HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5354
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
December 1, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing the
Prohibition on Human Habitation of Vehicles (Ordinance No. 5206,
codified as Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.06.010) (First Reading:
November 17, 2014 PASSED: 7-1 Klein no, Holman absent)
This is the second reading of this Ordinance, which was first heard and approved by Council,
without changes, on November 7, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Vehicle Habitation Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Doc Letters 12-1-14 Vehicle Habitation (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing the Prohibition
on Human Habitation of Vehicles (Ordinance No. 5206, codified as Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 9.06.010)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) On August 5, 2013, the City Council passed on first reading an ordinance
amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 9, to add Section 9.06.010, prohibiting the
human habitation of vehicles.
(b) In conjunction with adopting the ordinance, the Council, by motion, directed
City staff to stay enforcement of the ordinance for six months to allow for public education and
outreach regarding the ordinance. The ordinance passed on second reading on August 19,
2013, and became effective September 19, 2013. At that time, City staff prepared for a period
of education and outreach. Enforcement of the ordinance was stayed through February 10,
2014.
(c) In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Los
Angeles vehicle habitation ordinance was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. Cheyenne Desertrain, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 11-
56957 (9th Cir. June 19, 2014).
(d) Since initial passage of the ordinance, the City has engaged in social services
outreach using $250,000 appropriated by the City Council in the fall of 2013, together with
funding provided by the County of Santa Clara for housing subsidies.
SECTION 2. Section 9.06.010 of Chapter 9.06 of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals,
and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
//
//
//
//
//
//
1
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
· Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Usha Krishnamurthy <ushalila@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:40 PM
Council, City
Please repeal 5206 (VHO)
OIIY 0F PALO A\JQ., CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFIOE
Let's be humane and kind and help people to get back on their feet instead of pushing them out of their temporary home-their
vehicle.
thanks
Usha Krishnamurthy
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council members:
Bob March <bob.march@gmail.com>
Monday, November 17, 2014 6:37PM
Council, City
Retain Ordinance 5206
CITY Of PALO ALTQ. CA
ClTY CLERK'S OfFICE
I'~ NOV 19 AM ·7: ~ ~
I notice that a few of my neighbors seem to be agitating to have Ordinance 5206 repealed, so that car-dwelling on our
residential streets should be freely allowed. I'm opposed to their efforts. I think that Ordinance 5206 should not only be
retained, but should be enforced.
People who are living in their vehicles shouldn't be parking them on Palo Alto residential streets overnight. The
opportunities for trouble are clear, and sooner or later trouble will come. If we as a city are determined to welcome
them, then let it be done in an organized way, with safeguards both for the car-dwellers and the general population.
Establish a parking area--perhaps a floor of an existing city parking garage --where they can park safely for the night,
and where police can easily keep an eye on them. Clear them out in the morning.
Many of my naive neighbors think that car-dwellers are all just ordinary people temporarily down on their luck. And
some are, of course --but not all, and it's that latter category I'm wary of. I know a couple of car-dwellers; both are
mentally troubled. One was given parking privileges by my church. All was well for a week or two, but then she started
collecting garbage bags full of stuff she scavenges. Now the pile of bags is half the size of her van, and growing.
Unless the City really wants to see that phenomenon moving onto our streets, 5206 should be retained.
Sincerely,
Bob March
153 Lundy Lane
Palo Alto 94306
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sue Montana <montanasue1@yahoo.com>
Friday, November 21, 2014 4:16 PM
Council, City
Decision by Council on VHO
Thanks to all who voted for rescinding this draconian bill.
We can do better as an educated, well-heeled city. Now
is the time to build options for our homeless, in the city, the
county, and the state.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist, resident and member of
Women's Inti League for Peace and Freedom
GJ:r Y OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY tLERK'S OFFtCE
14 NOV 2!t AH 7: 35
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cc: City Manager
Subject: Repeal of Car Camping Ban
Elected City Council:
Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:23 PM
Council, City
Repeal of Car Camping Ban
CITY ('Jf PALO AlJO.CA C!Jv f1H fRK'$ OEff!Qf
I ~ NOV I g PH 5: 2 5
I would like to express my disappointment in your repeal of the so-called "car-camping ban". Certainly all of the reasons that brought the community to demand
that the Council act to stop this misuse of our streets by people whom we can probably characterize as "persons of no fixed abode" were quite clear at the time
the Council acted to restrict this undesirable activity. While the claim that the legal landscape has changed-It's not clear just how much it has changed. Nor is It
clear why the so-called League of California Cities can not provide a better characterization of the problem and a set of viable arguments that would stand some
chance of withstanding a legal challenge.
Sadly, we don't seem to have a City Council that really is advocating for the residents, as much as a group that wants to bend and sway to the changes In wind.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA