Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Shelter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission studies expanding safe parking; staff asked to return with data and options
Summary
At a study session commissioners reviewed Pasadena's safe parking ordinance, heard mixed public testimony, and directed staff to gather comparative studies, operator input, and budget information (including whether city funds could cover security) and to return with draft code amendments and findings to address site selection, overconcentration, and operational standards.
The Pasadena Planning Commission on July 8 held a study session on safe parking and directed staff to return with additional research, operator feedback and proposed code amendments after hearing a range of community views.
What staff presented: Martin Potter of the planning department reviewed the city's housing‑element commitment to explore safe parking, existing zoning that allows safe parking as an accessory use with a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) in limited zones, and the two CUP approvals to date: Trinity Lutheran (997 E. Walnut Ave., approved February 2024 and currently operating for 10 vehicles) and All Saints (approved March 9, 2026, cap up to 25 occupants/cars but not yet operating). Potter described current operational standards the code requires — a written management plan, limits on camping or external cooking, participation in Pasadena’s Continuum of Care and coordinated entry system — and outlined options under consideration: allowing safe parking on additional city‑owned PS/OS parcels or commercial sites, requiring secured entry/exit, buffering from adjacent residences, findings to avoid overconcentration, and objective standards for staffing, restroom access and security.
Public testimony and operator experience: Dozens of residents and operators spoke. Supporters and operators praised Trinity Lutheran’s program and noted successes in rehousing program participants; they cautioned against imposing requirements (gates, mandatory indoor bathrooms, high security costs) that could make sites financially infeasible. Multiple speakers said congregational sites provide needed social support and services (bathrooms, food banks, volunteer casework) that a city parking lot may not replicate. Opponents and nearby residents urged careful, site-by-site evaluation to avoid clustering too many homeless-serving uses in the same quarter (Raymond/Fillmore), requested buffering and review of police and sanitation calls from prior periods, and asked for stronger findings to prevent overconcentration.
Commissioner questions and staff direction: Commissioners focused on (1) optimal program size and operator capacity (staff confirmed Trinity was approved for 10 vehicles and has a waiting list), (2) why more churches have not applied (zoning limits in residential zones were a primary barrier), (3) the cost and feasibility of required security and restroom provisions (All Saints cited high security costs and funding problems), (4) what constitutes overconcentration (the code currently lacks a single numeric threshold — staff noted other code approaches include separation distances or census-tract limits), and (5) whether the city should curate publicly owned sites by district to distribute services. The city attorney confirmed there is pending litigation related to All Saints and that the applicant indicated possible rescission of the permit due to funding shortfalls.
Requested follow-up: Commissioners generally supported continuing the program but asked staff to: compare experiences and manuals (Santa Barbara’s model was requested for purchase), consult other jurisdictions that run safe-parking networks, meet with operators to learn optimal lot sizes and cost structures, map city‑owned eligible sites by council district, and provide an update on homeless‑services budget allocations (including whether the $2,000,000 in this year’s budget could help security or operations). Several commissioners suggested a second study session or an amendment package once staff compiles the requested data.
Why it matters: Commissioners framed the discussion as balancing increased access to safe, low-barrier shelter options for people living in vehicles with neighborhood impacts and operational feasibility. Any code amendments would affect where safe parking can be sited, what operational conditions are required, and what public resources might be needed to support operators.
