News

Church gets city's blessing for 'safe parking' program

City Council rejects appeal from neighbors, allows First Congregational Church to welcome unhoused individuals to its parking lot

Wesley Chow, a member of First Congregational Church's outreach committee, left, and Rev. Eileen Altman, right, discuss the church's safe parking program in Palo Alto on Aug. 16, 2022. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

First Congregational Church of Palo Alto got the green light Monday to launch a "safe parking" program for unhoused individuals after the City Council rejected an appeal from the church's neighbors.

The council voted 5-2, with Vice Mayor Lydia Kou and Council member Greg Tanaka dissenting, to reaffirm the decision by the Department of Planning and Community Environment to approve the program. That decision was appealed by a group of neighbors, some of whom attended the meeting and argued that the program would represent a safety hazard for the area around the church.

"I don't think it's safe for our children to bring people on that haven't been appropriately checked," said Randy Stolenberg, who lives near the church.

But most of the nearly 20 residents who addressed the council urged members to approve the program without further delay. Many pushed back against suggestions from appellants that unhoused individuals are more prone to crime than other residents.

"Housing is a human right and, and while this effort doesn't provide true housing, because we still can do better on that, it's a start and the bare minimum of what we can do to protect and secure the right to dignity for everyone in our community," said Anna Toledano, a city resident who is pursuing a doctorate at Stanford University. "Just because someone lives in a vehicle doesn't mean that they're evil or a danger. In fact, vehicle dwellers are in significant danger of being victims of crimes themselves."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

With the council's blessing, First Congregational Church will be able to roll out the program on a small parking lot that fronts Embarcadero Road. Participants will be allowed to park there between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and will receive case management from Move Mountain View, a nonprofit that runs similar programs in Mountain View and at two other Palo Alto lots.

Todor Ganev, who lives near the church and who filed the appeal, pushed back against the characterization by some speakers that he and other critics of the program are "NIMBYs" who don't care about the homeless. Ganev, who lives on Embarcadero, argued in the appeal that the parking spots should be moved to the church's main lot along Louis Road.

"We want to work together," Ganev said Monday. "We want to make sure we have a reasonable compromise and an acceptable solution. Unfortunately, this was not happening and our concerns were all but ignored."

Church officials had told the Weekly that they felt the back lot was more appropriate because it provides a quieter and more secluded space for program participants. The church also plans to install a portable bathroom next to the parking spaces.

The Rev. Eileen Altman, associate pastor at the church, said the church held numerous meetings with neighbors and made numerous compromises before it submitted its application. She urged the council to keep the appeal on its "consent calendar," a list of items that get approved by a single vote and with minimal discussion.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"We are convinced along with city staff that where we have landed is the best place for housing safe parking and we encourage you to approve it as part of your consent agenda this evening," Altman said.

Ganev and other opponents asked the council to pull the appeal off consent and schedule a full public hearing on the church's application. But because that action requires three votes, Kou and Tanaka fell one vote shy of keeping the appeal alive.

"For something that has this much passion, this much interest, there should have been more discussion on it," Tanaka said, explaining his vote.

Kou, who co-authored the memo that led to the establishment of safe parking programs, said she was disappointed by the acrimony that the program has engendered and lamented the fact that the city couldn't come up with a regulatory framework for the church's program that would have satisfied all parties.

"There's a lot of nasty things tonight that's been said and it's unfortunate that it's so divisive and putting one (neighbor) against the other when we're all trying to do the right thing," Kou said.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you city government news. Become a member today.

Church gets city's blessing for 'safe parking' program

City Council rejects appeal from neighbors, allows First Congregational Church to welcome unhoused individuals to its parking lot

First Congregational Church of Palo Alto got the green light Monday to launch a "safe parking" program for unhoused individuals after the City Council rejected an appeal from the church's neighbors.

The council voted 5-2, with Vice Mayor Lydia Kou and Council member Greg Tanaka dissenting, to reaffirm the decision by the Department of Planning and Community Environment to approve the program. That decision was appealed by a group of neighbors, some of whom attended the meeting and argued that the program would represent a safety hazard for the area around the church.

"I don't think it's safe for our children to bring people on that haven't been appropriately checked," said Randy Stolenberg, who lives near the church.

But most of the nearly 20 residents who addressed the council urged members to approve the program without further delay. Many pushed back against suggestions from appellants that unhoused individuals are more prone to crime than other residents.

"Housing is a human right and, and while this effort doesn't provide true housing, because we still can do better on that, it's a start and the bare minimum of what we can do to protect and secure the right to dignity for everyone in our community," said Anna Toledano, a city resident who is pursuing a doctorate at Stanford University. "Just because someone lives in a vehicle doesn't mean that they're evil or a danger. In fact, vehicle dwellers are in significant danger of being victims of crimes themselves."

With the council's blessing, First Congregational Church will be able to roll out the program on a small parking lot that fronts Embarcadero Road. Participants will be allowed to park there between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and will receive case management from Move Mountain View, a nonprofit that runs similar programs in Mountain View and at two other Palo Alto lots.

Todor Ganev, who lives near the church and who filed the appeal, pushed back against the characterization by some speakers that he and other critics of the program are "NIMBYs" who don't care about the homeless. Ganev, who lives on Embarcadero, argued in the appeal that the parking spots should be moved to the church's main lot along Louis Road.

"We want to work together," Ganev said Monday. "We want to make sure we have a reasonable compromise and an acceptable solution. Unfortunately, this was not happening and our concerns were all but ignored."

Church officials had told the Weekly that they felt the back lot was more appropriate because it provides a quieter and more secluded space for program participants. The church also plans to install a portable bathroom next to the parking spaces.

The Rev. Eileen Altman, associate pastor at the church, said the church held numerous meetings with neighbors and made numerous compromises before it submitted its application. She urged the council to keep the appeal on its "consent calendar," a list of items that get approved by a single vote and with minimal discussion.

"We are convinced along with city staff that where we have landed is the best place for housing safe parking and we encourage you to approve it as part of your consent agenda this evening," Altman said.

Ganev and other opponents asked the council to pull the appeal off consent and schedule a full public hearing on the church's application. But because that action requires three votes, Kou and Tanaka fell one vote shy of keeping the appeal alive.

"For something that has this much passion, this much interest, there should have been more discussion on it," Tanaka said, explaining his vote.

Kou, who co-authored the memo that led to the establishment of safe parking programs, said she was disappointed by the acrimony that the program has engendered and lamented the fact that the city couldn't come up with a regulatory framework for the church's program that would have satisfied all parties.

"There's a lot of nasty things tonight that's been said and it's unfortunate that it's so divisive and putting one (neighbor) against the other when we're all trying to do the right thing," Kou said.

Comments

felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 22, 2022 at 8:45 pm
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 22, 2022 at 8:45 pm

Thank goodness this modest effort was green lighted, and no more attention will fuel the baseless fears and marginalization of low income people expressed tonight by some.

This outcome may now allow neighbors to have the experience others have had at other host sites in town that there is nothing to fear from these new neighbors.
This is a good outcome.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 22, 2022 at 9:24 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Aug 22, 2022 at 9:24 pm

Wait ‘til one is proposed by a VC or VIP’s home; oh, wait, that will never happen.


Bette Young
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 23, 2022 at 6:28 am
Bette Young, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 6:28 am

Will this pilot program (if trouble free), give rise to other such parking options throughout the city?

There are a lot of available after hours parking spaces, both public and private.

If the concept is expanded, resident complaints are likely to increase.


Biff Langely
Registered user
Barron Park
on Aug 23, 2022 at 8:43 am
Biff Langely, Barron Park
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 8:43 am

Transient parking accomodations and subsequent approvals are decided by the PACC.

Resident concerns are apparently immaterial if the overnight parking is on privately owned property such as churches.


William Streeter
Registered user
Woodside
on Aug 23, 2022 at 9:52 am
William Streeter, Woodside
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 9:52 am

"This outcome may now allow neighbors to have the experience others have had at other host sites in town that there is nothing to fear from these new neighbors."

^ That remains to be seen as the 'experience' will be highly subjective.


marc665
Registered user
Midtown
on Aug 23, 2022 at 9:58 am
marc665, Midtown
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 9:58 am
Claudette
Registered user
Woodside
on Aug 23, 2022 at 10:41 am
Claudette, Woodside
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 10:41 am

I hope this works out for all concerned. Are there rules and regulations, other than the hours? Just curious.


Common sense
Registered user
Mountain View
on Aug 23, 2022 at 12:23 pm
Common sense, Mountain View
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 12:23 pm

From last week's pre-decision article, Web Link similar objections re security and background checks ("at times in identical terms") arose last year when another PA church signed up for such a safe-parking program. Yet subsequently there, "neighbors have not expressed any issues about the program since it was implemented last October."

Practical experience never seems to prevent the same rhetoric surfacing again, even verbatim. That's been the recent history with supportive housing proposals locally. I wasn't surprised to read last week about "an anonymous flyer with a list of talking points opposing the program" -- we've seen that in MV too. Another familiar notion, from last week's article comments: "those who do not reside in the immediate proximity of this issue have nothing to say." But when people who *do* live near comparable programs have answered that objection with their reassuring experiences, it's usually ignored or brushed aside. What value have mere facts, against fearful rhetoric?

PA City Council deserves credit for looking beyond the opposition of a small anxious group with "talking points."


David Fahey
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Aug 23, 2022 at 2:01 pm
David Fahey, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 2:01 pm

Perhaps all midpeninsula Christian churches should offer an overnight parking program for transients regardless of any adjacent neighbor concerns.

Jesus would approve.


Forever Name
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 23, 2022 at 2:34 pm
Forever Name, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 2:34 pm

@ Anna Toledano: "Housing is a human right and, and while this effort doesn't provide true housing, because we still can do better on that, it's a start and the bare minimum of what we can do to protect and secure the right to dignity for everyone in our community," said Anna Toledano, a city resident who is pursuing a doctorate at Stanford University.

Why quote someone who is a "city resident" but isn't a church neighbor and doesn't even live in said neighborhood? Irrelevant. And who gives a hooey if someone is pursuing a Stanford PhD? Also irrelevant. The only people who should be quoted in this article are those who live in the neighborhood. Weak reporting.

If this homeless encampment were proposed in North Palo Alto, which clearly it hasn't for obvious reasons, it would never fly. The homeless will be camping with City Council stamp of approval, along with the high density housing, in South Palo Alto. South Palo Alto is the dumping ground for the City Council for all do-gooder virtue signaling pet projects and Newsom's state mandates for high density housing. (And after voting for Newsom then people complained about his state mandate as though it was a big surprise.) You get what you vote for!


Melba Jenkins
Registered user
Barron Park
on Aug 23, 2022 at 2:48 pm
Melba Jenkins, Barron Park
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 2:48 pm

"Why quote someone who is a "city resident" but isn't a church neighbor and doesn't even live in said neighborhood? Irrelevant. And who gives a hooey if someone is pursuing a Stanford PhD? Also irrelevant. The only people who should be quoted in this article are those who live in the neighborhood."

^ Absolutely as quoting outside commentary and opinions from erudite, 'progressive' do-gooders is is totally pointless especially when the issues don't impact them directly.

It's similar to single childless people telling parents how to raise their own children.

What do they know...nada.


JH
Registered user
Triple El
on Aug 23, 2022 at 3:10 pm
JH, Triple El
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 3:10 pm

Democracy is dead in Palo Alto. Last night's meeting was just about moving the item from the consent calendar to a full action item hearing at a later date. This would allow a more robust debate.

Councilman Tanaka is spot on. If there is this much controversy about the program, why was the program simply consented to, without more thorough evaluation?

I wonder how many of the council members actually bothered to look at the appeal package.


Barbara Bolton
Registered user
another community
on Aug 23, 2022 at 4:02 pm
Barbara Bolton, another community
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 4:02 pm

"Democracy is dead in Palo Alto."

"Out of touch" with the needs and pressing concerns of Palo Alto residents is perhaps a better phrase.

It is unfortunate the the majority of elected PA council members do not reflect nor address the issues of their constituency.

Perhaps democracy is dead in Palo Alto but all things considered, this is no different than in countless 'democratic' countries where an elected group of individuals travel to the beat of their own drum.


Chet Walker
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Aug 23, 2022 at 4:41 pm
Chet Walker, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 4:41 pm

For this concept to work out, the overnight parkers at the church will need to be model citizens...no drugs/alcohol, no garbage/human wastes strewn about, no noise, and no physical altercations.


scott
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Aug 23, 2022 at 4:50 pm
scott, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 4:50 pm

The program was already approved by the council. If 3/7ths -not even a majority- had thought the appeal should be considered more, then it would have been. They didn't, and it wasn't.

Representative democracy is working fine. Sometimes you just lose. I have my issues with this council on how they approach the housing shortage, but at least they aren't inhumane about dealing with the homelessness that comes of it. That's something.


felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 23, 2022 at 5:49 pm
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 5:49 pm

To Forever Name, above -
The Congregational Church IS in north Palo Alto. Waaaay in north Paly.
So there’s something you can feel good about.


Appellant
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 23, 2022 at 6:16 pm
Appellant, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 6:16 pm

Actually “inhumane” is exactly the word I would use. They prioritized the convenience of the priests over the health and welfare of the residents, including the child with asthma, despite several doctors pleading with them to change the location of the parking spots.


MyFeelz
Registered user
JLS Middle School
on Aug 23, 2022 at 7:56 pm
MyFeelz, JLS Middle School
Registered user
on Aug 23, 2022 at 7:56 pm

It's not like it's going to become a version of Burning Man, or an opium den, a repository for fenced goods ... it's going to be a staffed parking lot where people will be SLEEPING. It's not a 24/7/365 party zone. Where do I sign up to help to alleviate neighbors' fears by having more coverage to help the homeless access the services at the church and elsewhere? [Portion removed.)

I would like to help to ensure the car dwellers get a good peaceful night's sleep.


Hal Roberts
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 24, 2022 at 8:41 am
Hal Roberts, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
Registered user
on Aug 24, 2022 at 8:41 am

The Cubberley site is the best location for overnight transient parking as there are gym/shower facilities + a multi purpose room and classrooms for pertinent social services.


Concerned Neightbor
Registered user
Triple El
on Aug 24, 2022 at 11:53 am
Concerned Neightbor, Triple El
Registered user
on Aug 24, 2022 at 11:53 am

Very disappointed in Pat Burt and Eric Filseth. They used to have a reputation for fairmindedness. That reputation is now gone with this unjust vote.


JH
Registered user
Triple El
on Aug 24, 2022 at 3:06 pm
JH, Triple El
Registered user
on Aug 24, 2022 at 3:06 pm

No, it's not staffed. There's some vague promise that a private security guard will drive through once or twice a night. Also, it was said that the police would be "randomly patrolling" the lots. Pardon my skepticism about that happening often.

Move Mountain View is the organization administering this program. They have a website with contact information.


Gerri Ulrich
Registered user
Community Center
on Aug 24, 2022 at 3:45 pm
Gerri Ulrich, Community Center
Registered user
on Aug 24, 2022 at 3:45 pm

Does this now mean that other churches in Palo Alto can offer overnight parking to a limited number of transient
vehicles pending PACC approval?

This will certainly address the growing problem of vagrant cars and RVs parked in various parts of Palo Alto.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 25, 2022 at 9:21 am
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 25, 2022 at 9:21 am

@MyFeelz Roberta at public comment invited anyone to Avendidas tomorrow 2-4pm for active plan all things, housing, unhoused, seniors — The struggle is real.


Bruce Willoughby
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 25, 2022 at 10:03 am
Bruce Willoughby, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
Registered user
on Aug 25, 2022 at 10:03 am

Let's face it...the majority of Palo Alto residents are becoming exceedingly hostile and unwelcoming towards the homeless population in Palo Alto.

And while they have a right to their opinions and concerns, outside of banishing the homeless to another locale, no one has offered a practical solution to effectively dealing with this issue.


Concerned Neightbor
Registered user
Triple El
on Aug 25, 2022 at 1:54 pm
Concerned Neightbor, Triple El
Registered user
on Aug 25, 2022 at 1:54 pm

California assembly bill 891
Web Link
says that safe parking may include a background check requirement. Many safe parking locations already do, as listed in the appeal.
Not sure why the Planning Department keeps saying it is not allowed.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.