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 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.
From: Hongliang Fei
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:06:37 PM
Hi there,
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 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.
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.
Lee
From: Hongliang Fei
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:04:47 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. 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.
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.
Resident of Santa Clara,
Hongliang
From: Junyu Zheng
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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.
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.
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.
Junyu Zheng
Santa Clara
From: Ray
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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.
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.
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.
From: Jeff Leon
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Jeff Li
From: Yunqi Sun
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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.
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.
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.
From: Gurinder Dhillon
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:31:38 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.
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.
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.
--
Gurinder Dhillon
From: hardik darji
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:16:32 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.
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 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.
--
Hardikkumar Darji
From: Sun Eva
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:11:53 AM
Hi there,
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.
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.
Thanks,
Eva
From: Shea Shea
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:10:17 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.
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 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.
--
Regards,
Jason Shea
From: Amber Hung
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:09:09 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.
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.
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.
--
Regards,
Jo Yu Hung
From: Amber Hung
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:08:19 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.
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.
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.
--
Regards,
Amber Hung
From: Mengxi Li
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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:
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.
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 lists are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
-A Santa Clara resident
From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:56 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.
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 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.
From:
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom!
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:00:11 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 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.
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.
By A Long term residents of Benton Neighborhood.
From: Yi Huang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:59:28 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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Yi Huang
From: Shaun Shroff
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:54:37 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.
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.
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.
From: Zhe Liu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:14:05 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.
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 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.
From: Frank WONG
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop Benton Lawrence Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:49:32 PM
Dear Mr/Ms,
My name is Long Wang living in 3073 Adams Way, Santa Clara, CA 95051.
I'm strongly against the Lawrence-Benton Shelter. This location is the heart of South Bay, has high populations, with 4x schools and many communities nearby. I can not imagine there are hundreds of homeless of mental-illness live here and how scary our kids will be. You can not hear the voice of elementary kids but you know this shelter will hurt them. Shelter should build in industrial area, not residential area, it is so obvious but why county ignore this. We pay property taxes every year to the county. Such residential shelter may drive many high-tech employees to leave this area to other safer cities.
Stop this Benton-Lawrence Shelter and move to industrial or Mountain view area!!!!! That's my comments to it.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Long
From: Dan Li
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop the Benton Shelter for Homeless Date: Saturday, March 11, 2023 5:25:41 PM
Hi Hernandez,
As a citizen and voter in Santa Clara County, I'm writing to express my grave concern on the proposed homeless shelter at the corner of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara.
Please see the rationales attached.
Thank you!
Dan
From:
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] STOP the homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence!! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:34:10 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: B W
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop the Horrible Shelter Proposal at Lawrence and Benton Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:05:00 PM
My name is Brian West, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the Benton shelter proposal. This is absolutely 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) 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. 3) 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!) 4) The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood. Our neighbors have shouldered more homeless issues than any other area already. Enough is enough! Don’t bring more homeless to our neighborhood.
5) 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! 6) Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse in any homeless shelter will only create more problems than it solves.
7) Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs, totally opposite to the stated goals of the proposed shelter.
8) 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 to vote NO. Thank you.
Brian West
and family
From: B W
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] STOP the Proposed Homeless Shelter at Lawrence and Benton. Please vote NO!! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:27:34 PM
My name is Brian West, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the Benton shelter proposal. This is absolutely 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) 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. 3) 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!) 4) This is the 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood. Our neighbors have shouldered more homeless issues than any other area already. Enough is enough! Don’t bring more homeless to our neighborhood.
5) 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! 6) Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse in any homeless shelter will only create more problems than it solves. 7) Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs, totally opposite to the stated goals of the proposed shelter. 8) 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 to vote NO. Thank you.
Brian West
and family
From: y xx
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong objection!
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:41:22 PM
To whom may concern,
We strongly oppose building the low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton.
We understand the helpless for the homeless, however, the policy should think about the residents more. Before deciding, think about some questions below:
Have you guys consider the safety of the city and the community? Have you guys consider the use of the taxed money from the residents? What the residents really need?
Have you guys think about the duties? Why the residents vote for you guys? For the worst environment?
Please listen to our residents’ voice! And choose the locations of low barrier tiny homeless shelters cautiously! Better for far from any cities!
Regards,
Lily Xiao
From: Yuan Yao
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong Oppose the development of Benton Homeless shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:40:59 PM
To whom it may concern
The proposed Benton Homeless shelter brings a significant safety threat to nearby schools, including my kids' school. I urge the city council to stop consideration of this location Regards
Yuan Yao
From: Larry wang
To: mayorandcouncil@santaclaraca org; [email protected]; rchahal; Kathy Watanabe; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Ellenberg Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Hernandez Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong oppose to Benton and Lawrence homeless shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:31:47 PM
Dear Mayor, city council members,
cc. county council members,
I am writing to strongly oppose the project of Benton homeless shelter.
The homeless have been an issue for us for a couple of years. We understand that Santa Clara county and city are pushed to find a location for shelters. However, I do not think the cross street of Lawrence and Benton is an good choice. The noisy place with a low transit score to the bus stop and the traffic appears dangerous to pedestrian crossing Benton street. Like white oaks, where is rejected years ago, is a bad choice for those who need support. It brings huge concerns to local communities as well.
Here is a notable research paper posted in 2019. Bad transit score place can nigatively impact access to employment and educational opportunities, healthcare and social services. In particular, it has been found to prevent individuals' upward mobility out of homelessness.
https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Murphy%20%282019%29Transportation%20and%20Homelessness.pdf The transit score of Benton shelter is calculated under 40 by walkscore.com.
I do believe if we do really wanna support homeless, please choose some other places closer to the transportatio.
I do wish you can listen and accept my point.
thank you so much.
regards,
-Larry
From: Puan Xu
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] strong opposition against shelters at Lawrence & Benton Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:47:22 AM
My name is Richard Xu, a resident of Santa Clara County.
I strongly oppose building the low-barrier container-style homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. Here are a few points of concern. I’d appreciate it if you take them seriously and respond with a detailed answer to address them.
Major concerns:
Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern.
No serious and prior research on the impact of this shelter on the surrounding neighborhood.
80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.
Admission of people with a criminal history and drug issues, essentially no screening procedures.
Admission of people with mental issues.
Stacked-up, container-style tiny homes create a subpar living environment even for the unhoused.
No specific plans for management; no guarantee for neighborhood safety and quality of life.
Proposed staff/residents ratio of 1:100, and a plan that would utilize only volunteers to treat the mental illness of residents
This location is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.
There is no solid data or evidence showing that LifeMoves’s Moutain View homeless shelter succeeded in reducing the homeless population in the city or improving the homeless's mental issues.
Homeless families with kids and/or some belongings will very likely avoid moving into this shelter due to fear of crimes and drug use. Since the shelter will design to have a “low entry barrier” (essentially no screening of residents at all), it is quite likely that people with a criminal background, history of drug use/dealing, and repeat offenses will stay here. It will not be surprising that homeless from other states with questionable backgrounds will show up in our neighborhoods.
From White Oak Lane to Benton & Lawrence, these choices of location have repeatedly shown that some of the elected officials put spending up taxpayer’s dollars before ensuring the safety of the community.
Requests:
I request that you address the 300+ questions raised by the attendees in the first community meeting held on Feb-13, 2023 instead of cherry-picking a few to answer and ignoring the majority.
I request that you provide the date, time, and location of the April meetings to be attended by LifeMoves, and city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared online & publicly accessible, so members of the community have a chance to join the discussion.
I request that the County always provide a virtual way (e.g. Zoom) to join the meetings that are held in person so that busy parents like me can participate.
I request that you provide verifiable research/study/data on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
I request that you share the plans about how you are making sure that young kids and students are safely walking to/from schools.
I request that you share the plans about how to handle the potential increase in parking and traffic gave that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.
I request that you share how you would help the city of Santa Clara cope with the inevitable requirement to increase police funding/staffing in response to the increase in incidents/crimes in this area due to this shelter.
Are there any rules/regulations applicable to residents of the shelter? If they break the regulation, what accountability will be enforced?
What does the move-in process look like? Is there a maximum of time a resident can stay in this shelter? What is their day-to-day schedule (e.g. curfew)? Is the shelter designed to accommodate unhoused people from the city of Santa Clara only, or from the county, or from anywhere in the country? How do you enforce geographical restrictions, if any?
Please share the details of resident management, including Lifemoves’ plan, and source of first-year and long-term funding.
Thank you for your consideration
From: Nanxi Li
To: Nanxi Li
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong opposition to Benton & Lawrence Low-Barrier Shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:19:22 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Benton & Lawrence Low-Barrier Shelter that is proposed to be established in our neighborhood. As a concerned resident, I believe that this shelter would be a wrong location for several reasons and poses significant risks to our community.
Firstly, the location of the proposed shelter is currently being used for a pumpkin patch and Christmas tree lot, which attracts many families and children during the holiday season. The establishment of a low-barrier shelter would change the character of this area, and the presence of individuals with mental illnesses or addiction issues could create an unsafe environment for families and children.
Secondly, the proposed location is too close to the expressway, which poses significant risks to individuals with mental illnesses who may wander and walk around the area. It is essential to consider the safety of these individuals and ensure that they are not at risk of harm from the nearby traffic.
Furthermore, the proposed shelter is located in close proximity to several schools. I am deeply concerned about the safety of children, as well as the potential impact that the shelter could have on the community as a whole. The presence of a low-barrier shelter could attract individuals with criminal records or addiction issues, leading to an increase in crime and other undesirable activities in the area.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to reconsider the establishment of the Benton & Lawrence Low-Barrier Shelter in our neighborhood. While I understand the importance of providing support for those in need, it is essential to consider the impact that this shelter could have on the safety and well-being of our community. I believe that there are other, more suitable locations that could provide a safe and supportive environment for those in need.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Nanxi Li, resident in Santa Clara
From: zhe yin
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposal of building homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 12:22:24 PM
Hello,
My name is Zhe Yin, a resident of Santa Clara County.
I strongly oppose building the low barrier container style homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. Here are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.
Reasons:
Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern.
No prior research has been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood. 80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.
The shelter has no screening procedures and accepts people with criminal history, drug issues and mental issues to live in which brings safety concerns to the neighbourhood.
Oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings.
No plans for management, no guarantee for neighborhood safety and quality of life.
With a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio and only volunteers onsite, there are not enough professionals to treat mental illness.
This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.
No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.
Kids love the pumpkin patch here. It brings good memories to them over the years. DO NOT turn the good memories into nightmares!
Requests:
I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback and share the information to the public.
I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people who need to take care of kids at home can also participate.
I request you provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure, especially how to make sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.
What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
Regards,
Zhe
From: Wenyu Cai
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly appose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:41:15 PM
Dear Mayor and Council,
We are very shocked to know that there is a discussion or plan to build the low barrier homeless shelter on
Lawrence & Benton. It is so hard to believe that in an area surrounded by 24 schools and day cares, people would think
to build buildings and give the opportunities for those with criminal history and drug issues wandering around. That is such
an irresponsible plan and can potentially hurt our community hard. Safety is already a big concern for many people in
nowadays and it is terrible to try to do things like that to make it even worse. If you have kids going to school surrounded by
this, would you be comfortable and rest assured for this whole thing? As a Santa Clara citizen, we strongly appose building the low barrier home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton!!! Please
help to stop this. Thanks very much for your time and help! Thanks & Regards,
Vera
From: yun zou
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly concern about the lack of transparency in the homeless shelter project @Benton&Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:12:27 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process.
It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.
This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.
It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.
This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.
The fact that most of the neighborhood was not notified of this proposal is suspicious and raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. As residents, we have a right to be informed about proposals that will impact our community, and we deserve to have a say in decisions that will affect our safety and well-being.
I urge you to reconsider the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence and to engage in a more transparent and inclusive decision-making process. This could include holding public meetings, soliciting feedback from community members, and ensuring that all relevant information is made available to the public.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to ensure that the decision-making process around this proposal is fair, transparent, and inclusive of the needs and concerns of the community.
Sincerely,
Reed
From: yun zou
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly concern about the lack of transparency in the homeless shelter project @Benton&Lawrence Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:21:40 PM
Hi, do you still hear voices from us through this email? I haven't got any response yet, so will keep sending the emails.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process.
It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.
This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.
It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.
This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.
The fact that most of the neighborhood was not notified of this proposal is suspicious and raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. As residents, we have a right to be informed about proposals that will impact our community, and we deserve to have a say in decisions that will affect our safety and well-being.
I urge you to reconsider the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence and to engage in a more transparent and inclusive decision-making process. This could include holding public meetings, soliciting feedback from community members, and ensuring that all relevant information is made available to the public.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to ensure that the decision-making process around this proposal is fair, transparent, and inclusive of the needs and concerns of the community.
Sincerely,
Reed
From: Sophy Zhu
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:40:30 AM
My name is Sophy Zhu, 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 children and prevent our community from becoming a magnet for crime.
Again, I oppose the Benton Shelter!
From: Rui Liang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location.
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: Jing
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chavez, Cindy; [email protected]; kleincouncil; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Supervisor Simitian Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:00:27 PM
Dear officers,
I’m a resident near the proposed Benton shelter. I’m living 0.2 miles from this location and I strongly 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 harms to my kids and forced me to move to the current home in Santa Clara. I have learned that a significant portion 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: Co Liu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:46:40 PM
Hi,
I’m strongly oppose the Benton St shelter project!
Regards
From: Wenyu Cai
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose building interim housing on Benton!! Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:15:16 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: Hong, Lu
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose building the homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 9:24:27 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a Santa Clara resident & 3-kids mother living in Lawrence and Benton area, I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence and Benton. Below are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all the requests.
Reasons:
This place is too close to 24 schools and daycares that raises serious safety concerns.
We oppose any actions without considering the impact of this shelter to the safety of the neighborhood.
We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues, especially accepting those people without formal screening procedures.
We oppose anyone with mental issues living in this shelter with so many kids living in this area.
We oppose tiny removable homes in such a small place. 80-100 rooms are too crowded there.
We oppose any action that doesn't have any guarantee for the neighborhood's quality of life.
We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.
Also, this shelter is only 0.5 miles from the other shelter, Bella Vista. This action doesn't consider the neighborhood at all.
No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter has succeeded in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.
Requests:
I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.
I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings.
I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in-person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.
I request you provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort? I request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.
I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.
I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty? :KDW·VWKHZHDSRQSROLF\"+RZFDQ\RXPDNHVXUHWKH\GRQRWKDYHZHDSRQVZLWK WKHP"
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
+RZZLOOWKHPD[LPXPKRPHOHVVSHRSOHEHPDQDJHG"%\ZKRP":KHUHGRHVWKH IXQGLQJFRPHIURP"
6LQFHUHO\\RXUV
$PEHU
From: Shuhong Chen
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose building the homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 9:59:19 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a Santa Clara resident & 3-kids dad living in Lawrence and Benton area, I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence and Benton. Below are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all the requests.
Reasons:
This place is too close to 24 schools and daycares that raises serious safety concerns.
We oppose any actions without considering the impact of this shelter to the safety of the neighborhood.
We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues, especially accepting those people without formal screening procedures.
We oppose anyone with mental issues living in this shelter with so many kids living in this area.
We oppose tiny removable homes in such a small place. 80-100 rooms are too crowded there.
We oppose any action that doesn't have any guarantee for the neighborhood's quality of life.
We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.
Also, this shelter is only 0.5 miles from the other shelter, Bella Vista. This action doesn't consider the neighborhood at all.
No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter has succeeded in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.
Requests:
I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.
I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings.
I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in-person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.
I request you provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort? I request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.
I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.
I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty? What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
6LQFHUHO\\RXUV
Shuhong
From: Faye W
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Homeless Shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:57:38 PM
Hi Consuelo,
That's Faye, a resident of Santa Clara county. I am writing to you below to represent the family and community to strongly oppose building the low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. Here are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.
Reasons:
• Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern. • We oppose no prior research having been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood.
• 80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.
• We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues.
We oppose no screening procedures.
• We oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter. • We oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings. • No plans for management, no guarantee for neighborhood safety and quality of life.
• We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.
• This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista. • No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.
Requests:
• I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.
• I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings. • I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.
• I request you provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
• I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort? • I request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.
• I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.
• I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
• How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty?
• What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
• Will the city increase its police force?
• What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
• Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
• How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
Thank you for your consideration and your time in reading the community's concerns! Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.
Regards,
Faye Wang
From: Wei Wang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose homeless shelters building on Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:11:03 PM
Strongly oppose this proposal!!
From: Joyce Huang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose Lawrence-Benton Shelter Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:05:40 PM
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, My name is Joyce Huang, a resident of Santa Clara. I and every member in my family strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as low-barrier shelter as soon as possible, and vote in opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the low-barrier interim housing.
Reason 1: Gathering criminals, drug addicts, and mental-disordered without professional treatment together in one building will dramatically increase violence and danger to the neighborhood.
It is confirmed in the past three meetings that people who will live in Benton interim housing will largely be drug addicts, criminals, sex offenders and mentally disordered. Those people need to be treated in professional facilities, NOT in an interim housing with only a few staff and a vocational nurse. Tons of data worldwide have confirmed the positive relation between drug addicts/mental illness without professional treatment and violence. Putting those dangerous people in a neighborhood full of young children, family and seniors is risky and reckless, and will definitely lead to devastating consequences. It only needs one tragedy to ruin a family, the entire neighborhood, and all voters’ trust towards all the decision makers who fail to vote no to the Benton project.
Reason 2: Data confirmed crime rate trippled for a similar site in Milpitas. Neighborhood's concern on safety is real
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 site is still isolated from the neighborhood. The closest house is ½ miles away. For Benton, the closest house is less than 20 ft away. 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.
Reason 3: No plan on operation fund and cost even after three community hearings.
County and city just want to rush to approve to secure the last round of HomeKey funding.
Consuelo said the site will be partially funded by Homekey fund for the first 2-3 years. It means even for the initial stage, city or county have to fund it but there is no discussion at all on how much and if they have sufficient money. Also the site will be here for at least 15 years. What would happen for the remaining 13 years? It is very likely the Benton site in 2-3 years will become an abandoned building full of criminals, drug addicts and mentally disordered homeless. City or county have no plan at all. All of those plannings need to happen before voting on the project, and actually should have happened before public hearing. So I urge the city to pause voting on this until the funding and operational plan become sound and solid.
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 low barrier interim housing at Benton.
Thanks a lot. Have a great day!
Best regards,
Joyce Huang
From: Maggie Ren
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose low-barrier shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway!!! Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:20:20 PM
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:
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 center of more than 15 schools serving 10,483 students. We are deeply concerned 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 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. 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. 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 Hernandez claimed there were only four schools located within 1.5 miles of the shelter, which is still incorrect. The correct number is 15, and will go much higher if we include daycares and after-school programs. This grossly inaccurate information demonstrates the officials' ignorance of the safety and well-being of the community, as well as the poor quality of their work.
Furthermore, Ms. Consuelo Hernandez attempted to use the Branham and Monterey shelter as an example to justify the proposed location near Benton, stating that the neighborhoods are similar. However, this comparison is illogical and misleading, as the Branham and Monterey location was a terrible 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 risk and potential consequences of the Benton location will be almost 10 times greater than that of Branham, and will be much higher if we include teachers and staff, and students from daycares and afterschool 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 non-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,
Maggie
From: Shuai L
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the Benton st shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:50:52 PM
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:
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 center of more than 15 schools serving 10,483 students. We are deeply concerned 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 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. 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. 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 Hernandez claimed there were only four schools located within 1.5 miles of the shelter, which is still incorrect. The correct number is 15, and will go much higher if we include daycares and after-school programs. This grossly inaccurate information demonstrates the officials' ignorance of the safety and well-being of the community, as well as the poor quality of their work.
Furthermore, Ms. Consuelo Hernandez attempted to use the Branham and Monterey shelter as an example to justify the proposed location near Benton, stating that the neighborhoods are similar. However, this comparison is illogical and misleading, as the Branham and Monterey location was a terrible 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 risk and potential consequences of the Benton location will be almost 10 times greater than that of Branham, and will be much higher if we include teachers and staff, and students from daycares and afterschool 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 non-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: Julie Z
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton&Lawrence (0 mi ) Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:16:45 PM
Hi, I sent you a letter yesterday, but haven't heard back from you, so I want to make sure my voice is heard, and is part of the public record. Thanks.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I believe that this location is simply not suitable for such a facility.
First and foremost, I am deeply concerned about the impact that a low barrier homeless shelter would have on the safety and well-being of the surrounding community. The area around Benton and Lawrence is already home to many families, small businesses, and schools, and introducing a large population of homeless individuals with complex needs could lead to increased crime, drug use, and other negative outcomes. I am particularly worried about the impact that this shelter could have on the safety of children who attend schools in the area.
Additionally, I am worried about the impact that this shelter could have on property values and the local economy. Many businesses and homeowners in the area have invested a great deal of time and money in building up their properties, and I believe that the presence of a low barrier homeless shelter could have a negative impact on property values and deter new businesses from investing in the area.
Finally, I believe that there are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter in our city. I urge you to explore other options and work with community members to identify a location that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of the surrounding community.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that works for everyone.
Sincerely,
Julie
From: Aha Mihn
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:16:50 PM
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a parent and concerned community member, I am deeply worried about the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of the children who attend schools in the area.
There are 10 schools within 1 mile of the proposed location, and introducing a large population of homeless individuals with complex needs could lead to increased crime, drug use, and other negative outcomes. This is particularly concerning given that many of these schools serve young children who are especially vulnerable to the dangers that can arise from an increase in criminal activity and drug use.
As a parent, I believe that the safety and well-being of our children should be the top priority in any decision that affects our community. I urge you to consider the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of our children and to explore other options for addressing the issue of homelessness in our city.
There are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter in our city, and I urge you to work with community members to identify a location that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of our children and the surrounding community.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Mihn
From: Julie Z
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton&Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:08:21 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I believe that this location is simply not suitable for such a facility.
First and foremost, I am deeply concerned about the impact that a low barrier homeless shelter would have on the safety and well-being of the surrounding community. The area around Benton and Lawrence is already home to many families, small businesses, and schools, and introducing a large population of homeless individuals with complex needs could lead to increased crime, drug use, and other negative outcomes. I am particularly worried about the impact that this shelter could have on the safety of children who attend schools in the area.
Additionally, I am worried about the impact that this shelter could have on property values and the local economy. Many businesses and homeowners in the area have invested a great deal of time and money in building up their properties, and I believe that the presence of a low barrier homeless shelter could have a negative impact on property values and deter new businesses from investing in the area.
Finally, I believe that there are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter in our city. I urge you to explore other options and work with community members to identify a location that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of the surrounding community.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that works for everyone.
Sincerely,
Julie
From: Aha Mihn
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:18:04 PM
Did you hear the people sing? I just want to make sure my voice is heard and part of the public record. Thanks.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a parent and concerned community member, I am deeply worried about the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of the children who attend schools in the area.
There are 10 schools within 1 mile of the proposed location, and introducing a large population of homeless individuals with complex needs could lead to increased crime, drug use, and other negative outcomes. This is particularly concerning given that many of these schools serve young children who are especially vulnerable to the dangers that can arise from an increase in criminal activity and drug use.
As a parent, I believe that the safety and well-being of our children should be the top priority in any decision that affects our community. I urge you to consider the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of our children and to explore other options for addressing the issue of homelessness in our city.
There are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter in our city, and I urge you to work with community members to identify a location that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of our children and the surrounding community.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Mihn
From: Natalia Bondarenko
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] STRONGLY OPPOSE the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:57:39 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: C L
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose the Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Date: Saturday, February 25, 2023 10:16:49 PM
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed low barrier tiny home homeless shelter at the corner of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. As a new mom living near this location, I am deeply concerned about the safety of my child and our family. While I understand the importance of addressing homelessness in our community, I believe that this location is highly unsuitable for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the proposed shelter is too close to 24 schools and daycares, posing a serious safety concern for children and parents in the area. Prior surveys conducted by the City of Santa Clara show that 50% of the homeless have addiction problems. 25% have been in jail in 2020- 2021. The presence of a large number of homeless people with drug and criminal histories would create a significant risk to the safety of the community and especially to our children. I am requesting that you provide detailed plans on how you will ensure the safety of young kids and students who walk to schools in the area.
We oppose a shelter that accepts people with criminal history and drug issues, and the no screening procedures. We believe that it is imperative that strict screening procedures be put in place to ensure that the shelter is safe for the community. Additionally, we oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter. It is not appropriate to house people with mental health issues in such a densely populated area with children and families.
Furthermore, we oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness. This is not an adequate staff-to-resident ratio to properly manage the shelter, and the reliance on volunteers to provide mental health services is inadequate and insufficient.
This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista. Placing another shelter so close to an existing one would only serve to compound the negative impacts on the surrounding community.
In addition, I would like to know how the county plans to ensure that the occupants of the shelter can behave appropriately and safely. What regulations will be put in place for the occupants of the shelter, and what penalties will be enforced if these regulations are not followed? As a member of the community, I believe it is crucial to prioritize the safety and well-being of our residents, especially children and families. I urge you to consider the concerns of the community and to work towards finding an alternative location for the shelter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Cong Liu
From: Grace Yu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the shelter at Benton & Lawrenece expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:07:38 PM
Hi,
I strongly oppose the shelter!!
Grace
From: Xinda Hu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to homeless shelter Lawrence Expy@Benton St, Santa Clara Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:16:56 PM
Hi, Ms. Hernandez,
As residents of Santa Clara county, Sunnyvale birdland community, we STRONGLY OPPOSE building the homeless shelter with no barrier at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Santa Clara next to Sunnyvale, middle of many schools, playground, and densely populated areas.
We have STRONG CONCERNS to the safety of children attending nearby schools, not only many of them walk/bike by the said location, but also the overall safety of schools/playgrounds nearby.
We have STRONG CONCERNS to the Safety, Security and quality of life of all residents in proximity, the shelter would negatively impact on the community, increase in crime, vandalism, drug use.
We ask you to reconsider such a solution to homelessness which has a very negative impact to the community, relocate shelters of such to less-populated industrial zones for example.
Thanks
Xinda Hu, Run Huang
From: Beyoung D
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:27:38 PM
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the negative impact that such a facility could have on our neighborhood.
It has come to my attention that there is already another homeless shelter within 0.5 miles of the proposed location that was established last year. This raises the question: why is there a need for another shelter in such close proximity? It seems that the burden of addressing homelessness is being disproportionately placed on our community, and this is simply unfair and unsustainable.
Furthermore, the proposed location is currently used as a pumpkin patch during the holidays, which is a beloved tradition for families in our community. I believe that it would be more acceptable to turn the location into affordable housing for people who work nearby and need homes. However, I strongly oppose the idea of a low barrier homeless shelter accepting individuals with criminal backgrounds and mental health issues. This would not only be detrimental to our community but would also make it difficult to attract decent homeless or diligent work people who are trying to improve their lives.
I urge you to consider the impact that this facility could have on our community and to explore other options for addressing the issue of homelessness in our city. There are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of our community.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Bill
From: Beyoung D
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.
Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:19:21 PM
Hi, I didn't hear back, so I want to check if my voice is heard.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the negative impact that such a facility could have on our neighborhood.
It has come to my attention that there is already another homeless shelter within 0.5 miles of the proposed location that was established last year. This raises the question: why is there a need for another shelter in such close proximity? It seems that the burden of addressing homelessness is being disproportionately placed on our community, and this is simply unfair and unsustainable.
Furthermore, the proposed location is currently used as a pumpkin patch during the holidays, which is a beloved tradition for families in our community. I believe that it would be more acceptable to turn the location into affordable housing for people who work nearby and need homes. However, I strongly oppose the idea of a low barrier homeless shelter accepting individuals with criminal backgrounds and mental health issues. This would not only be detrimental to our community but would also make it difficult to attract decent homeless or diligent work people who are trying to improve their lives.
I urge you to consider the impact that this facility could have on our community and to explore other options for addressing the issue of homelessness in our city. There are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of our community.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Bill
From: Zheng Zhao
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:26:13 PM
Hello,
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.
The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore and kept lying to us with biased data. Ms.
Consuelo Hernandez claimed there were only 4 schools within 1.5 miles of the shelter. But there are definitely more than 10 schools. How can you lie to us in public, in front of so many local residents? I’m deeply hurt.
I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this project.
Regards and thanks,
Zheng
From: Dong Liang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton. There could be better choice for the location.
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:22:36 PM
Dear City council,
I live within 1.5 miles of the proposed Benton low barrier shelter. Proposing such a shelter in high density neighborhoods and in the middle of 24 schools is very irresponsible and ignorant of local kids safety.
I feel very disappointed after attending the first public hearing on March 1st. The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore the fact. We hope it is not intentional. Ms. Consuelo Hernandez falsely claimed that there were only 4 schools within
1.5 miles of the shelter. However, there are already 10 schools within 1 mile. Please check the map below.
I urge city councils and county officials to PLEASE vote NO for this project! Please propose a different location with less safety impact to the neighborhood with so many kids.
Sincerely,
Dong Liang
From: Connie (Qian) Zhang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:51:29 PM
Hi City council,
I live within 1.5 miles of proposed Benton low barrier shelter. Proposing such a shelter in high density neighborhoods and in the middle of 24 schools is very irresponsible and ignorant of local kids safety!!
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.
The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore and kept lying to us with biased data. Ms.
Consuelo Hernandez claimed there were only 4 schools within 1.5 miles of the shelter. But there are definitely more than 10 schools. How can you lie to us in public, in front of so many local residents? I’m deeply hurt.
I urge city councils and county officials to PLEASe vote no for this project! Please propose a different location with less safety impact to neighborhood with so many kids!!! Regards,
Connie
From: JING LIU
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:48:34 PM
As a local resident, I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 5 years.
I strongly oppose to build the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence, this is not a right location for the neighborhood as well as for the unhoused people who will live there.
Please re-consider another location in non-residential area.
Thanks
Jing Liu
Sent from my iPhone
From: Zoe Zhang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:33:39 PM
As a local resident, I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 5 years. I have serious concern about the shelter location!
I strongly oppose to build the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence, this is not a right location for the neighborhood as well as for the unhoused people who will live there.
Please re-consider another location in non-residential area.
Thanks
Zoe
From: Jenny Yu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:56:18 PM
Hi there,
I’m very disappointed and outraged after attending the public hearing on March 1st. The county officials and city councils didn’t show they care about the safety of local residents and kept lying with biased data. There are definitely more than 4 schools within 1.5 miles of the proposed shelter. Please do your research and stop lying to us.
I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this project.
Thanks,
Jenny
From: Bo Zhou
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:27:32 PM
Hi all,
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.
The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore and kept lying to us with biased data. Ms.
Consuelo Hernandez claimed there were only 4 schools within 1.5 miles of the shelter. But there are definitely more than 10 schools. How can you lie to us in public, in front of so many local residents? I’m deeply hurt.
I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this project.
Thanks,
Bo
From:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:33:27 PM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing in my neighborhood at Lawrence and Benton in Santa Clara!!! Jing Zhao
Sent from my iPhone
From: Zihao Gu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Opposite for Homeless Shelter in Lawrence & Benton Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:56:12 PM
Dear County Supervisor,
I am writing to urgently express my opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in our community. There are several reasons why I believe this shelter would have a negative impact on our neighborhood and the safety of our children.
Firstly, there are more than 20 preschools, daycares, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools within close proximity to the proposed shelter. It is only 700ft from Davya Daycare and 1400ft from Monticello Academy. The community has not been informed of any prior research on the impact of this shelter on our children's safety. We demand a plan to ensure that toddlers and students can walk to school safely. We need to know what the weapons policy is and how we can be sure that shelter occupants are not armed. Will the city increase its police presence to maintain safety in the neighborhood? Secondly, we are concerned about the shelter housing all people with criminal histories and drug problems. We strongly object to there being no screening process in place. We do not want people with mental health problems living in this shelter. We need to know how the homeless people will be monitored and disciplined for any inappropriate behavior. Are there any rules for the occupants of shelters? What are the penalties if they violate the rules? Thirdly, there is no research or evidence that Life Moves' MTV shelter has succeeded in reducing the homeless population or improving the mental health of the homeless. According to 2021 data, there are 769 displaced people in Santa Clara, 57% of whom have serious mental problems and 90% who are involved in drugs. We urge you to provide research on how temporary or emergency shelters affect the community before approving this shelter in our neighborhood.
Lastly, we would like to know how our voice can be involved. The County and City jointly held their first online hearing on Feb. 14, but the whole hearing was not transparent. The chat function was closed, and participants could not see the number of attendees or questions from others. However, the objections made by citizens were clear and unambiguous. I request that you provide the 300+ questions that attendees entered in the chat at the first hearing, along with your answers.
I request that a date, time, and place be provided for the April meetings where Life Moves, City and County staff will discuss community feedback. We also request that information be shared with the public and that we are all notified of the meeting.
In conclusion, while I understand the urgency and importance of addressing the issue of homelessness, I do not believe that establishing a homeless shelter in this area is the best way.
I urge you to consider the impact of this shelter on our community and the safety of our children. We request that you take our concerns into account and conduct thorough research before approving this shelter. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
One resident in Santa Clara,
Zihao Gu
From: Vidushi Gupta
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Subject: Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 3:54:31 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. 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 in August 2022 showed 300% increase in such crime rate in less than 2 years. ż What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
ż 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:
ż 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?
ż 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?
ż 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?
ż How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?
4. Budget:
ż 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:-
ż Only US citizens
ż Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
ż Put Families first
ż Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
ż Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
ż Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
ż 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,
Vidushi Gupta, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From:
To: Melinda Berlant
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Interim Housing Proposal Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:49:37 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.
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,
Melinda Berlant
LinkedIn
From: Asha DuMonthier
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for option 1 over option 2
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:52:05 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: Celeste Lindberg
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Proposed Interim Santa Clara Shelter Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:00:07 PM
Dear City and County officials,
I am a resident of Santa Clara and I am reaching out today to voice my strong support for the proposed interim housing project at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street.
I support this project because I believe every neighborhood needs to be part of the solution to homelessness and that housing is a human right.
Please represent the interests of our city and county by supporting this important project!
Thank you,
Celeste Lindberg
Santa Clara, CA 95051
From: Pamela Rollins
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Unfair Style of Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:41:11 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.
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 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.
From: Jessica Wong
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; aurton; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote No on Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:25:35 PM
My name is Jessica Wong, a resident of Santa Clara County.
I strongly oppose building the low-barrier container-style homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. Here are a few points of concern. I’d appreciate it if you take them seriously and respond with a detailed answer to address them.
Major concerns:
Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern.
No serious and prior research on the impact of this shelter on the surrounding neighborhood. 80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.
Admission of people with a criminal history and drug issues, essentially no screening procedures.
Admission of people with mental issues.
Stacked-up, container-style tiny homes create a subpar living environment even for the unhoused.
No specific plans for management; no guarantee for neighborhood safety and quality of life.
Proposed staff/residents ratio of 1:100, and a plan that would utilize only volunteers to treat the mental illness of residents
This location is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.
There is no solid data or evidence showing that LifeMoves’s Moutain View homeless shelter succeeded in reducing the homeless population in the city or improving the homeless's mental issues.
Homeless families with kids and/or some belongings will very likely avoid moving into this shelter due to fear of crimes and drug use. Since the shelter will design to have a “low entry barrier” (essentially no screening of residents at all), it is quite likely that people with a criminal background, history of drug use/dealing, and repeat offenses will stay here. It will not be surprising that homeless from other states with questionable backgrounds will show up in our neighborhoods.
From White Oak Lane to Benton & Lawrence, these choices of location have repeatedly shown that some of the elected officials put spending up taxpayer’s dollars before ensuring the safety of the community.
Requests:
I request that you address the 300+ questions raised by the attendees in the first community meeting held on Feb-13, 2023 instead of cherry-picking a few to answer and ignoring the majority.
I request that you provide the date, time, and location of the April meetings to be attended by LifeMoves, and city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared online & publicly accessible, so members of the community have a chance to join the discussion.
I request that the County always provide a virtual way (e.g. Zoom) to join the meetings that are held in person so that busy parents like me can participate.
I request that you provide verifiable research/study/data on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
I request that you share the plans about how you are making sure that young kids and students are safely walking to/from schools.
I request that you share the plans about how to handle the potential increase in parking and traffic gave that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.
I request that you share how you would help the city of Santa Clara cope with the inevitable requirement to increase police funding/staffing in response to the increase in incidents/crimes in this area due to this shelter.
Are there any rules/regulations applicable to residents of the shelter? If they break the regulation, what accountability will be enforced?
What does the move-in process look like? Is there a maximum of time a resident can stay in this shelter? What is their day-to-day schedule (e.g. curfew)? Is the shelter designed to accommodate unhoused people from the city of Santa Clara only, or from the county, or from anywhere in the country? How do you enforce geographical restrictions, if any?
Please share the details of resident management, including Lifemoves’ plan, and source of first-year and long-term funding.
From:
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on the Benton/Lawrence
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:54:54 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. If you are elected to represent our community, you should listen to the community's voice, show that you care about our opinon and our concerns!
This location is within walking distance to several elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single-family homes, apartments, and 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 being 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, and 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,
Savannah (resident on Benton st)
From: C L
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO to the homeless shelter of Lawrence & Benton Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 7:31:13 PM
Dear Consuelo,
I am a resident living in Santa Clara city. I write this email to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. I have elderly and kids at my home, and also this place is too close to so many elementary schools.
As a parent, a daughter, and member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the potential bad impact this shelter could have on the safety of our community.
Please vote No to the shelter. Please hear the voice from the community! Thanks,
Chen Liao
From: C L
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO to the homeless shelter of Lawrence & Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:58:42 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident living in Santa Clara city. I write this email to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. I have elderly and kids at my home, and also this place is too close to so many elementary schools.
As a parent, a daughter, and member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the potential bad impact this shelter could have on the safety of our community.
Please vote No to the shelter. Please hear the voice from the community! Best regards,
Chen Liao
From:
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] We Need to STOP the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. STOP! STOP! STOP!
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:06:40 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: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15:41 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.
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: Haiying Wu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:59:54 AM
Director, Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo Hernandez, 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
Santa Clara , California 95051
From: Raymond Chi
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:59:47 AM
Director, Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo Hernandez, 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,
Raymond Chi
[email protected]
3271 Tracy Dr
Santa Clara, California 95051
From: Fay Dustin
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:19:10 AM
Director, Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo Hernandez, 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,
Fay Dustin
Santa Clara, California 95051
From: Liz Goldman
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy; District1
Subject: [EXTERNAL] You should not build low-barrier shelter at Benton, and here are the reasons.
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:45:14 PM
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale,
As a resident of BIrdland. I and every member in my family strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as low-barrier shelter as soon as possible, and vote in opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the low-barrier interim housing.
Reason 1: Gathering criminals, drug addicts, and mental-disordered without professional treatment together in one building will dramatically increase violence and danger to the neighborhood.
It is confirmed in the past three meetings that people who will live in Benton interim housing will largely be drug addicts, criminals, sex offenders and mentally disordered. Those people need to be treated in professional facilities, NOT in an interim housing with only a few staff and a vocational nurse. Tons of data worldwide have confirmed the positive relation between drug addicts/mental illness without professional treatment and violence. Putting those dangerous people in a neighborhood full of young children, family and seniors is risky and reckless, and will definitely lead to devastating consequences. It only needs one tragedy to ruin a family, the entire neighborhood, and all voters’ trust towards all the decision makers who fail to vote no to the Benton project.
Reason 2: Data confirmed crime rate trippled for a similar site in Milpitas.
Neighborhood's concern on safety is real
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 site is still isolated from the neighborhood. The closest house is ½ miles away. For Benton, the closest house is less than 20 ft away. 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.
Reason 3: No plan on operation fund and cost even after three community hearings. County and city just want to rush to approve to secure the last round of HomeKey funding.
Consuelo said the site will be partially funded by Homekey fund for the first 2-3 years. It means even for the initial stage, city or county have to fund it but there is no discussion at all on how much and if they have sufficient money. Also the site will be here for at least 15 years. What would happen for the remaining 13 years? It is very likely the Benton site in 2-3 years will become an abandoned building full of criminals, drug addicts and mentally disordered homeless. City or county have no plan at all. All of those plannings need to happen before voting on the project, and actually should have happened before public hearing. So I urge the city to pause voting on this until the funding and operational plan become sound and solid.
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 low barrier interim housing at Benton.
Liz
From:
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible hybrid community meeting? Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:35:02 PM
Counselo,
P.S., another point I want to add to below is that the existing Benton Lawrence lot is already zoned for residential, so there is no need to go through re-zoning process to convert it to residential. That adheres to my other point that the project is planned on a land that’s intended for its purpose.
“Please include the following comments to the community engagement report:
If an interim housing has to be built in Santa Clara, I think Benton and Lawrence is not a bad location. The property is bounded by two main streets that already have busy traffic; therefore, the project itself will not negatively increase the noise and traffic. The east side of property is a church, which is non-residential. There are residential homes at south of the property, but there is also a Calabazas Creek separating the property and the homes, creating a nice buffer between the two. All other residential communities are across the streets from Benton or Lawrence - they all have sound walls and the streets are very wide, so the impact to those homes will be minimal.
As for services and amenities, the site is across the street from a gas station and a strip mall - very convenient to the future occupants of project. There’s also a Kaiser hospital down the street on Homestead - it’s ideal for occupants who may need health care services. Next to Kaiser, there’s also a commercial plaza with more restaurants and services available. The location itself is convenient.
I understand the community has concerns about security and privacy with this project. These can be resolved by having proper security oversight, and build tall trees/barrier in area of concerns. I suggest having additional community workshops, getting inputs from neighbors on design of the site will be beneficial.
I also see that there is not a bus line close by on Benton and Lawrence, but there is bus services on Homesteads and El Camino within walking or biking. I suggest the project to provide sufficient on-site bike parking, and/or suggest the city to make a more pedestrianfriendly walking path on Lawrence, such as increasing the width of sidewalk and add barriers on the east side of Lawrence for safety. I believe that will also benefit nearby communities by having pedestrian/biking improvements on Lawrence.
I think this site is a good selection with minimal impact to the community. If the County decides to change the site to another location in Santa Clara, it will always be next to other schools and other homes. The problems will be the same, but shifting to another area, and it will become someone else’s problems. There has been suggestions to move this to a remote industrial area of Santa Clara, but that will leave the project occupants with no services or amenities.
I believe this site is great for what’s intended. I heard the site was already planned for RV parking or some sort of shelters, so building an interim housing there is not out of the line. The site is vacant with no existing structures, so no demolition is needed. Renovating existing structures can be more costly than putting new modular/prefab homes on a vacant lot.
Therefore, I support the site location for this project at Lawrence and Benton.” Sincerely,
-Cindy
On Mar 1, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:
There are several ways that you can share your comments.
1. Email staff and your email will be included with the community engagement report we will be publishing and sharing with our elected officials ([email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected])
2. Email City elected officials
3. Email Board President Ellenberg's as this site is located in her district [email protected]
4. Email Vice President Lee as his district abuts the site [email protected]
Thank you for staying engaged.
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible hybrid community meeting? Consuelo,
I am glad to hear the zoom option is being considered, and tonight’s and March 9’s meetings will be recorded and posted.
Also, If I have a few public comments to make to the decision makers of this site selection, who should I write to?
-Cindy
On Mar 1, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning Cindy,
We are working to add a fourth zoom meeting for the community.
Since we are hosting the in-person meetings at a local faith-based facility, we are limited in our ability to provide a hybrid option. We are going to see if there is a way to do this but not making any premature commitments at this time. We will be recording the meeting and posting it on the project website.
Thank you for staying engaged.
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Possible hybrid community meeting?
Hi Consuelo,
I support the LifeMoves project at Benton and Lawrence. However, I am not able to attend tonight’s and the next community meetings because I can’t make it in person. Is there a way to add a zoom option for the future community meeting on March 9?
Sincerely,
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.