Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, April 25, 2023 (part 4 of 5)

I also want to point out Professor Jamie Chang's research from Santa Clara University who found that 246 people in the County who were unsheltered died in the streets last year, more than half of whom are people of color. We need to invest in inclusivity and we can't keep saying not here, not here. I invite everyone in my neighborhood to think about the well-being of everyone, not just the most well-off among us.

Thanks,
Asha DuMonthier
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: elter at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 4:30:20 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

I believe that there are several questions that haven't been satisfactorily addressed in the meetings so far as well as in the FAQ updates, and I still feel that a "low entry barrier interim housing for singles and couples" is not the right fit for this particular location.

1. 2.

Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on tbis_KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years.
0 0
What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?
Property Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to assert that low-income-housing doesn’t adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that’s proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets?
How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:
0 0
0 0
0 Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like supportive housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here.

I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Harsha Vashisht, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: r at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:06:45 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

I believe that there are several questions that haven't been satisfactorily addressed in the meetings so far as well as in the FAQ updates, and I still think that a "low entry barrier interim housing for singles and couples" is not the right fit tor this particular locatjon,

1. Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at an satjsfjed by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on ib.is..KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seemed to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years
o What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
o If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

2. Property Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to assert that low-income-housing doesn't adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that's proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
o How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
o How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets?
o How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
o How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:
○
Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
○
Only US citizens
○Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
○
Put Families first
○
Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
○
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
○
Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
○
Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like supportive housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here.

With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Pushpanjali S,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: r at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:42:17 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

I believe that there are several questions that haven 't been satisfactorily addressed in the meetings so far as well as in the FAQ updates, and I still feel that a "low entiy ban ier interim housing for singles and couples" is not the right fit for this particular location.

Safety & Secmity (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on this KQED a1ticle. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we tiy to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabmy Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the repo1t on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years.

What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabmy for safety and secmity?
If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable? Prope1ty Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to asse1t that low-income-housing doesn't adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that's proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

Safety & Secmity (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

How do we protect the "clients" from ti·affic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may smprise them on expressway or neighborhood sti·eets? How do we protect the students from having a nm-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/sti·eets?
How do we prevent the influx of dmgs in this neighborhood due to such a project? Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?
Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
Only US citizens
Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
Put Families first
Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.

Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood) Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like supportive housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here.

I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

WIth regards,
Rachna Lal
Resident of Neighborhood
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Community F - Sti a No to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:59:22 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

I. Safety & Security ( of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on !his..KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, ifwe try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30°/4 increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300°/4 increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years
o What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
o If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

2. Property Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to assert that low-income-housing doesn't adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that’s proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients. Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
○ How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino? ○ How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets?
○ How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets? ○ How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:
○ Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
○ Only US citizens
○ Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
○ Put Families first
○ Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
○ Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
○ Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
○ Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like affordable housing, preferably a rent-toown housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here.

I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Santosh Singh,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 3 :00:49 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

1. 2.

2. 3.

Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on this KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls yearover-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years.
0 0
What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable? Property Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to assert that low-income-housing doesn't adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that's proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

4. How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets? How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:

5. Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
Only US citizens
Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
Put Families first
Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like supportive housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Divyashree Ramesh,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
0 From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Saturday, Ma rch 25, 2023 8 :52:21 AM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

1. 2.

3. Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on this KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls yearover-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years.
0 0
What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable? Property Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to assert that low-income-housing doesn't adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that's proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets? How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
Only US citizens
Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
Put Families first
Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
We already have Bella Vista Inn right next to this area opened up. Why are we not distributing the homeless shelters across other areas of the county ? We have cities around here which have none.

Alternative plan for Benton - What the City really needs to prevent families from going jobless & homless 1) A majority of residents would like affordable housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here. 2) Also, we should consider the lack of child care centers in our area. Appleseed School closed down because the SCUSD reclaimed their property. It used to cater to ~200 children from infant to preschool age. We should consider this property for building a day care center for the growing working class families in this region.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Sonia Singhal,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
0 From:

To:

Subject: Concerns About the Safety Impact of the Benton Homeless Shelter Project Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:00:47 AM
Dear Consuelo & Adam,
I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed Benton Homeless Shelter Project, specifically regarding the potential safety impact on our neighborhood. As a resident of this community for almost 15 years and at 75 years old, safety is a top priority for my life.

Last year, I attended a Milpitas City Council meeting regarding the 1000 Hillview Supportive Housing project, which had a significant impact on the safety and security of the surrounding community. I am deeply concerned about the potential for similar safety issues to arise in our own neighborhood if the Benton Homeless Shelter Project moves forward.

I am writing to seek your help in understanding why the safety issues that arose in Milpitas could happen, and how we can be assured that this will not happen in our own community. Until I receive answers to these questions and feel confident that the safety of our community will not be compromised, I will remain strongly opposed to the construction of the interim housing in Benton and Lawrence.

I urge you to take these concerns seriously and to work with the community to address them before moving forward with this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Helen Zong
--
Sincerely,
Sharon
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Saturday, April 8, 2023 3:02:07 PM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
My name is Qing Chen, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is a reckless proposal and radical experiment.There are 8 major reasons that I oppose the Benton project and the location selection.

1. Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

2. Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022.)

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

4. High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval. Therefore LifeMoves' promise cannot be trusted

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse (State law requires 1 :6 nurse-patient radio in a psychiatric unit, LifeMoves recommends only one vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants, with 57% of them having serious mental health issues)

6. Location selection is far from public transit (1 mile), grocery (0.9 mile) and jobs

7. County providing false and misleading info

8. 300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

This reckless project will certainly take police resources away from the rest of the community, and put all our lives in danger. It will also lead to significant debt for the city of Santa Clara.

County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of more than 400 participants strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. We need the city council to reject this radical experiment as soon as possible.

I'm counting on you. Thank you for your attention.

Resource:

Milpitas council meeting on 1000 Hillview Ct apartment, in November 2022:
https/lwww voutube com1I;ve11sq,JfdT{pmU?feature=share&t=2szo, starts 43:oo • Chief police Hernandez gave update on its impact on public safety services. Starting 1:03:21 • Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) expressed a lot of concerns for safety and urge them to be addressed immediately. Starts 1 :31 :38 As costs rise, LifeMoves' Palo Alto's transitional housing project seeks to reduce amenities: https-//paloaltoonline comlnews12023/03/3Qlas-costs-dse-pa/o-a1tos-transitional-housing-prQject-see1<sto-reduce-amenities LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help its homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't: bttps·[Jwww a1manacnews com/news1202310313omterooves-mountaio-view-proroises-to-belphomeIess-clieots-find-stable-housiog-io-tbree-months-the-vast-majority-dont Life Moves Mountain View aims to house people in just three months. Experts say that its model doesn't work:
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-findstable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont From:

To:

Subject: Entire household ( strongly against Homekey project "Benton Street at Lawrence" Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:48:53 AM
To Consuelo and Santa Clara county:

Please stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom.

I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the HomeKey project "Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Shelter" , portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf.

Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for it and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance for such behavior.

For the upcoming 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the city and county to change the meeting to in-person or add a co-host nominated by the Benton neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together. We also urge the city and county to stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents in all future meetings.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Sincere,
Household and house owner of .

Ethan Chou
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: ny low entry barrier homeless shelters near residential neighborhoods like Lawrence/ Benton
Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 4:11:03 PM
Attachments: Working together in solving homelessness crisis along with improving safety 4.4.23.pdf Thank you for listening to the Santa Clara residents in the last City Council meeting (on 4/4/23) regarding the impact to our safety due to the Lawrence/Benton "Low Entry Barrier" Homeless Shelter project.

Imagine your home being in proximity to such a facility where such folks may be getting help, but are quite free to roam around, loiter around your homes or schools. How does that make you feel?
Recent brutal attack on the former San Francisco fire commissioner in Marina District exemplifies what your residents are afraid of.

This is not a fear of the unknown but rather a fear due to the known perils associated with severe mental disorders, substance abuse and repeat criminal behaviors.

Ms. Mayor and council members, the tax paying citizens, especially the middle class want safety first. Nothing comes above that for families that just want a safe environment to bring up their kids. So far we have not seen any tangible proof regarding the efficacy of screenings done by LifeMoves to allay our concerns.

Most of the residents are amenable to a low income rent to own housing for teachers, nurses, firefighters, police workers etc. who work hard to uplift our community but get priced out from this expensive city. Such an investment would uplift the community and make it even more thriving. Please refer to the presentation attached.

Most of the residents also suggest moving such "low barrier entry shelters for singles/couples" in a relatively non-residential area, and providing amenities and support that help such individuals rehabilitate. There is so much money being pumped by the government that we can really tackle this problem at its root cause, by rehabilitation and learning the issues that are causing this situation in the first place. We have already found a number of locations within Santa Clara County that could be a better fit. If you can support us, we'd be able to tackle the issue of the housing crisis for low income households along with tackling homelessness jointly, without compromising on the safety of your residents.

We could actually become a shining example of how this can be done right, with the power of the majority of residents with you. The current approach just seems to be a very expensive band-aid that would only increase problems for tax paying residents and jeopardize our safety.

We need your support in making safety the topmost priority.

Regards,
Ashish
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

Cc: [email protected]"; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fear of the KNOWN: Firm “No” to any low entry barrier homeless shelters near high density neighborhoods like Lawrence/Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:54:03 PM
Dear Mayor and Council members,
Thank you for listening to the Santa Clara residents in the last City Council meeting (on 4/4/23) regarding the impact to our safety due to the Lawrence/Benton "Low Entry Barrier" Homeless Shelter project..

We, as residents, are afraid of the adverse impact of such a low entry barrier shelter created so close to our homes and schools. Per the data shown by the city, more than 57% of the clients serviced by such a facility could have mental disorders, addiction to drugs, criminal records etc. Imagine your home being in proximity to such a facility where such folks may be getting help, but are quite free to roam around, loiter around your homes or schools. How does that feel?
Recent brutal attack on the former San Francisco fire commissioner in Marina District exemplifies what your residents are afraid of.

This is not a fear of the unknown but rather a fear due to the known perils associated with severe mental disorders, substance abuse and repeat criminal behaviors.

The current approach just seems to be a very expensive band-aid that would only increase problems for tax paying residents and jeopardize our safety.

We need your support in making safety the topmost priority.

Regards,
Anupama T
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

Subject: Feedback form for 9th march public meeting - regarding Benton shelter Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:59:10 AM
Attachments: Feedbackform march-9-meeting.pdf
Hello All,
Please find our feedback form attached and kindly include it in your records you submit to city council.

Thanks,
Vishal
--
Typing one handed. Please excuse typos
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: FW: Article on Life Moves in Mountain View
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 8:49:14 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Mayor and Council,
We received the following email which we are forwarding for your reference.

Thank You,
| Executive Assistant
Mayor & Council Offices | City of Santa Clara
From:

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 3:42 PM
To:

Subject: Article on Life Moves in Mountain View
Dear Mayor and Council.

Please, please, please read this article from the Mountain View Voice dated March 30, 2023.

It substantiates much of the concerns of those in our community who live in the surrounding area.

In fact, this information is evidence that this model anywhere in the City of Santa Clara will not be successful.

Consider using the space for other things of public interest that WILL help the poor and keep them out of homelessness, like affordable toddler child care. That is an investment in the future.

Even without this article, what Life Moves proposes simply won't happen. Those who suffer an addiction of any sort are not "rehabilitated" in 6 months. We know that from high profile cases of celebrities who go to high profile, intensive and expensive rehab centers and return to their addiction. It took years for people to be living on the street with many, many factors involved:
mental illness, alienation from family, lack of job skills, lack of being able to hold down a job. Their situation cannot be remedied in a few months.

Life Moves is a "feel good" band aid for a gaping wound. It will be unsuccessful from inception.

This is common sense, but the article tells all.
-
Cit.yof
Santa Clara
ho Cttnt r ol Wh li i>onlbl
Please do not approve of any contract with Life Moves at Benton and Lawrence.

Read the article and how can you disagree?
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-helphomeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont?utm_source=express2023-03-30&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express#.ZCbF4fvyI2M.mailto Sincerely,
Judy Crates
From:

To:

Subject: FW: Canceling April 12 - Housing CDBG Coordinators" Monthly Meeting // Homekey Round 3 NOFA Webinar Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 5:29:49 PM
Webinar on next round of homekey funds. Great chatting with you today.

Best,
Chantal
From:

Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 5:07 PM
To:

Subject: Canceling April 12 - Housing CDBG Coordinators' M ont hly M eet ing I I Homekey Round 3 NOFA Webinar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Good afternoon, everyone. We are canceling the April 12 Housing CDBG Coordinators' meeting. We look forward to meeting with you next on Wednesday, May 10th from 11 am to noon.

We are also reaching out to share the HCD announcement below about an upcoming Homekey Round 3 webinar on April 20, 2023 from 1 Oam - 12pm. Please see the message below for a registration link.

From: CA Department of Housing & Communit y Development <communications@hcdca.ccsend.com> On Behalf Of CA Department of Housing & Community Development Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:44 PM
To:

Apologies, the registration link should now be working.

Homekey Round 3
Register to attend NOFA webinar
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will be hosting a webinar on April 20 to outline the Homekey Round 3 program requirements and assist communities in accessing Homekey funds. HCD released the Homekey Round 3 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for $736 million on March 29.

Who is eligible to apply?
Homekey Round 3 wi ll distribute $736 million in grant funding to local public entities, including cities, counties, or other local public entities, such as housing authorit ies or federally or non-federally recognized Indian tribes within California.

Homekey is an opportunity for state, regional, and local public entities to develop a broad range of housing types, including but not limited to hotels, motels, single-family homes and mult ifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing, and to convert commercial properties and other existing buildings to Permanent or Interim Housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Register to attend the NOFA webinar
April 20, 2023
10am - 12pm
Requests for accommodation, translation services, and for auxiliary aides and services to access the meeting may be submitted by email. Please submit your requests by Apri l 15, 2023.

Application Process
HCD will accept applications on a continuous, over-the-counter basis through July 28, 2023, or until the available funds are exhausted, whichever occurs first. Applicants must submit a pre-application consultation survey to HCD prior to applying. Information on when pre-application consultations will be available will be posted on the Homekey webpaqe.

For more information, please visit the Homekey webpage.

Questions?
Copyright© 2023
hcd.ca.gov LJLJ
Department of Housing & Community Development I
Unsubscribe
Update Pro I e
Sent by
Try emai l marketing for free today!
powered by
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information t hat is confidential or restrict ed. It is intended only for t he individuals named as recipient s in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing t he message or content to others and must delete t he message from your computer. If you have received t his message in error, please notify the sender by ret urn email.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information t hat is confidential or restrict ed. It is intended only for t he individuals named as recipient s in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing t he message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received t his message in error, please notify the sender by ret urn email.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter Benton/Lawerence
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 8:49:14 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Mayor and Council,
We received the following email which we are forwarding for your reference.

Thank You,
Melissa Lee | Executive Assistant
Mayor & Council Offices | City of Santa Clara
From: Ally Perfetto
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 7:41 PM
To: supervisor
Subject: Homeless Shelter Benton/Lawerence
Ally Perfetto 7:31 PM (7 minutes ago)
to supervisor.lee
I think privatizing the issue of homelessness is the wrong solution.

The cost of the homelessness shelter per person is 55,000, per year. 4,500 per month. If the city just rented out a couple of apartment from each apartment complex (perhaps 1% of units) you would be able to fit many more homeless people.

These people would feel more integrated with society, as they are not in a giant conglomerate were 80 percent of the neighboring community, disagrees with their placement.

Social services could help monitor their placements, (with proper funding, taken from savings from rent) LifeMoves is a business just like any other, and will be looking for a profit. Sooner or later there will be changes to the shelter which are no longer profitable and short cuts will be taken. These choices will be in the best interest of LifeMoves, and not the homeless people nor surrounding communities.

I strongly oppose the proposed life moves shelter of Lawerence and Benton.

City of
Santa Clara The Center of What·a Ponible
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: FW: Shelter Queue Waitlist Data 3 8 2023.xlsx
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 5:38:30 PM
Attachments: Shelter Queue Waitlist Data 3 8 2023.xlsx
Here is the shelter queue info.

Hilary Armstrong (she/her)
Office of Supportive Housing | County of Santa Clara
From: Barbieri, Shelly
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Armstrong, Hilary
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo Covert, Michelle L
Subject: Shelter Queue Waitlist Data 3 8 2023.xlsx
Hello,
I have attached the shelter queue data. Data is as of today and focuses on household size with city affiliation (which city did you live in prior to becoming homeless). We can also run city affiliation by the city you spend the most time in. Pregnancy data soon to come. Let me know if you have any questions. Let me know if you want additional data.

Thanks,
Shelly
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Subject: Homeless Low Barrier Housing @ Benton /Lawrence.

Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 8:36:59 AM
Attachments: Scan Larry Bush 08 31 17-03-2023.pdf
To whom it may concern:

I have lived in the area for more than 50 years.

I feel this is to close to schools, parks and senior living.

There are allot of empty offices and warehouse that could be converted in much better area.

Thank you.

Laurens Bush
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Subject: How many will it take?
Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 5:41:43 PM
Please, tell us, how many murders, assaults, rapes, or robberies of our neighbors and colleagues will it take to get you to realize that putting 200-300 homeless directly off the streets into our neighborhood is a BAD IDEA?
We stopped attending conferences in SF because of the danger. Our colleagues who flew in from other parts of the country couldn't understand why we didn't drive up until they had to walk along the streets near Moscone and had to step over people and used drug paraphernalia.

Many event organizers have already chosen other cities for future conferences.

And you want us to extend a warm welcome to the homeless? No. They need to be moved out of our creeks and off of our streets and into an appropriate facility away from those of us that are vulnerable.

Please don't respond with...'not all homeless are criminals'. 42% have mental health issues
35% have drug/alcohol addiction
25% spent at least one night in jail in the past 12 months.

That's your data, not ours. We are furious that you would even consider doing this to us.

Perhaps you can find an old military base to use for a few years.

A homeless interim transitional housing shelter, or whatever you're choosing to call it this year, does NOT BELONG ON BENTON or in any other residential area. Period! From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:45:08 AM
Hi TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location because Homeless Shelter for residents can pose potential risks to the high-density residential areas and to users of parks,
kids in many daycares, schools and children's playgrounds in this area. AND I request that I vote NO on this project:

Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Thanks & Regards,
Bay Star Limo
* If cancellation is made less than 24 hours we will charge 100% of original fees.

C:Onftdentiality Notice: The information in this e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended for the named recipient/s) only. This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information thot is privileged and confidential and subject to legal restrictions and penalties regarding its unauthorized disclosure or other use. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action or inaction in reliance an the contents of this e-mail and any of its attachments is STRJCTI. Y PROH/BfTED. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender via re tum e-mail; delete this e-mail and all attachments from your e-mail system and your computer system and network; and destroy any paper copies you may hove in your possession. Thank you far your cooperation.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:01:34 PM
Hi
I don't have the chance to speak up during the meeting. I just want to share my opinion t hat I oppose the shelter at this location. I live in santa clara with two kids. The people who showed support in the meeting are not belong to santa clara. Two are from Sunnyvale, two don't want to share where t hey live and only saying live in bay area, one is public official. Please be aware and listen to the local people in santa clara
Saihua
From:

To:

Subject: I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:07:23 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

This location sits within walking distance to quite a few elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single family homes, apartments, senior homes. Families stroll in the area with their kids. Young students walk to and from their schools daily. Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

The county has clearly indicated that this shelter shall admit people with prior criminal background, with prior or ongoing drug abuse, with mental health issues ... We believe people living a difficult life deserve a helping hand, but while it is a good and noble cause to help them, I strongly feel that mixing the “most challenging elements of the population” with some of the most innocent & vulnerable members of the community shows a lack of thoughtfulness and sincerity on the part of the county/city in their effort to locate such a homeless care facility.

Besides situated in a densely populated residential area, the proposed site is adjacent to a section of Lawrence Expressway that is 2-way, 8-lane with a tremendous amount of weekday traffic. None of the environmental characteristics, including but not limited to, loud, continuous noise, resultant lower air quality, proximity to high volume of vehicle traffic is conducive to rehabilitation and stabilization of life after living on the street.

The County does own a number of parcels further away from residential areas. Palo Alto has had experience with building a homeless shelter in a non-residential area. In these areas, more space is available, which may enable more space allocation per unhoused individual, compared to the 4-story, container-like tiny rooms for individuals and couples proposed for the Benton site.

Last but not least, there is indisputable, data-backed research showing that a homeless shelter, either an “interim shelter”, “emergency shelter” or called by any other name, inevitably brings negative impacts onto the surrounding neighborhood. Crime rates will rise. Property market value (NOT assessed value thanks to Prop 13 in California) will fall. The county has converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility this year. The Benton/Lawrence location is barely half a mile away. It seems unfair and unthoughtful to subject communities in the Lawrence/El Camino Real area to another one again.

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Eric Sung
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

I oppose e s e ter ui at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Friday, April 7, 2023 6:14 :04 PM
Dear Council Member,
I am writing to express my strnng opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in our community. I believe that this paiticular shelter poses a tremendous safety threat to the 11,000 students and families in the area.

As you are awai·e, the proposed shelter would gather criminals, drng addicts, and individuals with mental disorders without treatment together in one place. This creates an environment that is inherently dangerous, and one that has ah-eady been seen in Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites experiencing striking crime statistics increasing.

Fmthe1more, I am troubled by the fact that more than 300 questions from members of the community remain unanswered to date. It is imperative that those responsible for making decisions regarding the proposed shelter take the time to listen to and address the concerns of the community. We have a right to know how this shelter will be operated and managed, and what measures will be taken to ensure the safety of our community.

Lastly, it is concerning that there appeai·s to be no plan for operation fund and cost even after three community heai·ings. The lack of transparency and accountability in this matter is simply unacceptable, and I urge you to reconsider this proposal.

In conclusion, I implore you to listen to the concerns of the community and take action to prevent the establishment of this homeless shelter. Our safety and well-being depend on it.

Thank you for your attention to this impo1tant matter.

Sincerely,
Junwei Wei
From:

To:

Subject: I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:20:27 AM
Dear Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County, I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

My kids will not feel safe walking in my neighborhood or visit Earl R Carmichael park anymore.

Regards,
Robert Vu
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:32:58 PM
Hi,
I have been writing and speaking to some of you lately in favor of the proposal to build a low baITier interim housing facility at the comer of Lawrence & Benton.

I've seen a lot of the inflammato1y rhetoric from the opposition, and I want to remind you: it is ILLEGAL to discriminate against disabilities, including mental illness. You CANNOT legally veto this facility on the basis of fear around people with disabilities.

R. Elysa Gmman (she/they)
From:

To:

Subject: in support of Benton + Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59:42 PM
Hi, I'm writing in support of the Benton and Lawrence interim housing project. I attended in tonight's Zoom community meeting but did not join the speaker queue in time to speak.

I've been a Santa Clara homeowner for over 20 years. I strongly support this project, and I'm disheartened that so many of my fellow citizens are opposed because of biased perceptions about who is going to live inside it.

This is a positive step to address our local homelessness crisis by providing safe housing and much needed resources.

I live near Stevens Creek and San Tomas, an area where I know multiple people live on the street. If the city can find an additional site near me, I would also strongly support having a similar project built in my very own neighborhood.

Thank you,
Lisa Eckstein
From:

To:

Subject: In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:49:31 PM
I am writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

There are a lot of reasons why this is a good idea, and I plan to share a different one every day.

Today I'd like to tell you about children.

In general, engaging with people who are different from ourselves is a good thing. It makes us more compassionate, kinder, and better citizens as we grow. As a child who interacted with unhoused people under the age of 10 both in formal volunteer capacities and by interacting on the streets, I know first hand how impactful that can be. Parents in the neighborhood are concerned about their children being "exposed" to people that are different. That is frustrating, as our community is so diverse to begin with. Additionally, there are already homeless children attending many of the schools in the area, so these kids already know homeless people whether they realize it or not. It's also not that difficult to explain homelessness or this building to children with age appropriate language. Kids are smarter and more empathetic than we often give them credit for. Some examples:
"This is for people who don't have a home, until they find a home" "We are lucky because we have a house to sleep in every night. Not everybody does." "Sometimes bad things happen to good people, or good people make mistakes" "Some people who need extra help can't support themselves. We can help by welcoming them into the neighborhood."
Sources:

Scary Mommy - What Happened When A Homeless Shelter Moved Into My Upper Class City Neighborhood
HumanKind - Raising Empathetic Humans: Four Tips for Talking to Kids About Homelessness
Invisible People - What Happens When Kids are ‘Exposed’ to Homelessness? National Center for Education Statistics - Homeless Children and Youth in Public Schools ACLU West Virginia - Five Reasons Why We Don't Need to Ban Homeless Services Near Schools
ACLU Northern California - ACLU Leads Young People on Mission Targeting Teen Homelessness
Search Homeless Services - How To Talk To Your Children About Homelessness San Francisco Examiner - Here are 5 Tips for Talking With Your Children About Homelessness
R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From:

To:

Subject: In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:01:20 PM
I am writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

There are a lot of reasons why this is a good idea, and I plan to share a different one every day.

Today I'd like to tell you about location.

For a vulnerable population with lack of transportation, it is important that a housing facility is located within walking distance of other services. Within less than a mile from the proposed site there are grocery stores, convenience stores, parks, churches, and a hospital. Plus, the county already owns the land, making it cost efficient. And while pumpkins and Christmas trees are fun, there are other places in the county to find those activities, which will never be more important than putting a roof over someone's head. At the end of the day, unhoused people are just people without a house. And people live in neighborhoods and deserve to have the benefit of community amenities.

Sources:

Finding Homeless Patients A Place To Heal
Transportation and Homelessness: A Systematic Review
Homelessness & Food Deserts in Los Angeles
Community Amenities
Why Neighborhoods—and the Policies that Shape Them—Matter The Importance of Place: Neighborhood Amenities as a Source of Social Connection and Trust Strategies for Improving Homeless People's Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services Shelter Environment and Placement in
Community Affects Lifestyle Factors
Among Homeless Families in Minnesota
R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Greetings,
Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9 :22:47 PM
image.png
Thank you all for the meeting this evening.

I want to express my appreciation for some of the points that your team has clearly heard from the community:
- Thank you for hearing our concerns regarding the density, especially with Bella Vista Inn being only 0.5mi away. Your Option 2 design takes into better consideration the houses that you will be right up against, shoulder-to-shoulder, and the fact this neighborhood will ah-eady be absorbing the impacts of Bella Vista Inn.
- Thank you for hearing that this area is better suited for children, as is obvious by the quantity of schools and parents that reside in this area, and re-designing the site to accommodate 25% that are families.
- Thank you for explaining that there will be mies and that illegal activity will not be allowed on the premise. (We hope illegal activity does not then just get pushed out off-premise into the parks and neighborhood.)
- Thank you for hearing our concern about there being only 0.5mi distance to Bella Vista Inn and considering the bike shop site as an alternative.

I feel there are some points that perhaps you were not made aware of:
- This is a ve1y residential neighborhood and is not suitable for an interim shelter where its longevity and continued proper management is unknown. Residents live decades in a neighborhood and will likely outlive your career(s) managing this site. Longevity (continued funding) of this site needs to be addressed, if you ultimately choose to place this in a neighborhood.
- Mr. Consuelo mentioned that there are families at local schools who would benefit from this shelter. We ah-eady have the nearby Bella Vista. Inn which should solve this issue for them. - Where do the lmhoused go, if they time-out or get removed from this site? We know that unhoused peoples will be brought in from all over the County. Does this neighborhood then become their new encampment?
- Addressing the fact that you are placing 2 shelters in what is known as Koreatown, where minorities, especially Asians, are more frequently targeted than Caucasians due to scapegoating by the past administration as well as both the Democratic and Republican paiiies. I am not smprised that this community feels a heightened sense of feai·. There is no Asian representation in your staff at Lifemoves. I would like to hear how Lifemoves would address this issue, including offering anti-bias and culturally diverse training to your clients, in order to potentially be good neighbors, especially in the Koreatown area. - I noticed that your presentation was ve1y one-sided. You offered testimonials of your clients, but there were no testimonials of homeowner residents from around your other shelters. I also noticed most of your other shelters ai·e not immediately adjacent to homes and residences, but this one will be. I would like to see this addressed.
- If you ai·e choosing this location, I would like to see Lifemoves acknowledge and address that in the United States of America, homes are the only safety net that citizens have. Homes are the only thing that Americans can sell to fund their retirement, healthcare costs, mortgage to pay for their child's education, to relocate and more. Ours is a country without universal healthcare, abysmal social security, no universal higher education and no safety net. By putting a second site directly into one neighborhood, Lifemoves needs to acknowledge that you are impacting the only safety net a citizen has in this country, which is their home, and it is heavily dependent on density, barrier of entry and management at such a location. - I would also like to see Lifemoves address the issue of removing 24/7 security at your Palo Alto location:
https://padailypost.com/2023/03/20/price-of-proposed-homeless-shelter-goes-up-again/ Though I am heartened that Lifemoves has heard some of our concerns, I still feel that this site is not a suitable site due to the issues I list above.

Thank you for your time and I would like a response to the issues I brought up above.

Sincerely,
Jean L
To cut costs, the architect has proposed eliminating several features from the shelter. The project would no longer have solar panels and electric vehicle charging, 24/7 on-site security, or sun shades.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:55:14 PM
Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

1. Safety & Security ( of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on this KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting io August 2022 showed 300% increase io such crime rate in less than 2 years.
o What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
o If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients. Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
o How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
o How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets?
○
How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
○
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:
○Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements.

I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Tina Liu
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Low- rrier Interim Housing project proposal at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Tuesday, April 18, 2023 2:23:37 PM
Elected Officials of City of S anta Clara:

I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

These are some urgent questions that must be satisfactorily answered before any proposal can be considered. I urge you to immediately vote NO on the proposed homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. 1) What are the successful rate of the homeless people who entered the shelter and later finding permeant housing? According to statistics from the two nearby locations, MTV and Milpitas, the homeless who entered these facilities and later finding permeant home is less than 20%! This is clearly a waste of tax dollars! We need to work on improving the failing existing homeless shelters before building more of them. Repeating a failed model will only result in failure. Are there any plan to improve the outcome of the two existing shelters before we proposing more?
2) How do Santa Clara County and City Santa Clara ensure the safety of the 11,000 children who are attending the more than 15 schools near the proposed homeless site? The failed experiment at MTV and Milpitas clearly have shown crimes have shot up 300% after the shelter was built at the surrounding neighborhood. What is County's plan on the safety of 11,000 children?
3) The homeless people who don't find permeant housing (less than 20%! successful rate) and who are at the end of their stay, are they just going to be forced out of the shelter? They are going to congregate near the shelter site, thereby impacting the immediate neighborhood. It will only get worse as time goes by! There will be more and more homeless at our neighborhood. This is not solving the homeless problem. It is just dumping the homeless, and issues that come with homeless at our neighborhood. We must stop this from happening. What is the County's plan to mitigate this problem? 4) If as proposed the "interim homeless shelter" will take on the "most challenged homeless", what kind of security force does a 200+ persons homeless shelter comes with? One clearly would expect a higher ration of security force for the "most challenged homeless". An 20 persons security force (an one to ten ratio) may or may not even be able to handle the situations that surely will arise. Have the County done any study on this matter, and will the County provide the security force?
5) This lot has been used for community activities for many many years, such as pumpkin patch's, Christmas tree sales and more. Where will the local kids go if the County takes away this activities lot? What will the County provide as an alternative?
6) A homeless shelter is not a jail. Therefore the homeless are free to go in and out of the shelter, as I understand it. And keep in mind these are the "most challenging homeless". 200+ “interim homeless shelter” residents will be doing their “business” and wandering around the immediate neighborhood.

With the concentration of 200+ "most challenging homeless", many no doubt with drug additions at this location, drug dealers will be attracted to come; it is well documented a concentration of homeless people will attract drug dealers, as in Tenderloin, San Francisco. How many additional fulltime police officers are assigned to this precinct for this proposed project? 7) What does Santa Clara County plan to do when at the end of their "interim" stay, when a homeless does not find permeant housing? Does the county have any plan to bus them back to where they were found? Or the county just let them out and hope for the best? Where does the county think the homeless will go? The answer is very obvious. They will just walk into the immediate neighborhood, OUR neighborhood! Does the County has any busing plan to move the homeless to where they want to go?
8) If the "interim homeless shelter" is a drug free environment as stated, what kind of medical help is provided for the 200+ persons homeless at the shelter? We can't expect a drug addict to become clean on the day he/she moved into the shelter. If he/she can not find help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drug near the shelter, in nearby parks, at the school yards, in our neighborhood! With the shelter's plan to admit the "most challenged homeless", there got to be a high number of doctors and nurses on site to meet the challenges. How many doctor and nurse does the County plan to assign to this shelter full time? Clearly the County needs to do much more extensive studies before proposing 2350 Benton Street for an interim housing development.

Please vote NO on homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway! Best Regards,
Wo Family
Residents of City of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

LS Support Letter Benton/Lawrence
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 2:58:52 PM
Attachments: LS Support Letter BentonLawrence. pdf
Angela Rausch attached a document
I [ii Angela Rausch as attached the
following document: Learn more.

Our support letter for Benton/Lawrence, Regards. Angela Rausch and Livable Sunnyvale Board
(g] LS Support Letter Benton/Lawrence
Use is subject to the Google Privacy Policy
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
You have received this email becaus- shared
a document with you from Google Do .

Delete visitor session
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Meeting #4
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:28:21 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hello Consuelo,
I hope you are well Thank you for the additional information at meeting #4 I learned from a neighbor that residents on Tracy Dr in Santa Clara received flyers from the county about the meeting Our area, which ranges from 250ft to several thousand feet away, has not received flyers from the county, potentially because it is both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale Is there a way we can close that gap with sufficient time before the input deadline of April 7?
While I know the meetings are wrapped up, for the future, just an idea I believe there is a way limit the Zoom chat to communication with Panelists, similar to what was done by shutting off the Everyone feature This depends on the type of license It was unfortunate that the chat became a social media tweet storm debate with supporters who joined with the primary goal of pushing back on opponents input That meeting is for residents that will be impacted long term by the project Supporters can hold their own community meetings if they wish to have a debate Some of the chat participants were fairly upset but upon review of the chat capture, those individuals were the antagonizers responding to opponents feedback entered for public record or as Q&A It was not the 'supporters' place to be responding to 'opponents' input A number of people were queued up just beyond the last speaker and, evidently, it appeared there were supporters moved ahead of opponents, including a retired police officer who didn't get to speak This may have been a Zoom glitch We'd like to see the recording with full details to confirm that the order wasn't intentionally altered Many fear that if they cannot speak in the public forum, their input may not be heard via other channels We greatly appreciate your help keeping the property owners up to date and giving them an opportunity to provide their input based on facts rather than rumors Renters can pick up and move Property owners cannot
Sierra
On Mar 10, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Hernandez, wrote:

Perfect If you let me know on Monday I can coordinate on our end Thanks for sending the map I think there may also be an opportunity for us to list the schools by distance in a simple table Appreciate you sending the maps over Have a wonderful weekend and look forward to connecting next week Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
From: goog le
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Adam Marcus Marie Jackson
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City
Hi Consuelo,
Thank you for your message I will check with a few folks on their availability I might be on jury duty next week I hope to know on Monday whether or not I'll be called I forgot to ask if you needed maps? It looked like the map in the presentation was showing the east side of Lawrence The west side has several schools, childcares, parks, an older family cabana club even closer to the location It's a bit of a challenge to capture everything on one map so apologies for providing three different maps centered on Benton and Lawrence (schools, parks, child care) They list most but not all It probably depends on whether or not they advertise on google Hopefully, these are somewhat helpful Thanks again!
--
On Mar 9, 2023, at 11:34 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo wrote:

Thank you for chatting with me this evening and sending the information Would you be open to having a smaller group discussion to discuss the data? We could accommodate via zoom and bring our data team
Unfortunately the format of the meeting didn t really allow the space for a real discussion We have some ideas planned for the next zoom meeting but also interested in connecting with people direct or in small groups
Let us know either way and we can work out the logistics on our end Thank you for engaging with us Have a wonderful evening Consuelo
Get Outlook for iOS
From: goog le
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:14:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Adam Marcus Marie Jackson
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City
Hi Consuelo,
Thank you for sharing the additional information this evening As promised, I've attached the analysis of the homeless data by city as well as a subset below Since there isn't a lot of data on where each person landed, we're left with broad assumptions Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions or ideas, or if you see any errors in the analysis If you have new data, I would be happy to help analyze that as well
I think the local community would be willing to work with your teams to find options that are a bit less extreme and would benefit everyone, as daunting a task as that might sound We're a large contingent of tech professionals, engineers and software developers that love to solve problems It often helps to state the problem/goal and have them provide recommendations so they can be a part of the solution
Thank you
Jurisdiction Unsheltered 2019 Unsheltered 2022 CHANGE CHANGE RANK 2019 RANK 2022 Mountain View 574 206 (368) -64% 2 9
Sunnyvale 477 279 (198) -42% 3 4
San Jose 5117 4975 (142) -3% 1 1
Cupertino 159 102 (57) -36% 8 10
Morgan Hill 114 60 (54) -47% 10 12
Palo Alto 299 263 (36) -12% 5 5
Other 270 254 (16) -6% 6 6
Los Altos 76 65 (11) -14% 11 11
Saratoga 10 0 (10) -100% 14 14
Los Altos Hills 2 0 (2) -100% 15 14
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW A REDUCTION OF UNSHELTERED (894)LEFT THESE CITIES OR WERE HOUSED Monte Sereno 0 0 0 16 14
Other Conf 0 0 0 16 14
Los Gatos 16 58 42 263% 13 13
Santa Clara 264 375 111 42% 7 3
Milpitas 125 249 124 99% 9 7
Campbell 74 216 142 192% 12 8
Gilroy 345 606 261 76% 4 2
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW AN INCREASE OF UNSHELTERED 680 WERE ADDED TO THESE THESE CITIES On Mar 9, 2023, at 4 05 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo <Consuelo Hernandez@hhs sccgov org> wrote:

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for signing up to receive updates on the proposed Interim Housing Development at Benton and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara We appreciate your continued engagement Below are a few updates posted on the project website Tonight! Community Meeting No 3 is taking place this evening at 6 00PM at the Mission City Church located at 1290 Pomeroy Avenue The meeting will be recorded and both the meeting materials and video will be posted on the project website by Monday, March 13th In response to community feedback, the format for this meeting will be primarily a “Question and Answer Session”
New Information has been posted on the website including neighborhood maps and partial responses to the Q&A from the First Community Meeting Community Meeting No 4 will be held via zoom on Wednesday, March 22nd from 6-8PM Join the Zoom Meeting https://sccgov-org zoom us/j/94536865765
A Santa Clara City Council public hearing will be scheduled for April 25th If you would like to be notified, please sign up for email updates athttps://docs google com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScvqekJ RgyyalhYwQ5Gu08L64tBbZAYSbeGQGX2O14Q6f4Ig/viewform Thank you for staying engaged with us
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. t is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. t is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Subject: No to the homeless project on Lawrence
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:35:40 PM
No
--
Gurinder Dhillon
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Subject: One Size Does Not Fit All - No Shelter on Benton Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 2:29:41 PM
Dear City, County, State, and Federal elected representatives:

Providing low barrier 'interim' housing for the majority of the homeless will amplify existing issues. Putting the homeless together in a crowded facility to meet state mandates is unsafe for them and the neighbors.

The 2022 county PIT survey speaks for itself:
> 42% have a psychiatric/emotional condition of unknown severity > 32% have alcohol/drug abuse
> 25% have spent a night in jail in the past year (not including the ones who were immediately released) According to public records, LifeMoves Mountain View had more than 140 POLICE CALLS/INCIDENTS in 2022, ranging from alarms to public INTOXICATION to RAPE and domestic VIOLENCE. This is ONLY ONE ADDRESS, not the surrounding businesses and residents. Prior to the opening of the facility, there were 1-2 per year.

Milpitas 1000 Hillview now sees hundreds per year, for ONE ADDRESS.

This IS NOT a policing issue. It is a CITY, COUNTY and STATE STRATEGIC ISSUE that is being dumped on communities and public safety without thinking it through.

We know you are smart. Very smart. And will do the right thing for your constituents... > If the County wishes to place these facilities in cities next to homes, provide on-site 24/7 county sheriff and fire coverage. Sounds expensive, doesn't it?
> If you would like to serve the population that has serious psychiatric issues, build a mental health facility with APPROPRIATE staffing required by the state.
> If you would like to serve those with substance abuse, build a rehab facility with APPROPRIATE staffing required by the state.
> If you would like to serve criminals that were released on bail due to overcrowding or lax penalties, build a facility with APPROPRIATE staffing that requires proof of employment, provides job training and has solid security.
> If you want to help permanently house the homeless, build permanent apartments. > If you simply want to put people inside a building in our neighborhood, NO drugs, NO criminal records, and NO serious mental health issues that put them or others in danger. Problem is, if we accept this promise, we know it will be broken.

DO NOT 'HOUSE' THEM OUTSIDE OUR DOORS while you build the appropriate facilities.

We have a zero tolerance policy. This means ZERO TOLERANCE for drug or alcohol consumption/dealing within several miles of the facility, schools, homes, and parks, not just on the property.

LifeMoves/InnVision and other homelessness services (e.g. Abode) have already demonstrated they cannot manage these populations effectively for decades.

We know LifeMoves will not remove tenants for breaking the rules nor will they be able to search private rooms without a warrant.

Do NOT put this population in our neighborhood unless the city and county want to spend the next several years in court dealing with injunctions, providing comp ensation for victims, and destroying the this area for both businesses and residents.

We DO NOT accept another interim housing facility in this area. Choose a light industrial or commercial area miles away from schools, parks, and thousands of homes. The county has plenty of property elsewhere, thousands of acres of parks. There are bus routes there too or you can provide a shuttle and bring se1vices to them. They don't need a groce1y store ... they won't have kitchens. Tthey'll have meals delivered and food pantries.

Providing another interim housing facility sets this area up for a NEVER ENDING PIPELINE of HUNDREDS of the county's homeless with serious issues and will destroy our neighborhood.

If that's your goal, please let us and the media know NOW.

And, most of all, please DO NOT force residents to find less-preferable ways to protect themselves like other cities have had to do. Most are not professionally t1-ai11ed and people v.rill get lnut.

Residents have rights too.

We are tired of this conversation that is wasting a lot of people's time. We should be focusing on our families and livelihoods.
[I]
Mountain View
[I]
Milipitas
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:03:52 PM
My name is Chris Zhang , a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. 1bis is the wrong location. I w-ge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as ow- representative.

City and county need to find non-residential land for the facility like this.

I'm counting on you.

From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:05:27 PM
My name is Jimmy Matson, a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative. City and county need to find non-residential land for the facility like this.

I'm counting on you.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 9 :20:18 PM
Hello,
My name is Ray de Leon , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative. City and county need to find a non-residential land for the facility like this.

I'm counting on you.

From:

To:

Subject: OPPOSE BENTON SHELTER
Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 4 :44:26 PM
Oppose Benton Shelter
My name is Grace Tzeng , resident of Santa Clara. I and my husband, Shawying Chien, strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval! Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

This reckless project will certainly take police resources away from the rest of the community, and put all our lives in danger. It will also lead to significant debt for the city of Santa Clara. We need the city council to reject this radical experiment as soon as possible.

I'm counting on you.

Sincerely ,
Grace Tzeng and Shawying Chien
Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Opposing Benton-Lawrence Homeless Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:27:17 PM
Hi,
I'm a Santa Clara resident and I live on Thrush way, walking distance away from the proposed homeless shelter. I strongly oppose building the low-barrier shelter in dense residential area. The Mountain View site is built in the center of industrial area, and why can't we just follow them? I don't understand why proposing a similar location when white oak shelter was rejected less than a year ago.

Please vote 'NO' to this.

Best,
Frey
From:

To:

Subject: Please do not build low barrier entry Temporary Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 9:30:33 AM
Dear Respected Mr. Marcus,
Good morning.

I live with my family on Golden State drive, less than 1000 feet away from the site of proposed low barrier entry temporary housing. I strongly oppose building a low barrier entry temporary housing at Benton and Lawrence. The long term safety concerns and questions from the residents of the community were not addressed adequately or in most cases ignored during and after the community meetings. This tells me that the project is not well thought through in terms of security risks and dangers it poses for the areas surrounding and close to the proposed low barrier entry temporary housing.

We have a beautiful and safe neighborhood. Please leave it like that. Please do not build a low barrier entry temporary housing at Benton and Lawrence. Instead consider alternatives like building permanent housing for low income families, for essential employees who cannot afford to live in the area, for temporary housing of homeless families etc that do not pose security dangers to the neighborhood.

Again, I strongly oppose the building of low barrier entry temporary housing at Benton and Lawrence.

Have a great day.

Thanks,
Chandrasekhar Maddipatla
Get Outlook for iOS
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 9 :00:27 PM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
The discussion surrounding the Benton project has continued for nearly two months, and recently, more data and news articles have emerged revealing serious issues with existing Bay Area homeless shelters. The information raises doubts about the reliabi lity of promises made by the county, builders, and management/operation companies. I implore you to thoroughly review the data and resources provided at the end of this email.

Upon examining the data, it becomes evident that the Benton project is unsuitable for its location, Santa Clara, and its intended purpose. For example:
•
•
•
The permanent supportive housing at 1000 Hillview Ct, Milpitas, has experienced striking crime statistics, with total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022. The average police service time is close to 50 hours per month, and crimes include assault, drug-related offenses, burglary, rape, sex offender incidents, stolen vehicles, and other suspicious circumstances. Mayor Carmen and Councilmember Chua challenged the county's admission criteria, claiming that the screening process was not working and problematic tenants and drug addictions were not being removed . Milpitas has asked the County for additional police officers to patrol the site, yet to receive any responses .

LifeMoves' Mountain View at 2566 Leghorn St, opened at the end of 2020, has seen police calls rise from 3 in 2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022. This site has also fai led in its mission to assist the homeless. With only 26% of clients placed in permanent housing, disqualified management and staffing (including staff under arrest warrant for physical assault), and a lack of specialized housing service, LifeMoves Mountain View has the second-lowest success rate in the county .

LifeMoves' Palo Alto project has seen its cost estimate soar from $17 million to $34.4 million within just a year of approval. To cut costs, LifeMoves is removing 24/7 security and supportive services and decreasing family spaces. The City of Palo Alto is facing a $6 million funding gap, which only covers construction costs and does not account for the rising operational costs that will increase year after year.

While you may argue that these shelters differ from the proposed Benton project, the fact remains that each site faces problems. This suggests that the current model is fundamentally flawed and should not be replicated further. I urge you to consider these concerns and rethink the Benton project's viability. --
Huasha Zhao
From:

To:

Subject: Project on Benton and Lawrence
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58:16 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Regards
Denisse Tostado
Resident of 95051
From:

To:
subject:

Date: -
Proposed Benton and Lawrence interim hrusing
Friday, April 7, 2023 10:21:25 PH
To Consuelo Hernandez and Adam Marcus:

I believe the way this proposed interim housing has been communicated has been very poor First to notify resident by postcards within 1,000 feet is hardly sufficient This interim housing impacts people in a much larger circumference, it should have been no less than a mile for notification
Second, the comparison to the Palo Alto and San Jose housing locations is not really valid, as neither are currently in operation Third, if you review the attached two article regarding the LifeMoves facility in Mountain View, it isn't effectively operating against its intended purpose How can you with any type of integrity move forward on this proposal with the knowledge of what is brought forward in these articles? This would be a blatant disservice to the residents of Santa Clara I for one have had a a frightening encounter with a homeless man within a few blocks from my house that left bloody handprints on my car When the police came out and I described the man, they knew exactly who I was talking about because they had interac.tions with him before I have been afraid to walk my dogs since I shouldn't have to be afraid in my own neighborhood Bringing in additional homeless people from all over Santa Clara County to this low barrier facility within a few blocks of my house will only increase my concerns of not feeling safe LifeMoves Momtain View promises to help
homeless clients find stable housing in three
months. The msjority of them don~
paloattoonl"ne-.com
https://www paloaltoonline com/news/2023/03/30/life-moves-mountain-view-aims-to-house-people-in-just-three-months-experts-say-that-its-model-doesntwork?utm _ source=express-2023-04- 06&utm _ medium=email&utm _ campaign=express&utm _ source=Embarcadero+Mailing+List+%28including+SLJ+Members%29&utm _ campaign=a2057 da414- EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_04_06_0S_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_balb002ad7-a2057da414-%SBLIST_EMAIL_ID%SD If the city has nothing to hide, you would have provided a larger communication to the residents of Santa Clara We should not be hasty in selecting a location to build something like this and ensure we are providing the right and effective resources - as we can now see by what has happened in the Mountain View location
I feel at the very least this should be a proposal the RESIDENTS of Santa Clara should be able to vote on Best,
Vickie Crawford
Resident and homeowner in Santa Clara since 1996
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
To:

Subject: Q&A Answers not visible
Date: Friday, April 14, 2023 10:09:14 PM
Hello,
We wanted to let you know that the answers in the Q&A are not visible in a large portion of the pdf. It appears many of the cells were not expanded to display the full answer.

Please let us know when you've had the opportunity to upload the corrected document. https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/QAResponses_20230321_BL_Mtg1.pdf Thank you
Birdland Neighbors
From:

To:

Subject: Question
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:19:47 PM
Hi,
I am very much in support of the housing project on Lawrence and Benton. I have a question just because I'm trying to gather as much information as possible.

Can you tell me more about the support services that will be on site, and how they work? Especially things like counselling and healthcare. What is onsite vs what is referred out, how the referral process works, etc.

Thanks,
R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Wednesday, Ma rch 22, 2023 2:3S:43 PM
homeless meeting 3.docx
Att ached are questions I submitted at t he previous meet ing. I have not heard back, so I'm sending it along t o make sure it enters t he record.

I have some additional questions about t he proposed project:

1. Is it possible to get t he report s and dat a that were made by t he people who recommended t his project locat ion?

2. Can we see the locat ions t hat were accessed and rejected, and the reasons why?

3. Along t hose lines, is t here a list of all county, st ate, or city owned land in Santa Clara, along wit h a description of its condit ion and current use?

4. There has been present at ions about how t he new locat ion wll be safe for t he cl ients.

How about reveal ing how it will be safe for t he neighborhood?

5. Given t he presence of other nearby shelters on El Camino, it seems they are being clust ered in t he "Koreatown" neighborhood. Is t his a deliberate choice, and if so, why? Thank you for your attention to t hese quest ions.

David Melius
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:
mat and request
Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:09:27 PM
Hello Consuelo,
Follow up on my email from yesterday - we request that you add 1-2 co-host who we nominate to host together with you for the 3/22 zoom community meeting, and we request you to make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all. We request those because we saw and experienced cheating and manipulating of our opinion during the 3/9 community hearing. Therefore, we need to help you to make sure the 3/22 hearing is a transparent, fair and unbiased hearing tmly representing opinions from the neighbour.

In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who suppo1t this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come. All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

Given what has happened in the 3/9 meeting, the 3/22 Zoom meeting, without monitoring and supervision, can only be worse. Therefore, to make sure that the 3/22 meeting is transparent and unbiased, we request that we nominate 1-2 people to co-host with you. Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:46 PM puredancing
Hi Consuelo,
wrote:

Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:50 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
wrote:

Hi Cindy,
We heard from the community that they would like to engage in small group discussions.

There is a function in zoom that allows breakout rooms. This is typically manageable when we have 100 – 150 people in attendance but we anticipate there will be at least 400 people like the first zoom meeting we held. As such, we are working through the logistics.

As staff we do not organize groups that support or oppose the proposal. Our summary of the meeting will include a note that identifies the advocacy group that made comments in support of the project. I was not aware of a SJSU group but will ask our team to go back and watch the recording to see if anyone identified themselves specifically as a SJSU student.

I think a better idea would be for us to set up a separate and additional meeting where you can control the guest list and invite the project team to speak. We have done this in other communities, and it has led to a better discussion with a smaller group of concerned and direct neighbors.

Please let me know if you are interested and we can work on setting up a date and time before the City Council meeting on April 25th. We can also meet to discuss the logistics of hosting such a meeting and if it makes sense have representatives from your different neighborhood groups attend.

Thanks,
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
From: puredancin
Sent: Monday,M
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fonnat and request Hello Consuelo,
Can you be more specific about "we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions"? Who will be included in this "small group discussion"? How can you make sure they will represent the neighborhood who live close to Benton location?
To answer your question, by "astroturfing" or "mruket false impressions of public supp01t", I mean "institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community." There ru·e at lease five of them from house advocate orgs, one told us that you invited her and a few others. Also there was a group of SJSU students who "were asked to come and supp01t this project by our professor Ken Yeager" (quote from one of the students).

I understand you need to "always find a way to get it done", and you support the project at Benton location, but the way need to be transparent and unbiased. It cannot be like the 3/9 meeting, or the zoom meeting you hold for Crew View or Bella Visa where you invited supporters to cheat on public opinion. To sum up, community meetings are to hear from local neighbourhood residents. They should be residents living within a short distance from Benton, NOT everyone. We people who live in the neighbourhood need to make sure the 3/22 meeting is for our NEIGHBOURHOOD.

To do that, if you said you cannot change the format for the 3/22 meeting, we request that we nominate a co-host from our neighborhood to host the meeting together with you, so we can make sure the selection of speakers is transpru·ent, and there won't be anything behind the screen on your end.

Also, we request you and the co-host make the comments and participants' list visible to everyone. If you have nothing going on behind the screen, I don't see a reason why you won't consider adjusting the zoom meeting settings.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
> wrote:

Hi Cindy,
I am not exactly sure what you are referring to when you say “astroturfing” or “market false impressions of public support”. Our primary engagement has been with the local community and we invited everyone in attendance last week to speak. People were fairly provided with 1 minute each to speak. We also collected many comment cards that will be shared and included in our Community Engagement Report. Our objective is to share what we heard during the community meetings and have been transparently posting the materials and recordings of the meetings on the project website.

We are hosting the March 22nd meeting via zoom in response to concerns from the community who were not able to attend the in-person meetings. This announcement has already been made and we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions. We will be sending postcards to the neighborhood within a 1,000 foot radius in the coming week.

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on April 25th I would be happy to explore that with you and others in the neighborhood.

Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your thoughts.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
From: puredancing >
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 3:14 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fonnat and request
Hello Consuelo and Adam,
My name is Cindy and I live in Birdland neighborhood. I want to strongly express my indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before in the third hearing held on March 9th, and for the upcoming meeting on 3/22. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community. This action to market false impressions of public support for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles of law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

The 3/22 meeting will be on Zoom, which is much easier to manipulate community opinion and engage in astroturfing. To make sure that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased, I strongly recommend you to do the following changes to the meeting format:

1. Change to in-person meeting instead, as covid has already ended.

2. Add 1-2 co-hosts that the majority of the neighborhood recommend to cohost with you (our Safe SantaClara County volunteer group can recommend 1-2 person, and they will represent thousands of homes in our community). That person should have the same access and permission as you do.

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

Again, I hope you both are on the same page with us for a transparent community meeting, which will not presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents, will not engage in astroturfing anymore.

Best,
Cindy
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Hi Consuelo,
mat and request
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:46:59 PM
In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who suppo1t this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come. All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.
2023 at 5:50 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
wrote:

Hi Cindy,
We heard from the community that they would like to engage in small group discussions.

There is a function in zoom that allows breakout rooms. This is typically manageable when we have 100 - 150 people in attendance but we anticipate there will be at least 400 people like the first zoom meeting we held. As such, we are working through the logistics.

As staff we do not organize groups that suppo1t or oppose the proposal. Our Sllilllllaty of the meeting will include a note that identifies the advocacy group that made comments in suppo1t of the project. I was not awai·e of a SJSU group but will ask our team to go back and watch the recording to see if anyone identified themselves specifically as a SJSU student.

Thanks,
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Suppo1iive Housing
From: puredancin
Sent:Monday, M
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fonnat and request Hello Consuelo,
Can you be more specific about "we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions"? Who will be included in this "small group discussion"? How can you make sure they will represent the neighborhood who live close to Benton location?
To answer your question, by "astroturfing" or "market false impressions of public support", I mean "institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as prut of the community." There are at lease five of them from house advocate orgs, one told us that you invited her and a few others. Also there was a group of SJSU students who "were asked to come and supp01t this project by our professor Ken Yeager" (quote from one of the students).

I understand you need to ”always find a way to get it done”, and you support the project at Benton location, but the way need to be transparent and unbiased. It cannot be like the 3/9 meeting, or the zoom meeting you hold for Crew View or Bella Visa where you invited supporters to cheat on public opinion. To sum up, community meetings are to hear from local neighbourhood residents. They should be residents living within a short distance from Benton, NOT everyone. We people who live in the neighbourhood need to make sure the 3/22 meeting is for our NEIGHBOURHOOD.

To do that, if you said you cannot change the format for the 3/22 meeting, we request that we nominate a co-host from our neighborhood to host the meeting together with you, so we can make sure the selection of speakers is transparent, and there won’t be anything behind the screen on your end.

Also, we request you and the co-host make the comments and participants’ list visible to everyone. If you have nothing going on behind the screen, I don’t see a reason why you won’t consider adjusting the zoom meeting settings.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
< org> wrote:

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on April 25th I would be happy to explore that with you and others in the neighborhood.

Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your thoughts.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Suppo1iive Housing
From: puredancin
Sent: Monday, Ma
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fo1mat and request
Hello Consuelo and Adam,
My name is Cindy and I live in Birdland neighborhood. I want to strongly express my indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before in the third hearing held on March 9th, and for the upcoming meeting on 3/22.

Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community. This action to market false impressions of public support for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles of law and democracy. I have zerotolerance towards such behavior.

1. Change to in-person meeting instead, as covid has already ended.

2. Add 1-2 co-hosts that the majority of the neighborhood recommend to co-host with you (our Safe SantaClara County volunteer group can recommend 1-2 person, and they will represent thousands of homes in our community). That person should have the same access and permission as you do.

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:50:04 PM
Hello Consuelo,
Thanks for getting back. It's good to know that you were 1:Iying to get the chat and paiiicipants list visible to all attendants. I want to follow up on this to see if you have successfully made both functions work?
Also you mentioned briefly last week that the last meeting will be a small group discussion. I would like to get more details on what that means and how you ai·e going to organize it.

Beside this request, I also have another request which is to add a co-host we nominate to host the final hearing together with you. Glven the practice of astroturfing during the 3/9 meeting, I believe having a co-host we nominate is the least we can do to make sure the 3/22 zoom meeting is 1:I'anspai·ent and unbiased. I believe we ai·e aheady aligned on holding a n·ansparent community meeting. Unless you are thinking othe1wise, I don't see a reason you reject this creative and great idea.

To your point on "Just like at any other public meeting, speakers line up and ai·e given the oppo1iunity to speak in order." I'd like to remind you that the idea of lining up to speak was not your original idea, but came from an audience in the 2nd heai·ing. I'm glad you adopted that idea from the audience, and hope you can do the same for the final zoom meeting. Again, for both ideas, the goal is the same - to make the community meeting n·anspai·ent and fair to all speakers.

To you point on "As it relates to the March 9th meeting, we have identified the same 5 speakers in attendance that spoke on behalf of organizations who do not live in the neighborhood. That is documented via the meeting recording, here in our email exchange, and will be included in the Community Engagement repo1i." I'm glad you labeled those 5 speakers after I emailed you and pointed it out to you, but it's more than 5. There are at least 2 additional speakers who were "invited" to show support and didn't live closeby. One is a student from Santa Clara University, and another is a student from San Jose State University and is the student of Ken Yeager. I would also like to remind you it's the second time in a month that you gave the wrong number. The first time is that you said there ai·e only 4 schools within 1.5 miles, which is fai· from conect. The conect number is 15 (speaking of the school map, the one on the website is STILL WRONG. You didn't count all the schools west of Lawrence). That those far from accurate numbers and all the mistakes again and again make me really worried about the work quality and accuracy you and your team can carry. Those work include but are not limited to the community feedback report you are preparing for the decision makers.
· · andez, Consuelo
> wrote:

Hi Cindy,
Thank you for the feedback. We are still working on the details of the meeting and testing the zoom functions so that we can activate the chat function and setting the meeting up so that attendees can see each other. This should address yow- request to see the pa1ticipant list and chat.

As it relates to the March 9th meeting, we have identified the same 5 speakers in attendance that spoke on behalf of organizations who do not live in the neighborhood. That is documented via the meeting recording, here in om email exchange, and will be included in the Community Engagement repo1t.

Just like at any other public meeting, speakers line up and are given the opportunity to speak in order. At the March 9th meeting, we provided each speaker with a minute to speak and the timer was projected on the screen so that it was visible to eve1y member of the audience.

We will be following the same process virtually. This is consistent with how City Council and Board of Supervisor meetings are handled. Zoom automatically lists people with a raised hand in the order they raised their hand and we take speakers in that order.

I look fo1ward to hearing back from you on the offer to have a meeting that you organize and where we can answer questions you and other neighbors may have.

Thank you for staying engaged with us throughout this process. Have a great night.

Consuelo
Get Outlook for iOS
From: puredancing >
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:09 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc:

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meet ing format and request Hello Consuelo,
Follow up on my email from yesterday - we request that you add 1-2 co-host who we nominate to host together with you for the 3/22 zoom community meeting, and we request you to make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all. We request those because we saw and experienced cheating and manipulating of our opinion during the 3/9 community hearing. Therefore, we need to help you to make sure the 3/22 hearing is a transparent, fair and unbiased hearing truly representing opinions from the neighbour.
------
In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who support this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come. All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:46 PM puredancing > wrote:

Hi Consuelo,
In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who support this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come. All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:50 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
wrote:

Hi Cindy,
We heard from the community that they would like to engage in small group discussions. There is a function in zoom that allows breakout rooms. This is typically manageable when we have 100 - 150 people in attendance but we anticipate there will be at least 400 people like the first zoom meeting we held. As such, we are working through the logistics.

As staff we do not organize groups that suppo1i or oppose the proposal. Our summaiy of the meeting will include a note that identifies the advocacy group that made comments in suppo1i of the project. I was not aware of a SJSU group but will ask our team to go back and watch the recording to see if anyone identified themselves specifically as a SJSU student.

I think a better idea would be for us to set up a sepai·ate and additional meeting where you can control the guest list and invite the project team to speak. We have done this in other communities, and it has led to a better discussion with a smaller group of concerned and direct neighbors.

Thanks,
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Suppo1iive Housing
-
From: puredancin
Sent:Monday, M
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fonnat and request Hello Consuelo,
Can you be more specific about "we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions"? Who will be included in this "small group discussion"? How can you make sure they will represent the neighborhood who live close to Benton location?
To answer your question, by "astroturfing” or “market false impressions of public support”, I mean "institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community." There are at lease five of them from house advocate orgs, one told us that you invited her and a few others. Also there was a group of SJSU students who "were asked to come and support this project by our professor Ken Yeager" (quote from one of the students).

We people who live in the neighbourhood need to make sure the 3/22 meeting is for our NEIGHBOURHOOD.

To do that, if you said you cannot change the format for the 3/22 meeting, we request that we nominate a co-host from our neighborhood to host the meeting together with you, so we can make sure the selection of speakers is transparent, and there won’t be anything behind the screen on your end.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
< > wrote:

Hi Cindy,
I am not exactly sure what you are refeITing to when you say "astroturfing" or "market false impressions of public suppo1i". Our prima1y engagement has been with the local community and we invited eve1yone in attendance last week to speak.

People were fairly provided with 1 minute each to speak. We also collected many comment cards that will be shared and included in our Community Engagement Repo1i. Our objective is to share what we heard during the community meetings and have been transparently posting the materials and recordings of the meetings on the project website.

We are hosting the March 22nd meeting via zoom in response to concerns from the community who were not able to attend the in-person meetings. This announcement has afready been made and we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions. We will be sending postcards to the neighborhood within a 1,000 foot radius in the coming week.

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on April 25th I would be happy to explore that with you and others in the neighborhood.

Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your thoughts.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Suppo1iive Housing
-
From: puredanc·
Sent: Monday,M
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fo1mat and request
Hello Consuelo and Adam,
My name is Cindy and I live in Birdland neighborhood. I want to strongly express my indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before in the third hearing held on March 9th, and for the upcoming meeting on 3/22. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community. This action to market false impressions of public support for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles of law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

1. Change to in-person meeting instead, as covid has already ended.

That person should have the same access and permission as you do.

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Meeting #4
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 11:04:41 AM
Hello Consuelo,
Thank you for the reassuring information Clearly, there is no perfect way to hold the meetings but everyone appreciates that they were held We'd need several hours to allow everyone to provide their input
I can try to bring a group of folks together for a meeting, but I want to make sure it's a small group that will be collaborative and not attack each other or your team Everyone wants to see the homelessness situation resolved using an approach that will work for the community as a whole rather than beneficial for some and damaging for others
Personally, I'm more of a fan of smaller housing facilities rather than large projects we've seen fail decade after decade (century) From what I'm hearing, the community would likely embrace permanent housing for families with children But they will forcefully reject and fight allowing adults with drug/alcohol/serious mental issues, and recent parolees and criminals The children would have lots of other kids in the neighborhood to play with and plenty of schools and after school programs to choose from Parents have enough to worry about these days Older/Senior unhoused adults would be bored and lonely here They'd benefit by being near safe and active senior communities in Sunnyvale or Santa Clara downtown Working-age single adults need to be near drug rehab and job services/training (e g areas/towns with manufacturing/services jobs) Without a degree in engineering or computer science, there area very few job opportunities around here Even with those degrees, it's a challenge to compete with foreign workers brought in by large corporations and outsourcing
For mailers, I would suggest using direct mail lists within about a mile of the proposed site People walk a lot here so assume 15-30 min walking distance at 3 mph It should identify homeowners vs renters
Thanks again for staying in touch!
Sierra
On Mar 24, 2023, at 9:12 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo wrote:

Hi Sierra,
Thank you for staying engaged throughout the process I am still hoping we can connect around the data in the coming weeks Perhaps we will find a way to publish the radius map so that people can see who is receiving a notification We save any and all returned postcards In terms of the meeting, it’s disheartening to hear that people feel we are somehow favoring some people over others We worked to address the community concerns about the type of meeting by making changes that I would normally not support for a meeting that we know is going to draw significant participation Neighbors asked that we activate the chat and show everyone in the virtual audience We did that There were over 100 people with their hands raised when we started the public comment period and only had 1 hour on the agenda for this Making it impossible for us to get through everyone who wanted to speak When we stopped there were still over 80 people in the queue to speak The speakers are automatically queued up by zoom We do not select the order This is exactly the way public meetings at the city council and county board meetings me are managed There is no way to show you this order as the recording doesn’t capture that view If you set up a zoom meeting or webinar style and test this out with friends and family you will see that the list is displayed in your list in the order that they raised their hands We take names from the top of the list in order We have been transparent during the meetings capturing the public sentiment and have introduced different ways in which the public can document their opinions Most recently this was done through
a polling function to show how people who attended the meeting felt about the project Yet there still seems to be distrust If you have other ideas I’d love to hear them At this point I feel like we have been responsive to the various requests, we have offered another neighbor the opportunity to have a small group discussion with members of the neighborhood that are selected by you all, we have offered to attend a meeting where the neighbors host and we answer questions but they have not taken us up on that offer If there is interest we can start planning now and in advance of the April 25th city council meeting and actually have the opportunity to answer questions
Thank you again for staying engaged Have a wonderful weekend Consuelo
Get Outlook for iOS
From: goog le
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <
Cc: Adam Marcus ; Marie Jackson
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting #4
Hello Consuelo,
I hope you are well Thank you for the additional information at meeting #4 I learned from a neighbor that residents on Tracy Dr in Santa Clara received flyers from the county about the meeting Our area, which ranges from 250ft to several thousand feet away, has not received flyers from the county, potentially because it is both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale Is there a way we can close that gap with sufficient time before the input deadline of April 7?
While I know the meetings are wrapped up, for the future, just an idea I believe there is a way limit the Zoom chat to communication with Panelists, similar to what was done by shutting off the Everyone feature This depends on the type of license It was unfortunate that the chat became a social media tweet storm debate with supporters who joined with the primary goal of pushing back on opponents input That meeting is for residents that will be impacted long term by the project Supporters can hold their own community meetings if they wish to have a debate Some of the chat participants were fairly upset but upon review of the chat capture, those individuals were the antagonizers responding to opponents feedback entered for public record or --
as Q&A It was not the 'supporters' place to be responding to 'opponents' input A number of people were queued up just beyond the last speaker and, evidently, it appeared there were supporters moved ahead of opponents, including a retired police officer who didn't get to speak This may have been a Zoom glitch We'd like to see the recording with full details to confirm that the order wasn't intentionally altered Many fear that if they cannot speak in the public forum, their input may not be heard via other channels We greatly appreciate your help keeping the property owners up to date and giving them an opportunity to provide their input based on facts rather than rumors Renters can pick up and move Property owners cannot
Sierra
On Mar 10, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo
Perfect If you let me know on Monday I can coordinate on our end Thanks for sending the map I think there may also be an opportunity for us to list the schools by distance in a simple table Appreciate you sending the maps over Have a wonderful weekend and look forward to connecting next week Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
From: goog le <
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <
Cc: Adam Marcus < Marie Jackson <
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City
Hi Consuelo,
Thank you for your message I will check with a few folks on their availability I might be on jury duty next week I hope to know on Monday whether or not I'll be called I forgot to ask if you needed maps? It looked like the map in the presentation was showing the east side of Lawrence The west side has several schools, childcares, parks, an older family cabana club even closer to the location It's a bit of a challenge to capture everything on one map so apologies for providing three different maps centered on Benton and Lawrence (schools, parks, child care) They list most but not all It probably depends on whether or not they advertise on google Hopefully, these are somewhat helpful Thanks again!
<image001 png>
<image002 png>
<image003 png>
On Mar 9, 2023, at 11:34 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo < wrote:

Thank you for chatting with me this evening and sending the information Would you be open to having a smaller group discussion to discuss the data? We could accommodate via zoom and bring our data team
Unfortunately the format of the meeting didn t really allow the space for a real discussion We have some ideas planned for the next zoom meeting but also interested in connecting with people direct or in small groups
Let us know either way and we can work out the logistics on our end Thank you for engaging with us Have a wonderful evening Consuelo
Get Outlook for iOS
From: goog le <
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:14:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <
Cc: Adam Marcus < Marie Jackson <
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City
Hi Consuelo,
Thank you for sharing the additional information this evening As promised, I've attached the analysis of the homeless data by city as well as a subset below Since there isn't a lot of data on where each person landed, we're left with broad assumptions Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions or ideas, or if you see any errors in the analysis If you have new data, I would be happy to help analyze that as well
I think the local community would be willing to work with your teams to find options that are a bit less extreme and would benefit everyone, as daunting a task as that might sound We're a large contingent of tech professionals, engineers and software developers that love to solve problems It often helps to state the problem/goal and have them provide recommendations so they can be a part of the solution
Thank you
Jurisdiction Unsheltered 2019 Unsheltered 2022 CHANGE CHANGE RANK 2019 RANK 2022 Mountain View 574 206 (368) -64% 2 9
Sunnyvale 477 279 (198) -42% 3 4
San Jose 5117 4975 (142) -3% 1 1
Cupertino 159 102 (57) -36% 8 10
Morgan Hill 114 60 (54) -47% 10 12
Palo Alto 299 263 (36) -12% 5 5
Other 270 254 (16) -6% 6 6
Los Altos 76 65 (11) -14% 11 11
Saratoga 10 0 (10) -100% 14 14
Los Altos Hills 2 0 (2) -100% 15 14
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW A REDUCTION OF UNSHELTERED (894)LEFT THESE CITIES OR WERE HOUSED Monte Sereno 0 0 0 16 14
Other Conf 0 0 0 16 14
Los Gatos 16 58 42 263% 13 13
Santa Clara 264 375 111 42% 7 3
Milpitas 125 249 124 99% 9 7
Campbell 74 216 142 192% 12 8
Gilroy 345 606 261 76% 4 2
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW AN INCREASE OF UNSHELTERED 680 WERE ADDED TO THESE THESE CITIES On Mar 9, 2023, at 4 05 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo < wrote:

To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: Bae ground checks
Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:46:05 AM
Adam: I've asked John Stewart Company to do a better job of interpreting than I'm able. Hope to get back to you today.

N
Nick Griffin I RCD I
From: Adam Marcus >
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 12:02 PM
To: Nick Griffin
Cc: Gabriel Borden >
Subject: RE: Background checks
So your interpretation is that Housing First allows applicants to be rejected if they have criminal convictions related to tenancy. What convictions can be linked to tenancy? Is t here precedent on that?
I don't understand the second reference to Housing readiness. If the laws says housing providers cannot reject someone behaving in way that indicates they are not ready for housing, how does that leave room for background checks?
Adam Marcus (he/him)
City of Santa Clara
Housin & Community Services Division
From: Nick Griffin
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: Gabriel Borden
Subject: RE: Background checks
>
>
I read the nuance in 8255{b){2): Applicants are not rejected on the basis of poor credit or financial history, poor or lack of rental history, criminal convictions unrelated to tenancy, or behaviors that indicate a lack of "housing readiness."
The use of "unrelated to tenancy" and "lack of 'housing readiness111, I think, permit us to screen for extreme criminal background findings.

Nick
Nick Griffin I Director of Asset Management
Resources for Community Development
From: Adam Marcus >
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 9:54 AM
To: Nick Griffin
>
Subject: Background checks
Hi Nick I wanted to follow up your comments about state law and background checks in Homekey funded projects. Where in the code do you see nuance on this? I looked at t he link you shared and didn't see much about screening and background checks. Is there another code section I should look at?
https://1 egi nfo.legislat ure .ca .gov /faces/codes display T ext.xhtml? lawCode=WIC&division=8.&t itle=&part =&chapter=6.5.&art icle Thanks,
Adam Marcus (he/him)
Housing & Community Services Division Manager
City of
Santa Clara
From:

To:

Cc:
subj ect
Date: --
Re: Benton and Lawrence Updates - New Infonnation Posted to the Project Website Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:37:09 AM
Please read th.is article before you make a decision on building a homeless housing on Benton & Lawrence expressway. They destroy San Francisco city.

Thanks
Whole Foods in Downtown San Francisco Closes
Due to Spiraling Crime
yahoo.com
Joseph Dang
On Mar 9, 2023, at 4:05 PM, Hemandez, Consuelo
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for signing up to receive updates on the proposed Interim Housing Development at Benton and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. We appreciate your continued engagement. Below are a few updates posted on the project website.
• Tonight ! Community Meeting No. 3 is taking place this evening at 6:00PM at the Mission City Church located at 1290 Pomeroy Avenue. The meeting will be recorded and both the meeting materials and video will be posted on the project website by Monday, March 13th. In response to community feedback, the format for this meeting will be primarily a "Question and Answer Session". • New Information has been posted on the website including neighborhood maps and partial responses to the Q&A from the First Community Meeting.
• Community Meeting No. 4 will be held via zoom on Wednesday, March 22nd from 6-8PM. Join the Zoom Meeting
https·//sccgov-org rnom us/j/94536865765
A Santa Clara City Council public hearing will be scheduled for April 25th. If you would like to be notified, please sign up for email updates at
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/l FAlpOLScvqekJ Rgw alhYwO5Gu08L64tBbZAYSbeGOGX2O1406f41g/ viewform Thank you for staying engaged with us.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing - help to support Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:27:01 AM
Adding Councilmember Jain.

Regards,
Jeff Houston
From: [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:15 PM
To:

Cc: 'R. Elysa Gurman' < ; 'Santa Clara Housing Advocates' ;
Lawrence Interim Housing - help to support
Hello Consuelo,
I’m a member of Santa Clara Housing Advocates. Hopefully you’ve heard of us and know that we are trying to help get the Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing approved.

I’d like to learn more about contractual agreements between the city/county and LifeMoves for this project. What agreements do we have with them already? Can you share them with us or point us to where we can find them? Will there be further negotiations/agreements before or after city/county approval?
Regards,
Jeff Houston
From:

To:

Subject:
·-
Re: Concerns about the benton&lawrence shelter proposal Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:12:26 PM
Thank you for your response. I've watched the recordings of the past meetings, and the majority of residents are saying no to this project, yet it seems the government does not want to hear from us. I've also written to other officials and you are the only one giving a response.

If this is due to the volllllle of the emails you received, that proves that how many people are expressing concerns about this.

It also concerns me that in the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and fo1mer county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a bad example to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. Please let the local residents speak more, instead of bringing housing advocates, who do not live here and will NOT be impacted by this decision.

For the upcoming 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the city and county to add a co-host nominated by the Benton neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together. We also urge the city and county to stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents in all future meetings. You are making the local residents angiy. I hope that's clear to the government.

Thanks,
Shu
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:35 PM Adam Marcus~~-wrote:

Thank you Shu. We have received your email and it will be included in the public record. If you haven 't ah-eady, please visit the project webpage to sign up for email notifications and to view recordings, slides, and responses to over 300 questions.

Benton and Lawrence - Office of Suruiortive Housing - County of Santa Clara (sccgov.org) Please note our next meeting will be on zoom:

Meeting 4 - Wednesday, March 22, 2023 I 6:00-8:00PM
Join Zoom Meeting
https://sccgov-org.zoom.us/j/94536865765
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,94536865765#
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833
Meeting ID: 945 3686 5765
From: Shu C <
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:21 PM
To: Shu C >
Subject: Concerns about the benton&lawrence shelter proposal Hi,
I am writing this letter to formally express my concerns and strong opposition to the proposal of a homeless shelter at the intersection of Benton street and Lawrence Expressway.

As a Santa Clara resident, I understand that people experiencing homelessness need our community's help, but I am very concerned with this LOCATION of the proposed shelter, the type of shelter it intends to build, and its "LOW-BARRIER" entry.

This is a location in the residential area with 10+ schools within 2 miles, countless apartments/senior homes/daycares/parks. Young children walk from/to school passing this location every day. Picking such a location to build a "low-barrier" shelter which will allow people with criminal backgrounds, mental issues will place significant risk to this community and increase the crime rates. Plus, there is already another homeless shelter (Bella Vista) 0.5 miles away.

This is also a location not close to public transportation, and the type of shelter it intends to build is more than 200 container-style tiny houses which will make the area very congested, and I don't see a solid plan to ensure the safety of both people inside the shelter and nearby residents.

As residents living < 0.5 miles away, our family has never received any official notice from the government about building this shelter. We are very disappointed about the communication.

I have watched the last two public hearings regarding this matter and was very disappointed about how the city/county is handling this. The county/city officials ignored complaints, refused to answer questions from the community and only tried to advertise how great this location is, without providing any alternatives. When people from this community tried to object, they were told to find a solution. We are not government officials paid by taxpayers, but we are being asked to find a solution simply because we voice our concerns.

This is my first time writing to the government about this kind of issue, but if this cannot be heard, I will be very disappointed about this city/county council and will try my best to fight this with other community members.

I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this location, and pick a nonresidential location for similar projects.

Thanks,
Shu
From:

To: @
Cc:

Subject: RE: Fwd: Our neighborhood NEEDS you!
Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 3:23:46 PM
Hello,
No to this Proposal at Benton and Lawrence.

I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

I strongly urge the city and county to change the meeting to in-person or add a co-host nominated by the Benton neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together. We also urge the city and county to stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents in all future meetings.

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9 :38:23 PM
image.png
image.png
Oh yes, I would also like Lifemoves to address why the cost for the Palo Alto location increased again and again.

Wire fencing would be used rather than something with more curb appeal, and spaces for famil ies would be consolidated with spaces for single residents, according to an update that City Manager Ed Shikada sent to Palo Alto City Council.

Construction is projected to cost $34.4 million, starting this summer and finishing early 2025, Shikada said.

Council approved the project in September 2021 with a price tag of $17.6 million.

LifeMoves, the nonprofit hired by the city to run the shelter, bumped up its cost estimate two months later to $26 million.

Thank you again,
JeanL
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:22 PM Jean-> wrote:

Greetings,
Thank you all for the meeting this evening.

I want to express my appreciation for some of the points that yom team has clearly heard from the community:
- Thank you for hearing om concerns regarding the density, especially with Bella Vista Inn being only 0.5mi away. Yom Option 2 design takes into better consideration the houses that you will be right up against, shoulder-to-shoulder, and the fact this neighborhood will ak eady be absorbing the impacts of Bella Vista Inn.
- Thank you for hearing that this area is better suited for children, as is obvious by the quantity of schools and parents that reside in this area, and re-designing the site to accommodate 25% that are families.
- Thank you for explaining that there will be rnles and that illegal activity will not be allowed on the premise. (We hope illegal activity does not then just get pushed out offpremise into the parks and neighborhood.) - Thank you for hearing om concern about there being only 0.5mi distance to Bella Vista Inn and considering the bike shop site as an alternative.

I feel there are some points that perhaps you were not made aware of:
- This is a very residential neighborhood and is not suitable for an interim shelter where its longevity and continued proper management is unknown. Residents live decades in a neighborhood and will likely outlive your career(s) managing this site. Longevity (continued funding) of this site needs to be addressed, if you ultimately choose to place this in a neighborhood.
- Mr. Consuelo mentioned that there are families at local schools who would benefit from this shelter. We already have the nearby Bella Vista Inn which should solve this issue for them.
- Where do the unhoused go, if they time-out or get removed from this site? We know that unhoused peoples will be brought in from all over the County. Does this neighborhood then become their new encampment?
- Addressing the fact that you are placing 2 shelters in what is known as Koreatown, where minorities, especially Asians, are more frequently targeted than Caucasians due to scapegoating by the past administration as well as both the Democratic and Republican parties. I am not surprised that this community feels a heightened sense of fear. There is no Asian representation in your staff at Lifemoves. I would like to hear how Lifemoves would address this issue, including offering anti-bias and culturally diverse training to your clients, in order to potentially be good neighbors, especially in the Koreatown area. - I noticed that your presentation was very one-sided. You offered testimonials of your clients, but there were no testimonials of homeowner residents from around your other shelters. I also noticed most of your other shelters are not immediately adjacent to homes and residences, but this one will be. I would like to see this addressed. - If you are choosing this location, I would like to see Lifemoves acknowledge and address that in the United States of America, homes are the only safety net that citizens have. Homes are the only thing that Americans can sell to fund their retirement, healthcare costs, mortgage to pay for their child's education, to relocate and more. Ours is a country without universal healthcare, abysmal social security, no universal higher education and no safety net. By putting a second site directly into one neighborhood, Lifemoves needs to acknowledge that you are impacting the only safety net a citizen has in this country, which is their home, and it is heavily dependent on density, barrier of entry and management at such a location.
- I would also like to see Lifemoves address the issue of removing 24/7 security at your Palo Alto location:
https://padailypost.com/2023/03/20/price-of-proposed-homeless-shelter-goes-up-again/ Though I am heartened that Lifemoves has heard some of our concerns, I still feel that this site is not a suitable site due to the issues I list above.

Thank you for your time and I would like a response to the issues I brought up above.

Sincerely,
Jean L
To cut costs, the architect has proposed eliminating several features from the shelter. The project wou ld no longer have solar panels and electric vehicle cha rging, 24/7 on-site security, or sun shades.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Re: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22 Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 8:17:43 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
There were a couple of topics that got debated quite a bit in the last few days. These were:

1. US Citizenship
Most of the folks who brought it up wanted a verification that only US Citizens get assistance in such interim housing/shelter.

Any illegal or undocumented folks are routed to the facilities that can either get them to a path of citizenship or take corrective actions.

2. Exclusion criteria
So far, the residents have only seen the "inclusion" criteria like proximity to VTA, grocery, hospitals etc. They wanted to know which exclusion factors are currently being considered.

If none, it would be a good idea to determine exclusion criterias for different types of locations. For example:

Families with kids - exclude locations that are far removed (define in miles/meters) from a public school
Seniors (define in years) - exclude locations that are far removed (define in miles/meters) from a hospital
Adults with drug affliction - exclude locations that are close (define in miles/meters) to schools and dense (define density) residential population My last few weeks of digging in this complex problem have allowed me to have an even better appreciation of the complexity associated with tackling homelessness. After the Lawrence/Benton site location matter settles (hopefully amicably), I'd love to partner with you if I can help achieve good outcomes for both the residents as well as the county. Some initial thoughts:

Shelter by category: The inclusion AND exclusion criterias would help us widen our search for land/location fit for different categories
Rehabilitation: The inclusion AND exclusion criterias would help us provide rehabilitation services appropriate for different categories through a focussed approach. We can partner with certain NGOs for this.
(Vocational) Training: Once rehabilitated, and ready for being productive citizens, our clients could be provided training to sharpen their skills or learn new skills that can help them get a job.

We can partner with certain NGOs for this.

Job Search Assistance: Once trained, and ready for taking on a job, our clients could be provided assistance to get a job. We can partner with certain NGOs for this.

Interim Housing Assistance: Once on a job, our clients could be provided assistance to get interim housing closer to their work location (example - rent to own program).

Thanks for listening to the feedback from the community and your readiness to make adjustments that are a better fit. I hope you are able to present the facts associated with these questions that help our council members in taking decisions that achieve good outcomes for both the homekey initiative as well as the residents.

Regards,
Ashish
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:28 PM Adam Marcus > wrote:

Thank you Ashish for highlighting these questions. We are working to address these concerns and intend to share responses at the meeting next week.
0 0
0 0
■
■
■
•
•
•
•
•
Adam Marcus (he/him)
City of Santa Clara
Housing & Community Services Division
>
Subject: Lawrenc enton: Some unanswere quest10ns or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
Some of the residents worked together to compile a list of questions that either haven't yet been addressed in FAQ/Slides so far or the response hasn't completely addressed those concerns.

I am bringing these to your attention so that you can help frame answers to these and hopefully get us all to a constructive conclusion that's beneficial for all.

Please let me know if you'd like to discuss any of these pdor to the call or need more inf01mation.

I. Crime & Property Statistics
o Crime statistics around such interim housing projects before and after - proving that it is not a safety concern (say a combination of multiple similar sites' data) o Impact on property prices based on market data (not assessed value) - proving that home values won't decrease (Usually #1 has a correlation with #2) o Impact on gentrification - proving that such a project would not repel future residents (Usually #2 is a leading indicator of #3 - if prices hold or increase it implies desirability of the neighborhood hasn't decreased) Response on FAQ (It doesn't match with searches done by the residents or anecdotal evidences)
[ li1

2. Screening: We need more clarity on the screening and prioritization: Some top areas could be
o Families get preference (most important to preempt families from going down this path)
o Santa Clara city residents get preference or the project remains exclusive for Santa Clara city residents initially
Violent crimes, arson, sex offenders are NOT allowed
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
Undocumented immigrants are NOT allowed
Response on FAQ (residents not satisfied by the response):

3.Safety & Security (due to the drug afflicted folks who may not yet have been rehabilitated walking around the neighborhoods)
How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets?
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project? How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
Related response on FAQ that doesn’t seem to answer the questions from above (the link doesn’t seem to work as well):

4.Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?
No response yet

5. Throughput
What’s the overall throughput of clients across different lifemoves centers going by 120/240/360 days (giving a better understanding of where every client landed after getting a service in such an interim shelter)
No Response yet on FAQ (Residents would like to see the data that’s based on interim shelters similar to the ones proposed for this site)

6. Kitchen
We would need kitchens especially for family based units Not yet covered on FAQ (residents who would like families to be prioritized would like proper kitchens for families so that if it becomes permanent housing later on, it remains functional):

7.Smoking Area
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Ii]
Ii]
Would the facility have its own smoking area so that the "clients" do not congregate on the streets for smoking?
Not yet covered on FAQ

To: @
Cc: @ @
Subject: Re: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22 Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:45:50 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
I recently heard from several folks that there could be a correlation to the increase in the number of homeless people in Santa Clara county with the release of prisoners during peak Covid times. I haven't been able to look into this myself from a data perspective. Granted,that doesn't change anything regarding the total number of homeless folks that need housing, it actually makes the concern around safety and security even more grave (if that assumption is valid). Would it be possible for you to cover this in the next session on 3/22?
A number of people that I have personally talked with, supported the solution of getting rehabilitation from substance abuse first, before getting such folks in close proximity to kids and residents. Please understand that if it were a fail safe screened process where families with jobs in the area on the verge of being homeless (eviction etc.) could be provided a relief and prevented from going down that cycle, you'd have seen an embracing community. I hope that we find a path in which we all could come together, not just for this project but for overall solution.

Thanks,
Ashish
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:17 AM Ashish Verma > wrote:

Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
There were a couple of topics that got debated quite a bit in the last few days. These were:

1. US Citizenship
Most of the folks who brought it up wanted a verification that only US Citizens get assistance in such interim housing/shelter.

Any illegal or undocumented folks are routed to the facilities that can either get them to a path of citizenship or take corrective actions.

If none, it would be a good idea to determine exclusion criterias for different types of locations. For example:

Shelter by category: The inclusion AND exclusion criterias would help us widen our search for land/location fit for different categories
Rehabilitation: The inclusion AND exclusion criterias would help us provide rehabilitation services appropriate for different categories through a focussed approach. We can partner with certain NGOs for this.
(Vocational) Training: Once rehabilitated, and ready for being productive citizens, our clients ....., _______ _
0 0
0 0
•
•
•
•
•
•
could be provided training to sharpen their skills or learn new skills that can help them get a job.

We can pa1tner with certain NGOs for this.
• Job Search Assistance: Once trained, and ready for taking on a job, our clients could be provided assistance to get a job. We can pa1tner with certain NGOs for this. • Interim Housing Assistance: Once on a job, our clients could be provided assistance to get interim housing closer to their work location (example - rent to own program).

Regards,
Ashish
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:28 PM Adam Marcus
I I
Thank you Ashish for highlighting these questions. We are working to address these concerns and intend to share responses at the meeting next week.

Adam Marcus (he/him)
City of Santa Clara
Housin & Community Services Division
From: Ashish Ve1ma ~ >
Sent: Tuesda March 14 2023 12:35 PM
To
questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ
or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
Some of the residents worked together to compile a list of questions that either haven't yet been addressed in FAQ/Slides so far or the response hasn't completely addressed those concerns.

I am bringing these to your attention so that you can help frame answers to these and hopefully get us all to a constructive conclusion that's beneficial for all.

Please let me know if you'd like to discuss any of these prior to the call or need more information.

1. Crime & Property Statistics
o Crime statistics around such interim housing projects before and after - proving that it is not a safety concern (say a combination of multiple similar sites' data) Impact on property prices based on market data (not assessed value) - proving that home values won't decrease (Usually #1 has a correlation with #2) Impact on gentrification - proving that such a project would not repel future residents (Usually #2 is a leading indicator of #3 - if prices hold or increase it implies desirability of the neighborhood hasn't decreased) Response on FAQ (It doesn't match with searches done by the residents or anecdotal evidences)

2.Screening: We need more clarity on the screening and prioritization: Some top areas could be
Families get preference (most important to preempt families from going down this path)
Santa Clara city residents get preference or the project remains exclusive for Santa Clara city residents initially
Violent crimes, arson, sex offenders are NOT allowed
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
Undocumented immigrants are NOT allowed
Response on FAQ (residents not satisfied by the response):

4.Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 [g
[g
[g
[g
[g
No response yet

5.Throughput
What’s the overall throughput of clients across different lifemoves centers going by 120/240/360 days (giving a better understanding of where every client landed after getting a service in such an interim shelter)
No Response yet on FAQ (Residents would like to see the data that’s based on interim shelters similar to the ones proposed for this site)

7. Smoking Area
Would the facility have its own smoking area so that the "clients" do not congregate on the streets for smoking?
Not yet covered on FAQ

To:

Subject:

Date:

RE: Low- arrier I nterim Housing proj ect proposal at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:43:04 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City:

I strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing project proposal at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway (3590 Benton Street).

I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

These are some urgent questions that must be satisfactorily answered before any proposal can be considered. I urge you to immediately vote NO on the proposed homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.
1) How do Santa Clara County and City Santa Clara ensure the safety of the 11 ,000 children who are attending the more than 15 schools near the proposed homeless site? The failed experiment at MTV and Milpitas clearly have shown crimes have shot up 300% after the shelter was built at the surrounding neighborhood. What is County's plan on the safety of 11,000 children? 2) What are the successful rate of the homeless people who entered the shelter and later finding permeant housing? According to statistics from the two nearby locations, MTV and Milpitas, the homeless who entered these facilities and later finding permeant home is less than 20%! This is clearly a waste of tax dollars! We need to work on improving the failing existing homeless shelters before building more of them. Repeating a failed model will only result in failure. Are there any plan to improve the outcome of the two existing shelters before we proposing more?
3}The homeless people who don't find permeant housing (less than 20%! successful rate) and who are at the end of their stay, are they just going to be forced out of the shelter? They are going to congregate near the shelter site, thereby impacting the immediate neighborhood. It will only get worse as time goes by! There will be more and more homeless at our neighborhood. This is not solving the homeless problem. It is just dumping the homeless, and issues that come with homeless at our neighborhood. We must stop this from happening. What is the County's plan to mitigate this problem? 4) If as proposed the "interim homeless shelter'' will take on the "most challenged homeless", what kind of security force does a 200+ persons homeless shelter comes with? One clearly would expect a higher ration of security force for the "most challenged homeless". An 20 persons security force (an one to ten ratio) may or may not even be able to handle the situations that surely will arise. Have the County done any study on this matter, and will the County provide the security force? 5) If the "interim homeless shelter" is a drug free
environment as stated, what kind of medical help is
provided for the 200+ persons homeless at the shelter?
We can't expect a drug addict to become clean on the
day he/she moved into the shelter. If he/she can not find help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drug near the shelter, in nearby parks, at the school yards, in our
neighborhood! With the shelter's plan to admit the "most challenged homeless", there got to be a high number of
doctors and nurses on site to meet the challenges. How
many doctor and nurse does the County plan to assign
to this shelter full time?
6) A homeless shelter is not a jail. Therefore the
homeless are free to go in and out of the shelter, as I understand it. And keep in mind these are the "most
challenging homeless". 200+ “interim homeless shelter”
residents will be doing their “business” and wandering
around the immediate neighborhood. With the
concentration of 200+ "most challenging homeless",
many no doubt with drug additions at this location, drug dealers will be attracted to come; it is well documented a concentration of homeless people will attract drug
dealers, as in Tenderloin, San Francisco. How many
additional fulltime police officers are assigned to this precinct for this proposed project?
7) What does Santa Clara County plan to do when at the
end of their "interim" stay, when a homeless does not
find permeant housing? Does the county has any plan to
bus them back to where they were found? Or the county
just let them out and hope for the best? Where does the county think the homeless will go? The answer is very
obvious. They will just walk into the immediate
neighborhood, OUR neighborhood! Does the County has
any busing plan to move the homeless to where they
want to go?
8) This lot has been used for community activities for many many years, such as pumpkin patch's, Christmas tree sales and more. Where will the local kids go if the County takes away this activities lot? What will the County provide as an alternative?
Clearly the County needs to do much more extensive studies before proposing 2350 Benton Street for an interim housing development.

NO homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway! Regards,
Ben W.
and family
Long Time Proud Residents of City of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Re: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:17:18 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

The county has clearly indicated that this shelter shall admit people with prior criminal background, with prior or ongoing drug abuse, with mental health issues. We believe people living a difficult life deserve a helping hand, and it is a good and noble cause to help them. I strongly feel that mixing the “most challenging elements of the population” with some of the most innocent & vulnerable members of the community shows a lack of thoughtfulness and sincerity on the part of the county/city in their effort to locate such a homeless care facility.

I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Ben Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:31:59 PM
Dear Ms Hernandez,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:09:08 AM
Hi Sir,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:08:00 AM
Hi Sir,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 7:49:10 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

HUIYUAN Tan
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:03:41 PM
Dear Mr. Hernandez,
My name is Bing Tai and I am extremely
disappointed that you invited some supporters of
the Benton project, portrayed them as members of
the local community then asked them to speak at
the March 9th Benton public hearing on the
neighbors' behalf. Everyone is free to express their
opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that
institutions or individuals with a vested interest in
the project were invited to speak for the project and
disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9
meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing
advocate organizations, who don't live in the
neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU
and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of
college students to support and speak for the
project. None of them are from the Benton
neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of
public support for the project and set up a plot to
manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law
and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such
behavior.

For the upcoming 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the
city and county to change the meeting to in-person
or add a co-host nominated by the Benton
neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together.

We also urge the city and county to stop presenting
the view of incentivized participants as the view of
the local residents in all future meetings.

Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments
and participant list are always visible to everyone.

These are essential to ensuring that community
outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Thanks,
Bing
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:57:59 AM
Dear offciers,
My Name is Bowen Chen and I lives in Santa Clara.

Home address is
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best regards,
Bowen
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:26:37 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Cong Liu
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:43:36 AM
Dear Ms. Hernandez and Santa Clara City and County Council members, Let me start by saying when I went to the first community meeting on 3/1/23, I went expecting a cordial and constructive communication session, where there will be back and forth dialogues and the neighbors would get their questions answered right then.

This is Santa Clara after all! There was none of that. I was aghast and extremely disappointed with the hostility and exasperation exhibited toward the neighbors on both 3/1 and 3/9 meetings. This is our home, our neighborhood, our everyday lives -- unlike some or most of the council members and a good number of 3/9 "in favor" attendees who at least had the decency to admit they didn't even live in the neighborhood. Most of us are just everyday people, fortunate enough to have a roof but, look, it's not like we have a silver spoon. We're working ourselves to the ground dealing with this economy, trying to make the mortgage, trying to make the bills, and trying to provide for our families and keep them safe. We don't have a Plan B because we cannot afford one. Our home, our neighborhood is just a spot on the map to you and the housing agencies; but this is all we have, and this is our everyday life. Please find an alternative location for the project. The city and county members have alternatives and choices; we the neighbors do not have an alternative.

Regards,
Chao-Wen Huang
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:52 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Hello All,
Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:33:39 PM
As a taxpayer of Santa Clara County, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01mer county supe1v isor, brought a dozen of college students to supp01t and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Fan
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:59:01 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58:38 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:31:36 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf.

THIS IS SLEAZY on so many levels although expected from politicians.

Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public supp01t for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:16:29 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Hi there,
Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:06:39 PM
As a resident of Santa Clara, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supe1visor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public supp01t for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Lee
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:04:46 PM
Hi County officials,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

For the upcolning 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the city and county to change the meeting to in-person or add a co-host nominated by the Benton neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together. We also urge the city and county to stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents in all future meetings.

Resident of Santa Clara,
Hongliang
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
for Zoom
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:25:49 PM
Hi there, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, p01·trayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hea1ing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and fo1mer county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to suppo1t and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated la:w and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

For the upcoming 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the city and county to change the meeting to in-person 01· add a co-host nominated by the Benton neighborhood to host the vi11ual meeting together. We also urge the city and county to stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents in all future meetings.

Toward a fair and open dialogue betv.•een the govemment and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the vittual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms. Consuelo Hemandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hemandez's office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased. best,
Huan
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:05:33 PM
Hi,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jeff Li
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:24:23 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that:

1. A representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz.

2. The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office.

3. Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone.

These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Sincerely,
Jonathan & Shannon, Santa Clara natives, born & raised.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:14:54 AM
Dear Ms. Hernandez and all,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Thank you.

Regards,
Julia
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:04:36 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Junyu Zheng
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:57:27 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:56:12 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Thanks,
-Lorie
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:01:07 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Luyao
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:27:28 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:06:36 AM
To whom it may concern:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:05:20 PM
It shocked and angry me that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy.It is cheating and unacceptable, you lost your credit and made democracy like a joke. Please, STOP IT.

Remember, all you did will be remembered and recorded, it will catch you in the end.

Resident of Santa Clara,
Ping
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: g in-person or add neighborhood co-host
for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:07: 11 PM
Content:

I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised thelllSelves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Thanks,
Concerned Santa Clara resident
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:50:18 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:55:41 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:01:31 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Regards,
Rémy Bernard
From: Rui
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:54 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Liang
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:18 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:54:40 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Cc:

Subject:
for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7 :03:05 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and fonner county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to suppo1i and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public suppo1i for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that
1) a representative from the neighborhood join the vniual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms.

Consuelo Hernandaz.
2) The co-host shall have the same meeting pennission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez's office. 3) Make sure that live comments and paii icipant list ai·e always visible to eve1yone. These ai·e essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Thank you for listening.

Sandrine
From: Sergey
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 8:08:20 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

From: ShanTo:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:00 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

From: Sharilyn
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53:50 PM
Hi,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best,
Sharilyn
From: Shroff
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:54:35 AM
Consuelo,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Shea
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:10:15 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:59:53 PM
Hello!
Hope this email finds you well.

I'm a resident in the Benton community. I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf.

Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Thank you!
Siyu
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:20:51 PM
As a resident of Benton neighborhood, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Sizhuo Zhang

From:

To:

Subject: neighborhood co-host
for Zoom!
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:00:13 AM
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

As a local resident, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. THEY DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE AND THEY DON'T CARE!!!!!! As the representative of residents, how can you let such things happen? Do you truly represent us?
Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public supp01t for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

By A Long term residents of Benton Neighborhood.

From: Win
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:43 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:16:17 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best,
Victoria
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:54:58 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Thanks,
Vipul
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:12:50 PM
Mr. Hernandez,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best Regards,
- Yin Wei
■
Address:

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:13:23 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Saturday, March 18, 2023 8:08:21 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Xuri
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:28:38 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Friday, March 17, 2023 9:57:44 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Thanks,
-Xuyan
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:59:25 AM
Hi,
I'm a current resident in the area that will be affected by this project and I'm writing to express my disappointment and concerns with what is going on recently. I heard that institutions and individuals that do not live in the community were taken into serious consideration in this matter, which I found unacceptable and unbelievable. For them, it is just one politically right thing to say with no costs to them at all. For us that are currently living in this area, there is a huge price to pay including sacrificing the safe community because of those unstable and dangerous peeple. The political right needs to stop! Do not act kind when you have nothing to lose.

Regards,
Yi Huang
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Sunday, March 19, 2023 2:00:47 PM
I am writing to express my extreme disappointment regarding the recent public hearing (March 9th) on the Benton project, specifically the use of invited supporters who were portrayed as local community members. It is unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak and disguised themselves as local neighbors. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion, clearly violating the principles of law and democracy.

During the March 9th meeting, at least five speakers were from housing advocate organizations, who did not reside in the Benton neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen college students to support and speak for the project, none of whom were from the Benton neighborhood. Such behavior is not conducive to fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, and I have zero tolerance for it.

Therefore, for the upcoming March 22nd meeting, I strongly urge the city and county to make changes to ensure fair and transparent community outreach meetings regarding the Benton project. Specifically, I request that the meeting be held in person or that a co-host nominated by the Benton neighborhood be added to host the virtual meeting with Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. The co-host should have the same meeting permission and control, and the meeting should be hosted from the same physical location, such as Ms. Hernandez's office. Additionally, live comments and participant lists should always be visible to everyone. These measures are essential to ensure that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

In conclusion, the city and county should take this matter seriously and make the necessary changes to ensure fair and transparent community outreach meetings regarding the Benton project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

From: Yunqi
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:18:26 PM
Hi Consuelo,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Zhe
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:14:03 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Zheyu
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:22:58 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf.

For the upcoming 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the city and county to change the meeting to in-person or add a cohost nominated by the Benton neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together. We also urge the city and county to stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents in all future meetings.

These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 6:10:35 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Sent from my iPhone
From: So
Subject:

To:

Strong objection to benton&lawrence shelter project
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59:55 PM
students.

The shelter will bring uncertainty in the neighborhood and is a huge safety concern to nearby The site is in walking distance to several private and public elementary schools. shelter for the homeless, but I believe that the site is not a terrible choice. the benton&lawerence shelter project. I understand that the goal of this project is to provide I am a resident with young kids living in 95051. I am writing to express my strong objection to Hi there,
I strongly urge you to reconsider the location.

Sincerely,
t
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 9 : 19:24 PM
Hello,
My name is Rui Liang , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative. City and county need to find a non-residential land for the facility like this.

I'm counting on you.

Best Regards,
Rui Liang
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Dear officers,
Strong y Oppose Benton S ter
Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:00:13 PM
I'm a resident near the proposed Benton shelter. I'm living 0.2 miles from this location and I strnngly oppose this plan.

I'm a father of two kids. We were living in Sunnyvale last year. There was a person with mental health issues in our neighborhood and often shouted aloud during the day. My kids were so scared and not willing to play outside of the house. This causes both mental and physical hanns to my kids and forced me to move to the cunent home in Santa Clara. I have learned that a significant po1iion of the homeless people in this proposed shelter have mental health issues. The would be a serious threaten to the safety and mental health of the kids in our community. As a father, I don't want the same bad thing happen again on my kids. This proposed shelter is not acceptable to me. Please understand the concerns of a father. I'm only fine with building townhouses for the screened low-income families at this location.

Thanks,
Jing Liu
From:

To:

Subject: strongly oppose building interim housing on Benton!! Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:15:15 PM
Dear Santa Clara Council members,
My name is Vera. I am a santa clara resident. I strongly oppose building interim housing on Benton
consider it's a no barrier, no screen homeless shelter. I attend today's meeting and 80% of community
residents oppose the project. 90% of people opposed from previous meeting and thousands signatures
are collected from people who oppose the project. What else you need to show you listen to the community
and residents?
Data from both San Jose and Milpitas similar project shows the crime rate increase dramatically after project
versus before project. Same storied are repeatedly happen again and again from big cities and small used to
be quite cities. Santa Clara is not special and will not be special in terms of crime rate increase if reckless decision
like this not getting prevented.

Even homeless people are scared of those with drug addicted, with criminal background and rather to stay in tent.

Who you really want to help here? Project like this won't end homeless for sure just like numerous project like that
because that's not the right way. They are creating more severe issue to the community rather than helping people.

Please be responsible to the residents and communities who used to support you, if not, people will learn
from those and will choose the right people who can represent them and do the right thing for community.

Thank you,
Vera
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 12:38:55 PM
Hello,
My name is Ray, and I am a concerned resident in the neighborhood. I strongly oppose t he Benton project. I strongly believe that this project poses a serious safety risk for the children in our community. Despite what t he county claims, data from a similar facil ity in Milpitas shows that policeinvolved incidents increased by 300% after the project was executed. We cannot allow t his project to turn our community into a hotbed for crime.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Strong y oppose to Benton project
Sunday, April 16, 2023 11:43:34 AM
I am Fei Luo, a parent and resident in the neighborhood close to Benton & Lawrence intersection. I want to express my great concern and opposition about the Benton project. This low banier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a potential safety risk to our children, and it is unacceptable that it would allow criminals, diug addicts, and sex offenders to stay. This was confomed in all three community hearings that have been held so far. We need to ensure the safety of our childi·en and prevent our community from becoming a magnet for crime.

Thanks for your patience to read my email and be aware of my deep concern about this project!
Best Regards,
Fei
From:

To:

Subject: Support for Interim Housing Proposal
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 5:48:32 PM
Good evening,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara County. Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need. As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because I believe that housing is a basic human right, and by providing people with housing we will also be providing them with a sense of hope for their future.

I urge you to consider the incredible impact this resource could have on the City of Santa Clara, improving safety for the community, increasing resources for underserved community members, and restoring dignity to those who deserve it as much as you and I.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Cassidy Kearins
Resident of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Support for Interim Housing Proposal
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2023 10:17:27 AM
Good morning,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara County.

Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need. As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because I live here with my wife and 3 year old son, and we consistently witness the unhoused population struggling, living in and out of the nearby parks, and not getting the care and support they need to get back to a more normal life.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Dan Satran
Resident of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Support for Interim Housing Proposal
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:49:38 PM
Good afternoon,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in the city and county of Santa Clara. Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need.

As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because it is a good first step in doing our part to help our neighbors and minimize homelessness. I moved to Santa Clara almost 10 years ago because I thought it was a community that took care of each other, did the right thing, and was a well-managed community that could make a difference in the lives of its constituents. The city council has already failed our neediest residents. Now is the time to correct that error. If the council votes no again, they will be setting the city up for another lawsuit which will be lost. This will cost the city in so many ways and we will still end up needing to build interim housing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Melinda Berlant
-
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Support or Interim Housing Proposa
Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:51:35 PM
To those of you who are considering a decision on the proposed Interim Housing Project at Benton and Lawrence Expressway:

I strnngly suppo1i this proposed Interim Housing Project. As a Santa Clara resident for more than 45 years, I feel that my City Council members with the help of the County Board of Supervisors should implement this project to provide a "hand up and not a handout" to unhoused people in our community.

This interim housing will give homeless people in Santa Clara the space to recover and get their lives together so they can work toward finding a pennanent home and gain the skills they need to provide a livelihood for themselves. Shelters that allow the homeless people only to stay at night puts them out on the street during the day, not giving them the time, food, rest, resources, and security to make positive changes in their lives. Cunently, there are homeless people in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed interim housing who can be seen in the local parks or sleeping in their cars. If the interim housing is implemented, these same people can be housed and won't have to be on the streets in a needy condition.

One issue that makes this project difficult for the public to understand and accept is that it is described as a "low baiTier," meaning that some people, who have minor crimes, such as shoplifting or trespassing (for exainple, sleeping in a covered ai·ea in front of the entrance to a store) could be housed in this project. The "low baITier" description of this interim housing project is problematic because people tend to see it as "no ban ier." The ve1y aggressive opponents of this proposal asse1i that it will bring more people who are mentally unstable, diug addicts, criminals, and sex offenders to the neai·by streets. As LifeMoves has described, I feel that they will cai·efully vet prospective residents because if they don't, their reputation as a non-profit will be seriously downgraded. It could put them out of business as a non-profit. I am impressed with LifeMoves' plans to have a cpde of conduct for the residents and to work with the sunounding community to get feedback on the residents. This "low ban ier" catego1y gives individuals who are generally excluded a chance for a decent life.

I believe that we who are more fortunate have a duty to suppo1i and extend compassion to those who are less fo1iunate, especially for a solution that will help those in need to become self-sufficient individuals who can contribute to society.

I have been shocked that Santa Clai·a residents and others who oppose this plan have adopted an ugly, aggressive mode of operation in the public meetings that shows no respect for civil discourse. They must believe that being loud, disrnptive, insulting, and even threatening to vote out City Council members is the behavior that will cause the City Council and the Board of Supervisors to tum down the project. I hope that the City and County officials will make an info1med decision based on what is best for the City and County and not be bullied by this ve1y aggressive and raucous opposition group. Also, I hope that Santa Clara residents with cooler heads and fair minds will come out and suppo1i this project.

Ann Krause
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Support for option 1 over option 2
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:52:08 PM
Hi Adam,
Sorry for the double email, but I just wanted to respond to the two options for the interim housing project you presented this evening and voice my support for option 1 which includes more units of housing. More units in the site means more housing for those who need it and means more effective use of taxpayer money, as you pointed out in the cost estimates.

Thanks,
Asha DuMonthier
From:

To:

Subject: Thoughts on the Benton & Lawrence shelter program Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:38:55 PM
Hi Adam,
We have been residents of Santa Clara for over 9 years. We live less than 200 feet from this proposed site.

Few days ago, I met a guy from Milpitas at Santa Clara Community Center, where our kids go to the same ballet class. Somehow we talked about the homeless project. He said the Milpitas homeless is a complete failure. So I asked why. He explained that that site has become a hotspot for drug dealers and criminals.

I can't help thinking that the Benton & Lawrence project could become the next Milpitas project. A disaster we can avoid now!
My kids need to pass this site everyday to go to school. Just imagine from my perspective, and put yourself in my position.

We need a solution that works for everyone. I believe such a solution exists, we need to think creatively and work smartly, maybe with a little bit more patience. --
Best Regards.

Xufei Wang
You are very welcome to download our FoodSpot apps now available at both Android & iOS store. Your favorite dishes, discovered.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:41:12 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised thelllSelves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Vote no or Benton project, o any types
Monday, April 17, 2023 8:27:56 PM
Dear mayor, councilmembers, county supervisors,
My name is Elisa, living in-Santa Clara for the past 6 years. I strongly oppose Homeless Shelter of any type to be built on the Benton location.

When we talk about "homeless" that cannot get housed in this area, we are not talking about law-abiding people who experienced a life-changing event and lost their house. Most of those people will have friends and family support, or will eventually move to places that are much affordable. The fact is, most of the homeless here are problematic individuals - dru g addicts, people with behavior and mental issues, criminals who have been in and out of jail or who have not been punished due to law enforcement failure. Putting a large group of those bad and evil people at the center of residential homes and schools is iITesponsible and reckless.

Data from Milpitas, MTV, even our own Bella Vista have shown an increase in crime. There is no excuse for the consistent crime increase in multiple sites, and it will surely happen at Benton if city were to vote "yes" for the project.

Add itionally, the neighborhood has raised concerns that the city and county chose this location due to the fact that the local residents are largely from minority populations. This is perceived as a discriminatory act, targeting Asian taxpayers and voters to sacrifice their safety and interests, and may have legal implications.

Voting no on Benton location will be a wise, responsible and intuitive decision.

There are many vacant lots in the business area of Santa Clara that could be used for shelter at similar or cheaper cost. It is inhumane, reckless, and against the spirit of democracy for the city and county to force the community lot to be taken away from local residents when they have many other options available and face 90% opposition from local residents.

Please read all the emails from the residents, watch all the four community meeting recordings, before you vote. I'm counting on you, and you will be held accountable if you vote against the majority.

Elisa

From:

To:

Subject: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15:39 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Ben Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:02:24 PM
Housing Manager Adam Marcus,
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

The proposed location poses a significant safety threat to nearby schools. It is located at the center of more than 15 schools serving 10,483 students. We are deeply concerned about the decision to create this interim housing for "the more challenging elements of the population” (B. Greenberg of LifeMoves, in the 2nd hearing) in such close proximity to thousands of vulnerable and innocent children. Students walk pass the site everyday. Family, seniors, couples with strollers walk by and across that traffic light every day. This decision poses an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of the children and can lead to devastating consequences. There are other locations in Santa Clara where no schools are within a 20- minute walk and should be considered instead.

The proposed location also poses a tremendous safety threat to nearby residents, with the closest one being less than 20 ft away. Research shows that crime increases by 56% within 300 ft of a shelter, and the negative effects are concentrated within 0.35 miles. For this proposed location, there are more than 2,000 residential homes, which means approximately 6,000 residents within 0.35 miles. The Report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in 2022 showed that police-involved incidents have increased 300% compared to before the project was executed. Note, the Milpitas facility is even not yet an interim housing but a permanent housing. The contrast is terrifying. The level of crime rate at the facility is unacceptable. It is a strong proof that a shelter can turn the area into a hotbed for crime.

Despite three hearings, we have seen no progress or initiatives in addressing our safety concerns, especially on crimes. The truth is: City and County cannot ensure our safety in the face of a shortage of police resources. We want to strongly remind you that what Milpitas is currently experiencing will be Santa Clara’s problem in the future, and the damage to residential areas will only be greater. This is not speculation, but rather a very real and ongoing situation.

Furthermore, City and County have no plan for long-term management. Like the rejected White Oak Lane project, the Benton project may receive initial funding from state/county but the ultimate cost of long-term management, operation and any liability associated with the facility will eventually be borne by Santa Clara taxpayers - the same taxpayers that voted you into office. You cursorily dismissed Milpitas' crime statistics relating to shelter areas. You also consciously distanced yourselves from use of the word “shelter", carefully replacing it with "interim housing," as if the two terms carry appreciable differences. These tactics, though understandably employed to pacify the public, were clearly intended to mislead them as well.

In summary, the public’s opposition to this project is very vocal and strong. It is undoubtedly representative of the opinion of the fine citizens living here for years and decades. Majority of residents are willing to consider a low-income rent-to-own affordable permanent housing project for teachers or first responders who work hard but cannot afford to live here. Again, we urge you to stop considering any types of interim housing at Benton, or in any dense residential areas.

Sincerely,
Haiying Wu
From:

To:

Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:04:01 PM
Housing Manager Adam Marcus,
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

Sincerely,
Raymond Chi
From:

To:

Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:13:33 PM
Housing Manager Adam Marcus,
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

Sincerely,
Fay Dustin
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:36:00 AM
My name is Carmen Ho, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative. County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves police call from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost as of 4.3M as an estimate for now
Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.

Thank you!
Caim en
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:34:45 AM
My name is Wen Tian , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative. County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves police call from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost as of 4.3M as an estimate for now
Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.

Regar ds,
Wen
From:

To:

Subject:

Date : Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:47:25 AM
Hi All,
My name is Yi Wang and I have two kids. As a concerned citizen of Santa Clara, I strongly oppose the proposed Benton development. The location of this shelter is a major safety threat to the community, paiiicularly the children in the ai·ea. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, the potential risks are too high to ignore. I mge the City Council to reconsider and find an alternative non-residential location and do not put om children at risk.

Regards,
Yi
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:53:33 AM
My name is Qing Yang, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton's shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location and vote no as our representative.

The county conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

1. Low barrier housing allows criminals and addicts, and problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

2. Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police call increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

4. The high operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval!

5. The critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

6. Location selection is far from public transit, grocery, and jobs

7. The county providing false and misleading info

8. 300+ community questions are unanswered as to date.

This reckless project will certainly take police resources away from the rest of the community and put all our lives in danger. It will also lead to significant debt for the city of Santa Clara. We need the city council to reject this radical experiment as soon as possible.

I'm counting on you.

Thanks
Qing Yang
From: Kelvin Le
To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:55:19 AM
My name is Jiayong Le, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton's shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location and vote no as our representative.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police call increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
The high operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval! The critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery, and jobs The county providing false and misleading info
300+ community questions are unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.

Thanks
Jiayong Le

From: le tang
To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:10:53 AM
Hi there,
this is Le Tang. As a concerned citizen of my beloved Santa Clara, I strongly urge the City Council to reconsider the proposed Benton shelter location. The potential safety threats to the community, particularly nearby schools and residents, are too great to ignore. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, and research showing that crime rates increase by 56% within 300 ft of a shelter, it is imperative that the City Council finds a safer location for the shelter. We cannot afford to take such risks with our community's safety and wel l-being.

Sincerely,
Le Tang
From: Ed Wang
To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S eter!!!
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:11:14 AM
My name is Ed Wang , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval! Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

Thank you
Ed
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:23:22 AM
My name is Wei Zhou, a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval! Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.
--
Regards,
Wei
From: Rachel Zhang
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:49:55 AM
Hi,
My name is Shenqiu Zhang, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton Shelter. This low barrier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a potential safety risk to our children, and it is unacceptable. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, the potential risks are too high to ignore. I urge the City Council to reconsider and find an alternative non-residential location and do not put our children at risk.

Thanks,
Shenqiu Zhang
From: Na Wang
To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:00:42 AM
To Whom it may concern,
This is Na Wang, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

Low baITier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing sti·iking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval! Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public ti·ansit, groce1y and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

This reckless project will ce1tainly take police resources away from the rest of the community, and put all our lives in danger. It will also lead to significant debt for the city of Santa Clara.

We need the city council to reject this radical experiment as soon as possible.

I'm counting on you.

Na
From: Xiaolan Yang
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:21:17 AM
Hi,
My name is Xiaolan Yang, a parent and resident in the neighborhood close to Benton & Lawrence intersection. I want to express my great concern and opposition about the Benton project. This low barrier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a potential safety risk to our children. It would allow criminals, drug addicts, and sex offenders to stay.

This was confirmed in all three community hearings that have been held so far. We need to ensure the safety of our children and prevent our community from becoming a magnet for crime.

The county conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate was even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection:

1. Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

2. Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

4. High operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves’ construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval!

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

6. Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs

7. County providing false and misleading info

8. 300+ community’s questions unanswered as to date.

This reckless project will certainly take police resources away from the rest of the community, and put all our lives in danger. It will also lead to significant debt for the city of Santa Clara. Please vote No to this radical experiment as soon as possible.

Thanks very much for your help.

Best Regards,
Xiaolan
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:36:42 AM
Hi,
My name is Lin Huang, a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval! Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.

Thanks,
Lin
2023-04-06
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:38:08 AM
hi,
My name is Jiayi Wang, a concerned citizen of Santa Clara, I strongly oppose the proposed Benton development.

The location of this shelter is a major safety threat to the community, particularly the children in the area. I have 2 young kids BTW.

With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, the potential risks are too high to ignore. I urge the City Council to reconsider and find an alternative non-residential location and do not put our children at risk.
thanks.

Jiayi
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:44:00 AM
My name is Zhenzhen Gao, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative. County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

Tremendous safety threat to 11 ,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!!)
The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval! Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs County providing false and misleading info
300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9 :51:42 AM
Hi officer,
This is Yu Liang. As a resident of the neighborhood near Benton & Lawrence, I am writing to you today to express my deep concern about the Benton project. I strongly oppose this radical idea. This low banier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a serious safety risk for the children and families in our community. The county's claim that there are no safety concerns for children is not supported by evidence from a similar facility in Milpitas where police-involved incidents increased by 300% after the project was executed. We need to work together to ensure the safety of our children and prevent our community from becoming a high-crime area.

Regards,
Yu
From:

To:

Subject: Say NO to Benton S ter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:06:45 AM
My name is Qiumao Ma, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

1. Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

4. High operation cost of 4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction cost estimate doubled from 17M to 34.4M only one year after its approval!

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

6. Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs

7. County providing false and misleading info

8. 300+ community's questions unanswered as to date.

I'm counting on you.

Thanks,
Qiumao
From:

To:

Subject: S OP t e Be to /Law e ce Ho e ess S e te P o ect Date: Thursday April 6 2023 10:44:24 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

This low barrier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a serious safety risk for the children and families in our community. The county's claim that there are no safety concerns for children is not supported by evidence from a similar facility in Milpitas where police-involved incidents increased by 300% after the project was executed. We need to work together to ensure the safety of our children and prevent our community from becoming a high-crime area I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
BP Huang household
Residents of Santa Cara
From:

To:

Subject: STOP the homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence!! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:34:11 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and
Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong
opposition to the proposal of constructing
a homeless shelter at Benton Street and
Lawrence Expressway.

This location sits within walking distance
to quite a few elementary schools,
daycares, public parks and a sprawling
neighborhood of single family homes,
apartments, senior homes. Families stroll
in the area with their kids. Young
students walk to and from their schools
daily. Senior citizens enjoy their
retirement life in the communities.

The county has clearly indicated that this
shelter shall admit people with prior
criminal background, with prior or ongoing
drug abuse, with mental health issues. We
believe people living a difficult life
deserve a helping hand, and it is a good
and noble cause to help them. I strongly
feel that mixing the “most challenging
elements of the population” with some of
the most innocent & vulnerable members of
the community shows a lack of
thoughtfulness and sincerity on the part
of the county/city in their effort to
locate such a homeless care facility.

The potential safety threats to the
community, particularly nearby schools and
residents, are too great to ignore. With
over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of
students in close proximity, and research
showing that crime rates increase by 56%
within 300 feet of a shelter, it is
imperative that the City Council finds a
safer location for the shelter. We cannot
afford to take such risks with our
community's safety and well-being.

I urge you to vote NO on any and all
upcoming proposals/projects associated
with homeless shelters at Benton Street
and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
B. Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Strong y Oppose Benton S ter
Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:40:33 AM
My name is Sophy Zhu, a parent and resident in t he neighborhood close to Benton & Lawrence intersection.

I want to express my great concern and opposition about t he Benton project. This low barrier homeless housing init iative for male singles is a potential safety risk to our children, and it is unacceptable that it would allow criminals, drug addicts, and sex offenders to stay. This was confirmed in all three community hearings that have been held so far. We need to ensure the safety of our children and prevent our community from becoming a magnet for crime.

Again, I oppose t he Benton Shelter!
From:

To: Mayor and Council; Consuelo
Subject: We Need to STOP the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. STOP! STOP! STOP! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:06:38 AM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

I agree that we need to address the homeless issues;
and homeless people need our compassion and a
helping hand. But putting a homeless shelter in the
middle of our dense residential communities is NOT the
solution.

We can not sacrifice thousands of families and their
children by putting homeless shelters right in the middle of our communities. Our family has two beautiful kids
attending one of the school near the proposed homeless
site.Thousands of children attend the many K to 12
schools in area within 1/2 mile of the proposed homeless shelter. It is a Horrible mistake to even consider this location for homeless shelter.We need to do more
extensive studies to come up with a Win Win solution for ALL.

Please vote NO on the homeless shelters at Benton
Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
BB Huang
Proud Resident of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

1. 2.

Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets? How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
Only US citizens
Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
Put Families first
Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
We already have Bella Vista Inn right next to this area opened up. Why are we not distributing the homeless shelters across other areas of the county ? We have cities around here which have none.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Sonia Singhal,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
0 From: Property Manager
To: Kevin Park; Mayor and Council
Subject: opposing the interim housing on the vacant lot between Lawrence and Benton Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 11:14:00 PM
Hello Mayor Lisa & Council Member Kevin
I am resident of district 4 of the city of Santa Clara. I would like to express my concern of the proposal of Interim Housing on between Lawrence and Benton for the following reasons :
1) The lot itself has been used for pumpkin patches and the Christmas tree lots which bring a lot of beautiful memories for our residents.
2) The site is too close to the elementary schools on Pomeroy. 3) The site is too close to Earl Carmichael Park. There are a lot of residents nearby. If the Interim housing opens, many homeless people may take over the park and disturb residents nearby.
4) There are a few homeless between El Camino and Kiely. They walk on the streets and sometimes they look confused too and walk mindlessly to the intersection. To avoid any accidents, I drive very carefully each time on El Camino or Kiely when I see any homeless people walking along El Camino or Kiely. Lawrence is a busy expressway and drivers drive at high speed on Lawrence Express. I am worrying that accidents may happen to both drivers and the homeless people if the homeless people walk along Lawrence express. 5) There are better options out there.Vacant office space is a quick option. The cost of building an interim housing from ground up is too costly. There is plenty of office space near Great America. those vacant offices - buildings are already there and modification of the interior will be less costly and the project may be ready sooner to provide service to homeless people.

I am NOT opposing the project but the location needs to be further away from residential.

Somewhere by industrial or office area is a better choice.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,
Cindy
Resident of Santa Clara
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Subject: NO INTERIM HOUSING AT BENTON & LAWRENCE
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:29:31 PM
Affordable housing for a reasonable number of residents: MAYBE.

Permanent, Interim Housing for an unlimited, unscreened, endless supply of homeless individuals from anywhere in the city, county, state, country or abroad: NO! We do not approve of the proposal to build low barrier interim housing for homeless adults at Lawrence and Benton or in or adjacent to other residential neighborhoods in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

The proposed permanent encampment facility at Benton and Lawrence will intentionally and knowingly put our families in danger, increase crime, reduce the enjoyment of our community, and no doubt increase the cost of insurance while driving down our home values. You should have warned every homeowner of your intentions for that property prior to their home purchase, not after banks have approved their mortgages. This proposed action appears to mislead major mortgage lenders as well as several thousand middle class homeowners. Unless you plan to buy out and compensate every homeowner at market rate, we recommend you significantly revise your proposal.

We did not create the homelessness problem and we will not accept the burden for the rest of the county.

Thank you for representing your constituents.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:03:45 PM
Dear Mr. Hernandez,
My name is Bing Tai and I am extremely
disappointed that you invited some supporters of
the Benton project, portrayed them as members of
the local community then asked them to speak at
the March 9th Benton public hearing on the
neighbors' behalf. Everyone is free to express their
opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that
institutions or individuals with a vested interest in
the project were invited to speak for the project and
disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9
meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing
advocate organizations, who don't live in the
neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU
and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of
college students to support and speak for the
project. None of them are from the Benton
neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of
public support for the project and set up a plot to
manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law
and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such
behavior.

For the upcoming 3/22 meeting, I strongly urge the
city and county to change the meeting to in-person
or add a co-host nominated by the Benton
neighborhood to host the virtual meeting together.

We also urge the city and county to stop presenting
the view of incentivized participants as the view of
the local residents in all future meetings.

Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments
and participant list are always visible to everyone.

These are essential to ensuring that community
outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Thanks,
Bing
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Hello All,
Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:33:42 PM
As a taxpayer of Santa Clara County, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supe1v isor, brought a dozen of college students to supp01t and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Fan
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Sunday, March 19, 2023 2:00:51 PM
I am writing to express my extreme disappointment regarding the recent public hearing (March 9th) on the Benton project, specifically the use of invited supporters who were portrayed as local community members. It is unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak and disguised themselves as local neighbors. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion, clearly violating the principles of law and democracy.

From: Zheyu Wu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:23:02 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf.

These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

From: VW H
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:12:54 PM
Mr. Hernandez,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best Regards,
- Yin Wei
Address:

From: Sizhuo Zhang
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:20:55 PM
As a resident of Benton neighborhood, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Sizhuo Zhang

From: Victoria Gu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:16:21 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best,
Victoria
From: Haiying Wu
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:02:29 PM
General office Santa Clara,
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

Sincerely,
Haiying Wu
From: Raymond Chi
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:04:06 PM
General office Santa Clara,
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

Sincerely,
Raymond Chi
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: rence/Benton
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:21:18 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California. I believe that there are several questions that haven't been satisfactorily addressed in the meetings so far as well as in the FAQ updates, and I still feel that a "low entiy ban ier interim housing for singles and couples" is not the right fit for this pa1ticular location.

1. Safety & Security ( of residents): The residents, including me and my family (daughters 7 and 1), feel unsafe and are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on the KQED a1ticle. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we tiy to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabmy Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year.

Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the repo1t on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years.
• What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabmy for safety and secmity?
• If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable? • There are 15 schools within a 1.5 mile radius to this proposed location - has this been considered at all? My consult with a registered Social Worker also expressed concerns on this proposal.

2. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients. Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially
get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
o Why are we placing these clients across from a liquor store and 7-11 when we know a good percentage of them suffer from past alcohol abuse? o How do we protect the clients from ti·affic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
o Why does this location NOT offer any nearby public transpo1t or commercial working oppo1tunities?

3. Budget: Santa Clara city is ah-eady in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding mns out (after 3 years)? How will the city fund all the increased incidents anticipated from this project and where will the clients go after their 6 months maximum stay?

4. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements.

Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
Put Families first
Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
People who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks
Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like affordable housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here. I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Connie Chou, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood •
•
•
•
•
•
•
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Denisse
~
Locascio
Project ~
Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58:16 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and fonner county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to suppo1i and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public suppo1i for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the vniual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez's office. 3) Make sure that live comments and paiiicipant list are always visible to eve1yone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings ai·e transpai·ent and unbiased.

Regai·ds
Denisse Tostado
From: C L
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:26:39 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Cong Liu
From: Anna Tan
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 7:49:07 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

HUIYUAN Tan
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:55:00 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Thanks,
Vipul
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Stop astrotu mg an misrepresenting pu ic opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Saturday, March 18, 2023 8:08:23 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and f01m er county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Shelter at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 3:54:30 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute
towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

I believe that there are several questions that haven 't been satisfactorily addressed in the meetings so far
as well as in the FAQ updates, and I still feel that a "low entiy banier interim housing for singles and
couples" is not the right fit for this paiiicular location.

1. Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, ai·e not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on this KQED aiiicle. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential ai·ea as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we tiy to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabmy Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls yeai·-over-yeai·. Similai·ly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the repo1i on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 yeai·s. o What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabmy for safety and secmity?
o If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

2. Property Value:The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #2 on 3/1 where the county used assessed values to asse1i that low-income-housing doesn't adversely impact nearby housing values. The impact assessment should be based on market data. Moreover, the compai·ison should be done for similai· interim housing (one that's proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, ai·e not at all satisfied by a lack of
any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
o How do we protect the "clients" from ti·affic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection
which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
o How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may smprise them on expressway or neighborhood sti·eets?
○ How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit
the parks/streets?
○ How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:
○ Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements.

With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through
rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once
an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to
assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Vidushi Gupta, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From: Fay Dustin
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:13:33 PM
General office Santa Clara,
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

Sincerely,
Fay Dustin
From: Shan-Ting Hsu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Put an end to astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion. Either make the 3/22 meeting in-person or include a co-host from the neighborhood for the Zoom meeting
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:21:05 PM
I am deeply disappointed that individuals with vested interests in the Benton project were invited to speak at the March 9th public hearing disguised as local community members. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, it is unacceptable to present the views of project advocates as those of genuine community members. At the meeting, several speakers were from housing advocate organizations who do not reside in the Benton neighborhood.

Additionally, Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU, brought a group of college students to speak in favor of the project, none of whom were from the neighborhood. This tactic creates a false impression of public support for the project and undermines the democratic process. I have no tolerance for such behavior.

For the upcoming March 22nd meeting, I urge the city and county to either hold an in-person meeting or add a cohost from the Benton neighborhood to jointly host the virtual meeting with Ms. Consuelo Hernandez. Going forward, I request that the city and county refrain from presenting the views of incentivized participants as the opinions of the local residents in all future meetings.

To promote a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, I request the following: 1) a representative from the Benton neighborhood should join the virtual meeting as a co-host with Ms. Consuelo Hernandez, 2) the co-host should have equal meeting permissions and control and host the meeting from the same physical location as Ms. Hernandez's office, and 3) ensure that live comments and participant lists are always visible to all attendees. These steps are crucial to ensuring that community outreach meetings remain transparent and unbiased.

From: Lumeow Hsox
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:01:07 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Luyao
From:

To:

Cc:

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that
1) a representative from the neighborhood join the vniual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms.

Thank you for listening.

Sandrine
From: Shan-Ting Hsu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:07 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

From: Su Latt Win
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:39 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

From: Will C
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:13:22 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Haoyu Chen
From: Rémy BERNARD
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:01:32 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Regards,
Rémy Bernard
From: Leung Andy
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:57:26 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Guilan Gao
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58:38 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Guilan Gao
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:59:01 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Junyu Zheng
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:04:37 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Junyu Zheng
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Resident of Santa Clara,
Hongliang
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Lee
From: M Feng
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:27:25 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: vidya g
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:00:12 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

From: Rui Liang
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:54:41 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Best Regards,
Rui Liang
From: Ray Leon
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:55:37 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Rui Liang
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:20 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Rui de Leon
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:54 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Hello,
Wu
~
Wen
Benton p~ ublic hearings
Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:36:08 AM
I am writing to express my concerns on the Benton Project and the recent public hearings.

I am extremely disappointed that some supporters of the Benton project who do not live in the neighborhood were portrayed as members of the local community then asked to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors' behalf.

Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don't live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and fo1mer county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to suppo1t and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the viitual meeting as a co-host alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting pennission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms.

Hernandez's office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to eve1yone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Sincerely,
Wu Wen
From: Chou Ethan
To: onsuelo
Subject: Entire household ) strongly against Homekey project "Benton Street at Lawrence" Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:48:52 AM
To Consuelo and Santa Clara county:

Please stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom.

Sincere,
Household and house owner of
Ethan Chou
From: I S Gill
To:

Subject:

Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Thanks & Regards,
Bay Star Limo
* If cancellation is made less than 24 hours we will charge 100% of original fees.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Oppose Benton at Lawrence S ter
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:44:51 PM
Dear Mayor Gilmor and Council Members,
My name is Yu-Chuan Chou and I am a resident of Santa Clara living on Benton St. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Benton shelter. I believe this is an inappropriate location for such a faci lity and it poses a safety risk for our chi ldren in the community. I urge you to reconsider this plan and vote against it as our elected representatives. The city and county should look for a non-residential land that is more suitable for this purpose.

I appreciate your attention and service to our community. Please take my concerns into account.

Sincerely,
Yu Chuan
From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton e er
Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 10:28:51 AM
Hello, my name is Sheng Liu, a parent and resident in the neighborhood close to Benton & Lawrence intersection. I want to express my great concern and opposition about the Benton project. This low barrier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a potential safety risk to our children, and it is unacceptable that it would allow criminals, drug addicts, and sex offenders to stay. This was confirmed in all three community hearings that have been held so far. We need to ensure the safety of our chi ldren and prevent our community from becoming a magnet for crime.

Sheng Liu
Sheng Liu
PhD
Senior research scientist
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Re: Our neighhnrlhnnrl NEEDS you! Call to join the 3/22 zoom meeting Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:46:43 AM
Hi to whom it may concern,
I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location because Homeless Shelter for residents can pose potential risks to the high-density residential areas and to users of parks,
kids in many daycares, schools and children's playgrounds in this area. AND I request that I vote NO on this project:

Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter Thank You

BAY ONE LIMO
We Love Referrals!
* If cancellation is made less than 24 hours we will charge 100% of original fees.

On Thu Mar 16 2023 at 10:57 AM NoHomekey SantaClaraSunnyvale > wrote:

Follow our Twitter: https://twitter.com/safesantaclaTa
Subscribe to Y outube: https · //yout:uhe com/@safescc
Our website: https://safescc.org
Dear Community member:

In the last in-person public hearing at Mission city church, many of our neighbors joined the meeting and expressed their opposition.

As you probably know, in the 3/1 meeting, only a few supporters showed up to support the Benton proposal. However, on 3/9, more supporters came. At least 5 of them admitted they work for a homeless housing advocate organization and do not live in the neighborhood. About a dozen supporters were college students from San Jose State University. They came with Professor Ken Yeager, a former Santa Clara County Supervisor. The turnout created the illusion that more neighbors started supporting this HomeKey project. It showcases the government’s campaign to skew the actual level of opposition from the people who actually work/live in the neighborhood. As a preventative measure, we plan to ask the city/county to add a co-host nominated by the neighborhood for the next virtual public hearing.

It is really a critical period for us and our community. Again, we need our voices heard! We need your emails, and your phone calls AS MANY AS POSSIBLE to say NO to officials. Let them know we care about our community and will try very hard to keep it safe. We also need more WET SIGNATURES!
Before the meeting on March 22nd, please spend 5 mins emailing and calling officials. You can do it multiple times with the same words!! Please call

1. Consuelo：（Office line）

2. Any or all of the numbers below:
image.png
Email:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
To:

BCC:

Content:

From:

To: Mayor and Council; Adam Marcus
Subject: Re: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:17:20 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Ben Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: hardik darji
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:16:27 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

THIS IS SLEAZY on so many levels although expected from politicians.

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a .tD= host alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez's office. 3) Make sure that live comments and paiticipant list are always visible to eve1yone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings ai·e transpai·ent and unbiased.
--
Gurinder Dhillon
From: Yunqi Sun
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:18:28 PM
Hi Consuelo,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Jeff Leon
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:05:31 PM
Hi,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jeff Li
From: Ray
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:50:17 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Ling Huang
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:25:47 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Xuri Feng
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:28:39 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Benton project - Secon Open Letter
Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:24:34 PM
County Supervisors, Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

This is the second open letter to Santa Clara County and City. We are v.•riting to express our strong opposition to the proposed Benton development. We believe this development is a mistake that the city of Santa Clara should never make. We urge the City Council to halt the consideration of this site immediately.

We want to strongly express our indignation and concern regarding the practice of astrotuding before and in the third hea1·ing held on March 9th. Eve1yone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as pait of the community. This action to mai·ket false impressions of public suppo1t for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles oflaw and democracy. We have zero-tolerance towards such behavior. We strongly urge the city and county to not only stop presenting the view of incentivized pa11icipants as the view of the local residents, but also to refrain from engaging in astroturfing in the future. This is essential to ensuring that collllllunity outreach meetings ai·e transparent and unbiased.

Additionally, we are extremely dismayed by the City and County's persistent dissemination of fake and false information, as well as the disregard fo1· the community's concerns about safety. You CW'sorily dismissed Milpitas' crime statistics relating to shelter areas. You also consciously distanced yoW"selves from use of the word "shelter", carefully replacing it with "interim housing," as if the two temlS cany appreciable differences. Also, when you presented the data from KQED of five shelters in San Jose with declined crime, you intentionally presented the total number but not the number for each site. Because if you look at the nwnber of police calls for each site respectively, 3 out of 5 sites witnessed an increase in almost all types of police calls. Worse, the earlier the shelter opened, the larger increase in crime it showed. Also the KQED data missed a lot of types of crime, such as drugrelated, suspicious activity, bw·glaiy/theft, mental health, disorders, violation and violence. These tactics, though understandably employed to pacify the public, were cleai·ly intended to rnislead them as well. Despite three hearings, we have seen no progress or initiatives in addressing ow· safety concerns, especially on crimes. The fact is that the City and County cannot ensW'e ow· safety in the face of a shortage of police resoUl'ces. We want to strongly remind you that what Milpitas is cunently expeliencing will be Sant.a Clara's problem in the future, and the damage to residential areas will only be greater. This is not speculation, but rather a very real and ongoing situation.

Fwihennore, like the rejected White Oak Lane project, the Benton project may receive initial funding from state/county but the ultimate cost of long-term management, operation and any liability associated ,vith the facility will eventually be borne by Santa Clara taxpayers - the same taxpayers that voted you into office.

In swnmaty, the public's opposition to this project is very vocal and strong. It is undoubtedly representative of the opinion of the fine citizens living here for years and decades. Addressing homelessness is a humanitarian and necessaiy effort. But all these years what we have always seen is yoW' hand-waving and virtue-signaling, as embodied in yoW' repeated, irTesponsible choice oflocation for different homeless shelters, in yoW' misplaced emphasis on housing alone without much regard for other priorities helping the homeless. In this matter, the public's patience and trust m you is, frankly, very thin. We w·ge you to heed the loud and clear message, to act on yoW' good conscience, and to genuinely involve the collllllunity rather than just treating us as mere formality. If you put yow· political career ahead of the interest of the Santa Clara residents whom you presumably represent, then fight we will.

We are detennined to take all means necessaiy, including but not lirnited to legal action, to safeguai·d the place we call home, for omselves but perhaps more importantly, for OW' children.

Regards,
Safe Santa Clara County
I ~ I
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

March 20, 2023
All,
Cecil Mossotti
Mayor and Council; Consuelo Hernandez; Adam Marcus
Benton-Lawrence Homeless Project
Monday, March 20, 2023 3:44: 18 PM
1bis is a follow-up to my March 8 email and to my comments at the March 9 meeting as I will be unable to participate in the March 22 virtual meeting.

Again, I am a retiree who owns and lives in the Monaco Condominiums located directly across tl1e street from the proposed interim housing. Already we have homeless with serious mental and/ or drng issues around our complex as well as at the 7 / 11 store and gas station that are next to us. 1bis includes tl1ose living in their cars parked on the curbs by us who refuse to stay in the motels provided to them.

Having interim housing across the street for the homeless described above only increases the numbers since tl1ey will continue to 'hang out' at the places I mentioned.

I seriously doubt those of you making the decision would want to have such housing by your home. Therefore, why can't tl1e funding be used for the homeless who have jobs but must live in motels, tents, shelters. Or perhaps a pre-school facility for low income families or those who are homeless with children.

Yes, those unfortunate to be homeless need help and a clean warm place to reside. However, the individuals who you plan to house at tl1e Benton-Lawrence interim facility will require years of assistance and care, not montl1s, due to their drng addiction or mental illness. Please consider an area away from neighborhoods for such a facility. Consider instead a facility for tl1ose I mentioned above or sometliing similar.

Ms Cecil Ma r Mossotti
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: r at Lawrence/ Benton
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:50:56 AM
Dear Ms. Consuelo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

1. Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on lb.is_KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls year-over-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years
o What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
o If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

4. Budget:
o Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5.Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Shaun Shroff, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Community F - Sti a No to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/ Benton Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:03:21 AM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

1. Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on !b.is..KQED article. Upon closer inspection, none of the 5 sites referenced seemed to be singles and couples only and none seems to be close to such a dense residential area as Lawrence/Benton. Moreover, if we try to look at the worst case scenario amongst these 5, Mabury Road site had more than 30% increase in police quality-of-life calls yearoyer-year. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood found out that the report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years
• What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
• If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
• How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
• How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets? • How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
• How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like affordable housing, preferably a rent-to-own housing project for teachers, healthcare workers, service workers (like cleaning services, restaurant workers etc.) and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Monica Bansal, J.D. Parent and Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: r at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:06:49 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients.

4. Budget:
○
Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Regards,
Pushpanjali S,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Benny Fong
To: Mayor and Council; Adam Marcus
Subject: DO NOT build any homeless shelter at Lawrence and Benton Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 9:07:58 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

We strongly OPPOSE to any homeless shelter at Lawrence
and Benton.

I am all for helping the homeless, and solving the homeless issue. But the County needs to do more studying and come up with a Win Win proposal.Just because there is an empty lot in our neighborhood Does Not mean the county's next project should be built here.You don't need a PhD to know this
location is absolutely WRONG for any homeless shelter.

We have been living in this area for the past 15 years. Our two kids attend the elementary school that is half a mile from the proposed site.I'm FURIOUS that the county is proposing this location for homeless shelter, right in the middle of our residential community, where hundreds of children live and attend the many schools in the neighborhood, all within an one mile radius.

What this proposal to build a homeless shelter in our
residential community is basically to turn our beautiful neighborhood into a shit hole. We CAN NOT let this happen.

Please don't sacrifice our children.

NO homeless shelter at Lawrence and Benton.

Regards,
Ben W. and family
Resident of Santa Clara
-
From: Natalia Bondarenko
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:57:43 AM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. It is close to my school and park and I am concirned about safety of my children.
-
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Greetings,
Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9 :22:47 PM
image.png
Thank you all for the meeting this evening.

I feel there are some points that perhaps you were not made aware of:
- This is a ve1y residential neighborhood and is not suitable for an interim shelter where its longevity and continued proper management is unknown. Residents live decades in a neighborhood and will likely outlive your career(s) managing this site. Longevity (continued funding) of this site needs to be addressed, if you ultimately choose to place this in a neighborhood.
- Mr. Consuelo mentioned that there are families at local schools who would benefit from this shelter. We ah-eady have the nearby Bella Vista. Inn which should solve this issue for them. - Where do the lmhoused go, if they time-out or get removed from this site? We know that unhoused peoples will be brought in from all over the County. Does this neighborhood then become their new encampment?
- Addressing the fact that you are placing 2 shelters in what is known as Koreatown, where minorities, especially Asians, are more frequently targeted than Caucasians due to scapegoating by the past administration as well as both the Democratic and Republican paiiies. I am not smprised that this community feels a heightened sense of feai·. There is no Asian representation in your staff at Lifemoves. I would like to hear how Lifemoves would address this issue, including offering anti-bias and culturally diverse training to your clients, in order to potentially be good neighbors, especially in the Koreatown area. - I noticed that your presentation was ve1y one-sided. You offered testimonials of your clients, but there were no testimonials of homeowner residents from around your other shelters. I also noticed most of your other shelters ai·e not immediately adjacent to homes and residences, but this one will be. I would like to see this addressed.
- If you ai·e choosing this location, I would like to see Lifemoves acknowledge and address that in the United States of America, homes are the only safety net that citizens have. Homes are the only thing that Americans can sell to fund their retirement, healthcare costs, mortgage to pay for their child's education, to relocate and more. Ours is a country without universal healthcare, abysmal social security, no universal higher education and no safety net. By putting a second site directly into one neighborhood, Lifemoves needs to acknowledge that you are impacting the only safety net a citizen has in this country, which is their home, and it is heavily dependent on density, banier of entry and management at such a location. - I would also like to see Lifemoves address the issue of removing 24/7 security at your Palo Alto location:
1mage.png
https · //padailypost com/202 3/01120/price-of-proposed-hornel ess-shelter-goes-up-agajn/ Though I am heartened that Lifemoves has heard some of our concerns, I still feel that this site is not a suitable site due to the issues I list above.

Thank you for your time and I would like a response to the issues I brought up above.

Sincerely,
JeanL
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:55:19 PM
Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients. Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
o How do we protect the "clients" from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
o How do we protect the residents, especially teenage kids learning to drive from accidentally hitting such folks who may surprise them on expressway or neighborhood streets?
○
How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
○
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

4. Budget:
○Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements.

I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation, training and relocation by also addressing additional underlying issues that go beyond housing. Once an individual is ready to contribute to the society, housing projects in dense neighborhoods could be leveraged to assist further.

I hope that we can work together in keeping our cities and neighborhoods safe as well as tackling homelessness.

Tina Liu
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

City and county need to find non-residential land for the facility like this.

I'm counting on you.

From:

To:

I'm counting on you.

From: Yuanyuan Zhang
To: Mayor and Council
Cc:

Subject: Oppose Benton shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:19:58 PM
Hello,
My name is Yuanyuan Zhang, a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. I have a strong belief that this project presents a significant safety hazard for the children in our community. Despite the county's assertions, data from a comparable facility in Milpitas reveals that police-involved incidents rose by 300% after the project's implementation. It is not acceptable for this project to transform our community into a breeding ground for crime.

Please vote NO. I’m counting on you.

Thanks!
Sincerely,
Yuanyuan
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9 :38:22 PM
image.png
image.png
Oh yes, I would also like Lifemoves to address why the cost for the Palo Alto location increased again and again.
1mage.png
Thank you again,
JeanL
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:22 PM Jean
Greetings,
Thank you all for the meeting this evening.
wrote:

I want to express my appreciation for some of the points that yow- team has clearly heard from the community:
- Thank you for hearing om concerns regarding the density, especially with Bella Vista Inn being only 0.5mi away. Yow- Option 2 design takes into better consideration the houses that you will be right up against, shoulder-to-shoulder, and the fact this neighborhood will ah-eady be absorbing the impacts of Bella Vista Inn.
- Thank you for hearing that this area is better suited for children, as is obvious by the quantity of schools and parents that reside in this area, and re-designing the site to accommodate 25% that are families.
- Thank you for explaining that there will be rnles and that illegal activity will not be allowed on the premise. (We hope illegal activity does not then just get pushed out offpremise into the parks and neighborhood.) - Thank you for hearing om concern about there being only 0.5mi distance to Bella Vista Inn and considering the bike shop site as an alternative.

I feel there are some points that perhaps you were not made aware of:
- This is a ve1y residential neighborhood and is not suitable for an interim shelter where its longevity and continued proper management is unknown. Residents live decades in a neighborhood and will likely outlive your career(s) managing this site. Longevity (continued fonding) of this site needs to be addressed, if you ultimately choose to place this in a neighborhood.
- Mr. Consuelo mentioned that there are families at local schools who would benefit from this shelter. We ah-eady have the nearby Bella Vista. Inn which should solve this issue for them.
- Where do the unhoused go, if they time-out or get removed from this site? We know that unhoused peoples will be brought in from all over the County. Does this neighborhood then become their new encampment?
- Addressing the fact that you are placing 2 shelters in what is known as Koreatown, where minorities, especially Asians, are more frequently targeted than Caucasians due to scapegoating by the past administration as well as both the Democratic and Republican pa1iies. I am not surprised that this community feels a heightened sense of fear. There is no Asian representation in your staff at Lifemoves. I would like to hear how Lifemoves would address this issue, including offering anti-bias and culturally diverse training to your clients, in order to potentially be good neighbors, especially in the Koreatown area. - I noticed that your presentation was ve1y one-sided. You offered testimonials of your clients, but there were no testimonials of homeowner residents from around your other shelters. I also noticed most of your other shelters are not immediately adjacent to homes and residences, but this one will be. I would like to see this addressed. - If you are choosing this location, I would like to see Lifemoves acknowledge and address that in the United States of America, homes are the only safety net that citizens have. Homes are the only thing that Americans can sell to fund their retirement, healthcare costs, mortgage to pay for their child's education, to relocate and more. Ours is a countiy without universal healthcare, abysmal social security, no universal higher education and no safety net. By putting a second site directly into one neighborhood, Lifemoves needs to acknowledge that you are impacting the only safety net a citizen has in this countiy, which is their home, and it is heavily dependent on density, baiTier of entiy and management at such a location.
- I would also like to see Lifemoves address the issue of removing 24/7 security at your Palo Alto location:
mage.png
https://padail:xpost.com/2023/03/20/price-of-proposed-homeless-shelter-goes-up-again/ Though I am heaii ened that Lifemoves has heard some of our concerns, I still feel that this site is not a suitable site due to the issues I list above.

Thank you for your time and I would like a response to the issues I brought up above.

Sincerely,
JeanL
From: Ashish Verma
To: Adam Marcus; Consuelo
Cc: Mayor and Council;
Subject: Re: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22 Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:45:56 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
I recently heard from several folks that there could be a correlation to the increase in the number of homeless people in Santa Clara county with the release of prisoners during peak Covid times. I haven't been able to look into this myself from a data perspective. Granted,that doesn't change anything regarding the total number of homeless folks that need housing, it actually makes the concern around safety and security even more grave (if that assumption is valid). Would it be possible for you to cover this in the next session on 3/22?
A number of people that I have personally talked with, supported the solution of getting rehabilitation from substance abuse first, before getting such folks in close proximity to kids and residents. Please understand that if it were a fail safe screened process where families with jobs in the area on the verge of being homeless (eviction etc.) could be provided a relief and prevented from going down that cycle, you'd have seen an embracing community. I hope that we find a path in which we all could come together, not just for this project but for overall solution.

Thanks,
Ashish
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:17 AM Ashish Verma < > wrote:

Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
There were a couple of topics that got debated quite a bit in the last few days. These were:

1. US Citizenship
Most of the folks who brought it up wanted a verification that only US Citizens get assistance in such interim housing/shelter.

Any illegal or undocumented folks are routed to the facilities that can either get them to a path of citizenship or take corrective actions.

If none, it would be a good idea to determine exclusion criterias for different types of locations. For example:

Shelter by category: The inclusion AND exclusion criterias would help us widen our search for land/location fit for different categories
Rehabilitation: The inclusion AND exclusion criterias would help us provide rehabilitation services appropriate for different categories through a focussed approach. We can partner with certain NGOs for this.
(Vocational) Training: Once rehabilitated, and ready for being productive citizens, our clients 0 0
0 0
•
•
•
•
•
•
could be provided training to sharpen their skills or learn new skills that can help them get a job.

Adam Marcus (he/him)
City of Santa Clara
Housin & Community Services Division
or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ
Some of the residents worked together to compile a list of questions that either haven't yet been addressed in FAQ/Slides so far or the response hasn't completely addressed those concerns.

I am bringing these to your attention so that you can help frame answers to these and hopefully get us all to a constructive conclusion that's beneficial for all.

Please let me know if you'd like to discuss any of these prior to the call or need more information.

4.Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 [g
[g
[g
[g
[g
No response yet

5.Throughput
What’s the overall throughput of clients across different lifemoves centers going by 120/240/360 days (giving a better understanding of where every client landed after getting a service in such an interim shelter)
No Response yet on FAQ (Residents would like to see the data that’s based on interim shelters similar to the ones proposed for this site)

7. Smoking Area
Would the facility have its own smoking area so that the "clients" do not congregate on the streets for smoking?
Not yet covered on FAQ

8. Quality of Life:
oHow would the project respect the privacy of residents due to its height? oWhat would be the responsibility of LifeMoves or site managers in keeping the surroundings clean (free of litter etc. from its clients)? Note yet covered on FAQ
Regards,
Ashish
0 0
0 From: Sharilyn Yao
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53:50 PM
Hi,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

Best,
Sharilyn
From: Zhe Liu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:14:03 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

From: Natalia Bondarenko
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:57:43 AM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. It is close to my school and park and I am concirned about safety of my children.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:32 AM
I'm a mom living in Santa Clara, my daughter is 2 years old, she will also go to the preschools around Benton street area, it's called stratford preschool, she will play in the area before and after school. I strongly oppose the shelter plan at Benton and Lawrence, for my daughter, for my family, for my neighbors. it would be a big threat for young kids, for the whole community, please hear our voice and take care the community members. if you are a parent, for sure you want a safe environment for your kid to grow up. Are you a parent or a future parent? Please help protect the kids, they are the countiy's future, thanks.

Best regards,
Dan Zhao
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:
[
Benton S e er - Rrst Open Letter
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 5 :26:04 PM
J
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers, County Supervisors:

Safe Santa Clara County is a grassroots association of residents from across Santa Clara. Our aim is to promote livable cities and neighborhoods which work for all of our residents.

Members of our association strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. We believe this development is wrong for Santa Clara, wrong for the Benton location specifically, and also wrong for its intended patrons. We urge the City Council to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible.

The proposed location poses a significant safety threat to nearby schools. It is located at the cente1· of more than 15 schools serving 10,483 students. We are deeply concemed about the decision to create this shelter for "the more challenging elements of the population" (B. Greenberg of LifeMoves, in the 2nd hearing) in such close proximity to thousands of vulnerable and innocent children. This decision poses an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of the children and can lead to devastating consequences. We believe that there are other locations in Santa Clara where no schools are within a 20-minute walk and should be considered instead.

The proposed location also poses a tremendous safety threat to nearby residents, with the closest one being less than 20 ft away. Research shows that crime increases by 56% within 300 ft of a shelter, and the negative effects are concentrated within 0.35 miles. For this proposed location, there are more than 2,000 residential homes, which means approximately 6,000 residents within 0.35 miles. The Repo11 on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in 2022 showed that police-involved incidents have increased 300% compared to before the project was executed. The contrast is te1rifying. The level of crime rate at the facility is unacceptable. It is a strong proof that a shelter can tum the area into a hotbed for crime. It has a devastating impact on the safety and security, economic growth and public health of the affected neighborhoods and the wider Santa Clara community.

We are deeply disappointed and outraged about the misleading communication from county officials, LifeMoves, and city councilmembers regarding the proposed shelter. In the first outreach meeting, officials from the county and LifeMoves showed an apparent lack of knowledge about how many schools and other child facilities were located near the Benton location. In the 2nd meeting, Ms. Consuelo Hemandez claimed there were only four schools located within 1.5 miles of the shelter, which is still incon-ect. The correct number is 15, and will go much higher if we include daycares and afte1·-school programs. This grossly inaccurate infomiation demonstrates the officials' ignorance of the safety and well-being of the community, as well as the poor quality of their work.

Fwihennore, Ms. Consuelo Hemandez attempted to use the Branham and Monterey shelter as an example to j ustify the proposed location near Benton, stating that the neighborhoods are similar. Howeve1·, this compa1·ison is illogical and misleading, as the Branham and Monterey location was a tenible mistake made by the city of San Jose, which should not be repeated by the city of Santa Clara. Additionally, the impact on the safety of schools near the Benton location will be significantly greater than that of Branham, as there are 15 schools with a total student population of 10,483 within 1.5 miles of Benton, compared to 3 schools and 1,116 students near Branham. This Iisk and potential consequences of the Benton location will be 9 times greater than that of Branham, and will be much higher if we include teachers and staff, and students from daycares and after-school programs.

Table 1: Schools within 1.5 Miles of the Proposed Benton Site Schools Distance from the
Property
Student population
Stratford School 0.25 miles 905
Laurelwood Elementary 0.26 miles 623
Pomeroy Elementary 0.33 miles 344
Monticello Academy 0.38 miles 340
Santa Clara High School 0.58 miles 2,030
Basis Lower School 0.62 miles 380
Peterson Middle School 0.63 miles 871
New Valley / Gateway High School 0.75 miles 160
John Sutter Elementary 0.81 miles 530
Briarwood Elementary School 0.90 miles 292
St. Lawrence Elementary and Middle School 0.93 miles 497 Central Park Elementary 1.2 miles 445
Millikin Basics+ Elementary School 1.2 miles 563
Ponderosa Elementary School 1.3 miles 542
Wilcox High School 1.4 miles 1,961
Total student population 10,483
Table 2: Comparison of Branhan and Benton location
Branham and Monterey shelter Proposed Benton shelter
Number of schools
within 1.5 miles 3 15
List of schools under 15
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
List of schools under 20
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
ii) Davis (Caroline) Intermediate
School - 16 min walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
iv) Santa Clara High School - 16 min walk
v) Basis lower school - 17 min walk
vi) Monticello - 19 min walk
Total number of
students affected
1,116 10,483
We are also deeply disappointed and angered by the intentional misinterpretation of our concerns for safety.

The City, County and LifeMoves have depicted us, taxpayers and voters, as selfish individuals who prioritize our property value over human lives. Resorting to such an act of smearing has completely disregarded the fact that above all, we are parents, spouses, sons, and daughters who are fighting to protect our families and loved ones. We urge the City, County and LifeMoves to stop stereotyping residents and voters, and instead participate in constructive conversation and leverage the wisdom of residents to make our community a better place for everyone.

We are actively seeking alternative ways to help the unhoused population by proposing alternative uses for this land.

Majority of residents are willing to consider a low-income rent-to-own housing project for teachers or first responders who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here. This investment would uplift the community and make it even more thriving, especially given the proximity of the location to schools. This is also suggested by city councilmember Kevin Park.

The association suggests moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation and addressing the underlying issues.

We believe that these concerns should warrant proper consideration and mitigation by the City, County and LifeMoves.

Regards,
Board Members, Safe Santa Clara County
From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:07:22 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Eric Sung
-
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

I oppose e s e ter ui at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:40:56 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Chua City and Santa Chua County:

I am writing to sham my great concern and express my opposition to the proposal of constmcting a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

First, this proposed shelter is in the middle of very walkable residential neighborhood which has quite a few schools, public parks and many homes. Since the city plans to admit people with prior criminal background, with prior or ongoing drug abuse, with mental health issues to this shelter, it will create an unsafe environment for people in this neighborhood. I live across from the proposed shelter location, during the past decade, our family experienced a car theft, our license plate being stolen and other issues. With each incident, our family had to spend so much time and effort to resolve the issue and not to mention all the stress and agony, even though we were the victims, so it is our top priority for me and our family to live in a neighborhood that is safe and to keep it safe.

Helping people who are going through difficult time is a good act and I and our family do support that. But this should be done in a way that ensure safety for innocent citizen.

And a helping act should cause no harm and danger to the majority of the population.

Also, I learned that the county has converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility this year which is only about half a mile away from the Benton/Lawrence location. After learning this, it seems questionable as to why our neighborhood is being targeted and it seems rather unfair for our community which is near the proposed shelter location to host another shelter.

For above reasons, I strongly ask the city to consider a non-residential area for a homeless shelter. I heard the city of Palo Alto built a homeless shelter in a nonresidential area which is a very reasonable approach. Since the County owns a number of parcels further away from residential areas, this would be an ideal approach to build a shelter.

To preserve the neighborhood that is rather safe, we ask you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Janet Kim

From: Benny Fong
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: I Oppose to building a homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 12:50:23 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am a long time resident of Santa Clara. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

This location sits within walking distance to many elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single family homes, apartments, senior homes.

Families stroll in the area with their kids. Young students walk to and from their schools daily. Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

I urge you to vote NO on homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Ben Wong
From: Debbie Dempsey
To:

Cc: Mayor and Council;
Subject: Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 3:36:52 PM
I live on Shafer Drive which is within the 1000 foot radius of the proposed Interim Housing Site on the corner of Benton and Lawrence Expressway.

Because a low barrier interim housing site is strongly opposed by my community, myself included, I suggest that the site instead be used for affordable housing for:

1. Firefighters;

2. Police;

3. Nurses;

4. Health Care Workers; and

5. Employees of the City of Santa Clara.

The availability of affordable housing for the above will allow our community to build support services for our homeless population, including but not limited to:

A. Transformational case management for our City of Santa Clara homeless so we can better understand the needs of our homeless population;
B. Reach out to partner agencies for services, as for example:
dentists;
legal services and/or partners to help ensure that individuals attend all scheduled court appearances and do not re-offend;
health care oversight;
Goodwill or similar for clothing.

Once we are confident that we can successfully address the needs of our homeless population in the city of Santa Clara, then an interim housing site can be identified that is not in a residential neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
•
•
•
•
From:

To:

Subject:

I'm counting on you.

From:

To:

Subject: Oppose Benton S e ter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:29:31 PM
My name is Bee, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative.

City and county need to find a non-residential land for the facility like this.

I'm counting on you!
Thanks,
Bee
pe1
From: freyzhou
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Opposing Benton-Lawrence Homeless Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:27:13 PM
Hi,
I'm a Santa Clara resident and I live on Thrush way, walking distance away from the proposed homeless shelter. I strongly oppose building the low-barrier shelter in dense residential area. The Mountain View site is built in the center of industrial area, and why can't we just follow them? I don't understand why proposing a similar location when white oak shelter was rejected less than a year ago.

Please vote 'NO' to this.

Best,
Frey
-
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Hi Consuelo,
mat and request
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:46:58 PM
In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who suppo1t this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come. All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.
2023 at 5:50 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
> wrote:

Hi Cindy,
We heard from the community that they would like to engage in small group discussions.

Thanks,
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
From: puredancin
Sent:Monday, M
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fonnat and request Hello Consuelo,
Can you be more specific about "we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions"? Who will be included in this "small group discussion"? How can you make sure they will represent the neighborhood who live close to Benton location?
To answer your question, by "astroturfing" or "market false impressions of public support", I mean "institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as prut of the community." There are at lease five of them from house advocate orgs, one told us that you invited her and a few others. Also there was a group of SJSU students who "were asked to come and supp01t this project by our professor Ken Yeager" (quote from one of the students).

To do that, if you said you cannot change the format for the 3/22 meeting, we request that we nominate a co-host from our neighborhood to host the meeting together with you, so we can make sure the selection of speakers is transparent, and there won’t be anything behind the screen on your end.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
> wrote:

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on April 25th I would be happy to explore that with you and others in the neighborhood.

Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your thoughts.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
From: puredancin
Sent: Monday, Ma
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/22 meeting fo1mat and request
Hello Consuelo and Adam,
My name is Cindy and I live in Birdland neighborhood. I want to strongly express my indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before in the third hearing held on March 9th, and for the upcoming meeting on 3/22.

1. Change to in-person meeting instead, as covid has already ended.

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From:

To:

Subject: neighborhood co-host
for Zoom!
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:00:13 AM
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

By A Long term residents of Benton Neighborhood.

From: Yi Huang
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:59:27 AM
Hi,
I'm a current resident in the area that will be affected by this project and I'm writing to express my disappointment and concerns with what is going on recently. I heard that institutions and individuals that do not live in the community were taken into serious consideration in this matter, which I found unacceptable and unbelievable. For them, it is just one politically right thing to say with no costs to them at all. For us that are currently living in this area, there is a huge price to pay including sacrificing the safe community because of those unstable and dangerous peeple. The political right needs to stop! Do not act kind when you have nothing to lose.

Regards,
Yi Huang
From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:53 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentApril 25, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
April 25, 2023