vice Mayor Stone asked whether restrictions on searches for less serious crimes would be enforced through technical controls or policy. Chief Reifschneider stated that an officer could circumvent the controls by deliberately falsifying a report number or crime type and that detecting such misuse by outside agencies would depend in part on compliance with policy and California law. Chief Reifschneider stated that deliberately falsifying a request could constitute grounds for decertification under SB 2, preventing the officer from serving as a peace officer in California. Councilmember Lauing asked whether the audit could examine alternative ALPR vendors. Ms. Magula confirmed that alternative vendors could be identified. Concern was expressed SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 regarding Flock’s leadership and whether sufficient trust in the company could be established regardless of the audit findings. Comparisons with other jurisdictions should account for differences in their needs and use of ALPR technology, noting that Palo Alto seeks broader access to support investigations. Councilmember Lauing questioned whether Council should implement interim measures while awaiting the audit. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed confidence in PAPD and the IPA but raised concerns regarding Flock, federal use of surveillance technology, and reported misuse of ALPR data. Records obtained by the Palo Alto Weekly indicated that law enforcement agencies across the country had searched Palo Alto Flock data without the City’s or PAPD’s permission. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims characterized the issue primarily as one of trust and governance because Flock had changed system capabilities without the City’s knowledge and maintained that continuing to operate the system while evaluating whether it could be trusted was inappropriate. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported directing staff to agendize termination of the Flock contract and removing or covering the cameras in the interim rather than allowing surveillance to continue during the 90-day audit. Councilmember Reckdahl emphasized comparing alternative ALPR vendors and system architectures, including options that would allow the City to control its own data. Councilmember Reckdahl requested that the IPA work with City IT to determine whether locally hosted alternatives are technically feasible and manageable. The review should examine how a different architecture could affect data sharing with neighboring jurisdictions, including Palo Alto’s ability to assist other agencies with investigations and benefit from their assistance. Councilmember Reckdahl requested an assessment of whether the City could maintain those law enforcement benefits while managing ALPR data on its own IT systems. Councilmember Lauing asked whether the audit could be redirected to prioritize alternative vendors and provide that information before completion of the full review. Mayor Veenker observed that Council’s discussion raised broader questions regarding continued use of Flock and whether the City should retain ALPR technology through another provider. Mayor Veenker suggested focusing the audit on information needed to evaluate those questions and asked whether Council was interested in agendizing an action item before completion of the 90-day audit. Chief Reifschneider noted that immediately removing the cameras could create a gap in a technology PAPD considers valuable for crime prevention and investigations. Mayor Veenker cited a local burglary investigation in which ALPR technology contributed to apprehending suspects and expressed interest in determining whether comparable public safety benefits could be achieved through other approaches. City Manager Shikada cautioned that replacing Flock would likely require significantly more than 90 days because audit findings would help define the City’s requirements and a public procurement process typically takes approximately 6 months. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Councilmember Burt supported agendizing an action item but cautioned against predetermining its outcome. Potential interim measures could include additional restrictions on offense-specific searches, temporarily disabling the cameras, or other actions pending completion of the audit and a final decision. Councilmember Burt requested preliminary information regarding alternatives so that consideration of a potential replacement would not begin only after the 90-day audit. Mr. Gennaco stated that OIR could structure its work to address priority questions sooner, potentially providing information regarding alternative vendors in less than 90 days and options for restricting access and use within approximately 45 days. Mayor Veenker summarized Council’s interest in receiving information before completion of the 90-day audit regarding the Flock contract, potential interim actions, and alternative vendors. City Manager Shikada agreed to work with the IPA and staff to determine what information could be brought back and when. Chief Reifschneider noted that PAPD was tracking regional developments and that, aside from Stanford and Mountain View, no other Santa Clara County jurisdictions were known to be moving away from Flock or actively pursuing alternatives. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims requested information regarding the cost and time required to disable, cover, or otherwise discontinue use of the cameras. NO ACTION Consent Calendar MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-4, 6-8 (Agenda Item Number 5 Removed Off Agenda). MOTION PASSED: 7-0 3. Approval of Minutes from August 10, 2026 Meeting 4. Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County” 5. Approval of Five-year Memorandum of Agreement with Stanford University to Provide Traffic Control Services during Stanford Stadium Events; CEQA status – not a project. Item Removed Off Agenda 6. Approval of a Purchase Order with Pivot Interiors Inc. in the Amount of $441,056 for Furniture for the New Laboratory and Environmental Services Building Project (WQ- 14002); CEQA Status – Not a Project 7. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C22182372 with CSWST2 to Add $170,450, Increasing the Not-to-Exceed Amount to $360,302 and Extending the Contract Term to December 31, 2028 for Preliminary Design Services to Support Assessment District Planning and Stakeholder Engagement for the University Avenue SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Streetscape Capital Improvement Program Project, PE-21004; CEQA Status – Not a Project 8. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.28.240 [Settlement of Claims and Actions] and Chapter 2.30 [Contracts and Purchasing Procedures] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to increase the thresholds for solicitation of goods and services, increase contract approval and settlement authority, and to make other technical changes. (FIRST READING: August 10, 2026; PASSED: 7-0) Items 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 Public Comment: Avram F. (Zoom) opposed increasing the City Manager’s contracting authority under Item 8 and expressed concern regarding oversight of consulting expenditures. The commenter maintained that Council is responsible for overseeing the City’s budget and questioned providing additional contracting authority given concerns regarding prior consulting costs and the City’s budget. The commenter requested that the Finance Committee audit the City Manager’s contracting expenditures and urged Council to retain greater oversight of contracts. Mayor Veenker asked whether there were any no votes, requests to pull items, or recusals. There were none. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada reported that the Public Safety Building was operational, with public counter services available at the Forest Avenue location and police patrol operations beginning from the facility that week. A Police and Fire honor guard flag-raising ceremony marking the building’s full operation was scheduled for September 2 and the dispatch center transition was expected in late September. The JED Foundation had released initial findings from its youth suicide prevention work with the City, with the report and next steps scheduled for discussion at the September 1 City/School Liaison Committee meeting. The 3-week Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training would begin September 1 and new and previously trained CERT members were encouraged to participate. Recruitment was underway for the Human Relations Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning and Transportation Commission, Public Art Commission, and Stormwater Management Oversight Committee, with applications due September 2. A ribbon-cutting ceremony and walking tours for the Horizontal Levee Project at 2470 Embarcadero Road were scheduled for September 10. Upcoming Council agendas included a 5:00 p.m. start on September 9 for a 2-hour Closed Session for performance evaluations, followed by action items concerning 470 Olive Avenue, League of California Cities delegates, and a Colleagues Memo. The September 14 agenda included the proposed parking structure at 375 Hamilton Avenue, Water Revenue Bonds, and Stream Corridor Protection Actions. The September 28 agenda included a prescreening for 706 Cowper Street and direction regarding grade separation alternatives advancing to the next phase of design work. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Councilmember Reckdahl added that grade separation outreach meetings were scheduled for the following 2 evenings from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Mitchell Park Community Center. [Council took a 25-minute break] Action Items 9. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute New and Amended Regulatory Agreements for the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Redevelopment/3980 El Camino Real. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines noted that representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, Housing Authority, and Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing were available to assist with questions. The City, County, and Housing Authority partnered in 2017 to preserve affordable housing at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Referencing a slide comparing the existing 2017 regulatory agreement with the proposed agreements for Parcels A and B, Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines explained that the affordability requirements would remain unchanged. The new agreements would extend the 75-year affordability period through 2101 to account for delays in redevelopment and allow the Housing Authority to proceed with utility upgrades. The existing agreement requires at least 100 residential units or mobile home spaces. Following Council’s June 2026 approval of a parcel split, the 2 new agreements would maintain that 100-unit minimum across the 2 parcels, with at least 46 mobile home spaces on Parcel B and at least 54 residential units on Parcel A for a future apartment development, with implementation of Parcel A delayed until 2033. Other terms would remain substantially consistent with the existing tri-party agreement. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to execute the new and amended regulatory agreements and related documents and make nonsubstantive changes, including updates to recitals, assessor’s parcel numbers, and legal descriptions once final parcel descriptions are available. Approval would allow the Housing Authority to continue its work and utilize a significant state grant for utility upgrades at the park. Public Comment: 1. Winter D. generally supported the proposed regulatory agreements but requested an internal waiting list that would give existing Buena Vista residents preference when units become available, such as opportunities to move into larger units. The commenter urged Council to incorporate the provision before approving the agreements. 2. Herb B. recalled that the Housing Authority previously indicated that the apartment portion of the Buena Vista redevelopment was not financially viable and questioned whether the proposed agreements or potential new state affordable housing funding would affect the project’s feasibility. The commenter requested clarification regarding how the current proposal relates to the Housing Authority’s previous statements regarding insufficient funding for the apartment parcel. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 3. Henry E. supported preserving Buena Vista as a necessary component of addressing the City’s housing needs and emphasized protecting existing residents’ ability to remain in their homes or relocate within the development without losing their mobile homes or residency rights. The commenter questioned why development of the apartment parcel would not begin until 2033 and urged the City to pursue affordable housing on a substantially larger scale through collaboration with Stanford University and the business community. 4. Avram F. (Zoom) supported preserving Buena Vista but expressed concern regarding the redevelopment timeline and the potential for residents to be temporarily relocated more than once as utility and future apartment construction proceeds. The commenter raised concerns regarding equitable access to housing at Buena Vista and the loss of Black residents and other under-resourced communities from Palo Alto. The City was urged to preserve housing for existing Buena Vista residents while ensuring future housing opportunities are accessible to a diverse population. Mayor Veenker, referencing the internal preference raised during public comment, asked where a policy giving existing Buena Vista families priority for larger or vacated units could be documented. City Attorney Christopher Jensen stated that tenant selection policies could be incorporated into other project documents but would require review for fair housing implications. Mayor Veenker requested that the policy be considered at the appropriate time to help maintain the existing community. Flaherty Ward, Santa Clara County Housing Authority, explained that the Housing Authority maintains an internal eligibility list throughout its portfolio for existing families needing larger units and gives those families priority when appropriately sized units become available. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether applicants with ties to Palo Alto could receive preference on the Buena Vista waiting list, recognizing potential limitations associated with County and Housing Authority requirements. Ms. Ward stated that Buena Vista was not currently accepting applicants while improvements were pending. A local preference could be explored at Council’s request but would require review for compliance with applicable fair housing requirements, funding programs, and necessary approvals. Mayor Veenker requested a response from staff about the public comment regarding project financing. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines explained that the broader 2024 project, which included improvements to the mobile home park and apartment development, was determined by the Housing Authority to be infeasible given its multiple components. Approximately $25M in state grant funding from that project remained available and would be used for the utility upgrades. Ms. Ward further noted that the improvement project would cost approximately $30M, with additional funding from a park electrification grant and Housing Authority gap financing. Councilmember Burt asked about accommodations for Buena Vista residents during the approximately 9-month relocation period, particularly transportation for PAUSD students SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 whose families would temporarily live outside Palo Alto. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines stated that the Housing Authority had extensively sought temporary housing within Palo Alto but identified only 1 available apartment and therefore located families as close to the City as possible. Ms. Ward reported that the Housing Authority had coordinated with PAUSD for nearly a year and would provide families with private transportation to school through a separate contract with the same provider used for Palo Alto Link. Mileage reimbursement would be available to families traveling farther. The Housing Authority would monitor potential effects on attendance and school arrival times. Councilmember Burt supported exploring a local preference for future vacancies and asked about the potential capacity of Parcel B beyond the required minimum of 46 mobile home spaces. Ms. Ward estimated that approximately 56 spaces could ultimately be accommodated, subject to completion of the infrastructure project, and stated that eligibility for additional spaces would be income-based according to the affordability levels in the regulatory agreement. Councilmember Burt asked whether a local preference could potentially include income-qualified residents currently living in OSVs. Ms. Ward stated that legal guidance would be necessary to determine how specifically a local preference could be defined. Councilmember Lu supported exploring a local preference, including potential eligibility for OSV residents. Councilmember Burt requested that the local preference direction be incorporated into the motion. Council and staff developed language to reflect that direction. MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to authorize the City Manager to execute and make non-substantive changes (e.g., editing recitals and adding APNs and legal descriptions) to the new and amended regulatory agreements and related documents to facilitate improvements to the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park at 3980 El Camino Real with a referral to staff to work with Housing Authority for local preferences. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Following the vote, Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines stated that the item would proceed to the County for approval the following day and to the Housing Authority Board within approximately 1 week. 10. Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee to Launch Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs, Including Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing an OSV Parking Permit Program, an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Add an OSV Parking Permit Fee, Resolutions Establishing OSV Parking Permit Districts on Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill Road, a Resolution Prohibiting OSV Parking on Numerous Streets in Palo Alto; a Resolution Adding Related Penalties to the Administrative Penalty Schedule; and Related Amendments to the FY 2027 Operating and Capital Budget; CEQA status – categorically and statutorily exempt. Councilmember Lauing, Chair of the OSV Ad Hoc Committee, provided an overview of the Committee’s work and noted that people living in OSVs have varied circumstances, including SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 individuals who work locally but cannot afford housing and others who choose a mobile lifestyle. Council had directed the Committee to pursue a 2-pronged approach addressing low- income individuals needing assistance transitioning to permanent housing and the impacts of OSVs on commercial and residential areas. With an estimated 200 OSVs at the outset, the Committee and staff explored alternative parking locations through outreach to commercial property owners, businesses, faith communities, and Santa Clara County and sought opportunities for OSV residents at Homekey. Those efforts did not produce parking locations or Homekey placements, although the County had recently expressed interest in working with the City on safe parking. Citations and towing had reduced the estimated OSV population to approximately 130–140. Councilmember Lauing explained that the proposal before Council was developed by staff based partly on concepts discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee and included new elements for Council consideration. Pilot 2 was intended as a temporary measure to reduce OSV impacts by relocating approximately half of the vehicles rather than establishing permanent parking. The proposed list of affected streets could be amended. Councilmember Lauing emphasized that the purpose of the item was for Council to determine a path forward and provide direction to staff, including modifying the proposal or referring issues back to the Ad Hoc Committee. City Manager Ed Shikada emphasized that the proposal was not intended as a permanent solution but as incremental next steps to restrict OSV parking while providing capacity to address identified needs. Staff hoped to clarify misunderstandings raised in public comments regarding the proposal. Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough reviewed work undertaken since Council directed a phased approach in August 2025, including implementation of Phase 1, community outreach, a Council Study Session, and continued coordination with other jurisdictions. Phase 1 included ordinances prohibiting vanlording and parking of detached trailers and inoperable vehicles on public streets, increased enforcement, and additional street sweeping and cleaning on 18 impacted streets. Staff continued exploring OSV buy-back and storage programs and expansion of off-street safe parking through outreach to the County and private property owners. Safe parking remained a long-term strategy but was constrained by available land, funding, operations, and service needs. Staff recommended launching 2 coordinated 12-month pilots and approving related ordinances, resolutions, and budget amendments at an estimated total first-year cost of $823,000. The pilots were intended to provide near-term options for addressing neighborhood, business, public health, and safety impacts while testing parking management and service delivery approaches. Staff would return to Council in March and September 2027 with status reports and recommendations regarding continuation, modification, expansion, or termination. The OSV Parking Permit Pilot would establish designated permit areas on the City-managed side of Coyote Hill Road and on Embarcadero Road near the wastewater treatment plant, providing capacity for approximately 37 OSVs. Staff was discussing potentially relocating the Coyote Hill SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Road area to the County-managed side, while Embarcadero Road would be restriped to accommodate permitted OSVs while retaining the bike lane. The pilot was intended for income- eligible individuals and families with Palo Alto connections who were willing to work toward permanent housing. Participants would be required to maintain valid vehicle registration and insurance, sign a good neighbor agreement, engage with outreach workers, and pay a $15 monthly permit fee. The estimated first-year cost was $400,800. The Parking Prohibition Pilot would prohibit OSV parking on one side of identified streets for 6 months and alternate the prohibition to the opposite side for the following 6 months, while passenger vehicles could continue parking on both sides. Existing regulations, including 72-hour parking limits, street-sweeping restrictions, the vanlording prohibition, and restrictions on abandoned and detached trailers, would remain in effect. Referencing a slide, Assistant McDonough explained that identified street segments would receive red curb markings and that the preliminary list of nonresidential streets subject to alternating-side restrictions would be refined. Staff would provide advance notice and outreach to affected businesses, property owners, neighborhoods, and OSV residents and evaluate the pilot using community feedback, warnings, and citations. The estimated first-year cost was $423,000. City Attorney Christopher Jensen explained that a U.S. Supreme Court decision had limited the City’s obligation to provide shelter when displacing unsheltered residents but other legal obligations remained and were the subject of ongoing litigation. The litigation created uncertainty regarding the City’s regulation of people living in vehicles in public spaces and presented a risk that courts rather than the City could ultimately determine permissible regulations. City Attorney Jensen noted that measures implemented during the prior year had meaningfully reduced OSV impacts and suggested Council consider whether additional incremental measures could continue that progress. Councilmember Lauing supported the structure and direction of Pilot 1, including income eligibility, good-neighbor requirements, engagement toward permanent housing, and the ability to remove participants who fail to comply with program requirements. Councilmember Lauing felt the implementation timeline should be accelerated and supported further consideration of the permit fee and applicable income qualifications. The proposed 37 spaces could be adjusted based on demand and the program’s success in transitioning participants to permanent housing. Regarding Pilot 2, Councilmember Lauing supported faster implementation and identified a substantial reduction in OSVs outside permitted areas as the appropriate measure of success. Councilmember Lauing expressed concern that restricting parking only on identified streets could displace OSVs to other neighborhoods and advocated eventually requiring all OSVs to park in designated permitted areas or not park in the City. Implementation could include signage at City entrances and initial warning notices before enforcement. Councilmember Lauing suggested considering a reduction in the existing 72-hour parking limit to 24 hours as an additional deterrent, while acknowledging the potential enforcement burden on Police staff. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Councilmember Reckdahl considered Phase 1 successful in improving street conditions and reducing the number of OSVs but expressed concern that additional OSVs could replace those that had left. Councilmember Reckdahl supported Pilot 2 as a means of reducing available OSV parking and limiting population growth. Longer term, Councilmember Reckdahl supported a more uniform Citywide parking policy and suggested parking permits in commercial areas to reduce impacts on businesses. Safe parking remained an important option for transitioning OSVs off City streets rather than continually relocating them, although limited available space presented a challenge. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that 73 percent of Palo Alto’s unhoused population lived in vehicles and emphasized the Ad Hoc Committee’s concern for individuals with no better housing alternative. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported Pilot 1 as a means of providing permitted parking, hygiene and waste services, and assistance toward permanent housing. The proximity of the proposed Coyote Hill Road location to VTA and Marguerite transit could help participants reach employment. In response to Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ question regarding using both sides of Coyote Hill Road, City Manager Shikada explained that the County side had existing sidewalks and parking while use of the City side would require roadway restriping. Using both sides would require additional case management and service resources and would provide approximately 60 total spaces when combined with Embarcadero Road. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims suggested considering additional permitted parking along Embarcadero Road adjacent to the golf course practice range and supported accelerating implementation of Pilot 1. Regarding Pilot 2, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims explained that the intent was to reduce OSV density by approximately half on impacted streets and stated that spillover to other locations would be monitored. Mayor Veenker supported developing a more uniform policy for OSV parking in areas not technically classified as residential and asked whether staff could determine how many OSV occupants had other housing options. Assistant McDonough stated that staff did not have that information despite outreach workers attempting to obtain it directly from OSV occupants. Mayor Veenker suggested exploring whether employers of OSV occupants who commute to Palo Alto could provide parking or contribute toward housing solutions as a means of addressing those who are not legally unhoused. City Manager Shikada stated that occupants had a broad range of circumstances and that a survey could potentially gather the requested information, although obtaining reliable results could be difficult. Councilmember Lu asked how San Francisco’s OSV permit program compared with the proposed Palo Alto program. City Attorney Jensen explained that San Francisco operated a Citywide permit program that restricted new permits based on vehicle residency as of a specified date and paired those restrictions with substantial connections to services. San Francisco’s status as a city and county provided advantages that Palo Alto did not have because Palo Alto must coordinate with Santa Clara County. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Councilmember Lu inquired whether Pilot 2 could incorporate elements of Pilot 1, such as permitting or a commitment to engage in housing services, and whether available parking capacity could allow further reductions in OSV parking near residences. City Manager Shikada explained that Pilot 2 was designed solely as a parking regulation and adding eligibility or permitting requirements would require additional screening, management, and resources. Pilot 1 was expected to require nonprofit partners similar to the City’s other homeless outreach and safe parking programs, whose capacity would need to be assessed. City Manager Shikada characterized the estimated parking capacity as preliminary because other vehicles would compete for spaces and agreed that the existing prohibition on overnight OSV parking in residential areas had a complex definition that could benefit from simplification. Vice Mayor Stone requested a map of the streets proposed for Pilot 2 and expressed concern that the affected streets were concentrated primarily in South Palo Alto. City Manager Shikada stated that staff could prepare a map and explained that the geographic concentration partly resulted from the City’s existing definition of residential areas, which relies on zoning and could be simplified as part of future work. Assistant McDonough added that the proposed streets were those identified by the Policy and Services Committee as impacted streets in August 2025 and subsequently addressed through Phase 1, so staff carried those locations forward into Phase 2. Vice Mayor Stone asked what would be required under State law to restrict OSV parking to permitted vehicles and potentially cap the number of permits. City Attorney Jensen cited San Francisco’s program as an approach that had been successful to date but noted that the law was not definitive. City Attorney Jensen emphasized that successful programs provided resources and support to transition people out of OSVs, demonstrating an effort to address the underlying problem rather than target individuals. Councilmember Burt questioned the combined parking capacity of the permit and prohibition pilots. Assistant McDonough estimated that the prohibition pilot could accommodate approximately 116 OSVs if no other vehicles occupied the available spaces. Councilmember Burt noted that when combined with the permit pilot and existing Geng Road capacity, the total appeared to exceed the current number of OSVs in Palo Alto. Councilmember Burt questioned the adequacy of available data regarding the OSV population and noted that a County-led focus group held at Geng Road did not appear representative of the broader population. City Manager Shikada stated that staff had conducted a community workshop and continued individual stakeholder discussions but had not held additional outreach with affected businesses since release of the specific pilot proposal. Councilmember Burt asked whether staff had determined how many OSV occupants were likely to participate in either pilot. Assistant McDonough explained that staff had sought feedback through outreach teams and service providers regarding potential program requirements, including permit fees, minimum amenities, and a good neighbor agreement. City Manager Shikada clarified that the feedback came from service providers rather than prospective permit holders and that actual participation would need to be tested through implementation of the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 pilot. Councilmember Burt expressed concern about committing substantial funding without stronger evidence of likely participation but remained hopeful that OSV occupants would participate. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims clarified that feedback received during the Ad Hoc Committee process indicated interest in participating in the permit pilot because the alternatives were less desirable. Access to sewage pump-out services was an important factor in the pilot’s attractiveness. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that the Committee believed there was sufficient interest to expect participation, although the pilot was not viewed as a comprehensive solution. Mayor Veenker requested no audible responses during public comment and announced that groups would receive 5 minutes and individual speakers would receive 1 minute due to the large number of speakers. Public Comment: 1. Barry K., speaking on behalf of Victor L., Teresa F., Lissy B., Byron B., Rahael Z., Guilia Z., Ellen H., and Giselle R., opposed the proposed OSV parking restrictions on behalf of residents of the Ventura neighborhood. It was stated that residents had sought City assistance for years regarding health, sanitation, safety, traffic, and livability impacts associated with long-term OSV parking and had identified specific streets where those impacts were most significant. The commenter objected that the proposed pilot would concentrate OSV parking on many of those same streets rather than resolve the impacts and noted similar concerns in the East Meadow neighborhood. Council was urged not to reinforce long-term OSV parking in affected neighborhoods. 2. Rollin T., speaking on behalf of Kayla B., Bernice B., Lyric M., Enrique G., and Wesley M., identified himself as an OSV resident who used his RV as a starter home while working in Palo Alto. Rollin T. stated that street sweeping and enforcement had reduced the East Meadow OSV population to approximately 45 but contended that the prohibition pilot would increase density by concentrating remaining OSVs on one side of the street. The commenter supported requiring or encouraging employers with available parking to accommodate employees living in OSVs and stated that he would park at his workplace if permitted. A recent confrontation was described in which an OSV resident threatened a business community member who had been documenting license plates and reporting parking violations to PAPD and that other OSV residents took the incident seriously and addressed the individual’s conduct. 3. Jason R., speaking on behalf of Jieming R., Rosey H., Francine G., Ceci K., and Nancy E., stated that OSV counts declined approximately 40 percent from 220 in October 2025 to 131 by mid-July but had since remained relatively flat. The commenter contended that subsequent changes primarily reflected relocation of vehicles rather than further reductions and questioned the proposed pilots’ baseline, measures of success, and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 evaluation methodology. The commenter expressed concern that permit participants would represent a more compliant subset of OSV residents and that the proposed expenditures could result primarily in relocation rather than reduction. The City was urged to develop a comprehensive approach to OSV parking rather than proceed through piecemeal measures. 4. Winter D. characterized the challenges surrounding OSVs as part of broader systemic income inequality and thanked the Ad Hoc Committee for its work. The commenter referenced the Buena Vista item as another example of the City’s housing challenges and emphasized Palo Alto’s responsibility to care for members of the community. 5. Anupa B. noted that the Housing Element process identified suitable sites for more than 8,000 additional housing units and contrasted that effort with the current scale of OSV parking in Palo Alto. 6. Herb B. stated that the existing definition of residential areas used to determine where OSV parking is prohibited omitted many Planned Community zones. The commenter recommended directing staff to amend the definition to include Planned Community zones where a majority of the development is residential and the corresponding area on the opposite side of the street. 7. Andrew N., on behalf of Peninsula Healthcare Connection (PHC), supported the City Manager’s proposal and stated that PHC provides healthcare and outreach services to people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto. The commenter emphasized that OSV residents were members of the Palo Alto community and expressed concern regarding increasingly hostile rhetoric toward them. It was stated that repeatedly requiring OSV residents to relocate disrupted connections to medical care and case management and that homelessness could not be addressed by displacing people to other cities. 8. John M. opposed the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations and expressed concern that the proposal would alter the character of particular neighborhoods rather than focus on assisting disadvantaged OSV residents. The commenter maintained that the impacts should not be borne by individual neighborhoods and urged Council to pursue a Citywide solution. 9. Melinda M. expressed concern regarding the lack of data about OSV residents and questioned whether information similar to San Francisco’s vehicle database could be collected in Palo Alto. Melinda M. urged employers to provide parking for employees living in OSVs and questioned Stanford University’s role given previous OSV use by Stanford students, employees, and contract workers. The commenter opposed the 2 pilots because she did not believe they would resolve the underlying problem. 10. Christian H., Pacific American Group, stated that the company had owned commercial property on East Charleston Road for 30 years and recently lost a prospective tenant because of reported health and safety concerns associated with OSVs bordering the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 22 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 property. Concern was voiced that OSV parking was negatively affecting commercial properties, resulting in lost businesses, employment opportunities, and tax revenue for the City. 11. Francis W. identified himself as an East Meadow Circle OSV resident and opposed the proposed parking restrictions for that location. The commenter stated that the restrictions could disrupt and displace him and other OSV residents from their homes and requested that Council exclude East Meadow Circle from the proposed parking restrictions. 12. Danny W. stated that Fabian Way, which provides access to employee parking at 844 East Charleston Road, had been identified by the City in October 2025 as highly impacted by OSVs but was excluded from the proposed pilot. Danny W. described an incident in which an OSV resident allegedly trespassed on the property and tampered with the fire suppression system to obtain water and stated that prospective tenants had cited street conditions when deciding not to lease space. The commenter supported pursuing managed off-street parking but expressed concern that the proposed pilots would relocate OSVs to streets excluded from the program. 13. Henry E. supported removing OSVs from City streets and expressed concern that the proposed locations would socially isolate residents. The commenter emphasized the importance of social connections to health and urged Stanford University to participate in addressing the issue. The commenter suggested providing parking for seniors and families at Oak Creek Apartments, a Stanford Marguerite parking facility, or available parking near the new Public Safety Building and advocated for a communitywide solution. 14. Anil H. opposed allowing OSVs to be used as long-term residences on public streets and cited observed accumulation of trash and personal belongings as creating sanitation, safety, and visibility concerns. Anil H. maintained that public streets were shared spaces rather than permanent residential areas and questioned why Palo Alto should permit long-term OSV parking when other cities did not. 15. David M. did not support Council action on Pilot 2 and stated that he had provided Council, the City Attorney, and the City Manager with a letter explaining his concern that the Brown Act notice was insufficient. The commenter requested that Pilot 2 be renoticed before Council consideration to inform affected businesses and stated that commercial businesses he contacted on affected streets were unaware of the meeting or proposed pilot. 16. Gerson B. identified himself as a Palo Alto property and business owner and requested that transit, commercial, and industrial areas be excluded from Pilot 2. The commenter stated that those areas had experienced significant OSV impacts for more than 10 years and that conditions had improved following Phase 1 enforcement. The commenter SUMMARY MINUTES Page 23 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 urged the City to implement the pilot elsewhere and requested additional outreach to affected property and business owners. 17. Candy T. supported a housing-first approach to homelessness and maintained that stable housing provides a stronger foundation for long-term stability and supportive services than prolonged residence in OSVs on public streets. The commenter urged the City to leverage County, State, federal, and philanthropic funding to expand programs such as Homekey and recommended directing the approximately $800,000 proposed for the pilots toward Homekey instead. 18. Matt B. supported permanent affordable housing as the appropriate solution to homelessness and opposed the proposed pilots because of their concentration in South Palo Alto. The Council was encouraged to consider additional locations throughout the City rather than disproportionately affecting South Palo Alto streets. 19. Scott A. requested that Olive Avenue be removed from the proposed OSV parking locations and that staff engage with residents before proceeding. The commenter noted that 17 children lived on the street and reported counting 90 vehicles during a 1-hour period, with approximately 50 percent exceeding the speed limit and 70 percent failing to stop at the stop sign. 20. Yugen L. opposed including Olive Avenue and other streets adjacent to residential areas in the proposed OSV parking locations. The commenter recommended establishing off- site RV parking with appropriate utility hookups rather than accommodating OSVs on City streets. 21. Jared L. requested that mixed-use neighborhoods such as Olive Avenue be treated as residential areas for purposes of OSV parking restrictions. Jared L. emphasized the need for a clearly defined endpoint and goals for the 12-month pilot to ensure that the program did not become an indefinite approach to OSV parking. 22. David A. questioned a discrepancy between the presentation slide and staff report regarding the blocks of Olive Avenue included in the proposal and requested additional analysis and community outreach. The commenter opposed concentrating OSV parking in Ventura and recommended considering City-owned lots as alternative locations. 23. Bill R. challenged the proposed categorical and statutory CEQA exemptions and maintained that evidence and experience from adjacent property owners could be relevant to determining potential environmental impacts. The commenter recommended conducting a limited environmental review addressing public services, public safety, population, and housing and suggested that the review could help distinguish individuals experiencing homelessness from other OSV residents. 24. Karim A. requested that the Commercial Street and Industrial Avenue area be excluded from the proposed OSV parking locations. The commenter stated that the area had SUMMARY MINUTES Page 24 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 experienced long-term OSV parking impacts, including reduced property value and difficulty hosting visitors at his office building, and noted that conditions had improved following recent City enforcement. 25. Lakiba P. expressed compassion for people experiencing housing insecurity but requested that Olive Avenue be excluded from the proposed OSV parking locations. The commenter questioned why Olive Avenue was selected without consultation with residents and contrasted the lack of outreach with prior engagement by Hewlett- Packard before development in the neighborhood. The Council was encouraged not to approve the proposal as presented. 26. Jen B. questioned the outreach conducted with property owners and stakeholders and stated that her organization had received no direct communication regarding properties on Transport Street, Commercial Street, or Industrial Avenue. The commenter expressed concern regarding child safety and visibility around large OSVs and stated that a daycare tenant had left the area partly because of safety concerns. The commenter reported continued difficulty attracting another preschool tenant for similar reasons and expressed concern about the resulting effect on available childcare as housing is built. 27. Larry G. requested that Council reject the proposal because it would disproportionately affect a limited number of neighborhoods and residents had not been adequately consulted. The commenter maintained that Council’s responsibility to Palo Alto residents warranted reconsidering the proposed approach. 28. Jonathan B. supported the OSV Parking Permit Pilot but opposed Pilot 2, which he maintained would not mitigate OSV impacts and would disproportionately affect Ventura residences, parks, and preschools. The Council was requested to reject Pilot 2 and move toward prohibiting vehicle dwelling except in designated permitted areas, with the commenter stating that State and federal law did not prevent the City from adopting such a prohibition. 29. Anne K. requested that Council pause the proposal pending clarification of what State law requires and which elements represent City policy choices. The commenter maintained that designating public streets for OSV habitation warranted meaningful community input before implementation and stated that relocating OSVs would not resolve the underlying problem. 30. Bob M. opposed permitting OSV parking on the proposed South Palo Alto streets but supported expanding safe parking beyond the existing 22 spaces at Geng Road and establishing an OSV registration system, including as a means of discouraging additional OSVs from entering the City. The commenter maintained that OSV parking should not be permitted on residential streets or business corridors and requested that Council consider alternative solutions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 25 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 31. Ryan J. stated that his third-generation family business had experienced an increasingly difficult business climate and attributed some commercial vacancies to OSV impacts. Concern was voiced that affected businesses had not received outreach and that the proposed program disproportionately concentrated impacts in South Palo Alto. 32. Charlie W., speaking on behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern regarding the effects of long-term OSV parking on business corridors while recognizing OSV residents as members of the local workforce and community. The commenter cited blocked sightlines, constrained streets and deliveries, reduced customer and employee parking, waste, unauthorized utility connections, and reported business losses. The Chamber requested a structured OSV parking program that would eliminate long-term OSV parking in commercial districts. 33. David M. stated that his medical device business employed several hundred people and may be forced to leave Palo Alto if OSV parking returned to its street. The commenter cited inadequate employee and visitor parking and difficulty accessing the facility and expressed concern that OSV parking would impede the company’s growth. The commenter questioned how the City would enforce the 72-hour parking limit given past enforcement and funding constraints. 34. Edie K., former Palo Alto resident and current Mountain View resident, supported safe parking as preferable to street parking and recommended that the City consider purchasing property if suitable leased sites were unavailable. Edie K. suggested funding safe parking through a parcel tax and incentivizing employers to provide safe parking on their properties by offering services such as sewage pump-out and trash collection. 35. Gordon J. supported the 2 pilot programs as worthwhile experiments but questioned the inclusion of Olive Avenue in Pilot 2. The commenter stated that existing restrictions prohibited overnight OSV parking on both sides of Olive Avenue. 36. Star T. appreciated including case management in the permit program and requested that Olive Avenue be removed from Pilot 2, citing its strong residential community and significant cut-through traffic. The Council was encouraged to consider the concerns and recommendations raised by the community. 37. S. Rose stated that Pilot 2 would create more stringent OSV parking requirements and credited increased Police support during the prior year with improving conditions. Concern was expressed regarding how streets were selected, the burden placed on Ventura residents to monitor and report conditions, and the need for a permanent solution. The commenter requested direct outreach to affected neighborhoods. 38. Joe W. felt that housed residents should be willing to accept some inconvenience rather than place additional burdens on people experiencing homelessness. As a Ventura resident, the commenter believed the neighborhood and the broader Palo Alto community could accommodate those impacts. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 26 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 39. Becky S. requested that Olive Avenue be removed from Pilot 2 and described ongoing efforts with PAPD regarding OSVs near her property and on Matadero Avenue. The commenter stated that some vehicles had remained in the area by moving approximately 1 block and returning and expressed concern that understaffing and limited enforcement capacity prevented effective implementation of existing parking regulations. 40. Ron E. expressed concern about locating portable toilets in front of businesses and questioned the fairness of using business tax revenue for facilities that could negatively affect those same businesses. Ron E. noted that portable toilets could not be relocated as frequently as OSVs under the proposed parking rotation and requested that Council reconsider how sanitation facilities would be sited. 41. Avram F. (Zoom) supported the proposed pilots and maintained that Palo Alto should not address OSV homelessness by displacing residents to neighboring communities. The commenter acknowledged that the proposal was not an ideal solution but considered it a reasonable interim approach to an intractable regional problem. 42. Penny B. (Zoom) opposed the 2 pilot programs and maintained that OSV policy should be based on observed use and impacts rather than assumptions about OSV residents. The commenter recommended observational studies rather than surveys or focus groups to gather information about OSV use and characterized the proposed pilots as based on faulty premises and difficult to enforce. 43. Kevin C. (Zoom), representing the ownership of 3825–3875 Fabian Way, expressed concern that the proposed OSV permit program could become a permanent approach that concentrates OSV parking in commercial areas and cited tenant concerns regarding health and safety. The commenter supported considering 2-hour parking restrictions in commercial areas and requested that Council continue reviewing the proposal to address commercial tenant concerns. 44. Zohar G. (Zoom) characterized the proposed plan as discriminatory against South Palo Alto residents and stated that long-term OSV parking had reduced walkability and clean air and negatively affected residential property values in the East Meadow Circle area. 45. John M. (Zoom) expressed concern that the proposal did not explain how black water and gray water from OSVs would be collected and disposed of. The commenter questioned the City’s reliance on CEQA categorical exemptions given the concentration of residential RVs, sanitation infrastructure, roadway restriping, and site modifications and requested that Council defer approval pending further environmental analysis. 46. Ok G. (Zoom) voiced concern that staff had collected insufficient data regarding OSV numbers, parking duration, locations, complaints, citations, and neighborhood impacts. The commenter cited inconsistent enforcement of OSV regulations and maintained that the proposal unfairly burdened South Palo Alto residents. The commenter noted SUMMARY MINUTES Page 27 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 concerns raised by businesses regarding the lack of outreach and potential loss of tax revenue. Councilmember Burt reiterated concern that Council lacked sufficient data to make informed decisions regarding the OSV pilots and questioned whether Pilot 2 should be deferred while Council proceeded with Pilot 1 and provided direction for further analysis. If Pilot 2 proceeded, Olive Avenue, Ash Street, and Park Boulevard should be excluded because of their importance as Safe Routes to School and bikeways. Additional daylighting near driveways and short-term customer parking requested by businesses should be considered. Stanford University should participate in providing parking sites, with further data needed to determine its proportionate responsibility for the OSV population. Regarding Pilot 1, Councilmember Burt supported using both sides of Coyote Hill Road provided that fire hazards were adequately addressed. Predominantly residential streets should be excluded from Pilot 2, with the City’s residential definition updated to include PC-zoned areas with residential uses and potential protections considered for areas immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Expanded permitted parking capacity should be considered given that the Geng Road program had not achieved the anticipated turnover of OSV residents into permanent housing. Councilmember Lauing reiterated that Council’s objectives were to substantially reduce the number of OSVs in Palo Alto while providing parking for individuals who legitimately needed assistance. Pilot 1 met those objectives by creating controlled permitted parking and should proceed on an accelerated schedule. Public comment demonstrated significant opposition to continued OSV parking in affected areas, supporting stronger restrictions elsewhere as permitted spaces became available, although doing so could create additional legal risk. Existing and potential capacity through Pilot 1, Geng Road, and Homekey could substantially reduce the number of OSVs remaining on City streets. Mayor Veenker supported applying residential parking protections uniformly throughout Palo Alto and questioned the inclusion of residential streets in the proposed Pilot 2 locations. Large employers, including Stanford and Google, should be encouraged to provide parking for employees living in OSVs or contribute toward housing solutions rather than shifting the impacts to smaller businesses. Mayor Veenker suggested beginning discussions with Stanford. Mayor Veenker asked whether turnover at Homekey could provide opportunities for participants transitioning from the OSV permit program. Deputy Director Hilary Armstrong, Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing, reported an average stay of approximately 4.8 months in shelter programs such as Homekey, with a quality assurance standard of 120 days and typical stays of approximately 3–6 months. Assistant McDonough cautioned that OSV residents were more likely to transition directly into apartments or other permanent housing than into transitional housing such as Homekey. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 28 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Vice Mayor Stone endorsed moving forward with Pilot 1 as quickly as possible, including the permit program and supportive services, while continuing to identify additional locations. Pilot 2 required further development and should return to the Ad Hoc Committee for additional analysis, including use of a heat map to ensure OSVs were distributed equitably throughout the City. Vice Mayor Stone expressed surprise that residential and residential-adjacent streets in the Ventura neighborhood were included and suggested considering Bryant Street, where Police vehicles had traditionally parked, as part of a future program. Vice Mayor Stone did not support authorizing Pilot 2 as proposed. Councilmember Lu agreed with moving forward with Pilot 1, including permitted parking on both sides of Coyote Hill Road, but questioned whether the $15 monthly permit fee was worthwhile given collection costs and other program requirements, such as insurance. Regarding Pilot 2, Councilmember Lu expressed concern that publicizing approximately 116 available spaces could concentrate OSVs rather than reduce their impacts and noted that commenters representing differing perspectives had opposed the second pilot. Additional locations in North Palo Alto, including areas near SOFA or City Hall, should be considered to distribute OSV parking more equitably throughout the City. Councilmember Reckdahl clarified that the proposed Pilot 2 streets were selected because they had experienced the greatest OSV impacts and that the intent was to reduce OSV concentrations in those areas. OSV parking should be restricted near residences regardless of zoning designation, potentially including a 100-yard buffer around residential uses. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported Pilot 1 and emphasized engaging businesses regarding opportunities for employees living in OSVs to park on employer property and further engaging Stanford University as the City’s largest landowner. The streets proposed for Pilot 2 had been identified because of existing OSV impacts, with the intent of reducing rather than increasing those impacts. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported equitable distribution of OSVs throughout the City and expressed concern that following OSV residents and documenting their activities could constitute harassment or potentially lead to vandalism. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims believed that Pilot 1 could provide useful data while additional housing and parking locations were pursued. Councilmembers and staff discussed and refined the motion language to reflect Council’s direction. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to: 1. Approve a pilot OSV parking permit program on Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill Road for an initial term of 12 months, substantially as described in this report by January 1, 2027. This includes adoption of the following: a. An ordinance adding new PAMC Chapter 10.49 to establish an OSV Parking Permit Program and amending PAMC section 10.60.010 allowing civil penalties for parking violations of several chapters of the PAMC; SUMMARY MINUTES Page 29 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 b. An ordinance amending the FY 2027 Municipal Fee Schedule to add an OSV parking permit fee of up to $15 per month; c. A resolution establishing an OSV Parking Permit District on a section of Embarcadero Road. This will prohibit parking except for vehicles with permits; d. A resolution establishing an OSV Parking Permit District on a section of Coyote Hill Road. This will prohibit parking except for vehicles with permits; and e. A resolution amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule to add penalties for violations of PAMC Chapter 10.49. 2. Direct staff to begin to provide red curbs daylighting in the commercial areas that are identified for pilot 2 and evaluate a 10-foot daylighting; 3. Direct staff come back to Council with appropriate ordinance changes to recognize residential, including PCs and mixed use, be treated the same as residential zoning; 4. Any future consideration of a pilot 2 excludes streets that have significant residential components or bike lane (Park, Olive, Lambert, Ash); 5. Direct staff to pursue data collection to have a better understanding of the demographics of our current RV population; 6. Explore with major employers’ willingness to accommodate workers who reside in RVs, their workers who reside in RVs on their sites; 7. Direct staff continue to pursue the permitted pilot program on both sides of Coyote Hill Road; 8. Direct staff to continue to seek safe parking solutions in collaboration with County, State, Federal, public and private partners; 9. Direct staff to explore any other sites that would be eligible for RV parking in the greater downtown area; 10. Direct the City Manager to appropriate the funding needed for the scope of work in this Motion as needed. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Virtual Public Comment Avram F. (Zoom) criticized some members of the City Council regarding lack of transparency and stated that voters increasingly expect transparency from elected officials. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 30 of 30 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/24/2026 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m.