Menlo Park Emergency Shelter location
City Council meeting Dec. 10, 2013
I am unable to attend the city council meeting tonight, so I hoped that council members
and the emergency shelter planning group could consider my views . I did attend the Oct.
21 meeting of the shelter planning group and sent a written statement prior to that
meeting, and spoke at the meeting with other neighbors in Area E. Please consider my
additional comments in your decision-making.
1. Retain area B, the VA location as best option. There was already a community
homeless shelter there in the past, and the city was able to overcome any objections that
may have come from the VA; we should build on that past situation, and all the
advantages of the site, creating a “triangle” of services including Haven House and the
job training center. As veterans amount to 25% of the homeless in the county, it would be
ideal once again to have a partnership with the VA and the non-veteran homeless. While
there are residential neighborhoods adjacent to the VA, it is relatively self-contained and
has tremendous advantages because of the size of its campus, experience from the
previous shelter, and the probable inclusion of support services and other programs to
help those needing emergency shelter, jobs and affordable housing. It would be a
tremendous partnership with the city for a crucial program. We need to remember that
this is an emergency shelter, not a shelter for the chronically homeless, and if support
services such as counseling, appropriate classes were offered on-site, it could have
minimal impact on the neighborhood.
2. Reconsider area A – I would recommend that residential-heavy neighborhoods, like D
and E be excluded from consideration as a site. This would make area A an important
option. One objection at the Oct. 21 meeting I was able to attend was that there isn’t
currently transit service to the area, but surely future transit development, including the
Menlo Park shuttle service could be added at the time a shelter is established, to take
residents of the shelter to support services for job training, transitional housing, etc. when
such programs are identified/developed – or such services could be offered nearby. There
should be affordable land in this area and the social impact of locating the shelter on a
mostly residential neighborhood is avoided in this largely industrial site. Another
objection at the Oct. meeting was that there was toxic soil in the area, and that it’s in a
flood plane (as is the headquarters of Facebook, and before that, Sun) – surely if the site
needs cleanup, governmental levels above the city could provide funds and flood
abatement/mitigation. There are industrial and business sites in the area and I understand
that it is appropriately zoned; it’s not out of the question that affordable housing goals
could be set for this area as well as emergency shelter.
3. Remove the mainly residential neighborhoods of D and E from consideration. Both
neighborhoods have adjacent elementary schools – Nativity in area D and St. Raymond’s
and Hillview in area E. Let’s avoid potential problems that may be caused by increasing
the area’s homeless population near elementary schools. Students walking or riding their
bikes to the elementary schools adjacent to area E generally use Santa Cruz Ave. in the
mornings when the shelter residents will be up and about the community – I’d like to
reduce the chances of bad encounters by not having a facility near the young students’
route to school.
Residents from a shelter in area E, where I own my home, would have easy access (a
public pass-through walkway from Roble Ave.) to our neighborhood park, Nealon Park,
already in heavy use with a Senior center, nursery school, open children’s playground
and youth sports on the lawn and in the baseball diamond. The meeting rooms and
cafeteria for seniors in Little House are already stretched to their limit. Our other small
downtown Fremont Park, already has a number of chronically homeless individuals,
some clearly with mental issues. These facilities, compared to the huge Burgess Park
facilities across the street from area C¸ would be over-stressed with the addition of the
shelter residents when they must leave the shelter during the day, and what I predict
would be increased numbers of homeless who tend to congregate nearby homeless
facilities.
In area E we also have the complication of proximity of the shelter and its residents to the
city’s main shopping district, which would probably adversely affect shoppers’ feelings
of safety, possibly lead to an increase in panhandling, and potential misuse of public
restrooms – if not by those sheltered for emergencies, then by other homeless who will
undoubtedly come to the area hopeful of overnight shelter in a doorway, behind a store,
or in a park. I know this is a stereotype, but it does happen, as evidenced by even violent
incidents at Palo Alto’s InnVision – even though the emergency shelter will be small.
Walking down my street in area E, not so many years ago, I encountered a man, who
appeared to be homeless, who exposed himself – there are not enough facilities for the
troubled homeless, certainly, but there are relevant issues.
Homeowners and landlords are also justifiably concerned about the possible effects such
a facility in their residential neighborhoods may have on property values, a not
inconsequential issue. I don’t know the landlords’ views in area E – many are absentee
or corporate landlords who may not be aware of the shelter issue. And I don’t know if
the renters in our neighborhood are aware, and may feel that their opinions – not
landowners – may not be appreciated, and they may be unaware of the shelter issue, but I
imagine they will share many of my views.
4. Retain area C for consideration. Although it does have a residential enclave whose
homeowners have expressed objections to a shelter, it has a generous physical set-back
separating it from Middlefield Rd., and does have the land between it and St. Patrick’s as
a buffer. A 16 bed shelter could be further removed from the subdivision, by being
situated towards the Willow Road end of the St. Patrick’s property. I would hope that if
there are difficulties with the proposed VA site, or with area A, based on environmental
hazards, that the diocese might be willing to make some land available for shelter
construction – consistent with the church’s humanitarian ideals. There is a small grocery
store, access to transit, and an additional “buffer” for the residential area of companies
such as SRI, Sunset and the Geological survey, which do have open houses, but would
not experience the possible loss of business that might result from a potentially increased
homeless presence on Santa Cruz Avenue’s prime shopping district.
In addition, rather than the small parks in area E, the large Burgess Park and its facilities
(including meeting rooms that could host support programs for the shelter residents), the
gyms, the library, the police station, and a “secure” daycare facility would not be
overwhelmed by the shelter residents, or other homeless individuals who might
congregate in the area adjacent to the shelter as would be the case in area E.
The adjacent high school is not as vulnerable to proximity to a shelter as the elementary
schools in area D and E. I do live in the “downtown” district of area E, and am sensitive
to the NIMBY response that shows lack of sympathy with the needs of homeless
individuals. But I do believe there are other better choices, which I would rate, in the
order of areas B, A and C.
4. I’m also uncomfortable with some of the lack of detail in terms of what constitutes an
emergency for the shelter, and the rules and regulations of the shelter. Support programs
to move shelter residents beyond a specified emergency stay will be critical for the
shelter residents and their neighbors, as will be specific residency requirements and onsite supervision. Questions occur such as: Will “emergency” ever be considered “no
vacancy at other shelters”, and is there a possibility that the emergency shelter takes in
the chronically homeless on occasion or regularly? This would be unsatisfactory. Also
there should be clear guidelines about how homeless individuals will be evaluated for
eligibility for the shelter and on what terms will they be “evicted”. No smoking in the
shelter? No alcohol or drug use in the shelter? I would strongly recommend that there be
no admittance of residents with demonstrated alcohol or drug problems or
criminal/arrest records, such as assault/battery, violence, a history of past or current
restraining orders, or mental health admissions, etc.? Will all candidates be interviewed
off-site, so there is not a stream (or even trickle) of hopeful residents around the shelter
during the day? Are residents limited to only one 30 or 60-day residence? – if it is an
emergency, it should have a specific time limit, or the shelter will attract the chronically
homeless. What health requirements are there for residents in the screening process?
Will there be a neighborhood ombudsman/police contact to review and respond to
neighbor’s complaints? How will neighborhood street parking (already dense because of
our proximity to offices and Trader Joe’s and businesses on Santa Cruz Ave.) be affected,
and will shelter residents who have cars be restricted to a parking area which is on the
shelter’s property, and not be eligible for daytime or at least overnight street parking? At
what time will the shelter close for the night? Does the 16 bed limit include children, or
will residents be adults only – children on-site during the day, with appropriate play
structures and supervision would have a serious impact on the neighborhood.
There are many unanswered questions about the shelter, but some good basic guidelines
in your printer materials, and I applaud the city for starting the planning and involving
citizens in the dialogue. I realize that there are many homeless for whom health or
corporate downsizing, divorce or death of a partner constitutes the emergency, but there
are those whose emergency relates to mental health or substance abuse problems, which
require a secured location that is not in a residential neighborhood. And just as
important, for residents of the shelter, what community programs will be developed for
their support and training, and will they be required to enroll in programs in order to
maintain their residency in the shelter? How will residents get to and from the support
programs? What are the consequences of not attending programs, breaking house rules,
loitering around the residence during the day?
It is one thing to provide emergency shelter – but is bad weather and shortage of other
beds enough of an “emergency” – and will it “trump” a thorough vetting of the homeless
candidate? It is one thing to provide short-term emergency housing, but without
appropriate services and training – away from the shelter during the day, which the
residents are required to attend - there is no assurance that once their residency period has
expired, that they will be able to recover from the personal or family emergency that
brought them to the emergency shelter’s door. Of course, the larger issue is that I’m also
troubled about is that the economics of Menlo Park and surrounding communities don’t
provide many affordable housing options for the working poor, and fewer still for those
who are chronically unemployed or have sufficient mental, or emotional problems that
caused their homelessness. What to do after a brief emergency shelter is provided, for
those who cannot afford to live hear, but have few options of where to go?
Judy Adams
Homeowner at 737 Live Oak Ave for nearly 30 years