The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 2309-199810.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 Presentation 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 *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 1 0160126_20231120_ay16 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Permanent Regulations for Safe Overnight Parking Programs. SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The number of households dwelling in vehicles has grown substantially in the past decade. The lack of stable, affordable housing and other life circumstances have contributed to this growth. B. On thoroughfares throughout the city, individuals, families, and households of many kinds can be found dwelling in recreational vehicles, trucks, vans, cars, and other motorized vehicles. C. The City must, for the health, safety, and welfare of the community, identify and implement short-term and long-term solutions that support these households as they pursue and ultimately secure affordable, stable housing. Safe parking programs, which offer off-street, authorized parking spots in parking lots for households dwelling in their vehicles, represent a short-term solution. D. Churches and other religious institutions have expressed a desire and willingness to make their parking areas available for safe parking programs. Allowing such legally operating churches and other religious institutions to host safe parking programs for up to eight vehicles in their parking lots overnight provides assistance to homeless households as they seek and follow a path towards stable housing. The provision of such assistance is a use consistent with the mission and purpose of many congregations and religious institutions. E. The presence of up to eight vehicles in such parking lots overnight and the accompanying administration of assistance is a minor additional use that would not conflict with the primary use of the properties nor threaten the health, safety, or welfare of the community or its inhabitants. The administration of such programs serves to enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Section 18.42.160 (Safe Parking) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows [additions are underlined and deletions struck-through]. 18.42.160 Safe Parking. The following regulations apply to zoning districts where safe parking use is permitted. *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 2 0160126_20231120_ay16 (a) Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish regulations to govern the operation of safe parking programs at churches and religious institutions within the city of Palo Alto. The safe parking 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. (b) Definitions (1) "Safe parking" means the providing of shelter of homeless persons as an incidental use to an existing, legal church or religious institution use where the shelter is provided in vehicles located in designated paved safe parking areas. (2) "Safe parking area" means the paved area where the vehicles are parked for the safe parking use. (3) "Safe parking program operator" means an agency or organization that facilitates, administers, oversees, and provides staffing for safe parking uses in safe parking areas. (c) Safe Parking Permit Required (1) Permit required. No person shall operate, allow, permit or suffer a safe parking use without approval of a valid safe parking permit. (2) Application requirements. All applications pursuant to this section shall be filed with the director in a form prescribed by the director. The application form shall contain a list of information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. (3) Receipt of application. No application shall be deemed received until the following have been provided to the director: (i) An application fee as set forth in the municipal fee schedule; and (ii) All documents specified as part of the application in this section or on the application form. (d) Decision and Appeal. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 18.77, the procedures of this section shall apply to all safe parking permits. (1) Authority and findings. The director may approve a safe parking permit only after finding that: (i) The proposed safe parking use complies with the standards listed in subsection (f) of this Section 18.42.160. (ii) The proposed safe parking use at the location requested will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 3 0160126_20231120_ay16 (iii) The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the safe parking use. The application shall be denied where the information which is either submitted by the applicant or presented at the public hearing fails to satisfactorily substantiate such findings. (2) Decision by director. (i) The director shall prepare a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. (ii) The Department may host a community meeting, held virtually or in- person, and send mailed notice to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the subject property notifying them of the date, time, location of the meeting. Notices shall be [sent/postmarked] 14 days prior to the community meeting. (iii) Following a community meeting, if one is held, or after the director has made a tentative decision to issue a permit, notice of the director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the subject property. The notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed use, a brief description of the director's decision, and a description of how to appeal the decision. (iv) The director's decision shall become final fourteen (14) days after the date the notice is mailed unless an appeal is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the time the director issues the decision. (3) Filing of appeal and withdrawal. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 18.78, the process set forth in this subsection (d)(3) and subsections (d)(4)-(d)(5) below of this section shall apply to appeals of the director's decision on safe parking permits. (i) The applicant or subject property owner, or owners or residents/tenants of a property within 600 feet of the subject property, may file an appeal of the director's decision by filing a written request with the city clerk before the date the director's decision becomes final. The written request shall be filed in a manner prescribed by the director and shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. (ii) At any time prior to the hearing, the person requesting the hearing may withdraw the request. If the hearing request is withdrawn and 14 days have lapsed from the mailing date of the notice under subsection (d)(2) above, the proposed director's decision shall be final. (4) Decision by the city council on appeal. If a timely appeal is received by the city clerk, and not withdrawn, the director's decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 45 days. The city council may: (i) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the director; or *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 4 0160126_20231120_ay16 (ii) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (5) Decision by the city council final. The decision of the city council on appeal is final. (e) Duration of Permits. Permits shall be valid as provided in Section 18.77.100.for a period of up to 18 months unless suspended or revoked sooner as set forth in this section. (1) Extension term. If the director does not find any violation of the permit conditions or this Section during the initial 90-day period, the permit shall be automatically extended for up to an additional 270 calendar days. (2) Renewal term. If the director does not find any violation of the permit conditions or this section during the 270-day extension period, the permit shall be renewed and be valid for a period of up to one year or the expiration of this interim Ordinance No. 5490, whichever is earlier. (3) Expiration of interim ordinance. In no event shall a permit be valid beyond the expiration date of interim Ordinance No. 5490. (f) Standards and Conduct of Use. The following standards shall apply to all safe parking uses: (1) Qualifying site. Safe parking may be allowed on a parcel with an existing, legal church or religious institution use. (2) Number of vehicles. For the first twelve months following permit issuance, the permit holder may host up to four vehicles for safe parking per evening. After twelve months, the permit holder may host up to six vehicles for safe parking per evening. After twenty-four months, the permit holder may host up to eight vehicles for safe parking per evening. At no time shall more than 4 vehicles be used for safe parking. (3) Hours of operation. A safe parking use may only occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (4) Noise. Audio, video, generator, or other amplified sound that is audible outside the vehicles parked in the safe parking program is prohibited. Additionally, participants shall observe quiet hours from 10:00 p. m. to 7:00 a. m. (5) Shelter in vehicles. All persons receiving safe parking shall shelter within the vehicles. No person shall be housed in tents, lean-tos, or other temporary facilities. (6) Required facilities. Accessible restroom facilities, including a toilet and handwashing sink, shall be available to persons utilizing the site for safe parking at all times during the hours of operation. These facilities may be the existing onsite facilities or mobile facilities brought onsite on a temporary basis to serve persons utilizing safe parking. Whenever *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 5 0160126_20231120_ay16 feasible, portable restroom facilities shall be located at least 25 feet from neighboring residential buildings and 25 feet 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. (7) Contact information. The following emergency contact information shall be posted on site in a place readily visible to persons utilizing safe parking: (i) a contact phone number for the safe parking program operator; (ii) the police non-emergency phone number; and (iii) 911. The safe parking program operator shall be available at all hours of operation at the posted phone number and shall be the first contact for non-emergency matters. The contact information described shall also be sent from the City by mail to the residents and owners within 600 feet of the program site. (8) Connection to county case management system. The safe parking use shall be managed and operated by a safe parking program operator that participates in the federal Homeless Management Information System with Santa Clara County or other county. (9) Safe, clean, orderly premises. The safe parking area and other onsite areas accessed by persons utilizing safe parking shall be maintained in a safe, clean and orderly condition and manner. (10) Compliance with laws. The safe parking use shall be operated in a manner that is fully in conformance with all state and local laws including regulations and permit requirements. (11) Annual Reporting. The safe parking program operator shall submit a report to the Director reflecting the prior calendar year’s activities. The report shall be submitted electronically in a format approved by the Director. The report shall include the number of individual participants in the calendar year, the number of nights each space was occupied each year, the disposition of each participant that exited the program during the calendar year (exit to housing, exit to homelessness, etc.), the city in which the person was last housed, and any complaints from neighbors communicated to the operator or permit holder along with the resolution of the complaints. Where a safe parking program operator operates multiple sites within the City of Palo Alto, the annual report may be combined. (12) Participant preferences. A safe parking program provider shall award available parking spaces with preference given to students, or households with students, enrolled in the Palo Alto Unified School District. (13) Vehicle Idling. Vehicle idling is not allowed except as allowed under Chapter 10.62 of this code. (14) No temporary structures. No temporary structures shall be erected in relation to the safe parking program. Small amenities such as chairs may be utilized during program hours, provided that they are stored in vehicles or within the permit holder’s building(s) during quiet hours. *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 6 0160126_20231120_ay16 (15) Personal property. All personal property shall be stored in participant vehicles. (16) Fire. No open fires or open flames are allowed. (17) Lot monitoring. The safe parking program operator shall deploy lot monitors to occupied safe parking lots. Lot monitors shall make at least three visits to the lots to ensure the safety of the participants and adherence to the operational conditions. Lot monitors are advised to be deployed in the early evening (lot opening – 10:00 p. m.), in the overnight hours (11 p. m. – 5 a. m.), and in the morning hours (6 a. m. – 8:00 a. m.). (g) No Assignment of Permit. No person shall assign or transfer a safe parking program permit issued under this section. (h) Suspension, Revocation and Modification. (1) Grounds for suspension, revocation or modification. The director may suspend, revoke or modify a permit, according to the procedures set forth in subsection (h)(2) below, if the director finds that: (i) Operation of the safe parking program violates any provision of the permit, this section, other applicable provision of this code, or state law; or (ii) Operation of the safe parking program is detrimental to public health, safety or the general welfare. (2) Procedure for suspension, revocation or modification of approval. (i) Public hearing by director (a) Notice to permit holder. Whenever the director believes that grounds for the suspension, revocation, or modification of a permit exist, the director shall give the permit holder written notice of the date, time and place of a hearing to be held before the director on whether the permit should be suspended, revoked, or modified. The notice shall state the alleged grounds for the proposed revocation, suspension or modification of the permit, and the notice shall be served on the permit holder by mail at least 10 days prior to the hearing at the most recent home or business address on file with the planning and development services department. (b) Notice to public. Notice of the hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the hearing by mailing to all residents and owners of property within 600 feet of the subject property. (ii) Decision of the director. (a) Within 10 days following the hearing, the director shall prepare a written decision to revoke, suspend, modify, or leave unchanged the permit. *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 7 0160126_20231120_ay16 (b) Notice of the decision shall be provided by mail to the permit holder, by posting on the planning and development services' department's website and by email to other interested persons who requested notice to the planning and development services department. (c) The director's decision shall become final 10 days after the notice is mailed to the permit holder unless a timely appeal is filed. (iii) Request for appeal hearing. The permit holder or subject property owner, or owners or residents of a property within 600 feet of the subject property may file an appeal of the director's decision with the city clerk. The appeal shall be filed in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. (iv) Decision by the city council on appeal. If a timely appeal is received by the city clerk, and not withdrawn, the director's decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 45 days. The city council may: (a) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the director; or (b) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (v) Effective date of revocation, suspension or modification. The decision of the city council is final. The revocation, suspension or modification will be effective 5 days after mailing of the decision addressed to the permit holder. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Council finds that 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 Council further finds that 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 *NOT YET APPROVED* Attachment A 8 0160126_20231120_ay16 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. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Analysis of Homeless Households Affiliated with the City of Palo Alto, CY2022 •276 homeless households who took a VI-SPDAT assessment during January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 have an affiliation with the City of Palo Alto through answering “Palo Alto” to any of the following assessment questions: •If employed, what city do you work in? •If you go to school, in which city is your school? •In which city do you spend most of your time? •Which city did you live in prior to becoming homeless? •City of Palo Alto affiliated households (“Palo Altans”) are 4% of the total number of households who took the VI-SPDAT during this period (6,711 households) •154 or 56% of these households took the VI-SPDAT for the first time, a measure of homeless inflow. •The following are demographics of Palo Altans who took the VI-SPDAT in CY2022: 8%, 22 20%, 54 21%, 58 17%, 46 21%, 59 13%, 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or Above By Age Tier Male, 165, 60% Female, 109, 40% Transgender, 1, 0% A gender other than singularly female or male (e.g., non-binary, genderfluid, agender, culturally specific gender), 1, 0% By Gender Single Adult, 207, 75% Household with Children, 44, 16% Household without Children, 25, 9% By Household Type Non- Hispanic/Non -Latinx, 184, 67% Hispanic/ Latinx, 91, 33% Client refused, 1, 0% By Ethnicity 8 5 12 8 1 57 1 15 69 1 9 6 83 3%, 9 5%, 15 27%, 74 5%, 14 6%, 17 3%, 7 51%, 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Asian or Asian American Black, African American, or African Data not collected Multi-Racial Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White By Race and Ethnicity Non-Hispanic/ Non-Latinx Hispanic/Latinx Client refused Analysis of Homeless Households Affiliated with the City of Palo Alto, CY2022 (Cont’d) 3%, 9 11%, 31 5%, 15 9%, 24 12%, 33 58%, 161 1%, 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Less than a week 1 week - 3 months 3 - 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 - 2 years 2 years or more Client doesn't know How long has it been since you lived in permanent stable housing? Minimal Intervention, 28, 10% Rapid Rehousing Range, 98, 36% Permanent Supportive Housing Range, 150, 54% VI-SPDAT Intervention Range (Level of Need) •The following are additional characteristics of the 276 homeless Palo Altans who took the VI-SPDAT assessment during CY2022. To summarize a few observations: •54% score in the Permanent Supportive Housing range of intervention and 36% score in the Rapid Rehousing range of intervention. •Nearly 60% report 2+ years since permanent stable housing •33% report sleeping most frequently outdoors and 29% in their cars •43% report a mental health condition and 32% report a substance use disorder 4%, 10 3%, 9 8%, 22 10%, 27 14%, 39 29%, 79 33%, 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Data not collected Transitional Housing Couch Surfing Other Shelters Car Outdoors Where do you sleep most frequently?55%, 153 32%, 87 30%, 83 27%, 75 29%, 79 18%, 51 16%, 45 8%, 22 Mental Health Substance Use Chronic Health Learning/ Developmental Domestic Violence Victim/ Survivor Jail in Past 6 Months Foster Care Background Veteran Status Disabilities and Other Demographics Enrollment of Unhoused Palo Altans in Emergency Shelters, CY2022 •212 homeless households who were actively enrolled in emergency shelter programs during CY2022 have an affiliation with the City of Palo Alto through current/prior address, zip code of last permanent address, or answering “Palo Alto” to any of the following VI-SDPAT assessment questions: •If employed, what city do you work in? •If you go to school, in which city is your school? •In which city do you spend most of your time? •Which city did you live in prior to becoming homeless? •City of Palo Alto affiliated households (“Palo Altans”) are 5% of the total number of households (4,585) actively enrolled in emergency shelter programs during CY2022 (excluding FEMA Isolation Hotels/Motels). •The following chart shows the percentage of Palo Altans enrolled in: •Sunnyvale Nightly Shelter (7% of households) •North County Shelters (16% of households) •Non-North County Shelters (3% of households) North County Emergency Shelter programs include the following: •Bill Wilson Center - Youth Shelter North County •HomeFirst - Mountain View Nightly Shelter •HomeFirst - Sunnyvale Nightly Shelter •LifeMoves-Mountain View-ES-Families •LifeMoves - Lifemoves-Mountain View-ES- Singles and Couples •LifeMoves-OSC-ES-Hotel de Zink-OSH 93%, 329 84%, 622 97%, 3,993 7%, 24 16%, 122 3%, 105 353 744 4,098 SUNNYVALE NIGHTLY SHELTER NORTH COUNTY SHELTERS OUTSIDE OF NORTH COUNTY Households Enrolled in Emergency Shelters, CY2022 Palo Altans Other City of Palo Alto Results – Total Assessments and Homeless Inflow •Homeless inflow is defined here as the first time a client takes a VI-SPDAT assessment. •In 2022, Palo Alto-affiliated households make up 4.6% of total homeless inflow, which is lower than CY2021. •For homeless inflow, city affiliation is established by only VI-SPDAT assessment questions: city of work/school, city lived in prior to homelessness, and spending most of one’s time in the city. Homeless Inflow Trend Year of First Time VI-SPDAT Total Homeless Inflow (First Time VI-SPDAT) Homeless Inflow with Palo Alto Affiliation Percent with Palo Alto Affiliation 2018 5,383 169 3.1% 2019 4,757 138 2.9% 2020 3,429 139 4.1% 2021 3,165 174 5.5% 2022 3,349 154 4.6% 60 154 276 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 PLACED IN HOUSING (HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD): MOVE IN DATE OR EXIT TO PERMANENT HOUSING HOMELESS INFLOW: REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME (CLIENTS WHO TOOK THE VI-SPDAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN CY2022) HOMELESS IN CY2022 (VI-SPDATS COMPLETED ANYTIME IN CY2022) Households Affiliated with the City of Palo Alto, CY2022 Summary Causes Services MethodologyHousehold InfoAccomodationsHealthDemographics Safe Par king Lots Palo Alto Base Map 24 Hour Lot 2000 Geng Rd Etz Chayim E tz Chayim 4161 Alma St Fi rst Congregati onal F irst Congregat ional 1985 Louis Rd Hi ghway Communi ty Highway Communit y 3373 Middlefield Rd UUCPA Unit arian Univ ersalist 505 E Charlest on Rd 12/04/2023 www.cityofpaloalto.org Congregation-Based Safe Parking City Council Rachael Tanner 2 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission & staff recommend that the Council A. Adopt the Ordinance amending PAMC Section 18.42.160 to permanently establish congregation-based safe parking B. Consider incorporating into the ordinance a minimum radius between permitted congregation-based safe parking locations 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. PROGRAM BACKGROUND + SERVICES Summation of the Current Policy + Programs 12/04/2023 www.cityofpaloalto.org 4 SAFE PARKING •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 •Developed due to the needs of unhoused Palo Altans 5 CURRENT SAFE PARKING SITES IN PALO ALTO 2 Types of Safe Parking Programs in Palo Alto: •Congregation-Based: At churches or religious institutions; total of 4 sites •24-Hour: On publicly owned parking lots; 1 site at 2000 Geng Rd. Table 1: Active Congregation-Based Safe Parking Permits in Palo Alto Congregation Name Address in Palo Alto Submission Date Approval Date 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 1 TITLE CALIBRI SIZE 32MAP OF CURRENT SAFE PARKING SITES IN PALO ALTO 7 •The Point In Time Count of RVs, cars, and vans in Santa Clara County & Palo Alto •RVs represent 68% of vehicles in Palo Alto in which unhoused persons were sheltering and 66% in Santa Clara County Notes on the data: (1) The Point-in-Time Count was conducted in Santa Clara County on the morning of January 24-25, 2023 (2) The unsheltered count included a count of vehicles in safe parking lots and on streets by census tract. Unhoused Persons in Palo Alto •206 people counted included •187 unsheltered •181 of which were sleeping in 102 vehicles-- 87% percent of those persons were in RVs SAFE PARKING IN CONTEXT –POINT IN TIME COUNT 2023 PIT Vehicle Counts SCC Total City of Palo Alto RVs 1,715 69 Cars 584 15 Vans 304 18 Total Vehicles 2,603 102 8 •In FY23, County safe parking programs experienced 34% exits to housing; 14% in FY22. •Data comes from 3 safe parking program operators (Amigos de Guadalupe, Move Mountain View, South County Compassion Center) Santa Clara County Safe Parking Programs FY23 FY22 Unique Individuals Served 540 534 Unique Households Served 337 326 Households Affiliated with the City of Palo Alto*46 42 Percent of all Clients who Exited to Permanent Housing 34%14% Total Capacity (Parking Spaces)192 192 Average Length of Enrollment (Days)145 days 125 days Utilization 82%85% Notes on Data (1) Average length of enrollment is based on head of household project start and exit dates. (2) Households may have multiple enrollments in the same program or other programs; data by fiscal year is duplicated by the most recent enrollment. (3) Utilization is calculated as total days enrolled divided by cumulative capacity. SAFE PARKING IN CONTEXT –SANTA CLARA COUNTY 9 Table 2: Participants and Placements 1/1/2021 to 6/30/2023 Congregation Name Unique Clients Households Positive Placements Percent Positive First Congregational 8 5 4 50% Unitarian Universalist 8 8 2 25% Highway Community 21 19 11 52% Total 37 25 17 45% •The table shows exits to positive placements (exit to housing designed for human habitation) •Note: Participants may choose to exit the program before finding housing or to not report their status to the program CONGREGATION-BASED SAFE PARKING PARTICIPANTS IN PALO ALTO 10 Table 3: Participants and Placements 1/1/2021 to 6/30/2023 Safe Parking Site Total Individuals Total Households Palo Alto Affiliated Positive Placements (Individuals) Nights provided Occupancy RateIndividualsHousehold Highway 21 19 12 10 11 1,256 41.80% Unitarian Universalist 8 8 4 4 2 1,249 51.10% First Congregation 8 5 6 5 4 343 34.70% Geng Road 84 25 43 16 13 8,849 64.60% Total 121 57 65 35 30 11,697 - This table shows program data including on participants with a Palo Alto affiliation SAFE PARKING PARTICIPANTS IN PALO ALTO DRAFT ORDINANCE Recommended for Adoption 12/04/2023 www.cityofpaloalto.org 12 -Vehicle Idling –Allowed in accordance with PAMC-Personal property –All personal property shall be stored in vehicles-PTC Recommendation:Clarify that items can be used outside of vehicles,such as a chair or children’s toys,but must be stored during quiet hours-Fire –No open flames or fires are allowed-Lot Monitoring –Require lot monitoring No Changes •Appeal Distance –Remains 600 ft •No Fee Permit –Do not charge applicants for the permit Minor Operational Changes -Quiet Hours –10 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.-Restroom siting –Where feasible, portable restrooms should be sited away from neighboring residences and street frontages-Annual Reporting –Require annual report. PROPOSED POLICY –OPERATIONAL CHANGES 13 Capacity •The PTC recommended gradually increasing the vehicle hosting capacity per each site per year of operation: •First Year –4 vehicles •Second Year –6 vehicles •Third Year –8 vehicles •This gives operators the opportunity to host more households, but not an obligation to do so. •The parking lot would need to meet the spacing requirements to host more vehicles. PROPOSED POLICY –CAPACITY & DURATION •The PTC’s intention was to create an appealable path to up to 8 vehicles. •To address this, Council may direct staff to amend the ordinance to state that: •After 12 and 24 months of operation, the Director will review the record and, if no issues are found, mail notice of intent to increase the permitted number of vehicles. •This decision is appealable to the City Council. 14 Permit Duration •No trial period •Permit valid until revoked, change of ownership (the permit is not transferrable), or abandoned PROPOSED POLICY –DURATION •To ensure current safe parking permit holders do no need to request a new permit, staff recommend Council direct staff to amend the ordinance for second reading to state that: •The terms of duration shall apply to safe parking permit holders with valid safe parking permits as of the date of ordinance adoption. 15 Application Application submitted and reviewed by staff. Once the permit could be issued, determine need for neighborhood check-in. Neighborhood Check In Notice mailed re neighborhood meeting re pending permit. After the meeting, updates may be made to the application and/or permit. Notice of Tentative Decision Notice mailed stating permit is tentatively issued. Notifies recipients of 14-day opportunity to file an appeal. Permit Issued If no appeal is filed, the permit is issued. If an appeal is filed, the item will be on a City Council agenda. •Explicitly state that the City may host a meeting •The sequence of activities would be as illustrated PROPOSED POLICY –PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CHECK IN 16 •The PTC only recommended 1 preference at this time: Students and families with children enrolled in the Palo Alto Unified School District •HRC members’ comments during the study session reflected a similar sentiment; preferences are not needed at this time for congregation-based programs Preferences as Originally Proposed and Discussed by the PTC and HRC 1.Households with children enrolled in the 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 PROPOSED POLICY –PREFERENCES 17 •The HRC and PTC were undecided if the ordinance should include a limitation on the number of congregations that can obtain safe parking permits within a given distance of another permit holder (permit density) •To aid in the City Council deliberation, the PTC requested staff to prepare maps showing a 600-foot and a 1200-foot radius (shown on the following slides) •Note these maps were created using search engines to identify congregations, and may over-estimate congregations (if they have since closed or moved) or not accurately name each congregation •Given the proposed capacity increases, staff recommend requiring a 600-foot radius between safe parking permit locations •If City Council supports permit density cap, this will be added into the ordinance PROPOSED POLICY –SAFE PARKING SITE DENSITIES Atherton Menlo Park 4 t►i#'‘ ,/ . A°4o'e �� neYard�: ♦ cafe L e' t` 74 4 . �� ' �I •♦s ,• v` s ♦♦ tl'.4.4,444,►,L' ` , ,♦♦, ; tv�' `,♦ yna„` ♦♦ 3 1 II Ov a4ipIlrr' 1 -b cd PI*' aloAlto i • ,;'gip ,_ �o ► '. b Ili ForescAvenue 2 Da'9ve 40 11111 0 C''' se .aLan,. Stanford University Religious Institutions 600 -ft Radius 1,200 -ft Radius j_„': City Limit t v A0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles tal"r'! Revv. CPA 1112912023 • *1444 „ • a�e #*,81� CApnesscay Core Road 4. ,V,►I ♦,t, ai �'.�.► fin '1(�a H ,►►'r,►►,►►•► •kn�n r ♦ Los Altos Hills Genie ccd Avenue Loi Lane Avenue ®P ilso.1Aell. U x H opt. Inc Avenue I A9 inn 00 r nB Los Altos Mountain New Religious Institutions in Palo Alto 1 Unitarian Universalist Church at 505E Charleston Road 2 Vive Church Warehouse at 910 San Antonio Road 3 Peninsula Bible Church (PBC) at 3505 Middlefield Road 4 Highway Churchl(Highway's Missional Campus) Palo Alto Church of Christ at 3373 Middlefield Road 5 Vineyard Church at 480E Meadow -Drive 6 First Congregational at 1985 Louis Road 7 First United Methodist Church at 625 Hamilton Avenue 8 St. Andrea's United Methodist Church at 4111 Alma Street 9 Atderst ate Methodist Church at 4243 MANUELA 10 Wesleyan Methodist Church at 463 College Avenue II True North Church at 780 Arastradera Road 12 St. Thomas Aquinas at 751 Waverley Street 13 First Presbyterian at 1140 Cowper Street 14 Grace Presbyterian at 305 N California Avenue 15 Bay Area Christian Church at 2525 E Bayshore Road 16 Palo Alto Buddhist Temple at 2751 Louis Road 17 Unity Palo Alto, Spiritual Center at 3391 Middlefield Road 18 Palo Alto Friends at 957 Colorado Avenue 19 Church of J.C.L.D.S. at 865 Stanford Avenue 20 Church of J.C.L.D.S. ! Stanford Third Ward LDS at 3865 Middlefield Road 21 University AME Zion / Holy Trinity Church at 3549 Middlefield Road 22 First Lutheran Church at 600 Homer Avenue 23 Sith Foundation at 580 College Avenue 24 Bridgeway Church of Silicon Valley! Crossroads Christian Church at 2490 Middlefield Road 25 Abundant Life Christian Fellowship at 3921 Fabian Way 26 Grace Lutheran Church RICA at 3149 Waverley Street 27 Holy Virgin Russian Orthodox Church at 3475 Ross Road 28 Avenue Baptist Church at 398 Sheridan Avenue 29 Central Christian Chinese Church at 801 San Antonio Road 30 St. Mark's Episcopal Church at 600 Colorado Avenue 31 Palo Alto First Christian Church I Sinapi Seed Church at 2890 Middlefield Road 32 Sinai Memorial Chapel Chevra Kadiahe at 3921 FABIAN 33 St. Ann Anglican Chapel at 541 Melville Avenue 34 All Saints Episcopal Church al 555 Waverley Street 35 Trinity Lutheran Church Missouri Synod at 1295 Middlefield Road 36 Seventh Day Adventist at 786 Charring Avenue 37 Baba-i Faith of Palo Alto at 1030 Fife Avenue 38 Covenant Presbyterian Church at 670E Meadow Drive 39 Christ Temple Apostolic Church at 4000 Middlefield Road 40 Etz Chayim at 4161 Alma Street 41 Chabad Synagog at 3070 Louis Road 42 Emek Beracha at 4102 El Camino Way 43 Congregation Rol Emeth at 4175 Manuela Avenue 44 Hatemi Mosque at 998 San Antonio Road 45 St. Albert the Great at 1095 Channing Avenue 46 Palo Alto Christian Reformed Church/Hanbit Bible Church at 687 Arastradero Road 47 University Lutheran Church at 1611 Stanford Avenue 48 The Fathela [louse at 3565 MeddlefieldRood 49 Our Lady of the Rosary Church at 3233 Cowper Street 50 Palo Alto Baptist Church at 701 E Meadow Drive 51 Dianetics Center at 3505 El Camino Real 52 VA Chapel at 3801 Miranda Avenue Source: Google/Yelp October 2023 ti 4 • 3225 ayVm ebb Charfeorot 0000 ast Z,' SNc rnPSo ate^S fed sw �BridgewavClmrchofSiliconValley/CrossroadsChristianClnmh .ChnbadS'nagog ro So "di, l" .rs` c 5n0' rGeya Wr^oq P ptr'�e So��` �N , ,c Q�ro�� At�AI�, � c}li roam pro �6, 94 ti e 2, 0 ev eJe oe G\ Sbp Qi Co 0 N P e� Aa hC' ` �`2 0�. e •GracePreobyterian o' C o o ,,Se o\oja� � s�'� �ro e Lo do s:. ,�� cS� S" oaAye C 07 �cf? 1� ee 4, et s�4' Coo? St Mark'sEp copal Church c aoc� 9�g way a es v Nf ,, OaA kodd rerCo e !Pei, r (� jk, „i,.= �oF 4),2 (6 bw Polo Alto Fist Christian Church/ SinapiSeed Church ''et a'r a G aL .a , a ^ t ! V° eo oro ,S' 3,s e� had p' eta o� �X '4.,, ae' Go 4 .P p .� eef (t, o94 �4i0 Co ks a�" a4 V r Meat i �� sst^ t e V? e "Port c c., IQ CP" % elt s^fit `m5 Aie` 94 N a i . '&a tar,,,,,, .'i .jetae c�ro y fj ykS s �'r so``t6 ``ept oro� 9 k,e 4o�,a .4.,c''6' e� Cott Co Holy VnginRussianOrthodox Church ] c ,,,,ft' T $t 4'.,?,.. Ca air G a !a • c. ce e �n Lo -0'- Ae 9W 0,,� oP s4 1 �` 4d ``c ay ro y eer 4' o b aP ''era liighway Churchl(Highway's Missional Campus) / Palo Alto Church of Christ , b y4� c q° � �ro Grace Lutheran ChurchrELCA "Po�, U UnRryPal oAlto, Spiritual Center nP 4p spy • Cho. Lady ofthekosareChurch • U', a s1e� �°e • 4? a Saar 1,i '4hst Ave rmeBap tistChurch A t.10 -. ' � ehaeeC yp art , a eroo o m 4? p, w7 4 UniversitnAMEZion /Holy Pease Church cb �eualri, av r4 0 P Jl�ao TheFather's House prod 0 •04 • &'ulo Alto Baptist Clutch q e, -C''' ^i 4 t`' 0 Ito 6 e Qro tiei ,0' ra'Si '� cove Cote 0 Caet ct ,,e'' \' �+ �C e e CovenantPreslryterianChurch 1'0, 'ic4 4s ° k o 9 ��`` • o0. eat CL o� s rank C �,ai0' . ZS `19ay I tro C. ft, �p5 6 ktt, �,s^ robt �e a.$ 0 eQ np �0 `04 t n0 ro\ 0 e A e R Qoc ti �� °J a�,� �r�a ^i e P e6/e st, ant Y O9 a^a ear s`^c ro aSrr oEt 3ro�' ' B 5 6DianeHcs Carrier o Religious Institutions with Safe Parking • Other Religious Institutions 600 -ft Radius 1,200 -ft Radius ••' City Y Limit 0 0.075 0.15 63 Miles 1^ineyard Church • 9°' t>4, its„ *Peninsula Bible Church (PBC) Carlson Circle a4 Church of JC.L.D. S /Stafford Third Ward LDS • yla9 voo\e Unitarian Universalist Church 0 roes- .0--°v �G a Christ Temple ApostolicChurch • 4- I Memo Pwk'''\ Hatenti Mosgu • Alta tie Walk �'r • Sinai Memorial Chapel Che aKadsha e a Abundant Life Christian Fellowship or live Church Warehouse • v 'z v ■II�IIi11�111 e Fabian Street Central 0!. htian .titian Chinese Church • 4 1 C . I 1 i Rev. City of Palo Atte 112912023 Source- Googlehelp October 2023 73 G 4 P G �' �'raoSf °w,t) {j vl� orb eer ()re ¢�� aka e tq er Q, Go , > �% weer Go �� er�� o /Zoi� Cori �HalyVirginRussianOrthodoxChurch v� G�t� orrCo e p,q. p e 7a � ri 4 err s Ge d� eer 'b° 1;./Q, �ie1;./Q, Highway ghway Churchl(Highway's Missional Campus) I Palo Alto Church of Christ oS� Grace Lutheran Church ELCA o Unity Palo Alto, Spiritual Center y rod w i Our Lady of the Rosary Church • rJ 3 sa tici 5 rreei' �� rr Peninsula Bible Church (PBC) C1 r e6 0 ° C. Ni �lre '20/, '''.'' '\. ' A4 .aelo o4rr ,, UniversiluAME Zion /Holy Trinity Church rip �o S e 0 P' `d The Father's House z a6, °ej� •'Palo Alto Baptist Church n [�o rrt , 0 I/ -s• 42 o�� poi, Sinai Memorial Chapel Chevra Kadisha Abamdm �r 6 e Covenant Presbyterian Church qtr 'z • z err e P�a� o ;do Go e� a o�9 4 ?1,r, e cap\c�pv s S rrc�Srreet y� J,�so ,6 el, �r� Cod Or • r� S�e orr y� �sr w A reer, /i' ao o ar 6 a �d 4 Vineyard Church ,:„'• ori r r p et r eer 4 rj 7 of eery Lase ,00 6�' Dianetics Center o�•§' �� C'., s ,e Parking v4 ��e oTrre et v' Cy •f C Se �e, pry duo I ��r reer �a/ o OCR` c areJ �``vac� ro il. I Carlson Circle Church of J..C.L.D.S. / Stanford Third Ward LDS Unitarian Universalist Church vii Christ Temple Apos • 0 Altai iscopal Church , *0 tpe ,i Palo Alto First Christian Church / Sinapi Seed Church lPo %� { G° 0 G° ° 6fi 042 C Sr- . e .. ..s.le Q ,-., 6 ., x,, ..\7 e Aic' co 4> e,,,c, 0 4 e 1t/ \ \ ' ° iti of Crf fa '�c X44 `�tfi o - .o i r It__ M \ 1 7 I Holy Virgin Russian Orthodox Church 0 II / r Highway Churchl(Highway's Missional Campus) I Palo Alto Church of Chris Grace Lutheran Church ETA o Unit ° Palo Alto, Spiritual Center 0 Our Lady of the Rosary Church 0 I d 4�, b a l� � et ' - rr,7o Peninsula Bible Church (PBC) S University AME Zion / Hol v Trinity, Church The Father's House •' Pal o Alto Baptist Church 9 o Sinai Memorial Chapel C Covenant Presbyterian Church ,• z First United Methodist Church • St ThotnasAqui • ti a� -j° First Lutheran L7nnch • V 6(Ar F s J Dana Avenue Forest Avenue Pitman Avenue Baha-r Faith of Palo Alto • Martin Avenue an °.deli son Avon c Seventh Day Adventist • Somerset Play Tevis Place Regent Place St.. Albert the Great • To It 4' igk <'''Q,,,. *4, on 39 4/ mitio".41.".OrIuI it �% 3 y1,4 Shin n Court GreenwoodAcenue Harker Avenue S Parkinson Avenue Trinity Lutheran Church Missouri Synod • e First Presbyterian Ve • - St Ann Anglman Chapel • ov o Religious Institutions with Safe Parking • Other Religious Institutions 600 -ft Radius 1,200 -ft Radius . � City Limit I_.. 7 C; 1 0 0.075 5 .15 0.3 'ilpford University Miles/4 v° Co wA sv an Hopkins Avenue °' 4d <0G• t.• a oplay C°tzt Newell Place De Sots Drive 0 <e oWalter Hays Drive :J a 3 3 Lois Lane Walnut Drive h<( q�rf Hof % Dot '% 4 Royo er \G. an us Heather Lane i <7 e3 J 3c dt Hamilton Avenue 1 yy Iris Way East Palo Alto - X09 nt 3 an V; 130 C3a6 First Congregational °° °`T%,, ,a 4' �rta'a 4,0 4 '``jZ'tL �`a °S I4x ya r, 4-,7- ,,.' 10 ao " , 7P r t 0, 4 d�, 4 4/ 0 ¢.o ate 0. 3 7er dG 4,, o413 �,�e °4°F FCC 94 two I �D< waY �ro9 l! /� eAh 0 `' Qt' L ''''''?4::t1 SG Gce °e �D a /R0d4. ' 0' Qy4 ' ' ,6_4''''' Ali \0 47 < P v \\\° 1, d 0 C �o '4 ?r 0 'F oz ,a sec 600 c wJ Bridge oay Church of Silicon Palley /Crossroads Christian Church • 0 kic A Cuu� woo„ An Area Christian Church • 4.. pA Palo Alto Buddhist Temple 4a • Palo Alto Friends �z I e � ¢ I. T P Or ° ';' w�° e .C9 � °�?< a,.f, not �a° e G`ao 41F F 4/ a°' 391P 47 t`r < e gr . dPN.,0 rub, OA 11-'Chabad Synagog �a�,o • Re f A Palo Alta 11/2912023 Sumo G o,tn'Pelp October 2023 T U St. Albert the Great II J- ttarker Avenue Parkinson Avenue _11_—I I i _ -i Mintty Lutheran Church Ilissouri Synod _ 1_ 1 Hopkins Avenue °" 'hapel • _Newell Place -` De Soto Drive T Tic e � � f Lois Lane r Walnut Drive Walter Hays Dive _I . I I' I h • -Y j ;) � _ J r",...„ l r �. • Hamilton Avenue 5 z La 7-1 f11 Iris Way , First Congregational .1 '/ ° ),./ fit, • .,,r--,,�` ,, ' .. q, 4,t;' b,� z I)/ S QS fie; 46 Jo sinate Avenue V v bro se 1 P e �, 0 Q a r,/ o Cailj a6Ai r. 5 � a d° Oa e i -0h' °�� '-r roro��So�ahab to TT m e v �. 4 SS . ° .h aih fti 3 e 4 ay �' A 1� '' .<,. 8ak eta ti,? er S' ta?,Uty Oar"or, 9lehae Co 91 1 b r Qb{ <a.,,,aha Wa ,f y 'd 'lip 0 Rori u 0, Stye `ate hGe belq ah � t'e % cJ e.g the �a7 r di 9eeh pi Ge o Religious Institutions with Safe Parking • Other Religious Institutions 600 -ft Radius 1,200 -ft Radius City Y Limit N Uo A0 0.075 0.15 <t)3 Miles Palo Alto Chit • a a Vineyard Church • Church ofJ.C.L D.S. /Stanford Third Oard LDS • tiem Unitarian UnivereoiLetChurcle • Y 1 w11H1�11�i11 Fabian Street ! eitherm. Mye's Central it istian Chinese Church lFy� A!. • `- � smeh,d r�.mso d ,rd o'-'6 SSa� 1 tar •Christ Temple .lpostolieChmcFr r Carlson Circle far¢ CaC Nis ° 1 �� S �'e a 1 .4'm �'t . at' ro� e ¢ f�efd � �� i� �t��o01' IG � �l`14�a¢ PbD� :ace., °,� � ♦ C •• )V� Oro �h1arf 'hlae ,* dpfae 8jo' i s o 0 ee, ei, fey Enie#Beracha �y4 e eb Q • C� .ii.''.'' tee ma ce,4 ae >. 3�5 �n W Sv °e G� vro� Se`2A y z Oa o ay co c9 a° afi ke 4f�6 sit � %, tee roe ♦ !♦ a � 1- e ,t ♦♦I*♦� St lnd e ds Un ted hfe hod t Ch trch J #♦,* ♦S '.+r at ` off � ,e, �i♦�• Etz Chayim �� /d6 ed �♦ '♦♦4f,♦• bra ♦, EN ys S ♦ r i,♦ 4% * *♦ ♦ a „ �♦,0♦ It. C.,' J �i °J ti N� Ala 5 oc` 4 .� �0 Se r� iff5 t♦ ✓J 0 90 c 0 t4 4 1 X09 ��♦.0 ♦♦�♦♦ IS #♦ f ♦♦ ♦♦ 05- ♦, e ♦ v``r e♦, <= 1 ice' 1 'an Reformed CFnmchsl/nbit Bible Church Los Altos Portia Mg" Mountain Yield Rev. City of PaloAtte 112912023 Source- Googlehelp October 2023 Christ Temple Apostolic Church • r �� coe,, , ro Sree t 1 .1 ro O e { o' �� d6c1 1-‘Z" mpbe place �' a�' `�l for $ q(i'a Al c 'A/ t 0o o II ol gyp/ . A. Sire �� ace 0 ,rod EinekBeracha 3 .�b Q 0 • I � 4 � ▪ � rife QJ a lb 4 r U .� > a oV C° • A�, ' c, el" ,%."7 a� y G� 't �� • a° Iii `day (4 �e1t, y i■ s. dr''e �L% Q".'\ 4r I �r'N. St. Andrew's United Methodist Clmrch a 4 t., ova oaf Gc `� `u +• 4 4' ,,,1 '� 4 Q` o `� 'rit, p4 ♦ �I Go X04 taL. i 3''� �`�� C`... 4'i ,#�+ EtZ Chaylm �`�, IS. 44 v kid �� Nj �� 4 �o fie'),? C 5 �c e �i*ags �� , � c art y . �� it• erg ,, J *j ,, ooh • ♦• / 160/41, aai � ,N o •ak ,o s'/ , .10 ‘.iii. °Ik e z MI a� Go �© ill Cher .(o& w bot 114, iii ay ksA/sec o�� ',��t +# #4A 4S '-' 1 e 4I Carlson Circle G,° �\ r T I • c;5 Ira r SAFE PARKING AT GENG ROAD Exploring Expansion 12/04/2023 www.cityofpaloalto.org 27 •The City Council may be interested in exploring options to expand the 24-hour safe parking program located at 2000 Geng Road •There is additional land adjacent to the site currently used for two purposes: (1) construction staging and (2) a lease between a business and the City of Palo Alto •City 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 the City Council for consideration and future action. This inquiry could include understanding the current and potential future land uses, needed improvements, the underlying zoning of the parcels, and other aspects required if safe parking were to be expanded. SAFE PARKING AT GENG ROAD RECOMMENDATION 12/04/2023 www.cityofpaloalto.org 29 •Adopt the ordinance w/ additional amendments & PTC recommendations •Allow Up to 8 Vehicles and direct staff to include an appeal opportunity when increasing the number of vehicles •Preference for PAUSD students and families. •Minor Operational Changes •Permit Duration –Align with other conditional use permits •Apply proposed duration to currently active permits SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION •Consider •Density –Adopt (or not adopt) a 600 ft radius that limits the number of safe parking permits within 600 feet of each other. •Safe Parking at Public Lots –Direct staff to explore expanding safe parking at Geng Road and/or other publicly owned sites Rachael Tanner Management Specialist Rachael.Tanner@CityOfPaloAlto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO