HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-12 Human Relations Commission Agenda Packet
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 12, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
6:00 PM
Human Relations Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to
attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still
maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate
from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in
the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in
person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
reports are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Human-
Relations-Commission.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91994548701)
Meeting ID: 919 9454 8701 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
HRC@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s
website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to HRC@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk
will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity
management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of the May 8, 2025 Human Relations Commission Draft Action Minutes.
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Discuss Gap Analysis Report and Provide Input Related to Housing and Services for the
Unhoused as Feedback to the City Council. – Staff – Discussion – 60 minutes
3. Review and Adoption of Policy on Public Requests for Support by the HRC. – Hsieh –
Action – 30 minutes
4. Review of the 2025 Human Relations Commission workplan and subcommittees. –
Stimmler – Discussion – 30 minutes
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Commissioner Reports
Council Liaison Report
Staff Liaison Report
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Public Letters
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrc@paloalto.gov.
Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may
be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before
they are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B-E above.
Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 919 9454 8701 Phone:1-669-900-6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access
City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org . This agenda is posted in accordance with government code
section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
DRAFT
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ACTION MINUTES
Thursday, May 8, 2025
6:00 PM
Commissioners Present: Barr, Causey, Eberle, Hsieh, Karnam, Kraus, Stimmler
Absent: none
Council Liaison: none
Staff: Minka Van Der Zwaag, Alayna Cruz
I) ROLL CALL
II) PUBLIC COMMENT
III) AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
IV) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 13, 2025
MOTION: V i c e C h a i r K r a u s moved, seconded by Commissioner Eberle to approve the
minutes of March 13, 2025.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
V) BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Early Childhood Education (ECE) Learning Session: Hearing from ECE providers and
professionals on the current childcare landscape locally and regionally. – Adhoc
Subcommittee Barr, Causey, and Stimmler – Discussion
2. Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Community Development Block Grant
Funding Allocations and Review of the Draft Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Action Plan and
2025-2030 Consolidated Plan. – Staff – Action
MOTION: Commissioner Barr moved, seconded by Vice Chair Kraus, that the HRC
recommends City Council approve the Community Block Grant (CDBG) draft Fiscal Year
2025-2030 Consolidated Plan. The HRC recommends City Council approve the CDBG
draft Fiscal Year 2025-26 Annual Action Plan with staff consideration be given to a 25%
reduction of the allocation to WeeCare/Upwards and that the monies remaining be
allocated to the other uncapped entities with special emphasis on Alma Gardens; and
accepts the HRC sub-committee’s recommendation on the contingency plan for Fiscal
Year 2025-26 funding.
MOTION PASSED: 6-1 (Stimmler)
1
Packet Pg. 4
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access
City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org . This agenda is posted in accordance with government code
section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
3. Staff update on the public art program King Artist Residency and invitation to collaborate
on an opening event on King Plaza. – Staff – Discussion
4. Review of the 2024-2025 Human Relations Commission workplan and subcommittees –
Stimmler – Discussion
Agenda Item 4 was not discussed due to the length of the meeting. Commissioners agreed
to table this item until the next meeting.
VI) REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
VII) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:45
1
Packet Pg. 5
Human Relations Commission
Staff Report
From: Melissa McDonough, Assistant to the City Manager
Meeting Date: June 12, 2025
Report #: 2505-4622
TITLE
Discuss Gap Analysis Report and Provide Input Related to Housing and Services for the
Unhoused as Feedback to the City Council
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has aligned its homelessness response with the Santa Clara County
Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025.1 Since endorsing the Plan in August 2021,2
the City has pursued several initiatives that promote housing stability, including renter
protections, safe parking, the Palo Alto Homekey interim shelter, and supporting affordable
housing projects, like Wilton Court Apartments. In late 2023,3 Council prioritized a deeper
understanding of the unhoused population, leading to a formal Council Objective in 2024 to
conduct a comprehensive gap analysis of local housing and homelessness services. This gap
analysis was presented to Council as an information item on December 9, 2024.4
The Council received a comprehensive report at the February 10, 2025 Study Session5; at that
meeting Council:
•Reviewed updates on actions taken regarding unhoused services coordination in Palo
Alto, including a discussion of the gap analysis,
•Received an overview of local enforcement efforts and changes in state and federal law,
1 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025:
https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb501/files/CommunityPlan_2020.pdf
2 Council Staff Report, April 5, 2021 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-
minutesreports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf; Council Action Minutes,
August 9, 2021
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType=
1
3 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84
4 Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6666&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12534
5 Council Staff Report, February 10, 2025
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6751&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=13091
2
Packet Pg. 6
•Received an overview of suggested community engagement next steps, relating to
developing an Implementation Plan to Address Homelessness in Palo Alto, including
potential referral to the Human Relations Commission, and
•Discussed the above items, together with the broad topics of housing production and
homelessness prevention programs, homelessness support services, and enforcement
efforts related to health and safety, referring follow-up discussions to the Policy and
Services Committee.
The discussion wrapped up with indications that staff would identify a few specific areas that
could be next steps. This became two Council Priority Objectives6:
•Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly relating to individuals
living in vehicles, to Policy & Services Committee for prioritization. Identify feasible
(1) regulatory approaches to manage the use of public space and (2) policy solutions to
expand RV safe parking. Present options to Policy & Services for consideration and
prioritization.
•Organize an initial review of sources and methods to raise funding to support new
affordable housing production for future evaluation. Conduct research to identify and
evaluate sources and methods. Work with the Finance Committee to develop
recommendations for City Council.
ANALYSIS
During the February 10, 2025 Study Session, Council had a robust discussion with a variety of
subject matter experts in attendance, providing more detailed information. The full summary is
available in the summary minutes provided as Attachment B. The presentation and responses
included extensive insights on countywide data and the system of care, provided by County
Office of Supportive Housing Deputy Director, Hilary Armstrong.
Additionally, the presentation shared key considerations found by the gap analysis, including:
•Addressing the need for non-congregate shelter in Palo Alto by using hotel voucher
programs or converting hotels into shelters;
•Contributing funds to the County’s Homelessness Prevention System as well as
increasing awareness of its resources to stem the inflow of new people into
homelessness;
•Increase affordable housing production by pursuing additional new funding sources for
affordable housing and considering additional program to require and/or incentivize
affordable housing; and
6 Council Staff Report, May 5, 2025
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7767&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=14271
2
Packet Pg. 7
•Increasing alignment and efficiencies, adding staff to increase ability to advance
priorities, identify and utilize new funding opportunities, and pursue goals tailored to
community needs by establishing a housing stability team.
Staff seeks feedback from the HRC and members of the public on the gap analysis to share with
the Council. This feedback, particularly on the key considerations noted therein related to
homeless prevention strategies and affordable housing, is helpful to the Council in future
discussions about homelessness and housing. As staff advances efforts relating to homelessness
in Palo Alto, staff seeks suggestions from HRC on focus areas that it recommends Council
incorporate if possible. Given the HRC’s charge to promote the just and fair treatment of all
people, it provides an important perspective to help inform and shape policy and approaches to
consider the full range of needs and potential barriers for vulnerable populations in Palo Alto.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
While this discussion does not have immediate fiscal implications, additional efforts addressing
housing and homelessness and its impacts in Palo Alto are likely to require additional resources.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: February 10 City Council Study Session Staff Report
Attachment B: February 10 City Council Summary Minutes
Attachment C: Housing and Unhoused Analysis – Updated January 8, 2025
Attachment D: Understanding the Unhoused Report
2
Packet Pg. 8
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, February 10, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
3.Housing and Homelessness in Palo Alto: Review of current efforts including the 2024 Gap
Analysis Report, Update on Enforcement Work, Overview of Engagement Framework to
Develop an Implementation Plan, and Discussion of Other Potential Next Steps Staff
Presentation
2
Packet Pg. 9
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: February 10, 2025
Report #:2412-3878
TITLE
Housing and Homelessness in Palo Alto: Review of current efforts including the 2024 Gap
Analysis Report, Update on Enforcement Work, Overview of Engagement Framework to
Develop an Implementation Plan, and Discussion of Other Potential Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Receive an update on actions taken regarding unhoused services coordination in Palo
Alto including discussion and feedback on the Council-directed 2024 Palo Alto Gap
Analysis Report (Dec. 9, 2024 Information Report1).
2. Receive an overview of local enforcement efforts and changes in state and federal law.
3. Receive an overview of the suggested community engagement next steps related to the
development of an Implementation Plan Addressing Homelessness in Palo Alto,
potentially including:
3.1. Consideration of a referral to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to
discuss and review the Gap Analysis Report with the intention for the HRC to
recommend areas of priority to the Council; and
3.2. Engagement and outreach to develop an Implementation Plan to Address
Homelessness in Palo Alto for Council consideration and approval.
4. Discuss items 1-3 above and have an initial discussion of 3 broad topics: housing
production and homelessness prevention programs, homelessness support services, and
enforcement efforts related to health and safety. Refer follow-up discussions to the
Policy and Services Committee (if desired) and advance the engagement efforts
described above.
1 Council Information Report, December 9, 2024
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6549&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12534
2
Packet Pg. 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the direction of Council in setting 2024 Priority Objectives, staff prepared a baseline
conditions analysis of services related to housing and unhoused services in Palo Alto. Staff also
prepared a report on the current unhoused population in Palo Alto. These reports were shared
with the Council on Dec. 9, 2024 as an Information Report. As a next step beyond this baseline
information, staff is requesting Council discussion of the report and current unhoused services
coordination. Specifically, Council initial feedback is requested on 1) housing production and
homelessness prevention programs, 2) homelessness support services, and 3) enforcement
efforts related to health and safety.
More specific questions to explore are the adequacy of homelessness prevention programs to
reduce the number of people entering homelessness; the adequacy of housing production to
increase the number of people exiting homelessness; what support and capacity the City can
commit to unhoused support services; and what enforcement strategies would foster
community health and safety. Staff will pursue a facilitated community engagement effort as a
next step of information gathering to help inform the next Council discussion and subsequent
next steps on this important topic. This information can be used in the creation of an
implementation plan addressing homelessness in Palo Alto if such a strategy is desired as a next
step to ensure balance among competing needs.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has prioritized housing stability and services for the unhoused in alignment
with regional efforts outlined in the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness
2020–20252. In April 2021, City staff presented a report to the Council highlighting strategies for
addressing homelessness, which served as a foundation for reviewing the County Plan and later
pursuing a Homekey grant.3 On Aug. 9, 2021, the Council unanimously endorsed the Plan’s
goals, including reducing the annual inflow of homelessness, increasing supportive housing,
expanding prevention services, doubling shelter capacity, and addressing racial inequities
among the unhoused population. The three pillars of the County Plan are to 1) Address the root
causes of homelessness; 2) Improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals and create
healthy neighborhoods for all; and 3) Expand homelessness prevention and housing programs.
Since endorsing the County Plan, the City has taken significant steps to advance the Plan’s
housing and homelessness strategies.
2 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025:
https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb501/files/CommunityPlan_2020.pdf
3 Council Staff Report, April 5, 2021 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf; Council Action Minutes, August 9,
2021
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType=
1
2
Packet Pg. 11
Key City initiatives include:
•Expanding renter protections,
•Piloting and later formalizing safe parking programs,
•Securing State Homekey funds, and
•Contributing to affordable housing projects (such as Wilton Court Apartments).
In Dec. 2023,4 the Council identified a need to better understand the unhoused population in
Palo Alto, subsequently elevated as a Council Priority Objective which included exploring safe
parking expansion, “Initiate research to understand Palo Alto unhoused population and explore
feasibility of expanding safe parking options on Geng Road.” During the 2024 Council Retreat
and subsequent budget process, Councilmembers indicated an interest in a direction and plan
for addressing housing and services for the unhoused. This became a Council Priority Objective
to “Conduct a gap analysis of housing and services for the unhoused in Palo Alto, considering
Council direction, City activities and work, and County activities and work.” The resulting gap
analysis and related research were presented to Council as an Information Item on December 9,
20245 and are summarized in the Analysis section for Council consideration. An updated version
of the Gap Analysis, revised to correct clerical errors in the final row of Table 2.3 (page 21) is
included with this report as Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
Section 1: Status Update on Unhoused Services Coordination in Palo Alto
Baseline Conditions
The Dec. 9th information item provided much needed data on baseline conditions in Palo Alto,
both in terms of the unhoused population and services for that population. Additionally, it
clarified key terminology and roles to ensure an understanding of definitions and constraints.
For example, people often suggest prioritizing Palo Altans for services or housing.6 However,
most permanent supportive housing programs and services addressing homelessness leverage
at least some federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Federal funds require “coordinated entry” and a “Continuum of Care”, which in turn,
require things such as no-wrong-door services and prioritization based on vulnerability.7 No-
wrong-door means that individuals experiencing homelessness and in need of housing
resources should be able to access those through a system that is low-barrier and provides
4 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84
5 Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6666&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12534
6 Council Staff Report, January 13, 2025,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6678&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12763
7 This report describes procedures in place as of the writing of this report. It does not incorporate changes that
may be made by the new federal administration.
2
Packet Pg. 12
multiple points of entry. This limits the feasibility of geographic preferences for permanent
housing programs, though individual client preferences are taken into account whenever
possible.
Santa Clara County’s coordinated entry system provides a multitude of access points for
individuals and families to seek services. The coordinated entry system determines eligibility for
programs through an assessment of an individual or household’s vulnerability, based on factors
such as disability, experience of gender-based violence, mental health challenges, and other
vulnerabilities. Permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing programs funded using HUD
Continuum of Care funding must accept eligible individuals and households from the
coordinated entry system regardless of their geographic affiliation within Santa Clara County.
However, matchmakers within the Continuum of Care work with eligible households to review
available housing options and take their geographic preferences into account whenever
possible in determining among possible housing placements.
The shelter referral system operates somewhat differently from coordinated entry for
permanent housing programs. Shelter referrals, including for the Palo Alto Homekey site, would
go through the County’s centralized Here4You call center, then would be referred to sites based
on city/area affiliation (e.g., Palo Alto) and household type (e.g., single adult, family with minor
children). When working with callers, the Here4You team first attempts to address a caller’s
housing crisis using housing problem solving techniques and services prior to shelter placement.
If housing problem solving does not resolve the housing crisis, the caller will be placed on the
shelter queue. For the Palo Alto Homekey site, priority would be given to those connected to
Palo Alto, followed by other North County cities. Here4You outreach staff will be available to
support street outreach to unhoused Palo Alto residents to get them onto the waitlist even
prior to the opening of the site.
Another example relates to definitions. For example, HUD defines unsheltered homelessness as
someone whose primary nighttime location is a public or private place not designated for, or
ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for people (e.g., a car, public park, bus
station, campground). HUD does not consider someone to be homeless if they are “couch
surfing”, sleeping in crowded situations, or temporarily staying with others due to a loss of
housing/hardship—all considered common forms of housing instability among transitional-aged
youth ages 18-24.8
Looking at Palo Alto baseline conditions, it is important to also understand the regional and
national context. In a recent federal report, data indicates that nationally, homelessness on a
single night in 2024 was 771,480 people. This is the highest number ever recorded and an 18%
increase over the prior year.9 In contrast to the high national increase, California had a more
modest increase of about three percent (3% or 187,084 people), which is also the highest
8 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), The 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment
Report to Congress, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2024-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
9 Ibid.
2
Packet Pg. 13
historical number recorded for the state. The most recent Santa Clara County count in January
2023 was a one percent (1%) increase (9,903 people) over the prior year countywide, yet a 25%
decrease (206 people) for Palo Alto.10 The next count in Palo Alto occurred January 23, 2025.
Within this national context, while the City has made significant strides in addressing
homelessness and housing instability, it remains a complex challenge locally.
The December “Understanding the Unhoused” report highlights key data about individuals
experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto. For instance, a higher percentage of people
experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto (91%) are unsheltered compared to the countywide
average (75%), with a significant portion (88%) living in vehicles. This report complements the
Gap Analysis by providing detailed demographic, housing, and service utilization data, serving
as a foundation for identifying opportunities and service gaps.
Key Facts from Gap Analysis Report
The Gap Analysis identifies a mismatch between demand and availability of certain programs
and interventions. For example, in 2023 during a single-day count of unhoused vehicle dwellers
in Palo Alto, there were 181 individuals in 102 vehicles, including 69 RVs. However, there are
only 40 safe parking spots in Palo Alto. Of those, 18 are restricted to passenger vehicles and
overnight parking, with only 22 spaces for RVs and 24-hour parking.11 While there is frequently
excess capacity at the overnight, passenger vehicle, congregational sites, there has been a
waiting list for 24-hour RV parking. Another example is related to people who could benefit
from affordable housing and the amount of affordable housing available. In terms of affordable
housing with supports in place explicitly for people experiencing homelessness:
Table 1: Palo Alto Unhoused Assessed to Need Rapid Rehousing or Permanent Supportive
Housing vs. Forthcoming Units12
Service Needs Rapid Rehousing Permanent Supportive Housing
Forthcoming (entitled) Units 32 0
Palo Alto Unhoused Residents
Assessed to Need Various Services
115 120
10 HUD Exchange, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports,
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-populations-and-subpopulations-
reports/?filter_Year=2024&filter_Scope=CoC&filter_State=CA&filter_CoC=CA-500&program=CoC&group=PopSub.
Santa Clara County 2023 PIT Report,
https://public.tableau.com/views/PIT2023v2/Exec?:showVizHome=no&embed=true&.
11 In 2023, this number was 16 passenger vehicle spots and 12 RV spots.
12 See Attachment A “Housing and Unhoused Services Gap Analysis in Palo Alto”, updated January 8, 2025, page
18.
2
Packet Pg. 14
There are also current Palo Altans who are cost-burdened—or spend more than 30% of their
income on housing costs—many of whom would be eligible for an affordable unit if one were
available:
Table 2: Currently Entitled and Proposed Housing Units (not inclusive of Rapid Rehousing and
Permanent Supportive Housing Units) Compared to Cost Burdened Renters13
Income Level
Extremely
Low Income
Very Low
Income Low Income
Median
Income
Above Median
Income
Entitled Units 46 96 49 60 331
Proposed
Units (not yet
entitled)
3 22 408 51 1,973
Cost-
Burdened
Renters14
1,460 865 915 550 635
Structure of Gap Analysis Report
The Gap Analysis report, which aligns with the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End
Homelessness, organizes its findings into three core categories:
•Addressing the root causes of homelessness through system and policy changes:
Current renter protections and anti-displacement provisions exist but lack proactive
enforcement mechanisms. While there are ongoing efforts to increase affordable
housing, additional strategies and internal organizational alignment could enhance the
City’s capacity to meet local needs.
•Improving the quality of life for unsheltered individuals and creating healthy
neighborhoods for all: Despite available services, barriers such as shelter capacity, safety
concerns, and transportation limitations prevent some individuals from accessing
resources.
•Expanding homelessness prevention and housing programs to meet demand: While the
City has over 2,300 affordable housing units, most are occupied and there are long (in
some cases, closed) waitlists, and the pipeline for new units remains insufficient. For
example, there are no permanent supportive housing units in development, despite
significant demand.
13 See Attachment A “Housing and Unhoused Services Gap Analysis in Palo Alto”, updated January 8, 2025, page
21.
14 This row’s data was updated from the December 2024 “Housing and Unhoused Services Gap Analysis in Palo
Alto”. It now includes updated data on cost burdened renters, as well as corrects the cost-burdened renter data
under “Above Median Income” which previously had shown the total number of cost-burdened renters instead of
the subset which are “Above Median Income”.
2
Packet Pg. 15
Gaps and Opportunities
Several gaps and opportunities for improvement were identified in the two reports, and in
subsequent discussions among staff and community stakeholders15:
•Affordable Housing Pipeline: While the pipeline for affordable housing is encouraging, it
remains insufficient relative to demand. For example, in Palo Alto there are no
permanent supportive housing units in development to address the needs of over 120
individuals currently waiting.
•Homelessness Prevention: There is a countywide homelessness prevention program,
however the need for additional funding and outreach limits the City’s ability to reduce
any inflow of individuals into homelessness.
•Internal Coordination and Resource Allocation: The City’s current structure for
addressing homelessness spans multiple departments, with no unified plan. This makes
it challenging to coordinate efforts effectively, allocate resources efficiently, and act on
Council direction to prioritize focus areas.
•Enforcement and Public Concerns: Community members have expressed confusion
about where to report issues related to encampments or RV dwellers and how the City
will respond once issues are reported. A clear plan coupled with public education on
how various concerns can be reported and addressed could help bridge this gap.
•Case Management: Limited resources for case management present a critical barrier to
supporting unhoused individuals effectively. High caseloads and ongoing demand for
permanent supportive housing strain the system and limit the capacity to deliver
meaningful assistance.
Addressing these gaps and opportunities with a clear policy direction will enable Palo Alto to
better meet the needs of unhoused residents while improving outcomes for the broader
community. This is further discussed in the Next Steps subsection of this staff report.
Section 2: Enforcement: Law Changes and Current Efforts
In addition to the above, enforcement of conduct laws, especially regarding health and safety
matters, is one part of the City’s response to address the health and safety impacts related to
homelessness while mitigating impacts on the wider community. The City recognizes the
complexity of enforcing laws while ensuring compassionate outreach to individuals
experiencing homelessness. Palo Alto employs a nuanced approach that balances public health,
safety, and cleanliness with respect for the dignity and rights of unhoused individuals.
15 The RV Dwellers Group, consisting of service providers, City staff, a representative of Stanford University,
members of the faith-based community, a Councilmember, and a Human Relations Commission member, met in
December and discussed the two reports.
2
Packet Pg. 16
A. New Developments in 2024
In 2024, there were two legal developments regarding the enforcement of criminal laws
regulating conduct sometimes engaged in by unhoused persons, particularly camping on public
property.
Grants Pass v. Johnson. First, in Jun. 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case
of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.16 In Grants Pass the Court held that the enforcement of laws
prohibiting camping17 on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Grants Pass decision reversed the prior rule in the
Ninth Circuit, established in 2018 in the case of Martin v. City of Boise.18 In Martin the Ninth
Circuit had held that cities may not constitutionally enforce “no camping" laws when a city’s
homeless population exceeds available shelter beds. The Circuit reasoned that homelessness is
an involuntary status if alternative shelter is not available, and that criminal punishment under
those circumstances is “cruel and unusual” in violation of the Eight Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
Because most cities and counties were unable to show adequate shelter beds for everyone
unhoused in the jurisdiction, under Martin, most were effectively barred from issuing criminal
citations for camping in public places. Between 2018 when Martin was decided and June 2024
when it was overruled by Grants Pass, federal courts throughout the Ninth Circuit enjoined
cities and counties from enforcing many local criminal laws, particularly relating to clearing
large encampments. The Grants Pass decision removed this constraint, allowing cities to pursue
enforcement of their laws against public camping regardless of shelter availability without risk
of a legal challenge under the Eighth Amendment. An easy infographic on the Grants Pass
decision can be found here: https://bcsh.ca.gov/calich/documents/grants_pass_fact_sheet.pdf.
Governor’s Executive Order. One month after the Grants Pass decision was announced,
Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order19 instructing state agencies under the Governor’s
authority to begin taking action to remove encampments on state property, prioritizing those
that present an imminent threat to life, health, safety or infrastructure. The Executive Order
describes procedures for advance notice to persons living in encampments, the importance of
offering shelter and services, and processes for retaining removed belongings. The Order was
mandatory for agencies under the Governor’s control (this does not include Palo Alto). The
Order also included non-mandatory language encouraging local government entities, including
16 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
17 Camping is not defined in federal law. Each local jurisdiction that regulates camping defines the conduct that is
prohibited. To take one example, the local law at issue in the Grants Pass case defined camping as setting up or
remaining in or at a campsite, which is any place where bedding, sleeping bags, or other material used for bedding
purposes or any stove or fire is placed for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.
18 https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/04/15-35845.pdf.
19 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Encampments-EO-7-24.pdf
2
Packet Pg. 17
cities like Palo Alto, to adopt similar policies and use their resources to remove encampments
under their jurisdiction that present an imminent threat to life, safety, or infrastructure.
Challenges that Remain after Grants Pass and the Governor’s Executive Order. The Grants Pass
decision acknowledges that the root causes of homelessness in the U.S. are multi-faceted and
complex, and that local officials need to use a variety of tools in pursuit of solutions. While
Grants Pass removed a significant constraint on cities taking enforcement action when no-
camping and other laws are broken by unhoused persons, the decision does not address or
resolve many other challenges that impede fundamental change. As discussed in other parts of
this report, these challenges include lack of affordable housing, limited availability of supportive
services, and insufficient shelter beds or shelter options that are incongruous to individuals’
needs.
In addition, enforcement activities are constrained by significant resource limitations
throughout the criminal justice system (including local police, county jail facilities, prosecutors,
public defenders, superior court judges, and probation officers).
Finally, the Grants Pass decision does not mean that state and local criminal laws cannot be
further challenged under a variety of statutory and constitutional provisions.
B. The Criminal Justice System and the Unhoused: Where We Are Now
State and local laws prohibit a variety of conduct that can have negative impacts on the health
and safety of others, impair property rights, or compromise public order. People often
mistakenly associate unlawful behaviors they observe with homelessness, even though the
behavior itself—not the person's housing status—is the crime or nuisance. This distinction
highlights the importance of addressing two related but separate issues: homelessness (e.g.,
prevention, services, housing) and crime or nuisance. With limited exceptions (e.g., special laws
that only apply to minors), state and local criminal laws apply to conduct, regardless of the
subject’s personal characteristics or housing status. This section discusses various state and
local laws that apply to everyone who engages in the prohibited conduct, regardless of whether
they are housed or unhoused.
The Palo Alto Police Department staffs a Special Problems Detail (SPD) made up of officers
assigned to work on a variety of issues, including but not limited to quality of life issues,
collaborating with community partners, the City’s outreach team, and City departments, traffic
enforcement, and any other critical issues affecting our community such as crime trends or
major crimes. The SPD and other officers engage in enforcement action on a regular basis. In
addition, City Code Enforcement and Public Works personnel issue administrative citations,
manage clean-ups, and abate nuisances.
2
Packet Pg. 18
Relevant state and local laws include, for example:
•Closing parks and community centers between 10:30 pm and sunrise
•Prohibiting outdoor fires
•Barring open alcohol containers in public places
•Prohibiting urination or defecation in a public place
•Prohibiting public nuisances
•Prohibiting vehicles from being abandoned or stored on City streets (defined as failing to
move at least ½ mile within a 72-hour period)
While the following behaviors may sometimes generate concern, they do not, by themselves,
violate federal, state or local law:
•Sleeping on the sidewalk, provided public access is not blocked
•Sleeping in a vehicle
•Sleeping outside or in a tent in a park between sunrise and 10:30pm
•Carrying around large amounts of personal property in bags or carts
•Hanging around on sidewalks or public benches
•Being present in a public parking garage that is otherwise open to the public
•Asking others for money
•Being without a home or shelter
How enforcement works. The SPD and other police officers respond to complaints and
proactively patrol sensitive areas. Officers are trained in communicating with persons with
mental health and other disabilities and utilize assistance from non-enforcement community
partners to gain compliance with the law when appropriate and possible. Officers engage
individuals displaying behavior that violates state or local law, with a goal of gaining compliance
with legal requirements. Officers make contact, educate individuals on what the law requires,
seek voluntary compliance, and offer resources. Where needed and appropriate, officers will
take applicable enforcement action with a citation or other necessary action.
To issue a criminal citation for a misdemeanor offense, officers must either: (a) directly observe
violations of state or local law, or (b) identify a complaining victim or eyewitness to the conduct
who is willing to testify on the record.
Where serious or violent conduct is involved, officers will make a custodial arrest, transporting
the individual to the County Jail in San Jose. At the jail, County Sheriff personnel make decisions
regarding processing and detention, in conjunction with the District Attorney and Superior
Court. Commonly, individuals delivered to the jail are processed and released within several
hours or a few days, pending further action by the District Attorney and Superior Court. Once
released, the individuals are free to return to their community if desired.
2
Packet Pg. 19
For non-violent misdemeanors, which are the great majority of matters in Palo Alto, officers
issue the subject a criminal citation and do not transport to the jail. The citation requires the
subject to appear in court at a specified time, subject to a further decision by the District
Attorney’s Office regarding charging and calendaring the matter in court. For non-critical
offenses, the District Attorney’s Office typically places the matter on the Superior Court
calendar when a pattern of repeated citations demonstrates a continuing problem. When a
pattern of citations results in a court appearance, the most common outcome is a period of
community service. Where applicable, the court may also order substance abuse or behavioral
treatment (if applicable), or fines. Custodial detention is rare. It is common for cited individuals
to remain in or return to the locations and communities that they consider their home.
Returning to the Community. Some residents and business owners have expressed frustration
at the visible signs of homelessness around the city, such as individuals spending long periods of
time in parks, libraries, public garages, and sidewalks, and individuals displaying worrisome
behaviors. While some concerning conduct violates state or local law and can be cited,
enforcement does not often fully resolve the issue.
For all these reasons and those shared in the Gap Analysis, enforcement should not be thought
of as a comprehensive solution to homelessness or a way to resolve all community impacts
from large numbers of individuals living without adequate housing. At best, enforcement
functions as a tool to mitigate health and safety concerns and reduce behaviors that have a
negative impact on others. However, enforcement may not be the most effective or cost-
efficient tool to mitigate such impacts, even where it is a legally available option. Enforcement
is most effective when used in conjunction with other strategies, such as access to appropriate
shelter, housing, and services.
Vehicles and Parking. The state legislature has exerted preemptive authority over vehicle
movement and parking regulations. Local jurisdictions may regulate parking to the extent
authorized by the state. Enforcement of parking restrictions or other conduct related to
vehicles raises a number of special issues, including, for example, a requirement to provide
adequate notice through comprehensive posting or individualized notice, and in some
circumstances constitutional limits on towing. The Police Department conducts periodic
monitoring for parking compliance and responds to complaints, scaled to available resources.
One common complaint involves cars, trailers or RVs that are parked without moving for an
extended period of time. State law allows cities to adopt a local ordinance authorizing removal
of a vehicle that has been parked in the same place for more than 72 hours. Palo Alto has
adopted such an ordinance. Prior to removing a vehicle, the ordinance requires City staff to
affix a notice to the vehicle advising that the vehicle will be removed for violation of the
ordinance after 72 hours unless it is moved at least five tenths of a mile. If the vehicle is moved,
there is nothing in the law that prevents the owner from re-parking in the same location.
2
Packet Pg. 20
The public has also reported concerns about use of generators, storage of belongings outside of
the vehicle, and dumping of waste. Local law has requirements related to all of these issues,
and City staff from multiple departments respond, as resources allow, and work with vehicle
owners to achieve compliance. For example, for cleanup efforts when personal belongings or
encampments accumulate in public spaces, the City provides advance notice and ensures
individuals have opportunities to gather and relocate their belongings before clearing the area.
With respect to parking and vehicles, staff has identified several areas where additional local
ordinances would enhance staff’s ability to address conduct having a negative impact on
others. These include, for example, prohibiting the ”renting” of public parking spaces and
regulating use of parking spaces for trailers or other non-vehicles. A detailed discussion of
parking and vehicles is beyond the scope of this item. Staff recommends referring further work
on this topic to the Policy and Services Committee.
Property. Special rules apply to the handling of property. In general, seizure of property without
consent requires a judicial warrant. While there is an exception for abandoned property, courts
stringently review the facts and circumstances to determine whether property is truly
abandoned as opposed to merely unattended. Accordingly, City staff post notice before taking
control of property that is not trash and not clearly abandoned. Further, with the exception of
material that is clearly trash, seized property must be retained for a period of time to allow the
owner to retrieve it. At this time, Palo Alto does not have a facility or staffing to handle storage
of seized property (with the limited exception of small valuable property held by the Police
Department under appropriate circumstances). Cities that store seized property invest
considerable resources in procuring a storage location and needed equipment, in addition to
personnel, procedures, and training required to constitutionally handle this type of activity.
C. What the Public Can Do to Support Effective Enforcement
The Police Department encourages the public to promptly report suspicious behavior or
criminal activity to our 24-hour dispatch center at (650) 329-2413, or 9-1-1 if it is an emergency.
To request cleanup of garbage or other materials left in the public right-of-way (streets and
sidewalks), a park, or a City parking garage, the Palo Alto 311 application can be used.20 A
request can also be made by calling the Public Works Department at 650-496-6974.
20 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue
2
Packet Pg. 21
Section 3: Engagement
Next Steps Description
The reports collectively emphasize the importance of developing a cohesive and targeted
strategy to address homelessness in Palo Alto. By offering a comprehensive overview of
baseline conditions, enforcement practices, and areas for improvement, they provide a
foundation for advancing Council discussions and engaging stakeholders to craft a tailored plan
for the City.
An implementation plan is essential to determine whether strategies should prioritize
incentives and supportive measures ("carrots"), enforcement and regulatory approaches
("sticks"), or a balanced combination of both. Without this clarity, efforts may lack focus, and
resources may not be deployed in a manner that reflects Council priorities and community
expectations. In order to develop a policy direction it will be important to take the pulse of the
community through meaningful, inclusive engagement. While the Council often receives
communications from residents and business owners who are frustrated, staff also receives
communications from residents reaching out to learn how to help people experiencing
homelessness or to ask for help to stay housed or find safe shelter. These communications are
less frequently items sent directly or “escalated” up to Council.
Staff proposes initiating engagement with key stakeholders, including Councilmembers, Palo
Alto Unified School District, businesses, the downtown community, faith-based organizations,
Stanford University, the medical community, community-based organizations/service providers,
and people with lived experience of homelessness. These groups are highly motivated to
address homelessness due to their roles in the community, the impacts they experience, and/or
their specific expertise. A neutral facilitator with relevant expertise should be engaged to help
ensure thoughtful and balanced discussions that build trust and result in an implementation
plan that reflects the values and priorities of the community.
Without this inclusive engagement, there may be reduced community input and a less
responsive implementation plan, which could erode trust, reduce buy-in from the community,
and potentially require a more costly redesign later as unforeseen challenges and community
concerns arise. Similarly, postponing engagement and a plan could lead to missed opportunities
and efficiencies. Acting now allows engagement to build on the relationships initiated during
the Gap Analysis research and to draw from recent data. However, postponement may require
re-establishing relationships and/or conducting new or additional research and data collection.
Staff also recommends that Council refer the Gap Analysis and related staff report to the HRC
for conversation and input on which themes and strategies should be prioritized. Given the
HRC’s charge to promote the just and fair treatment of all people, particularly vulnerable
populations, their perspective will be vital in ensuring that the Implementation Plan is inclusive
and equitable. The Commission’s work in addressing disparities related to housing,
employment, and access to community resources positions it as an essential partner in
2
Packet Pg. 22
identifying approaches that consider the full range of needs and potential barriers for
marginalized groups within Palo Alto.
Ultimately, staff will bring an implementation plan back to Council stemming from the Council
and HRC discussions and co-created by stakeholders during engagement.
Section 4: Discussion
Staff seeks Council initial feedback about 3 broad topics: housing production and homelessness
prevention programs, homelessness support services, and enforcement efforts related to
health and safety. Council input will help staff to refine and prioritize the focus areas for
further development. Specifically, staff seeks guidance on any themes or considerations Council
would like prioritized during the comprehensive engagement described above. As staff
prepares for this engagement, Council feedback can be on the broad topics listed above or on
these specific questions: 1) if the homelessness prevention programs are adequate enough to
reduce the number of people entering into homelessness, 2) the adequacy of housing
production to increase the number of people exiting homelessness; 3) what support and
capacity the City can commit to unhoused services, and 4) what enforcement strategies the City
would like to emphasize related to community health and safety. With this being such a
complex topic and a vast amount of information in this report, Council can also choose to bring
back further discussion to the full Council or Policy and Services Committee on any of the topics
within this report.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended next steps require new funding. Based on preliminary research, a budget of
not-to-exceed $50,000 is proposed for targeted stakeholder engagement and developing an
implementation plan, anticipated to take three to six months. This would be drawn from the
existing operating budget. Staff would request informal bids from qualified firms and
individuals with relevant expertise (i.e., community engagement, facilitation, projects relating
to homelessness and/or housing stability).
Additional efforts in any of these areas are likely to require additional resources. In some cases
significant resources may be needed. Consideration of resource requirements and prioritization
must be a part of any implementation plan.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff consulted with colleagues and professionals with experience locally and regionally.
Additionally, the “RV Dwellers Group” of service providers, a representative of Stanford
University, members of the faith-based community, people from the faith-based community,
City staff, a Councilmember, and a Human Relations Commission member, met in December
and discussed the two reports.
2
Packet Pg. 23
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not a project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Housing and Unhoused Analysis – Updated January 8, 2025
APPROVED BY:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
2
Packet Pg. 24
2
Packet Pg. 25
2
Packet Pg. 26
2
Packet Pg. 27
2
Packet Pg. 28
2
Packet Pg. 29
2
Packet Pg. 30
2
Packet Pg. 31
2
Packet Pg. 32
2
Packet Pg. 33
2
Packet Pg. 34
2
Packet Pg. 35
2
Packet Pg. 36
2
Packet Pg. 37
2
Packet Pg. 38
2
Packet Pg. 39
2
Packet Pg. 40
2
Packet Pg. 41
2
Packet Pg. 42
2
Packet Pg. 43
2
Packet Pg. 44
2
Packet Pg. 45
2
Packet Pg. 46
2
Packet Pg. 47
2
Packet Pg. 48
2
Packet Pg. 49
2
Packet Pg. 50
2
Packet Pg. 51
2
Packet Pg. 52
2
Packet Pg. 53
2
Packet Pg. 54
2
Packet Pg. 55
2
Packet Pg. 56
2
Packet Pg. 57
2
Packet Pg. 58
2
Packet Pg. 59
2
Packet Pg. 60
2
Packet Pg. 61
2
Packet Pg. 62
2
Packet Pg. 63
2
Packet Pg. 64
2
Packet Pg. 65
2
Packet Pg. 66
2
Packet Pg. 67
2
Packet Pg. 68
2
Packet Pg. 69
2
Packet Pg. 70
2
Packet Pg. 71
2
Packet Pg. 72
2
Packet Pg. 73
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESSIN PALO ALTO
Study Session
Presenters:
Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager
Melissa McDonough, Assistant to the City Manager
Chief Andrew Binder, Palo Alto Police Department
Hilary Armstrong, Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 74
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
1.Current Efforts on Unhoused Services Coordination in Palo Alto
2.Response and Enforcement: Current Efforts Related to Conduct and Law Changes
3.Engagement Next Steps and Implementation Plan
4.Discussion
•Homelessness prevention programs and housing production
•Homelessness support services
•Enforcement efforts related to health and safety
OVERVIEW
2
Packet Pg. 75
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
Receive:
1.An update on actions taken regarding unhoused services coordination in Palo Alto
including discussion and feedback on the Gap Analysis Report.
2.An overview of local enforcement efforts and changes in state and federal law.
3.An overview of the suggested community engagement next steps related to the
development of an Implementation Plan Addressing Homelessness in Palo Alto,
including:
•Consideration of an assignment to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to
discuss and review the Gap Analysis Report.
•Engagement and outreach to develop an Implementation Plan to Address
Homelessness in Palo Alto for Council consideration and approval.
RECOMMENDATION
2
Packet Pg. 76
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
Discuss:
4. The information shared and have an initial conversation about 3 broad topics:
•Homelessness prevention programs and housing production
•Homelessness support services
•Enforcement efforts related to health and safety
Advance the engagement efforts described and, if desired, refer follow-up discussions to
Policy and Service Committee
RECOMMENDATION, cont.
2
Packet Pg. 77
STATUS UPDATE
Unhoused Services Coordination in Palo Alto
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 78
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
www.cityofpaloalto.org
KEY CONTEXT | UNHOUSED DEMOGRAPHICS
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
From the 2023 PIT count, people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto differ from
those countywide in two significant ways:
PALO ALTO COUNTYWIDE
91% unsheltered 75% unsheltered
88% living in a vehicle 32% living in a vehicle
2
Packet Pg. 79
Source:
Understanding the Unhoused Community in Palo Alto,
report accompanying the 2024 Gap Analysis. Link below.
2
Packet Pg. 80
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING SYSTEM
AND
HOMELESSNESS IN PALO ALTO
Presented by County of Santa Clara
Office of Supportive Housing
Palo Alto City Council
February 10, 2025
2
Packet Pg. 81
2020-2025 COMMUNITY PLAN
9
2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness
2
Packet Pg. 82
17,483
2,517
Goal: Housing 20,000 People
by 2025
PROGRESS ON COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS
87 Percent to Countywide Goal of Housing 20,000 People by the End of 2025
10
87% to
Goal
Housing
Placements
from Jan.
2020 to Dec.
30, 2024 3,321
4,098
4,744
Goal: Reduction of Baseline
Inflow by 30%
Inflow over the Past One Year
(Jan. 1, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2024)
Baseline: Inflow of Individuals
in 2019
Goal: Achieve a 30% Reduction in Annual
Inflow of People Becoming Homeless
(Inflow = Number of Households Completing Their First Assessment)
2
Packet Pg. 83
HOUSING PLACEMENTS AND INFLOW INTO HOMELESSNESS
Countywide & Palo Alto: Calendar Year 2024
11
211
176
237
213 206
270
167
150 149
210
134 132
393
322
354 341
371
331
369
309
344
400
266
291
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Housing Placements (Household)
Inflow: PSH Score Range
Inflow: RRH Score Range
Inflow: Minimal Intervention
65
127
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Housing Placements Inflow
Palo Alto Households Calendar
Year 2024
PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing | RRH = Rapid Rehousing
2
Packet Pg. 84
Santa Clara
County
Supportive
Housing System
12
2
Packet Pg. 85
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION SYSTEM
13
2
Packet Pg. 86
TEMPORARY HOUSING
14
14
2
Packet Pg. 87
PERMANENT HOUSING
78% of households remained
housed 2 years later
96% of household remained
housed for first year
15
15
2
Packet Pg. 88
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Work over the years
PALO ALTO RECENT PROGRESS
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
20
2
0
Interim safe
parking
ordinance 20
2
1
County Plan
endorsed 20
2
2
Homekey
award
Wilton Court
opened
20
2
3
Outreach
worker pilot
Renter
protections
expanded
Permanent
safe parking
ordinance
Affordable
housing
resource fair
OWL pilot
SPD fully
staffed
20
2
4
Housing
Element
certification
RV safe
parking
expanded
Rental registry
launched
Gap Analysis
completed
OWL launched
2
Packet Pg. 89
www.cityofpaloalto.org
KEY CONTEXT | HOUSING
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
Source: Palo Alto Gap Analysis Report, Updated January 2025
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
Table 1: Palo Alto Unhoused Assessed to Need Rapid Rehousing or Permanent Supportive Housing vs.
Forthcoming Units
Service Needs Rapid Rehousing Permanent Supportive Housing
Forthcoming (entitled) Units 32 0
Palo Alto Unhoused Residents
Assessed to Need Various Services
115 120
2
Packet Pg. 90
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
www.cityofpaloalto.org
KEY CONTEXT | HOUSING (continued)
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
Source: Palo Alto Gap Analysis Report, Updated January 2025
Table 2: Currently Entitled and Proposed Housing Units (not inclusive of Rapid Rehousing and Permanent
Supportive Housing Units) Compared to Cost Burdened Renters
Income Level
Extremely Low
Income
Very Low
Income Low Income Median Income
Above Median
Income
Entitled Units 46 96 49 60 331
Proposed Units
(not yet
entitled)
3 22 408 51 1,973
Cost-Burdened
Renters
1,460 865 915 550 635
2
Packet Pg. 91
GAP ANALYSIS | KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•Addressing the need for non-congregate shelter in Palo Alto by using hotel
voucher programs or converting hotels into shelters.
•Contributing funds to the County’s Homelessness Prevention System as well as
increasing awareness of its resources to stem the inflow of new people into
homelessness.
•Increase affordable housing production by pursuing additional new funding
sources for affordable housing and considering additional programs to require
and/or incentivize affordable housing.
•Increasing alignment and efficiencies, adding staff to increase ability to advance
priorities, identify and utilize new funding opportunities, and pursue goals
tailored to community needs by establishing a housing stability team.
2
Packet Pg. 92
RESPONSE & ENFORCEMENT
Current Efforts
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 93
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Police Response to Calls for Service
Enforcement of State and Local Laws
Connecting, Collaborating,& Co-Response
RESPONSE & ENFORCEMENT
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
2
Packet Pg. 94
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Grant’s Pass v. Johnson
Governor's Executive Order
CARE Court initiated in Santa Clara County
NEW IN 2024 –Grant’s Pass,Executive Order, CARE Court
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
2
Packet Pg. 95
ENGAGEMENT
Inclusive Engagement and Implementation Plan
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 96
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
www.cityofpaloalto.org
We’ve learned that effective strategies addressing homelessness include
comprehensive engagement to provide guidance for City Council decision-making.
The engagement effort would include:
•Intentional conversations from stakeholders with different experiences related to
homelessness
•Information sharing about the efforts the City already does within resources
•Gathering ideas on how we can continue to move the needle and potential
partnerships
•On a parallel track, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) could lead discussions on
the Gap Analysis Report and community feedback.
ENGAGEMENT PLAN
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
2
Packet Pg. 97
DISCUSSION
Homelessness Prevention Programs, Housing Production,
Homelessness Support Services and Enforcement Efforts
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 98
TITLE 40 FONT BOLD
Subtitle 32 font
FEBRUARY 10, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org
Discuss the information shared and have an initial conversation about:
•Homelessness prevention programs
•Housing production
•Homelessness support services
•Enforcement efforts related to health and safety
Advance the engagement efforts described and, if desired, refer follow-up discussions to
Policy and Service Committee
DISCUSSION
2
Packet Pg. 99
Melissa McDonough
Assistant to the City Manager
melissa.mcdonough@cityofpaloalto.org
650-329-2533
2
Packet Pg. 100
2
Packet Pg. 101
CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 30
Special Meeting
February 10, 2025
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:
Absent:
Call to Order
Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called roll and declared all were present.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Santa Clara County 2024 Synopsys Championship Science Fair STEM Winners from Palo
Alto
NO ACTION
Forest Williams thanked Council for recognizing the students from the Santa Clara Valley
Science and Engineering Fair Association, who were winners at the Synopsys Championship. He
explained what the fair comprised. He voiced that the future could be designed and shaped and
that Council’s encouragement was motivation for students to continue their work in the STEM
environment. He discussed the importance of engineering and requested that it be pushed
forward and that students be encouraged to continue.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun invited the attending honorees to the dais for a photo with
Council.
2. Appointment of Candidates to the Planning and Transportation Commission
Deputy City Clerk Francesca Reyes announced that Council would vote to appoint
commissioners to full terms on Seats 6 and 5 and a partial term on Seat 4. A majority of four
votes was needed to make an appointment. The Seat 6 appointment would have a service date
beginning April 1. Regarding Seat 5, prior to voting, staff requested Council’s direction on the
2
Packet Pg. 102
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
appointment taking effect April 1 or filling the current vacancy immediately. Seat 4 will be
seated effective immediately and will expire March 31, 2026.
Mayor Lauing asked if the two seats were four-year seats.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun confirmed that was correct. She explained the voting process.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone, to appoint seat 5
effective immediately tabulating the two highest vote getters. If candidates receive a majority,
they would be appointed to the two full year positions. The highest vote getter among those
two will be appointed to seat 5.
Discussion ensued related to the voting process and who would be seated immediately.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
City Clerk Ah Yun emailed ballots to councilmembers.
Planning and Transportation Commission
First Round of Voting for Two (2) vacancies on the Planning and Transportation Commission
with full terms ending March 31, 2029.
Forest Olaf Peterson: Veenker, Lythcott-Haims, Lu
Daniel Hekier:
William Glazier:
Arthur Keller:
Kevin Ji: Reckdahl, Burt, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, Stone, Lauing
Salim Parak:
Thomas Kellerman: Lu
Declan King:
Michael Regula:
Todd James: Reckdahl, Burt, Stone, Lauing
Candidate Kevin Ji receiving 6 votes is appointed to a full-term (Seat 5) expiring March 31,
2029.
Candidate Todd James receiving 4 votes is appointed to a full-term (Seat 6) expiring March
31, 2029.
First Round of Voting for One (1) vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission with
a partial term ending March 31, 2026.
Forest Olaf Peterson: Stone, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, Lu
Daniel Hekier: Burt
William Glazier:
2
Packet Pg. 103
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Arthur Keller:
Salim Parak:
Thomas Kellerman:
Michael Regula:
Terrance Holzemer: Reckdahl, Lauing
Henrik Morkner:
Candidate Forest Olaf Peterson receiving 4 votes is appointed to a partial term (Seat 4)
expiring March 31, 2026.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Public Comment
Mel T. speaking on behalf of 6, (Henry R., Dorina L., Anna F., Alex H., Scott M.), a librarian and
member of SEIU, played a video that had been put together by some of the departments and
workers. She noted that they were negotiating their contract, which had ended on December
31, 2024. She discussed the public service they provided, staffing shortages, workloads
expanding, and cost of living increases. They did not want fair wages and stable benefits to be
eroded or replaced by uncertainty. She discussed their contract being the workers’ constitution.
She requested that the City remain competitive in wages, retain workers, and provide fair
benefits. She asked if Council had been approached from the City through negotiations to ask
for the budget authority or to expand the budget authority. They have been asking the
negotiating team that question, and they have not received a direct response. Workers wanted
a healthy, safe, and welcoming city for all. She voiced that the way healthcare was structured
seemed somewhat disproportional toward newer members or single people, and they
requested that family healthcare be equable to a single person’s healthcare portion. She
understood that over 80 percent of her department qualified for below market rate housing,
and they did not want long commutes into Palo Alto to be common for workers. They wanted
to ensure that there would be market realignment before COLAs and asked that they be
allowed to explain that math to Council.
Shani K. had received notification that Valley Water would be diverting funds from Palo Alto’s
section of the Bay levee to parts in San Jose. She outlined what the 2020 Safe Clean Water and
Natural Flood Protection Ballot Measure provided for. She commented that it would be
important to make the local investment in the Baylands and to provide natural flood resilience
for Palo Alto and Mountain View. She noted that the BCDC adopted a regional shoreline
adaptation plan, and there may not be funding for it. She requested that the City not let that
happen at the discussion tomorrow.
Jennifer L. stated that she was following up on how the City could take steps to eliminate
nighttime noise from big jet aircraft as part of the wellness focus in 2025. She discussed sleep
2
Packet Pg. 104
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
being important to health. She expressed that the FAA’s two recommendations to reduce
nighttime noise had not been pursued, and she requested that it be addressed.
Val P., a union member, spoke of coworkers worrying about speaking up for fear of retaliation
or being labeled as troublemakers. She discussed the importance of organized labor. She asked
Council to stand with the workforce. They want the contract to respect the values of their work
and the dignity of their labor.
McKenna C., on behalf of Palo Alto Youth Council stated that there would be a college
counseling event on February 28 and the Pancakes and Pickleball event would be on March 29,
and they hoped to see Council there.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Vice Mayor Veenker shared that yesterday a woman in the choir at her church had discussed
members of the immigrant community staying home on Monday as part of the Day Without
Immigrants, and she had asked for prayers as they faced unprecedented fear and new
immigration enforcement efforts. She noted that many of the new executive orders were in
tension with Palo Alto’s adopted values. At the next meeting, she and Mayor Lauing planned to
bring forward a Colleagues’ Memo in support of a resolution denouncing administration actions
inconsistent with Palo Alto’s values, and it would call for Council to consider legal and other
actions to protect residents. She urged her colleges to support Palo Altans portraying what Palo
Alto is, not DC.
Councilmember Burt discussed the Valley Water meeting to redirect funds. He thought, given
the short notice, that a continuation of the item should be requested. He requested that
Councilmember Reckdahl, who was on the Policy Advisory Committee, and Councilmember
Stone, who was the San Francisquito Creek JPA representative, be authorized to represent Palo
Alto on the issue and that the Mayor Lauing participate if he was inclined to do so.
City Manager Ed Shikada understood that Valley Water would have a hearing and that action
could presumably be taken tomorrow. Staff was working on a letter requesting that any action
be deferred.
Mayor Lauing asked if anyone needed to be at the hearing.
City Manager Shikada answered that it would not hurt.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims reported that Rabbi David Booth had been invited to provide
the service at her church, who did a beautiful job drawing connections among Christian, Jewish,
and black communities. She stated that it was a beautiful example of how connected and close
folks could be if efforts were made, and she urged all to look for opportunities to do such.
2
Packet Pg. 105
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Mayor Lauing mentioned that he had been delighted to make remarks at the 15th anniversary
of the Rinconada Library on Saturday. He noted that it was not just a library but a community
center.
Study Session
3. Housing and Homelessness in Palo Alto: Review of current efforts including the 2024
Gap Analysis Report, Update on Enforcement Work, Overview of Engagement
Framework to Develop an Implementation Plan, and Discussion of Other Potential Next
Steps
NO ACTION
City Manager Ed Shikada voiced that this was a complex and important issue. He noted that
often when staff received communications from community members on the topic they were
preceded with an exclamation that the City was not doing anything. He believed that what the
City was doing would be clearly pointed out at this meeting.
Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines announced that information from City staff, the
City Manager’s office, the Police Department, the City Attorney’s office, and partners from the
Santa Clara County Office of Supporive Housing would be provided. She provided slides with an
overview of what would be covered at this meeting and the recommendations. Staff hoped to
get Council feedback so they could do inclusive engagement with the community on setting the
Implementation Plan as the next steps for the City as a whole. Staff hoped to advance the
engagement efforts that had been described to Council, and if there was interest, any topics
could be sent to the Policy & Services Committee or returned to the full Council.
Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough displayed slides and remarked that the
update would include an overview of demographics and the system of care as well as some
highlights of what had been done recently and what had been learned from the gap analysis.
She discussed two ways data was typically gathered on those experiencing homelessness. They
expected to get data from the most recent Point in Time (PIT) count in the late spring. She
compared Palo Alto’s data to countywide data. She explained that besides the PIT count, they
also got data from assessments folks took when accepting services, and she furnished a slide
showing some of that data. If Council wanted to learn more, she encouraged review of the full
report, which accompanied the gap analysis as part of the information item in December. She
commented that the data was managed through the county, which provided the overall system
of care.
Deputy Director of Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing Hillary Armstrong provided
a high-level brief overview of the countywide data and overviews of their system of care.
Everything they did countywide with regard to homelessness was grounded in their community
plan. She presented a slide with the three core strategies of the community plan. The plan
would end in 2025, so probably sometime in the late spring they would launch the community
2
Packet Pg. 106
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
plan process for the next 5 years and they would reach out to Council and all stakeholders to
help gather data. She supplied slides and discussed their progress in the community plan goals
in the last five years. As of the end of December, they were at 87 percent of the countywide
goal of housing 20,000 people by the end of 2025. They struggled with inflow, which was the
number of households experiencing homeless for the first time, which was happening to a
greater degree than they were able to house folks. She displayed slides showing how they were
tracking progress month by month and a detailed overview of the structure of the supportive
housing system. She discussed the Homelessness Prevention System, and she stated that
information was available through their website. She spoke of how folks could access
temporary housing. She noted that there were not enough shelter resources in the community,
so they continued to work on increasing those resources. She discussed the permanent housing
programs, and as there were not enough permanent housing resources, they continued to
advocate for this on every level. The two main permanent housing programs were rapid
rehousing and permanent supportive housing, which she outlined.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough spoke of other communities grappling with the same
homelessness concerns. The gap analysis identified that there were noteworthy mismatches
between demand and availability and cost burdens. The Gap Analysis Report noted some areas
but not every area the City could explore, which she outlined. They knew the City had a
responsibility for public health and safety and that sometimes enforcement actions needed to
be taken related to conduct.
Police Chief Andrew Binder addressed enforcement related to conduct and behaviors
sometimes associated with homelessness. He encouraged the public to continue to call the
Police Department with their concerns, and they would respond. They would continue their
proactive contacts and enforcement efforts and continue to enforce the law fairly and
equitably. When possible, they would connect those in need with resources, make referrals,
and utilize partnerships and programs, like PERT, etc.
City Attorney Molly Stump mentioned a few developments in the law that occurred in 2024
related to unhoused persons. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that
enforcing laws prohibiting camping on public property was not cruel and unusual punishment
under the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, although there were legal guardrails in place
impacting the work of law enforcement in that area. The second development was that
Governor Newsom, one month after the decision, issued an executive order instructing State
agencies under the Governor’s direct control to begin removing encampments on State
property consistent with State policies on notice, handling of property, connecting with
services, and prioritizing encampments that presented an imminent threat to life, health,
safety, and public infrastructure. The Governor urged cities and counties to do similarly, but the
Governor’s order was not binding on Palo Alto. The third development was in the last month of
2024. Santa Clara County initiated rollout of a State program called CARE Court, which she
outlined.
2
Packet Pg. 107
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Deputy Director Armstrong stated that a clear, structured approach was needed to effectively
addresses homeless in Palo Alto. A comprehensive engagement effort could guide Council
decision-making and ensure that strategies would reflect community priorities. With input from
diverse stakeholders, an implementation plan could be developed, which would be informed by
a range of perspectives. Inclusive engagement was key in building trust, securing buy in, and
ensuring the plan would be responsive to community needs. Engagement was important in
developing a strategy that would meet specific community needs, values, and expectations.
They envisioned engagement including intentional conversations with key stakeholders,
information sharing about what the City was doing, gathering ideas and partnerships, and
leveraging related expertise of the HRC.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines displayed four topics – homelessness prevention programs,
housing production, homelessness support services, and enforcement efforts related to health
and safety. After this study session, staff hoped to advance the engagement strategies and any
follow-up discussions Council might desire. It was intended that there would be an
implementation plan later in the year.
Public Comment
John B., Board Chair of the Community Working Group, Board Member of the Abode Housing
Development, and former Councilmember, opined that almost everyone was one event away
from being homeless; that homelessness to this extent was a local, federal, and state policy
failure; and that it would be less expensive to house folks than it would be to leave them on the
street. He encouraged Council to be as proactive as possible around homelessness. He was part
of a group that was willing to work with the City at any time on direct action on homelessness
issues.
Andrew N., Associate Director of Clinic and Clinic Programs at PHC, thanked Vice Mayor
Veenker for recognizing the need to support the Latinx communities of Palo Alto. He voiced
that he had been a resident of Palo Alto for nearly 25 years and he considered this to be the
first time his community had been represented. He noted that PHC had experience in working
with the unhoused and at-risk communities, and they looked forward to working with the City
and community partners to make housing a reality for all.
Mayor Lauing thanked Andrew N., for his work.
Dale C., Program Manager with Downtown Streets Team in Palo Alto, stated that they offered a
variety of services in the community. She thanked the City and the community for their
support. She advocated for continued support for service providers who worked with the
unhoused and those with low income.
Jennifer D. read a letter on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. They agreed
with the recommendations of the gap study. Their comments were based on the State and
National League Policy meeting basic human needs, which she believed had been received by
2
Packet Pg. 108
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Council in an email. They requested the City update its Inclusionary Ordinance to include rental
housing projects, that the complex issues of affordable housing be coordinated in a single City
department, that the City find ways to create a reliable source for funding, producing, and
preserving affordable housing (she provided some suggestions), and that there be an
enforcement mechanism for renter protections. They suggested a rent review board and tenant
right to counsel.
Eileen A., Assistant Pastor at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, expressed that many
faith communities in Palo Alto cared deeply about unhoused neighbors and did what they could
to support them in partnership with some of the service providers who spoke earlier as well as
City staff. She sometimes heard complaints about the unhoused, but she thought most
recognized that folks needed compassion and care. They provided safe parking at their church
as well as the Hotel DeZink Program every year in March, which she categorized as Band-Aids.
She thanked Council for supporting all their efforts in caring for the unhoused.
Amber S., Director of Move Mountain View, thanked Council for the Safe Parking Program. She
encouraged Council to continue to consider another parking space like Geng, where good
things were happening, and to continue to think about seniors.
Winter D. (Zoom) appreciated the attitudes, commitments, and comments of John B., and
Pastor Eileen A. She wanted PERT to be followed up on, as she was not sure if it was
functioning. She inquired if there were other programs like TRUST and MCRT. She asked if
Proposition 36 had taken effect and how it would be acted on in Palo Alto. She was concerned
about what might happen with federal housing funding.
Carly L. (Zoom) spoke on behalf of her company, which was an owner and developer of life
sciences properties in the area. They were committed to Palo Alto, but they had been faced
with significant challenges at many of their properties that could completely derail the
feasibility of their projects. She urged Council to focus on a solution that would be beneficial for
long-term economics and one that would be a safe and better situation.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if Project Homekey was featured in Table 1 or 2 of the
staff presentation. She thought it would be helpful to include the 88 units in the report. She
inquired, regarding Table 2, if there was an idea of the number of bedrooms offered by the
entitled or proposed units and if cost-burdened renters addressed individuals or families. She
referenced the Here4You call center and asked how many were on the wait list for shelter in
the county and how long they would be on the list. She asked Police Chief Binder what
response he hoped police officers would have to those who call about the unhoused being
outside their residence or business. She understood that some residents were being told
nothing could be done.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that Project Homekey was not listed under rapid
rehousing or permanent supportive housing.
2
Packet Pg. 109
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough added that the Homekey Project was considered
temporary and the tables represented long-term housing.
Good City Company Principal/Co-Owner Aaron Acton stated that he would calculate the
number of bedrooms and compare it to the number of tenants who would live in the units.
Deputy Director Armstrong remarked that she would get the current number of those on the
wait list, which may be tomorrow. She noted that it varied. There could be a few hundred on
each of the lists – the family wait list and the singles wait list. She voiced that the average wait
time could be two to three months, but she would confirm that.
Police Chief Binder was familiar with the public indicating that they were being told nothing
could be done about the unhoused outside of a residence or business. He had checked the
body camera footage and noted that such statements were not made. He reiterated that they
would enforce the law equitably and fairly. Although a situation may not be a police matter, it
did not absolve them from not doing anything, such as referring for services, etc.
Councilmember Stone had heard that the Sunnyvale shelter was accepting only families and
that the county would redirect some of the single residents to Palo Alto Homekey.
Deputy Director Armstrong stated that there were a couple factors involved but that
Councilmember Stone was correct. She thinks most of the folks who were going to be housed at
the Sunnyvale shelter had been placed in other shelters for singles throughout the system. She
understood that in the opening period of the shelter there would be a time for direct referrals
from Palo Alto organizations and the Here4You hotline for those who were affiliated with Palo
Alto. The folks on the shelter hotline were trying to place callers in their own communities.
When a shelter opened, the first preference would go to those connected with Palo Alto, and if
there was excess supply, it would open up to North County residents. After the first 30 days of a
shelter opening, there would be a more dynamic placement process through the Here4You
hotline.
Councilmember Stone asked if staff had a plan to work on outreach to ensure that residents of
Palo Alto would receive the services. He hoped there would be a Palo Alto focus, but he
understood there would be regional collaboration.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that they were spending a lot of time on
outreach. The work of Human Services Manager Minka Van Der Zwaag in connection with the
community services providers would provide an opportunity to share information as a shelter
became close to being online. Because Palo Alto did not yet have a shelter, they benefitted
from the coordinated entry system. The intention was to place those with affiliations with Palo
Alto in a Palo Alto shelter.
Vice Mayor Veenker thanked the public for their work in helping those experiencing
homelessness. She requested a status report on PERT. She understood that Palo Alto had no
2
Packet Pg. 110
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
permanent supportive housing in development, and she asked what would be the best way to
do that and what would happen if it was not done.
Deputy Director Armstrong stated that she did not represent the Behavioral Health Services
Department, but she understood that PERT was currently set up with the unincorporated
county through the Office of the Sheriff in the City of Santa Clara, which she would confirm. The
Mobil Crisis Response Team was countywide. As for the outlook for permanent supportive
housing, she spoke of the success of the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. She spoke
of housing developments in Palo Alto. There were several pipeline projects nearby. They had a
partnership with the VTA to produce transient-oriented developments at various light rail and
other transit stations throughout the county. She noted that the Bay Area Affordable Housing
Bond was removed from the ballot and that the measure to reduce the threshold failed, so it
was a tough climate. There was a number or projects in the pipeline at various affordability
levels and family sizes.
Police Chief Binder stated that they had been without a county clinician since the PERT clinician
left in 2022. A PERT officer was in the org chart through various forms. Last month, Behavioral
Health Services stated that the hiring of a PERT clinician was on hold due to some
reorganization. He spoke of the value of having a clinician through Santa Clara County, and they
eagerly anticipated the county hiring a clinician, which would be partnered with the PERT
officer. They had the funds and the position to receive the clinician.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough stated that permanent supportive housing existed
but there was very rarely a vacancy. It was more difficult and expensive to build. Without
adequate permanent supportive housing, there would not be a means for folks to exit shelters,
which would mean that at some point the shelters would not have a means of accepting the
inflow.
Planning & Development Services Department Planner Robert Feign added that page 17 of the
gap analysis noted that there were 196 units currently existing in Palo Alto that could be
described as permanent supportive housing.
Vice Mayor Veenker felt that some things were caught up in definitions because there was a
mosaic of housing available. She was trying to figure out the gap.
Councilmember Lu queried if there were programs to reconnect unhoused individuals with
their families. He referenced Packet Page 89 and asked what prohibiting the renting of public
parking spaces meant.
Human Services Manager Minka Van Der knew the Opportunity Center would assess the needs
of an unhoused person to determine if they could help with transportation needs in certain
circumstances. They tried to do reunification if possible. During the PIT count, folks were asked
if they were interested in connecting with family members in another location, and they could
connect that person with the specific need, so she was hopeful that the contactor completing
2
Packet Pg. 111
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
the PIT count would get that information back to the county or local folks who could help with
that aspect.
Deputy Director Armstrong added that the Here4You Hotline Housing Problem-Solving Program
could also provide resources for folks who identified a need to connect with family in a specific
location.
City Attorney Stump stated that there was not a specific prohibition on purporting to rent a
space on a public road, and she imagined Council would find that to be unacceptable behavior.
She suggested that P&S explore that.
Councilmember Lu supported P&S discussing that. He requested more context on using a motel
on El Camino for temporary housing, which was referenced in the packet.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines believed the program to use a motel for temporary
housing was COVID specific, but she would get more information.
Councilmember Reckdahl questioned if citations or noncustodial arrests were effective. He
stated that a common complaint was related to vehicle dwellers dumping garbage and sewage,
and he asked if there were programs to address that. He thought there would be demand for
RVs with working sewage systems. He asked if there was outreach for those who might have a
nonworking engine or a leak in the roof.
Police Chief Binder answered that a citation addressed acute unlawful behavior in the moment.
Often they were issuing multiple citations. Whether a citation broke the cycle of unlawful
behavior depended on the individual.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough replied that in the region there was one sewage
pump-out station, which was on private property in Redwood City. Staff had been researching
options for pursuing such. She was not aware of a place in the city where vehicle dwellers could
legally dispose of their trash. As for outreach for those who might have a nonworking engine,
etc., there was an emerging needs fund through Human Services. There were also small funds
available, which came from a one-time donation, through the Opportunity Center for folks who
might need a tire, etc. The Opportunity Center provided a variety of services that were housed
there, so the outreach team deployed from the Opportunity Center, and the outreach team
conducted outreach to those unhoused in Palo Alto, including vehicle dwellers. PHC conducted
a lot of outreach related to mobile healthcare, and they operated a clinic at the Opportunity
Center. She stated that there was overlap.
City Manager Shikada shared that one city had tried a sewage system pump-out station and RV
dwellers were not interested in using it.
Councilmember Burt questioned why Mitchell Park Place was not considered permanent
supportive housing.
2
Packet Pg. 112
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Planner Robert Feign responded that 50 percent of the units at Mitchell Park Place would be for
special needs households, which was separate from permanent supportive housing.
Deputy Director Armstrong defined permanent supportive housing for this purpose. They were
using a narrower HUD definition rather than the broader permanent supportive housing
definition.
Councilmember Burt thought it was important that the report acknowledge the Mitchell Park
Place units. He noted that that being a form of permanent supportive housing had been left out
of the report. He also could not find the discussion related to transitional housing. He did not
know why the importance of those investments and their statuses were not visibly
acknowledged. He questioned why only 25 units of the Charities Housing project were listed
under the proposed units and if by being listed as rapid if that meant they were permanent.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that staff acknowledged the investment and
effort in the transitional housing piece in Homekey. She noted that there was more information
in the Gap Analysis Report.
Planner Robert Feign replied that the units shown on Table 1 were rapid rehousing units from
the Charities 3001 El Camino project and all the units would be extremely or very low income.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines inquired if it was a time frame difference.
Planner Robert Feign confirmed that it was a time frame difference. He stated that all the
Charities project units would be permanent.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough stated that it was not clear if rapid meant
permanent. Rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing were permanent. She defined
permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing.
Councilmember Burt voiced that if the public did not understand the terms of art in the
presentation that what was trying to be communicated would be lacking. He asked how to get
the item related to the rental of public parking spaces to P&S. He addressed Slide 18, and he
thought the metric of 30 percent income toward housing was a misused metric, which he
explained. He felt the metric should focus on those with extremely low, very low, or low
income. He asked if the Geng Road site was in the process of expanding. He wanted to discuss
inadequate bathroom facilities downtown for the unhoused.
City Attorney Stump replied that the committee work plans would be coming to Council soon,
which would be a good time to address the rental of public parking spaces.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough provided an update on the Geng Road site. There
was enough fundraising to kick off the expansion. They would hopefully come to Council in
March with a funding agreement for the expansion.
2
Packet Pg. 113
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines added that the expanded site was open and accepting
people. There was a temporary funding strategy underway due to donations, and staff would
return to Council for the long-term funding strategy.
Mayor Lauing discussed the homeless issue being two sided. One was a need to provide shelter
and care around that and the other byproducts of the situation – hygiene, aggressive behavior,
etc. With respect to enforcement, he stated that ways to coexist should be addressed. He
thought the City should be more sensitive to the problems caused, which he voiced needed to
be addressed. He did not see data on the homeless segments, such as sex, age, etc., or data on
those considered to be chronically unhoused due to mental health or drug use, and he asked if
there was insight into that. He stated that the unhoused who did not want housing still needed
services. He did not know if the definition of camping needed to be addressed. He asked if
outreach was being done so people could possibly be housed outside county boundaries in the
short term as opposed to them waiting years for housing.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough responded that the information item was released in
December, which included the gap analysis and a report by the management fellow on
understanding the unhoused community, which included much data and many interviews. She
explained that the Here4You hotline would determine how to get a person to a happy outcome
as quickly as possible, which included options outside the county as well.
Deputy Director Armstrong added that within the data the county pulled it appeared that about
two-thirds of folks seeking permanent supportive housing had been homeless for longer than
one year. She explained that when breaking down scores for the assessment about one-third of
the folks assessed were chronically unhoused. She considered chronic to be beyond the zero to
one year mark. She explained that there were nuances to that information and she would pull
some more data.
City Attorney Stump stated, regarding the definition of camping, the City creating a definition of
the conduct would be a part of the effort to regulate in that area.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines replied that she thought that was why the prevention
question and cost burdened renters had been in there. It was not to assume the exact number,
but it was emphasizing that people needed to be supported so they would not enter
homelessness. The partnership with the county was important because they were working with
other cities in the county as well, so they were able to learn about resources in other cities.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims understood that there were 40 safe parking spots in Palo Alto
and that 18 of those were only available through the night. The staff report indicated that 88
percent of the unhoused in the community lived in vehicles. They needed to be able to dispose
of trash and pump sewage. She viewed the most immediate and cheapest solution to be more
safe parking lots. She thought it was time to build a proper RV dweller and tiny home
community over an acre or two, which was Move Mountain View’s idea. She looked forward to
continuing to work with all to better support vehicle dwellers and the unhoused more broadly.
2
Packet Pg. 114
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 14 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Vice Mayor Veenker understood that safe parking in residential areas, often in church parking
lots, was not at capacity, and she noted that there was a statistic that 88 percent of the
unhoused in Palo Alto dwelt in vehicles, so she questioned what the disconnect was. She
queried if the number of cars versus RVs was known and why car dwellers might elect to reside
on the streets rather than in the congregational sites. She wanted the record to reflect that the
County was lucky to have Deputy Director Armstrong. She asked what coordination would be
happening between departments.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough answered that folks left the congregational sites
every morning versus staying parked in the RV site. Fewer folks were willing to park and leave in
the mornings. The congregational sites did not accept RVs.
Move Mountain View Director Amber Stime explained that car dwellers were a bit more
transient than those in RVs, that car dwellers sometimes felt less safe than those in RVs, and
that car dwellers were not as visible as RV dwellers.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines replied that coordination required a lot of understanding
of questions and concerns coming in from the community. It also included thinking about
partnerships with community organizations. They were always looking for ways to ensure there
would be department collaboration.
City Manager Shikada added, regarding coordination, that there was not an org chart. It was a
multidisciplinary issue and would require flexibility in doing the work. He thought the ask was
for permission for staff to continue working this issue with Council to identify clarity on the
priorities representing the needs to the community that would be reflected in the resources
deployed.
Vice Mayor Veenker noted that there was an indication that there was no unified plan but it
sounded like it was more prioritization and everyone doing their part.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines added that where the City wanted to go was the answer to
whether the recommendation made sense going forward, which would depend on the level of
services, etc.
Councilmember Stone thought being at the county border and far removed from the county
seat and San Jose was challenging for Palo Alto. He noted that there might be spillover from San
Mateo County. He considered homelessness to have no border, and he stated work had to be
done collaboratively as a region to effectively address it. He was concerned that there was a
growing trend with cities reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision in Grant’s Pass versus
Johnson. He was concerned about inconsistent policies in the region that would move people to
different cities rather than solve the problem. He thought it was critical to collaborate with
regional partners and neighboring jurisdictions to find a balance and to ensure that the carrot-
first approach was being used to humanely support the unhoused while also providing
necessary enforcement tools. He explained that there had been confusion over jurisdiction as it
2
Packet Pg. 115
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 15 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
related to encampments along San Francisquito Creek. He believed there should be some sort
of joint taskforce or agreement with neighbors for situations such as that. He voiced that there
needed to be compassion and enforcement. He thinks the HRC should be a part of the
discussion. He stated that centralizing unhoused services within a particular department was
key. He hoped additional safe parking areas for RVs would be identified. He inquired if there
was data related to homelessness being due to rent increases within the last few years. He
added that such data could also provide information related rental protections, etc. He wanted
to move toward developing policy around renter protections that would be data driven through
the rental registry.
Councilmember Reckdahl addressed Slide 6 and requested insight. He questioned if a lot of the
RV dwellers were working poor. He asked if the slide indicated that something needed to be
done and if people were somehow being failed. He asked how many were homeless due to
economics, how many due to mental health, and how many due to substance issues. He
inquired if there had been success for those with mental health or substance issues. He
requested information on CARE Court.
Assistant to the City Manager McDonough stated that there was Hotel DeZink and people were
likely to accept shelter in an area they were comfortable in and shelter that was non-
congregate. Palo Alto had a higher percentage of folks living in vehicles than countywide, and
she thought that had something to do with the demographics. She speculated that many RV
dwellers were working poor. The main purpose of the slide was to show how Palo Alto’s
population differed from the county. It was important to design a solution or strategy to meet
the needs of the city’s specific population. She noted that on Page 15 of Understanding the
Unhoused there was a table that reported on folks’ various vulnerabilities. Approximately 150
folks reported mental health or brain issues affecting housing, which was more than half, and
68 percent self-reported having a disability.
Deputy Director Armstrong replied that of the folks assessed, about 28 percent reported some
sort of mental health issue, which ranged from minor to major disorders, which was why there
was permanent supportive housing programs. She commented that the CARE Court had been
enacted within Santa Clara County. Eligibility required a diagnosis of a particular psychotic
disorder and that the person not be stabilized in voluntary treatment. The CARE Court process
could begin with a Court petition, and there was information on the Behavioral Health Services
website.
Councilmember Lu echoed all of Councilmember Stone’s points. He mentioned that more
restrooms, showers, and laundry services were needed downtown and other places. He aligned
himself with all the comments by the League of Women Voters. He did not think a
criminalization of homelessness in the style of Grant’s Pass should be applied. He believed
situations posing risks to health, fire, etc., should be enforced. He wanted investigation into
how mental crises were handled. He asked if staff needed anything more from the study
session or if any referrals needed comments. He supported more conversations in the HRC.
2
Packet Pg. 116
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 16 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines responded that one of the next steps would be gathering
specific community feedback, which should be done in a more organized way than a large Town
Hall. If Council wished to refer anything additional, February 24 would be a good time to make
referrals to P&S.
Councilmember Burt addressed Slide 6, and he was concerned that the unsheltered and not-in-
vehicle homeless population may be undercounted. The data showed that a high percentage of
the homeless was not living in tents but in vehicles. He questioned how vehicle dwellers could
be addressed more effectively. He noted that 10 acres on the northeast side of Geng Road was
empty land, and he wanted a fraction of that land to be considered for use. He discussed why
he thought referrals should go to HRC and the PTC. He addressed issues downtown and
enforcement, and he thought a focused approach on compounding violations needed to be
prioritized. He felt public restrooms should be offered downtown, although it could become a
magnet for concentration in a given area. Regarding showering and laundry, he requested an
update on the portable service. He spoke of there being a problem in the City Hall Lobby, and
he wanted shower and laundry services to be offered weekly. He suggested there not be
seating or food allowed in the space other than for special events. He suggested setting rules
that would be easy to implement. He did not want to lose public support in allowing such
actions to continue.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines replied that staff had connections with Dignity on Wheels
and they recently offered services downtown, which included showering and laundry services.
Manager Van Der Zwaag added that there was capacity in the contract with Dignity on Wheels
to provide occasional services beyond their HSRAP contract.
City Manager Shikada noted that recently Dignity on Wheels did a test deployment at the Civic
Center. Unfortunately, they did not receive a good response in terms of individuals taking
advantage of the service. There were opportunities to look at how such a service might
generate a better response.
Mayor Lauing thought one department should coordinate comprehensive engagement. In the
short term, he wanted to act on expanding a Geng Road-type parking situation and get help
from faith communities for parking. He expressed that inclusive housing with respect to rentals
needed to be accelerated. He added that some of the long-term solutiones needed to start
now, including a fund for affordable housing that would be managed and owned by the City. He
did not believe enough was coming in through the business tax and development fees. He
queried if there were specific outreach targets.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that they had not broadly connected with the
community on the topic. They had received information from those who were passionate one
way or the other. They did not know what the broader community wanted to focus on, and
staff wanted to provide that information to Council.
2
Packet Pg. 117
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 17 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Mayor Lauing thought those answers could be written now, which might become the
hypothesis to be tested in the outreach. He felt staff should return with a short- and long-term
gameplan. He did not want to wait four months for the report. He questioned whether there
could be parking at night on the unused baseball field.
City Manager Shikada had heard great suggestions at this meeting, and staff would like an
opportunity to identify a few specific areas that could be next steps. Staff did not think drastic
action should be taken in one area without recognizing that there may be repercussions not
immediately obvious, which was where outreach would come into play. The work plans was a
good way to telegraph what the priorities might be and to get confirmation by Council so
different pieces could be in play simultaneously.
Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines thought Council’s feedback set the baseline for what could
be explored in further conversations and especially the discussion on February 24 for things to
happen on a parallel track. She thanked Council in advance for recognizing staff’s workload in
addressing this.
Mayor Lauing thanked staff for the comprehensive Staff Report and for the breadth of staff
attending this meeting.
Consent Calendar
Public Comment
There were no requests to speak.
MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Veenker to approve Agenda
Item Numbers 4-12.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
4. Approval of Minutes from January 21, 2025 and January 25, 2025 Meetings
5. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S24189598 with Good City
Company in the Amount of $24,930 for a Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update;
CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3)
6. Approval of Contract Amendment Number Three to Contract Number C21177024 With
Veolia Sustainable Buildings USA West, Inc. to Extend the Contract Time Through August 14,
2026 With No Change in the Amount Not-to-Exceed of $1,985,000 for the Commercial &
Industrial Energy Efficiency Program. CEQA - Not a Project
7. Approval of Amendment Number Three (3) to Contract Number C19174648 with
WaterSmart Software, Inc. (dba WaterSmart) for the WaterSmart Utilities Customer Portal,
to Extend the Contract Term for 18 Months, for the Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of
2
Packet Pg. 118
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 18 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
$537,763 Over the Seven-Year Term; CEQA status –Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15308.
8. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Approve the Verified Emission
Reduction (VER) Master Agreements with AQC Environmental Brokerage Services, Inc. and
SCB Brokers, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase VERs from AQC
Environmental Brokerage Services, Inc. and SCB Brokers, LLC Under Specified Terms and
Conditions During Calendar Years 2025 Through 2034, Inclusive, Subject to Limitations;
CEQA Status: Not a Project, CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5)
9. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25189597 with Rutherford & Chekene
in an Amount Not to Exceed $207,812 for Development of a Seismic Hazard Identification
and Mitigation Program for a Period of Three Years. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA
Guidelines 15262.
10. Approval of Two Professional Service Agreements: Contract No. C25190944A with 4Leaf,
Inc. and Contract No. C25190944B with Park Engineering, Inc in the Aggregate Amount Not-
to-Exceed $3.75 Million for a Period of Five Years for On-Call Field Inspections and
Construction Management Services to Support Utilities Water, Gas, and Wastewater Capital
Improvement Projects; CEQA Status: Not a project.
11. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City
Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair
Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution Number 9937. CEQA Status -- Not a
Project
12. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various
Chapters of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement the 2023-2031
Housing Element (FIRST READING: January 21, 2025 PASSED 7-0)
City Manager Comments
City Manager Ed Shikada mentioned that the Rinconada celebration was an excellent example
of what could be achieved when the community invested in facilities and was a good example
to follow in the Cubberley work. The Cubberley Master Plan next steps included an initial
Council discussion on February 18 (additional information would be available Thursday) and a
community meeting on March 19. February 17 was the deadline for community fellows as a
way for community members to get personally involved in the master planning effort and
would be a way to have a higher level of involvement in the outreach, and information could be
found at cityofpaloalto.org/cubberleyproject. The Affordable Housing wait list was open to
those who wished to participate in the Below Market Rate Housing Program. The deadline to
join the waiting list was February 28. It would be followed by a lottery for available units, and
he believed it would be used for some period of time after that date for allocation of units to
select 200 households to participate. There was much community interest regarding fire
2
Packet Pg. 119
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 19 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
protection and staffing at Fire Station 4. A community update/article was posted by the City last
week. There would be a neighborhood briefing for any interested community members on
February 13. Staff would bring forward a recommendation as part of the midyear budget
review on February 24. The PTC had additional board and commission vacancies available,
including the ARB, HRC, and the UAC, and the due date for applications was February 26. There
would be no regular meeting next week. The following week would be the midyear budget
review and the discussion of Council priority objectives and committee work plans. He noted
that the Electrification Pilot Program for multi-family housing topic was listed on the slide in
error. On March 3, there would be a study session on the Draft Safe Streets For All Safety Action
Plan and an action item on the Housing Element Housing Incentive Program. March 10 would
include the proposed expansion of development at 4075 El Camino Way as well as the return
on the artificial/synthetic versus natural turf study scope of work. There would be a number of
items in the following weeks.
[Council took a 15-minute break]
Recess City Council Meeting and Convene Public Improvement Corporation Meeting
Mayor Lauing called the Public Improvement Corporation Board meeting to order. He stated
that Council was meeting as the PIC Board for the purposes of approving the FY2024 Palo Alto
PIC annual financial statements, which were audited annually and required Board approval.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun noted that all Board members were present.
PIC Board Members Present In Person:
Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker
Action Items
13. Approval of the FY 2024 Public Improvement Corporation’s Annual Financial Report; CEQA
Status: Not a Project
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department Christine Paras declared that there
was not a presentation but they had some verbal comments. The PIC was a nonprofit lead by
Council that enabled the City to issue Certificate of Participation bond debt to fund capital
projects. The bylaws required the Board to meet at least once annually to approve the financial
statements. The PIC had three outstanding debt obligations totaling $151M, which were
outlined on Table 1 on Packet Page 373, which she elaborated on. Staff was seeking the Board’s
approval of the 2024 financial statements, which had been audited by the City’s external
auditor with a clean audit opinion.
Public Comment
2
Packet Pg. 120
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 20 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
There were no requests to speak.
MOTION: Board Member Stone moved, seconded by Board Member Veenker to approve the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Annual Financial Report for the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Reconvene City Council Meeting
Mayor Lauing adjourned the PIC Board meeting and reconvened the Council meeting. He noted
for the record that the Council had reconvened as Council, which was confirmed by the City
Clerk.
Action Items
14. PUBLIC HEARING: Objections to Weed Abatement at Affected Properties and Approval of
Affected Property List for Commencing Weed Abatement in 2025; CEQA status – exempt
City Manager Ed Shikada reported that this item was largely driven by fire prevention needs.
The staff report identified properties on the list of potential weed abatements, which had been
notified, and potential objections could be raised to Council. He asked the City Clerk to confirm
that no objections had been received.
Public Comment
City Clerk Mahealani AH Yun declared there were no requests to speak and no public
comments.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted that Stanford was on the list, and he inquired if they could be
asked to mow.
City Manager Shikada stated it was an annual occurrence and the university was given notice of
their properties on the list, which were almost exclusively lease holds.
MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to:
1. Adopt a determination that weed abatement activities in 2025, as described in
Resolution 10201 (Attachment A) adopted by Council on December 2, 2024, are exempt
under Class 8 (CEQA Guidelines section 15308);
2. Hold a Public Hearing to hear and consider any objections to the proposed destruction
and removal of weeds in 2025 at the properties listed in Attachment B; and
3. Approve the final list of affected properties for weed abatement in 2025 (Attachment B)
following the public hearing, and direct weed abatement activities to commence at
those properties in accordance with Resolution 10201.
2
Packet Pg. 121
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 21 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
15. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN-00012]: Approval of an
Ordinance Rezoning the Subject Parcel From Commercial Services (CS) to Planned
Community Zoning (PC) and Adoption of a Record of Land Use Action to Construct a 100%
Affordable, Five-Story, 55 Unit Residential Rental Project. Environmental Assessment: Initial
Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review.
Principal Planner Garret Sauls gave a brief overview of the process and the project for the
Planned Home Zoning Application. In January, the PTC recommended that Council approve the
application. He shared a slide noting the various ways the project deviated from the underlying
CS Zoning District. The project site was across from where the current El Camino Real focus area
standards applied. Feeback provided for the application in September 2023 focused on the
length of time for parking stackers to cycle through, whether parking spaces would be
unbundled from each of the units, anticipated rents, if units would be affordable for teachers,
and consideration of expanding the driveway, and the staff report addressed all these items. He
supplied slides showing drawings of the elevations and the rooftop deck. In requesting a
parking reduction from the standard requirement, the applicant had proposed following TDM
measures within the application, which he outlined. Regarding circulation, the City’s
environmental consultant looked into the proposed design to understand how accessible the
property would be to vehicles. He noted that vehicle lifts were proposed as the primary
parking, which had a different standard than typical dimensions in the Municipal Code. For
vehicle lifts, the City’s code created a standard focusing on mid-size or full-size vehicles. All
stalls would be assigned parking. Affordability information was provided in a table in the Staff
Report. He noted that there were some Staff Report corrections related to affordable rent,
which he discussed and displayed on a slide. The project proposal satisfied Council’s Option 2 in
the PHZ Application requirements. The property was within the current NVCAP boundaries, but
the project was deemed complete before the NVCAP standards applied to the project, so the
standards did not apply currently to the design. If the project should be denied, any future
design would need to meet those standards. There was a valley oak on the site that could be
removed under the current Tree Ordinance requirements. The roof deck would provide the
majority of the open space requirements. Staff recommended that Council consider the
environmental document, adopt the ordinance in Attachment B to amend the district from CS
to PC, and approve the Record of Land Use Action.
Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait declared that the PTC Vice Chair was
available to answer questions.
Applicant Jason Matloff commented that he and his wife had been trying for years to find the
right compromise to get approval to build a 100-percent affordable housing project that would
hopefully house and be prioritized for Palo Alto educators in the public school system. He
mentioned that the community benefits were the same as they were a year and a half ago. He
highlighted that the primary benefit would be that some portion of housing would be provided
to the vast majority of teachers who could not afford to live in Palo Alto. The primary revisions
2
Packet Pg. 122
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 22 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
in the application from one and one-half years ago was related to feedback from Council and
commissions they presented to, which included unit affordability for teachers and the City’s
undertakings to upzone the vicinity around the project. The application provided for 25 percent
low income, moderate income being reduced to 75 percent, and the income threshold used to
calculate affordable rents was reduced, which he outlined. They were doing that by embracing
the upzoning and increasing by an additional level, adding a floor of residential units, so there
would be 55 units and parking would be increased from 24 units to 31 units, which would
increase the parked ratio slightly. He furnished slides showing how rents would be calculated,
rent amounts, and salary grades that would qualify for an affordable rent category. He
discussed affordability versus affordable rent and whether an affordable rent would be
affordable to an individual’s salary. He presented a slide showing the rent-to-income ratios
referencing the varying standards, which included HUD, commercial, and the City’s low-income
Alta Housing standards. He noted that 2755 El Camino was a market rate project and that those
rents would not reflect rents at this project.
Applicant Architect Isaiah Stackhouse stated that since September 2023 they had worked
extensively with City departments to refine the project details. They had added 11 affordable
units, increased the affordability, added an extra level of parking machines to increase parking,
added more open space, widened the driveway, and added windows and daylighting. He noted
that the ARB, PTC, and City staff recommended the project.
Mayor Lauing requested disclosures from councilmembers.
Councilmember Stone voiced that he had met with the applicant a few times over the last
couple years. To the best of his knowledge, they had not discussed anything not in the public
record.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that she had met with the applicant by phone a few
times since the project was first presented, and she had not learned anything that had not been
communicated in the public record.
Councilmember Reckdahl remarked that he had met with the applicant but nothing had been
revealed that was not in the packet. He had visited the site and had nothing to report.
Mayor Lauing noted that with the various iterations over the last two years he had visited the
site with the applicant in person. He had not reviewed it since it last went to the PTC, so he had
nothing to report.
Councilmember Lu declared that he had spoken with the applicant and visited the site and he
had nothing to report.
Councilmember Burt commented that he had met with the applicant twice over the last two
years and not since the PTC’s last review.
2
Packet Pg. 123
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 23 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Public Comment
Teri B., President of the Palo Alto Educators Association, voiced her enthusiastic support of the
vital educator housing project. She spoke of the positive impacts related to teachers being able
to reside in the area. She voiced that the project was about more than housing, that it was
about strengthening the schools, the students, and the community. She urged Council to
approve the initiative for the benefit of all.
Mila Z., the CEO of Manzanita Works, discussed the work they were doing. She spoke of the
lack of available housing for teachers and the workforce being crucial to the overall wellbeing of
the community. While they were not familiar with the specifics of the projects, they applauded
the intent to serve educators, and she hoped the project would be a resource for educators’
commutes.
Meb S., President of the California School Employees Association Palo Alto Chapter 301,
considered the project to be a win-win for the City, affordable housing, and educators and
support staff. She voiced that there was tremendous interest in 231 Grant, and she thanked
Council for supporting that project. She remarked that this project would be another step in the
right direction. They supported the project and urged Council to move it forward.
Amie A. (Zoom), Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, noted that they had submitted a letter
of support and attached over 40 additional support letters from the community. They urged
approval of the much-needed project.
Scott O. (Zoom) requested that Council approve the project. He discussed how rules needed to
change to allow for more projects like this without years of hearings. He wanted to hear
direction that would get the ball rolling on broader reforms that this project seemed to
motivate. He requested that the project be leveraged as much as possible.
Jennifer D. (Zoom) fully supported the project. She stated that many PAUSD staff traveled a far
distance and that they were desperate for the units. She requested that the project be
approved.
Councilmember Stone thanked the applicant for bringing a good project to Council that would
fill a critical need. He asked for more information concerning the ARB wanting a schedule for
garage door operations to be considered.
Principal Planner Sauls responded that there were concerns about the right-in/right-out
entry/exit to the property and how quickly the door would open. The applicant proposed using
a high-speed door that would open within three to five seconds. The ARB had been concerned
about having to idle slightly on El Camino before being able to turn in.
2
Packet Pg. 124
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 24 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Councilmember Stone saw confirmation from staff that there would be no curfew on the
parking garage. He asked what design elements would be incorporated to avoid traffic backup
on El Camino in the afternoon.
Principal Planner Sauls answered that the ARB had suggested recessing the garage door so
there would be a queue space for one vehicle. The ARB questioned what that would look like
architecturally, and he believed their thoughts were that with a high-speed door and having a
time frame for leaving the doors open during normal traffic hours that there would not be a
queuing capacity issue.
Councilmember Stone felt the door remaining open during that time would make the most
sense. He inquired what would happen if a tenant’s income should rise beyond the AMI
threshold.
Principal Planner Sauls replied that if a tenant’s income should rise above the AMI threshold
that they would typically be given notice to move out. If they were in the low-income band and
income increased to the moderate income band, they may be able to move into a moderate
income unit. If income increased above the moderate income level, they would be provided a
notice and given ample time to find other accommodations.
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that issues related to income bands and the amount
of time a resident would have to find other accommodations were typically negotiated in the
regulatory agreement prior to the building permit. In the past, there had been a six-month
period or residents were allowed to remain in the unit organically until they vacated the
property, so either were options. Because the project was not using funding sources that had
stringent requirements, there was flexibility in how to handle such situations.
Councilmember Stone thought at the very least folks who outgrew the income restrictions
should be able to stay until the end of the school year or the start of the following school year.
He wanted to hear the perspective of the Educators Association.
President of the Palo Alto Educators Association Teri Baldwin thought it would be best if they
could do it at the end of the school year in the summer, not right away if it should be during the
school year.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was persuaded that the question of affordability had been laid
to rest. She requested that the rent-to-income ratio slide be shared and discussed again.
Applicant Matloff discussed the rent ratios relative to affordable rents that one would qualify
for. He pointed out that the income bands established by the HCD were huge, and he was trying
to make it more specific to the salary grades.
2
Packet Pg. 125
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 25 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Councilmember Reckdahl asked if everyone in the development would receive transit passes.
He inquired about electric bikes being roughly $5 per hour and if the meter would keep running
for bikes parked at a school. He asked where the nearest Zipcar or rental was from the location.
Principal Planner Sauls responded that the TDM plan proposed providing free VTA passes to all
tenants.
Applicant Matloff stated that he had indicated previously that electric bikes would be $1 per
hour. They were trying to prevent people from squatting on them. They did not plan to make
money on it. The clock would run for bikes parked at a school. They tried to engage shared cars.
He urged the City to engage with Zipcar to provide public parking support.
Principal Planner Sauls responded that the closest Zipcar or rental was at Clocktower Square,
which was across the street.
Director Lait added that Uber, Lyft, and Palo Alto LINK were mobility options as well.
Councilmember Burt added, regarding Zipcars, that deliberate central locations should be
considered. He addressed the AMI breakdowns and migrating out of a category and queried if
consideration had been given to having a 90 percent category between the 70 and the 110
percent categories, so rent might be in proportion to an income increase.
Applicant Matloff responded that a 90 percent category had not been modeled. He understood
that he was bound by HCD regulations and there being affordable rents for differing incomes.
Director Lait stated that there was nothing inherently restrictive about having a moderate
income at 100 percent AMI to be a part of the project but he did not know if it had been
modeled out from an economic feasibility standpoint from the applicant’s perspective.
Applicant Matloff stated that they would not be able to add a 90 percent AMI level of rent if the
70 percent AMI level rent was not reduced, so it would have a negative effect.
Councilmember Burt explained that X percent of units could be in the middle category, which
could prevent evictions if one received a small raise. He stated that Palo Alto Forward indicated
that the project had no subsidies from the City, but he noted that the impact fees would be
waived, and he explained why he thought it was necessary. He asked the dollar amount
associated with the waiver. He wanted the community to understand the project was one the
City was partnering on through waiving the impact fees in a deliberate way.
Applicant Matloff had no objection to that. He was amenable to whatever the teachers or
Council wanted in terms of transitioning out, and waiting until the end of the school year made
sense. He was happy to entertain Councilmember Burt’s proposal.
2
Packet Pg. 126
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 26 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Principal Planner Sauls explained that generally the impact fees would be $3.5M to $4M, but
because 100 percent affordable housing projects did not have that requirement, the answer
was zero now.
Vice Mayor Veenker referenced the rent-to-income ratio chart and the percentage of income
bands at the different affordability levels, and she understood that there was a slight difference
between the number of income bands versus the number of people/teachers that would be
eligible, and she requested that the chart be translated to people. She spoke of the value of
teachers and employees residing in the community. She supported the project.
Applicant Matloff responded that there were two important terms – the calculated affordable
rent and whether the affordable rents would be affordable to an individual. The Staff Report
reflected that 9 percent of the published salary grades would qualify for low income, 79 percent
for moderate income, and 13 percent would not qualify. He did not know how many teachers
were in each salary grade. He added that the 2 unions consisted of 1,600 members.
Councilmember Lu asked what staff wanted to see in the motion as it related to Council’s
direction in negotiating terms in the regulatory agreement.
Director Lait requested that Council provide direction on approaching the negotiation.
Mayor Lauing requested that the developer speak to the details of the recruitment of teachers
and nonteachers. He noted that the Staff Report indicated that there would not be
requirements that teachers be tenants, but he questioned if the prioritization and a first right of
refusal should be included.
Applicant Matloff replied that they had developed an agreement with the two unions as it
related to the recruitment of teachers and the general market, which he detailed. The unions’
list would be prioritized on a first-come, first-served basis.
Principal Planner Sauls replied that the prioritization for teachers would be incorporated into
the regulatory agreement.
Mayor Lauing inquired if it should be stated in the development agreement. He asked about a
discount for affordable, unbundled parking.
Director Lait responded that it would be done as part of the regulatory agreement.
Principal Planner Sauls stated that it was initially proposed that the application would charge all
units a flat parking rate, which was noted to be $150 per unit and the Staff Report identified an
alternative, should Council consider it, which was an option of 4 or 5 percent (which he would
confirm) based off rent plus the utility allowance, which captured a range proposed by the
applicant. There was a draft condition of approval in the Record of Land Use Action on the
subject.
2
Packet Pg. 127
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 27 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
Applicant Matloff was fine with the variability of low-income versus moderate-income parking.
Mayor Lauing was interested in that being stipulated.
Principal Planner Sauls pointed out that the condition was referenced on Packet Page 434,
Condition 14B.
Councilmember Stone queried how much of a drop in rent there had been from the first
prescreening to now.
Applicant Matloff responded that the rents were 10 percent lower.
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to take the
following actions:
1. Consider the Initial Study Checklist/Streamlined Environmental Review prepared in
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183;
2. Adopt the Ordinance in Attachment B amending the zone district from CS to PC; and
3. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment C, with the following additions:
a. Future residents shall be notified that if a future Residential Parking Permit (RPP)
will be enacted, that they may be excluded from it; and
b. The property manager shall provide an annual report to the City of the number
of Palo Alto Unified School District employees that occupy the building and
which unit types they are occupying.
4. Incorporate into the Regulatory Agreement:
a. Allow the Owner to designate the Low-Income Unit as a Moderate-Income Unit
with a countervailing re-designation of a previously Moderate-Income Unit to
Low-Income Unit; and
b. For PAUSD employees, if a tenant exceeds the maximum allowable income, they
will be allowed to stay in the unit for a period of six months or through the end
of the school year, whichever is later, subject to legal review; and
c. Include a preference for PAUSD employees; and
d. Allow up to 2 low-income units to transition to 100% AMI.
Councilmember Stone thought it was a great project and a step in the right direction. He had
been concerned about unbundling parking for low-income parking, but he thought an exception
2
Packet Pg. 128
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 28 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
should be made for this particular project, though he hoped perspective PC applicants would
not consider unbundling parking for low-income residents.
Councilmember Burt supported Councilmember Stone’s comments. He considered this project
a success. He recognized that the project would stand out exceptionally from its surroundings.
He questioned if it would be appropriate to include in the motion, not as a condition of this
project but as a referral, a request for staff to pursue car-sharing in this area and other areas
where extensive amounts of housing or commercial would be added with reduced parking.
City Manager Ed Shikada responded that there may be a better occasion. He wanted the Chief
Transportation Official to weigh in on it, as it would need to be factored into a work plan.
Councilmember Burt suspected that it could be factored into certain significant developments
as one of the TDM measures. He was pleased with how the unbundled parking would be done.
Councilmember Reckdahl detailed why he felt there should be incentive to combine small lots
on El Camino. He discussed that there was a subsidy. He discussed unbundled parking and the
need to have a good way to measure the number of drivers and parking. He asked if there was
a way to determine which tenants had registered vehicles and if there was a way to determine
if the TDM methods were working. He was concerned that there was a hope that the tenants
would not have vehicles but that the information was not known. He was concerned about
tenants parking on the street. He wanted to know how many would be parking on the street,
which could be a learning tool for future projects.
Principal Planner Sauls answered that he did not believe there was an easy way to access
information related to which tenants had registered vehicles.
Director Lait added that they could get vehicle registration information from the DVM, which
included a cost for receiving it. He did not know if the information would be available for a
particular property. He added that it typically took a year to a year and a half to implement
TDM plans. Then inspections would need to be done and compliance with the TDM plan would
need to be verified. The City verifying how many tenants would be parking on the street would
be problematic. As part of the TDM Plan, there could be a survey conducted by the owner to
get tenant car ownership information.
City Manager Shikada added that the privacy of residents was a limitation. Information could be
aggregated but not to the point that would identify individuals parking on the street.
Mayor Lauing felt that the topic had been discussed to the extent possible at this meeting.
Councilmember Reckdahl wanted this to be a learning experience so that it will be known for
the next development whether the TDM actions were working. He requested a friendly
amendment that future residents be excluded from a future residential parking permit if one
2
Packet Pg. 129
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 29 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
should be enacted and that the property manager provide an annual report to the City
indicating the number of residents who were and were not teachers.
Director Lait commented that 4A was typical in the regular business of administering the BMR
Program, though it may not be perfectly aligned in every instance. He noted that 4A and 4D
may result in the ratios/percentages earmarked for low income to be less than 25 percent as
the provisions were implemented, but if a tenant vacated a space, it would be restored to being
a low-income unit, so there would be adjustments throughout time. Regarding 4D, he
requested that it read 100 percent AMI for ease of administration.
Principal Planner Sauls stated that Councilmember Reckdahl’s friendly amendments had not
been incorporated in the Record of Land Use Action, so it could be incorporated in the motion
to ensure that they are.
Councilmembers Stone and Burt accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Lu echoed Councilmember Reckdahl’s point about combining lots and more
broadly making the projects easier. He thought consideration should be given to AHIP
supporting 100 percent affordable projects. He offered a friendly amendment and requested
that C, 4B, and 4D state PAUSD employees.
Councilmember Stone accepted that be applied to 4B, but he did not think there was a need to
add it to 4D.
Councilmember Burt added that while the greatest value would be placed on PAUSD tenants,
he did not want any low-income tenants to go through a hardship because of a modest raise.
Councilmember Lu suggested that 4D not be limited to two units. He suggested a friendly
amendment to add a bullet E to direct staff to formalize outreach and write a first refusal for
PAUSD employees.
Director Lait understood that 4C would identify how available units would first be made
available to PAUSD faculty and staff. He recommended language for 4B.
Councilmembers Stone and Burt accepted the recommendation.
Applicant Matloff addressed D and suggested that two low-income units be allowed to
transition to 100 percent AMI. He questioned if there should be a time frame.
Councilmember Burt did not want to put a sunset on such a low number of units.
Assistant City Attorney Yang suggested that 4B be subject to legal review.
Councilmember Stone accepted that.
2
Packet Pg. 130
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 30 of 30
Special
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 2/10/25
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND
SECONDER
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
2
Packet Pg. 131
2
Packet Pg. 132
2
Packet Pg. 133
2
Packet Pg. 134
2
Packet Pg. 135
2
Packet Pg. 136
2
Packet Pg. 137
2
Packet Pg. 138
2
Packet Pg. 139
2
Packet Pg. 140
2
Packet Pg. 141
2
Packet Pg. 142
2
Packet Pg. 143
2
Packet Pg. 144
2
Packet Pg. 145
2
Packet Pg. 146
2
Packet Pg. 147
2
Packet Pg. 148
2
Packet Pg. 149
2
Packet Pg. 150
2
Packet Pg. 151
2
Packet Pg. 152
2
Packet Pg. 153
2
Packet Pg. 154
2
Packet Pg. 155
2
Packet Pg. 156
2
Packet Pg. 157
2
Packet Pg. 158
2
Packet Pg. 159
2
Packet Pg. 160
2
Packet Pg. 161
2
Packet Pg. 162
2
Packet Pg. 163
2
Packet Pg. 164
2
Packet Pg. 165
2
Packet Pg. 166
2
Packet Pg. 167
2
Packet Pg. 168
2
Packet Pg. 169
2
Packet Pg. 170
2
Packet Pg. 171
2
Packet Pg. 172
2
Packet Pg. 173
2
Packet Pg. 174
2
Packet Pg. 175
2
Packet Pg. 176
2
Packet Pg. 177
2
Packet Pg. 178
2
Packet Pg. 179
2
Packet Pg. 180
2
Packet Pg. 181
!"# $ % &'()**++ , ,*"**#,-((-*,*" , ((*,##(!&.!"*, (*"( *# &/0## "",12"((**(# !#"",12",##(!&3!"((***( $ % , &4,*(0)*(, - )( * *,#+# ,##(!&(,##(!5) !#6((,*,&789: 98;!"$ % ),"* *+<!%&=+,#,",, #*) !(*",##(!&> ?@?ABCDE@CACDECF@BEGH@?CGIAJEHK@B?EA@?GL?M?LNHKAO?@?AHKACBCDE@C@BCAEJBCF,",,#,, &;!;(, "$ % , *"*-#PCDQREBEGA?MENGLERA@HGL?GSCF@BEP?@TIANGBCNAELQCQNKH@?CGHAQHR@CFHKHRSEREFFCR@@CU,##(!+ 0)&V% - W,# $ % *"" ;(!((*( &>W# !-# $ % W,# ( *XYV2Z,(!+*X[\2Z*# 6 !) , X]]2Z,(!+*X^2Z&