PALO ALTO — City leaders are plowing ahead with plans to build an 88-bed emergency homeless shelter near the Baylands as part of a Project Homekey proposal, but the city is still waiting for the state funding it needs to start construction.
In a 6-1 vote Monday, councilman Greg Tanaka dissenting, council members voted to extend the Emergency Shelter Crisis it declared in September 2021 and to draw up a standard agreement with the state for a Project Homekey grant, both moves that will make starting construction easier when the grant money does finally come in.
Since Project Homekey’s launch last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom has awarded close to $1 billion in funding for a total of 61 housing projects throughout the state. The governor’s initiative allows nonprofits, cities and counties to convert hotels and apartment buildings into housing for homeless residents throughout the state.
The state has not yet announced the second round of projects that will receive funding, but the award for Palo Alto’s development is expected to be over $20 million for a project estimated to cost $25 million.
“The council and staff have raced forward with a process to find a site and prove its feasibility and pushed forward an application with the state for the Homekey grant,” Burt said. “What we’ve been waiting on is the state issuance of the grant. We thought we’d be in the first grant cycle and we weren’t included. But we’ve received strong indications from the state that funding is imminent.”
While some Project Homekey developments take existing hotels or motels and turn them into transitional housing for unhoused people — like the Crestview Hotel in Mountain View — Palo Alto’s emergency shelter will be built from the ground up at a 60,000 square-foot city-owned lot on San Antonio Road near the Baylands that was formerly a GreenWaste site.
Part of the site is expected to become a three-story complex of 88 modular “sleeping pods” and about 10 additional support structures for dining, offices, storage and common space uses, complete with wrap-around medical and social services coordinated by Menlo Park-based non-profit LifeMoves.
Santa Clara County and Palo Alto have pledged to cover operating costs — about $1 million a year — and the Sobrato Organization gave $5 million toward the project. The rest of the funding will come from the state, an expected $21.6 million.
To get people housed quickly, Homekey provides many exemptions and requires cities to adhere to strict deadlines. The state wants a Homekey project to be reviewed, approved and built within a year or less, and most council members agree the project should be moved through as quickly as possible.
“I’m excited,” Vice Mayor Lydia Kou said. “I look forward to hearing good news from the state. I keep on asking: are we there yet?”
Councilman Tom DuBois supports the Homekey project and used his comment to advocate for the business tax measure on the November ballot which he says will help to fund more projects like this one.
“One of the potential uses of the proposed business tax is for housing and homeless programs,” DuBois said. “Some of that money could help pay for operational costs. If that were to happen it benefits our homeless community and some of our businesses that have been impacted by people sleeping in front of their store.”
Though the rest of the council agree the project is good to go, Tanaka, who voted against the motion, said he’s worried about the cost. He said the city is losing potential revenue of about $500,000 a year according to city staff, and he’s concerned about giving away the land to LifeMoves and pledging operational costs when the city is looking to increase revenue.
In a back-and-forth with city staff and LifeMoves Director Jo Price, Tanaka grilled them on the specifics of the project budget, like why it cost about $130,000 per door for a Homekey project in Mountain View but $200,000 per door in Palo Alto. Price said the Palo Alto units are expected to be bigger and have en-suite bathrooms, which add to the cost. Still, Tanaka opposed the project and urged the council to look at cost-saving measures.
“For me, I supported this project originally when there was the same cost as Mountain View, because I think we need to do our part,” Tanaka said. “But with the cost being more than it is in our neighboring community, it doesn’t seem right. I think we should scale back to have the same cost.”
Source: www.mercurynews.com