After two years of planning, and despite some lingering concerns, Palo Alto cemented on Monday, June 12, its commitment to building a three-story shelter for unhoused individuals near the Baylands when the City Council approved a nine-year lease with the nonprofit LifeMoves.
By a 6-1 vote, with Council member Greg Tanaka dissenting, the council voted to support the $1-per-year lease agreement and to commit $7 million in city funds for operations over seven years.
The future complex at 1237 San Antonio Road, east of U.S. Highway 101, will be located next to a future water purification plant and include 88 dwellings. Modeled after a similar LifeMoves project in Mountain View, the development will provide shelter and support services that aim at getting people into permanent housing.
The council took the final step in its negotiations despite some concerns about the project's growing costs, LifeMoves' questionable track record with its transitional housing in Mountain View, and a site that just about everyone admitted was less than ideal. Yet aside from Tanaka, the council members expressed confidence that the model that LifeMoves had developed over the course of the pandemic — a quickly constructed complex with social services — would only become more effective as the nonprofit and the cities it partners with gain more experience.
Council member Vicki Veenker spoke for the majority when she argued against letting "the perfect get in the way of the good."
"This is good for the clients who live there and have a better path to permanent housing," Veenker said. "This is good for the staff who can serve clients in a place where there's a panoply of services to support them. And this is good for our community — our community members who can volunteer and support this project instead of wondering, 'What can I do when we walk by an unhoused person in one of our parks or one of our streets?'"
Questioning a low success rate
But Tanaka noted that the nonprofit's track record for placing people in permanent housing has been far from "good." A March investigation by the Mountain View Voice, a sister news organization of the Weekly, found that its rate of placing people into permanent homes falls well below that of most comparable shelters, with just 26% of clients finding stable homes, according to Santa Clara County data. That was the second lowest percentage among the eight non-congregate shelters in the county's dataset.
"Would it not be better to focus more on permanent housing, which has a much higher success rate? Because we don't have this opportunity all the time. We owe it to the people in the streets to help them as best we possibly can," Tanaka said.
Aubrey Merriman, the nonprofit's CEO, pushed back against the article's reporting, which documented multiple failures by the agency to ensure safety and security in its Mountain View complex and which documented instances of mismanagement and sexual harassment at the transitional housing development on Leghorn Street. Merriman had declined to be interviewed for that story despite more than a dozen requests stretching over a three-month period.
"Were we thrilled about the article? No. Do we think the article captured all the facts and has the entire context for the complexity of this work? No," Merriman told the council. "Do we think the article would've had a different impact if it captured the fact that there was a 43% reduction in homelessness in Mountain View over the last two or three years? Maybe so. Do we think there's seeds planted in that article that we can use to grow and continuously improve? Absolutely!"
Merriman said the nonprofit, like many other Silicon Valley entities, is committed to "prototyping" and "iterating" as it expands its network of transitional housing complexes. This means applying the lessons it has learned from its first complex in Mountain View and applying them to its new shelters in San Jose, Redwood City and Palo Alto.
"When we bring on the new site in the middle of a pandemic, we knew there's going to be some learnings and we knew this is going to be the journey that we signed up for," Merriman said. "So we've taken the learnings from the Mountain View experience, we implemented the learnings in the Navigation Center (in Redwood City) and we're going to apply those learnings from the Navigation Center to what we're going to be doing in Palo Alto," he said.
Who's funding the $37.3 million project
Much like the other LifeMoves projects, the Palo Alto development will benefit from state funding through the Homekey program. Homekey has provided a $21.7 million grant for the project, which currently has a price tag of $37.3 million. The Sobrato Organization is donating $5 million for construction while the city, the county and LifeMoves are each chipping in $2 million.
The city was planning to reduce the cost of the project by about $2.5 million by cutting some of its features — including a photovoltaic system, electric vehicle chargers and decorative fencing. In recent weeks, however, the council has indicated that it plans to use a discretionary pot of money in the budget to restore some, if not all, of these elements. The council will determine which features to restore on June 19, as part of its adoption of the city budget for fiscal year 2024.
Despite some earlier reservations about the project's location in a relatively isolated section of the city with few transit options east of U.S. Highway 101, council members agreed that the project represents an important step in assisting some of Palo Alto's most vulnerable residents.
According to Consuela Hernandez, the county's director of supportive housing, the city had 158 homeless households who were assessed by the county between May 1, 2022, and April 30, 2023. These individuals, she said, had reached out to the county during this period to report that they are homeless, prompting the county to work with city staff and various service providers to convene an outreach strategy.
The county assesses the effectiveness of interim housing programs by seeing if they meet a 30% benchmark for participants moving on to permanent housing, she said. In county projects, the number is currently at about 78%, she said.
Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims, who had previously expressed concerns about placing some of the community's poorest individuals next to a water treatment plant at the southern edge of the city, threw her support behind the project on Monday. She called the location "subpar" and "completely isolated from other people," which makes it hard for residents to reintegrate into the community.
Nonetheless, she said, she is wholly in favor of the project and impressed by LifeMoves' commitment to the community and its "learn-as-you-go approach."
"I am confident we and they will learn from this project and process and deploy those learnings into the next project we build for extremely low- and very low-income people in Palo Alto," Lythcott-Haims said.
Comments
Registered user
University South
on Jun 13, 2023 at 11:06 am
Registered user
on Jun 13, 2023 at 11:06 am
In the funding section of the article on the LifeMoves project, the total contributions from Homekey, the Sorbrato Organization, the city, the county, and LifeMoves is $32.7 million. This leaves a deficit of $4.6 million ($37.3 million - $32.7 million) for the project. Who is going to be making up this shortfall?
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 13, 2023 at 1:25 pm
Registered user
on Jun 13, 2023 at 1:25 pm
The City couldn't even keep track of the Mitchell Park Library contractor which is why the completion took so long. How in the world are they going to keep track of a questionable non-profit group and that construction? Good grief. A disaster before it even begins.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 13, 2023 at 1:56 pm
Registered user
on Jun 13, 2023 at 1:56 pm
Why should the city bother to keep track of anything -- Mitchell Park Library, useless surveys that determine our "priorities" and/or our never-ending gravy train of consultants -- when they can just keep upping our utility rates?
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jun 13, 2023 at 10:34 pm
Registered user
on Jun 13, 2023 at 10:34 pm
Since the door has been opened to build housing East of 101, why not build more multiunit housing there? There's already plenty of commercial development with Anderson Honda, the old Ming's restaurant, many office complexes, etc.
Granted, it's not an ideal location, but the Bay Area is so saturated that there are lots of housing sites in less than ideal locations everywhere.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 14, 2023 at 10:21 am
Registered user
on Jun 14, 2023 at 10:21 am
Homelessness happens for a variety of reasons. I’m sure the percent success depends on the specific reasons for homelessness among the people served when the data were taken. Also the knowledge base of the organization to keep a small number of people from ruining things for everyone else. Veencker is right, you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially for people for whom good goes a long way. The isolated location is a concern, though. It’s more or less a concern depending on the reasons people experienced homelessness, but I wish further articles could discuss how this isolation will be solved.
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:29 am
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 11:29 am
Will the new Palo Alto Link system access this new project? Could the residents be given access to the discounted price (now limited to the old and the young?). This could solve mass transit issues.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 15, 2023 at 4:31 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2023 at 4:31 pm
Me me me
Free, free, free