Before the Gavel: More Analysis Needed on Homeless Shelter Location

In a written comment submitted ahead of Wednesday’s Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee meeting, a local resident urged city officials not to treat the Rose Palace as the presumptive site for a proposed year-round homeless shelter before conducting a transparent, data-driven comparison of all potential locations.

“It is difficult to understand why the City would consider placing a new City-run year-round shelter at Rose Palace when this same Raymond/Fillmore corridor already has a history of concentrated homeless services and documented impacts near transit,” wrote Erika Foy in a letter to the committee.. “Pasadena should not add another major homeless-service use in the same corridor, especially next to a rail station, and then claim the impacts will be limited or purely local. The location itself will shape who comes, how people arrive, and where they remain before and after receiving services.”

The corridor has a history with the former Union Station Homeless Services Adult Center, nearby transit activity, CVS, parking lots and surrounding residential and commercial neighborhoods as evidence that the area has already experienced significant impacts from concentrated homeless services.

The comments come as the committee prepares to launch its first formal discussion of a city-operated year-round shelter, one of the City Council’s top priorities during this year’s budget deliberations.

During those discussions, council members pressed staff to move forward with plans for a permanent, year-round shelter for single adults, directing staff to develop a roadmap and begin evaluating potential sites.

Staff has since identified the Rose Palace property as one of several locations to be studied as the city develops plans for a low-barrier, service-enriched shelter that could accommodate up to 100 people.

Foy emphasized that the objection is not to homeless services themselves, but to what was described as incompatible land-use planning.

“I am not opposed to helping people experiencing homelessness,” the letter states. “Pasadena should provide compassionate, effective services and shelter options for those in need. But compassion must be paired with responsible planning, honest analysis, and a location that makes sense for both the people being served and the surrounding community.”

According to the comments, the city should examine its own records from the years when the Union Station Adult Center operated nearby, including police and fire calls, code enforcement complaints, sanitation records, trespassing reports, public intoxication incidents and cleanup requests involving the Fillmore Station area, CVS, nearby parking lots and surrounding streets.

The letter argues Pasadena already possesses a local case study demonstrating the impacts that can occur when homeless services are concentrated near a Metro station and should compare conditions before and after operational changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic before selecting a site.

The comments also question whether a large homeless shelter is compatible with the city’s long-term plans for the corridor, citing Huntington Hospital’s nearby expansion, planned residential development and efforts to create a more walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood.

Foy also urged the city to consider whether the Rose Palace property would better serve the area as a park, open space or another civic use, particularly as new housing is added nearby.

Staff has proposed a low-barrier shelter model for single adults that could include separate sleeping quarters, meals, showers, bathrooms, case management, housing navigation, behavioral health connections and an access center linking clients to additional services.

The proposal remains in its early stages and that site selection, funding, operational details and community outreach will all be part of the planning process.

The commenter concluded by urging the committee not to advance Rose Palace as a preferred location until the city completes a comprehensive compatibility analysis, publicly releases historical data on the Raymond-Fillmore corridor and conducts a transparent evaluation of all potential sites before making a recommendation to the City Council.

“I understand that this is an early committee discussion and that no final decision has been made. That makes it even more important for the City to establish the right questions, the right data, and the right public process from the beginning,” Foy said. “Rose Palace should not be treated as the presumptive location before the City has completed a full, transparent, site-by-site analysis.”

Wednesday’s item was an information item and required no action by the committee.