HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3904
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3904)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 6/25/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Living in Vehicles Ordinance
Title: Consideration of Ordinance Prohibiting Human Habitation of Vehicles
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend that the City Council
adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) prohibiting vehicle habitation, to be used together with
education, outreach and referral to social services agencies.
Executive Summary
Over the past several years there has been an increase in the number of incidents of persons
living in vehicles in or near residential neighborhoods or commercial districts. While many of
these cases have not created problems, others have resulted in nuisances or more serious
disturbance to residents and businesses. The Policy and Services Committee at its May 14,
2013 meeting directed Staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation, including an
implementation plan, with emphasis on outreach and referrals to social services agencies. Staff
has prepared a draft ordinance, Attachment A, based on similar ordinances adopted in
neighboring communities. In addition, the Police Department has discussed a rollout plan with
outreach and social service referral in addition to enforcement action (Attachment B).
Appended to this report as Attachment C is the Staff Report prepared for the May 14, 2013
meeting detailing key background information, actions, and options developed over the past
two years.
Background
In July 2011 the City Council was scheduled to consider enacting an ordinance to address
complaints received by the City regarding people living in their vehicles. However, after
residents and advocates voiced their opinions to the City Council, the City Manager requested
the item be removed from the agenda to allow for additional community outreach. The City
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Council referred the matter to the Policy and Services Committee (P&S Committee) and called
for additional community outreach.
Over the past two years Planning, Community Services, and Police Department staff have
conducted additional community outreach and established a working group made up of various
stakeholders in order to provide city staff with input. The culmination of these actions led to
the proposal of a Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program (Pilot Program) modeled after the City of
Eugene Oregon’s Car Camping Program. In summary, the Pilot Program would have
temporarily allowed the human habitation of vehicles within designated parking lots
throughout the City, generally at faith-based community parking lots and businesses. The
objective was to obtain a commitment from a minimum of three congregations in order to
launch the Pilot Program. While staff received interest from the Faith-Based Community, only
one congregation was able to commit to the Pilot Program. It should be noted, however, the
congregation has not conducted any formal outreach to the neighborhood and their parking lot
is relatively small.
At the May 14, 2013 P&S Committee meeting, staff provided an update to the status of the
Human Habitation of Vehicles issue (Attachment C). Staff requested direction whether to a)
discontinue efforts to develop an ordinance or program, but to coordinate social service
outreach with the Downtown Streets Team, or b) request that Council direct staff to draft an
ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation as part of a complaint-driven enforcement approach
that includes education, outreach and referral to services. Approximately eight comments
were received from the public, mostly recognizing there are valid concerns with this issue but
advocating for a continuation of the conversation instead of the adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting human habitation of vehicles. The Committee voted 2-1 to direct staff to return to
the Committee with a proposed ordinance.
Discussion
Staff continues to receive occasional complaints from the public about persons living in
vehicles, with many of those recent complaints related to the Cubberley Community Center
site. Community Services Department staff at Cubberley continue to address issues related to
the rising number of people apparently living on the Cubberley campus, both in their vehicles
and camping unsheltered around the campus. Outreach by social service providers has proven
helpful, but will on its own not resolve the whole scope of the issue. An increase in the
population living at Cubberley may correlate with the temporary closure of other public sites
for construction such as the Art Center and Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. The
presence of persons living in vehicles is a recurring issue for residents and business owners.
Calls for services received by the Police Department are not classified based on residential
status and without an incident type it creates a challenge to properly document an accurate
account of the number of incidents.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
While the Police Department currently does not have the means to specifically track this
activity they have analyzed calls for service over the past four years that were related to
individuals living in their vehicles. On an annual basis the Police Department receives
approximately 50,000 total calls for service of all types. Table 1, Service Calls for Individuals
Living in their Vehicles, illustrates the number of service calls received by year related to people
living in their vehicle.
Table 1: Service Calls for Individuals Living in their Vehicles
Year City-wide Service Calls
(excluding Cubberley)
Cubberley
Service Calls Total Service Calls
2010 31 10 41
2011 18 16 34
2012 24 39 63
2013 (to date) 9 12 21
Source: Palo Alto Police Department
In addition to these incidents the parking division receives between 80 and 100 calls a month
for abandoned or stored vehicles. Of these the parking staff approximates that twenty-five
percent are related to people living in their vehicles. These calls are not included with the total
number of calls for service received or in the numbers outlined in Table 1.
Currently, Palo Alto Municipal Code regulations provide the City with the following
enforcement capabilities regarding vehicles and non-motorized vehicles on City Streets.
PAMC 10.36.030 prohibits the use of streets for storage of vehicles and states no vehicle
shall be parked on any street or alley or public parking facility for more than 72
consecutive hours.
PAMC 10.40.040 regulates parking distance from curbs. Prohibits parking, stopping or
leaving a vehicle more than 18 inches from the curb and both right-hand wheels (or
either both right-hand wheels or both left-hand wheels on a one-way street) turned
other than parallel with the curb in certain circumstances.
These municipal codes require repeated monitoring by Police staff to ensure the vehicles are
not exceeding the designated time limits. In addition, individuals who are living in their vehicles
may be aware of and in compliance with the 72-hour limit.
Ordinance
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) prohibits the human habitation of vehicles. “Human
habitation” is defined as “the use of a vehicle for a dwelling space,” but specifically excludes
mobile living units allowed by another provision of the code. This includes mobile home parks
or for guests of city residents for up to forty-eight consecutive hours when parked adjacent to
the resident’s dwelling.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
It should be noted the intent of the ordinance is to provide the Police Department with an
enforcement tool not currently in place. The Police Department in general will respond to
resident complaints and will not have officer’s self-initiate contacts for violations of the
ordinance. As current practice dictates, the Police Department will continue to work with local
social service providers.
Implementation
Police and Community Services Department Staff will partner with local social service providers
to make sure implementation is empathetic and thorough. Recognizing the sensitivity of this
issue, a framework for a rollout plan has been drafted (Attachment B). Below is a summary of
proposed framework:
Robust notification program through the media and fliers to known vehicle dwellers
Personal outreach to known vehicle dwellers with our social service partners
60 days for education, outreach and transition
Warnings given for 30 additional days
Police response, primarily to complaints, with citations issued only as needed
Prior to the ordinance moving forward to council, interested parties that have been engaged
with this issue for well over two years will be given the opportunity to review the draft
ordinance and implementation plan.
Resource Impact
If an ordinance prohibiting the human habitation of vehicles is adopted, the Police Department
will utilize the two officers from the Special Enforcement Detail (SED). SED works with
downtown issues and rapid response to crime trends. These officers, along with Community
Services staff, will take the lead on the roll out plan and implementation. During the 60-90 day
roll-out phase, these duties will become part of their primary responsibilities. Moreover, there
could be some increased demand in social service requests resulting from referrals to those
agencies and organizations. All police calls for service are prioritized based on established
protocols. Violations of the Living in Vehicles Municipal Code Section would receive a lower
response priority for police officers than in progress or other more urgent police related duties.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
there are no physical environmental impacts expected from the implementation of the
ordinance.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: Transition Plan (PDF)
Attachment C: May 14, 2013 Staff Report to Policy and Services (PDF)
Attachment D. Public Comment (PDF)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting Human
Habitation of Vehicles
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) Updating Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to provide for prohibition of
human habitation of vehicles, to provide for the continued effective
management of public property, and to provide for the continued enjoyment
and accessibility of public property by all Palo Alto residents and the public at
large; and
(b) Vehicle parking and storage restrictions are necessary to promote the health,
safety, aesthetic appearance and general welfare of the public, to stabilize and
protect the residential character of the neighborhoods and residential districts;
and
(c) The human habitation of vehicles causes the City to incur increased costs for
policing, maintenance, sanitation, garbage removal, animal control, and other
problems which may arise; and
(d) The human habitation of vehicles creates a risk to the health, safety, and welfare
of those persons in the vehicles, as well as the public at large.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.06 of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the
Palo Alto Municipal code is hereby added to read as follows:
“9.06.010 Human Habitation of Vehicles Prohibited
It is unlawful for any person to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of,
any vehicle for human habitation on or in any street, park, alley, public parking lot
or other public way.
The following uses are exempt from the provisions of this section:
• Any mobile living unit used for human habitation allowed by another
provision of this code or required procedure of the city; and
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
• Guests of city residents for up to forty-eight consecutive hours when
parked adjacent to the resident’s dwelling.
For purposes of this section, “human habitation” means the use of a vehicle for a
dwelling place, including but not limited to, sleeping, eating or resting, either single
or in groups.
For purposes of this section “vehicle” shall mean any self-propelled structure
designed to transport persons or property.
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
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARMENT
Memorandum
To: Curtis Williams
From: Bob Beacom, Police Department
Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services
Date: June 12, 2013
Re: Rollout and Enforcement of Living in Vehicles Ordinance
If a living-in-vehicles ordinance is passed, the Police and Community Service
Departments, along with the City’s social service partners, will work collaboratively on
notification and enforcement of the new ordinance to ensure that the roll-out is as
empathetic and thorough as possible. Generally, the framework for this rollout would be
as follows:
Robust notification program through the media and fliers to known vehicle
dwellers
Personal outreach to known vehicle dwellers with our social service partners
60 days for education, outreach and transition
Warnings given for 30 additional days
Police response, primarily to complaints, with citations issued only as needed
The goal of the ordinance rollout plan is to provide as much information and assistance as
possible to individuals living in vehicles prior to any enforcement action taking place.
The Community Services Department and their social services partners will play a key
role in this plan along with necessary support from the Police Departments Special
Enforcement Detail. Once the rollout has reached an enforcement phase, the Police
Department anticipates responding primarily on a complaint basis and will generally not
have officer’s self-initiate contacts for violations of the ordinance. As current practice
dictates, officers will continue to provide affected parties with referrals to social service
agencies. The goal will be to assist these individuals, who violate the ordinance, to find
appropriate social services and utilizing the judicial system only as a last resort.
Upon implementation of this ordinance, the Police Department will deliver a detailed
training plan regarding this ordinance for Public Safety Dispatchers and Patrol Officers.
The plan will include the intent of the ordinance, the history and complexities of this
social issue and the desire to be empathetic in our efforts. This plan will also be covered
in the new officer/new dispatcher training programs.
Please let either one of us know if you have any questions. Thanks.
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3644)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/14/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Habitation of Vehicles Issue
Title: Consideration of Approaches to Address Concerns Related to Human
Habitation of Vehicles
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council to
either:
1.Abandon current efforts and no longer pursue a program or an ordinance, but
coordinate social service outreach; OR
2.Direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation, but including gradual
outreach, referral and enforcement procedures.
Executive Summary
Staff is providing this update to the status on the Human Habitation of Vehicles issue to
determine whether to reconsider or revise the Committee’s prior recommendation, since there
has been a change in the Committee’s composition. Key background and options are addressed
in this report, followed by various attachments fully detailing actions over the past two years.
The focus over the past year has been the initiation of a Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program, “Pilot
Program,” described in Attachment A. In November 2012, staff presented the Policy and
Services Committee with two approaches to address concerns related to the Human Habitation
of Vehicles (Attachment B). Staff was directed to continue pursuing a Pilot Program and take a
more active role in both outreach to the faith-based community and a leadership role in
administering the program and providing City sites for housing vehicle dwellers.
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto Page 2
While staff has taken a more active role in providing direct assistance to interested
congregations, there is still only commitment from one congregation, and no City effort has yet
been authorized by City Council. As such, staff recommends that the Committee provide
direction as to whether to a) discontinue efforts to develop an ordinance or program, but to
coordinate social service outreach with the Downtown Streets Team or b) request that Council
direct staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation that includes a complaint-driven
enforcement procedures based on a gradual approach with outreach and social service referral
prior to enforcement action.
Background
A draft ordinance was prepared in July of 2011 to address complaints received by residents and
business owners related to alleged disturbances by persons living in vehicles in or near
residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Staff scheduled consideration of the draft
ordinance for City Council review on July 25, 2011. However, after homeless residents and
advocates voiced their opinions to the City Council, the City Manager requested the item be
removed from the agenda to allow for additional community outreach. The City Council
concurred and suggested the matter be reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee in
advance of full council review. In response to a desire to allow for additional community
outreach staff took several measures. This included hosting community wide forums and
forming a working group to develop approaches and solutions.
The Policy and Services Committee (P&S Committee) met in November of 2012 to review this
issue and recommended (3-1 vote) that the City Council direct staff to: 1) initiate a six-month
trial pilot Vehicle Camping Program; 2) search for partnerships with faith-based and not-for-
profit organizations, businesses, and Stanford organizations to sponsor a pilot Vehicle Camping
Program as outlined in Attachment A; 3) take more active role in offering direct help; 4) look for
partners to provide sites, including City properties, for a limited number of people; and 5) enlist
Downtown Streets Team to assist with implementation and oversight of the program. The
recommendation has not been considered by the full Council, however, as a new Council was
seated and a new P&S Committee was appointed. The City Manager has asked that the current
P&S Committee review the available options and the November Committee recommendation
prior to the Council’s review of the matter. There have also been some recent related
developments regarding activities at the Cubberley Community Center and outreach to the
faith-based community that the Committee and the community should be aware of.
Discussion
The following provides a summary of the outreach and issues reported to the P&S Committee
in November and updates of related issues since.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Community Outreach
1. Community Forum on September 15, 2011:
On September 15, 2011 the City staff, in conjunction with the Community Cooperation
Team held a “Living In Vehicles Community Forum” to invite public comment regarding
individuals living in their vehicles and others affected by these activities. Approximately
sixty individuals participated in the forum. The meetings notes are appended to this
update as Attachment D.
2. Working Group Established:
A working group was established comprised of various stakeholders in order to provide
input to City Staff. The working group included representatives from the unhoused
community, local social service providers, neighborhood residents, businesses, the faith-
based community, and City staff from the Planning, Police, City Attorney, and
Community Services Departments. A total of seven working group meetings took place.
Multiple issues were identified and a distinction was made between a) the parking and
storage of multiple vehicles in or around certain commercial/residential areas and b)
people living in their vehicles and parking within residential and/or commercial
neighborhoods. The working group discussed a number of options and approaches that
are described below. A primary focus was placed on a proposal to establish and
implement a 3-month pilot program modeled after the Eugene, Oregon Homeless Car
Camping program administered by the St. Vincent de Paul Society.
3. Faith-Based Community Outreach:
On April 20, 2012 a meeting was held with the faith-based community to discuss their
role, leadership, and potential participation in the proposed Pilot Program. Forty-two
(42) organizations were invited with seven participating in the meeting. Several
concerns were raised, including but not limited to current participation in the Hotel de
Zink Program, liability insurance requirements, sanitary bathrooms, and background
checks. Overall the faith-based community expressed its support for the program and
willingness to participate in formulating a solution.
Several congregations indicated interest in participating in a permanent program but
required additional time to consider the logistics, discuss it with their congregation, and
coordinate outreach to their neighbors. Ultimately, staff received a commitment from
two congregations: First Presbyterian Church and University Lutheran Church.
Participation from First Presbyterian Church was not feasible due to neighborhood
concerns and they subsequently retracted their commitment. Specifically, neighbors
expressed concerns about the small site, the proximity to homes there, and that the 20-
foot suggested buffer between vehicles and residential properties is inadequate.
4. Community Forum on June 26, 2012:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
A second community forum was held to present approaches developed in conjunction
with the working group. Staff presented a range of options and approaches to about
thirty-five attendees. Comments shared through comment cards and questions
received are summarized in Attachment E.
Approaches Identified
Staff and the Working Group identified four component approaches to address the Vehicle
Habitation issue (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
1. Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program
A 3-month Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program could be established temporarily allowing the
human habitation of vehicles within designated parking lots throughout the City. Key
parameters of the proposed program are outlined in Attachment A. The proposed
program has been modeled after the City of Eugene Oregon’s Program allowed under
Section 4.816 of the Eugene Municipal Code (Attachment F). Downtown Streets Team
would serve in an administrative role and would be the first point of contact when a
complaint related to the human habitation of a vehicle is received by the Palo Alto
Police Department. The individual would be connected to available social services and
matched with a host church. Staff has been aiming to obtain the commitment from
three congregations to launch the Pilot Program with little success. If implemented the
benefits of this approach might address some of the parking and safety concerns raised,
but it is unclear whether participation would be from those currently of concern.
Moreover, the criteria should be modified to better assure the site is suitable,
compatible, and is buffered from residential uses.
2. Enhanced Social Service Outreach
Another option is to “do nothing” in the way of establishing new regulations or
programs. Instead, an increased effort would be implemented to better connect social
service providers with homeless who are now living in vehicles, with particular attention
to those of concern to residents or businesses. The Downtown Streets Team has offered
to be the first point of contact when a complaint is received by Police, but where no
crime or violation has been committed. A representative from Downtown Streets Team
would approach the person of concern and offer to assist with finding appropriate
services and housing. This approach may help target the relatively few instances of
concern without imposing an ordinance. Moreover, it could be implemented on a trial
basis for several months to see what the outcome is. This could also provide Downtown
Streets Team and the Police Department an opportunity to access and document the
extent of the problem.
3. Ordinance Prohibition
The overall perception most participants in the Working Group and other members of
the community is that an ordinance to prohibit the human habitation of vehicles is not
City of Palo Alto Page 5
necessary. Some contend that adopting the proposed ordinance would criminalize the
poor. Others, particularly neighborhood and commercial representatives, feel that an
ordinance is needed to police the vehicle dwellers of concern and spur them to seek
help from social service providers. Several variations to the ordinance were discussed
including: 1) postponing the ordinance until after the Pilot Program; 2) adopting the
proposed ordinance only upon implementation of the Vehicle Dwelling Program
alternative; or 3) adopting the proposed ordinance without the Vehicle Dwelling
Program.
4. Parking Restrictions
One issue that may be addressed separate from the ordinance and/or program would
be to implement more aggressive parking restrictions within the identified problem
areas. This relates to the parking and storage of multiple vehicles in or around certain
commercial and neighborhood areas, particularly College Terrace. According to Section
10.36.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a vehicle is not allowed to be parked or left
standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours. Vehicle dwellers of concern are
aware of this regulation and manage to move their vehicles to comply with the Code.
Signs prohibiting overnight parking between 1:00 and 4:00 a.m. have been posted in the
College Terrace commercial area near El Camino Real, which seems to have eased the
problem in that neighborhood. The benefit of this approach is that it would solve
parking related issues in a few specific instances where parking multiple vehicles is as
much of a problem as living in vehicles. However, it would not solve the larger social
problem and may result in relocating the problem to another part of the city.
Policy and Services Committee Review
Staff has provided the P&S Committee with two formal updates over the past two years. The
staff report and related meeting minutes for the first update are appended as Attachments G
and H. On November 20, 2012 staff requested that the P&S Committee review the approaches
described above and made a two-prong recommendation for consideration (Attachment B). In
summary, the options were to either initiate an ordinance in conjunction with a Pilot Vehicle
Camping Program, with delayed (6-months) implementation or the ordinance, or to abandon
current staff efforts and no longer pursue an ordinance or program.
Over twenty comments were received from the public, mostly urging the City not to adopt an
ordinance. The Faith-based community expressed their willingness to help but clarified there
are complexities in implementing this type of program. A few members of the public felt there
was clear evidence the issue is not large enough to warrant an ordinance. Finally, several
members stated the City needed to step up and identify City-owned sites as potential sites for
the Pilot Program.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The P&S Committee, on a 3-1 vote, adopted a modified motion to request that Council: 1)
initiate a six-month trial pilot Vehicle Camping Program; 2) Staff to search for partnerships with
faith-based and not-for-profit organizations, businesses, and Stanford organizations to sponsor
a pilot Vehicle Camping Program as outlined in Attachment A; 3) City to take more active role in
offering direct help (including using City sites); 4) look for partners to provide sites for a limited
number of people; and 5) enlist Downtown Streets Team to assist with implementation and
oversight of the program. The Policy and Services Committee meeting minutes are included as
Attachment C.
Councilmember Klein was opposed to the motion and felt there were two issues at hand;
parking/storage of multiple vehicles on city streets and people sleeping in cars. He felt the
number of people sleeping in vehicles determined the amount of effort the City needed to
resolve the issue. Given the small number of people sleeping in cars, the issue does not
warrant further action and the City would be involved in a program that benefitted few people.
Council Member Espinosa did not oppose an ordinance but wanted to ensure the Council had
done everything possible to find an alternative to a ban. He felt the motion provided a good
compromise and ensured the Council fully explored the option. In addition, he noted staff’s
outreach efforts were not aggressive and the faith based community needed more time to
consider making a commitment to participate.
Council Member Schmid was unsure of the City’s responsibility for unhoused people but noted
the City could potentially benefit from dealing with some of the homeless problem through
vehicle dwelling. He made the motion and supported a more proactive City role.
Chair Holman asked if Council Members would consider using City facilities and if that would
encourage other organizations to come forward. She generally supported the trial period for
the pilot program but wanted to remove the responsibility of the program administration from
staff.
Cubberley Community Center
In recent months, the extent of homeless dwelling at the Cubberley Community Center has
increased substantially (20-30 per evening), including those in vehicles (5-10 per night). There
has been increased conflict between the site dwellers, and staff at the Center report feeling
intimidated and unsafe on some occasions. A more frequent City Police presence has been
required. Staff continues to assess solutions to limit the activity at Cubberley and is concerned
that allowed vehicle dwelling there may lead to further incidents, and would require further
City resources for management and administration.
Recent Faith-Based Community Outreach
Since the November 20, 2012 update, staff has teamed up with the Downtown Streets Team to
meet with interested congregations. Over the past four months Staff has worked closely with
City of Palo Alto Page 7
an ad hoc committee of the Palo Alto Friends Meeting (PAFM). Specifically, PAFM requested
staff’s assistance with an outreach strategy, attendance of their ad hoc committee meetings,
and participation in community meetings to discuss the logistics of the Pilot Program. Two
community meetings were held with immediate neighbors and the Friends Nursery school
currently operating out of the site. Neighbors circulated a petition against PAFM’s intention to
participate in the Pilot Program. The petition is appended as Attachment I.
During the meetings there was a general concern with safety, privacy, and they felt the site was
inadequate to accommodate the proposed activity. Based on the concerns raised through the
outreach efforts, PAFM decided with much regret not to participate as a host in the Pilot
Program.
Current Recommendations
1. Abandon Efforts
Staff resources are extremely limited to continue effort on this subject, given the many
other Council priority assignments. Despite staff efforts, five months after the
November report there is still only a commitment from one congregation to sponsor a
program. While staff believes the Pilot Program could provide an alternative solution for
some vehicle dwellers, the enticement to participate as a host is not presently strong
enough to continue and identifying City sites to host vehicles dwellers is not presently
feasible and would demand further staff and financial resources. Another potential
issue is the future availability of Downtown Streets. Their ability to commit themselves
to serve as the administrative role for a 3-month pilot program at no cost is reduced as
they become more committed elsewhere. Should their availability change, City staff
may have to play a more active role in the administration of the Pilot Program.
2. Ordinance Prohibition
Several approaches have been considered since July 2011 to address complaints
received regarding persons living in vehicles, including the adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the human habitation of vehicles. The City currently does not explicitly
prohibit such activity and the only available enforcement tool to the Police Department
is a parking regulation. Given the Police Department does not have the proper tools to
respond to complaints received there are members of the community that feel an
ordinance is needed to serve as that tool. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce has
outlined in a letter its position and recommendation for the drafting of an ordinance
concurrently with the Pilot Program (Attachment J).
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Recognizing the sensitivity of the issue, a proposed ordinance could include
accompanying enforcement procedures based on a gradual outreach, social service, and
incremental enforcement approach. If the P&S Committee, and ultimately the City
Council, direct staff to prepare an ordinance, it could be accompanied by procedures to
include: a) response on a complaint basis, b) an education and outreach period prior to
issuing citations, c) referrals to social services, and d) actual enforcement only upon
continued violation. If staff is directed to prepare an ordinance and procedures,
interested parties that have been engaged with this issue will be given the opportunity
to review the draft ordinance and enforcement procedures prior to their review by
Council.
It is staff’s position that abandoning the pilot program efforts at this time and pursuing
enhanced social service outreach is a preferable approach. Collectively, these actions should
address most concerns raised by complainants.
Resource Impacts
Staff from Planning and Community Environment, Community Services, Police, and the City
Attorney’s Office have coordinated this effort and have been involved in meetings with the
Working Group and community. Planning staff has taken the lead to organize the group and
prepare materials and staff reports.
Resource impacts associated with a trial 6-month program sponsored by the faith community
and monitored by the Downtown Streets Team would require minimum resources from the
City, likely on the order of $20,000 for portable toilets and minimal incidentals. Funding would
likely come from social service funding (HSRAP or CDBG), Council contingency funds, or
Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement funds, from accounts designated
for health services.
Resource impacts of a City-sponsored trial program have not been estimated, but would
require considerably more staff time and at least similar facility support.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed Program Highlights (PDF)
Attachment B: November 20, 2012 Staff Report to Policy and Services (PDF)
Attachment C: November 20, 2012 Policy and Services Meeting Minutes (PDF)
Attachment D: September 15, 2011 Community Forum Notes (PDF)
Attachment E: Community Forum Notes June 26, 2012 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Attachment F: Eugene Oregon Permitted Overnight Sleeping Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment G: November 15, 2011 Staff Report to Policy and Services (PDF)
Attachment H: November 15, 2011 Policy and Services Meeting minutes (PDF)
Attachment I: Petition on the Vehicle Dwelling Program at Friends Meeting (PDF)
Attachment J: Chamber of Commerce Position Letter (PDF)
Proposed Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program
Program Highlights
Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, camper or trailer in a parking lot of a religious institution, place of worship, or business with the written permission of the owner as a
transitional housing alternative under the following limited circumstances:
1. Such overnight use does not conflict with express conditions imposed by the City on a permit for the religious institution, place of worship, or business.
2. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be allowed on the religious institution, place
of worship, or business’ real property for overnight accommodation use at any
one time.
3. During the overnight use, each vehicle shall be sited at a location not less than
twenty (20) feet from any real property being used for residential purposes.
4. Such vehicles are properly and currently licensed for operation on the highway in
accordance with the California Vehicle Code.
5. The religious institution, place of worship, or business has sole and exclusive
control of the parking being used for this purpose. The organization shall furnish
each vehicle owner an approval letter on letterhead stipulating specific
guidelines.
6. The religious institution, place of worship, or business makes adequate and
sanitary bathroom facilities available to the occupants of the recreational
vehicles.
7. No rent shall be received for this overnight accommodation use.
8. Limited security will be provided by Downtown Streets Team.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2768)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/20/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Habitation of Vehicles Issue
Title: Consideration of Approaches to Address Concerns Related to Human
Habitation of Vehicles
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff requests that the Policy and Services Committee review the proposed approaches to the
Human Habitation of Vehicles issue and recommend to Council that staff:
1) Initiate an ordinance and a vehicle camping pilot program, including the following:
a. Enact an ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation, but deferred from taking effect
until six (6) months following adoption; and
b. Continue to solicit input from the faith-based community and others in sponsorship
of a 3-month Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program, consistent with the parameters outlined
in Attachment A; and
c. Enlist the assistance of the Downtown Streets Team to provide outreach upon
requests of residents or businesses where concerns are registered about persons
living in vehicles, and to assist with implementation and oversight of the Pilot Vehicle
Dwelling Program;
OR
2) Abandon current staff efforts and no longer pursue a program or ordinance.
Background
A draft ordinance was prepared in July of 2011 to address complaints received by residents and
business owners related to alleged disturbances by persons living in vehicles in or near
residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Staff scheduled consideration of the draft
ordinance for City Council review on July 25, 2011. However, after homeless residents and
advocates voiced their opinions to the City Council, the City Manager requested the item be
removed from the agenda to allow for additional community outreach. The City Council
City of Palo Alto Page 2
concurred and suggested the matter be reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee in
advance of full Council review.
A working group was established comprised of various stakeholders in order to provide input to
City Staff. The working group includes representation from the unhoused community, local
social service providers, neighborhood residents, businesses, the faith-based community, and
City staff from the Planning, Police, City Attorney, and Community Services Departments. To
date, two community forums and seven working group meetings have taken place to obtain
additional input and discuss alternative solutions.
On November 15, 2011, staff provided an informational report to the Policy and Services
Committee on the status of the Human Habitation of Vehicles issue and related programs. The
report included information from the first community forum and a summary of the first two
working group meetings (Attachment D). The Policy and Services Committee meeting minutes
are included as Attachment E.
Staff continues to receive occasional complaints about homeless persons living in vehicles, with
most of those related to the Cubberley Community Center site (an increase probably due to the
temporary closure of other sites for construction, such as the Art Center, Mitchell Park Library,
etc.). Community Services Department Staff is experiencing an increase in issues at Cubberley
Community Center and is working on approaches to address the various matters and obtain
compliance with campus rules. The total number of complaints coming to Planning in the past
8-10 months probably amounts to a half dozen, and the Police Department does not isolate
those complaints from many other disturbance calls, so it’s difficult to gauge a total citywide.
Staff still estimates that a total of 25-50 persons or perhaps more live in vehicles throughout
the community, most of whom have not been of concern to neighbors, businesses, and visitors
in the city.
Discussion
Since the November 2011 update, the Working Group met on four other occasions to discuss
approaches and possible solutions to the issue. Three primary approaches were identified: 1) a
car “camping” program modeled after the Eugene, Oregon Homeless Car Camping Program; 2)
an ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation on City streets or City-owned sites; and 3) parking
regulations and limits. Each of these approaches is described in further detail later in this
report.
Some members of the Working Group expressed interest in pursuing the car camping program
in tandem with the adoption of an ordinance (note: Eugene has an ordinance prohibiting
camping on public streets). Others argue there is no guarantee of participation in the program
City of Palo Alto Page 3
and/or if the program would resolve the issue. Moreover, they questioned the timeline of the
program, what is to follow, and what the accomplishments of the program would be. It was
recognized that the intent of the program was not to end homelessness in Palo Alto. Instead, a
program like this could serve as a transitional housing alternative. The Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce has outlined in a letter its position and recommendation for the drafting of an
ordinance concurrently with a program modeled after the Eugene Oregon program
(Attachment F).
The subsequent Working Group meetings focused on a proposal to establish and implement a
3-month pilot program modeled after the Eugene Oregon Homeless Car Camping Program and
determine whether it would provide a benefit for homeless persons and for affected residents
or businesses. Several concerns were raised, including finding a social service agency to take on
the administrative role for the program (the St. Vincent de Paul Society does so in Eugene) and
determining whether there was expressed interest from property owners, business owners,
and the faith-based community. The Downtown Streets Team has volunteered to administer
the program during the 3-month pilot phase at no cost. Staff indicated that a commitment was
needed from at least three congregations to launch a pilot program. The Working Group
reached out to the faith-based community about their role and leadership.
On April 20, 2012, a meeting was held with the faith-based community to discuss their role,
leadership, and potential participation in the pilot program. Forty-two (42) organizations were
invited and seven congregations participated in the meeting. Several concerns were raised,
including but not limited to current participation in the Hotel de Zink program, insurance
requirements, sanitary bathrooms, and background checks. Overall the faith-based community
expressed its support for the program and participation in formulating a solution.
Congregations were then asked to submit their intent to participate in the program by May 31,
2012.
Staff received confirmation from only one congregation about its intent to participate in the
pilot program, though a number of neighbors of that church have expressed concern about the
small site, the proximity to homes there, and that the 20-foot suggested buffer between
vehicles and residential properties is inadequate. There were, however, several congregations
indicating interest in participating in a permanent program but who require additional time to
consider the logistics, discuss it with their entire congregation, and coordinate outreach to their
neighbors. For instance, some do not currently have the restroom facilities or parking space to
participate in the pilot program. To that end, members of the faith-based community restated
their interest but requested additional time to consider whether a commitment is possible.
Staff has subsequently received strong interest from one additional church (note: staff believes
that participation of the prior interested congregation was not feasible due to neighborhood
concerns).
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Community Forum on June 26, 2012
The City sponsored a second “Living in Vehicles Community Forum” on June 26, 2012 in order
to present alternative approaches and solutions developed in consultation with the Working
Group. Staff presented a range of options and approaches to about 35 attendees. These
approaches are summarized in the section below. Comments shared through comment cards
and questions received at the community forum are summarized in Attachment C. In general,
the comments received mirrored those expressed within the Working Group, including: 1) some
homeless persons are of the opinion this is a parking issue, 2) others are opposed to an
ordinance but supportive of the car camping effort, and 3) some residents believe an ordinance
is necessary to police vehicle dwellers of concern. For the most part, the speakers represented
viewpoints of homeless advocates or religious institutions. A representative of the Downtown
Streets Team indicated his organization’s commitment to the car camping program as well as in
a role as an initial point of contact for outreach to vehicle dwellers. A representative of First
Presbyterian Church (the one church that had to that point committed to hosting as part of a
pilot) also spoke, reiterating his support of the program and surprise about the negative
responses of the church’s neighbors.
Since then, Staff has been working with the Downtown Streets Team and Mayor Yeh in
outreach to individual congregations to solicit support for a pilot program. First Presbyterian
Church representatives offered their leadership within the faith-based community to promote
interest in the program. Although First Presbyterian Church will not be a host congregation,
given the concerns raised by their neighbors, they have offered ancillary support for the
program including but not limited to limited security checks in the morning. An additional
congregation has stepped forward with several others requesting additional information and
time to make a formal commitment. Despite these efforts, there is still only one congregation
that has made a commitment.
Approaches
Staff developed the following approaches that were presented at the second community
forum.
1. Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program
A 3-month Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program could be established, temporarily allowing the
human habitation of vehicles within designated parking lots throughout the City, generally
at churches or businesses (the Policy and Services Committee previously directed that the
program not be located at City facilities, though several vehicle campers currently reside at
Cubberley Community Center). Key parameters of the proposed program are outlined in
Attachment A. The proposed program has been modeled after the City of Eugene Oregon’s
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Homeless Car Camping Program allowed under Section 4.816 of the Eugene Municipal Code
(Attachment B). A presentation made to the Eugene City Council in 2011 is also included as
Attachment G. The Downtown Streets Team would serve in an administrative role and
would be the first point of contact when a complaint related to the human habitation of a
vehicle is received by the Palo Alto Police Department. The individual would be connected
to available social services and matched with a host church. As noted, a commitment from
only one congregation to implement the pilot program has thus far been received, which
staff does not consider adequate to proceed. If implemented, the benefits of this approach
might address some of the parking and safety concerns raised by residents and business
owners, but it is unclear whether participants would be those currently of concern to
residents and businesses or others, perhaps even from outside of Palo Alto. Staff also
believes that the criteria should be modified to better assure compatibility and buffering
from residents and to incorporate neighborhood outreach efforts by the congregation.
Most recently Staff was approached by a member of the Working Group regarding a similar
program the City of Santa Barbara developed as a result in a substantial increase in vehicle
dwellers in south Santa Barbara County. New Beginnings, a social serve provider organized
around a counseling center, administers the Safe Parking Program under a contract with the
City of Santa Barbara. An overview of the program is included as Attachment H. Staff has
contacted staff from the City of Santa Barbara, and notes that the program is administered
by the City and is fairly staff-intensive and costly.
2. Enhanced Social Service Outreach
Another option is to “do nothing” in the way of establishing new regulations or programs,
but to better connect social service providers with homeless who are now living in vehicles,
particularly those of concern to residents or businesses. The Downtown Streets Team has
offered to be the first point of contact when a complaint is received by Police, but where no
crime or violation has been committed (or at least is not occurring when the Police arrive).
The Downtown Streets Team representative would approach the person of concern and
offer to assist with finding appropriate services and housing, upon referral by the Police
Department. This approach may help to target the relatively few instances of concern
without imposing an ordinance, and could be implemented on a trial basis for several
months. Staff also believes that the Downtown Streets Team and the police could better
assess and document the extent of the problem.
3. Ordinance Prohibition
The overall perception of many in the Working Group is that an ordinance to prohibit the
human habitation of vehicles is not necessary. Some contend that adopting the proposed
ordinance would criminalize the poor. Others, however, particularly neighborhood and
commercial representatives, feel that an ordinance is needed to police the vehicle dwellers
of concern and spur them to seek help from social service providers. Several variations to
the ordinance were discussed, including: a) postponing the ordinance until after the pilot
City of Palo Alto Page 6
program; b) adopting the proposed ordinance only upon implementation of the car camping
program alternative; or c) adopting the proposed ordinance without the car camping
program.
4. Parking Restrictions
Another issue that may be addressed separate from the ordinance and/or program would
be to implement more aggressive parking restrictions within at least a couple of the
problem areas. One issue relates to the parking and storage of multiple vehicles in or
around certain commercial and neighborhood areas (particularly College Terrace).
According to Section 10.36.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a vehicle is not allowed to
be parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours. The vehicle dwellers
of concern are aware of this regulation and manage to move their vehicles to comply with
the code. In the College Terrace commercial area near El Camino Real, staff has surveyed
affected businesses and expects to post signs prohibiting overnight parking (1:00 – 4:00
a.m.) on those streets within the next 30 days. Another area near Boulware Park is also
under evaluation for additional parking restrictions around the park itself. The benefit of
this approach is that it would solve parking related issues to the human habitation of
vehicles in a couple of specific instances where parking multiple vehicles is as much of a
problem as living in vehicles. However, it would not resolve the larger social problem and
may result in relocation to another part of the city. Staff would monitor for those impacts
following installation of new parking signage.
At this time, staff believes that implementing options 2 (social service contact) and 4 (parking
restrictions) are low-cost alternatives that should be pursued immediately and don’t require
Council direction. Staff believes that the Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program could provide an
alternative for some of the vehicle dwellers, at a minimal cost to the City, but interest in the
community sponsoring the program is not sufficient at this time. Adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting vehicle habitation, with a deferred implementation (six months), however, may
provide the necessary impetus for the initiation of the program. This approach also pairs the
regulatory prohibition with an option for providing assistance to those who wish. The ordinance
would be enforced on a complaint basis only. Staff recommends either this approach (deferred
ordinance plus an opportunity to implement a Vehicle Dwelling Program) be offered to Council,
or that the Vehicle Habitation effort be abandoned at this time. Staff considers the issue to be
important and valid for those residents and businesses (and homeless) who have been affected
by concerned actions of a few individuals, but does not believe this is pervasive throughout
Palo Alto. Staff (and community members) has devoted considerable time to the issue and if
the above approach is not acceptable, then perhaps it is most appropriate to pursue other
priorities. Staff would continue to work with the Downtown Streets Team to evaluate whether
they could assist the Police Department as initial responders when incidents are reported.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Resource Impact
Staff of Planning and Community Environment, Community Services, Police and the City
Attorney’s Office have coordinated this effort and have been involved in the meetings with the
Working Group and the community. Planning staff has taken the lead to organize the group and
prepare materials and staff reports. Staff expects that the results of any program or ordinance
would not have substantial fiscal impacts on the City, particularly as staff understands the
Policy and Services Committee’s prior direction that the City should not include City lands or
administration in any potential vehicle camping program. However, if a Vehicle Dwelling
Program is pursued, staff recommends allocating minimal funds (up to $5,000 total) that would
help pay for the portable toilets required of the host congregations during the trial period.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program Outline (PDF)
Attachment B: Eugene, Oregon Permitted Overnight Sleeping Program (PDF)
Attachment C: Community Forum Notes June 26, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: November 15, 2011 Staff Report to Policy and Services Committee
(PDF)
Attachment E: November 15, 2011 Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment F: Chamber of Commerce Position Letter (PDF)
Attachment G: Eugene, Oregon Car Camping Presentation 2011 (PDF)
Attachment H - Santa Barbara Safe Parking Program Overview (PDF)
Public Comment Letters (PDF)
Proposed Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program
Program Highlights
Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, camper or trailer in a parking lot of a religious institution, place of worship, or business with the written permission of the owner as a
transitional housing alternative under the following limited circumstances:
1. Such overnight use does not conflict with express conditions imposed by the City on a permit for the religious institution, place of worship, or business.
2. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be allowed on the religious institution, place
of worship, or business’ real property for overnight accommodation use at any
one time.
3. During the overnight use, each vehicle shall be sited at a location not less than
twenty (20) feet from any real property being used for residential purposes.
4. Such vehicles are properly and currently licensed for operation on the highway in
accordance with the California Vehicle Code.
5. The religious institution, place of worship, or business has sole and exclusive
control of the parking being used for this purpose. The organization shall furnish
each vehicle owner an approval letter on letterhead stipulating specific
guidelines.
6. The religious institution, place of worship, or business makes adequate and
sanitary bathroom facilities available to the occupants of the recreational
vehicles.
7. No rent shall be received for this overnight accommodation use.
8. Limited security will be provided by Downtown Streets Team.
Eugene Code
4-81 8/2/2011
the use of any tent, lean-to, shack, or any other structure, or any
vehicle or part thereof.
(2) It is found and declared that:
(a) From time to time persons establish campsites on sidewalks,
public rights-of-way, under bridges, and so forth;
(b) Such persons, by such actions create unsafe and unsanitary living
conditions which pose a threat to the peace, health and safety of
themselves and the community; and,
(c) The enactment of this provision is necessary to protect the peace,
health and safety of the city and its inhabitants.
(3) No person shall camp in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public
right-of-way, park or any other publicly-owned property or under any
bridge or viaduct, unless otherwise specifically authorized by this code
or by declaration of the Mayor in emergency circumstances.
(4) Upon finding it to be in the public interest and consistent with council
goals and policies, the council may, by motion, exempt a special event
from the prohibitions of this section. The motion shall specify the period
of time and location covered by the exemption.
(Section 4.815 amended by Ordinance No. 19163, enacted July 11, 1983; and Ordinance
20062, enacted September 16, 1996, effective October 16, 1996.)
4.816 Permitted Overnight Sleeping.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code:
(a) Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, camper or trailer in a
parking lot of a religious institution, place of worship, business or
public entity that owns or leases property on which a parking lot
and occupied structure are located, with permission of the
property owner. The property owner may not grant permission for
more than three vehicles used for sleeping at any one time.
(b) Persons may sleep overnight in the back yard of a single family
residence in a residential zoning district, with permission of the
owner and tenant of the residence. Not more than one family may
sleep in any back yard, and not more than one tent or camping
shelter may be used for sleeping in the back yard. As an
alternative, but not in addition to sleeping overnight in the back
yard, not more than one family may sleep in a vehicle, camper or
trailer parked in the driveway of a single family residence in a
residential zoning district, with permission of the owner and tenant
of the residence. For purposes of this subsection, “family” means
persons related by blood or marriage, or no more than two
unrelated adults.
(c) Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, camper or trailer on a
paved or graveled surface located on a vacant or unoccupied
parcel, with the permission of the property owner, if the owner
registers the site with the city or its agent. The city may require
the site to be part of a supervised program operated by the city or
Eugene Code
4-82 8/2/2011
its agent. The property owner may not grant permission for more
than three vehicles used for sleeping at any one time.
(2) A property owner who allows a person or persons to sleep overnight on
a property pursuant to subsections (1)(a), (1)(b) or (1)(c) of this section
shall:
(a) Provide or make available sanitary facilities;
(b) Provide garbage disposal services as required by sections 6.050
and 6.055 of this code;
(c) Provide a storage area for campers to store any personal items so
the items are not visible from any public street;
(d) Require a tent or camping shelter in a backyard to be not less
than five feet away from any property line; and
(e) Not require payment of any fee, rent or other monetary charge for
overnight sleeping, as authorized by this section.
(3) A property owner who permits overnight sleeping pursuant to
subsection (1) and (2) of this section, may revoke that permission at
any time and for any reason. Any person who receives permission to
sleep on that property as provided in this section shall leave the
property immediately after permission has been revoked.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the city manager or
the manager’s designee may:
(a) Prohibit overnight sleeping on a property if the city finds that such
an activity on that property is incompatible with the uses of
adjacent properties or constitutes a nuisance or other threat to the
public welfare; or
(b) Revoke permission for a person to sleep overnight on city-owned
property if the city finds that the person has violated any
applicable law, ordinance, rule, guideline or agreement, or that the
activity is incompatible with the use of the property or adjacent
properties.
(5) The city manager or the manager’s designee may impose
administrative civil penalties on property owners who fail to comply with
the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, as provided
in section 2.018 of this code.
(6) In addition to any other penalties that may be imposed, any campsite
used for overnight sleeping in a manner not authorized by this section
or other provisions of this code shall constitute a nuisance and may be
abated as such. As used in this section, “campsite” has the meaning
given in section 4.815 of this code.
(7) The city manager may adopt administrative rules in the manner
provided in section 2.019 of this code to implement this section.
(8) With authorization from the city manager or designee in connection with
a specific special event, persons may sleep overnight on public
property which has a community center, swimming pool, or other city-
operated athletic facility located thereon at which the special event is
Eugene Code
4-83 8/2/2011
being held. The authorization shall be limited to no more than eight
days in any two-week period.
(9) Nothing in section 4.815 or 4.816 of this code creates any duty on the
part of the city or its agents to ensure the protection of persons or
property with regard to permitted overnight sleeping.
(Section 4.816 added by Ordinance No. 20130, enacted August 5, 1998; and amended by
Ordinance No. 20255, enacted June 10, 2002, effective July 10, 2002.)
4.820 Petty Larceny.
(Section 4.820 amended by Ordinance No. 19500, enacted September 28, 1987;
administratively amended by Ordinance No. 20113, enacted April 6, 1998, effective May 6,
1998; and amended by Ordinance No. 20161, enacted July 26, 1999, effective August 26, 1999;
and repealed by Ordinance No. 20446, enacted December 14, 2009, effective January 1, 2010.)
4.822 Theft.
(1)Theft in the Third Degree. A person commits the crime of theft in the
third degree if the total value of the property in a single or an aggregate
transaction is less than $100, and the person, by means other than
extortion, with the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate
property to the person or a third person:
(a) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an
owner thereof; or
(b) Comes into control of property of another that the person knows
or has good reason to know to have been lost, mislaid or
delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the
property or the identity of the recipient, and with the intent to
deprive the owner thereof fails to take reasonable measures to
restore the property to the owner; or
(c) Obtains property of another, and with the intent to defraud:
1. Creates or confirms another’s false impression of law, value,
intention or other state of mind which the actor does not
believe to be true; or
2. Fails to correct a false impression which the person
previously created or confirmed; or
3. Prevents another from acquiring information pertinent to the
disposition of the property involved; or
4. Sells or otherwise transfers or encumbers property, failing to
disclose a lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to
the enjoyment of the property, whether such impediment is
or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or
5. Promises performance which the person does not intend to
perform or knows will not be performed.
(d) Receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another
knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the
subject of theft. For purposes of this subsection, “receiving”
LIVING IN VEHICLES SECOND COMMUNITY FORUM
JUNE 26, 2012
COMMENT CARDS AND NOTES
1
QUESTIONS
Q: Is Palo Alto the only City that does not have a similar ordinance in Santa Clara County?
A: It is the City’s understanding that Palo Alto is the only City along the Peninsula that does not have such an ordinance.
Q: Has anyone challenged these ordinances? If so, what has been the result? Has there been grass root opposition?
A: Don Larkin is not aware of any. It is unknown if there has been grass root opposition on these other ordinances.
Q: What is the Status Quo?
A: No ordinance prohibiting living in vehicles. The primary regulation is the 72 hours or more parking limit. The second
are general violations such as urinating in public or other nuisances.
Q: How many complaints have been received in the last year?
A: It is difficult to provide a specific number. The Police Department does not keep statistics separately and they do not
track whether they are unhoused.
Q: How did City staff reach out to the Faith Based Community? Why does the program only identify “places of worship”
A: Rick Toker provided a contact list for the 42 various congregations. City property was not considered due to the cost
associated with maintenance and monitoring.
COMMENT CARDS
I would like to make a brief statement outlining my most important reasons for opposing the vehicle dwelling ban portions of the proposed City Ordinance-
I’ve been living in my vehicle for the past 2 years. I’m 64 years old and on the waitlist for senior housing. I’m against the ordinance because it will not solve the problem but would aggravate the situation worse.
Vehicle dwelling; the problems of poverty and job loss
I wanted to share recent experience learning about other community’s obstacles in enforcing such an ordinance. I also
wanted to express Downtown Streets Team’s willingness to help out.
Having lived in Palo Alto since 1960, I know it to be a caring community which does not want to criminalize good people.
Many years of experience working as an RN. Concerned about the health of those living in vehicles and how it could decline further if forced to the streets. Also remember many living in vehicles are employed and can’t afford the high rents
in the area.
With large layoff like the ones at HP’s many people who have homes today could find themselves living in their vehicles. I
do not want vehicle habitation to become a crime.
Why?
My outreach experience with the unhoused.
LIVING IN VEHICLES SECOND COMMUNITY FORUM
JUNE 26, 2012
COMMENT CARDS AND NOTES
2
Legal view
1) How many complaints; 2) Church vs. public lots; 3) ; 4)personal experience
Newspaper article on motor home example in Palo Alto
Living in vehicles is not a problem it is the result of a lack of housing.
Why 1st Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto said yes the Pilot Program
Seems to be enough support here. Each person who supports vehicle residents to take them home to their driveway and use their bathrooms.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
A suggestion was made that if churches are going to participate in such a program then they should outline a plan
of how to approach their neighbors before making a commitment.
When First Presbyterian Church started their Wednesday meal program there was a firestorm.
Having a program that can be controlled will give people a sense of security and wellbeing.
In land use controversy “one side out organizes the other.” Willing to participate in outreaching. Suggestion that
the community does everything and pulls together. Staff can’t be expected to do the outreach as it would not be fair to staff.
The pilot program discussed was not a consensus of the Working Group.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2211)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/15/2011
November 15, 2011 Page1of3
(ID # 2211)
Summary Title:Habitation of Vehicles Ordinance
Title:Status of Habitation in Vehicles Ordinance/Programs
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report to provide a status on the Human Habitation in Vehicles
Ordinance and related programs. No action is required. Staff will return with specific proposals
following further community outreach.
Background
Over the past several years there have been a number of incidents reported by residents and
business owners related to alleged disturbances by persons living in vehicles in or near
residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Specific incidents have sometimes been
troublesome for residents and businesses, in some cases including public urination, trespassing,
belligerent behavior, or other actions that are perceived as threats to safety or health. The
Police Department does not track these complaints, so there is not an accurate measure of the
number and frequency of calls, but Police estimate that there are about 20 vehicle dwellers
who are scattered throughout the city. Accordingly to homeless advocates, however, there are
probably about 100 vehicle dwellers in total, so for the most part such persons are peaceful, do
not bother residents, and in some cases provide helpful services to the community. Some of
the complaints, particularly in the College Terrace neighborhood, also relate to parking an
excessive number of vehicles in the area.
In July of 2011, a draft ordinance was prepared to address complaints received by residents and
businesses. The draft ordinance would have prohibited human habitation of vehicles, with
limited exceptions, and was modeled after similar ordinances in other cities located within
Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Currently, the City of Palo Alto appears to be the
only city located in Santa Clara County that does not have an ordinance addressing this issue.
The City’s current requirements do not limit sleeping or living in a vehicle, but do prohibit
parking a vehicle in the same space for more than 72 hours. The vehicle dwellers of concern,
however, are aware of the regulations and are able to move their vehicles to comply with the
72-hour limit. The Police Department therefore is only able to approach these cases as
complaints arise and generally attempt to address the individual cases by contacting the vehicle
dweller and, if they are available at the time, referring them to local shelters and service
November 15, 2011 Page2of3
(ID # 2211)
providers. In most cases, the vehicle dweller does not take advantage of those services, but
sometimes they are persuaded to move and then relocate to another neighborhood.
Staff scheduled consideration of the draft ordinance for Council review on July 25, 2011.
Homeless residents and advocates, however, voiced their opinions to the City Council before
that date that an alternative solution be proposed and that additional community outreach be
pursued. The City Manager then requested that the City Council remove the item from the July
25, 2011 meeting in order to allow additional community outreach, including discussions with
the Community Cooperation Team (homeless advocates) before an ordinance or other
approach is presented and a decision on the matter is rendered. The Council concurred and
suggested that the matter should also be reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee in
advance of full Council review.
Discussion
A working group has been established, comprised of various stakeholders in order to provide
input to City Staff. The working group includes representation from the unhoused community,
local social service providers, neighborhood residents, businesses, and the faith based
community, as well as City staff (Planning, Police, City Attorney and Community Services
departments). To date, a community forum and two working group meetings have taken place
to obtain additional input and to discuss alternative solutions. Another working group meeting
is scheduled for the morning of November 15th and a verbal report will be provided to the
Committee that evening.
Community Forum
On September 15, 2011, the City in conjunction with the Community Cooperation Team held a
“Living in Vehicles Community Forum” to invite public comment regarding individuals living in
their vehicles and others affected by these activities. The goal of the meeting was to reach out
to the community and discuss issues and approaches to address problems experienced by both
persons living in vehicles and affected residents and businesses. Approximately sixty individuals
participated in the forum. The meeting notes are appended to this update as Attachment “A”.
A website has been established on the Community Services Department at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/news/details.asp?NewsID=1882&TargetID=271.
Working Group
On October 26, 2011, the expanded working group held a meeting to define and frame the
issue and continue the conversation about plausible solutions and/or options. There was a
general consensus that there were multiple issues at hand and clearly defining the problem was
the first step. Specifically, a distinction was made between a) the parking and storage of
multiple vehicles in or around certain commercial/residential areas and b) people living in their
vehicles and parking within residential and/or commercial neighborhoods. Distinctions were
also drawn to recognize that the majority of vehicle dwellers are not causing any problems,
while there are valid safety, security and health concerns of neighbors and businesses that are
affected by the minority of vehicle dwellers.
November 15, 2011 Page3of3
(ID # 2211)
Members of the Community Cooperation Team have offered suggestions for an ordinance
modeled after Eugene, Oregon’s Camping Ordinance. The ordinance would allow private
businesses, places of worship, and government facilities to designate parking to accommodate
either three medium vehicles or one large vehicle on the property. Providers of these parking
spaces would govern their property and issue approval letters with corresponding dates and
any required provisions. Concurrently, the City’s Community Service Officer would serve as a
facilitator for those living in their vehicles by providing a list of approved parking lots and social
service programs. The group will also discuss how parking regulations might be modified to
address some of the specific parking-related issues.
Other approaches, including something similar to the original draft ordinance, are also still to
be discussed. The second expanded working group meeting is scheduled for November 15,
2011 to further review these options and discuss the potential implications of each.
Next Steps
Staff expects to conduct one more working group meeting, and then to present options at a
community meeting in December or early January 2012. A final working group meeting would
follow prior to staff’s presentation of a recommended program to the Policy and Services
Committee in February.
Attachments:
Attachment A: September 15, 2011 Community Forum Notes (PDF)
Public Doc (PDF)
Prepared By: Curtis Williams, Director
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
Ho
w
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
d
o
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
v
a
n
s
?
I
su
g
g
e
s
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
v
a
n
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
a
r
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
j
u
s
t
l
i
k
e
t
h
e
ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
e
r
s
.
R
i
g
h
t
n
o
w
w
e
d
o
n
o
t
k
n
o
w
w
h
o
t
h
e
s
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
o
u
r
ho
m
e
s
o
r
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
n
o
t
j
u
s
t
R
-
1
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
m
i
x
e
d
u
s
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
.
Do
n
o
t
h
i
n
g
.
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
h
a
r
a
s
s
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
law
s
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
h
a
v
e
s
a
m
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
o
w
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
T
o
d
e
n
y
o
n
l
y
p
o
o
r
pe
o
p
l
e
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
o
w
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
w
h
i
l
e
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
w
e
a
l
t
h
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
s
un
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
.
I
w
a
n
t
t
o
b
e
a
m
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
t
a
s
k
f
o
r
c
e
.
Ho
w
m
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
?
H
o
w
m
a
n
y
a
r
e
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
?
W
h
e
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
d
o
n
e
w
h
e
n
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
d
o
e
s
c
a
u
s
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
?
R
u
m
o
r
-
v
a
n
s
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
“
v
a
n
gu
y
s
”
?
F
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
t
c
i
t
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
cit
y
.
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
:
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
i
s
v
e
r
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
I
s
t
h
e
r
e
a
n
y
w
a
y
t
h
a
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
D
c
o
u
l
d
s
t
e
p
u
p
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
a
ca
s
e
b
y
c
a
s
e
b
a
s
i
s
?
I
f
e
e
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
w
h
o
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
h
e
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
W
h
a
t
a
b
o
u
t
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
“
s
a
f
e
t
y
z
o
n
e
s
?
”
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
ra
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Lik
e
d
t
h
e
i
d
e
a
o
f
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
s
/
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
,
c
i
t
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
i
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
pla
c
e
s
.
Se
p
a
r
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
D
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
e
a
c
h
a
l
o
n
e
.
F
i
r
s
t
,
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
c
a
r
s
;
s
e
c
o
n
d
,
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
wh
o
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
;
t
h
i
r
d
w
h
e
r
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
.
O
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
d
o
n
e
,
b
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
t
h
r
e
e
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
an
d
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
f
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
i
s
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
w
o
r
s
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
o
w
n
t
u
r
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
g
i
n
g
“
b
a
b
y
b
o
o
m
e
r
s
”
.
L
o
o
k
int
o
n
e
a
r
b
y
m
o
d
e
l
s
-
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
;
e
n
g
a
g
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
f
o
r
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
;
u
s
e
th
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
w
h
a
t
w
e
h
a
v
e
;
H
.
I
.
P
.
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
t
o
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
pe
o
p
l
e
.
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
2
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
I w
a
s
t
h
r
o
w
n
o
u
t
o
f
m
y
h
o
u
s
e
a
s
a
t
e
e
n
a
g
e
r
.
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
a
f
r
a
i
d
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
w
a
n
t
t
o
s
e
e
o
t
h
e
r
te
e
n
a
g
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
a
t
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
F
a
m
i
l
y
,
a
c
r
o
s
s
f
r
o
m
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
a
t
t
h
e
G
r
e
e
n
d
e
l
l
s
i
t
e
.
S
e
v
e
r
a
l
c
a
r
-
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
liv
i
n
g
r
i
g
h
t
b
e
h
i
n
d
m
y
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
y
t
r
o
u
b
l
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
.
I
n
t
h
e
p
a
s
t
,
w
e
h
a
v
e
h
a
d
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
o
n
p
l
a
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
l
e
a
v
i
n
g
t
r
a
s
h
,
u
r
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
f
e
c
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
do
o
r
w
a
y
s
.
P
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
a
f
e
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
,
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
y
c
o
m
e
to
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
g
o
o
d
t
h
i
n
g
.
A
s
a
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
,
I
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
e
i
d
e
a
o
f
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
m
a
l
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
a
n
d
w
h
e
r
e
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
i
s
g
o
o
d
.
I
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
b
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
law
s
a
b
o
u
t
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
a
n
y
b
o
d
y
w
h
o
a
r
e
i
n
a
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
i
n
g
w
a
y
t
o
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
in
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
An
i
s
s
u
e
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
s
t
h
a
t
o
f
s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
h
y
g
i
e
n
e
.
T
h
e
c
i
t
y
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
,
wa
t
e
r
,
s
h
o
w
e
r
s
,
e
t
c
.
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
.
W
h
y
i
s
t
h
e
P
.
D
.
u
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
7
2
-
h
o
u
r
r
u
l
e
w
i
t
h
th
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
o
w
n
s
t
h
e
f
l
e
e
t
o
f
v
a
n
s
,
t
h
a
t
p
a
r
k
o
n
S
t
a
u
n
t
o
n
,
O
x
f
o
r
d
a
n
d
C
a
m
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
n
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Te
r
r
a
c
e
?
Th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
a
n
d
s
h
o
w
e
r
s
f
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
.
A
d
d
a
sm
a
l
l
t
a
x
o
r
s
o
l
i
c
i
t
s
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
M
a
n
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
h
a
p
p
y
t
o
d
o
n
a
t
e
.
I’m
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
l
i
v
e
i
n
m
y
c
a
r
.
S
a
f
e
t
y
.
Pr
a
y
i
n
g
f
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
t
o
o
p
e
n
t
h
e
i
r
h
o
m
e
s
.
Im
p
a
c
t
o
f
v
a
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
–
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
s
s
u
e
s
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
t
o
m
o
v
e
o
u
t
.
On
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
1
2
v
a
n
s
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
D
o
n
’
t
p
u
n
i
s
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
u
s
.
I
’
v
e
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
a
n
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
0
y
e
a
r
s
-
w
e
n
t
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
Liv
i
n
g
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
o
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
o
s
e
w
i
t
h
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
o
r
i
g
i
n
s
.
I w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
h
e
s
t
a
f
f
s
,
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
l
i
g
h
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
s
w
e
a
r
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
w
o
r
k
o
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
h
a
t
w
o
r
k
o
u
t
f
o
r
e
v
e
r
y
b
o
d
y
.
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
3
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
If
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
n
e
a
r
y
o
u
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
b
e
g
a
n
t
o
r
e
n
t
a
r
o
o
m
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
n
e
x
t
d
o
o
r
an
d
t
h
e
i
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
h
o
w
w
o
u
l
d
t
h
a
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
y
o
u
r
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
an
d
w
h
y
?
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
a
y
-
s
p
r
a
w
l
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
S
l
i
p
p
e
r
y
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
w
h
a
t
i
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
.
I w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
p
e
a
k
a
s
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
d
w
e
l
l
s
i
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
Am
a
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
.
H
a
v
e
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
i
l
l
a
d
u
l
t
s
o
n
w
h
o
i
s
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
is
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
g
i
a
n
t
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
m
o
s
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
s
o
u
t
h
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
C
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
r
e
b
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
w
h
e
r
e
w
e
m
o
d
e
l
a
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
l
i
k
e
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
wi
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
.
W
o
w
.
I
g
u
e
s
s
I
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
a
y
I
f
e
e
l
v
e
r
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
e
v
e
r
y
s
q
u
a
r
e
i
n
c
h
t
h
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
f
o
n
l
y
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
o
w
n
o
r
h
a
v
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
r
e
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
I
t
’
s
i
n
h
u
m
a
n
e
.
I
a
m
a
n
at
t
o
r
n
e
y
a
n
d
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
a
n
d
I
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
y
m
y
h
o
u
s
e
.
W
i
l
l
w
e
m
a
k
e
i
t
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
?
2
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,
f
o
r
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
i
n
l
a
w
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
,
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
en
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
)
.
I c
r
i
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
I
h
a
d
n
o
s
h
o
e
s
,
t
i
l
l
I
s
a
w
a
m
a
n
w
i
t
h
n
o
f
e
e
t
.
In
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
s
a
v
e
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
1
st an
d
l
a
s
t
m
o
n
t
h
r
e
n
t
:
1
9
7
3
–
S
e
v
e
n
w
e
e
k
s
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
V
o
l
k
s
w
a
g
e
n
Sq
u
a
r
e
b
a
c
k
w
i
t
h
m
y
f
a
m
i
l
y
-
3
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
.
1
9
7
5
-
O
n
e
m
o
n
t
h
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
m
y
f
a
m
i
l
y
-
3
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
t
w
o
d
o
g
s
(
i
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
)
;
1
9
7
9
–
W
i
n
t
e
r
-
2
3
d
a
y
s
i
n
v
a
n
w
i
t
h
3
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
an
d
t
w
o
d
o
g
s
(
i
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
)
.
I
d
o
n
o
t
w
a
n
t
a
l
a
w
t
h
a
t
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
f
o
l
k
s
f
r
o
m
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
th
e
i
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
M
y
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
’
s
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
v
a
n
s
a
n
d
c
a
r
s
o
n
o
u
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
Br
o
w
n
v
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
k
i
d
s
.
Co
n
c
e
r
n
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
,
h
o
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
b
e
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
.
W
a
n
t
t
o
k
n
o
w
-
w
h
a
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
i
s
t
t
h
a
t
c
o
v
e
r
t
h
i
s
i
s
s
u
e
?
H
o
w
m
a
n
y
“
c
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
”
a
r
e
we
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
?
W
h
o
h
a
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
t
h
e
m
?
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
4
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
I w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
e
e
t
h
i
s
a
s
a
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
s
s
u
e
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
c
i
v
i
l
.
B
u
t
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
d
o
n
e
e
d
so
m
e
r
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
“
b
e
h
a
v
i
n
g
b
a
d
l
y
”
.
I
h
a
v
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
c
i
t
i
e
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
2-
3
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
l
o
t
a
n
d
i
n
e
a
c
h
c
a
s
e
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
a
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
o
m
e
a
r
e
c
i
t
y
r
u
n
,
on
e
i
s
f
a
i
t
h
b
a
s
e
d
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
h
a
s
s
a
v
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
u
g
e
n
e
,
O
r
e
g
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
2
1
0
k
.
Th
e
y
u
s
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
u
p
c
o
u
r
t
t
i
m
e
,
t
o
w
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
an
d
p
e
r
h
a
p
s
t
h
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
h
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
s
u
c
h
a
p
l
a
n
.
Eu
g
e
n
e
O
r
e
g
o
n
h
a
s
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
l
o
w
p
r
e
-
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
l
o
t
s
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
to
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
b
a
n
.
I b
e
l
i
e
v
e
w
e
c
a
n
f
i
n
d
g
o
o
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
a
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
S
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
:
I
t
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
g
e
t
a
n
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
c
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
.
D
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
“
v
a
n
”
g
u
y
-
t
h
e
r
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
co
v
e
r
s
h
i
m
.
D
o
n
o
t
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
n
e
s
s
-
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
c
a
r
s
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
G
e
t
h
e
l
p
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
.
H
a
v
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
b
r
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
i
n
g
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
FL
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
Ca
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
-
A
n
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
u
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
d
,
w
e
a
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
d
o
i
n
g
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
h
i
n
g
s
,
w
e
c
a
n
f
i
n
d
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
;
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
h
a
d
b
a
n
o
n
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
;
p
e
r
s
o
n
i
n
c
a
r
i
s
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
;
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
r
e
l
i
e
v
e
d
i
f
e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d
a
r
e
a
.
W
e
a
r
e
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
a
t
e
.
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
p
e
n
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
G
r
e
e
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
;
s
u
r
g
e
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
Ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
f
e
e
l
u
n
s
a
f
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
.
Is
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
a
m
a
g
n
e
t
?
M
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
v
e
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
.
M
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
h
a
v
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
i
e
s
,
m
a
k
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
P
a
l
o
Al
t
o
a
s
r
o
l
e
m
o
d
e
l
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
7
2
h
o
u
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
i
m
i
t
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
C
T
.
Be
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
c
r
i
m
e
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
H
u
m
a
n
i
t
a
r
i
a
n
,
w
e
a
r
e
b
l
e
s
s
e
d
.
S
e
e
u
s
a
l
l
h
e
l
p
ea
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
,
s
h
a
r
e
.
D
a
l
a
i
L
a
m
a
.
S
t
a
t
u
s
q
u
o
i
s
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
.
V
e
r
b
a
l
a
s
s
a
u
l
t
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
f
r
o
m
on
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
.
P
o
l
i
c
e
c
a
n
n
o
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
a
w
s
.
Sh
u
t
d
o
w
n
m
a
g
n
e
t
s
,
s
a
y
t
o
g
o
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
S
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
a
b
l
e
.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
i
m
i
t
s
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
pe
o
p
l
e
’
s
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
.
I
t
h
a
s
w
o
r
k
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
p
a
n
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
,
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
j
o
i
n
t
e
a
m
.
P
e
e
r
t
o
p
e
e
r
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
.
Ne
e
d
t
o
w
a
i
t
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
c
a
n
m
o
v
e
.
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
h
a
v
e
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
,
f
e
e
l
u
n
s
a
f
e
.
S
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
Ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
L
G
i
n
s
o
m
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
D
o
n
’
t
w
a
n
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
t
o
m
a
k
e
i
t
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
t
o
l
i
v
e
i
n
c
a
r
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
h
a
v
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
re
a
s
o
n
s
.
O
t
h
e
r
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
d
c
a
n
c
a
u
s
e
s
a
m
e
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
5
Do
n
’
t
n
e
e
d
t
o
p
u
t
m
o
r
e
i
n
j
a
i
l
,
d
o
n
e
e
d
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
T
r
a
g
e
d
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
s
.
S
l
e
e
p
o
n
t
a
r
p
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
c
a
r
?
W
e
ca
n
d
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
.
W
r
o
n
g
t
o
p
u
n
i
s
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
n
o
t
c
o
n
d
e
m
n
g
r
o
u
p
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
B
l
a
c
k
ho
l
e
s
o
u
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
.
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
a
l
l
.
S
t
o
r
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
i
s
s
u
e
,
n
o
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
H
a
s
b
e
e
n
g
o
i
n
g
o
n
f
o
r
t
e
n
y
e
a
r
s
i
n
Co
l
l
e
g
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
.
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
n
g
7
2
h
o
u
r
l
i
m
i
t
.
2
0
0
8
:
M
a
n
y
m
o
r
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
.
O
n
l
y
o
n
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
w
o
r
k
s
wi
t
h
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
So
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
n
o
t
c
i
v
i
l
i
s
s
u
e
.
L
o
o
k
i
n
t
o
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
o
t
h
e
r
c
i
t
y
d
o
e
s
.
C
i
t
y
l
o
t
s
/
c
h
u
r
c
h
l
o
t
s
w
i
t
h
r
u
l
e
s
/
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
b
u
t
w
i
t
h
co
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
.
P
a
r
t
o
f
C
C
T
-
E
u
g
e
n
e
,
O
R
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
f
o
r
c
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
.
A
s
k
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
-
1
l
a
w
n
e
e
d
t
o
m
o
v
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
e
v
e
r
y
7
2
ho
u
r
s
-
s
o
m
e
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
v
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
20
-
2
5
i
n
P
A
h
a
v
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
o
n
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
.
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
C
S
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s
t
o
t
h
a
t
i
s
s
u
e
.
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
-
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
-
ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
.
S
a
f
e
t
y
i
s
s
u
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
-
v
a
n
o
n
b
l
o
c
k
-
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
a
s
s
a
u
l
t
e
d
k
i
d
s
.
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
,
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
pu
b
l
i
c
u
r
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
L
i
v
e
i
n
C
T
l
o
n
g
t
i
m
e
-
l
i
k
e
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
,
b
u
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
–
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
w
i
t
h
1
2
v
a
n
s
.
C
N
z
o
n
e
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
.
Gi
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
t
o
o
l
s
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
C
T
i
s
s
u
e
.
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
-
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
-
a
l
s
o
h
a
v
e
k
i
d
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
a
f
r
a
i
d
o
n
m
a
n
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
M
a
n
m
o
v
e
s
ve
h
i
c
l
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
e
v
e
r
y
7
2
h
o
u
r
s
.
H
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
.
N
e
e
d
s
t
o
g
i
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
“
t
o
o
l
s
”
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
s
s
u
e
.
B
a
r
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
-
Un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
1
2
c
a
r
s
,
b
u
t
i
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
l
e
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
h
i
s
h
o
u
s
e
.
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
c
h
a
r
t
e
r
h
a
s
l
o
o
k
e
d
i
n
t
o
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
i
s
s
u
e
s
f
o
r
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
r
k
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
.
N
o
r
m
-
l
i
v
i
n
g
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
p
u
t
s
he
a
l
t
h
a
t
r
i
s
k
.
I
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
f
i
x
t
h
a
t
.
L
o
o
k
a
t
M
i
l
p
i
t
a
s
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
u
s
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
c
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
g
a
r
a
g
e
s
.
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
i
s
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
c
a
r
e
s
.
F
a
i
t
h
b
a
s
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
h
a
v
e
c
a
r
e
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
g
o
o
d
a
n
d
b
a
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
.
N
e
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
e
u
p
wi
t
h
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
.
Ha
s
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
c
a
r
.
N
e
v
e
r
b
r
o
k
e
n
l
a
w
.
B
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
t
h
e
r
s
.
N
o
t
c
l
e
a
n
i
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
r
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
.
I
f
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
a
s
s
e
s
,
m
a
y
b
e
fac
e
d
t
o
l
i
v
e
o
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
P
u
n
i
s
h
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
c
a
s
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
B
u
t
l
e
a
v
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
l
o
n
e
.
C
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
-
h
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
a
u
s
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
D
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
p
e
o
p
l
e
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
S
o
n
-
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
-
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
i
l
l
.
L
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
n
o
t
w
r
a
p
ar
o
u
n
d
.
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
r
a
p
i
d
r
e
-
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
N
e
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
e
u
p
w
i
t
h
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
N
o
t
p
o
l
i
c
e
b
a
s
e
d
.
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
C
C
T
-
h
a
r
d
t
o
t
e
l
l
h
o
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
d
.
L
i
v
e
s
i
n
C
T
-
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
s
s
u
e
i
n
C
N
Z
o
n
e
-
w
a
s
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
by
r
o
c
k
i
n
w
i
n
d
o
w
.
T
h
e
y
k
n
o
w
w
h
y
I
l
i
v
e
n
o
t
v
i
s
a
v
e
r
s
a
.
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
a
l
l
l
o
c
a
l
c
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
m
o
r
e
ar
e
a
s
.
St
r
e
e
t
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
a
n
c
o
m
e
u
p
w
i
t
h
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
i
n
k
a
b
o
u
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
i
t
y
h
o
l
d
s
a
n
d
u
p
h
o
l
d
f
o
r
all
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
.
O
r
e
g
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Minor, Beth
From: Tony Ciampi [tciampi@hotmaiLcomJ
Sent: Tuesday, November 08,2011 5:50 PM
(HlY CLERK'S OFFICE
IINGV-9 Al'18:17
To: Venable, Mark; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Larkin, Donald
Ce: abjpd1@gmaiLcom; bkenny5678@gmaiLcom; chuckjagoda1@gmaiLcom;
Page 1 of 1
yvonnekenyon66@yahoo.com; prgreg@stanford.edu; ricktoker@yahoo.com; mqbaylon@stanford.edu
Subject: Question regarding Vehicle Habitation Ordinance
Mark Venable
Asst. Police Chief of Palo Alto,
&
Curtis Williams,
during the October 25, 2011 Working Group Meeting regarding the "Vehicle Habitation
Ordinance" Mr. Williams asserted that the ordinance that had been drafted in no longer on the table.
Additionally Mr. Williams asserted that the City does not want to criminalize "Vehicle Dwellers" whose
behavior is not a problem. However during your presentation that Mr. Venable gave, Mr. Venable
asserted that the Palo Alto Police needs another tool, "an ordinance" to deal with those few "Vehicle
Dwellers" that are a problem, to get them to move.
For clarification please identify exactly what problem and or problem behaviors you need an ordinance to
address.
Additionally please specify how such an ordinance would be used to deal with the so called problem
behaViors of 'Vehicle Dwellers."
I would appreciate it if you could provide me with your response before the end of the week.
Thank you.
Tony Ciampi
11/9/2011
P&S 1 11-15-11
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
November 15, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt (arrived 7:15 pm), Holman, Klein, Price (Chair)
Absent:
Oral Communications
Aram James spoke regarding the resolution of social issues plaguing the
community.
Erick Deizel spoke regarding work with the elderly and how they were affected
by loss of income.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Status of Habitation in Vehicles Ordinance/Programs
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment gave an
update on the status of the vehicle habitation issues. He noted there was no
proposal presented because Staff was not asking for action to be taken. They
were asking for the Policy & Services Committee input on the progress to date.
Staff worked closely with the Community Cooperation Team, a group of
homeless advocates. Together they formed working groups to discuss
community concerns. Community forums were held where experiences and
alternatives were discussed. Among the ideas shared was an Ordinance similar
to one the State of Oregon implemented which allowed Churches, commercial
P&S 2 11-15-11
properties, and the City to provide areas for refuge. There would be certain
limitations on the number of vehicles on the site, vehicle registration, and time
limits. Participants also discussed a set of regulations for parking permits or
restricted time limits in commercial areas. Also discussed was an Ordinance that
would provide assistance to the Police Department in the event further activity
was needed. He noted there had been a positive approach to the concerns
throughout the community. They were working together to provide an
alternative to criminalizing those who were not causing negative incident. More
meetings were planned with the intent to offer proposal to the City Council in
February 2012.
Council Member Holman asked if the proposal included a mechanism to deal with
persons who park multiple vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Williams stated it would depend on the type and height of vehicle, and
whether there was a permit parking program in the area. He noted it would be
more difficult to limit parking in a non-permitted residential zone.
Council Member Holman asked if there was any way to characterize the general
situation that caused people to live in their vehicles.
Mr. Williams stated it would be difficult to generalize. There were scenarios
where living in the vehicle was a more secure environment than being exposed
to other outdoor hazards. There were situations where there were mental
ailments or times when their vehicle was their only possession.
Council Member Holman asked if there was any thought that the Community
Cooperation Team would continue. She cited the Downtown Streets Team as an
example. They provided a network and a structure for people to belong to. The
people needing the service became a part of the community.
Mr. Williams stated the Community Cooperation Team had come together in a
unique way and the anticipation was they would remain in tact since this was a
long term issue. He noted the process currently being addressed was not the
wide range of issues he believed they would like to address in the future.
Council Member Holman asked if the Human Relations Commission (HRC) was
involved.
Mr. Williams stated no, Minka Van der Zwaag from the Community Services
Department had attended the meetings, was aware of the situation and the
movement.
P&S 3 11-15-11
Council Member Holman asked if there was an understanding that most people
that inhabited their vehicles did not cause a problem but there was none-the-less
safety factor that some people expressed.
Mr. Williams stated that was understood by most of the community but there
was a concern over how many incidents would be needed before an Ordinance
was drafted for the safety and well-being of the community.
Council Member Burt stated he was surprised the HRC had not been formerly
brought into the program. The purpose of the HRC was to advise the Council and
their realm was Human Relations. He asked for more specifics on the Eugene
program.
Mr. Williams said the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coordinator
had been researching the Eugene Program and the Santa Barbara County
program as well. He noted the research found both programs had been
successful but neither was able to fully meet housing needs in the available
facilities. His understanding was there was a waiting list but he was uncertain
where people went while on the waiting list.
Council Member Burt asked about the participant’s perception of the programs.
He also wanted to know what had happened to those who were placed on a
waiting list.
Mr. Williams stated he was uncertain at the time but Staff would look into the
deeper issues during the next phase. He mentioned there had been discussion at
the HRC meeting on whether the matter should go to the full Council. The HRC
decided the Policy & Services Committee needed to be involved first.
Chair Price asked if there was expressed interest from property owners, faith
based groups, or commercial property owners to be involved in this type of
program.
Mr. Williams stated the intent to involve faith organizations in the next meeting.
The subject had not been formally discussed with commercial entities. There
would need to be facilities for bathrooms, a clean-up area, and room for the
vehicles, which could not be accommodated in the downtown area.
Chair Price asked if Staff had talked with service providers or networks of
individuals who were currently providing services in the Eugene Program.
P&S 4 11-15-11
Mr. Williams said there would be more detailed discussions with the service
providers to see if there were more examples of other places they may be aware
of. The Eugene Program was City based so Staff had focused their discussions
with the City Staff.
Council Member Klein asked if Staff had coordinated with other cities in Santa
Clara and San Mateo counties to learn from their experiences.
Mr. Williams stated the Police Department had discussions with surrounding
cities and even though there were Ordinances in motion they were informed
there were people living in their vehicles. If there were no issues being caused
city officials did not act on the Ordinance. He noted members of the Community
Cooperation Team had positive responses when speaking with faith based
communities in Mountain View about their interest in participating in the
program if it were to move forward.
Council Member Klein asked if neighboring cities were receiving complaints
similar to those in Palo Alto with respect to the vehicle dwellers.
Mr. Williams said he was not familiar with any such complaints.
Council Member Klein asked if there was evidence of Palo Alto attracting vehicle
dwellers because of the Ordinances in the other 14 cities within Santa Clara
County.
Mr. Williams stated there was no evidence but the Police had come across a few
persons who were from elsewhere.
Rick Tocker spoke regarding his discussions with the faith community, where a
number of churches had expressed interest in getting involved if the City
accepted a Eugene type plan.
Saint George said the main issue appeared to be poverty and Palo Alto was an
affluent community and was not versed in handling such circumstances. The
situation was ongoing and she felt it was a regional issue.
Chuck Degota said the word homeless was not accurately used, they had homes
but they were mobile. The solution was engagement by instituting a program
such as the City of Eugene who saved $200,000 in staff time and expenses by no
longer needing to respond to complaints. He noted the situations some were in
were not decided lightly but mandated by their state of affairs.
P&S 5 11-15-11
Aram James spoke regarding the Policy & Services Committee members’
involvement in the community working groups. Some had attended meetings
and were involved while those who had not were invited to do so. He felt the
arrests and ticketing of people staying in their vehicles would cause judicial costs
to rise.
Bruce Kenyon read from an article he wrote. There was no stepladder to assist
people to get back on their feet and become a productive part of society. The
current system was broken and there needed to be a replacement program put
into place.
Herb Borock said when the issue was raised there was a draft Ordinance already
written. He felt the HRC should be involved and advise the Policy & Services
Committee prior to the Committee recommending policy to the full Council.
Chris Sacre spoke regarding the proposed Ordinance and the working group. The
vehicle habitation issue should not be treated as a criminal issue but rather a
social issue. The group had been actively reaching out to the community to come
up with a long term solution for those affected.
Erick Deisel said to pass an Ordinance that removed a person’s vehicle when that
vehicle was their home would prevent them from re-involving themselves back
into society. He asked if there was a list of problems related to people residing in
the vehicles.
Mr. Williams gave a brief list of issues associated with safety, security,
sanitation, and health complaints believed to be connected with some vehicle
dwellers.
Fred Smith spoke regarding the difficulties of getting back into the work force
and how living in his vehicle was a detriment to the community. He requested
the Policy & Services Committee pass regulations that did not hurt those who
were already injured socially.
Tina Lovercheck recalled the sit-lie Ordinance discussion in consideration with
the HRC who did not support the passing of the Ordinance because there was no
documentation to support the need. She felt the vehicle habitation was a similar
situation and that the HRC needed to be involved.
Council Member Burt asked how much engagement had taken place with
businesses regarding use of their sites. In the Eugene Program there were
instances when the vehicle dweller and the commercial site forged a relationship
P&S 6 11-15-11
where the vehicle dweller in effect provided around the clock security.
Mr. Williams stated Staff had not had any discussions with the commercial based
participants in Eugene but he was also familiar with those comments.
Council Member Burt asked whether the community working groups had any
engagement with the commercial base community.
Mr. Williams declared he did not believe so.
Council Member Burt stated there were responsible members of the community
who were in a situation beyond their control. He asked to what degree Palo Alto
had been able to distinguish the two groups; those in need of assistance and
those with criminal intent. He felt there could be a shared interest between the
vehicle dweller and the business owner.
Mr. Williams said the Police Department did not currently have a tracking system
in place since there was not a Municipal Code that could be violated. He noted
there were a couple of the Community Officers who indicated during prior
meetings there may have been 15 to 20 issues over the past few years but
acknowledged there were three times that amount without any incident.
Council Member Burt said the Downtown Streets Team was an innovative
program initiated by Palo Alto residents and subsequently supported by the City.
The program was a model being replicated elsewhere in the region. This was an
example of Palo Alto using a model that helped people help themselves. He felt
the Eugene model had a solid base to start a program in the City.
Council Member Klein asked about the overnight parking ban.
Mr. Williams stated it was a suggestion but there was not a limitation as of yet.
Council Member Klein said an element not frequently discussed was that while
City government was not equipped to solve poverty, Palo Alto did have
compassion. There were laws available to the police to protect the community
against public nuisance. He disagreed the City government should be involved in
a program such as the one in Eugene; he felt it would add a bureaucratic
element which was not practical.
Council Member Holman thought it was important to consider an ongoing
Community Cooperation Team potentially using the Downtown Streets Team
model to locate work for those in need. Her concern was how the negative
P&S 7 11-15-11
actions of a few may impact the group as a whole in the form of an Ordinance.
She felt the HRC should be involved, admitting it would slow the process
although their role was to advise the Council on Human Relation matters. She
understood the safety concerns of residents. She felt City facilities should not be
involved.
Chair Price was concerned about the lack of hard data. With out this information
it would be difficult to define the challenges. She was undecided whether or not
City facilities should be considered. She appreciated the work that had been
contributed to date. She recommended more detailed discussions with the
service providers and more consideration for HRC involvement.
Council Member Holman asked if the focus of the Community Cooperation Team
was to be a facilitating group or was it to develop solutions.
Mr. Williams clarified the group felt facilitating and reaching for solutions were a
part of their purpose. He noted they were reviewing models elsewhere to bring
forth suggestions to be considered.
Chair Price asked Staff to inform the audience how they could get involved.
Mr. Williams said interested parties could contact him or Consuelo Hernandez
in the Planning Department at (650) 329-2404 and there was information on
the Community Services Department web page:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/human_services/default.asp .
Council Member Burt asked the City’s role in the forum versus various
community organizations.
Mr. Williams stated Staff saw the role as collaboration between the City and the
Community Cooperation Team but ultimately the team was providing input for
Staff to bring to the Council as recommendations.
Council Member Burt asked how broadly the group was representing the
community.
Mr. Williams stated the Community Cooperation Team worked with advocates
and clergy while the Working Groups had neighborhood and business
representatives.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
P&S 8 11-15-11
2. Magical Bridge Partnership Project Update
Director of Community Service Department, Greg Betts gave an update on the
community partnership project that related to the Council Priority on youth
wellbeing programs. There were currently two projects being presented Project
Safety Net and the Magical Bridge. One of the reasons the Magical Bridge project
was so important was it was not just building a playground but building a public
awareness of persons with special needs in the community. He noted there were
over 1,500 children and adults with special needs within Palo Alto. The Magical
Bridge was a program that made a play area universally accessible where the
children could play together or caregivers could play with children. In July of
2011, the Council approved a Letter of Intent (LOI) which outlined what the City
was responsible for so the Friends of the Magical Bridge could focus on
fundraising. The City had allocated $300,000 in its Capital Improvement Project
budget as seed monies. The funds were being used for the design, review, and
permits. Some funds may also be used to build the bridge over Adobe Creek
leading to the play area in the northern corner of Mitchell Park.
Landscape Architect/Park Planner, Peter Jennings said there were currently six
proposals for review to select the consultant for the project. The consultant
would be responsible for the design of the playground. Staff would present their
findings for selection to the Council at the beginning of the 2012 year. The
consultant would be responsible for development of the design, set the
construction documentation, and then move into the construction phase of the
project. He noted the design and construction documentation was anticipated to
extend through 2012.
Olenka Villarreal, Friends of the Magical Bridge, said fundraising was at the top
of their priority list. They were also working with Mr. Jennings to create the
vision of the playground. She encouraged people who wished to participate,
donate, or receive more information on the project to visit the web site at
www.magicalbridge.org .
Council Member Burt acknowledged it was an important program for the
community. He recognized there were few communities with such accessible
playgrounds and he was glad to have Palo Alto lead the way. He said the
wellbeing of the youth of Palo Alto was intertwined with the wellbeing of the
community and both needed to be solid to support the other. He was not under
the impression the allocations from the Capital Improvement would go towards
the repair or replacement of the Adobe Creek Bridge; he was aware the bridge
was in need of repair but the funds to do so should be part of the infrastructure
P&S 9 11-15-11
not any special project.
Mr. Betts clarified part of the design funding would assist in addressing the
uniqueness of the bridge, the hydraulic study and the accessibility to the other
pathways in the park. Because the City would be dealing with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District, the permitting for the bridge was going to be managed by
the City.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff had reviewed the Water District Funds for
assistance through their grant programs.
Mr. Betts stated yes and Staff would aggressively apply for those funds. Staff
had previously received indication that CDBG funds would be available since the
bridge was being retrofitted.
Chair Price asked whether Staff had approached philanthropic groups for funding
assistance.
Ms. Villarreal stated yes, those groups had been approached. The groups had
pledged a significant amount of money and time but were waiting for the when
the project was ready for their contributions.
Chair Price asked if small family foundations had been contacted as well.
Ms. Villarreal stated the Friends had received funds from a few small family
foundations. However because of Palo Alto’s affluent status grant assistance was
not an option.
Council Member Holman felt the project was a terrific idea and appreciated the
creativity, innovation, and the initiative taken to get it started.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
3. Project Safety Net Update
Recreation Manager, Rob De Geus provided background on the Community
Coalition which began to take shape in summer of 2009. The group was formed
in response to five teen suicides within an eight month period. He presented the
Project Safety Net Report which defined 22 strategies in three categories;
intervention, prevention, and education. The report was reviewed by the Policy
& Services Committee who determined there were specific policy implications for
the City. The City had taken action on most of the items listed in the report and
P&S 10 11-15-11
adopted a Developmental Assets Policy, a Suicide Prevention Policy, support for
the track watch year round, elevating the youth voice, and administrative
capacity for Project Safety Net. The Council and Staff had negotiated monies to
support the position although it had not yet been filled.
Supervisor of Recreation Programs, Minka Van der Zwaag discussed the
structure of Project Safety Net and explained it was broken out into three
capacities, 1) the steering community who opened, coordinated, and advised, 2)
the community collaboration teams which were groupings of individuals and
organizations to further the strategies of Project Safety Net, and 3) gatekeeper
training which was a group trained in recognizing a youth in suicidal trouble.
Staff had enlisted the assistance of a group named QPR to train all of the
Community Services Department (CSD) Staff who deal with youth and the first
and secondary level of staff at the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The
Developmental Assets group had given numerous presentations to community
groups explaining the concept of Developmental Assets, developed the
implementation of the Developmental Assts Survey for PAUSD which covered
over 4,000 students, and in an effort to publicize Developmental Assets the
overpasses were adorned with banners denoting the “asset of the month”. She
noted youth would prefer to talk amongst themselves rather to an adult and as
the QPR training was geared more towards the adult the Gunn High students
began a peer support group called Sources of Strength. She noted there was a
monthly meeting held at the Lucy Stern Community Center to discuss
implementations, make decisions, networking, and each month there was a
major topic of discussion. There were partner organizations and each one
determined which strategy they would implement based on their strengths. Each
organization signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) annually to solidify
their commitment to the project.
Mr. De Geus said the next milestone in the program was the hiring of an
administrative support person. Staff was aware the funds had been set aside for
the support person but was in a holding account and they needed to request a
Budget Amendment Ordinance to move them. Project Safety Net was attempting
to build the relationship between the City and PAUSD. The schools tended to
keep the inner workings of the students’ issues on campus.
Chair Price asked if the Human Relations Commission (HRC) had an MOU related
to Project Safety Net.
Ms. Van der Zwaag stated they did.
Mr. De Geus noted the Parks & Recreation Commission (PARC) had also signed
P&S 11 11-15-11
an MOU.
Council Member Burt said given the School Board and School Administration
levels had committed and the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) had been very
active he asked whether they had an MOU as well.
Mr. De Guess stated they did.
Council Member Burt discussed the struggle with school participation even
though the Board and Administration were participating. He asked if Staff knew
why the Board or Administration did not take ownership in building the bridge
between the schools and the Project Safety Net.
Mr. De Geus stated there were 13 schools within the PAUSD and despite the
name they were not necessarily unified and there was a lot of bureaucracy within
the District. He noted in 2012 there would be two meetings on each High School
campus after school hours so students could participate.
Council Member Burt asked if the PTA offered insight into why there were
remaining barriers or provided suggestions on how to break them down.
Mr. De Geus believed the disconnect was more one of history and the culture of
the school; although because of the PTA involvement there had been more
progress made recently than in the past years.
Council Member Burt said school principals had a high commitment to a broad
definition of youth wellbeing, measurements of success, and engagement as
defined in the Developmental Assets. He was aware the Principals at both High
Schools were part of the reason the value structure was being transformed in a
positive manner and that was reassuring to him.
Council Member Holman said as liaison to the PARC she had been exposed to the
work Public Safety Net was accomplishing. She believed the Project was an
enormous undertaking for the City and Staff and she thanked them for their
commitment.
Mr. De Geus stated he was surrounded by a great Staff and an amazing
community who were very supportive of the wellbeing of all youth.
Council Member Holman left the meeting at 9:30 PM
Council Member Klein asked how other communities might view the work being
P&S 12 11-15-11
done by Project Safety Net. He asked if there had been thought to having an
outside evaluator review the Project to see if there were areas in need of
improvement.
Mr. De Geus stated the County of Santa Clara reviewed Project Safety Net. They
reported that the uniqueness of the program inspired them to invest $30,000 in
a strategic plan to share the program with the rest of the county.
Council Member Klein noted the educational field frequently utilized outside
evaluators and he recommended if the Project could fund such a resource it
would be a benefit.
Mr. De Geus stated if an outside evaluator could provide input so Project Safety
Net would be more effective he was in support of the recommendation.
Council Member Klein asked how the youth was able to add input. It was difficult
to receive input from them and they did not necessarily have a breadth of
understanding of the situation.
Mr. De Geus said not having input from the youth would be disastrous. There
were surveys completed by the youth asking how they viewed the value of the
community and the school climate. There were teen forums where the youth
discussed topics like stress and suicide.
Council Member Klein asked if the surveys had been done before.
Mr. De Geus acknowledged the County of Santa Clara had performed similar
surveys and Palo Alto had up until October 2011 declined to participate. The
county also had a California Healthy Kid Survey released every two years and the
Palo Alto Reality Check (PARC) Survey was performed. In addition to the surveys
there were a variety of teen groups that met regularly; the Palo Alto Youth
Council, the Teen Advisory Board, the Teen Arts Council from the Children’s
Theatre, the Library has a Teen Advisory Group, and the Mid Peninsula Media
Center has a Teen Advisory Group that the Project Safety Net Staff visits to hear
their input.
Council Member Klein hoped there was close to no overlap between the teen
advisory groups.
Mr. De Geus explained some of the groups had leadership overlap because of the
school connection but they were of very diverse groups.
Ms. Van der Zwaag said the Developmental Assets subcommittee should talk to
P&S 13 11-15-11
the youth about the survey.
Council Member Klein asked why the teen groups involved in sports were not
mentioned in the overview of involved groups.
Mr. De Geus had realized the lack of sport oriented teen groups so there had
been two forums held on sports; one included a speaker from the Stanford
Sports Department.
Council Member Klein asked if there was a way to cross reference the surveys;
he was aware they were anonymous but they could be grouped by activity.
Mr. De Geus did not believe the surveys allowed that much detail.
Council Member Burt said the importance of the Development Assets Survey and
its data was the benchmarking that the City did not previously have. He noted
achieving the cooperation of the school to complete the Survey was because of
the Project Safety Net initiative.
Council Member Klein asked if private schools participated.
Mr. De Geus stated Castilleja School was participating and regularly attending
the meetings. He agreed it was an area where there could be more outreach.
Chair Price recommended Staff seek ways to share the results of the Surveys
with other cities. She asked what the relationship was with Stanford research
efforts in terms of Stanford Graduate students working with the Project.
Mr. De Geus said the Project had a close relationship with Stanford and the
Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital; both entities sat on the steering committee.
He did not believe there was any student involvement although the journalism
department had attended meetings and wrote on the matter.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
June 7, 2012
Honorable Mayor Yiaway Yeh
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mayor Yeh,
The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce joins Palo Alto residential groups in supporting the City
Council’s beginning the process of drafting a “Living in Vehicles” ordinance in consultation with
all affected constituencies and in parallel with outreach to homeless people based on the
Eugene Oregon program.
As you are aware, the City of Palo Alto is one of the few cities in Santa Clara County which does
not have an ordinance disallowing individuals to live in their vehicles. Currently if a business or
resident observes in-appropriate behavior from individuals living in their vehicles and calls the
police, the police are unable to approach the individual unless they observe the behavior
themselves. The Police Department presented the Living in Vehicles Ban to businesses and
residents after receiving complaints about this type of situation. They are unable to breach the
personal rights of the vehicle owner.
Key Arguments for Recommended Position:
1. The ordinance would give police the ability to approach and investigate incidents
reported by businesses and residents.
2. The ordinance provides a fall back remedy when other methods are unsuccessful.
How does this issue impact the business community?
Palo Alto does not restrict overnight street parking in any part of the city. By extension, people
can permanently park and live in their vehicles. When this becomes an eventuality, the police
are unable to approach the person living in their vehicle unless they witness specific violations
such as public urination/defecation, disposition of garbage, etc.
Parking lots and all public spaces are exposed to this activity. The police need tools to be able to
approach citizens, offer services and alternatives to effect change.
In closing, the business community, through the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, is prepared
to play a leadership role in working towards solutions to this important issue.
Regards,
Paul Wright, Ed.D.
President/C.E.O.
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Cc City Council
James Keene, City Manager
Curtis Williams, Planning & Community Environment Department Director
Council Work Session
Homeless Car Camping Program
City of Eugene – June 13, 2011
Planning and Development Department
Community Development Division
Off-Street Camping Code
Eugene City Code 4.816 allows off-street overnight camping if certain criteria are met. These criteria include:
•Up to 3 vehicles
Public & Private Parking Lots
•One family
Residential
•Trash Removal
•Restroom Facilities
Sanitation
Homeless Car Camping Program
Proactive
•Management of public and private overnight parking sites
Responsive
•Coordination
•Enforcement of on-street camping regulations
Management of public and private
overnight parking sites
Alton Baker Park
Autzen Stadium River Road
Downtown
Management of public and private
overnight parking sites
Management of public and private
overnight parking sites
Management of public and private
overnight parking sites
Currently Managed
Sites
Number of People
Served Waiting list
31 63 83
Total for all sites
Responsive Measures
Eugene City Code 4.815 prohibits camping
•Any place for the purpose of bedding, or
•Where any stove or fire is placed for
temporary inhabitance
Camping:
•Right of Ways
•Parks
•Streets
•Alleys
Prohibited:
Coordination Efforts
Internal Coordination
Homeless Car Camping
Program
Planning &
Development
St. Vincent
de Paul
Public Works
&
Maintenance
Central
Services
EPD
Coordination Efforts
Community Coordination
Strategies
for Hot
Spots
Signage and
Enforcement
Requests
Enforcement of On-Street Parking
Regulation
Call
•Calls are screened for criminal & safety issues
Log
•Complaints entered into camping log
•Caller provided with reference number
Response
•Homeless Camping Coordinator responds to complaint
•24 hour notice to vacate
•Provides connection to services
Enforce
•Failure to move or repeat offenders become willful violators
•May be ticketed and towed
Dispatch Protocol
Enforcement of On-Street Parking
Regulation
Annual Calls for Service
Enforcement of On-Street Parking
Regulation
166
239 268
208 233 232 216 186 179
223
274
195
238
192
280
153 161
200
283
241
359
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Illegal Camping Calls for Service Trend 2006 - 2010
Quarterly Calls for Service
Hot Spots Map
# of willfull violators chart
2006 - 2010
Enforcement of On-Street Parking Regulation
Enforcement of On-Street Parking
Regulation
Willful Violator Citations
Going forward…
Modifications to enforcement procedures
Community solutions
Enhanced interdepartmental coordination
Police dispatch training on car camping code
Contact
Michael Wisth
Community Programs Analyst
Planning & Development
541.682.5540
michael.c.wisth@ci.eugene.or.us
Pete Deshpande
Lieutenant
Eugene Police Department
541.682.8467
pete.n.deshpande@ci.eugene.or.us
NEW BEGINNINGS
COUNSELING CENTER
324 East Carrillo Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, California 93101 (805) 963-7777 (Administrative Headquarters)
(805) 963-8135 (Fax)
(805 637-6242 (Safe Parking Program Coordinator Cell Phone)
SAFE PARKING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Due to the alarming increase in vehicle dwellers in south Santa Barbara County, coupled
with the crackdown on overnight parking enacted by the City of Santa Barbara, New
Beginnings Counseling Center currently operates a program to provide safe overnight parking for individuals and families who are living in their vehicles. The program is a cooperative between New Beginnings, area churches, non-profits, the City of Santa
Barbara and the County of Santa Barbara, where the participating institutions provide
parking places for vehicle dwellers.
The program currently includes 118 spaces at 23 dispersed locations in downtown Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Isla Vista. Each lot offers free nightly parking for one, five, and up
to fifteen vehicles, depending on location. Three of the parking lots are at business
locations in the City of Santa Barbara. The purpose of the program is to provide the level
of stability needed for vehicle dwellers to effectively make positive changes in their lives. In addition to parking, New Beginnings offers social services and case management to help them achieve this end.
HOW IT WORKS
Churches, non-profits and businesses interested in participating in the program sign an informal contract with New Beginnings and agree to a basic set of rules for the vehicle
dwellers on their property. The participating institutions are currently free to augment or
edit the rules as they see fit in accordance with County and/or City codes.
Clients seeking to participate in this program receive and intake assessment. Potential clients are screened via an in-depth interview designed to identify immediate crises and
establish long-term goals. Typical issues include the following.
Determine immediate crises, both personal and vehicle-related
Verify identification or assist in obtaining identification
Income verification if any—employment, government, food stamps, etc.
Obtain pertinent info and ID regarding children and dependents
Determine legal issues pending
Determine medical issues/establish medical history
Determine substance abuse issues
Determine mental health issues
Determine what other agencies, if any, are providing assistance
Access the vehicle being occupied
o Insured?
o Operational?
o Registered?
After the intake, a goal-oriented plan of action is established and the client is issued a
permit and allowed to park overnight at an assigned location. The client and case
manager continue to work together on goals toward stability, weekly at first, and after short-term goals have been achieved, the case is reviewed bi-weekly and then monthly. There is currently no formal limit to the amount of time that a client may occupy a site.
Some clients take advantage of the service for a short period of time; others occupy a
parking space for up to a year or more, depending on their needs. For clients who either
do not quality or are not willing to abide by the rules of the program, case management, referral and services are still available from New Beginnings.
In addition to the resources that New Beginnings provides, a network of community
referral agencies is also employed for the benefit of clients. Below is a partial list of
agencies that New Beginnings might refer to or cooperate with in assisting the vehicle dwelling population:
City and County Housing authorities Hospice
County Mental Health The various sober living programs
in the area
Employment Development Dept. St. Vincent’s PATHS (housing for single-mothers)
CalWorks Casa Esperanza
Centro Familia – daycare Transition House
Community Action Commission OTHER SERVICES THE CLIENTS
MAY ACCESS:
Veteran’s Administration Ongoing Case Management
Department of Social Services Housing Assistance
Project Recovery Outside Agency Referrals
Legal Aid Foundation Job Development
Committee for Social Justice Resume Preparation
Unity Shoppe Job Coaching
Department of Rehabilitation Problem Solving
Community clinics Counseling
Temporary employment agencies
The Salvation Army
The Rescue Mission
PROGRAM OPERATIONS, RULES AND REGULATIONS:
Each client is required to attend case management meetings on a regular basis to determine how they are meeting their goals. In addition, Program Coordinators Nancy
Kapp and Roslyn Scheuerman conduct weekly checks of the participating sites to assess
usage and identify potential problems. Below is a list of rules and regulations that the
client must agree to in order to be able to qualify for our services
PARKING RULES, RESTRICTIONS AND RESPONISBILITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE SAFE PARKING PROGRAM:
1) Guns or firearms of any kind are strictly prohibited, and the use of alcohol and/or
drugs will not be tolerated. Failure to abide by this rule will result in immediate removal from the assigned location. 2) Camping tarps or camping equipment beyond the top of the vehicle are prohibited
3) Cooking outside the vehicle is absolutely not allowed.
4) All trash will be disposed of offsite and the area will be kept tidy.
5) Loud music is not permitted. 6) Parking lot is for sleeping use only. 7) Overnight stays will be limited to the hours assigned. Adherence to in and out
times is mandatory.
8) Users must keep barking dogs in their vehicle at all times. Animals must be kept
on a leash at all times on the property. Animal waste must be picked up immediately and disposed of properly. 9) Under absolutely no conditions will the client(s) invite other vehicle dwellers to
occupy the site or invite any visitors or any type of patrons into the parking lot.
10) If bathroom facilities are provided, showering or bathing is not permitted.
11) The owner of the parking lot cannot be held liable for damages caused by a third party to the parked vehicle or its occupants. 12) Absolutely no more than one vehicle allowed per individual or family staying at
the site.
13) Absolutely no use of the facility services i.e., ELECTRICITY, water, trash or any
of the hoses at the site. Failure to comply with this rule will result in immediate termination from our program. 14) Please respect the privacy of the surrounding neighbors and their property.
15) Children will be watched and kept safe at All Times—No Exceptions!!!!!
These rules will be enforced. Failure to comply with these rules and regulations will result in termination from the Safe Parking Program.
In addition to these rules, all clients sign a release of information and a waiver of liability
towards our company and your organization, indicating that neither party is responsible
for damages to the vehicle, and allowing us to share client information. New Beginnings
Counseling Center carries liability insurance for each Safe Parking lot location.
CONCLUSION
In closing, we hope you will consider participating in this program. If you have any
questions about this introductory packet, please call the Safe Parking Program Coordinators: Nancy Kapp at 284-3463, or Roslyn Scheuerman at 637-6242.
Also, if your organization would like to communicate with one of our churches or non-
profit organizations that are currently working with us we would be happy to connect you
with those organizations. It is important to gain various perspectives on the program in order to make a balanced decision that is in the best interest of your organization, while also thinking about the needs of homeless individuals in our community who are forced
to live in their vehicles.
To reach New Beginnings Counseling Center to speak with the Executive Director, Kristine Schwarz, please call 963-7777. If we do not hear from you, we will follow up in the next several weeks with a phone call to offer further information and answer any
questions you might have. Thank you for your interest in our program.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kapp, (805) 284-3463
Roslyn Scheuerman, (805) 637-6242 Safe Parking Program Coordinators
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Tom Dittmar <tomdittmar@comcast.net>
Friday, November 09, 2012 3:33 PM 12 NO J I 3 PN 12: 05
Council, City ,
Cc: marcine@seidlawgroup.com; Tom Dittmar
Subject: Message from the City Council Home Page Motor homes in Palo Alto
Hello Council members
My wife and I are owners of a commercial building on Industrial street in Palo Alto. We are doing our best to make the
building a nice place for prospective tenants (the building is currently vacant).
There are normally two to three motor homes parked at the end of transport street. We suspect they' (or someone}
is using our trash cans, tapping into our outside power and using our outside water faucets. As I said suspect, we have
no proof. Our maintenance man found adapters screwed into our outside light fixture to tap the power. I have found a
baby car seat inthe trash. No idea how that may have gotten there. A person who we hope will rent the place to found
the outside water faucet running and the lawn area flooded.
I have been calling the cops once to twice a week to get the motor homes moved. They do move but only a matter of
feet. As I understand it this is legal.
Why does our city allow people to live in there motor homes on our city streets? As I understand it Mountain View and
Menlo Park do not allow people to live in there motor homes. Please use your power and influence to make Palo Alto a
place where people can easily and freely conduct business. Thank you for your dedication and service to the community.
Tom Dittmar
12
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
gailtl22S@earthlink.net
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:42 AM
Council, City
possible vehicle habitation ban
" '," 11 .• r,r·,_ i 'P ) Ui Y l.,;_li~K 'S OFflCE
12 NOV 13 PH 12: 05
Please do not adopt a vehicle habitation ban which could be proposed by the Policy alld Services Comminee. Palo Alto has an
opportullity to become a role model of support for low income housed and unhoused citizens. Let's move forward with a No Ban
policy and also an option for a city supported program wherein parking is providing in church parking lots for those who choose this
option. Thank you for your consideration,
gailt1225@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You,
,
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Page 1 of 28
Special Meeting
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Holman called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Holman (Chair), Espinosa, Klein, Schmid
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Consideration of Approaches to Address Concerns Related to Human
Habitation of Vehicles.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment reported
the current Item was consideration of a method to deal with persons living in
vehicles in Palo Alto. The issue had been discussed for approximately 1 1/2
years, and arose from complaints of people creating disturbances and from
feelings of insecurity among residents and businesses. Currently, there was
not a legal means to address the issue, unless a crime took place. In July
2011, Staff drafted an Ordinance prohibiting persons from sleeping in
vehicles overnight. The City Manager felt more outreach was needed before
presenting an Ordinance to the Council. Staff held a community forum in
September 2011, and then established a working group composed of various
stakeholders. The primary focus of the working group was to review the
potential for a vehicle dwelling program, particularly one similar to a
program adopted in Eugene, Oregon. Staff provided a draft program in the
Staff Report. Staff hosted a meeting with faith-based organizations and
discussed the potential for churches to sponsor that kind of program. A
second community forum was held in June 2012 focusing on the potential for
MINUTES
Page 2 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
a vehicle dwelling program. One congregation committed to a program.
Three congregations were necessary to make the program viable. Staff
identified four approaches to the issue. First, a pilot vehicle program would
limit vehicles on a site to no more than three vehicles located a set-back
distance from residential property lines. The Downtown Streets Team
offered to assist with outreach to the community and to provide a minimal
level of security if a program were enacted. The pilot program was modeled
generally after the program in Eugene, Oregon. Eugene also had an
ordinance prohibiting people from sleeping in vehicles on streets. Another
program in Santa Barbara, while successful, was Staff intensive and an
expense to the city. The second approach was enhanced social service
outreach. When police officers were called to a scene, they often were
unable to do anything. Staff suggested a social service provider make the
initial contact. The Downtown Streets Team offered to fill the role of social
services. A third approach was an Ordinance prohibiting habitation of
vehicles. The Police Department suggested enforcement of an Ordinance be
made on a complaint basis. Police officers would issue a warning for the first
offense, and follow enforcement procedures for subsequent offenses. A
fourth approach was parking restrictions. A small subset of cases could be
addressed effectively with parking restrictions. Staff planned to install
signage in a commercial area of College Terrace within two to four weeks to
prohibit parking between 1:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. on those streets. That
action could move the problem to another site. Staff used parking
restrictions in a few other instances to address residents' concerns. Staff
preferred to initiate a pilot program; however, efforts had not been
successful. Thus, Staff recommended presenting an Ordinance to the
Council that would prohibit living in vehicles and would not become effective
for six months. In that six-month period, congregations could develop
programs for their particular sites. If a pilot program was not initiated and
the Council did not wish to enact an Ordinance, then Staff suggested the
Council work with the Downtown Streets Team and any other social service
provider to identify assistance for individuals living in their vehicles. Staff
felt an Ordinance and a program needed to work hand-in-hand. If an
Ordinance was adopted, Staff suggested its effective date allow time for
programs to develop. Many members of the working group were strongly
opposed to an Ordinance. Given the lack of interest in a program, Staff felt
an Ordinance was necessary.
Council Member Espinosa wished to understand the nature and extent of
outreach. He asked Staff to comment on that and the likelihood of
additional congregations initiating programs if an extended period was
allowed.
MINUTES
Page 3 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Mr. Williams stated several congregations expressed interest in participating,
but they had questions regarding liability, insurance, and internal processes
for creating a program. Additional time could allow congregations to answer
those questions. Perhaps enacting an Ordinance would create a sense of
urgency. He would not characterize Staff's outreach as aggressive due to
limited resources and extensive workload. Staff sent multiple messages to
congregations. Mayor Yeh worked with one congregation and the Downtown
Streets Team to further outreach efforts.
Council Member Espinosa inquired whether Staff had a plan that would lead
to a different result if additional time were allowed.
Mr. Williams answered no. He did not foresee expending further Staff effort
to develop programs.
Council Member Klein felt there were two separate problems. With regard to
the complaints in College Terrace, he asked if vehicles were commercial or
private.
Mr. Williams indicated the vehicles were private vans parked in a commercial
area. He understood the owner lived in one, and moved the vehicles so as
not to violate the 72-hour regulation.
Council Member Klein inquired whether anyone had asked the individual
about his reasons for having ten vehicles.
Mr. Williams believed people had attempted to talk to the owner; however, it
was difficult to talk to him.
Council Member Klein asked if the City Manager had the authority to declare
parking restrictions in a commercial zone between 1:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M.
Mr. Williams responded yes.
Council Member Klein inquired whether other people parked their vehicles in
the commercial zone.
Mr. Williams was unsure if other vehicles were parked in the area. Staff
canvassed businesses in the area, and they agreed to the restriction.
MINUTES
Page 4 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Rafael Rius, Transportation Project Engineer reported other vehicles parked
in the area, but not for an extended time period. The issue was not cars
parked in the area, but the length of time they remained parked there.
Council Member Klein expressed concern about the unintended consequence
of vehicle owners violating the parking ban, but not flagrantly violating the
ban as the one vehicle owner did.
Mr. Williams indicated the vehicles parked in the area did not appear to be
related to the businesses located in the area.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the vehicle owner could simply move
his ten vehicles to another neighborhood with a 72-hour parking restriction if
a ban on parking between 1:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. was imposed.
Mr. Williams answered yes.
Council Member Klein asked if another mechanism was available to prevent
the vehicle owner from parking ten cars on City streets.
Molly Stump, City Attorney stated the Code contained a variety of rules for
vehicle parking, but she had not discussed the issue extensively with Staff.
Council Member Klein understood the vehicle owner complied with existing
rules, and asked what could be done beyond existing laws and without
banning overnight parking on all City streets.
Ms. Stump noted some cities had city-wide bans on overnight parking, and
those bans had significant impacts on a variety of people.
Council Member Klein felt there was not a viable solution at the current time.
Mr. Williams was not aware of any other solution short of posting additional
restrictions, such as limiting the number of vehicles one person could park
on the street.
Council Member Klein suggested an Ordinance limiting the number of
vehicles one person could park on the street to two or three.
MINUTES
Page 5 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Ms. Stump needed time to review the suggestion carefully as she was not
aware of the precedent of such a restriction. It could have significant
impacts on some people.
Council Member Klein requested Staff explain its rationale in limiting the
number of vehicles to three in a vehicle dwelling program.
Mr. Williams reported a limit of three was somewhat arbitrary, but was
suitable for a pilot program. If sites could accommodate more vehicles and
the pilot program was successful, the limit could be modified. Staff did not
want to overtax the system and wanted to determine results of a pilot
program using a minimal number of vehicles.
Council Member Klein asked if the Police Department could track the number
of complaints regarding people sleeping in vehicles to determine the extent
of the problem.
Karen McAdams, Police Parking Management reported the Police Department
did not capture that information. She was unsure whether the Police
Department should capture that information, because of potential
Constitutional issues.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the Police Department could track
the types of complaints made by residents.
Ms. McAdams felt most complaints concerned abandoned vehicles. The
complaining party usually did not state whether or not someone was living in
the vehicle. Police officers could guess whether someone was living in the
vehicle, based on the type of vehicle and repeat complaints. Typically,
officers did not see anyone in the vehicle when they marked vehicles in 72-
hour zones.
Council Member Klein asked if the Police Department could gather some
data, based on information from the complaining party and visual inspection
of the vehicle, to estimate the number of people sleeping in vehicles on
streets.
Ms. McAdams would have to discuss the issue with the Chief to determine
possible impact. The Police Department did not capture information as to
whether someone was housed or unhoused, because the determination
would be subjective.
MINUTES
Page 6 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Council Member Klein stated the number of people sleeping in vehicles
determined the amount of effort the City used to resolve the issue.
Council Member Schmid recalled the Police Department previously estimated
approximately 20 people were dwelling in vehicles.
Ms. McAdams reported the Police Department estimated 25-50 people lived
in vehicles, based on information from the Community Cooperation Team
and community meetings. Many people could be living in their vehicles;
however, the Police Department did not receive complaints about the
majority of them. Residents complained about larger vehicles, because they
were more obvious.
Council Member Schmid was unsure of the City Council's responsibility for
unhoused people. Federal, state and county governments had responsibility
for the welfare, housing, disability, and mental health of citizens. The
Housing Element indicated the City had some responsibility for homeless
people. The City also had responsibility for the health and safety of citizens
on streets. Vehicle dwelling was a unique situation in that the individual was
neither housed nor homeless. The City could potentially benefit from dealing
with some of the homeless problem through vehicle dwelling; however,
there were restrictions on creating incentives for people to live in that
manner. He asked Staff to comment on the role the City should have.
Mr. Williams reported the County had broad programs to assist the
homeless. The City did provide some assistance through Human Services
Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) and social service providers in the
community. State law required the City to provide zoning to accommodate
homeless shelters.
Council Member Schmid asked if vehicle dwelling could fulfill a portion of the
City's obligation to provide shelters for the unhoused.
Mr. Williams would have to check on that, but felt Senate Bill 2 required an
enclosed building.
Council Member Espinosa had hoped the community would provide services
to the homeless rather than the City Council enacting an Ordinance that
would criminalize the homeless lifestyle. He requested Staff explain their
rationale in recommending an Ordinance before a pilot program had been
tried.
MINUTES
Page 7 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Mr. Williams explained the lack of interest in a pilot program left the Council
with the decision of no action or enacting an Ordinance. A subsequent
question was whether an Ordinance was appropriate to address business and
resident concerns regarding safety and security. Staff preferred to provide a
pilot program before considering an Ordinance. Staff was not comfortable
with their recommendation, but few alternatives were available.
Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to describe a timeline should
organizations wish to participate in a pilot program after hearing the current
discussion.
Mr. Williams stated a few months were needed for a pilot program to
become operational and to receive Council authorization. Staff could present
a draft Ordinance to the Council in January 2013 with an effective date six
months from that time. A three-month pilot program could be implemented
and its results studied before the Ordinance became effective. If the pilot
program appeared promising, then the Council could revisit the Ordinance at
that point.
Chair Holman noted the Downtown Streets Team would monitor the pilot
program for the first three months at no cost, and inquired about the costs
after three months.
Mr. Williams reported Staff had considered the cost for portable toilets,
which amounted to a few thousand dollars for three sites. Staff needed to
hold discussions with the Downtown Streets Team to determine ongoing
costs.
Chair Holman wished to know the costs and whether the Downtown Streets
Team was interested in monitoring the program beyond a three-month trial
period. She recalled the prior discussion regarding co-locating individuals to
provide a safe harbor, and inquired if that perspective remained valid.
Mr. Williams felt it was valid, because oversight would be provided at the
locations.
Chair Holman noted in the prior discussion Council Members did not want to
consider City facilities as temporary housing sites. She asked if Council
Members considered using City facilities, would that encourage other
organizations to come forward.
MINUTES
Page 8 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Mr. Williams stated some groups would be more inclined to participate if the
City were to participate as well. However, the Council would need to
consider costs and issues for the City.
Tom Dittmar reported his experience with two motor homes parked in front
of his office building. He suspected they tapped into his power supply, and
utilized his water and garbage. He called police officers 1-2 times per week;
however, the motor homes returned after each complaint.
John Barton did not wish to criminalize the poor. The City should participate
with congregations in a pilot program. Rather than limiting the pilot
program to three vehicles, he suggested utilizing a percentage of available
parking spaces. Most issues could be addressed with parking restrictions.
Doria Summa indicated stored vehicles in College Terrace did not comply
with the 72-hour restriction, because there was no real penalty for violating
the restriction. She did not wish to criminalize the issue; however, residents
needed a solution. Other Code restrictions could be used when people
caused problems for residents and businesses.
Diane Finkelstein felt the Council should focus on the many residents
impacted by people living in their vehicles. The Council could not let the
issue continue unresolved. Police officers could not enforce regulations,
because they often did not see the violations.
Greg Schaefer, Pastor of University Lutheran Church opposed an Ordinance,
and felt most complaints could be resolved through existing laws. Theft,
vehicle storage, and sleeping in vehicles were separate problems.
Bruce Kenyon stated the Community Cooperation Team met with Staff to
find a solution. He was unclear whose safety was a concern. An Ordinance
would not change the behavior of the few people who would always rebel
against authority.
Brent Parker felt pilot programs were necessary, whether or not an
Ordinance was enacted. Any program should be developed and monitored
carefully.
Litsie Indergand did not believe criminalizing unhoused people would be
helpful. Her church was eager to participate in a pilot program; however, it
could not afford a monitor for restroom facilities.
MINUTES
Page 9 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Norma Grench felt a ban on vehicle dwellers was opposed to the community
value of caring for others. She urged the Council to work with the homeless
and community groups to determine a reasonable solution.
Geoff Browning, Campus Minister with United Campus Christian Ministry
applauded the efforts of the Council and the working group to find a
solution. Churches were concerned about liability, access to bathrooms,
limited use restrictions, and being good neighbors. The City should
participate in a program as well.
Tony Ciampi reported most members of the working group did not support
implementation of the Eugene plan or the Santa Barbara plan. The group
advocated a parking program without an Ordinance. An Ordinance would
not address behavior problems.
Heiri Schuppisser, homeless outreach specialist stated people living in
vehicles had fewer medical, legal, and mental health problems than people
living on the street. Many of the homeless did not like living in shelters.
Rick Toker spoke with the director of the Eugene program, who stated a
large number of people at a vehicle parking site resulted in interpersonal
problems. The Santa Barbara program did not require on-site bathrooms. If
Palo Alto did not require on-site bathrooms, perhaps more congregations
would participate.
Mark Petersen-Perez suggested more vehicles would be located on streets,
because of unemployment. He expressed concern that the Human Relations
Commission had not addressed the issue.
Chuck Jagoda understood congregations did not respond, because they
received short notice. He attempted to speak with the owner of the ten
vehicles in College Terrace; however, the owner would not discuss the
matter. Fear and isolation were major concerns.
Herb Borock urged the Council to abandon an Ordinance and a program, and
suggested the Council compare any program to the Hotel de Zink program.
Mr. Williams should name the organizations interested in participating in a
pilot program. The Opportunity Center was a possible solution.
Fred Balin, Vice President of College Terrace Residents' Association recalled
residents did not request but did support a ban on vehicle dwelling in July
2011. The proposed ban on parking in the commercial area directly
MINUTES
Page 10 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
addressed the specific issue. The City needed to retain a stock of affordable
housing.
Cybele Lavolorashon urged the Council to support Option 2, and suggested
use of the Veterans Hospital parking lot and the utility parking lot on
Bayshore.
Reverend Dr. Eileen Altman, Associate Minister at First Congregational
Church of Palo Alto stated the faith community was willing to work with
others to address the needs of unhoused people. Each faith community
needed to discuss complex issues for each location.
Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team agreed that each faith-based
organization would have a unique set of needs. He felt the City could be
successful with a pilot program, and the Downtown Streets Team would be a
willing participant. They did not have funding for more than three months,
but were willing to discuss that issue. Costs would be slightly more than
$5,300 per quarter.
Gail Thompson was unclear whether First Presbyterian was willing to be a
host site. The City should also be involved in a pilot program. She believed
neighbors of First Presbyterian would support a program at the church. A
vehicle ban would not eliminate behavior problems. More low-cost housing
was needed.
Hana Chandler stated the owner of the ten vehicles parked on the street
where a parking permit was not required. She suggested a program require
the homeless people to work in the community in exchange for parking
areas.
Aram James indicated the Staff Report was evidence that an Ordinance was
not needed. He noted statements in Staff Reports indicating most unhoused
people did not cause concern for residents.
Jonathan Brown said people lived in vehicles at Boulware Park for months.
This was an issue for the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Council
could enact a simple Ordinance to prevent people from vehicular habitation
in residential areas.
Faith Brigelle agreed with Mr. Brown's comments. She hoped the Council
would enact an Ordinance.
MINUTES
Page 11 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Dr. Cindy Mason was familiar with the problems of homeless people. The
long-term issues were mental illness, addiction, and poverty. Short-term
issues included health hazards. She suggested residents be made aware of
violent histories and sexual offenses of unhoused persons.
Trina Lovercheck urged the Council not to criminalize all unhoused people.
Current laws should cover situations that arose. The Police Department
should document the nature of complaints in order to determine the number
of complaints regarding homeless people.
Council Member Klein felt vehicle habitation was a minor problem, and that
existing laws could resolve most issues. He noted a law prohibiting theft of
electricity, and asked if there was a regulation prohibiting cooking in parks
at night.
Mr. Williams was unsure.
Council Member Klein believed the small number of people sleeping in cars
did not warrant further action. However, Palo Alto could become a magnet
for unhoused people, because other cities enacted ordinances banning
vehicle habitation. He suggested Staff monitor the problem of sleeping in
vehicles. It was appropriate for faith groups to create and implement
programs.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX
to recommend the City Council: 1) abandon current Staff efforts and no
longer pursue a program or Ordinance; 2) direct Staff to return within one
year with a report regarding Police Department data collection about people
sleeping in vehicle complaints; and 3) direct Staff to return as soon as
possible with suggestions on how to eliminate people storing vehicles on City
streets.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Schmid felt people sleeping in vehicles was a concern,
because the people were down on their luck. He suggested a six-month trial
program with the City as a partner, a limited number of participants,
dispersed sites limited to three or less vehicles per site, and participant
registration.
Chair Holman inquired whether Council Member Schmid was providing
comments or a Motion.
MINUTES
Page 12 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Council Member Schmid was enumerating elements of a program, and then
would make a Motion. Other elements were a counseling program;
information regarding other governmental programs available, lists for
senior housing and low-income housing, and groups of organizations
involved; and monitoring of sites to identify complaints and problems. The
goal of such a program was for vehicle dwellers to find permanent situations.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Espinosa to: 1) initiate a six-month trial pilot Vehicle Camping Program; 2)
Staff to search for partnerships with faith-based and not-for-profit
organizations, businesses, and Stanford organizations to sponsor a pilot
Vehicle Camping Program as outlined in Attachment A; 3) City to take more
active role in offering direct help; 4) look for partners to provide sites for a
limited number of people; and 5) enlist Downtown Streets Team to assist
with implementation and oversight of the program.
Council Member Espinosa asked if the intention of the Motion was to develop
a pilot program with the Downtown Streets Team performing outreach.
Council Member Schmid replied yes. City participation could begin with
funding. The City had funds in the Council Discretionary Fund, HSRAP funds,
and Stanford funds that could be used to support this type of program.
Council Member Espinosa did not oppose an Ordinance; however, he
preferred an option for City residents. The community had a problem that
was not addressed by existing Ordinances and police enforcement. Before
considering an Ordinance, he wanted to ensure the Council had done
everything possible to find an alternative where vehicle dwellers could be
housed within the City. Service providers could approach those members of
the community about services. Locations for overnight parking needed
bathroom and kitchen facilities. Obviously, bathroom and kitchen facilities
were not available at City parking lots. He wanted to galvanize non-profit
and faith-based organizations, businesses, citizens and the City to find other
appropriate solutions. The Motion provided a good compromise and ensured
the Council fully explored that option.
Chair Holman asked for clarification of the trial period.
Council Member Schmid indicated the trial period was for Staff to continue to
search for partnerships from faith-based communities, not-for-profit
organizations, businesses, Stanford and to sponsor a pilot Vehicle Dwelling
Program consistent with the parameters outlined in Attachment A. He added
MINUTES
Page 13 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
language to the Motion to enlist the assistance of the Downtown Streets
Team to provide outreach.
Chair Holman generally supported the trial period for a Vehicle Camping Pilot
Program. She felt Staff had searched for partnerships with faith-based
communities, not-for-profit organizations, businesses, and Stanford, and
requested Staff respond to that point.
Mr. Williams stated Staff had searched for partnerships with those
organizations. The difference here was the City was actively participating
with funding. Use of City sites could make a difference in the participation of
those groups.
Council Member Schmid heard a number of the public speakers say
organizations needed time to work through licensing and insurance issues.
With an active City role, some of the organizations could be willing to
participate in a trial program.
Council Member Klein opposed the Motion. City involvement was not free,
and the City did not have any free money. The City would be involved in a
program that benefited few people. This was not a good expenditure of the
City's limited resources. Public enthusiasm for a trial program was limited,
which indicated vehicle dwelling was not much of a problem. The City
should monitor the problem, and Staff should spend their time on more
important topics.
Council Member Espinosa believed vehicle dwelling was a larger issue than
some stated. Staff's outreach was not aggressive, and response time was
limited. Organizations needed time to resolve liability and insurance issues.
Staff had not given a trial program a chance to determine if it could be
successful. Vehicle dwelling affected enough people that the Policy and
Services Committee should at least provide that opportunity.
Chair Holman interpreted the Motion as providing six months for Staff to
search for partnerships. She asked the maker and Staff to interpret the
language of the Motion.
Mr. Williams understood Staff was to initiate a six-month trial vehicle
dwelling program, and then look for partnerships.
Council Member Schmid agreed with Mr. Williams' interpretation.
MINUTES
Page 14 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Chair Holman noted the Staff Report indicated the Downtown Streets Team
volunteered to administer the program, and inquired whether the maker
intended for the Downtown Streets Team to administer the program. She
wanted to remove that responsibility from Staff.
Council Member Schmid stated the wording should be for the Downtown
Street Team to assist with implementation and oversight of the vehicle
dwelling program.
Chair Holman asked Staff if they understood that to be the Downtown
Streets Team's role.
Mr. Williams indicated the Downtown Streets Team was willing to do that
with three organizations. He assumed they would be willing to accept that
role under this scenario, but could not speak for them.
Chair Holman inquired whether the City's active role in offering direct help
meant Staff would explore use of City-owned sites.
Council Member Schmid answered yes.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct City Staff to take a more active role to
provide direct help including exploring City owned locations.
Chair Holman wished to discuss separately the subject of multiple vehicles
parked in neighborhoods.
Council Member Klein suggested the first enumerated item in the Motion
include "Program as outlined in Attachment A" similar to the second
enumerated item.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Klein no
Chair Holman requested a Motion regarding the vehicle storage issue.
Council Member Espinosa recalled Council Member Klein’s request for the
City Attorney to provide alternatives regarding vehicle storage, and inquired
whether the City Attorney would provide an analysis of options.
MINUTES
Page 15 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Ms. Stump stated the Legal Staff could provide general, lawful options. If
the Policy and Services Committee was interested in a thorough analysis
including Police Department input regarding enforceability and community
input regarding impacts of options, then it should indicate that.
Council Member Schmid felt installation of signage regarding parking
restrictions would provide an opportunity to determine if restrictions were
effective.
Council Member Espinosa believed vehicles would simply move into
residential areas.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Espinosa to direct Staff to report back to Policy and Services Committee
regarding potential solutions to the parking storage issue.
Chair Holman inquired whether Staff knew if the vehicles in College Terrace
were registered and insured.
Mr. Williams understood they were operable, registered, and insured.
Chair Holman inquired whether police officers could chalk the tires of
vehicles in the area if the Council dedicated some resources to that
endeavor.
Ms. McAdams explained the Police Department had received complaints for
several years from that area regarding the same person. Officers marked
those vehicles approximately every two weeks or whenever there was a
complaint. The owner moved each vehicle. In the prior five years, the City
had towed one vehicle. Officers marked tires constantly in a number of
areas, particularly College Terrace.
Chair Holman asked if tickets were issued.
Ms. McAdams answered no, because the owner complied with the law. The
current Municipal Code regarding 72-hour parking required a person drive
his vehicle at least 1/2 mile every 72 hours. The owner could legally park in
the same space after driving that 1/2 mile. People were in their vehicles and
able to move them to comply with the current law.
Chair Holman inquired when Staff could return with alternatives.
MINUTES
Page 16 of 28
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 11/20/2012
Mr. Williams would need to consult with the City Manager before indicating a
date to return.
Chair Holman asked the City Attorney the same question.
Ms. Stump would coordinate with the City Manager, and return when she
could provide a productive recommendation.
Chair Holman supported the Motion, but did not want it to languish. She
requested an expeditious response time.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
2. Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2012.
Jim Pelletier, City Auditor would provide a detailed update at the end of the
second quarter, when the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) would
review the audit plan in more detail. At that time, he would recommend
changes to the audit plan and provide more information. The City Auditor’s
Office Staff was working on the annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments
(SEA) Report. They were redesigning the report to make it user friendly and
visually appealing, and to focus on performance management. The Contract
Oversight Audit was complete; the Utilities Reserves Audit and the Human
Resources Employee Benefits Audit were in the final reporting stages and
scheduled to be reported in early December 2012. Ongoing assignments
were the sales and use tax allocation review and quarterly audits. As of the
end of the first quarter, the City received slightly more than $44,000 in total
sales and use tax recoveries, approximately $7,000 from direct analysis by
the Audit Staff and approximately $40,000 from the vendor. Potentially 54
misallocations remained outstanding with the State Board of Equalization, 29
from Audit Staff and 25 from the vendor. Staff anticipated additional
recovery as the year progressed. New for the quarterly report was an
update on the fraud, waste and abuse hotline, implemented on August 16,
2012. As of the end of September 2012, the hotline received one call, which
was an inquiry regarding City policy. No follow-up action was required. The
hotline received two additional calls, which would be reported in the next
quarter.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Human Resources Employee
Benefits report would be available prior to the December 10, 2012 City
Council meeting.
LIVING IN VEHICLES COMMUNITY FORUM
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
COMMENT CARDS & FLIP CHART NOTES
1
COMMENT CARDS
COMMENT
How about the churches donate their parking lots for overnight parking for the homeless vans? I
suggest that the van dwellers have a permit and are registered with the city just like the
homeowners and renters. Right now we do not know who these people are living in front of our
homes or down the street.
Solutions should be provided to all affected area not just R-1 districts. Business and mixed used
neighborhoods are also affected.
Do nothing. Enforce the exiting laws to deal with those who are harassing people and violating the
laws. People have same right to own a vehicle and use the public streets. To deny only poor
people the right to own a vehicle and use the public street while allowing wealthy people is
unconstitutional. I want to be a member of the task force.
How many people are there sleeping in vehicles in Palo Alto? How many are causing concerns?
Wheat can be done when someone does cause problems? Rumor-vans being rented by “van
guys”? Future meetings should be at city facilities. Parking areas should be dispersed around the
city.
Solution: Corporate sponsorship of individuals and of programs.
Compassion is very important. Is there any way that Palo Alto PD could step up enforcement on a
case by case basis? I feel for the mother who is concerned about her children. What about
creating specific “safety zones?” Industrial areas where homeless in vehicles can be directed
rather than residential.
Liked the idea of Baylands/designated areas, city supported and/or limited number in designated
places.
Separate the problem. Deal with each alone. First, sleeping in cars; second, deal with persons
who exhibit criminal behavior; third where to park. Once that is done, bring these three together
and resolve differences if needed.
Problem is getting even worse with the economic downturn and the aging “baby boomers”. Look
into nearby models-San Mateo County Mental Health; engage corporate models for funding; use
the resources to extend what we have; H.I.P. Housing-a program in San Mateo to house homeless
people.
LIVING IN VEHICLES COMMUNITY FORUM
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
COMMENT CARDS & FLIP CHART NOTES
2
COMMENT
I was thrown out of my house as a teenager. Homeless and afraid. I would not want to see other
teenagers in that situation.
Preschool Family, across from Cubberley at the Greendell site. Several car-dwellers are currently
living right behind my classroom without causing any trouble recently. In the past, we have had
homeless people sleeping on play structures, leaving trash, urinating and defecating in classroom
doorways. Parents are concerned about safety for their children and themselves, since they come
to at night. Improved lighting in the parking lot around the friends of the Library portable would be
a good thing. As a private individual, I think the idea of several locations for small numbers of
vehicles where dwellers have access to water and toilets and where social services /homeless
outreach organizations would visit or a regular basis is good. It should also be possible to enforce
laws about harassment against anybody who are in a threatening way to children or other people
in the community.
An issue that was not discussed is that of sanitation/hygiene. The city needs to provide toilets,
water, showers, etc. for the car dwellers. Why is the P.D. unable to enforce the 72-hour rule with
the person who owns the fleet of vans, that park on Staunton, Oxford and Cambridge in College
Terrace?
The City of Palo Alto should provide safe parking, toilets and showers for vehicle dwellers. Add a
small tax or solicit subscription from residents. Many would be happy to donate.
I’m homeless and live in my car.
Safety.
Praying for individuals to open their homes.
Impact of van storage on neighborhood – health and safety issues causing at least one family to
move out.
One person with 12 vans started this problem. Don’t punish the rest of us. I’ve lived in an
apartment 30 years-went homeless last year.
Living outside and ideas on accommodating those with vehicles.
Opportunity Center origins.
I would like the staffs, the city council to be compassionate to the plight of the homeless as we are
making effort to work on an alternative that work out for everybody.
LIVING IN VEHICLES COMMUNITY FORUM
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
COMMENT CARDS & FLIP CHART NOTES
3
COMMENT
If a person living in a vehicle near your residence began to rent a room out of the house next door
and their vehicle remained on the street, how would that change your perception of that person
and why?
Parking during day-sprawl downtown. Slippery slope of what is objectionable.
I would like to speak as a person who dwells in a vehicle.
Am a teacher and resident in Palo Alto. Have a mentally ill adult son who is homeless. Palo Alto
is part of the giant Santa Clara County and most services are in south county. Could there be
process where we model a support network like San Mateo. Palo Alto’s criminalizing poverty
without the support services needed is criminal.
Wow. I guess I would like to say I feel very strongly about attempts to make every square inch the
property of only those who own or have an interest in real property. It’s inhumane. I am an
attorney and an entrepreneur and I will allow people to park on the street by my house.
Will we make it over the mountain?
2 minutes, for students about research projects (in law, public health, technology and social
entrepreneurship).
I cried because I had no shoes, till I saw a man with no feet.
In order to save money for 1st and last month rent: 1973 – Seven weeks sleeping in Volkswagen
Square back with my family-3 children in San Mateo. 1975-One month sleeping with my family-3
children and two dogs (in between house rentals); 1979 – Winter-23 days in van with 3 children
and two dogs (in between house rentals). I do not want a law that prevents folks from sleeping in
their vehicle.
My children’s experience with vans and cars on our street.
Brown van experience with kids.
Concern for community, housed and homeless. Working together to be of service to each other.
Want to know-what ordinances currently exist that cover this issue? How many “car dwellers” are
we talking about? Who has counted them?
LIVING IN VEHICLES COMMUNITY FORUM
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
COMMENT CARDS & FLIP CHART NOTES
4
COMMENT
I would like to see this as a social services issue instead of civil. But the homeowners do need
some recourse to persons “behaving badly”. I have investigated several cities who have allowed
2-3 vehicles per lot and in each case the police refer to a social service center some are city run,
one is faith based. This program has saved the City of Eugene, Oregon approximately $210k.
They used to use up court time, towing services, etc. This is a possibility for progressive Palo Alto
and perhaps the Opportunity Center could be the administrator of such a plan.
Eugene Oregon has a program in which churches, businesses, government organizations and
other organizations allow pre-approved people to park in their lots overnight. I would like Palo Alto
to consider a similar program rather than a ban.
I believe we can find good alternatives to an ordinance. Suggestions: It is important to get an
accurate count of the vehicles involved. Deal with the “van” guy-there must be an ordinance that
covers him. Do not criminalize homelessness-criminalize sleeping in cars in residential
neighborhoods. Get help for community service officer. Have separate brainstorming meeting.
FLIP CHART
Case Management Outreach - Any person can become un-housed, we are already doing innovative things, we can find
solutions; Palo Alto had ban on overnight parking; person in car is solution; neighborhoods relieved if equipped area.
We are all compassionate. Cubberley facilities open without communication with Green Meadows; surge of people.
Children feel unsafe around large numbers.
Is Palo Alto a magnet? Many people still live in other areas. Many people have community ties, make contributions. Palo
Alto as role model. There is a 72 hour parking limit and permit program in CT.
Being homeless is not a crime. Individuals sharing space with homeless. Humanitarian, we are blessed. See us all help
each other, share. Dalai Lama. Status quo is unacceptable. Problem is concentrated. Verbal assault of children from
one individual. Police cannot respond with current laws.
Shut down magnets, say to go to other services. Situations which are already enforceable. Parking limits. Identifying
people’s individual needs, including mental health. It has worked with city and fire department to address panhandling,
encourage people to join team. Peer to peer outreach in parking lots.
Need to wait 48 hours. People can move. Children have to change routes, feel unsafe. Something needs to change.
Experience LG in some neighborhoods. Don’t want Palo Alto to make it illegal to live in car. People have different
reasons. Others who are housed can cause same incidents.
LIVING IN VEHICLES COMMUNITY FORUM
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
COMMENT CARDS & FLIP CHART NOTES
5
Don’t need to put more in jail, do need to solve problem. Tragedy of the commons. Sleep on tarp rather than car? We
can do better. Wrong to punish others for living in vehicles. Respond to incidents, not condemn group of people. Black
holes out of reach.
Address specific problem rather than criminalize all. Stored vehicle issue, not people. Has been going on for ten years in
College Terrace. Strengthening 72 hour limit. 2008: Many more people illegal behaviors. Only one person who works
with abandoned vehicles.
Social service not civil issue. Look into programs other city does. City lots/church lots with rules/guidelines but with
compassion. Part of CCT-Eugene, OR program for car dwellers. Ask parking info -1 law need to move vehicle every 72
hours-some areas have permits.
20-25 in PA have contact with on a regular basis. City has CS officer that responds to that issue. Neighbor-Addison-
homeowner. Safety issue affects family-van on block-verbally assaulted kids. Access to restroom, children observed
public urination. Concern for their safety. Live in CT long time-likes parking permit, but does not extend to commercial
area – individual with 12 vans. CN zone in parking zone.
Give police tools to deal with CT issue. Neighbor-Addison-also have kids who are afraid on man in vehicle. Man moves
vehicle around every 72 hours. Has compassion. Needs to give police “tools” to deal with issue. Barron Park-
Understands problem with person with 12 cars, but is willing to let person in front of his house.
Stanford charter has looked into homeless issues for 10 years for projects that work on issue. Norm-living outside puts
health at risk. If parking problem fix that . Look at Milpitas ordinance consider using some city parking garages.
Palo Alto is a community that cares. Faith based group have cared. There are good and bad citizens. Need to come up
with solution that is positive.
Has lived in car. Never broken law. Bothers others. Not clean if parking or behavior issue. If ordinance passes, may be
faced to live on streets. Punish people who case problems. But leave others alone. Car dweller-he does not cause
problems. Deal with people causing problems. Son-homeless-mentally ill. Living in vehicle. Palo Alto services not wrap
around. Redwood City has rapid re-housing. Need to come up with solutions. Not police based.
Working with CCT-hard to tell housed and un-housed. Lives in CT-suggestion to deal with issue in CN Zone-was targeted
by rock in window. They know why I live not visa versa. Solution should involve all local cities. Permit parking-more
areas.
Street outreach from Stanford. Community can come up with solutions. Think about values that city holds and uphold for
all citizens. Oregon program.
LIVING IN VEHICLES SECOND COMMUNITY FORUM
JUNE 26, 2012
COMMENT CARDS AND NOTES
1
QUESTIONS
Q: Is Palo Alto the only City that does not have a similar ordinance in Santa Clara County?
A: It is the City’s understanding that Palo Alto is the only City along the Peninsula that does not have such an ordinance.
Q: Has anyone challenged these ordinances? If so, what has been the result? Has there been grass root opposition?
A: Don Larkin is not aware of any. It is unknown if there has been grass root opposition on these other ordinances.
Q: What is the Status Quo?
A: No ordinance prohibiting living in vehicles. The primary regulation is the 72 hours or more parking limit. The second
are general violations such as urinating in public or other nuisances.
Q: How many complaints have been received in the last year?
A: It is difficult to provide a specific number. The Police Department does not keep statistics separately and they do not
track whether they are unhoused.
Q: How did City staff reach out to the Faith Based Community? Why does the program only identify “places of worship”
A: Rick Toker provided a contact list for the 42 various congregations. City property was not considered due to the cost
associated with maintenance and monitoring.
COMMENT CARDS
I would like to make a brief statement outlining my most important reasons for opposing the vehicle dwelling ban portions of the proposed City Ordinance-
I’ve been living in my vehicle for the past 2 years. I’m 64 years old and on the waitlist for senior housing. I’m against the ordinance because it will not solve the problem but would aggravate the situation worse.
Vehicle dwelling; the problems of poverty and job loss
I wanted to share recent experience learning about other community’s obstacles in enforcing such an ordinance. I also
wanted to express Downtown Streets Team’s willingness to help out.
Having lived in Palo Alto since 1960, I know it to be a caring community which does not want to criminalize good people.
Many years of experience working as an RN. Concerned about the health of those living in vehicles and how it could decline further if forced to the streets. Also remember many living in vehicles are employed and can’t afford the high rents
in the area.
With large layoff like the ones at HP’s many people who have homes today could find themselves living in their vehicles. I
do not want vehicle habitation to become a crime.
Why?
My outreach experience with the unhoused.
LIVING IN VEHICLES SECOND COMMUNITY FORUM
JUNE 26, 2012
COMMENT CARDS AND NOTES
2
Legal view
1) How many complaints; 2) Church vs. public lots; 3) ; 4)personal experience
Newspaper article on motor home example in Palo Alto
Living in vehicles is not a problem it is the result of a lack of housing.
Why 1st Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto said yes the Pilot Program
Seems to be enough support here. Each person who supports vehicle residents to take them home to their driveway and use their bathrooms.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
A suggestion was made that if churches are going to participate in such a program then they should outline a plan
of how to approach their neighbors before making a commitment.
When First Presbyterian Church started their Wednesday meal program there was a firestorm.
Having a program that can be controlled will give people a sense of security and wellbeing.
In land use controversy “one side out organizes the other.” Willing to participate in outreaching. Suggestion that
the community does everything and pulls together. Staff can’t be expected to do the outreach as it would not be fair to staff.
The pilot program discussed was not a consensus of the Working Group.
Eugene Code
4-81 8/2/2011
the use of any tent, lean-to, shack, or any other structure, or any
vehicle or part thereof.
(2) It is found and declared that:
(a) From time to time persons establish campsites on sidewalks,
public rights-of-way, under bridges, and so forth;
(b) Such persons, by such actions create unsafe and unsanitary living
conditions which pose a threat to the peace, health and safety of
themselves and the community; and,
(c) The enactment of this provision is necessary to protect the peace,
health and safety of the city and its inhabitants.
(3) No person shall camp in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public
right-of-way, park or any other publicly-owned property or under any
bridge or viaduct, unless otherwise specifically authorized by this code
or by declaration of the Mayor in emergency circumstances.
(4) Upon finding it to be in the public interest and consistent with council
goals and policies, the council may, by motion, exempt a special event
from the prohibitions of this section. The motion shall specify the period
of time and location covered by the exemption.
(Section 4.815 amended by Ordinance No. 19163, enacted July 11, 1983; and Ordinance
20062, enacted September 16, 1996, effective October 16, 1996.)
4.816 Permitted Overnight Sleeping.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code:
(a) Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, camper or trailer in a
parking lot of a religious institution, place of worship, business or
public entity that owns or leases property on which a parking lot
and occupied structure are located, with permission of the
property owner. The property owner may not grant permission for
more than three vehicles used for sleeping at any one time.
(b) Persons may sleep overnight in the back yard of a single family
residence in a residential zoning district, with permission of the
owner and tenant of the residence. Not more than one family may
sleep in any back yard, and not more than one tent or camping
shelter may be used for sleeping in the back yard. As an
alternative, but not in addition to sleeping overnight in the back
yard, not more than one family may sleep in a vehicle, camper or
trailer parked in the driveway of a single family residence in a
residential zoning district, with permission of the owner and tenant
of the residence. For purposes of this subsection, “family” means
persons related by blood or marriage, or no more than two
unrelated adults.
(c) Persons may sleep overnight in a vehicle, camper or trailer on a
paved or graveled surface located on a vacant or unoccupied
parcel, with the permission of the property owner, if the owner
registers the site with the city or its agent. The city may require
the site to be part of a supervised program operated by the city or
Eugene Code
4-82 8/2/2011
its agent. The property owner may not grant permission for more
than three vehicles used for sleeping at any one time.
(2) A property owner who allows a person or persons to sleep overnight on
a property pursuant to subsections (1)(a), (1)(b) or (1)(c) of this section
shall:
(a) Provide or make available sanitary facilities;
(b) Provide garbage disposal services as required by sections 6.050
and 6.055 of this code;
(c) Provide a storage area for campers to store any personal items so
the items are not visible from any public street;
(d) Require a tent or camping shelter in a backyard to be not less
than five feet away from any property line; and
(e) Not require payment of any fee, rent or other monetary charge for
overnight sleeping, as authorized by this section.
(3) A property owner who permits overnight sleeping pursuant to
subsection (1) and (2) of this section, may revoke that permission at
any time and for any reason. Any person who receives permission to
sleep on that property as provided in this section shall leave the
property immediately after permission has been revoked.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the city manager or
the manager’s designee may:
(a) Prohibit overnight sleeping on a property if the city finds that such
an activity on that property is incompatible with the uses of
adjacent properties or constitutes a nuisance or other threat to the
public welfare; or
(b) Revoke permission for a person to sleep overnight on city-owned
property if the city finds that the person has violated any
applicable law, ordinance, rule, guideline or agreement, or that the
activity is incompatible with the use of the property or adjacent
properties.
(5) The city manager or the manager’s designee may impose
administrative civil penalties on property owners who fail to comply with
the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, as provided
in section 2.018 of this code.
(6) In addition to any other penalties that may be imposed, any campsite
used for overnight sleeping in a manner not authorized by this section
or other provisions of this code shall constitute a nuisance and may be
abated as such. As used in this section, “campsite” has the meaning
given in section 4.815 of this code.
(7) The city manager may adopt administrative rules in the manner
provided in section 2.019 of this code to implement this section.
(8) With authorization from the city manager or designee in connection with
a specific special event, persons may sleep overnight on public
property which has a community center, swimming pool, or other city-
operated athletic facility located thereon at which the special event is
Eugene Code
4-83 8/2/2011
being held. The authorization shall be limited to no more than eight
days in any two-week period.
(9) Nothing in section 4.815 or 4.816 of this code creates any duty on the
part of the city or its agents to ensure the protection of persons or
property with regard to permitted overnight sleeping.
(Section 4.816 added by Ordinance No. 20130, enacted August 5, 1998; and amended by
Ordinance No. 20255, enacted June 10, 2002, effective July 10, 2002.)
4.820 Petty Larceny.
(Section 4.820 amended by Ordinance No. 19500, enacted September 28, 1987;
administratively amended by Ordinance No. 20113, enacted April 6, 1998, effective May 6,
1998; and amended by Ordinance No. 20161, enacted July 26, 1999, effective August 26, 1999;
and repealed by Ordinance No. 20446, enacted December 14, 2009, effective January 1, 2010.)
4.822 Theft.
(1)Theft in the Third Degree. A person commits the crime of theft in the
third degree if the total value of the property in a single or an aggregate
transaction is less than $100, and the person, by means other than
extortion, with the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate
property to the person or a third person:
(a) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an
owner thereof; or
(b) Comes into control of property of another that the person knows
or has good reason to know to have been lost, mislaid or
delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the
property or the identity of the recipient, and with the intent to
deprive the owner thereof fails to take reasonable measures to
restore the property to the owner; or
(c) Obtains property of another, and with the intent to defraud:
1. Creates or confirms another’s false impression of law, value,
intention or other state of mind which the actor does not
believe to be true; or
2. Fails to correct a false impression which the person
previously created or confirmed; or
3. Prevents another from acquiring information pertinent to the
disposition of the property involved; or
4. Sells or otherwise transfers or encumbers property, failing to
disclose a lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to
the enjoyment of the property, whether such impediment is
or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or
5. Promises performance which the person does not intend to
perform or knows will not be performed.
(d) Receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another
knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the
subject of theft. For purposes of this subsection, “receiving”
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2211)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/15/2011
November 15, 2011 Page1of3
(ID # 2211)
Summary Title:Habitation of Vehicles Ordinance
Title:Status of Habitation in Vehicles Ordinance/Programs
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report to provide a status on the Human Habitation in Vehicles
Ordinance and related programs. No action is required. Staff will return with specific proposals
following further community outreach.
Background
Over the past several years there have been a number of incidents reported by residents and
business owners related to alleged disturbances by persons living in vehicles in or near
residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Specific incidents have sometimes been
troublesome for residents and businesses, in some cases including public urination, trespassing,
belligerent behavior, or other actions that are perceived as threats to safety or health. The
Police Department does not track these complaints, so there is not an accurate measure of the
number and frequency of calls, but Police estimate that there are about 20 vehicle dwellers
who are scattered throughout the city. Accordingly to homeless advocates, however, there are
probably about 100 vehicle dwellers in total, so for the most part such persons are peaceful, do
not bother residents, and in some cases provide helpful services to the community. Some of
the complaints, particularly in the College Terrace neighborhood, also relate to parking an
excessive number of vehicles in the area.
In July of 2011, a draft ordinance was prepared to address complaints received by residents and
businesses. The draft ordinance would have prohibited human habitation of vehicles, with
limited exceptions, and was modeled after similar ordinances in other cities located within
Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Currently, the City of Palo Alto appears to be the
only city located in Santa Clara County that does not have an ordinance addressing this issue.
The City’s current requirements do not limit sleeping or living in a vehicle, but do prohibit
parking a vehicle in the same space for more than 72 hours. The vehicle dwellers of concern,
however, are aware of the regulations and are able to move their vehicles to comply with the
72-hour limit. The Police Department therefore is only able to approach these cases as
complaints arise and generally attempt to address the individual cases by contacting the vehicle
dweller and, if they are available at the time, referring them to local shelters and service
November 15, 2011 Page2of3
(ID # 2211)
providers. In most cases, the vehicle dweller does not take advantage of those services, but
sometimes they are persuaded to move and then relocate to another neighborhood.
Staff scheduled consideration of the draft ordinance for Council review on July 25, 2011.
Homeless residents and advocates, however, voiced their opinions to the City Council before
that date that an alternative solution be proposed and that additional community outreach be
pursued. The City Manager then requested that the City Council remove the item from the July
25, 2011 meeting in order to allow additional community outreach, including discussions with
the Community Cooperation Team (homeless advocates) before an ordinance or other
approach is presented and a decision on the matter is rendered. The Council concurred and
suggested that the matter should also be reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee in
advance of full Council review.
Discussion
A working group has been established, comprised of various stakeholders in order to provide
input to City Staff. The working group includes representation from the unhoused community,
local social service providers, neighborhood residents, businesses, and the faith based
community, as well as City staff (Planning, Police, City Attorney and Community Services
departments). To date, a community forum and two working group meetings have taken place
to obtain additional input and to discuss alternative solutions. Another working group meeting
is scheduled for the morning of November 15th and a verbal report will be provided to the
Committee that evening.
Community Forum
On September 15, 2011, the City in conjunction with the Community Cooperation Team held a
“Living in Vehicles Community Forum” to invite public comment regarding individuals living in
their vehicles and others affected by these activities. The goal of the meeting was to reach out
to the community and discuss issues and approaches to address problems experienced by both
persons living in vehicles and affected residents and businesses. Approximately sixty individuals
participated in the forum. The meeting notes are appended to this update as Attachment “A”.
A website has been established on the Community Services Department at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/news/details.asp?NewsID=1882&TargetID=271.
Working Group
On October 26, 2011, the expanded working group held a meeting to define and frame the
issue and continue the conversation about plausible solutions and/or options. There was a
general consensus that there were multiple issues at hand and clearly defining the problem was
the first step. Specifically, a distinction was made between a) the parking and storage of
multiple vehicles in or around certain commercial/residential areas and b) people living in their
vehicles and parking within residential and/or commercial neighborhoods. Distinctions were
also drawn to recognize that the majority of vehicle dwellers are not causing any problems,
while there are valid safety, security and health concerns of neighbors and businesses that are
affected by the minority of vehicle dwellers.
November 15, 2011 Page3of3
(ID # 2211)
Members of the Community Cooperation Team have offered suggestions for an ordinance
modeled after Eugene, Oregon’s Camping Ordinance. The ordinance would allow private
businesses, places of worship, and government facilities to designate parking to accommodate
either three medium vehicles or one large vehicle on the property. Providers of these parking
spaces would govern their property and issue approval letters with corresponding dates and
any required provisions. Concurrently, the City’s Community Service Officer would serve as a
facilitator for those living in their vehicles by providing a list of approved parking lots and social
service programs. The group will also discuss how parking regulations might be modified to
address some of the specific parking-related issues.
Other approaches, including something similar to the original draft ordinance, are also still to
be discussed. The second expanded working group meeting is scheduled for November 15,
2011 to further review these options and discuss the potential implications of each.
Next Steps
Staff expects to conduct one more working group meeting, and then to present options at a
community meeting in December or early January 2012. A final working group meeting would
follow prior to staff’s presentation of a recommended program to the Policy and Services
Committee in February.
Attachments:
Attachment A: September 15, 2011 Community Forum Notes (PDF)
Public Doc (PDF)
Prepared By: Curtis Williams, Director
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
Ho
w
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
d
o
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
v
a
n
s
?
I
su
g
g
e
s
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
v
a
n
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
a
r
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
j
u
s
t
l
i
k
e
t
h
e
ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
e
r
s
.
R
i
g
h
t
n
o
w
w
e
d
o
n
o
t
k
n
o
w
w
h
o
t
h
e
s
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
o
u
r
ho
m
e
s
o
r
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
n
o
t
j
u
s
t
R
-
1
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
m
i
x
e
d
u
s
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
.
Do
n
o
t
h
i
n
g
.
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
t
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
h
a
r
a
s
s
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
law
s
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
h
a
v
e
s
a
m
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
o
w
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
T
o
d
e
n
y
o
n
l
y
p
o
o
r
pe
o
p
l
e
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
o
w
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
w
h
i
l
e
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
w
e
a
l
t
h
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
s
un
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
.
I
w
a
n
t
t
o
b
e
a
m
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
t
a
s
k
f
o
r
c
e
.
Ho
w
m
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
?
H
o
w
m
a
n
y
a
r
e
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
?
W
h
e
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
d
o
n
e
w
h
e
n
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
d
o
e
s
c
a
u
s
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
?
R
u
m
o
r
-
v
a
n
s
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
“
v
a
n
gu
y
s
”
?
F
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
t
c
i
t
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
cit
y
.
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
:
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
a
n
d
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
i
s
v
e
r
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
I
s
t
h
e
r
e
a
n
y
w
a
y
t
h
a
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
D
c
o
u
l
d
s
t
e
p
u
p
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
a
ca
s
e
b
y
c
a
s
e
b
a
s
i
s
?
I
f
e
e
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
t
h
e
r
w
h
o
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
h
e
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
W
h
a
t
a
b
o
u
t
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
“
s
a
f
e
t
y
z
o
n
e
s
?
”
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
ra
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Lik
e
d
t
h
e
i
d
e
a
o
f
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
s
/
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
,
c
i
t
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
i
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
pla
c
e
s
.
Se
p
a
r
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
D
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
e
a
c
h
a
l
o
n
e
.
F
i
r
s
t
,
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
c
a
r
s
;
s
e
c
o
n
d
,
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
wh
o
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
;
t
h
i
r
d
w
h
e
r
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
.
O
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
d
o
n
e
,
b
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
t
h
r
e
e
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
an
d
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
f
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
i
s
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
w
o
r
s
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
o
w
n
t
u
r
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
g
i
n
g
“
b
a
b
y
b
o
o
m
e
r
s
”
.
L
o
o
k
int
o
n
e
a
r
b
y
m
o
d
e
l
s
-
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
;
e
n
g
a
g
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
f
o
r
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
;
u
s
e
th
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
w
h
a
t
w
e
h
a
v
e
;
H
.
I
.
P
.
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
t
o
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
pe
o
p
l
e
.
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
2
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
I w
a
s
t
h
r
o
w
n
o
u
t
o
f
m
y
h
o
u
s
e
a
s
a
t
e
e
n
a
g
e
r
.
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
a
f
r
a
i
d
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
w
a
n
t
t
o
s
e
e
o
t
h
e
r
te
e
n
a
g
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
a
t
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
F
a
m
i
l
y
,
a
c
r
o
s
s
f
r
o
m
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
a
t
t
h
e
G
r
e
e
n
d
e
l
l
s
i
t
e
.
S
e
v
e
r
a
l
c
a
r
-
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
liv
i
n
g
r
i
g
h
t
b
e
h
i
n
d
m
y
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
y
t
r
o
u
b
l
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
.
I
n
t
h
e
p
a
s
t
,
w
e
h
a
v
e
h
a
d
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
o
n
p
l
a
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
l
e
a
v
i
n
g
t
r
a
s
h
,
u
r
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
f
e
c
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
do
o
r
w
a
y
s
.
P
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
a
f
e
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
,
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
y
c
o
m
e
to
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
g
o
o
d
t
h
i
n
g
.
A
s
a
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
,
I
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
e
i
d
e
a
o
f
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
m
a
l
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
a
n
d
w
h
e
r
e
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
i
s
g
o
o
d
.
I
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
b
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
law
s
a
b
o
u
t
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
a
n
y
b
o
d
y
w
h
o
a
r
e
i
n
a
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
i
n
g
w
a
y
t
o
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
in
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
An
i
s
s
u
e
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
s
t
h
a
t
o
f
s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
h
y
g
i
e
n
e
.
T
h
e
c
i
t
y
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
,
wa
t
e
r
,
s
h
o
w
e
r
s
,
e
t
c
.
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
.
W
h
y
i
s
t
h
e
P
.
D
.
u
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
7
2
-
h
o
u
r
r
u
l
e
w
i
t
h
th
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
o
w
n
s
t
h
e
f
l
e
e
t
o
f
v
a
n
s
,
t
h
a
t
p
a
r
k
o
n
S
t
a
u
n
t
o
n
,
O
x
f
o
r
d
a
n
d
C
a
m
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
n
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Te
r
r
a
c
e
?
Th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
a
n
d
s
h
o
w
e
r
s
f
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
.
A
d
d
a
sm
a
l
l
t
a
x
o
r
s
o
l
i
c
i
t
s
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
M
a
n
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
h
a
p
p
y
t
o
d
o
n
a
t
e
.
I’m
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
l
i
v
e
i
n
m
y
c
a
r
.
S
a
f
e
t
y
.
Pr
a
y
i
n
g
f
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
t
o
o
p
e
n
t
h
e
i
r
h
o
m
e
s
.
Im
p
a
c
t
o
f
v
a
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
–
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
s
s
u
e
s
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
t
o
m
o
v
e
o
u
t
.
On
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
1
2
v
a
n
s
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
D
o
n
’
t
p
u
n
i
s
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
u
s
.
I
’
v
e
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
a
n
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
0
y
e
a
r
s
-
w
e
n
t
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
Liv
i
n
g
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
o
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
o
s
e
w
i
t
h
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
o
r
i
g
i
n
s
.
I w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
h
e
s
t
a
f
f
s
,
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
l
i
g
h
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
s
w
e
a
r
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
w
o
r
k
o
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
h
a
t
w
o
r
k
o
u
t
f
o
r
e
v
e
r
y
b
o
d
y
.
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
3
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
If
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
n
e
a
r
y
o
u
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
b
e
g
a
n
t
o
r
e
n
t
a
r
o
o
m
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
n
e
x
t
d
o
o
r
an
d
t
h
e
i
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
h
o
w
w
o
u
l
d
t
h
a
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
y
o
u
r
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
a
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
an
d
w
h
y
?
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
a
y
-
s
p
r
a
w
l
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
S
l
i
p
p
e
r
y
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
w
h
a
t
i
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
.
I w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
p
e
a
k
a
s
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
d
w
e
l
l
s
i
n
a
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
Am
a
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
.
H
a
v
e
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
i
l
l
a
d
u
l
t
s
o
n
w
h
o
i
s
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
is
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
g
i
a
n
t
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
m
o
s
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
s
o
u
t
h
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
C
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
r
e
b
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
w
h
e
r
e
w
e
m
o
d
e
l
a
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
l
i
k
e
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
wi
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
.
W
o
w
.
I
g
u
e
s
s
I
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
a
y
I
f
e
e
l
v
e
r
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
e
v
e
r
y
s
q
u
a
r
e
i
n
c
h
t
h
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
f
o
n
l
y
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
o
w
n
o
r
h
a
v
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
r
e
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
I
t
’
s
i
n
h
u
m
a
n
e
.
I
a
m
a
n
at
t
o
r
n
e
y
a
n
d
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
a
n
d
I
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
y
m
y
h
o
u
s
e
.
W
i
l
l
w
e
m
a
k
e
i
t
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
m
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
?
2
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,
f
o
r
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
i
n
l
a
w
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
,
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
en
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
)
.
I c
r
i
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
I
h
a
d
n
o
s
h
o
e
s
,
t
i
l
l
I
s
a
w
a
m
a
n
w
i
t
h
n
o
f
e
e
t
.
In
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
s
a
v
e
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
1
st an
d
l
a
s
t
m
o
n
t
h
r
e
n
t
:
1
9
7
3
–
S
e
v
e
n
w
e
e
k
s
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
V
o
l
k
s
w
a
g
e
n
Sq
u
a
r
e
b
a
c
k
w
i
t
h
m
y
f
a
m
i
l
y
-
3
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
.
1
9
7
5
-
O
n
e
m
o
n
t
h
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
m
y
f
a
m
i
l
y
-
3
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
t
w
o
d
o
g
s
(
i
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
)
;
1
9
7
9
–
W
i
n
t
e
r
-
2
3
d
a
y
s
i
n
v
a
n
w
i
t
h
3
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
an
d
t
w
o
d
o
g
s
(
i
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
)
.
I
d
o
n
o
t
w
a
n
t
a
l
a
w
t
h
a
t
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
f
o
l
k
s
f
r
o
m
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
th
e
i
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
M
y
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
’
s
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
v
a
n
s
a
n
d
c
a
r
s
o
n
o
u
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
Br
o
w
n
v
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
k
i
d
s
.
Co
n
c
e
r
n
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
,
h
o
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
b
e
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
.
W
a
n
t
t
o
k
n
o
w
-
w
h
a
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
i
s
t
t
h
a
t
c
o
v
e
r
t
h
i
s
i
s
s
u
e
?
H
o
w
m
a
n
y
“
c
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
”
a
r
e
we
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
?
W
h
o
h
a
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
t
h
e
m
?
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
4
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
I w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
e
e
t
h
i
s
a
s
a
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
s
s
u
e
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
c
i
v
i
l
.
B
u
t
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
d
o
n
e
e
d
so
m
e
r
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
“
b
e
h
a
v
i
n
g
b
a
d
l
y
”
.
I
h
a
v
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
c
i
t
i
e
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
2-
3
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
l
o
t
a
n
d
i
n
e
a
c
h
c
a
s
e
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
a
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
o
m
e
a
r
e
c
i
t
y
r
u
n
,
on
e
i
s
f
a
i
t
h
b
a
s
e
d
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
h
a
s
s
a
v
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
u
g
e
n
e
,
O
r
e
g
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
2
1
0
k
.
Th
e
y
u
s
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
u
p
c
o
u
r
t
t
i
m
e
,
t
o
w
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
an
d
p
e
r
h
a
p
s
t
h
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
h
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
s
u
c
h
a
p
l
a
n
.
Eu
g
e
n
e
O
r
e
g
o
n
h
a
s
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
l
o
w
p
r
e
-
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
l
o
t
s
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
to
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
b
a
n
.
I b
e
l
i
e
v
e
w
e
c
a
n
f
i
n
d
g
o
o
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
a
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
S
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
:
I
t
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
g
e
t
a
n
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
c
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
.
D
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
“
v
a
n
”
g
u
y
-
t
h
e
r
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
co
v
e
r
s
h
i
m
.
D
o
n
o
t
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
n
e
s
s
-
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
s
l
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
n
c
a
r
s
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
G
e
t
h
e
l
p
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
.
H
a
v
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
b
r
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
i
n
g
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
FL
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
Ca
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
-
A
n
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
u
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
d
,
w
e
a
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
d
o
i
n
g
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
h
i
n
g
s
,
w
e
c
a
n
f
i
n
d
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
;
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
h
a
d
b
a
n
o
n
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
;
p
e
r
s
o
n
i
n
c
a
r
i
s
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
;
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
r
e
l
i
e
v
e
d
i
f
e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d
a
r
e
a
.
W
e
a
r
e
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
a
t
e
.
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
p
e
n
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
G
r
e
e
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
;
s
u
r
g
e
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
Ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
f
e
e
l
u
n
s
a
f
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
.
Is
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
a
m
a
g
n
e
t
?
M
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
v
e
i
n
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
.
M
a
n
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
h
a
v
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
i
e
s
,
m
a
k
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
P
a
l
o
Al
t
o
a
s
r
o
l
e
m
o
d
e
l
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
7
2
h
o
u
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
i
m
i
t
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
C
T
.
Be
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
c
r
i
m
e
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
H
u
m
a
n
i
t
a
r
i
a
n
,
w
e
a
r
e
b
l
e
s
s
e
d
.
S
e
e
u
s
a
l
l
h
e
l
p
ea
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
,
s
h
a
r
e
.
D
a
l
a
i
L
a
m
a
.
S
t
a
t
u
s
q
u
o
i
s
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
.
V
e
r
b
a
l
a
s
s
a
u
l
t
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
f
r
o
m
on
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
.
P
o
l
i
c
e
c
a
n
n
o
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
a
w
s
.
Sh
u
t
d
o
w
n
m
a
g
n
e
t
s
,
s
a
y
t
o
g
o
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
S
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
a
b
l
e
.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
i
m
i
t
s
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
pe
o
p
l
e
’
s
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
.
I
t
h
a
s
w
o
r
k
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
p
a
n
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
,
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
j
o
i
n
t
e
a
m
.
P
e
e
r
t
o
p
e
e
r
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
.
Ne
e
d
t
o
w
a
i
t
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
c
a
n
m
o
v
e
.
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
h
a
v
e
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
,
f
e
e
l
u
n
s
a
f
e
.
S
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
Ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
L
G
i
n
s
o
m
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
D
o
n
’
t
w
a
n
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
t
o
m
a
k
e
i
t
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
t
o
l
i
v
e
i
n
c
a
r
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
h
a
v
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
re
a
s
o
n
s
.
O
t
h
e
r
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
d
c
a
n
c
a
u
s
e
s
a
m
e
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
LI
V
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
F
O
R
U
M
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
CO
M
M
E
N
T
C
A
R
D
S
&
F
L
I
P
C
H
A
R
T
N
O
T
E
S
5
Do
n
’
t
n
e
e
d
t
o
p
u
t
m
o
r
e
i
n
j
a
i
l
,
d
o
n
e
e
d
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
T
r
a
g
e
d
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
s
.
S
l
e
e
p
o
n
t
a
r
p
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
c
a
r
?
W
e
ca
n
d
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
.
W
r
o
n
g
t
o
p
u
n
i
s
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
n
o
t
c
o
n
d
e
m
n
g
r
o
u
p
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
B
l
a
c
k
ho
l
e
s
o
u
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
.
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
a
l
l
.
S
t
o
r
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
i
s
s
u
e
,
n
o
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
H
a
s
b
e
e
n
g
o
i
n
g
o
n
f
o
r
t
e
n
y
e
a
r
s
i
n
Co
l
l
e
g
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
.
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
n
g
7
2
h
o
u
r
l
i
m
i
t
.
2
0
0
8
:
M
a
n
y
m
o
r
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
.
O
n
l
y
o
n
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
w
o
r
k
s
wi
t
h
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
So
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
n
o
t
c
i
v
i
l
i
s
s
u
e
.
L
o
o
k
i
n
t
o
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
o
t
h
e
r
c
i
t
y
d
o
e
s
.
C
i
t
y
l
o
t
s
/
c
h
u
r
c
h
l
o
t
s
w
i
t
h
r
u
l
e
s
/
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
b
u
t
w
i
t
h
co
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
.
P
a
r
t
o
f
C
C
T
-
E
u
g
e
n
e
,
O
R
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
f
o
r
c
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
s
.
A
s
k
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
-
1
l
a
w
n
e
e
d
t
o
m
o
v
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
e
v
e
r
y
7
2
ho
u
r
s
-
s
o
m
e
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
v
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
20
-
2
5
i
n
P
A
h
a
v
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
o
n
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
.
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
C
S
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s
t
o
t
h
a
t
i
s
s
u
e
.
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
-
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
-
ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
.
S
a
f
e
t
y
i
s
s
u
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
-
v
a
n
o
n
b
l
o
c
k
-
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
a
s
s
a
u
l
t
e
d
k
i
d
s
.
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
,
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
pu
b
l
i
c
u
r
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
L
i
v
e
i
n
C
T
l
o
n
g
t
i
m
e
-
l
i
k
e
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
,
b
u
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
–
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
w
i
t
h
1
2
v
a
n
s
.
C
N
z
o
n
e
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
.
Gi
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
t
o
o
l
s
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
C
T
i
s
s
u
e
.
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
-
A
d
d
i
s
o
n
-
a
l
s
o
h
a
v
e
k
i
d
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
a
f
r
a
i
d
o
n
m
a
n
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
M
a
n
m
o
v
e
s
ve
h
i
c
l
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
e
v
e
r
y
7
2
h
o
u
r
s
.
H
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
.
N
e
e
d
s
t
o
g
i
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
“
t
o
o
l
s
”
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
s
s
u
e
.
B
a
r
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
-
Un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
1
2
c
a
r
s
,
b
u
t
i
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
l
e
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
h
i
s
h
o
u
s
e
.
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
c
h
a
r
t
e
r
h
a
s
l
o
o
k
e
d
i
n
t
o
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
i
s
s
u
e
s
f
o
r
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
r
k
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
.
N
o
r
m
-
l
i
v
i
n
g
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
p
u
t
s
he
a
l
t
h
a
t
r
i
s
k
.
I
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
f
i
x
t
h
a
t
.
L
o
o
k
a
t
M
i
l
p
i
t
a
s
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
u
s
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
c
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
g
a
r
a
g
e
s
.
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
i
s
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
c
a
r
e
s
.
F
a
i
t
h
b
a
s
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
h
a
v
e
c
a
r
e
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
g
o
o
d
a
n
d
b
a
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
.
N
e
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
e
u
p
wi
t
h
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
.
Ha
s
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
c
a
r
.
N
e
v
e
r
b
r
o
k
e
n
l
a
w
.
B
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
t
h
e
r
s
.
N
o
t
c
l
e
a
n
i
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
r
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
.
I
f
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
a
s
s
e
s
,
m
a
y
b
e
fac
e
d
t
o
l
i
v
e
o
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
P
u
n
i
s
h
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
c
a
s
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
B
u
t
l
e
a
v
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
l
o
n
e
.
C
a
r
d
w
e
l
l
e
r
-
h
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
a
u
s
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
D
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
p
e
o
p
l
e
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
S
o
n
-
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
-
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
i
l
l
.
L
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
n
o
t
w
r
a
p
ar
o
u
n
d
.
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
r
a
p
i
d
r
e
-
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
N
e
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
e
u
p
w
i
t
h
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
N
o
t
p
o
l
i
c
e
b
a
s
e
d
.
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
C
C
T
-
h
a
r
d
t
o
t
e
l
l
h
o
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
d
.
L
i
v
e
s
i
n
C
T
-
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
t
o
d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
s
s
u
e
i
n
C
N
Z
o
n
e
-
w
a
s
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
by
r
o
c
k
i
n
w
i
n
d
o
w
.
T
h
e
y
k
n
o
w
w
h
y
I
l
i
v
e
n
o
t
v
i
s
a
v
e
r
s
a
.
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
a
l
l
l
o
c
a
l
c
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
m
o
r
e
ar
e
a
s
.
St
r
e
e
t
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
a
n
c
o
m
e
u
p
w
i
t
h
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
i
n
k
a
b
o
u
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
i
t
y
h
o
l
d
s
a
n
d
u
p
h
o
l
d
f
o
r
all
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
.
O
r
e
g
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Minor, Beth
From: Tony Ciampi [tciampi@hotmaiLcomJ
Sent: Tuesday, November 08,2011 5:50 PM
(HlY CLERK'S OFFICE
IINGV-9 Al'18:17
To: Venable, Mark; Williams, Curtis; Council, City; Larkin, Donald
Ce: abjpd1@gmaiLcom; bkenny5678@gmaiLcom; chuckjagoda1@gmaiLcom;
Page 1 of 1
yvonnekenyon66@yahoo.com; prgreg@stanford.edu; ricktoker@yahoo.com; mqbaylon@stanford.edu
Subject: Question regarding Vehicle Habitation Ordinance
Mark Venable
Asst. Police Chief of Palo Alto,
&
Curtis Williams,
during the October 25, 2011 Working Group Meeting regarding the "Vehicle Habitation
Ordinance" Mr. Williams asserted that the ordinance that had been drafted in no longer on the table.
Additionally Mr. Williams asserted that the City does not want to criminalize "Vehicle Dwellers" whose
behavior is not a problem. However during your presentation that Mr. Venable gave, Mr. Venable
asserted that the Palo Alto Police needs another tool, "an ordinance" to deal with those few "Vehicle
Dwellers" that are a problem, to get them to move.
For clarification please identify exactly what problem and or problem behaviors you need an ordinance to
address.
Additionally please specify how such an ordinance would be used to deal with the so called problem
behaViors of 'Vehicle Dwellers."
I would appreciate it if you could provide me with your response before the end of the week.
Thank you.
Tony Ciampi
11/9/2011
P&S 1 11-15-11
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
November 15, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt (arrived 7:15 pm), Holman, Klein, Price (Chair)
Absent:
Oral Communications
Aram James spoke regarding the resolution of social issues plaguing the
community.
Erick Deizel spoke regarding work with the elderly and how they were affected
by loss of income.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Status of Habitation in Vehicles Ordinance/Programs
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment gave an
update on the status of the vehicle habitation issues. He noted there was no
proposal presented because Staff was not asking for action to be taken. They
were asking for the Policy & Services Committee input on the progress to date.
Staff worked closely with the Community Cooperation Team, a group of
homeless advocates. Together they formed working groups to discuss
community concerns. Community forums were held where experiences and
alternatives were discussed. Among the ideas shared was an Ordinance similar
to one the State of Oregon implemented which allowed Churches, commercial
P&S 2 11-15-11
properties, and the City to provide areas for refuge. There would be certain
limitations on the number of vehicles on the site, vehicle registration, and time
limits. Participants also discussed a set of regulations for parking permits or
restricted time limits in commercial areas. Also discussed was an Ordinance that
would provide assistance to the Police Department in the event further activity
was needed. He noted there had been a positive approach to the concerns
throughout the community. They were working together to provide an
alternative to criminalizing those who were not causing negative incident. More
meetings were planned with the intent to offer proposal to the City Council in
February 2012.
Council Member Holman asked if the proposal included a mechanism to deal with
persons who park multiple vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Williams stated it would depend on the type and height of vehicle, and
whether there was a permit parking program in the area. He noted it would be
more difficult to limit parking in a non-permitted residential zone.
Council Member Holman asked if there was any way to characterize the general
situation that caused people to live in their vehicles.
Mr. Williams stated it would be difficult to generalize. There were scenarios
where living in the vehicle was a more secure environment than being exposed
to other outdoor hazards. There were situations where there were mental
ailments or times when their vehicle was their only possession.
Council Member Holman asked if there was any thought that the Community
Cooperation Team would continue. She cited the Downtown Streets Team as an
example. They provided a network and a structure for people to belong to. The
people needing the service became a part of the community.
Mr. Williams stated the Community Cooperation Team had come together in a
unique way and the anticipation was they would remain in tact since this was a
long term issue. He noted the process currently being addressed was not the
wide range of issues he believed they would like to address in the future.
Council Member Holman asked if the Human Relations Commission (HRC) was
involved.
Mr. Williams stated no, Minka Van der Zwaag from the Community Services
Department had attended the meetings, was aware of the situation and the
movement.
P&S 3 11-15-11
Council Member Holman asked if there was an understanding that most people
that inhabited their vehicles did not cause a problem but there was none-the-less
safety factor that some people expressed.
Mr. Williams stated that was understood by most of the community but there
was a concern over how many incidents would be needed before an Ordinance
was drafted for the safety and well-being of the community.
Council Member Burt stated he was surprised the HRC had not been formerly
brought into the program. The purpose of the HRC was to advise the Council and
their realm was Human Relations. He asked for more specifics on the Eugene
program.
Mr. Williams said the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coordinator
had been researching the Eugene Program and the Santa Barbara County
program as well. He noted the research found both programs had been
successful but neither was able to fully meet housing needs in the available
facilities. His understanding was there was a waiting list but he was uncertain
where people went while on the waiting list.
Council Member Burt asked about the participant’s perception of the programs.
He also wanted to know what had happened to those who were placed on a
waiting list.
Mr. Williams stated he was uncertain at the time but Staff would look into the
deeper issues during the next phase. He mentioned there had been discussion at
the HRC meeting on whether the matter should go to the full Council. The HRC
decided the Policy & Services Committee needed to be involved first.
Chair Price asked if there was expressed interest from property owners, faith
based groups, or commercial property owners to be involved in this type of
program.
Mr. Williams stated the intent to involve faith organizations in the next meeting.
The subject had not been formally discussed with commercial entities. There
would need to be facilities for bathrooms, a clean-up area, and room for the
vehicles, which could not be accommodated in the downtown area.
Chair Price asked if Staff had talked with service providers or networks of
individuals who were currently providing services in the Eugene Program.
P&S 4 11-15-11
Mr. Williams said there would be more detailed discussions with the service
providers to see if there were more examples of other places they may be aware
of. The Eugene Program was City based so Staff had focused their discussions
with the City Staff.
Council Member Klein asked if Staff had coordinated with other cities in Santa
Clara and San Mateo counties to learn from their experiences.
Mr. Williams stated the Police Department had discussions with surrounding
cities and even though there were Ordinances in motion they were informed
there were people living in their vehicles. If there were no issues being caused
city officials did not act on the Ordinance. He noted members of the Community
Cooperation Team had positive responses when speaking with faith based
communities in Mountain View about their interest in participating in the
program if it were to move forward.
Council Member Klein asked if neighboring cities were receiving complaints
similar to those in Palo Alto with respect to the vehicle dwellers.
Mr. Williams said he was not familiar with any such complaints.
Council Member Klein asked if there was evidence of Palo Alto attracting vehicle
dwellers because of the Ordinances in the other 14 cities within Santa Clara
County.
Mr. Williams stated there was no evidence but the Police had come across a few
persons who were from elsewhere.
Rick Tocker spoke regarding his discussions with the faith community, where a
number of churches had expressed interest in getting involved if the City
accepted a Eugene type plan.
Saint George said the main issue appeared to be poverty and Palo Alto was an
affluent community and was not versed in handling such circumstances. The
situation was ongoing and she felt it was a regional issue.
Chuck Degota said the word homeless was not accurately used, they had homes
but they were mobile. The solution was engagement by instituting a program
such as the City of Eugene who saved $200,000 in staff time and expenses by no
longer needing to respond to complaints. He noted the situations some were in
were not decided lightly but mandated by their state of affairs.
P&S 5 11-15-11
Aram James spoke regarding the Policy & Services Committee members’
involvement in the community working groups. Some had attended meetings
and were involved while those who had not were invited to do so. He felt the
arrests and ticketing of people staying in their vehicles would cause judicial costs
to rise.
Bruce Kenyon read from an article he wrote. There was no stepladder to assist
people to get back on their feet and become a productive part of society. The
current system was broken and there needed to be a replacement program put
into place.
Herb Borock said when the issue was raised there was a draft Ordinance already
written. He felt the HRC should be involved and advise the Policy & Services
Committee prior to the Committee recommending policy to the full Council.
Chris Sacre spoke regarding the proposed Ordinance and the working group. The
vehicle habitation issue should not be treated as a criminal issue but rather a
social issue. The group had been actively reaching out to the community to come
up with a long term solution for those affected.
Erick Deisel said to pass an Ordinance that removed a person’s vehicle when that
vehicle was their home would prevent them from re-involving themselves back
into society. He asked if there was a list of problems related to people residing in
the vehicles.
Mr. Williams gave a brief list of issues associated with safety, security,
sanitation, and health complaints believed to be connected with some vehicle
dwellers.
Fred Smith spoke regarding the difficulties of getting back into the work force
and how living in his vehicle was a detriment to the community. He requested
the Policy & Services Committee pass regulations that did not hurt those who
were already injured socially.
Tina Lovercheck recalled the sit-lie Ordinance discussion in consideration with
the HRC who did not support the passing of the Ordinance because there was no
documentation to support the need. She felt the vehicle habitation was a similar
situation and that the HRC needed to be involved.
Council Member Burt asked how much engagement had taken place with
businesses regarding use of their sites. In the Eugene Program there were
instances when the vehicle dweller and the commercial site forged a relationship
P&S 6 11-15-11
where the vehicle dweller in effect provided around the clock security.
Mr. Williams stated Staff had not had any discussions with the commercial based
participants in Eugene but he was also familiar with those comments.
Council Member Burt asked whether the community working groups had any
engagement with the commercial base community.
Mr. Williams declared he did not believe so.
Council Member Burt stated there were responsible members of the community
who were in a situation beyond their control. He asked to what degree Palo Alto
had been able to distinguish the two groups; those in need of assistance and
those with criminal intent. He felt there could be a shared interest between the
vehicle dweller and the business owner.
Mr. Williams said the Police Department did not currently have a tracking system
in place since there was not a Municipal Code that could be violated. He noted
there were a couple of the Community Officers who indicated during prior
meetings there may have been 15 to 20 issues over the past few years but
acknowledged there were three times that amount without any incident.
Council Member Burt said the Downtown Streets Team was an innovative
program initiated by Palo Alto residents and subsequently supported by the City.
The program was a model being replicated elsewhere in the region. This was an
example of Palo Alto using a model that helped people help themselves. He felt
the Eugene model had a solid base to start a program in the City.
Council Member Klein asked about the overnight parking ban.
Mr. Williams stated it was a suggestion but there was not a limitation as of yet.
Council Member Klein said an element not frequently discussed was that while
City government was not equipped to solve poverty, Palo Alto did have
compassion. There were laws available to the police to protect the community
against public nuisance. He disagreed the City government should be involved in
a program such as the one in Eugene; he felt it would add a bureaucratic
element which was not practical.
Council Member Holman thought it was important to consider an ongoing
Community Cooperation Team potentially using the Downtown Streets Team
model to locate work for those in need. Her concern was how the negative
P&S 7 11-15-11
actions of a few may impact the group as a whole in the form of an Ordinance.
She felt the HRC should be involved, admitting it would slow the process
although their role was to advise the Council on Human Relation matters. She
understood the safety concerns of residents. She felt City facilities should not be
involved.
Chair Price was concerned about the lack of hard data. With out this information
it would be difficult to define the challenges. She was undecided whether or not
City facilities should be considered. She appreciated the work that had been
contributed to date. She recommended more detailed discussions with the
service providers and more consideration for HRC involvement.
Council Member Holman asked if the focus of the Community Cooperation Team
was to be a facilitating group or was it to develop solutions.
Mr. Williams clarified the group felt facilitating and reaching for solutions were a
part of their purpose. He noted they were reviewing models elsewhere to bring
forth suggestions to be considered.
Chair Price asked Staff to inform the audience how they could get involved.
Mr. Williams said interested parties could contact him or Consuelo Hernandez
in the Planning Department at (650) 329-2404 and there was information on
the Community Services Department web page:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/human_services/default.asp .
Council Member Burt asked the City’s role in the forum versus various
community organizations.
Mr. Williams stated Staff saw the role as collaboration between the City and the
Community Cooperation Team but ultimately the team was providing input for
Staff to bring to the Council as recommendations.
Council Member Burt asked how broadly the group was representing the
community.
Mr. Williams stated the Community Cooperation Team worked with advocates
and clergy while the Working Groups had neighborhood and business
representatives.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
Neighborhood Objections to the Vehicle Dwelling Program at
Friends Meeting
We, as neighbors of the Palo Alto Friends Meeting, strongly object to
the use of their premises as a site of the proposed Vehicle Dwelling
Program. We support a responsible approach to solving the homeless
problem in Palo Alto, but we feel that this site is not suitable for
this purpose.
1. Their parking lot is short and deep and is located in the heart
of a residential area bordering nine residences.
2. Due to high prevalence of serious mental illness, drug abuse and
communicable diseases in the homeless population, this is a
safety concern.
3. Currently the Zink hotel clients (current program at Friends
meeting to house homeless on their premises) are pacing the
street the entire evening in anticipation of the check-in time,
with all their carts and belongings. Likewise, the car dwellers
will park in front of our houses on Colorado Avenue, Sandra Pl.,
Lawrence Ln. and Sycamore Dr. in the evening and morning hours.
4. There is a nursery school on the premises and a passageway to an
elementary school through the parking lot. Introducing car
dwellers in the same space potentially puts the children at risk.
5. Due to the small size and configuration of the parking lot, any
disturbance, noise, smoking, and smell from portable toilets will
have an immediate impact on the neighbors.
6. This project will invade our privacy because if the windows are
open, any conversation within the neighboring houses can be
heard, even in the area furthest from any houses.
7. The proposed portable toilets, in addition to being an eye sore,
are not plumbed, leading to a sewage and chemical smell,
especially if not cleaned properly or over used.
8. There is no monitoring proposed to ensure that the dwellers
crowded in the small space for a few cars are not loud, quarrel,
smoke tobacco, or use drugs at night.
9. We are concerned that allowing car dwelling in the heart of a
residential community will impact property values.
The charity of the Religious Society of Friends towards strangers
should not come at the expense of their neighbors.
Printed name Signature Address Date
/2. . 3 0 -/2-.
&tace lre
Printed name Signature Address Date
G ck~(trt ~EJ~ Gg~ G". 'Z/31} Il-l ') \....::Jc""(~~
r1"l 31.:>
L~nV1 a; ~.~ ~~~ LawrtAl ~ t YJ
r (/ J cM/3 ( ~Lf1 D~
/
Ll,l~~t\ QlA{~~~\.t' ,bUJ Cf & X It(WVbt l.,L lv\
C'\ '( "> 03
\/\'\011
5\~r7Pt ~r~, ~J; qS'~ lAwfWLl Ln ~-1iij;3 l/rZ$)
f
.
Printed name Signature Address Date
f\(A+-\-/}]~ elL( , ~ i, c..ck%"lo
I () \ \e.-ul'ri 6~---e/.~l ~ 6
~ab LofLdtei r;bf;ie;97 q ZLJ e.dOI'Cl&O Ave ,-c.:, -i"3
Sh~ree foOh ~. ~9f t%rado Il-v~ I-I; -/3
Jet( G-(lMe.5 ~1J)~ 2 C1225 L ou\) [ -L -{
(J/I.J&1'tjJ rJ 20 L1 ~~ "2 <7 D I 5'61/y 5 v iAl CT (/6 /)A)f 3
AV1 re,,( (~ U q [{nt-ti} ~() .. t;:;-b-----or I S Co Lv I/Cf 01 c) l1"LJ~ )/('(/,)
J{A.~~ \J\'PJJ ~ cr7; 0 Co {Q~ Ihr-e \ flO \ l3
/ .. ·,-t ~ G1~ L"UJ ~I Co( 0 'rtLch tv-e II b (\':,
UJc l/ ~~7 Ckr~ IY6!1] H 6/L8~ iJ CI VI d I"""---/ __ ~
~~
Y<obj " Sto..-~n ~JJ-(),A-P'~£1 CJkJ~ J f ~ J J2
OOGP G-IIL V/eta( 290L( .5fVYS ON / /b / 1'3
'I I ~i f e4-c-~~ ;2/1°'( 5Gvr 5-t?~ \ I, ~ \ l'J
;Vt e 1\---cJ\t ~ I\; t, u ~~O~ ~Cv; ~p) I 1 tJ l)
I
Printed name Signature Address Date
~ONlCA .t\ ~Tl+t>.N ~ Ci\ (0 Go Lu ltAtX) r:N~ '/f.:, /13 ~UI~l '{oSl+, ~ 0..\"'(0 ) LA-C\,-\~y~
'-.J
;
Inna Ravkin, M.D.
Ilya Ravkin, Ph.D.
945 Colorado Ave.
Palo Alto, CA
We, as immediate neighbors of the Palo Alto Friends Meeting strongly object
to the use of their premises as a site of the proposed Vehicle Dwelling
Program. We support a responsible approach to solving the homeless problem in
Palo Alto, but we feel that this site is not suitable for this purpose.
Their parking lot is short and deep. It is surrounded by nine residences. In
addition there is a nursery school on the premises and a passageway to an
elementary school. When someone is talking, smoking or coughing in the
parking lot it is as if they are doing it in your living room. We have seven
large windows overlooking this parking lot. We do not feel that 20 feet
separation (as proposed in the Pilot Vehicle Dwelling Program) is adequate.
Even at 20 ft offset, there is almost no parking space left - 6 spaces. This
project will invade our privacy because any conversation in our house if the
windows are open can be heard even in its widest area. It is quite different
if people just park their cars and leave and if they stay for the whole night
to hear.
As a physician I am aware of high prevalence of serious mental illness, drug
abuse and communicable diseases in the homeless population. We have very
strong personal safety concerns. In the past Zink Hotel clients have confused
their hotel with our house and insisted we let them in. Occasionally, I have
to come from work in the late hours and feel scared going from my car to my
house. Also, I have to think twice before taking the garbage out.
My fear of homeless is especially strong as a result of a personal traumatic
experience.
I can't comprehend how the community of faith may allow using their premises,
which contain their own nursery school as well as the passageway for the
Ohlone Elementary School students, as a dwelling for homeless through both
the current Zink hotel program and the new vehicle dwelling program.
We are concerned with the impact of allowing car dwelling in the heart of a
residential community on the house values.
Some of our friends and relatives are already reluctant to visit us in the
evening because they are afraid of the current Zink hotel program, causing
social isolation for us.
The charity of the Religious Society of Friends towards strangers should not
come at the expense of their neighbors and the safety of the children.
20 ft offset from the surrounding residences onto the Friends Meeting parking
lot.
School traffic in the Friends Meeting parking lot and on Colorado Avenue around 8am. Some children are not
accompanied by adults.
June 7, 2012
Honorable Mayor Yiaway Yeh
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mayor Yeh,
The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce joins Palo Alto residential groups in supporting the City
Council’s beginning the process of drafting a “Living in Vehicles” ordinance in consultation with
all affected constituencies and in parallel with outreach to homeless people based on the
Eugene Oregon program.
As you are aware, the City of Palo Alto is one of the few cities in Santa Clara County which does
not have an ordinance disallowing individuals to live in their vehicles. Currently if a business or
resident observes in-appropriate behavior from individuals living in their vehicles and calls the
police, the police are unable to approach the individual unless they observe the behavior
themselves. The Police Department presented the Living in Vehicles Ban to businesses and
residents after receiving complaints about this type of situation. They are unable to breach the
personal rights of the vehicle owner.
Key Arguments for Recommended Position:
1. The ordinance would give police the ability to approach and investigate incidents
reported by businesses and residents.
2. The ordinance provides a fall back remedy when other methods are unsuccessful.
How does this issue impact the business community?
Palo Alto does not restrict overnight street parking in any part of the city. By extension, people
can permanently park and live in their vehicles. When this becomes an eventuality, the police
are unable to approach the person living in their vehicle unless they witness specific violations
such as public urination/defecation, disposition of garbage, etc.
Parking lots and all public spaces are exposed to this activity. The police need tools to be able to
approach citizens, offer services and alternatives to effect change.
In closing, the business community, through the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, is prepared
to play a leadership role in working towards solutions to this important issue.
Regards,
Paul Wright, Ed.D.
President/C.E.O.
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Cc City Council
James Keene, City Manager
Curtis Williams, Planning & Community Environment Department Director
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT D
1
Hernandez, Consuelo
From:Alan Stivers <alan@stivers.cc>
Sent:Monday, June 03, 2013 8:02 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject:Comment on policy on human habitation in vehicles
Dear Members of the City Council,
This is my second email comment on the subject of human habitation in vehicles.
On the issue of the people living in cars I think this is a social welfare issue and not a criminal
issue. The most expensive way to deal with it is to make it a crime and have the police deal with it.
Police are entrusted with many important responsibilities, including deadly force, so they are
necessarily going to be expensive. Of course, this would justifiably be the police's lowest priority, so
nothing would get done. As a Palo Alto resident I wouldn't want my police force to waste their time
with this. There are many more appropriate and less expensive ways to deal with this problem than
having the police baby-sit people living in cars.
It is important to put this problem in perspective. People living in cars is a small problem compared
to the real problems of alcoholism and drug addiction. The City should deal with these problems
separately. One advantage of client management, such as that provided by Downtown Streets Team
or InnVision Shelter Network, is that it can distinguish between the hard luck cases from those with
more serious problems. An enlightened City policy on the use of public spaces such as the
Cubberley parking lot can work hand-in-hand with client management to serve to separate these two
populations and encourage those who need help to seek and accept help. I suggest using these
public assets in a way that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves as we spend a
small amount of money (compared to the cost of police) on case management.
Thank you.
Alan Stivers
2732 Ross Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
Hernandez, Consuelo
From:Tony Ciampi <t.ciampi@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:30 AM
To:Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Burns, Dennis; Williams, Curtis;
Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject:P.A. Mayor Calls Tom Ammiano Misguided
In Calling a California Homeless Bill of Rights misguided Palo Alto Mayor Gregg Scharff has
called Assemblyman Tom Ammiano misguided as well the entire state of Rhode Island for
enacting one.
Palo Alto Council Members Larry Klein and Liz Kniss, Police Chief Dennis Burns, City Attorney Molly Stump and
City Manager James Keene want a Vehicle Habitation Ordinance which will give them the power to do the
following to homeless people:
John is homeless and sleeping on Cubberley property at night and elsewhere in the City of Palo Alto. John
hides his belongings in alleyways, bushes and trees. John is working for the “Downtown Streets Team,” and at
a local coffee shop. John saves his money and buys a mini‐van. John moves all of his belongings into his mini‐
van for safety and ease of use. John still does not make enough money for room and continues to sleep in the
bushes, not in his mini‐van.
One day John is sitting in his mini‐van at 2:00 in the afternoon when the police arrive and demand to know his
fixed residence. John tells them that he does not have a fixed residence. The police inform John that his is in
violation of the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance and must leave the City in order not to be arrested.
Read entire article: http://paloaltofreepress.com/cubberley‐shelter‐editorial‐by‐dave‐price/
Rhode Island Homeless Bill Of Rights Praised As U.S. Model
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/rhode‐island‐homeless‐bill‐of‐rights_n_1632411.html
20,000,000 adults between the ages of 18 to 34 would be living in their cars, that’s if they have a car if it were not for FREE RENT.
They are referred as being “HOMELESS” yet they are living in a house.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/adults‐living‐with‐parents_n_1077067.html
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/consumer/moving.home.parents.2.1332670.html
It appears that Gregg Scharff is the one who is misguided and not Rhode Island and Tom Ammiano.
2
Tony Ciampi
1
Hernandez, Consuelo
From:Joseph Ciampi <pressstrong@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:32 PM
To:Council, City; jaythor@well.com; Kniss, Liz (internal); Klein, Larry;
barbara@gardencourt.com; k_tomlinson@mac.com; claught1@earthlink.net; Scharff,
Greg; Williams, Curtis; Hernandez, Consuelo; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Burns, Dennis;
psandas@paloaltochamber.com; pwright@paloaltochamber.com;
ladoris.cordell@sanjoseca.gov
Subject:City of Palo Alto Kicks Class Valedictorian Out of Car Into Street
Attachments:homeless valedictorian.JPG
City of Palo Alto intends to take working mom's car from her kicking
her and her four kids out of their car into the streets.
Homeless Georgia teen graduates as valedictorian
Sojourner Elleby
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/26/teenager-overcomes-homelessness-embarks-on-bright-future/
Despite a life of adversity, poverty, and even homelessness, 18-year-old Chelesa Fearce is blazing a trail of
academic success. Growing up in Clayton County, Georgia, Chelesa, along with her mother and three siblings,
frequently moved from shelter to shelter, even living in her family’s car in times of need……
…..During Chelesa’s high school years, her mother, Reenita Shepard, was laid off from her job more than once,
resulting in the family losing their home. But Chelesa stayed focused on her studies even when bouncing from
shelter to shelter, or on those most difficult nights spent in the car.
2
“At night I just had to open my book in the dark and use my cellphone light, just do what I had to do,” she
said.
Even with a heavy workload and irregular living conditions, Chelesa managed to make time for extra-curricular
activities. She was a member of her school’s swim team and played the baritone for the Marching Band. Her
favorite subjects in high school were chemistry and literature. In her free time, she enjoys reading, swimming,
watching action movies and hanging with friends, just like any teenager.
Chelesa admitted that she faced many struggles and at times found it difficult to maintain a positive spirit. “It
was hard sometimes. I kept my situation a secret because I didn’t want anyone to know my business; I just
went to school and did what I had to do.” …..
Part of what kept Chelesa going was her mother. “She works very very hard and I made sure I was doing the
same, if not more. She was always helping me out and was such a great support so I had to do it for her,” she
said. Shepard often read to Chelesa and her siblings at a young age. “I remember her reading Mrs. Nelson Went
Missing, Are You My Mother, a lot of Dr. Seuss. She developed my love for reading at a very early age,”
Chelesa said.
At Spelman, Chelesa plans to double major in chemistry and philosophy and is excited to see what will come
next. She gives advice for those going through similar situations as hers, “I would tell anyone with obstacles to
always keep their faith and to think about the future. Work hard now, so that tomorrow will be worth living.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/19/homeless-student-valedictorian/
Homeless Student Becomes Valedictorian of Texas High School
Published May 19, 2010
FoxNews.com
A homeless student was named Valedictorian of his Texas high school, MyFoxHouston reports.
Victor Cardenas is a film student at Houston Texas' Furr High school. He picked up a camera last
year and crafted a haunting story of his life.
Vistor kept his homeless state to himself and slept most nights on a park bench in Denver
Harbor.
3
Victor Cardenas is acing multiple advanced placement tests, mastering the Russian language and
earning national accolades for his film work.
Gonsalves. Ronna
From: Grider, Donna on behalf of Clerk, City
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:57 PM 13 19 i I: 04
To: Trudy Myrrh Reagan; Council, City; Aknin, Aaron; Williams, Curtis
Cc: Minor, Beth; Gonsalves, Ronna
Subject: RE: Living in Vehicles
This item is scheduled to be heard on June 25, 2013 beginning at 6 p.m. I am forwarding your comments to the City
Council and Planning Department.
Donna J. Grider, City Clerk, MMC
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650-329-2226 I E: donna.grider@cityofpaloalto.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Trudy Myrrh Reagan [mailto:trudy@myrrh-art.com]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Clerk, City
Subject: Living in Vehicles
I can't attend the hearing Tuesday night, but I am for finding some way to accomodate the homeless living in cars.
Someone suggested that the parking lot of some city property, or even a parking structure might serve.
Our church at 957 Colorado was one that considered the pilot program, but it is a passageway for school kids. The
parking lot is narrow, and the cars would be right under the windows of neighbors. We really wanted to help!
Beyond this, all cities should petition HUD to do its job, which it hasn't done since Reagan was elected! Homeless, even
mentally ill people do much better with a roof over their heads, and most use far fewer emergency services, which cost
us all a bundle! Extend, not cut Section 8, and build more units!
I know two homeless women who have been on the street for 10 years, and they say, "I'm getting too old for this!". One
was brutally beaten as she slept. At least there is some safety in a car!
--Gertrude Reagan
19