Whereas I am not concerned about the program itself, I do wonder about this particular location over some of the others which are either not in residential neighborhoods or have a better entrance/exit system into the parking lot. I see problems with this parking lot since it is completely open to the street. Unless of course there is something more that I am not seeing from driving by the parking lot on Louis.

Is there some type of system whereby anyone can't just drive in and park?

It would be far easier (and possibly safer for all parties concerned) if transient vehicles were allowed to park in shopping center lots after hours and required to move one hour prior to store openings.

The Proposed parking spots are in the lot behind the social hall building and are not viewable from Louis Rd. They picked a very private area not even noticeable by anybody who would drive by on Embarcadero.

I know the lot monitor has the license plates of the registered participants. If unregistered participants are in the lot, that would be noticed right away and reported by the lot monitor.

In the absence of a safe parking program, there might be cars using the lot and never noticed. Safe Parking means greater supervision of that lot.

Bystander: The photo with the article is not the lot that will be used. I can see where some confusion could have arisen. The lot behind is comparatively small and mostly not viewable from any street. The church made a very thoughtful decision in selecting the spaces.

I live not to far from church and am in full support of this.

@Spectator. Sorry for the confusion. I added some information to the story about the exact location of the proposed spaces, which would be behind the building featured in the photo. I also added diagram that was shown at Tuesday's meeting, which shows where the spaces would be located.

The escalating sale prices and assessed valuation of prime Palo Alto residential real estate does not justify accommodating the transient population.

They do not pay property taxes nor do they contribute to the betterment of the Palo Alto community.

First Congo is doing the right thing. I understand the neighborhood's concerns regarding safety, but we are only talking four cars a night, not forty.

Being priced out of local housing is a crime, but it does not mean that those priced out are criminals.

Actual criminals are far less likely to avail themselves of social services. Why would they attract attention to themselves?

Hello…
‘Blunt force victim named,’ Palo Alto Daily Post, Friday, July 8, 2022, p. 4:
This was in Mountain View at sanctioned “parking lot used by people living in their RVs…the coroner hasn’t ruled whether the death was an accident or a homicide.”
Plenty scary, in my book.

It's disappointing that these organizations refuse to screen participants to ensure they have not committed violent crimes in the past. Also, I heard first hand reports of problems with previous safe parking programs. I think they are painting a very rosy picture relative to reality and there will be negative impacts on surrounding neighbors. Also, these programs need onsite supervision to help ensure the safety of the participants and neighbors.

The information presented here is one-sided. The meeting last night was some sort of an infomercial, rather than an actual neighborhood discussion. Many neighbors who had good questions were ignored and even silenced - some complained that their written questions were being edited real-time.
What needs to be said, is that even vehicle dwellers who have criminal records as pedophiles, drug dealers, assault, robbery, cannot be turned away from the program, as stated by the Palo Alto Planning Department. There are schools in the area and this is clearly a major concern. And what about the safe biking routes to school?
The vehicle dwellers will be exempt from environmental regulations and will be allowed to idle their vehicles without restrictions. The program organizers are trying to say that this will be rare, which is not true: temperatures routinely fall beneath 45 degrees at night in the winter and routinely rise above 85 degrees in the summer.
The location chosen may be not visible from the street, but has other serious drawbacks. It is literally in the face of residents who share fences with the church. Idling vehicles will blow exhaust toward those residences, in which at least 5 children live and one of those children has asthma. Even if rare, it is truly heartless to expose children (and adults for that matter) to toxic fumes, not to mention the noise of 4 simultaneously idling vehicles at night.
The Church has been asked repeatedly to move the parking spots to the Louis side, where these parking spots can be placed still in areas of low visibility, but also further away from residential structures. The church refuses, quoting obviously unconvincing arguments and demonstrating little to no consideration for their existing neighbors. The church authorities glibly say they are open to dialogue, but do not listen.

I have noticed a persistent misconception that participants are not screened. In fact, they are screened face-to-face by well trained, licensed clinical social workers, they give their car registration and license plate information to Move MV who can share it with PAPD, and they are monitored by private security guards and PAPD on a regular basis. The presence of this program, with its screening and monitoring, makes the whole neighborhood safer. Thank you to the folks at First Congregational Church for living their values, and providing this service to people who really need it.

The location of the parking is very close to resident’s house. Hedges only block couple houses. If you stand on the parking lot, you can actually see someone’s window and backyard.

@LindaPA.
The lack of background checks is not a misconception. The Palo Alto Planning Department has stated so officially. I hope you are not accusing them of deliberate misinformation.

@Linda: At the meeting, they claimed there is a law against criminal background checks for those applying for housing. It’s naive to believe that everyone is truthful in everything they say.

Very disappointing comments. Especially the one by Liu Wen. So the fact that we have "escalating home prices" means we should refuse to help unhoused people? The churches that have expressed a desire to share some of their space with the "least among us" are demonstrating what religion is all about.

"The churches that have expressed a desire to share some of their space with the "least among us" are demonstrating what religion is all about."

Ideally, ALL of the churches in Palo Alto should be offering some form of sanctuary for the homeless population based upon the size of their indoor and outdoor facilities.

Most of them are not which says a lot about the true Christian spirit of organized religion.

I'm not familiar with this particular location but the lack of background checks mentioned before is the result of the California Housing First Law (SB1380). It prohibits homeless programs from running background checks or credit checks on candidates for housing.

The unfortunate side-effect on safe parking programs like this one is that a convicted felon or sex offender could end up parked in front of a preschool or daycare. Churches often host these, obviously.

Megan's Law doesn't apply since the person has no permanent address.

Liu Wen's comment is beyond the pale. People don't travel from, let's say ... South Dakota ... in their ramshackle car to go upscale here in Palo Alto. People usually become homeless where they were displaced. And despite Palo Alto's landlord-tenant's rights laws, there seem to be no teeth in them. This is coming from my personal experience. So if a person ends up displaced in an area like Palo Alto, there's no relocation bus that picks them up and whisks them to their new abode. The reasons for homelessness are myriad, and not all (I'd even say not most) are due to criminal history or substance abuse. Most homeless people came from stable families. And ALL of them are worthy of dignity. I just wish there were more entities like the churches who are reaching out to people in need, and fewer people who think the smell of homelessness will drive down their property value.

Again, people (anonymous posters) are misconstruing how the program runs. While it is true that there isn't something called a "background check" run on people (and that's a vague, catch-all term that encompasses many different kinds of specific checks, some easier and some harder to run, with varying amounts of useful information returned), there are screening protocols. They're just not called "background checks." People are NOT just driving up on their own and deciding to park there for the night. They have to be interviewed, submit their identification, and then be approved for the program. They are assigned to a specific parking spot on the site, and the police and security guards know exactly which car with which license plate must be parked in which spot each night. Cars that aren't supposed to be there are removed. There is robust screening. It's just not called a "background check."

@LindaPA
Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director in the city Planning Department made it very clear at a Unity Church neighborhood meeting on the same topic that program participants can not be turned away from the program even if they are convicted criminals.
So this means that even if they admit having criminal records, the screening procedures you are referring to will not protect the neighbors.

@LindaPA: Seems like you are an anonymous poster too. Unless you can promise that they are senior citizens too weak to commit any crimes, how can we feel safe sending our children to walk past that area alone?

@LindaPA: As someone who has attended two zoom meetings and listened to other available recordings for the safe parking program, your characterization of the background checks as "robust" is a complete exaggeration.

The program representatives talked about asking a few softball questions. Their cagey answers to our questions were downright alarming. No specifics were provided about the screening questions, certainly not to the level you suggest.

What they can't do (apparently by some law) are official criminal background checks.

I live in the neighborhood directly behind the Church and don't know any any of our neighbors who have adopted your rosy attitude about this.

4 parking spots. 4.
The push back against 4 spots is astounding.

Thanks for those who pointed out that the area was not the parking lot in front and also for changing the article to show that. I had hoped this was the case.

From the article: Altman said the church has agreed to set the hours for the safe parking program at 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. so that the vehicle dwellers will not be there when the preschool is in session and children are present.

But last night another church representative said that they do not want to put the parking spots on Louis road, because there will be overlap with the preschool children in the morning. Clearly this is a contradiction and not a convincing argument as to why the church is refusing to put the parking spots away from the residents. If they work with the residents and put the parking spots on the Louis side, they will get less pushback.

I don't live in that area but I do live in the area of the first two churches noted. Property size and location create a buffer between parked cars and the general neighborhood. There is very little impact on the neighborhood since the parking lots are in the back of the churches. You do not see anything from the street. Mitchell Park is a place they can go during the day.

In the case of the church on Louis there is no buffer between the church parking lot and the neighborhood houses. [Portion removed.]

When it comes to homeless living there are three kinds regardless of mental health or addictions...
(1) the homeless residing in motels,
(2) the homeless residing in their cars,
(3) the homeless living on the streets

To my knowledge, only Trinity Methodist Church in Mountain View has a daytime homeless center that provides meals, laundry services, and shower facilities while St. Timothy's Episcopal Church (also in Mountain View) provides overnight parking.

If Mountain View can offer such services to the homeless, a wealthy community like Palo Alto can most certainly 'step up to the plate' and do far more for those less fortunate.

'Sunday Christianity' is not what Jesus had in mind.

Churches are a business with all of the costs associated with being a business. That includes the insurance for the facilities and what ever happens on the property. The budget for a church is depenednent on having regular members who pledge donations. They also get funding from their church governing body.

Every one is offering up someone else's facilties and budget to support a cause that has to be determined within the budget of the specific church. That is their choice.

What you have left is the city itself that has extensive property that it can use for overnight parking. Overnight parking at the library? Tennis court areas? And the city can provide mobile showers at specific times. Rinconada has bathrooms, showers at the pool area, and outside cooking on the barbecues for those that have food to cook.
If cities will not approve the use of those spaces then they need to explain why not. Insurance? breakdown in facilities, possible illegal activity? Why is the city expecting churches to provide services on their budget when the city is not providing the obvious facilites on the city budget?

As long as these decrepit RVs are kept out of public sight, most Palo Altans have no gripe providing these RV residents are not posing an ongoing safety or public health problem.

4 cars that only can park there from 7-7?? I don’t understand the concern.

Sad to say that based on PAUSD’s history, the likelihood your child gets sexually assaulted by a person living in their car vs one of the staff at the middle or high school is about the same.

There is no chance one of these humans can afford to idle their car all night so that’s an odd concern.

They are already parking their cars on your streets and you just don’t realize it! One car used to be parked near Duveneck every night and just left early. Some parked around the back. At least one person regularly slept on campus and was cleared before your children arrived.

These folks have to be at the level of living that they can move their cars and afford at least a little gas. They have to have a drivers license. There is so much more history on these humans than the ones you haven’t been aware are all around your $10million homes.

4 cars. 7am-7pm.

Anonymous, would you rather have a sex offender who proved their identity in order to be allowed to park behind a church, or would you rather have a sex offender who is operating in stealth mode, sleeping in front of your house?
Neighbor, the neighbors near the church have doors that lock, alarms that blare if an intruder breaks in, and guns and ammunition thanks to the 2nd amendment if the police don’t show up 10 seconds after they call 911. I think you’re just paranoid, and speaking for others who might not share that paranoia with you. Me, for instance.
Infuriating … I hear ya. It’s infuriating!
Lonnie Garnett, I agree that our tax dollars could be well spent by investing in the people who have ties here. People don’t come here just to park their RV because they like the view. They have jobs. They have loved ones. They are connected. That’s why they stay. Even though everyone seems to hate them, they stay. Every one of them has a story. Everyone (should) matter.
Resident 1, I doubt anyone robbed the offering tray to provide service to homeless people. Some people consider it their Christian duty to help those less fortunate than themselves. But I do agree with you, that cities and the counties within their borders do have resources of land and utilities that they are NOT using to help relieve the burden on the churches. I don’t know what they’re saving it for, except for new stationhouses and new cars and raises in pay and bonuses.
Infuriating (again), for every one of those parking spaces that will be occupied for 12 hours, I’ll bet there will be at least 5 neighboring residents per parking space, using a stop watch to make sure nobody gets in early, and nobody leaves late. That’s a lot of wasted energy that could be put to better use.

@Infuriating!: Sounds extremely dubious. I have two hyper shelties that I walk around Duveneck Elementary School practically every night. I work late at a startup so I walk them between 11pm to 2am. Never noticed anything abnormal. Certainly not car dwellers.
[Portion removed.]

Again, can we tone down the emotions here and actually apply some reasoning.
I was at a meeting with a Palo Alto City Councilperson, who stated that Palo Alto already spends more than Mountain View on homeless programs. The point is that we already do a lot for the homeless and spending wisely on effective programs benefits all. Jumping emotionally to support a program just because it is called "safe" is not rational. A discussion is warranted and those who are asking questions should not be vilified.
[Portion removed.]

Palo Alto Municipal Code, 18.42.160 (d)(1)(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"

The parking spots proposed are too close to the neighbors and do present the above risks to the neighbors- I am told there is even a child who has asthma in one of the adjacent homes. As someone pointed out, there is “no buffer” here, unlike those safe parking spots at other churches.

Also, what happens when the vehicle dwellers leave in the morning- will they still remain close by in the neighborhood? I think it was said they have to be half a mile away, but who will verify that?

People assume that we are evil people if we oppose this. I am fine with them parking in the Baylands parking lot or on a commercial property where they will not burden families. Why not have the cars park on the Louis Rd. side? Their excuse is that the preschool is on the Louis Rd. side but the cars can only park there from 7pm-7am so the cars will be gone by the time preschool begins. And if they are not criminals, but senior citizens as the agency claims, they are no danger to the preschool children or passerbys, right? The noise and idling cars during the cold or hot weather will not bother any families if they are on the Louis Rd. side.

If the church is indeed happy to help, they should not locate them in the back of their church lot right next to the houses. The First Congo lots are huge, the cars don't need to be right next to the houses. This is the solution. It's pure selfishness and unChristian to burden others to force the special interest of both pastors David Howell and Eileen Altman. Shame on them. As a Christian myself, I wonder, how can they call themselves sympathetic to our community when they are not caring for the neighboring residents?

"As a Christian myself, I wonder, how can they call themselves sympathetic to our community when they are not caring for the neighboring residents?"

Perhaps pastors Howell and Altman are looking at the bigger picture, one that extolls and practices the true virtues of Christianity.

Some 'Christian' Palo Alto residents may need to do the same.

@Warren Sykes
How are the true virtues of Christianity affirmed by forcing the existing neighbors to breathe car exhaust? When there is actually a reasonable solution?
All the church has to do is move the parking spots further away, but they refuse to do so, without any good reason or any remote semblance of a valid explanation.

@Warren Sykes: Pastors David Howell and Eileen Altman obviously think it's okay to adversely affect other families under the guise of "helping" homeless people. They don't live near the church so why should they care? It won't affect their lives and they can feel good about helping 4 car dwellers but ignore the fact that they are imposing on other families. What would Jesus do? He was kind to everyone. Why would anyone attending this church approve of this? Shame on them.

Definitely, Jesus would be more concerned about the people in their large warm houses with fridges full of food than the most vulnerable populations we have in our area- the unhoused. That was most certainly the message in the Bible.

@Infuriating!: I think you missed reading the issue. All First Congo Church has to do is allow the car dwellers to park on the Louis Rd. (front side) of the church. Then, everyone is happy. Right now, the pastors want to park them in the back on the church next to houses which impacts several families. Jesus would have them park in the front of the church because he didn't care about appearances, he wanted to help.

Let's clarify one more falsehood pushed by the church. They are saying that since the vehicles will be allowed to idle only when temperatures are below 45 degrees or above 85 degrees, that idling will be rare. While this is not a real excuse, because even rare idling is a hazard to the neighbors, it is very easy to prove how false their assertion is. Historical data for Palo Alto (and I am not talking about average data, I am talking about hourly NIGHTTIME data, (see for example, Web Link show that even in April and May 2022 there were multiple nights when the temperatures fell down to 45 degrees, and quite often in March 2002, it is not even necessary to discuss the colder previous months.
And who will enforce compliance anyway? If the temperature is, say, 47 degrees and someone is idling, are we supposed measure it and then call Police or Move Mountain View at 4AM, or just keep inhaling the toxic fumes so we can show what good Christians we are?

Someone is Distributing flyers to neighbors of the church filled with misinformation about the program.

There is a mechanism by which neighbors can deal with this…. by filing an appeal. They certainly don’t need to make up a bunch of bogus claims to get people out on “their side”. I find the fear mongering appalling.

"What would Jesus do?"

^ Jesus would suggest a get-together potluck barbeque between church RV residents and the adjascent PA homeowners.

What better way to get better acquainted with one's new neighbors than by breaking bread and sharing some wine?

"Jesus would have them park in the front of the church because he didn't care about appearances, he wanted to help."

^ Jesus was not a parking lot attendant. Back in his day, Jesus did not care where people parked their camels and donkeys.

> What would Jesus do? He was kind to everyone.

I think Jesus would advocate brotherhood and encourage disgruntled homeowners to cherish and embrace their new neighbors.

Sunday morning Christians need not apply.

@Spectator
Can you clarify exactly what misinformation is being distributed?
I have seen some flyers, but noticed that everything stated in those was provably true.

Fact check:

To Bystander--MOST of the other church parking programs like this in Palo Alto are in residential neighborhoods. Two of them abut my neighborhood. We have had no problems.

To Lonnie Garnett-- Multiple churches in Palo Alto feed the homeless and provide safe parking. Services AND housing are provided at the Opportunity Center next to Town & Country Shopping Center. Palo Alto provides more affordable housing per capita than Mountain View. And we are in the process of building more.

When writing in a public forum, please check your facts--especially before you accuse others.

It sounds like you do not know that in "rich" Palo Alto, close to half of our residential units are rentals. Prop 13 feeds that problem--but getting Sacramento electeds to deal with that has been a hard stop. In my opinion, it is the primary barrier to to making many housing types available to all. The biggest beneficiaries of Prop 13 tax reductions are long-term land owners--corporations and people who own big swaths of land for many decades that increase in value even if they sit on it without maintaining or improving their property in any way. This is a problem all over the state. Prop 13 has also greatly reduced public school funding statewide. If we are serious about tackling the availability of reasonably priced housing, rolling back Prop 13 is where we should start. (FYI. I am a senior and a beneficiary of Prop 13, and I want it changed to be more fair.)

Finally, living in a car is not healthy for anyone. This must be considered an inadequate stop gap measure necessitated by long-term failures to address problems of people with mental illness and drug/alcohol dependencies. These programs must be closely monitored to ensure that both the folks who are in these programs and their neighbors are safe. We do need to build more housing and incentivize getting existing housing back on the market.

[Post removed.]

To explain my thoughts better, I would consider a back parking lot away from the public open lot at the front on Louis is a better option for 4 cars that would arrive and leave overnight as being a better option.

The open style of the Louis parking lot in a residential neighborhood would, in my opinion, be much harder to monitor as it would be easy for an "unapproved vehicle" (for want of a better word for the vehicles being allowed) to sneak onto the property and remain for the night. It might also encourage non-roadworthy vehicles to seek to do the same.

I appreciate the fact that the other churches as well as this one, have residential neighbors, but a back parking lot being monitored is much easier to see who is obeying the rules and who is not if there is a problem when it is only 4 vehicles allowed.

The fact that only 4 vehicles that are in a roadworthy condition to be moved daily with the owners able to afford enough gas to move them is a security measure in itself.

I think this comment section is highlighting the worst aspects of Palo Alto, where fear and NIMBYism is trying to block an effort to help those in need. I congratulate First Congregational for putting your preaching into practice and also trying to address your neighbors concerns.