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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Post removed.]

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus would approve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do they know...nada.

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

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

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

"Democracy is dead in Palo Alto."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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