From: Karen White
To: Council, City
Subject: Item #17/ Shelter Program at the Downtown Library Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 10:14:37 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hon. members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I am concerned that the City of Palo Alto chose not to inform or consult with the surrounding residents regarding the Downtown Library’s use as a shelter and food service location.
The two-page report indicates that “This winter the City designated the Downtown Library as the sole location [for the shelter]….” However, when the authorization for this program was passed on the consent agenda of December 18, 2023, the proposal stated “The location(s) for the OWL are still under review and may include a combination of a local faith institution and a city facility such as the Downtown Library.” The process for that decision was hardly a public process.
I respectfully feel that the City and those running the shelter program at the Downtown Library could have done a much better job of informing all of the stakeholders of this decision. This December 18, 2023 report indicated that:
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The OWL is being planned by a subcommittee that includes City staff from the Office of Human Services and representatives from local nonprofits that serve the unhoused. The OWL concept was also discussed by the Palo Alto Homeless Service Providers Committee at its meeting on October 4, 2023. In seeking a location for the OWL, staff has been in touch with two local faith communities and in one case, staff made a presentation to their governing body on October 18, 2023.
I would submit that two of the most important stakeholders that should have been consulted were the hundreds of residents within a few blocks of the Downtown Library and the one organization that represents the residents who use and support our libraries, the Friends of the Play Alto Library. This March 11 report only says that:
“The City did not notify adjacent properties given the temporary use and will consider this moving forward.” Please direct the City staff to do a lot more than consider including the Downtown Library neighbors and the Friends of the Palo Alto Library.
Did the Palo Alto City staff ever consider the City-owned empty building at 445 Bryant for a temporary pilot shelter program? That building has, unlike the Downtown Library, bathrooms, lockers, and ADA-compliant showers. If I was asked about this program that would have been one suggestion you would have heard.
As for zoning, is the Downtown Library zoned for residential use and as a provider of hot meals? Am I against shelters for those living on our streets? No, however, I believe that the process was certainly flawed and a better choice of locations might have been made if you had only reached out to the community. For that matter, I wonder how many members of the City Council were made aware of this proposal for using the Downtown library as a shelter?
Respectfully,
Karen White
40-year Homeowner and Resident of Palo Alto
From: Sherry Listgarten
To: Council, City
Cc: O"Kane, Kristen
Subject: OWL program thoughts
Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 7:01:41 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I appreciate the informational report about the OWL (Overnight Warming Locations) program, and loved reading about how successful it was. I was going to send you a note saying "Great!", but then I read a bit more and realized the program costs about $150 per person per night when it is at capacity ($150 * 10 * 60 = $90,000), and more if not. Per the outlined budget, it seems like about $5 of that is food/snacks, so the rest must be for lodging. It made me wonder if another option would be low-cost local hotels. The benefits would be:
- larger and more comfortable beds
- more privacy, less health risk
- earlier check-in and later check-out
- no midday eviction during multi-day segments of bad weather - support for local businesses
- no need to multi-use a library
- could house more people for the same cost (I see rooms for about $70-$80/night + tax) The downsides could be:
- a shuttle would be needed from (say) library to hotel(s) - the hotel(s) might not be as centrally located
- hotel rooms could be more impersonal, less caring -- this seems important, and would merit some thought - there may not always be hotel space, and/or more than one hotel might be needed, adding complexity - hotels might not be interested
I don't know much about this topic, and there certainly could be considerations I haven't thought of. So I defer to people who have thought about this more than I have. I think it is great that we are looking at ways to help the unhoused during periods of bad weather.
-- Sherry.