City Council - September 9, 2026

Release of Peterson investigation fails 4-3

The Council voted 4-3 against waiving privilege and publicly releasing redacted investigative materials concerning former Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Peterson. The proposed disclosure would have followed language recommended by the City Attorney and removed witness names. The failed motion means the Council did not authorize release.

Supporters argued that disclosure would promote transparency, reduce speculation and allow the public to review information available to the Council when it considered Peterson’s reappointment. Peterson resigned Aug. 9, and an opponent said his departure made the underlying decision about his city service moot.

Opponents also warned that contextual details could reveal witnesses even if their names were removed, potentially discouraging participation in future investigations. The City Attorney said witnesses were told the investigation was confidential and would be provided to the Council for a decision, but were not explicitly advised that the Council could waive confidentiality and release it. Some councilmembers additionally questioned the investigation’s completeness because potentially relevant video was not obtained and the towing-company complainant did not participate.

Olive Avenue rezoning is continued for daylight-plane language

The Council voted 6-0 to continue a proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue while staff, the applicant and the City Attorney develop precise language intended to protect neighboring homes from building mass and shadow impacts. The Council chose not to negotiate the proposed safeguards during the meeting.

The proposal would change the parcel from low-density residential zoning to medium-density mixed-use zoning, potentially allowing it to be combined with adjacent El Camino Real parcels for future redevelopment. No housing application accompanied the request. Discussion focused on a possible covenant preserving a daylight plane that begins at 16 feet and slopes at 45 degrees, including if future state-law waivers might otherwise become available.

Staff recommended the change partly to address a housing-inventory deficit associated with prior city approvals. Neighbors and other opponents argued that the rezoning would grant an immediate entitlement while the size, design, affordability and access arrangements of any future project remained undefined. They also raised concerns about privacy, shadows, traffic, parking and the transition to nearby single-family homes. The rezoning will return to the Council after the proposed covenant language is developed.

Safe-parking program will return for performance review

The Council unanimously directed staff to schedule a study session examining performance and accountability at Palo Alto’s only safe-parking site. The discussion occurred as the Council considered a time-sensitive proposal for a nine-month contract extension.

Councilmembers requested more detailed information about participant outcomes, barriers to successful placements, resident demographics, lengths of stay, possible program improvements and the appropriate duration of future agreements. Staff said shorter contract periods could be complicated because the county helps fund site operations.

Available figures showed 69 positive placements from February 2021 through February 2026: 25 participants moved into rental units, 23 moved in with family or friends, 11 entered transitional housing, four entered shelters and six had other outcomes. The total number of people who participated in the program was not available, limiting an assessment of how quickly residents moved through it.

Council defers ADU floor-area proposal

The Council deferred action on proposed accessory dwelling unit rules and directed the item to return as soon as possible with staff’s existing recommendation.

The dispute centered on a footnote governing how ADUs count toward floor-area limits. Councilmembers and commenters raised concerns that the provision could produce different outcomes depending on whether an ADU was constructed with a teardown, adding complexity and treating similar projects unequally. Commenters requested a uniform exemption for the first 800 square feet of an ADU and additional public analysis before adoption.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting agenda