City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEM
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: December 4, 2023
Report #:2309-1998
TITLE
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.160 (Safe Parking) to Permanently Establish the Congregation-Based Safe Parking Program and Establishing Regulations Related to Safe Parking, Including a Maximum Number of Vehicles Per Night on Each Site; and Consideration of options to explore expansion of Safe Parking
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and staff recommend that the Council A. Adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) amending PAMC Section 18.42.160 (Safe Parking). The changes permanently establish the congregation-based safe parking program by allowing overnight safe parking as an ancillary use to a church’s and religious institution’s use in all zoning districts where churches and religious institutions are an allowed use, and to establish regulations related to safe parking, including a maximum number of vehicles per night on each site. This ordinance includes modifications recommended by the PTC.
B. Consider incorporating into the ordinance a minimum radius between permitted congregation-based safe parking locations; and
C.Staff further recommend the Council consider options to explore expansion of Safe Parking in Palo Alto, such as increasing the footprint of Safe Parking at the Geng Road site.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Safe parking programs provide parking lots where unhoused program participants dwelling in their vehicles can park, connect to services, and, ultimately, find secure and stable housing. The City Council directed staff to develop a permanent congregation-based safe parking program following the pilot phase ushered in by the temporary ordinance adopted by the City Council in 2020. The draft ordinance incorporates lessons learned from the pilot phase of the program.
The staff report provides background and history of the policy; the analysis section summarizes program service outcomes, the proposed changes in the draft ordinance, and discusses other topics that may be of interest. While the stakeholder engagement section summarizes engagement, comments from stakeholders are dispersed throughout the report.
BACKGROUND
Safe Parking
Safe parking programs provide places where unhoused persons sheltering in their vehicles can safely and legally park and connect with services and support. Safe parking programs aim to connect participants with resources so they can find safe, stable, and affordable housing.
Program operators and parameters vary from operator to operator and from one city to the next.
In many communities, including Palo Alto, a variety of parking lots may host safe parking programs. In Palo Alto, two types of parking lots may host safe parking programs (1) publicly owned parking lots and (2) religious institutions. Both the congregation-based and public parking lot programs provide interim assistance to households using vehicles as their residence by providing a safe place to park, access to restroom facilities, connection to social service programs, and other support to transition households into permanent, stable housing.
Safe parking programs on publicly owned lots may allow vehicles to park in the parking lot continuously (24 hours a day) without needing to move the vehicle. The City of Palo Alto supports a 24-hour safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Road in Palo Alto, which accepts both passenger vehicles and recreational vehicles (RVs). This lot is operated by Move Mountain View, supported by funding from Santa Clara County, with Palo Alto leasing a portion of the City-owned property at no cost. The portion of the City-owned property at Geng Road that is not leased for Safe Parking is used for construction staging.
Congregation-based programs in Palo Alto require participants to exit the parking lots daily.
Vehicles are allowed to arrive on site in early evening hours, beginning at 6:00 pm. The program then requires that the vehicles and occupants leave the parking lot in the morning, by 8:00 am.
At congregations, up to four passenger vehicles may be parked per night.
Safe Parking Ordinance
The congregation-based safe parking policy (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.160 and Ordinance 5490) was adopted by the Palo Alto City Council as a temporary ordinance in January 2020. The policy went into effect 30 days after its second reading. The adoption of the ordinance and municipal code section enabling safe parking occurred after months of careful consideration and discussion. The temporary ordinance did not receive scrutiny from the PTC before adoption and was temporary because Council desired to learn from a pilot phase before adopting a permanent ordinance.
The idea of creating and adopting a local safe parking policy began on June 10, 2019. 1 The Palo Alto City Council discussed a Colleagues’ Memorandum regarding safe parking and voted 5-1 (Tanaka dissenting, DuBois absent) to direct the Policy and Services Committee to craft program details to bring back to the City Council. On September 10, 2019, the Policy and Services 1 June 10, 2019 Agenda Packet: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2019/06-10-2019-71690.pdf Committee met and directed staff to “return [to the Committee] with a safe parking program for up to four vehicles on private property containing religious institutions.”2 On November 12, 2019, the Policy and Services Committee considered a proposed congregation- based safe parking program. The Committee voted unanimously to support it. Following that, the Council considered and approved the program on January 13, 2020.3 At the time Council passed the ordinance enabling the congregation-based program, several congregations expressed interest in pursuing permits to operate programs at their facilities.
On September 14, 2020, the City Council also adopted an ordinance that allowed safe parking programs to occur on land zoned for public use (PF). 4 Programs sited on land zoned PF can operate 24 hours a day, without requiring vehicles and participants to leave during daytime hours. The adoption of this policy allowed the City to negotiate and enter into a lease agreement with Santa Clara County for the operation of the 24-hour safe parking program at 2000 Geng Road. On September 18, 2023, the Council considered and renewed the lease with the County for the program’s continued operations.5
The Geng Road site also provides a variety of on-site services including a kitchen, laundry facilities, shower facilities, and a children’s library. Approximately 12 recreational vehicles or other vehicles can be served at this site at a time.
On October 25, 2023, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) met in a joint study session to discuss the draft ordinance. 6 Following the adjournment of the joint study session, the PTC reconvened. The PTC voted (4-0 with three members absent) to recommend the Council adopt the proposed ordinance with the following modifications:
PTC recommend[s] that the City Council: 7
2 September 10, 2019 Action Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/policy-and-services-committee/00-archive/2019/09-10-2019-ps-action- minutes.pdf?t=48771.21
3 January 13, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2020/01-13-2020-ccm.pdf 4 September 14, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2020/september-14-2020-city-council-meeting-agenda-and-full-packet.pdf 5 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13026 6 Staff Report to HRC and PTC: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-10.25-public-agenda2.pdf 7 Verbatim minutes of 10-25-2023 PTC and HRC joint session/action item:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2023/ptc-10.25.23-verbatim-minutes.pdf and video:
https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation-commission-2-10252023/ (1) Delete the second preference, which is F12 ‘ii’ and modify the first (i) to rather than say families with students to just clarify it’s students, so that could be an individual seventeen- or eighteen-year-old student, rather than family with, it could be both that way. (2) Modify the ordinance to create a path to increase the maximum number from four to six after one year of operation, and from six to eight after two years of operation, which the same process applicable as the initial permit issuance, in other words, there will be appeal rights in that.
(3) Clarify the use of the word amenities in subpart F14, consistent with our dialog tonight. (4) We would instruct the staff to provide a map to the City Council showing radius of 600 and 1200 feet from the faith-based institutions in Palo Alto to inform the Council’s dialogue on whether there should be any density limit.
As noted in item (4) above, the PTC suggested the Council further discuss the incorporation of a minimum distance between congregation based safe parking permits. To aid that discussion, the PTC also voted (4-0) to provide the Council with a map showing example radii between congregations. Due to time and staffing limitations in relation to the holidays, the maps will be available for the Council’s discussion on December 4 and may be provided in advance once prepared.
The deliberations of the PTC and HRC are recounted in more detail in the analysis section of this report.
ANALYSIS
This analysis section reviews the safe parking program, both the impacts of the program and the administration and operation of the program. Then, the report reviews the draft ordinance and discusses the rationale for proposed changes.
Active Permits & Safe Parking Programs
Presently, four congregations have permits to operate safe parking programs. Table 1 shows the congregations, their address, and other information regarding the permits. Image 1 is a map showing the locations of the active permits.
Table 1: Active Congregation-Based Safe Parking Permits in Palo Alto Congregation Name Address in Palo
Alto
Submission Date –
First Permit
Approval Date –
First Permit
Congregation Etz
Chayim
4161 Alma Street April 12, 2023 June 14, 2023
First Congregational
Church of Palo Alto
1985 Louis Road May 11, 2022 July 21, 2022
Highway Community 3373 Middlefield
Road
November 9, 2020 March 1, 2021
Unitarian Universalist
Church of Palo Alto
505 E. Charleston
Road
February 25, 2021 May 12, 2021
Image 1: Map of Safe Parking Sites (Congregation and 24-hour) in Palo Alto Needs Among Palo Altans
In mid-July 2023, the County released city-specific data from the January 2023 point-in-time (PIT) count of people experiencing homelessness. The PIT count is a federally mandated effort every two years to literally count the number of unhoused persons in each county and community in the United States. Volunteers and others spend time canvassing areas of each community to count unsheltered persons. In addition, data is gathered from shelters and other facilities and databases that indicate the number of unhoused persons in a community. In summary, the PIT count provides a snapshot of the number of people experiencing homelessness, as counted by volunteers, on a particular day.
The City of Palo Alto count of people experiencing homelessness decreased 25 percent, from 274 in 2022 to 206 in 2023. The 206 people counted included 187 unsheltered, 181 of which were
sleeping in vehicles. Of those vehicles, 68 percent were RVs. This indicates an ongoing need for safe parking sites in Palo Alto. This also demonstrates that more individuals and households are sheltering in recreational vehicles than in other vehicle types.
In addition to the 2023 PIT, staff have also reviewed and summarized VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Prescreen Tool) data from calendar year 2022 regarding unhoused persons in Palo Alto. The data is pulled from encounters with individuals agreeing to an assessment, part of the Coordinated Entry process to help unhoused people access housing. This data (Attachment B) can help inform the public policy strategies adopted to reduce homelessness. Of the 276 unhoused Palo Alto households in 2022, 29% identified their vehicle as the most frequent place they slept. This is the second most reported sleeping location after “outdoors” (33%).
Both the PIT and the CY2022 VI-SPDAT data demonstrate that many unhoused Palo Altans are using vehicles for shelter.
Pilot Program Operation
During the pilot (and proposed in the draft ordinance), the congregation-based safe parking program requires that permit holders (which are the congregations) contract with a qualified safe parking operator to administer the program. This is to (1) ensure the safety and cleanliness of the parking lot itself during operational hours, and (2) to ensure that participants are connected to a case worker and other services that can help them find stable housing.
Permit holders have liberty to select the qualified program operator of their choice. In Palo Alto, the current congregations have selected Move Mountain View as the qualified operator. 8 The organization began with their Lots of Love program, at the first congregation-based safe parking site in 2018 in Mountain View. Since then, the number of lots and participants has grown. In addition to the four congregations in Palo Alto, Move Mountain View also operates Palo Alto’s 24-hour safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Road.
Table 2: Participants and Placements 1/1/2021 to 6/30/2023 Congregation Unique Clients Households Positive Placements Highway 21 19 11
Unitarian Universalist 8 8 2
First Congregational 8 5 4
Total 37 25 17
Table 2 shows program participation across 3 of the 4 congregations since January 2021 to June 30, 2023. The most recent permit holder, Congregation Etz Chayim, was not operational during this period of data reporting. The congregation-based safe parking programs have served 37 8 https://www.movemv.org/
unique individuals across 25 households. Of those, 17 individuals have exited the program to positive placements.
Positive placements include anything other than a place not intended for human habitation:
•Rapid Rehousing
•Rentals by client with and without vouchers or subsidy •Rental by client in Public Housing
•Transitional housing
•Staying or living with family or friends
•Emergency shelter including hotel paid by voucher or home host shelter Some remain in the program while others exited to “non-positive exits.” Non-positive exits include:
•Dwelling in a place not meant for human habitation (such as remaining in their vehicle or otherwise remain unsheltered)
•Unknown (the client left the program without notice)
•Client refuses to divulge where they are heading
Table 3 shows the overall program outputs, including the 24-hour Geng Road site. Table 3 also shows those individuals and households who are affiliated with Palo Alto (such as they were last housed in Palo Alto, work in the city, or have children attending school here, etc.).
Table 3: Participants and Placements 1/1/2021 to 6/30/2023 Palo Alto AffiliatedSafe Parking
Site
Total
Individuals
Total
Households Individuals Households
Positive
Placements
(individuals)
Nights
provided
Occupancy
Rate
Highway 21 19 12 10 11 1,256 41.80%
Unitarian
Universalist
8 8 4 4 2 1,249 51.10%
First
Congregational
8 5 6 5 4 343 34.70%
Geng Rd 84 25 43 16 13 8,849 64.60%
Total 121 57 65 35 30 11,697
The data indicates a higher percentage of positive placements at congregation sites as compared to the 24-hour site. While the overall population is small at the congregations, due to the size limitations, the sites are occupied for a number of evenings, serve mostly Palo Alto affiliated individuals, and lead to positive placements. Overall, 17 positive placements among congregation-based sites from 37 individuals.
Feedback from Operators & Permit Holder Regarding Pilot Program Overall, both the operators and permit holders report contentment and success from the current program and its parameters.
During the pilot phase, the City of Palo Alto, permit applicants, and the program operator experienced consistent opposition to and concern about the program’s operation from nearby neighbors. In advance of each permit being approved, the Planning and Development Services Department held a neighborhood check in. During the check in, the permit applicant and designated program operator answered questions posed by the neighbors.
In advance of permit approval, neighbors frequently voiced concerns about the proposed program. The concerns ranged widely but may be summarized to span several areas: (1) safety of persons and property, (2) quality of life, and (3) unsightliness.
Regarding safety, neighbors expressed concerns regarding how program participants are vetted for suitability in the congregation-based program as well as how the security of the neighborhood would be maintained during program operation. Regarding quality of life and unsightliness, residents expressed concerns regarding the appearance of vehicles as well as the diminished quality of life that might result from vehicle dwellers being in and/or parking in the neighborhood during program hours or outside of program hours.
In preparing the permanent ordinance, the City requested feedback from permit holders regarding the program. Overall, permit holders expressed that the program is extremely low or no impact to the congregation. On the operational side, permit holders attested to Move Mountain View’s professionalism, noting that the congregation hardly noticed the program.
Given the overnight emphasis of the program, thus operating outside of a congregation’s core operating hours, most congregations’ members and staff are not on site when program participants are on site.
Congregations do receive a weekly update from the program operator about the “guests” (program participants) staying on site during that week. As the operator, Move Mountain View handles the logistics and implementation of the program. As one permit holder put it, “Move Mountain View is doing all of the heavy lifting, and we just provide the space.” Otherwise, the program is not perceptible.
Among the permit holders, it is fair to say that “no news is good news” regarding the program.
In fact, one permit holder noted that the only news was in fact good news reporting the rapid exit of some participants to a positive placement.
Despite concern and hesitancy before permit issuance, during the pilot program, no complaints have been reported to the City regarding program operations.
Additional ideas and/or comments from permit holders include the following points. In most cases, the thoughts were volunteered by one permit holder. Thus, a comment may or may not represent a shared sentiment among participating congregations. •Opposition from Neighbors – Congregations reported the strain and energy required to engage with neighbors before program operations began. Many congregations faced pushback from neighbors, ranging from formal appeals to flyers to petitions to halt the program before a permit was issued. While no incidents were reported after operation, the strain of obtaining the permit was felt by several permittees. •Additional Capacity – Given the no/low impact of the program, one permit holder expressed a desire to increase capacity beyond 4 vehicles per night. Given the size of the parking lots, this permit holder noted the additional space exists with limited negative impact.
•Promotion Needed – One permit holder noted that increasing usage of the spaces relied on getting the word out to those dwelling in vehicles. Certainly, advocates and the city have long recognized the need for those unsheltered in their vehicles to be aware of the safe parking program and its ability to meet their needs. The City Council allocated funds in the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget to hire outreach workers to conduct outreach to unhoused Palo Altans and connect them with programs, such as the Safe Parking program.
•Accept RVs – One respondent noted that accepting recreational vehicles (RVs) into congregation-based safe parking lots may increase the number of unhoused persons that can be served by the congregations. It’s important to note that the City’s policy does not prohibit nor is it proposed to prohibit RVs from being served by a safe parking site. Move Mountain View has noted, however, that the congregation sites are not ideal for serving RVs. Additionally, neighbors at various points have expressed concerns about RVs being parked at the congregations.
•Change neighborhood notification process – One congregation suggested providing notice to neighbors of an impending safe parking application before approval of the application.
The sentiment of this comment encourages the City to engage neighbors before a permit is issued. The City engages neighbors before a permit is issued by notifying owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of the property that a safe parking permit issuance is pending.
The nuance, however, of this pending permit approval may be lost on members of the public unfamiliar with government policies and processes. The purpose of issuing a notice of tentative approval is to notify those within a 600-foot radius that a safe parking permit will be imminently issued and that the issuance of the permit is appealable to the Palo Alto City Council.
The proposed changes, in the draft ordinance, will hopefully clarify the process by hosting a neighborhood check in before issuing the notice that the permit for safe parking is tentatively approved.
Draft Ordinance
As currently proposed, the draft permanent safe parking ordinance normalizes the permits by aligning procedures with other conditional use permitting processes available in the City. To achieve this, anomalous procedures are removed.
Duration of Permits & Permit Renewal – Due to the experimental nature of the safe parking program, the initial program had unique permitting timelines. Specifically, permits were valid for 90 days. If no violation of permit conditions were found, the permit was extended an additional 270 days. Together, this made permits valid for one year.
In the proposed ordinance, the permits would not expire. Like other discretionary permits issued by the City, permits remain subject to revocation in the event a permit holder habitually and/or egregiously violates the permit conditions or if the program’s operation becomes detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare.
Community Meeting – Though not required, the City hosted neighborhood check-ins meetings during the pilot phase. One virtual (via video conference platform) neighborhood check-in meeting was hosted for each permit application. As proposed, the ordinance grants the Director the discretion to choose to host neighborhood check-in meetings. It is likely neighborhood check- ins will be hosted for most applications. There may, however, be instances when such a meeting is not necessary. As drafted, the ordinance provides the Planning and Development Services Director the discretion to do so or not.
Likewise, the approach of discretion can allow for more meetings should they be warranted. In at least one case, City staff helped facilitate a second meeting between neighbors. That meeting, along with other discussion, helped mediate a pending appeal and lead to its withdrawal as the permit holder and neighbor reached agreements. So the flexibility as proposed supports that.
The HRC and PTC both inquired about the current and proposed appeal process.
During the pilot phase of the project, the process of notifying neighbors led to friction and delays.
During the pilot phase, once the Director had determined that the safe parking permit could be issued, a notice was sent out by the Planning and Development Services Department to all owners and tenants within 600 feet of the congregation. The notice informed recipients that a safe parking permit was going to be issued. If a resident wanted, they could appeal the issuance of the permit within 14 days from the notice.
Despite congregations’ efforts to inform neighbors, the City’s official notice tended to garner more attention. Some residents, who may have been unaware of the congregation’s intention became defensive because they had little knowledge of the program and because their only recourse, according to the letter, was to file an appeal.
For most of the permits issued, the appeal period was continually extended to allow time for the city of host a neighborhood check-in meeting and for congregations and neighbors to come to better terms.
Taking lessons from the pilot phase staff recommend the latitude to have the City proactively host a neighborhood check in regarding the proposed project and to then issue the notice of a pending approval. This order of operations allows flexibility to tend to any neighborhood concerns and to begin with an informative meeting with the neighbors instead of a technical notice that leads resident to believe their only avenue to express their hesitation is by filing an appeal.
Preferences for Participants – To help meet the program goals of connecting unhoused Palo Altans with stable housing, the first draft of the ordinance proposed to create various preferences for program participants. This initial draft was modeled after language from the City of Mountain View. The PTC recommended, however, that detailed preferences were not necessary; instead retaining only a preference only for students enrolled in the Palo Alto Unified School District.
Were the Council interested in a preference list, based on the City of Mountain View’s preferences, it would read as follows:
(1) Households with children enrolled in Palo Alto Unified School District (2) Individuals who resided in Palo Alto within the last five years prior to seeking enrollment in a safe parking program or who currently work in Palo Alto (3) Households with at least one person over the age of 65. (4) Households with a person who is disabled as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
At present, the congregation-based safe parking spots are not at capacity, as discussed above.
Should, however, shifts occur in the availability of on-street parking, there may be an increase in demand for congregation-based safe parking spots.
For example, Caltrans proposes to significantly reduce available on-street parking spaces through proposed projects on El Camino Real. The final improvements remain to be seen and the impacts of unhoused persons dwelling in vehicles has yet to occur. Staff will continue to monitor this development.
Santa Clara County (the lead funding and coordinating agency for homeless services) and Move Mountain View, the program operator, are opposed to including a preference list in the ordinance. There are several reasons for this.
First, unlike the City of Mountain View, which maintains a preference list for its programs, the City of Palo Alto is not supporting the congregation-based program with any financial support.
The City reviews and issues permits at no cost. Otherwise, the City of Palo Alto does not provide any financial support for the safe parking program. Whereas the City of Mountain View funds several safe parking lots, including several 24-hour safe parking lots. Thus, in the City of Mountain View, there may be a greater case for achieving City policy objectives as the City is funding, at least in part, the programs.
Secondly, the congregational safe parking programs are currently not at capacity, so there is not a concern or an issue with needing to preference some participants over others. So, creating a preference list while it sounds reasonable, it’s simply not necessary or effective at this time.
Finally, congregations have expressed an interest in or intention to serve specific populations, such as seniors, or women, or families with children. City priorities may or may not be aligned with a congregation’s ministry objectives.
On the other hand, if a preference is added, there could be minimal impact to the programs at this time. While the preference list as proposed gives a priority to certain groups of people and individuals, the list does not prohibit others from being placed at the safe parking sites. Since the current sites are not at capacity, it is likely that a household that doesn’t meet the preference criteria could and would still be placed at a site and be able to secure a parking spot.
Both the HTC and PTC found the rationale of the program providers persuasive and voted to reduce the preferences and limit them to household w/children enrolled at PAUSD. One PTC Commissioner wanted to ensure that this includes PAUSD students who may be living on their own in a vehicle, such as seniors who are 18 years old.
The PTC and HRC commissioners who spoke on the topic noted there is not a convincing need to impose a preference. They supported the idea of congregations and program operators being able to create the program that best suited the ministry of the congregation and the expertise of the program operator.
Number of Vehicles Per Night – The HRC and PTC members expressed support for allowing congregations to accommodate more than 4 vehicles. The PTC recommended, and the draft ordinance includes, a clause allowing congregations to serve up to 8 vehicles.
The PTC recommends an incremental approach whereby a permit is initially issued to allow up to 4 vehicles. After 1 year of successful operation, the permit automatically allows up to 6 vehicles, and after 2 years up to 8 vehicles. Congregations and program operators are not required to serve that many vehicles, but they will have the operation flexibility to decide. This approach aims to reward successful operators with more capacity to serve more households.
During the permit review phase, staff will require the project plan to show where up to 8 vehicles would be located within the lot should the congregation reach capacity. If a site cannot accommodate up to 8 vehicles, the permit will specify the maximum number of vehicles allowed to participate in safe parking at that site.
This approach ensures maximum use of the parking lots of successful permit holders and creates capacity to help more households. If a program is operating effectively, without nuisance or complaint, then additional vehicles should go unnoticed by neighbors just as the presence of 4 vehicles goes largely unnoticed.
Some may critique this approach questioning the need to serve more vehicles when there are not enough participants to utilize existing sites. In fact, some members of the public have questioned the need to issue more safe parking permits when all of the currently permitted lots are not full.
It is notable, however, that the City only recently onboarded the additional outreach workers.
Their efforts to reach unhoused individuals may increase participation in safe parking programs.
In addition, allowing permit holders to host more vehicle provides flexibility should a congregation close or otherwise need to cease operating the safe parking program. In such a case, the participants could possibly be assigned to a different parking spot while remaining in Palo Alto. At least one permit holder lamented the 4-vehicle limit, expressing a desire to serve more households.
The program operator has indicated that the current capacity and vehicle limit provides sufficient capacity at this time. They did not advise an increase in the number of spaces per congregation.
They did express that increasing utilization depends on the ability to outreach to unhoused persons and connect them to safe parking or other programs, noting the impact the outreach workers should have on increasing participation. The program operator did not express opposition to allowing up to 8 vehicles.
Additional Operational Changes – Staff suggest a number of minor additions to the ordinance that align the ordinance with consistent conditions of approval. By including these conditions in the ordinance, permit holders, program operators, and the public can clearly anticipate operational conditions at the site. The proposed additional Standards and Conduct of Use are:
-Quiet Hours – In addition to limiting noise, participants are asked to observe quiet hours beginning at 10 p. m. and ending at 7:00 a. m. This will reduce disturbance to other participants and to neighbors.
-Restroom siting. Where feasible, portable restrooms should be sited away from neighboring residences and away from street frontages. In the event the lot configuration does not allow such siting, the Director shall have discretion to determine the location of the portable restroom and/or handwashing facilities.
-Annual Reporting – Annual reporting will allow the City to better track and understand the participation of local persons in the program as well as site operations. -Vehicle Idling – Vehicle idling is generally not allowed. The PAMC does allow idling of vehicles in very low temperatures and very high temperatures. -Personal property – All personal property shall be stored in vehicles. This helps maintain a tidy site, prevent an unkempt or blighted appearance, and decrease the likelihood debris will accumulate.
-PTC Recommendation Incorporated into Draft Ordinance: The PTC wanted to ensure that this clause did not preclude a participant from sitting in a folding chair or having children play with toys outside of the vehicle. The ordinance language has been updated to incorporate this change.
-Fire – No open flames or fires are allowed.
-Lot Monitoring – Based on past and current experience, safe parking program operators employ lot monitors to ensure that sites are secure and participants are safe. The monitors typically visit in the early evening to check in participants and ensure only participants are present on the site. They may return once during the overnight hours.
The monitor may then return in the morning to ensure participants depart and the site is in order.
Continuing Ordinance Provisions: No Fee Permit - Some noted aspects of the pilot program that are proposed to continue include the fee waiver and appeal distance. While the draft ordinance (and currently adopted ordinance) references a fee, the municipal fee schedule does not include such a fee. Given the minimal number of staff hours and the negligible number of permits, staff can absorb the cost of issuing safe parking permits into the department budget.
Should the Council now, or in the future, determine the need to charge for the review and issuance of the permits, the department can and shall calculate a fee and update the fee schedule accordingly. By allowing no-cost permits, the City can encourage provision of services to unhoused persons.
Continuing Ordinance Provisions: Appeal Distance - The appeal distance remains 600 feet surrounding the safe parking location. This radius is aligned with the radii for other permits issued by the Planning and Development Services Department. In addition, the scale of the radius communicates that the existence of a safe parking lot is a community-serving amenity that is of interest to a wide swath of the neighborhood. Additionally, in some planning law in California, a distance of 600 feet is used to approximate a city block.
Additional Policy Considerations & Areas of Interest
Below are topics frequently discussed regarding the program that the Council may wish to consider in their deliberations.
Density of Permits - This program specifically allows safe parking programs to operate at religious congregations and religious institutions throughout Palo Alto. Congregations and religious institutions, however, are not evenly distributed throughout Palo Alto. In fact, some areas have a concentration of these uses. That could lead to a concentration of safe parking lots in some areas of town.
On one hand, if programs are operating in accordance with the operational requirements, the programs should not pose a nuisance to the neighbors or neighborhood. In fact, that has proven to be the case to date. In addition, there can be operational efficiencies for the program operator when participants are closer together, making it easier for staff to visit the sites and check in on participants.
On the other hand, such concentration—and the risk that any poor performance might be concentrated and metastasize—may be deemed undesirable or to place a disproportionate burden on areas of the city with more congregations.
The HRC and PTC discussed this matter. There was not a clear consensus regarding the appropriate density of permits. Generally, there was openness to the idea and encouragement by the PTC for the Council to consider this matter. Specifically, the PTC asked staff to prepare maps to aid the Council’s discussion of the appropriate density of permits should the Council be interested in imposing limitations.
Considering the points raised below, the PTC encouraged the Council to look closely at the topic.
Further the PTC requested staff prepare a geographic analysis that illustrate the challenges—if any—posed by the proximity of one safe parking lot to another. As noted, the timing and resources available necessitated publication of the report in advance of the conclusion of the geographic analysis.
Nevertheless, based on the recommendation to increase the number of allowable cars per safe parking site, and the known dispersal of congregations in Palo Alto, staff recommend the Council adopt a minimum 600 feet between congregation-based safe parking sites.
Recreational Vehicles - Given the number of unhoused persons sheltering in their vehicles, many stakeholders have expressed a desire to see greater utilization of the sites; that is to see all the parking spots available occupied by households. The hope being that participation in the program leads to stable housing. Thus, increasing utilization may lead to more households exiting homelessness. Utilization data shows that congregation-based sites have an occupancy rate between 34 and 51 percent, while the Geng Road site has a 64.6 percent occupancy rate. In recent months, there has been a waiting list at times for a space at the Geng Road site.
The topic of recreational vehicle participation in the congregational program was discussed by the PTC. Given the number of persons dwelling in RVs, there is a clear a need. Both the PTC and HRC inquired about the participation of RVs in congregation-based parking programs.
During the pilot, the ordinance did not—and does not—prevent congregations from serving RVs.
The program operator, however, and congregations with permits have made the programmatic and operational decision not to place RVs at congregations. They serve passenger vehicles.
This is an operational decision of the permit holders and operators. Based on their significant experience, Move Mountain View does not believe the congregation sites are best suited for serving households in recreational vehicles. While many unhoused Palo Altans are sheltering in vehicles, only those in passenger vehicles are eligible for the current congregation-based programs. Future program operators may change this or Move Mountain View’s practices could change.
Another option for increasing the availability of Safe Parking for recreational vehicles would be to explore expanding the footprint of the Geng Road site. This site is services-rich in comparison to the congregation-based sites and is more like sites in other jurisdictions which accommodate safe parking for RVs. The City-owned property at Geng Road is currently divided into two uses, safe parking on one side and construction staging on the other. This is the only City-owned property which can still accommodate construction staging. If the City were to pursue expanding safe parking at Geng Road it would need to identify an alternative for construction staging and consider the financial implications. Financially, this includes both revenue loss from foregone rent and potentially additional expenses from the need to secure a location for construction staging for City capital projects.
Background Checks - The topic of screening of program participants is a frequent conversation at community meetings and neighborhood check-ins hosted prior to permit issuance. Some residents feel concerned about having unhoused individuals parking on a parking lot near their homes. And they are curious about the vetting process that participants undergo in order to be deemed appropriate for placement at a site. In addition, neighbors sometimes have queried if the program could or should include background checks of potential program participants.
The topic of background checks is complex and nuanced. At a high level, state law, including case law, significantly restricts the use of background checks for housing decisions. The law limits the ways in which a person’s criminal history can or cannot be used in qualifying an individual for housing, shelter, or other programs. Thus, the process would not simply be one of “passing” or not passing a background check.
Further, Santa Clara County follows a “housing first” policy. Under housing first, the County seeks first to house unhoused persons and provide support they need in order to maintain their housing, such as mental health services, job placement, etc. The County wants to reduce and eliminate any barriers that might prevent unhoused persons from accessing the services that they need. A background check can be a barrier to accessing services, and therefore is not aligned with the housing first policy. The County does not support its service providers to perform background checks on clients.
It is important to note that the program operator in practice does ask screening questions of the participants to get a sense of who they are and their overall background. Certainly, the operator wants to be sure that an individual does not have anything in their history that would legally prohibit them from being located in a certain area, such as near to a school or other uses for those who have offenses that restrict where they can be placed. The operator also wants to ensure that folks are placed at the site that is best fit for their needs.
Staff are not proposing background checks. This information is included for the further edification of the Council, as well as the public, since this topic frequently arises during program discussions.
Expanding Safe Parking at Geng Road – In addition to the proposed changes regarding the congregation-based safe parking program, the Council may be interested in exploring options to expand the 24-hour safe parking program located at 2000 Geng Road. There is additional land area adjacent to the Geng Road site. This space is currently used for two purposes: construction staging and a lease between a business and the City of Palo Alto. The fiscal impact section, below, contains some preliminary information regarding the potential land values and revenues related to the lease.
Council may consider directing staff to evaluate options at this or other publicly owned sites in Palo Alto in order to assess the feasibility of expanding safe parking. Such inquiry could return to Council for consideration and future action. This inquiry could include understanding the current and potential future uses of the land, needed improvements, the underlying zoning of the parcels, and other aspects required if safe parking were to be expanded.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The permits applied for under the proposed policy require minimal staff time due to the small- scale and limited facilities required. At this time, staff do not propose imposing a fee for this program. This represents one way the City can provide limited financial support for the congregation-based safe parking lots.
In relation to Geng Road, the land is being leased to the County at no cost. Site values range based on the proposed use, amenities, and circumstances at the time an estimate is provided. This includes an estimated $80 per square foot if the site were improved and used for research and development purposes. That value is provided by appraiser Carneghi-Nakasako & Associates.
Currently, a lease was signed for a 3,500 acre portion of the site in April 2022 for $2,975 per month; or $0.85 per square foot; again, that is due to the limited improvements on the site. Staff does not at this time have an estimate for the cost of renting space elsewhere for construction staging.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
During the preparation of this report, staff reached out to all the permit holders to ask if they had any feedback on the program, had received any complaints or had any issues with neighbors, and any proposals for future changes. Those suggestions have been addressed in the analysis portion of the staff report highlighting areas where congregations felt there could be some changes.
In addition, staff spoke with the program operator, Move Mountain View, to understand their concerns, ideas and overall health programs operate. Likewise, that information has been incorporated into the staff report and the analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which applies to minor alterations of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use. Adopting the Ordinance to allow the use of existing parking lots for temporary overnight safe parking would not constitute any significant expansion of use. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) also applies to the adoption of the Ordinance because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity of limited parking overnight in existing parking lots may have a significant effect on the environment.
The potential exceptions to the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are not applicable. Use of existing parking lots in the operation of temporary safe parking does not impose a significant cumulative impact over time as the use as a parking lot is generally unchanged and the safe parking use is limited to a short duration; it is not an unusual circumstance to modify the hours of use of existing facilities, and there is nothing unusual about the size or location of the existing parking lots at which temporary overnight safe parking would be allowed; the use of existing parking lots does not adversely impact scenic or historical resources; and the Ordinance does not involve hazardous sites as it relates to existing parking lots and no ground disturbance would result from implementation of the Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Council may request amendments to the ordinance. If significant, staff may request the item be continued in order to incorporate any amendments into a draft for review by the Council.
Without action on a permanent ordinance, the congregation-based safe parking program would continue to be a time-limited permit. Each year or so the congregations would need to return to apply for a new permit under the existing ordinance. This is unnecessary from a practical perspective but is required to ensure the permit holders have valid permits. This re-issuance of permits requires staff, program operator, and permit holder time. It diverts resources from other activities.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance Adopting Permanent Regulations for Safe Overnight Parking Programs
Attachment B: Unhoused Palo Altans
Attachment C: Point In Time Count 2023
Attachment D: Safe Parking Sites Map
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director