From: Gautam Kulkarni
To: Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: 4/25 council meeting on Benton Project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:11:53 PM
Dear Santa Clara City Council,
I am a concerned citizen and taxpayer who lives close to the proposed Benton/Lawrence shelter site. I would like the council to vote NO on this misguided initiative. It is extremely concerning and appalling that the city and county would even consider putting a low-barrier homeless shelter in a family oriented neighborhood with so many children and schools in the immediate vicinity. The planners and representatives have displayed a cavalier attitude towards the safety concerns raised by hardworking, tax-paying citizens.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of concerns/questions:
- Neither the county nor the city nor Lifemoves showed the ability to do even basic research about the community. In the first meeting, they had no answer about schools in the neighborhood. In subsequent meetings, the county map excluded a large number of schools.
- The county/city employees tried to obfuscate the matter by trying to use terms such as "shelter" or "interim housing" as if they are different. The people know better. - The county/city employees have always downplayed safety concerns when numerous data reports presented by several citizens show otherwise.
- Which public safety experts were consulted and what was their feedback? We expect that information to be made available to us without filtering. - Supervisor Susan Ellenberg had organized a voter meeting at the San Jose Rose Garden, where she did not bother to show up.
- Consuelo Hernandez (Santa Clara County) was supposed to meet with community members earlier this week. That did not happen.
- City/county officials keep asking us to find alternatives. I would like to remind them that that is your job, not ours. We pay for your salaries, benefits and pensions and therefore expect you to do your job.
If you vote yes on this project, you are going against the interests of the vast majority of honest, hard working taxpayers and voters. We are watching this closely and will either recall or vote you out.
Regards,
Gautam
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: a document for 04/25 council meeting on Benton Project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:11:16 PM
Hi,
I want to provide a document that discusses why homekey doesn't work for helping homelessness. Please attach to the 04/25 meeting agenda. This document shows a lot of data and evidence that homekey failed in california. I hope council members can read and address issues it brings up before voting for this project.
Project Homekey Provides No Way Home for California’s Homeless https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Homekey_Final.pdf Thank you!
Zhihao
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Requesting this material to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 12:38:43 PM
Attachments: Working together in solving homelessness crisis along with improving safety 4.4.23.pdf Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this presentation and email to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.
Thanks,
Ashish
_________________
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Thank you for listening to the Santa Clara residents in the last City Council meeting (on 4/4/23) regarding the impact to our safety due to the Lawrence/Benton "Low Entry Barrier" Homeless Shelter project.
We, as residents, are afraid of the adverse impact of such a low entry barrier shelter created so close to our homes and schools. Per the data shown by the city, more than 57% of the clients serviced by such a facility could have mental disorders, addiction to drugs, criminal records etc. Per our local police, more than 90% of the unhoused homeless that they get into touch with have substance abuse issues.
Imagine your home being in proximity to such a facility where such folks may be getting help, but are quite free to roam around, loiter around your homes or schools. How does that make you feel?
Recent brutal attack on the former San Francisco fire commissioner in Marina District exemplifies what your residents are afraid of.
This is not a fear of the unknown but rather a fear due to the known perils associated with severe mental disorders, substance abuse and repeat criminal behaviors.
Ms. Mayor and council members, the tax paying citizens, especially the middle class want safety first. Nothing comes above that for families that just want a safe environment to bring up their kids. So far we have not seen any tangible proof regarding the efficacy of screenings done by LifeMoves to allay our concerns.
Most of the residents are amenable to a low income rent to own housing for teachers, nurses, firefighters, police workers etc. who work hard to uplift our community but get priced out from this expensive city. Such an investment would uplift the community and make it even more thriving. Please refer to the presentation attached.
Most of the residents also suggest moving such "low barrier entry shelters for singles/couples" in a relatively non-residential area, and providing amenities and support that help such individuals rehabilitate. There is so much money being pumped by the government that we can really tackle this problem at its root cause, by rehabilitation and learning the issues that are causing this situation in the first place. We have already found a number of locations within Santa Clara County that could be a better fit. If you can support us, we'd be able to tackle the issue of the housing crisis for low income households along with tackling homelessness jointly, without compromising on the safety of your residents.
We could actually become a shining example of how this can be done right, with the power of the majority of residents with you. The current approach just seems to be a very expensive band-aid that would only increase problems for tax paying residents and jeopardize our safety.
We need your support in making safety the topmost priority.
Regards,
Ashish
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Material #3 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:32:44 AM
Attachments: SF fire commissioner attack_ New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco.pdf
Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this document to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.
This shows an example of safety issues associated with an increase in folks with substance abuse in any neighborhood.
We do not want to have issues like these in Santa Clara.
Attached is a PDF version of this article.
(Link: https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crimemetal-pipe/13100484) Regards,
Ashish
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 1/8 New details, video in brutal attack of
former SF fire commissioner in Marina
District
By Lyanne Melendez
Friday, April 7, 2023
ABC7 Bay Area 24/7 live stream
EMBED <> MORE VIDEOS
New details are emerging from the brutal attack of former San Francisco Fire Commissioner Don Carmignani in the city's Marina District
WATCH 50° LOG IN
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 2/8 SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A brutal attack on a former fire department commissioner is putting in question, again, the safety on San Francisco's streets. It happened Wednesday night in the Marina District. Don Carmignani remains in the hospital.
Cell phone video shows the man San Francisco police say brutally assaulted former fire department Commissioner Don Carmignani, with some type of metal object.
"Right here, here, around the corner, in front of the gas station. He almost beat the man into the street with all these cars passing by," said one witness.
INTERACTIVE: Take a look at the ABC7 Neighborhood Safety Tracker
Several other people witnessed the attack which took place on Magnolia and Laguna streets in the Marina District, within a few paces from where Carmignani lives.
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 3/8 The man arrested is homeless and neighbors here say he befriended these two other homeless people who have made this area their home.
We spoke to one of them Nate Roye who gave us more details about the weapon that was said to be used by the alleged attacker.
"It wasn't a crow bar. It was two round pieces of metal that had been broken," said Roye who is from North Carolina but has lived on the streets of San Francisco for the past three years.
MORE: Is SF's violent crime as 'horrific' as tech execs claim? Here's what data shows
Roye, who says he was with the attacker, claims they were sprayed with bear mace because Carmignani didn't like that they were hanging out near his home.
Bay Area animal rescue and zoo
needs help as they recover from severe storm da…
01:11 01:12
Top Stories
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 4/8 We asked him why hit someone over the head like that and attack him. "Because he was being disrespectful?" Roye said. We asked him who was being disrespectful. He responded, "The fat guy. There was a big old bald guy. Yeah, Don."
We asked him if that was reason enough to beat him up. "Yeah, sometimes," Roye responded.
"These types of brutal attack and these types of brazen attacks, these are the types of things that have been anxious about what's happening," explained Police Chief Bill Scott.
While other crime statistics remained steady or have gone down, the police chief is right.
MORE: A look at homicides in SF this year, in light of Cash App founder Bob Lee's stabbing death
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 5/8 EMBED <> MORE VIDEOS
The death of Cash App's Bob Lee is a high profile case, with police giving it a lot of attention. But what about the other homicides in SF this year? According to the ABC7 News neighborhood Safety Tacker, so far this year the number of robberies has gone up by 14% compared to the same time last year and assaults are also on the rise by 2.2%.
Carmignani remains at San Francisco General Hospital with injuries to his head and face.
Civil rights attorney, Joe Alioto visited him and as we interviewed him, we were interrupted by someone incoherent.
"In San Francisco, we do not have a mechanism to take care of people who have mental health issues and so here we have a good example of this," said Alioto.
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Material #4 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 1:10:22 PM
Attachments: Lower Property Values.pdf
Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this document to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.
This shows an article that shows impact to property values due to homeless shelters. (Link: How Homeless Encampments Lower Property Values (ecobear.co)) Thanks,
Ashish
i?.i [email protected] Knowledge Center ~: 5 star rating on Yelp G 5 star rating on Google ~: 5 star rating on Yelp on Yelp on Google G 5 star rating on Google (9 24/7 Help (818) 358-4359
SERVICES ABOUT US AREAS WE SERVE PRICING RESOURCES
CONTACT US
Eco Bear » Knowledge Center » Homeless EncamRment » Authoritative Research on How Homeless Encampments Lower Property Values
AUTHORITATIVE RESEARCH ON HOW HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS
LOWER PROPERTY VALUES
In the past few years. a growing number of residential neighborhoods have faced the establishment of homeless encampments in their environs. Because this is something of a newer phenomenon, there is little definitive research on the precise impact homeless encampments have on property values in residential neighborhoods in which these camps exist.
Historically, homeless encamQments tended to rise in city centers, including in commercial and industrial zones. In this day and age, in many metropolitan areas, homeless encampments can fairly be said to be cropping up everywhere.
1/7
Understanding the dearth in more definitive data specifically directed at the impact of homeless encampments on residential property values, we present a fair, reasonable extrapolation of data on matters impacting residential valuations that have a real, affirmative connection to the impact of homeless encampments.
Comparative Drag on Property Values: Cross Referencing
Property Value Decrease From a Homeless Shelter
The National Association of Realtors has done extensive research on the impact the establishment of different types of businesses in or near a primarily residential neighborhood has on property values.
One type of entity that the National Association of Realtors has examined is a homeless shelter.
Through its research and analysis, the National Association of Realtors has concluded that a homeless shelter in a residential neighborhood has the potential for lowering property values by 12.7 percent.
As of this moment in time, the National Association of Realtors has not undertaken a comprehensive study on the impact homeless encampments have on property values in a residential neighborhood.
With that noted, a fair extrapolation can statistically and realistic be made when using a homeless shelter in a residential neighborhood as a starting point for calculating the impact of a homeless encampment.
A basic fact is that a homeless encampment brings all of the same negative considerations to a residential enclave that are found with the presence of a homeless shelter - and then some. The negative elements homeless encampments share with homeless shelters include:
• Higher crime rates
• Increased police calls into the neighborhood
• Damage to residential property by homeless shelter residents • Significantly increased drug use in the neighborhood
• Increased public intoxication or inebriation
• Increased assaults on and threats to property owners or renters in the neighborhood In addition to these factors homeless encampments share with homeless shelters, camps have other negative features that outpace those associated with shelters:
• Raw human waste in the neighborhood
• Other dangers biohazards (including used hypodermic needles used for drug injection) • Unsightly encampments themselves
• Inability to access sidewalks
• Inability to access parks
• Lasting damage to public spaces
• Even higher crime rates than associated with shelters • Even more frequent police calls into the neighborhood than associated with shelters • Persistent odors emitting from an encampment
Anecdotally and statistically, it is correct to conclude that the presence of a more harmful entity in a residential neighborhood in the form of a homeless encampment will cause an even greater drag on residential property values.
217
Curb Appeal Extends Beyond Immediate Residence To
Entire Block and Beyond
A great deal of attention is paid to curb appeal when it comes to the marketability of a residence.
Million Acres, a service of Motley Fool, defines curb a1212ear as:
At its core, the term "curb appeal" refers to the way your home Looks when it's viewed from the street.
It's a combination of all the eye-catching design elements that are used to make your home's exterior Look its best. Homeowners often do their best to add curb appeal because they want their home to be aesthetically pleasing when they pull into their driveway at the end of a Long day However. it becomes even more important when thinking of putting the property on the market.
Spectrum, a support organization for homeowners' associations across the United States, emphasizes that curb appeal is not limited to the state of an individual residential 12ro12ertY,. The concept of curb appeal extends to a block or neighborhood in its entirety. Spectrum asserts:
Neighborhoods with plenty of curb appeal tend to maintain property values better: Surprised? No. we didn't think you would be. While it is obvious that well-kept homes. yards. and common areas help neighborhoods stay desirable, it's hard work keeping neighborhoods in Like-new condition! While not trying to sound overly superficial, the stark reality is that any type of eyesore on a block or in a neighborhood impacts the curb appear of those individual residences in the area. The word eyesore has become something of a technical term when it comes to the impact of something unsightly and its impact on surrounding property, including homes. A common place definition of eyesore is something that is largely "considered unpleasant or ugly." From a technical standpoint, the usage of eyesore is considered as "an alternative perspective" to a landmark.
Common examples of eyesores impacting the curb appear and associated property values of homes include:
• Litter
• Graffiti
• Dilapidated structures
• Polluted areas
• Excessive signage
• Transmission towers
• Weeds
• Mud
• Feces
A number of these common examples of eyesores are generally connected to homeless encampments, including litter, dilapidated structures, polluted areas, mud, and feces. Added to the list usually is used hypodermic needles used from illicit drug consumption. 3/7
Residential Property Unsellable in Neighborhood With
Homeless Encampment
If a neighborhood is the site of a homeless encampment, a real issue arises as to whether a home can be placed on the market effectively for sale. This becomes even a more significant issue if a homeless encampment is on the block where a particular residence is located.
We've already discussed the impact a homeless encampment can have on residential property values.
The market value of a residence can experience a significant drag if a homeless encampment is in the neighborhood. That alone may be a reason to hold off putting a home on the market, if at all possible.
On a related note, if a homeless encampment is in a neighborhood in which a house is on the market. odds are strong that attracting prospective buyers to even take a look at the property will be next to impossible. Not only will the value of a residence drop significantly while a homeless encampment exists on the block or in the neighborhood, a homeless encampment in and of itself very well may have the same impact on prospective buyers as a crucifix has on a motion picture vampire.
Property Values After a Homeless Encampment Is
Eliminated in a Neighborhood
Depending on ordinances and related factors in a particular community, a homeless encampment may prove relative transient. With that said, even in a county or municipality that has more aggressive regulation of homeless encampments, such camps may remain in place for a matter of months, not days or weeks.
On a closing note, issues regarding property values and homeless encampments, homeless encampments can persist even after camps are removed or otherwise eliminated. First of all, a comprehensive cleanup and sanitization process needs to occur to attempt to restore the property to a sanitary and safe condition.
Secondly, even after comprehensive cleaning and sanitization has occurred, the fact that a homeless encampment existed in a neighborhood may hang like something of a fog over the residences in the area. This can continue to impact property values into the future for what also can be a matter of a number of months.
In closing, the reality is that homeless encampments can and do have what oftentimes prove to be significant impacts on property values in residential neighborhoods. The residential property value drag is even likely to persist for some period of time once a homeless encampment in a neighborhood has been removed.
Category: Homeless Encampment By Emily Kil November 4, 2020 Author: Emily Kil
4/7
Emily Kil is co-owner of Eco Bear, a leading biohazard remediation company in Southern California. An experienced entrepreneur, Emily assisted in founding Eco Bear as a means of combining her business experience with her desire to provide assistance to people facing challenging circumstances. Emily regularly writes about her first-hand experiences providing services such as biohazard cleanup, suicide cleanup, crime scene cleanup, unattended death cleanup, infectious disease disinfection, and other types of difficult remediations in homes and businesses.
General Facts About Social
Security Disability Programs
October 15, 2020
Related Posts
Disability Considerations and
Homeless Advocacy:
Comprehensive Overview of the
Two Social Security Disability
Programs
September 28, 2020
Advocates For Housing the
Homeless: The Past. the Present
and What Can Be Done to Help
September 23, 2020
CONTACT US
Overview of Childhood Disability
Benefits
October 15, 2020
Protecting Your Family and
Neighbors: Safe and Effective
Homeless Feces Cleanup
September 24, 2020
Homeless Encampments on
Private Property: Squatter's
Rights Versus Landowner's Rights
in California
September 15, 2020
Fill out the form to get a quote over the phone from a trained intake coordinator at Eco Bear Biohazard Cleaning Company.
CALL US 818-358-4359
OR
Email us using the form below to get a quote.
Name
Contact Number
Email
5/7
Message
SUBMIT
POPULAR POSTS
Cleaning out an AP-artment After a FamilY. Member. Friend or Tenant Dies ComP-rehensive Guide for After Death Estate Cleaning
How to Get Rid of Mouse DroP-P-ings Smell
What Types of Situations Reguire a Biohazard Cleaning Service? California Department of Health Trauma Scene Waste Management Practitioner #609 6/7
(818) 358-4359 [email protected]
3740 Alta Mesa Drive, Studio City, CA 91604
717
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Material #5 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:01:34 PM
Attachments: We want accountability.pdf
Last one:)
4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters
CAL MATTERS
HOMELESSNESS
California homelessness: Where are the state's billions going? Here's the new, best answer
BY BEN CHRISTOPHER
FEBRUARY 16, 2023
The tent of an unhoused person in a parking lot in Downtown Los Angeles on June 20, 2021. Photo by Teun Voeten, Sipa USA via Reuters Listen to this article
1111
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ Privacy - Terms
1/8
4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters
IN SUMMARY
For the first time, a new state report offers a bird-eye view of how much the state has spent to halt homelessness - nearly $10 billion over three years. Of the half-million Californians who made use of those services, more than 40% ended up housed. Which also means the majority did not, or the state lost track of their whereabouts.
Lea este artfcu/o en es{l.afiol.
In Sacramento, there's a word that keeps popping up during discussions about the state's homelessness crisis: "accountability."
Gov. Gavin Newsom has scolded cities and counties for failing to get more people off the street, hundreds of millions in state spending notwithstanding. "Californians demand accountability and results, not settling for the status quo," the governor said last November.
Republicans in the Legislature have called for an audit of the state's homelessness spending. Democrats are still absorbing the last one from 2021, but many want to see the state's money come with strings attached. This week, Assemblymember Luz Rivas, an Arleta Democrat, introduced a bill that would demand "tangible results" from local governments before they receive homelessness grants - mirroring an idea from the governor's own budget proposal.
The increasingly bipartisan chorus points to two stark, seemingly contradictory trends: The state keeP-S ~Rending more to address the crisis, and the crisis keeP-S getting worse. So where, they ask, is all the money going?
On Wednesday, California lawmakers got something that resembles an answer.
The state's lnteragency Council on Homelessness, a state body tasked with overseeing the state's homelessness strategy and divvying up funding to local governments, issued a report detailingjust how much the state has spent on the crisis between 2018 and 2021- and what it's gotten in return.
The answer to those questions, according to the report: The state has spent nearly $10 billion and provided services to more than 571,000 people, each year helping more people than the last. https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 2/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters And despite all that, at the end of year three, the majority of those more than half a million Californians still didn't end up with a roof over their heads. The number of unsheltered Californians continues to swell.
Presented at a three-hour joint committee hearing in the Assembly, the report has sent housing policy experts across the state into a twitter. Services for the homeless are so disjointed - split among nine state agencies, hundreds of county and municipal governments, nonprofits and charitable organizations - the 253-page document may be the first statistical birds-eye view of the state's many-tentacled efforts.
But it also shows just how intractable the problem is.
"One of the largest challenges facing the state is the inflow of new people into homelessness, even as efforts to help people experiencing homelessness expand," the report reads.
What the report did not address is how the state can spend its money more effectively. Nor was it asked to.
The report comes at the request of the Legislature, which included an ask in its 2021 budget for a "comprehensive view of the homelessness response system," not an audit nor a list of recommendations.
But it may provide lawmakers, service providers and advocates with some helpful hints about what's working, what isn't and for whom.
"We've sent people to the moon," said Oakland Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly's housing committee. "We can solve homelessness in California." Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story
D BUFFY WICKS +
State Assembly, District 14 (Oakland)
Ex1::1and for more about this legislator
D COREY JACKSON +
State Assembly, District 60 (Perris)
Ex1::1and for more about this legislator
o WENDY CARRILLO +
State Assembly, District 52 (Los Angeles)
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 3/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters Exi;iand for more about this legislator
Here are four takeaways from the homelessness assessment:
1. California has been spending a lot to remedy homelessness - mostly on housing Between 2018 and 2021, the state spent $9.6 billion trying to move the needle on homelessness.
Many Californians will be able to relate: The bulk of the spending, $5.5 billion in this case, went to the cost of housing.
That includes everything from building new units to preserving old ones, converting unused hotel rooms during the P-andemic into temP-orary housing, building shelters, and setting up P-ermanent SUP-P-Ortive housing facilities that provide a long-term subsidized place to stay along with other on-site social services.
According to the report, the state produced or kept on line 58,714 affordable housing units in the three year period, and added 17,000 new shelter beds.
Some of that spending has been more likely to lead people out of homelessness than others. Of the more than 75,000 people placed into permanent supportive housing of some kind, for example, only 8% wound up back on the street within six months.
Conversely, for those who left a state funded program to live with a family member or a friend, the rate of those who were homeless again within six months doubled. And for those who left for a rental with only a temporary subsidy, that rate of return to homelessness was 23%.
For some legislators and advocates, the figures underscored the importance of building more housing above all other interventions.
"Shelters are very expensive to build; they're very expensive to operate," said Emily Halcon, the director of Sacramento County's Department of Homeless Services and Housing. "What we know is a real solution is housing."
But building more housing- particularly with subsidized rents or other wrap-around services - is expensive. That's in part why some homelessness and housing advocates say the 10-figure sum that the https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 4/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters state has spread across the three years of the assessment isn't even close to enough. A report from the Corporation for Supportive Housing and the California Housing Partnership at the end of last year put the P-rice tag of "solving" homelessness in California at $8.1 billion every year for more than a decade.
2. A lot of people have been housed - but most have not The report tracked more than half a million Californians who, over the three year period, made use of at least one of the services that the state funds, as recorded in a new state database.
The good news: More than 40% ended up in housing- supportive, subsidized or otherwise.
The bad news: The majority didn't, or the state lost track of their whereabouts.
Nearly 17% were, at the end of the period, still in a shelter or temporary housing of some other kind or had exited whatever program they were enrolled in "into homelessness." Another quarter fell out of the system entirely, their "destination" unknown.
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 5/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters Where did they go?
Of the 571,246 Californians who received state-funded horn "final observed outcomes":
California lnteragency Council on Homelessness
* A Flourish hierarchy chart
Assemblymember Corey Jackson, a Democrat from Perris who chairs the Assembly Human Services committee, asked about the 17% who return to homelessness, which he called a "red flag" in the data. "We need to remember that this is the emergency response system, if you will," responded Dhakshike Wickrema, the deputy secretary of California's Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. "What more can we be doing which is outside the homeless system? It's like when you go to the emergency room - what could the primary care physician have done to prevent the acute diabetes?" https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 6/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters
3. The burden of homelessness is not equally distributed Drawing on the most recent "P-oint-in-time" survey, which provides a blurry snapshot of how many people are living outside on a given night, the report emphasizes the stark racial and ethnic disparities that exist across the state's unsheltered population. Black people made up roughly 30% of the people counted on the street, more than five times their share of the state population. Indigenous Californians likewise were overrepresented five-fold.
And though Latino Californians were underrepresented, between 2015 and 2020, their numbers in surveys of the unsheltered increased by 65%, the fastest growing ethnic or racial group.
4. Not all homelessness looks the same
When politicians or talking heads use the word "homelessness," it's often meant to evoke a particular person experiencing a particular set of problems: someone asleep on the sidewalk, unbathed, suffering from acute mental illness, addiction, physical disability or some combination of the three.
That's the most visible version of the state's homelessness crisis, but as the new figures show, it isn't the most common one.
According to the report, 1 in 5 people who enrolled in state-funded homelessness programs were considered "chronically homeless" - unsheltered for at least a year while living with a complicating health issue.
But more than three times as many- two-thirds of all who sought state-funded services for homelessness - were people who hadn't popped up in the system for at least two years, if ever.
These might be families evicted and temporarily residing in a car, someone couch surfing while gathering the money for a rental deposit, or people who got their own apartment only to get slammed with an unexpected car payment and find themselves back in a shelter.
Acknowledging that continuum matters - not just for the sake of accuracy, said Assemblymember Wendy Carillo, a Los Angeles Democrat, but because different paths into homelessness might be best met with different pathways out.
"Whether it's someone living in their vehicle, being evicted from their home, someone experiencing chronic homelessness for decades, living on the streets of Skid Row for many, many years, all of these_~~ https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 7/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters things are different," she said. "They need to have different solutions." The fastest-growing homeless population? Seniors
Some seniors have been homeless for years and are now growing older. But the increasing numbers also reflect another trend: those experiencing homelessness for the first time after age 50. , by Ana B. Ibarra FEBRUARY 10, 2023
About-face: Why Newsom relented, released $1 billion despite lackluster local homeless plans
The governor threw communities into disarray two weeks ago by withholding $1 billion in homelessness funding for plans he saw as unambitious. But local officials said the assignment itself discouraged ambition. Now Newsom is yielding.
by Manuela Tobias NOVEMBER 21, 2022
© 2023 CALMATTERS.
PROUDLY POWERED BY NEWSPACK BY AUTOMATTIC
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 8/8 From: Safe Santa Clara
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Add "Oppose Benton Project - Cover Letter from SafeSCC" to 4/25 meeting agenda on Benton (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:02:57 PM
Attachments: Oppose Benton Project - Cover Letter from SafeSCS.pdf Hello Nora,
Please add the attached cover letter to the 4/25 meeting agenda. #1 on Benton Project. "Oppose Benton Project - Cover Letter from SafeSCC".
Let me know if you have any questions or issue opening the letter. --
SafeSCC.org
April 19, 2023
Mayor, Councilmembers,
On April 25th, you will vote on the Homekey project in partnership with Santa Clara County and LifeMoves at Benton & Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. SafeSCC, a grassroots association of residents in Santa Clara, presented in City Hall today and submitted a petition on April 14 2023, on behalf of local residents who strongly oppose the proposal, with 5,293 signatures collected since the proposal became public knowledge. In the 4th community public hearing, a live poll conducted by the county showed that over 80% of the community opposes the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition is even higher.
We urge you to listen to the majority of residents and vote "No" on the Benton project, as numerous concerns must be addressed, including neighborhood impact and safety, location justification, fiscal concerns, design and policy concerns, environmental issues, project justification, and the credibility and accountability of the county and LifeMoves.
In this letter, we have explained each concern in details, with data and evidence.
We believe these concerns - especially the environmental, neighborhood, and site-specific issues - warrant proper consideration by the city to reject the Benton project. In fact, should the City insist on moving forward with this project, we will demand an environmental and social impact study. Our association is currently in the process of retaining counsel to ensure that both the City and Developer adhere to all applicable local and state ordinances for this project.
Sincerely,
SafeSCC
Content
Content 2
Section 1: Environmental Concerns 4
1.1 Density 4
1.2 Intersection 4
1.3 Traffic 5
1.4 Parking 5
1.5 Waste Management 6
1.6 Bioretention Compliance 6
Section II: Neighborhood Impact 6
2.1 Increased Burden and Fiscal Strain on Emergency Services 6
2.2 Crime 7
2.2.1 Public Safety Data on Milpitas 8
2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View 9
2.2.3 Public Safety Data at five San Jose sites 10
2.2.4 “There are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” 11
2.3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Local Area 12
2.4 Site Security 12
2.5 General Loitering, Solicitation and Other Impacts 13
2.6 Issues At Existing HomeKey Sites 13
2.7 Post Development Operating Restrictions 16
Section III: Location Concerns 17
3.1 Land Purpose 17
3.2 Distance to schools 17
3.3 Distance to Job Opportunities 18
3.4 Distance to Transport 19
3.5 Distance from Support Services 19
3.6 Air & Noise Quality 19
3.7 Liquor Store 20
3.8 Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing 20
3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities 20
Section 4: Site Specific Concerns 22
4.1 Site Design 22
4.2 Onsite Policy 23
4.3 Behavior outside the Site 26
Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns 27
5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability 27
5.2 Operation Cost Concerns 28
5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves 28
5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse 28
5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites 28
5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification 29
Section 6: Concerns over the Need for a New Homekey Project in Santa Clara 30 Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the County and LifeMoves 30
7.1 False and misleading information 30
7.2 LifeMoves' Lack of Transparency on Site Plans and Impact Data 31
7.3 Response to Meeting Requests 32
7.4 Discriminatory Site Selection Concern 32
Section 8: Alternative Land 32
Section 9: Best use for Benton land 35
Section 1: Environmental Concerns
The location near busy Lawrence Expressway poses safety hazards for individuals with mental health issues and disabilities. Moreover, the small, densely packed rooms can create a prison-like environment for those with mental and physical disabilities. The addition of 124 - 248 residents
1 would also put tremendous pressure on traffic, parking, waste management, internet speed, power supply, water supply, and Bioretention Compliance. While a Homekey project may be exempt from CEQA, it needs documentation proving that it meets all exemption requirements. We hope the city is aware of this and submits a CEQA evaluation request for the site.
1.1 Density
LifeMoves proposes the Benton location to house up to max of 248 people at any given time, in a prefabricated module. Given that interim housing would allow occupants to stay 3-4 months, for a proposed total of 600-800 residents per year. These will be stacked 3-4 units high, on a
1.27 acre lot (a significant portion of which will be reserved for parking). We are concerned about the environmental impact of housing so many people on such a small site, in a facility built using novel construction methods.
1.2 Intersection
3590 Benton Street is located at the intersection of 3 roads: Benton street, Flora Vista AVe, and Lawrence Expressway. Thousands of vehicles per day pass through even the smaller Benton / Flora Vista intersection, not to mention the busy Lawrence Expressway.
During the second community meeting, City Councilmember Suds Jain made an incorrect statement by claiming that there would be no students or pedestrians walking past the LifeMoves Benton site. However, this is not true, as there are pedestrian crossings in all four directions. It is expected that a significant number of LifeMoves Benton residents, many of whom have serious physical or mental illnesses and criminal records or are re-entering society from jails, will navigate these intersections on foot each day, including sex offenders who are permitted to reside on site.
Given the vulnerable condition of the residents, this increased foot traffic poses a significant danger to both pedestrians and vehicle drivers. Additionally, a significant portion of the pedestrians using these crossings are K-12 school-aged children, some accompanied by parents, and young children in strollers with guardians, who are even more susceptible to harm.
According to the county and LifeMoves, 57% of LifeMoves Benton residents will have serious physical or mental illnesses
2 . Therefore, it is crucial to consider the safety of all 2 https://youtu.be/3Q31bUIdBFU
1 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2023-03/Benton_Community_Mtg_No2_Presentation_030123_incl_map.pdf, slide 27. pedestrians, including vulnerable populations, when evaluating the potential risks associated with the increased foot traffic.
1.3 Traffic
It can also be expected that such a major development (approx. max of 248 people at any given time) will drive a significant increase in vehicle traffic - by staff, volunteers, delivery, police, fire, EMT, and some residents. Consistent with other HomeKey and Lifemoves developments, it is reasonable to expect that some residents will own vehicles (see section 1.4 for more information). We believe this traffic will have a significantly detrimental effect on the surrounding area’s environment, negatively impacting local residents - including noise, pollution, and congestion.
1.4 Parking
Benton and Flora Vista Ave already experienced significant parking issues as a result of the existing medium and high density housing developments on those streets, particularly during non-working hours. The church behind the site is short of parking space and has been using the site lot for overflow parking. Now as the site is no longer available for overflow parking, we can only expect parking to get worse with 248 new residents plus staff adding to the already packed neighborhood.
The proposed development allows for 80 parking spaces, some of which will likely be used by staff. The county’s most recent statistics show that over 18% of unhoused residents currently live in a vehicle (both cars and RVs). Therefore we can expect a significant number of Benton patrons to have a vehicle. Additionally, one would expect a significant number of patrons to acquire vehicles as they reintegrate into housing and the job market. Taken together, we expect this will cause significant parking overflow issues onto already congested neighborhood streets in both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
We believe our concerns here are justified. The similar but smaller LifeMoves development in Mountain View shows significant vehicle overflow, including both cars and RVs, onto nearby streets, with local business owners confirming that vehicles are often parked for months.
There is also significant vehicle overflow onto the streets surrounding the Milpitas Homekey site, including RV dwellers who park nearby in the hope of obtaining residency at the facility.
The RVs are a safety hazard to local residents as there have been reports of several RV fires on nearby streets. The City of Mountain View has prohibited RV parking within city limits in 2022, resulting in more homeless individuals with RVs moving to nearby cities like Santa Clara
3 . This change is also reflected in the reduction of the unhoused population numbers in Mountain View while seeing an increase in neighboring cities such as Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Redwood City.
3 https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/03/30/five-key-takeaways-from-an-investigation-into-lifemoves-mountain-view
1.5 Waste Management
A site of this density, with such a large population, will be expected to generate a significant amount of waste. It is not clear that there will be sufficient facilities or space available for adequate waste management at this site.
1.6 Bioretention Compliance
Stormwater treatment measures (bioretention areas) are required 4 for all construction projects
that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. We have not seen a plan that sets out areas of the development in compliance with the bioretention requirement. We have also not seen budget proposals and funding on maintenance and upkeep of bioretention areas, which from our personal experience as homeowners can be extremely expensive and difficult to maintain. This will likely result in increased budget requirements for the City to maintain.
Section II: Neighborhood Impact
2.1 Increased Burden and Fiscal Strain on Emergency Services According to county data
5 , over half of Santa Clara's homeless population have criminal backgrounds, spent time in jail, and suffer from serious mental illness. Testimony from police, council members in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale showed 80%-90% of the homeless population in Santa Clara have drug addictions. The low barrier design of the Benton project would allow individuals with criminal backgrounds, drug addicts, and those with serious mental illnesses to reside in the facility and stay in the neighborhood. These individuals will increase the likelihood of criminal activity and disturbances, disrupting the lives of nearby residents and students. This assumption is fully evidenced by the spike in crime at and around Mountain View Leghorn, Milpitas Hillview, and the Kifer Calabazas Community supportive housing sites, including violence, burglary, stolen vehicles, rape, and drug-related crimes.
The city of Santa Clara has not shown any signs of being prepared to handle an increase in crime rates associated with the project. Santa Clara's police force is already understaffed, and current California laws make it difficult to control or remove problematic or dangerous occupants. The increased demand on police resources from the Benton site could take away resources from the rest of residents, lead to slower response times and an overall increase in crime throughout the city.
5chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/ BentonLawrence_Community-Meeting-1-Deck.pdf, or https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton 4 https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public-works/environmental-programs/stormwater pollution-prevention/stormwater-resources-for-development-construction The Benton project will negatively impact surrounding businesses as well, as evidenced by the recent closures of Whole Foods' flagship store in San Francisco, closure of a CVS near a Homekey site in San Jose due to employee and public safety concerns, and the sale of the business park next to Milpitas' site by its owner
6 . In addition, businesses surrounding the
Mountain View Leghorn site have had to add security. We do not want Santa Clara to become another city that loses its businesses.
2.2 Crime
In order to appease concerns related to increase in crime related to this proposed site, LiveMoves claims the site will have strict policy. Project Homekey 2.0, per “housing first” criteria
7 , does not allow any vetting of residents. Santa Clara County’s own statistics 8 show
that over 25% of the homeless population has spent at least one night in jail - in the past twelve months. 42% have Psychiatric/Emotional Conditions; 35% are experiencing issues with Drug or Alcohol use; 33% suffer from PTSD. These issues are vastly overrepresented in the unhoused vs. the general population.
Concentrating this population - without any vetting, in a radically experimental, ultra high density development in the middle of a residential neighborhood is likely to lead to significant issues in the local area, including serious crime, harm to property, petty crime and drug dealing.
LifeMoves themselves have talked about “curfew” and “building relationships with local law enforcement”. Neither of these provisions lend credence to the fact that the facility will not have a negative impact on the area. Clearly, crime and anti-social behavior IS a concern, otherwise, why the mitigations?
8https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2019 SCC Homeless Census and Survey Report.pdf 7 https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/Housing First Guidance Checklist.pdf 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, Mayor comment - tenants in the business park next door who have been there for 22 years are leaving. And the business park is listed for sale by the owner. 2:58:35
2.2.1 Public Safety Data on Milpitas
The comparable Milpitas project provides solid evidence on crime spikes. The supportive housing at 1000 Hillview Ct opened at the end of 2020. The city is seeing striking crime statistics, with total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022. The average police service time is close to 50 hours per month, and crimes include assault, drug-related offenses, burglary, rape, sex offender incidents, stolen vehicles, and other suspicious circumstances. Mayor Carmen and Councilmember Chua challenged the county's admission criteria, claiming that the screening process was not working and that problematic tenants and drug addictions were not being removed.
Additionally, the county had promised that they will prioritize Milpitas homeless in this facility.
Yet, only 10 Milpitas homeless individuals live within the 132 unit apartment in 2022. There is no staff onsite to repair elevators, fire alarms, smoke detectors. Finally, tenants from the business park next door are leaving due to the negative impacts from 1000 Hillview Court Apartment.
Please note that this facility is a permanent housing with a screening process. The interim housing at Benton with minimal screening will surely be much worse.
2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View
The LifeMoves Mountain View site opened mid 2021. Since its opening, the number of police calls has increased significantly, rising from 3 calls in 2020 to 94 in 2021 (7 months) and 141 in 2022. We are currently requesting more data from the Mountain View Police Department to further analyze the situation in the nearby neighborhood, based on complaints from that site’s neighbors.
Number of police calls over the years
Police call by type
2.2.3 Public Safety Data at five San Jose sites
During the third community meeting, Consuelo Hernandez, Director, OSH County of Santa Clara, cited a news report by KQED
9 that complaints are down after interim housing sites opened. However, her statement is highly misleading for several reasons. Firstly, none of the five San Jose sites mentioned in the news report are in residential areas, but instead are located in industrial or commercial areas.
Secondly, the bar chart presented during the meeting shows the total number of incidents for all five sites combined. One site is significantly larger than the other four, which skews the average. If you filter the data by individual sites, it becomes evident that four out of the five sites have experienced an increase in crime in one of the categories since they opened. Thirdly, the data shows that the longer a site has been open, the more crimes it generates, contradicting the notion that complaints are decreasing. Fourthly, the data presented during the meeting did not account for various types of crime, including violence, drug-related offenses, mental disorder-related incidents, theft, and felonies. 9 https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-city-expects-increase-in-homeless-residents-unhoused/
2.2.4 “There are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” To date, none of the safety concerns raised by the community have been addressed directly and seriously. Councilmember Suds Jains claimed several times that “there are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” and “your next door neighbor could be a murderer or criminal”, which he stated in an attempt to justify that interim housing or supportive housing facilities are no more dangerous than anywhere else.
Councilmember Suds’ argument is a typical example of the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. The logic of this fallacy is to shift the responsibility of proving a point from the person making the claim to the person opposing it. In this case, the community makes a claim about the crime rate or safety risk the Benton site would bring to the neighborhood, and councilmember Suds attempted to refute it without providing any evidence to support his rebuttal. This response does not address the community’s concerns and does not provide any useful information. Therefore, this type of rebuttal is a logical fallacy and there are several more examples that we will be happy to share.
2.3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Local Area
LifeMoves has stated that “Clients will not be permitted to use Drugs or Alcohol on site.” The Benton site is immediately adjacent to a 7-Eleven convenience store (open 24 hours), which sells alcohol. There is another liquor store in the same plaza. It is a reasonable expectation that some LifeMoves patrons will purchase alcohol there, and then move to the nearby Earl R Carmichael Park to consume it. Experience from other locations shows that clients will also use nearby parks and parking lots to purchase and use drugs - so as to technically be in compliance with not using substances on site.
LifeMoves has stated that “participants may be asked to leave for substance abuse that is disruptive to site services, residents or staff”. Given the high incidence of substance abuse in this population, it can be assumed that (1) patrons will regularly be asked to leave and that (2) being unhoused, those patrons will remain in the nearby neighborhood, specifically the Earl R Carmichael Park or the 7-Eleven plaza, a few steps away, and will continue to experience addiction issues there, with a commensurate negative impact on that park and the locality.
These are particular concerns to the surrounding neighborhood which mostly consists of senior citizens and families with small children who are looking forward to safely visiting our parks and playground. It is also highly concerning for women who wish to go for walks with their pets and children.
2.4 Site Security
In order to mitigate potential crime, LifeMoves has stated that the Benton project will have 24 hour security. However, other similar sites such as the Milpitas HomeKey also have 24 hour security and experienced on-site issues within months, including violent assault, rape, and even a murder (see 2.6 and Section 4 for more details).
Moreover, on-site security at the Milpitas site was deficient at times, as residents could not locate on-site security, and there was no one available to check in guests 10 . SafeSCC members
also visited the MTV site at night and found that residents were still able to enter and exit the site after curfew.
On-site security also cannot take law enforcement action against problematic residents, as demonstrated by the Milpitas and MTV sites where residents who violated site rules were not removed and still reside on the site (refer to section 2.6 for more details).
Additionally, on-site security cannot address spill-over issues from this development to the broader neighborhood. We are concerned that LifeMoves may disregard actual security issues in the neighborhood by referencing proposed on-site security (refer to section 2.5 for more details).
10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sqJldTlpmU&t=2570s, start 1:31:25, Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) visited the site one day prior to city’s scheduled check, and commented angrily: There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors…no eviction for crimes. “These need to be addressed immediately.”
2.5 General Loitering, Solicitation and Other Impacts
A development of 120-240 people can be expected to generate significant additional human traffic in the vicinity (friends, partners, acquaintances, business associates, etc). This LifeMoves facility has so little space (see appendix 3) that it seems clear there will not be sufficient, if any, room for guests and socialization within the facility. Further, it is unknown whether acquaintances who have a criminal background would be permitted on site or not. Therefore it is reasonable to assume we will see significant loitering in the neighborhood outside of the facility. Given the density of the area, it is likely loitering would occur either in the 7-Eleven parking lot or at the local park, which will be 600 meters away from the site.
Additionally, given the well documented addiction and social issues in this population, and the fact that drug and prostitution activity was well known at other sites currently frequented by the unhoused (such as nearby Bella Vista site), we expect to see a drastic increase in drug dealers, gangsters, pimps, and sex workers loitering in the surrounding neighborhoods. The surrounding neighborhoods currently consist of established suburbs largely consisting of families with small children.
It has been observed that LifeMoves' Mountain View site accepts families and has installed a fence and locked gate between the family units and other units. The argument being presented suggests that the presence of this fence and gate is strong evidence that LifeMoves is aware of the safety threat that single clients would pose to families and children, and that these clients are not law-abiding residents. However, in four community meetings, LifeMoves claimed that their clients can be part of the community without posing a safety threat.
The nearest grocery store to Benton will be Super Kyo-Po Plaza on Homestead and Lawrence.
Given the lack of transport, we expect to see carts from the store regularly brought to the Benton Site and abandoned. This would be consistent with what has been observed at the Mountain View site.
2.6 Issues At Existing HomeKey Sites
2.6.1 Homekey Milpitas
Similar concerns (crime, loitering) were raised about a recent HomeKey development in Milpitas, and those concerns, dismissed by officials at the time, have proven true. After two years of operation, police calls skyrocketed from 121 in 2020 to 393 in 2022 . Jared Hernandez, Milpitas Police Chief, said during the council meeting: “When comparing the crime statistics, Hillview Ct will outpace any apartment complex in the city of Milpitas.” The details of the crimes reported are listed below in the police report in Milpitas council meeting.
The management and operation of Milpitas HomeKey project is also poor and problematic. ● In Hillview Ct, people with severe criminal backgrounds were admitted ● Ziploc bags of meth were found onsite
● Problematic tenants and drug addictions were not likely to be removed from the site due to State law.
● Only 10 Milpitas homeless live within the 132 units apartment. ● No staff onsite to repair elevator, fire alarm, smoke detector, etc. ● Tenants from the business park next door “were leaving, and the business owner put the property on sale because of the negative impacts from Hillview Ct.” ● As of November 2022:
○ Striking crime rate remained
○ Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) visited the site one day prior to city’s scheduled check, and commented angrily:
There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors…no eviction for crimes. “These need to be addressed immediately.
11 ”
● As of February 2023:
○ Milpitas requested additional police officers to be funded by County since August 2022, but has yet to receive a response from the County. ○ Disabled occupants are stuck due to broken elevator for at least 8 months. “It goes down at least once a week”, said Reeve, one of the residents.
Benton, similar to Milpitas, would be a supportive housing facility. However, Benton is intended to be used as interim housing, a stepping stone to permanent housing. Despite all of the issues that the Milpitas project has experienced, they screen residents. Since the proposed Benton site would be intended to house low-barrier tenants as soon as possible, LifeMoves will not do background checks or impose restrictions on potential tenant selection. Their only goal is to get them off the street, at any cost to the local residents. It is therefore fair to anticipate increased crime rates and disruption at or near Benton than experienced at Milpitas Hillview.
2.6.2 LifeMoves Mountain View
The LifeMoves facility at Leghorn St in Mountain View has had a significant detrimental effect on the local neighborhood. A local business owner confirmed that there has been a significant exit of business owners from the vicinity since the LifeMoves site opened. It can be seen that three commercial properties directly opposite the LifeMoves site in Mountain View are now empty.
We have also been informed that there has also been significant police activity at the site.
Since its opening in mid 2021, the number of police calls has increased significantly, rising from 3 calls in 2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022. We are currently requesting more data from the Mountain View Police Department to further analyze the situation. 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sqJldTlpmU&t=2570s, starts 2:07:35 A visit to the Mountain View site confirmed the presence of alcohol containers on public and neighboring properties; abandoned cars; abandoned shopping carts. Further, our representative witnessed public urination outside of the facility and was accosted by an individual on the street outside of the facility.
2.7 Post Development Operating Restrictions
We are concerned that once this development is approved, any pre-development restrictions agreed to by LifeMoves which are not legally binding and enforceable will not be adhered to.
This includes (but is not limited to) capacity, tenant selection, security arrangements, curfews, maintenance obligations, neighborhood engagement.
This concern is evidenced by what has happened at LifeMoves’ Palo Alto site. Because construction costs doubled resulting in a funding shortage of $8 million, LifeMoves broke commitments made and have removed 24/7 onsite security, supportive offices, and fencing.
This happened within just one year of site approval.
Section III: Location Concerns
3.1 Land Purpose
The Benton location is not a vacant or abandoned land as claimed by the county. In fact, it is one of the last few places in the area where regular community and family events take place during traditional holidays such as Christmas and Halloween. According to ABC Tree Farms, the Benton land sees approximately 2,500-3,000 local families visiting each year for community and family events during the holiday seasons. This is an irreplaceable community and family tradition for local families. There are many vacant lots in the business area of Santa Clara that could be used for shelter at similar or cheaper cost. It is inhumane, reckless, and against the spirit of democracy for the city and county to force the community lot to be taken away from local residents when they have many other options available and face 90% opposition from local residents if placed at Benton.
3.2 Distance to schools
There are 15 schools and at least 31 daycares within 1.5 miles of Benton location, serving over 11 thousands students and families. No other communities in Santa Clara have such a dense concentration of schools.
Allowing individuals with a variety of criminal backgrounds, including assault, robbery, drugs, attempted homicide, and sex offenses, as well as many with severe mental instability and drug addiction to reside near schools, families with young children, and senior citizens can pose a significant threat to the health, safety and well-being of the community. People with criminal backgrounds may have a history of violence or other criminal activities, putting children and families at risk of harm. Sex offenders, in particular, may have a high risk of reoffending, and living in close proximity to potential victims could increase that risk. Drug addicts, meanwhile, may engage in behavior that is disruptive or dangerous, potentially leading to violence or other criminal activity. Drug addicts and alcoholics cannot be expected to kick the habit within a couple of months. They would be better served at an inpatient facility dedicated to such illnesses.
Furthermore, children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of living near individuals with criminal backgrounds, sex offenders, and drug addicts. Exposure to such individuals can lead to emotional trauma, anxiety, and fear, and negatively impact children's mental health and overall well-being. Additionally, children may be more susceptible to the influence of these individuals, potentially leading to early exposure to drug use or criminal activities.
It has been observed that LifeMoves' Mountain View site accepts families and has installed a fence and locked gate between the family units and other units. The argument being presented suggests that the presence of this fence and gate is strong evidence that LifeMoves is aware of the safety threat that single clients would pose to families and children, and that these clients are not normal and law-abiding residents. However, in four community meetings, LifeMoves claimed that their clients can be part of the community without posing a safety threat.
Schools and daycares within 1.5 miles radius of the Benton site LifeMoves MTV site has a secured gate restricting other tenants from accessing families. LifeMoves is fully aware of the potential safety threat to families and children.
3.3 Distance to Job Opportunities
The county and councilmember Suds Jain claimed that building near El Camino Real will help homeless individuals find jobs.
However, currently neither the county nor LifeMoves have provided any data to show that:
1) Living near El Camino Real is crucial for the homeless to find jobs; 2) El Camino Real offers more job opportunities for individuals with criminal records, drug addiction, and mental health issues than other locations in Santa Clara city; 3) Homeless individuals can only find work near their place of residence.
In fact, the majority of the homeless population in Santa Clara lacks the desire and ability to find employment, with many individuals not wanting to work or needing to overcome drug addiction or mental health issues first.
Those who are willing and able to find work would not be limited to only one street. Many of these individuals also have cars, and for those who do not, it is more important for the site to be near a bus stop. However, the Benton project is nearly 1 mile away from the closest bus stop.
In reality, jobs such as cleaning and floor maintenance are more abundant in industrial and commercial areas than in residential neighborhoods.
3.4 Distance to Transport
This proposed location is located at a significant distance from public transport. The nearest public transport option is the El Camino bus corridor, located 0.9 miles from the site (~18min walk for healthy adults without bags etc.). This is a significant distance if one is expected to travel with children, shopping / groceries, etc, or for persons who may have other health issues.
3.5 Distance from Support Services
The Benton Project site is located in the middle of a residential community and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on all sides (including on the opposite side of Lawrence Expressway). The site is far from the expected services and facilities that the unhoused population would be expected to rely on, including lack of easy access to locations for transportation, healthcare, food distribution, government benefits, and support services (e.g. centers for employment, rehabilitation, mental health, and multilingual services). Nearby Kaiser Hospital only serves Kaiser members except in the event of a life threatening emergency, which in most cases would be taken to a Level 1 trauma center such as Stanford or Valley.
The proposed site would isolate people in need and require them to walk to public transportation (0.9 miles away, as mentioned in 3.4) for virtually any of the above needs -- again, this would be particularly challenging for those with health issues. Their only conveniences would be access to a 7/11 and a liquor store.
3.6 Air & Noise Quality
As mentioned above, this site is located between three major roads, including an expressway, and between two major intersections. The minor intersection is used by thousands of vehicles per day, the major intersection by up to one quarter of a million vehicles per day. Per the LiveMoves proposals, the container units would be located just feet from these roads.
We are concerned that air quality at this location may not be safe for human habitation and specifically may be particularly dangerous for adults and children with chronic lung conditions such as asthma or COPD. Effects and exposure may be exacerbated by the non-standard construction methods proposed for the development.
We are also concerned that the noise quality at this location is above a level that is suitable for human habitation, especially for a population likely suffering from trauma and PTSD, in units which will likely have far less sound insulation that might be expected from conventional dwellings.
3.7 Liquor Store
There is a liquor store across from the site, and the 7-Eleven also sells alcohol. They pose a potential safety hazard for over 60% of the residents with addiction, alcoholism, and mental health issues.
3.8 Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing
The Benton location is only half a mile away from Bella Vista Interim Housing. Having two interim housing projects with the "more challenging population" in one neighborhood is not only reckless but also irresponsible for the well-being of the residents and enjoyment of the community. The police have already experienced a higher than normal volume of calls from the Bella Vista site, which has only been open for less than two months. Adding another site in such close proximity will only exhaust police resources and take away resources from other residents in the neighborhood. Two sites in the same neighborhood will significantly consume public safety resources from other residents, slow down police response times, and eventually put the entire area in danger. There is no clear reason given why this neighborhood has to accept two HomeKey and interim housing projects, and why the homeless population has to be put in this neighborhood, other than ‘the property, an equipment lot, is owned by the county.’
3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities
Existing homeless shelters in Santa Clara County are primarily located in industrial or commercial areas, or separated from residential neighborhoods. This minimizes the impact of criminal activity and disturbances on nearby residents. However, the Benton project deviates from this pattern.
The LifeMoves Benton development is a radically experimental development without any precedent.
● It would be the first LifeMoves “low barrier shelter” interim housing in an exclusively residential neighborhood location at the center of 15 schools over 11,000 school children and families.
● It would be the first Homekey 3.0 interim housing with operation duration required to be at least 30 years
12 . Previous Homekey interim housing operation duration is only 15 years. ● It would have the highest density of residents of any LifeMoves container development, given the large number of units and the small lot.
We do not believe that the Benton neighborhood is a suitable location for a novel housing experiment of this magnitude. Other nearby cities have chosen not to take a similar risk.
The aforementioned LifeMoves facility under development in Palo Alto will be located at 1237 San Antonio Road, on the edge of the Bay, in an industrial / commercial zone. The development is removed from residential neighborhoods by over one mile (on the other side of the 101 freeway).
LifeMoves Palo Alto
The LifeMoves facility at 2566 Leghorn St in Mountain View is also located in the middle of a commercial / industrial zone.
LifeMoves MountainView
In contrast to the above facilities, LifeMoves Benton would be in a very low density residential neighborhood, immediately adjacent to existing low density residential developments with 12 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/homekey/Homekey-Round-3-Notice-of-Funding-Availability.pdf thousands of homes. The Benton Shopping Center (gas station, 7-11, liquor store, etc) across the street is the only ‘neighborhood commercial’ zoned property in an otherwise exclusively residential neighborhood.
LifeMoves Benton
Otto Lee, a Santa Clara County Supervisor and one of the County's strongest supporters of HomeKey, has expressed concern about the current site design and low-barrier admission criteria. He has stated that such a site should not be located in a residential area.
This ultra high density interim housing model proposed for Benton is unproven and LifeMoves has no experience in operating or securing such a facility. This is effectively a radical social experiment in a residential neighborhood.
Section 4: Site Specific Concerns
4.1 Site Design
LifeMoves and the county have not provided complete design plans and management policies.
The only site plan
13 the community was informed is the one at the second community meeting, which missed a lot of important aspects. There are more options with few units were shared in the last community meeting, but those are the site plans of LifeMoves’ Mountain View site and Palo Alto sites without any changes to adjust to the Benton site. So it’s not clear how those options are going to be useful for Benton site.
13 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2023-03/Benton_Community_Mtg_No2_Presentation_030123_incl_map.pdf, slide 27.
Those aspects include but not limited to:
● Fence Design: The deck presented in the second community meeting only indicated that there would be a fence on the creek side, but it is unclear if fences will also be installed on the other three sides of the site, and what type of fence will be used. The existence and design of the fence can make a difference in how the shelter could impact the neighborhood. For example, 1000 Hillview Ct, the supportive housing in Milpitas, doesn’t have a fence, then it resulted in very negative impact to the nextdoor business park, leading to many businesses leaving and the owner putting the park on sale 14 .
● Entrance: There is no clear information regarding the number of entrances to the site and whether they will be controlled. Whether or not the entrance is fully controlled is critical for the safety of the site and neighborhood. Police testimonies have stated that crimes and damages can be a bit easier to mitigate if there is only one entrance in and out of the site, and the entrance is fully controlled.
● Parking: It is unclear whether the 80 parking spots provided, which include the parking lot for LifeMoves staff, will be sufficient for a maximum of 248 residents (details please see section 1.4).
● Building Height: There is confusion regarding the number of stories the building will have. In the first and second community meetings, LifeMoves stated the building would be 4 stories, but in the fourth meeting, they claimed it could be 2 stories. Meanwhile, the Notice letter sent by the City of Santa Clara stated that the building would be 3 stories.
4.2 Onsite Policy
LifeMoves briefly mentioned during the third community meeting a few policies it planned to implement. However, these policies did not include any details on how they would be enforced.
Rules that lack enforcement or penalties are meaningless. Evidence from LifeMoves’ Mountain 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:58:00 View site showed that tenants who have conducted sextual harassment several times still stayed on the site, and site manager was not able to remove him15.
What County has briefly mentioned on site policy during the third community meeting It is also unclear how LifeMoves plans to conduct drug tests for its clients, as well as how the curfew policy and penalties will be implemented. Without drug tests, screening, curfews, and enforcement of its policies, it is reasonable to assume that problematic tenants on Benton will have a negative impact on the neighboring community.
Even if we assume LifeMoves could eventually carry out execution and enforcement plans, there are still concerns about how they can guarantee that they will not repeat the failures seen in other supportive housing sites, such as Leghorn in Mountain View and Hillview in Milpitas.
The Hillview site in Milpitas is a clear example of how poor management of supportive housing can have negative consequences, even though there are well documented policies. which caused alarm in the neighborhood. Furthermore, as more people were housed in the site, the reported cases of criminal behavior increased
16 . These issues have understandably made the
16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=14650s 15 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont community skeptical about the potential success of the interim housing project.
Evidence on poor management for HomeKey Supportive Housing. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting The operation of LifeMoves' Mountain View site demonstrates that their policies are not being enforced. We believe the city should not consider the project until LifeMoves and the county can guarantee a reduction in the number of units, stricter screening criteria, effective security measures, appropriate doctor/nurse over patient radio, and mandatory participation in on-site services and treatments.
Evidence on LifeMoves MTV site failed to fulfill commitment to help homeless. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting Lifemoves and the county need to provide reassurance to the community by outlining clear plans for ensuring that those with severe criminal backgrounds are not admitted and that the number of residents does not lead to increased crime in the neighborhood. Without addressing these concerns, Lifemoves and the country cannot gain the trust of the community and the City should not consider the interim housing project.
4.3 Behavior outside the Site
In the third community meeting, Consuelo Hernandez and LifeMoves presented the policy at LifeMoves site. However, there has never been a discussion on how to manage individuals who do not follow regulations in the interim housing, or a protocol for removing individuals who do not follow regulations and where they will be placed.
If individuals who violate regulations in the interim housing are not properly managed, and are allowed to remain in the surrounding neighborhood, it could pose a significant risk to the safety of the community.
According to Milpitas Chief Police, many unhoused in the area prefer their space and freedom to use illegal drugs. They do not want to be in close quarters with other potentially dangerous people or have to follow rules. Tenants will spend their days away from the facility in the local parks where they can meet with their friends who are not allowed into the facility. But, Lifemoves and the county have not shared any plan to mitigate the potential safety impact on the nearby community from the proposed interim housing. The examples from other housing sites, such as Hillview in Milpitas, where ziploc bags of meth were found in the surrounding neighborhood 17 ,
and incidents of trespassing and spitting have been reported, highlight the need for a clear and effective plan to manage client behavior in the surrounding areas. Similarly, at Leghorn in Mountain View, the owner of an adjacent auto body shop had to clean up litter regularly. Given the proposed location of the Benton project, which is closer to residential areas than other sites, it is crucial for Lifemoves and the county to address these concerns carefully. They must have a clear and effective plan in place to regulate and manage the behavior of interim housing clients in the surrounding area to minimize any negative impact on the neighborhood's safety and well-being. Without a comprehensive plan, community trust in the project will be undermined, and the City should vote no for this project given its current stage.
Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns
5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability This is a new and experimental project and there is concern about LifeMoves’ ability to deliver without significant impact to city finances. To date, LifeMoves has successfully delivered only one similar facility - a single story, 100 person development at Leghorn Street in Mountain view. The Benton project will be radically different - 3-4 stories high, on a smaller lot but occupying 200% of occupants, in a high-density residential neighborhood, as opposed to commercial or brownfield area.
Even under the best-case scenario, the Benton project would impose a substantial financial burden on the City. During the last public meeting, Consuelo Hernandez disclosed that the project would require an estimated annual operating cost of $3.3 million to $4.3 million, translating to around $55,000 per person ($150 per person per night). This calls into question the credibility of LifeMoves' and the county's budgeting and planning.
LifeMoves cannot be trusted as a responsible financial partner for the City. A similar LifeMoves project still under development in Palo Alto has seen costs spiral from its original estimates of $17m by 202% or $17.4m, to $34.4m18, in just one year, leaving the city of Palo Alto with a $6 million funding gap. It is therefore unclear who will burden the additional cost if the same occurs to the Benton project.
Source of Funds for Capital cost Amount
Homekey $21,732,228
Sobrato $5,000,000
18 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/11/02/rising-costs-dont-deter-palo-alto-from-pursuing-interim-housing-project and https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities 17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=10680s Total received $26,732,228
Estimated construction cost as for March 2023 $34,400,000 Construction cost gap $8 millon
To save cost on construction for its Palo Alto site, LifeMoves is considering removing the 4/7 security it once promised the city of Palo Alto, removing spaces for supportive offices, and reducing the cost of its fence
19 .
5.2 Operation Cost Concerns
There are concerns among the public that the information provided about a certain project is not clear enough. Despite several rounds of public meetings, there are still unanswered questions that remain.
● One of the primary concerns is about who will cover the operation cost of the Benton project. It is unclear how much the Santa Clara city will be responsible for paying for the operation cost after the Homekey funding runs out.
● Additionally, if the construction cost exceeds the budget, it is not clear if the city will have to fill the funding gaps.
● Moreover, the public is curious to know if the county has made any commitment to financially support the shelter operation for the next 15 years.
These unanswered questions are causing anxiety among the community and need to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure transparency and accountability in the project. If the fiscal questions regarding the project are not properly answered, it could make people more concerned about the service quality and staffing in the housing project.
5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves
5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse
A psychiatric unit requires a minimum 1:6 licensed nurse/patient radio, 24 hours a day by California law. Yet LifeMoves recommends only ONE vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants
20 . With 57% of occupants having serious mental issues, the nurse/patient ratio is far behind the law requirement.
5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites
According to the latest news report, LifeMoves Mountain View site has failed to fulfill its commitment to help the homeless too. 281 clients exited the program between its opening May 2021 and September 2022, only 73 individuals, or 26%, were placed in permanent housing, the 2nd lowest rate of successful exit in the county.
20 From Brian Greenberg, on the first community meeting. 19 https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities The lack of services in a community can have detrimental effects on its residents and surrounding businesses
21 . In one particular area, multiple clients have reported not receiving specialized support in searching for housing. This issue is compounded by the shortage of case managers and housing specialists, and the absence of licensed nurses, leaving only interns to provide medical assistance.
In addition, testimonies from nearby businesses indicate a rise in crime, such as burglaries and littering issues. These crimes have led to businesses taking matters into their own hands and hiring a 24/7 security guard at their own expense. To address this issue, the local government has stepped in, and MTV has added a dedicated police force to patrol the site. However, without adequate services and support, the community may continue to struggle with these challenges.
5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification
LifeMoves’s projects have faced serious issues with management and staffing, leading to a lack of adequate services for clients and crimes that impact the surrounding community. In 2021, the first program director physically assaulted a former client, and an outstanding arrest warrant for the director still exists.
Furthermore, a former client reported multiple cases of sexual harassment, but the second site director could not remove the harassers due to LifeMoves' policy against relocating drug addicts until they overcome their addiction, which is nearly impossible in the 90-120 day timeframe.
In just 1.5 years of operation, the project has already shuffled at least three directors. In terms of services, multiple clients have not received specialized support in searching for housing, and there is a shortage of case managers, housing specialists, and licensed nurses.
The crimes reported by nearby businesses include burglaries and littering issues, leading them to hire a 24/7 security guard at their own expense. The MTV site has added a dedicated police force to patrol the area, highlighting the severity of the safety concerns in the community.
Although Covid-19 may be a contributing factor to the labor shortage, the trend existed before the pandemic. Given the ongoing struggle to provide sufficient and competent staff at their current locations, it may be more prudent for LifeMoves to focus on improving these sites rather than opening new ones, which could worsen the staffing crisis. 21 data from this section came from
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont Section 6: Concerns over the Need for a New
Homekey Project in Santa Clara
Bella Vista has just opened. It would make more sense to wait and see how it works out with the burden it adds to the police and the neighborhood before deciding whether or not the same neighborhood can bear another HomeKey project.
Similarly, the Braham project, the radical experiment in San Jose that is often cited by the County, just started construction a few days ago. It would be rational and wise to wait until it starts operating and see how the site affects the nearby neighborhood. Only if everything goes as the county and LifeMoves have promised, then it could be the time to re-propose another similar shelter at Benton. Otherwise, the county and LifeMoves would be repeating the same mistakes.
At the same time, neighboring cities such as Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Cupertino seem to be making no progress on projects under HomeKey. It is evident that the taxpayers of the City of Santa Clara are effectively being asked to make significant expenditures to support solutions for other nearby cities.
Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the
County and LifeMoves
7.1 False and misleading information
County and LifeMoves have consistently provided false or misleading information (see the tables below), such as incorrect school numbers, and have confused the community with shelter terminologies. Furthermore, housing advocates who don't live in the neighborhood were invited to speak in support at all four community meetings. This has greatly eroded the trust and confidence of local residents in both County and LifeMoves. It is imperative that County and LifeMoves take steps to demonstrate their reliability and accountability before proceeding with any further actions. Residents of the neighborhood need to see evidence that these organizations are trustworthy and can be held responsible for their actions.
7.2 LifeMoves' Lack of Transparency on Site Plans and Impact Data
LifeMoves has failed to provide an updated plan to date. The only site plan we can refer to is the one presented in the first community meeting in February. Additionally, LifeMoves has not provided updates on site design, including but not limited to fence design, entrance design, and security design. They have also not provided details regarding how they can enforce the site policy.
Similarly, LifeMoves has not been able to provide any data showing how many of its residents have located permanent housing, found a job, or found a job near the site. They have also not provided data showing that the site does not have any negative impact on the nearby residents or neighborhood. In contrast, we have data from the local police department and news reporters, showing an obvious crime spike and negative impact to the nearby neighborhood.
7.3 Response to Meeting Requests
Ms. Counsuelo Hernandez emailed a few members of SafeSCC that she wanted to meet with the community and address their concerns. However, some community members emailed her back several times to set up a meeting but have received no confirmation to date. According to a community member, Consuelo Hernandez replied back saying she is available, but when the member replied back to confirm the exact date and time, she disappeared again. Her inconsistency with community concerns is consistent: it seems she doesn’t care about the community, contrary to what she claimed in the community meetings, and is not interested in their concerns nor listening. Furthermore, she is not respectful of community members' time and input, which is consistent in her performance, leaving hundreds of community questions unanswered to date (even questions from the first community meeting on Feb 13 haven't been fully answered after more than 2 months) in all four community meetings' invites to meet.
7.4 Discriminatory Site Selection Concern
Additionally, the neighborhood has raised concerns that the city and county chose this location due to the fact that the local residents are largely from minority populations or new immigrants.
This is perceived as a discriminatory act, targeting racial minority taxpayers and voters to sacrifice their safety and interests, and may have legal implications.
Section 8: Alternative Land
Opposite to what we have been stereotyped and misunderstood as “selfish house owners”, our empathetic community cares a lot about homeless people and truly want to help. We will never surrender to sacrifice community safety, yet there are alternative plans we will consider.
Alternative plans that will end in a win-win situation.
We have so far identified several lands that are not in use and are convenient to job opportunities, facilities and transportation.
The City and County should continue their search for suitable lands if pursuing interim housing remains a goal.
1. De La Cruz Blvd & El Camino Real
The site is next to Santa Clara Police Station. An expansion to the existing supportive housing facility can be built to accommodate the unhoused population.
2. South Bay Fwy & Lafayette St.
There are several unused lands near the intersection of South Bay Fwy and Lafayette St.
3. Lincoln St & Civic Center Dr.
There is a piece of unused land next to Santa Clara City Hall.
4. Parking Lots at Levi's Stadium
There are several parking lots near Levi’s Stadium. An interim housing can be built at the corner of one of the lots.
5. Central Expy & San Tomas Expy
There is a piece of unused land near the intersection of Central Expy and San Tomas Expy.
Section 9: Best use for Benton land
Proximity to schools makes the Benton site a potential good fit for “rent-to-own” affordable housing for teachers who have a livelihood in or around Santa Clara.
This “rent-to-own” affordable housing could also consider law-abiding families, whose members do not have any substance abuse or criminal records, have good credit scores and jobs to afford rent.
From: Safe Santa Clara
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Add seven documents to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project item#1 Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 1:51:35 PM
Attachments: 5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before April 25th voting on Benton Shelter Proposal.pdf
3.Third Open Letter to City Council - Oppose Benton Project - April 11.pdf
1. First Open Letter to City Council - Oppose Benton Project - March 9.pdf
2.Second Open Letter to City Council - Oppose Benton Project - March 13.pdf
4. Petition Submission Cover Letter-Benton Project - April 14.docx.pdf
6. Ten Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter, with Data.pdf
7.LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don"t _ News _ Palo Alto Online _.pdf
Hello Nora,
Pleaes find attached seven documents that SafeSCC requests to add to the April 25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project (item #1)
1. First open letter to city council oppose Benton project - March 9
2. Second open letter to city council oppose Benton project - March 13
3. Third open letter to city council oppose Benton project - April 11
4. Petition Submission Cover Letter-Benton Project - April 14
5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before April 25th voting on Benton Shelter Proposal
6. Ten Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter, with Data
7. news article: LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't _ News _ Palo Alto Online Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues opening the documents. --
SafeSCC.org
March 9, 2023
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 after-school programs.
Table 1: Schools within 1.5 Miles of the Proposed Benton Site Schools Distance from the
Property
Student population
Stratford School 0.25 miles 905
Laurelwood Elementary 0.26 miles 623
Pomeroy Elementary 0.33 miles 344
Monticello Academy 0.38 miles 340
Santa Clara High School 0.58 miles 2,030
Basis Lower School 0.62 miles 380
Peterson Middle School 0.63 miles 871
New Valley / Gateway High School 0.75 miles 160
John Sutter Elementary 0.81 miles 530
Briarwood Elementary School 0.90 miles 292
St. Lawrence Elementary and Middle School 0.93 miles 497 Central Park Elementary 1.2 miles 445
Millikin Basics+ Elementary School 1.2 miles 563
Ponderosa Elementary School 1.3 miles 542
Wilcox High School 1.4 miles 1,961
Total student population 10,483
Table 2: Comparison of Branhan and Benton location
Branham and Monterey shelter Proposed Benton shelter
Number of schools
within 1.5 miles 3 15
List of schools under 15
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
List of schools under 20
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
ii) Davis (Caroline) Intermediate
School - 16 min walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
iv) Santa Clara High School - 16 min walk
v) Basis lower school - 17 min walk
vi) Monticello - 19 min walk
Total number of students
affected
1,116 10,483
We are also deeply disappointed and angered by the intentional misinterpretation of our concerns for safety.
The City, County and LifeMoves have depicted us, taxpayers and voters, as selfish individuals who prioritize our property value over human lives. Resorting to such an act of smearing has completely disregarded the fact that above all, we are parents, spouses, sons, and daughters who are fighting to protect our families and loved ones. We urge the City, County and LifeMoves to stop stereotyping residents and voters, and instead participate in constructive conversation and leverage the wisdom of residents to make our community a better place for everyone.
We are actively seeking alternative ways to help the unhoused population by proposing alternative uses for this land.
Majority of residents are willing to consider a low-income rent-to-own housing project for teachers or first responders who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here. This investment would uplift the community and make it even more thriving, especially given the proximity of the location to schools. This is also suggested by city councilmember Kevin Park.
The association suggests moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a 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
[email protected]
March 13, 2023
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:
This is the second open letter to the city. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed Benton development. We believe this development is a mistake that the city of Santa Clara should never make. We urge the City Council to halt the consideration of this site immediately.
We want to strongly express our indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before and in the third hearing held on March 9th. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community. This action to market false impressions of public support for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles of law and democracy. We have zero-tolerance towards such behavior. We strongly urge the city and county to not only stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents, but also to refrain from engaging in astroturfing in the future. This is essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
Additionally, we are extremely dismayed by the City and County's persistent dissemination of fake and false information, as well as the disregard for the community's concerns about safety. 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. Despite three hearings, we have seen no progress or initiatives in addressing our safety concerns, especially on crimes. The fact is that the 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, 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.
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. Addressing homelessness is a humanitarian and necessary effort. But all these years what we have always seen is your hand-waving and virtue-signaling, as embodied in your repeated, irresponsible choice of location for different homeless shelters, in your misplaced emphasis on housing alone without much regard for other priorities helping the homeless. In this matter, the public’s patience and trust in you is, frankly, very thin. We urge you to heed the loud and clear message, to act on your good conscience, and to genuinely involve the community rather than just treating us as mere formality. If you put your political career ahead of the interest of the Santa Clara residents whom you presumably represent, then fight we will.
We are determined to take all means necessary, including but not limited to legal action, to safeguard the place we call home, for ourselves but perhaps more importantly, for our children.
Regards,
Safe Santa Clara County
April 11, 2023
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:
This is our third open letter concerning the deeply flawed Benton proposal. From the very beginning, we have persistently opposed it due to its low-barrier approach and complete lack of consideration for the community.
Despite attending four community outreach meetings, our opposition has only grown stronger, as the County Office for Supportive Housing and LifeMoves have repeatedly showcased their lack of integrity by presenting false information, misleading the audience and resorting to rhetoric and astroturfing. We are attaching a list of these behaviors to this letter. Their blatant disregard for the truth is an insult to our community and must not be tolerated.
Meanwhile, more reports and data on comparable shelter sites in Milpitas, Palo Alto, and Mountain View have surfaced, revealing alarming increases in crime rates, poor financial planning, and concerning operational procedures:
1. Milpitas – After the conversion of the 1000 Hillview Ct apartment to permanent supportive housing, total police calls increased by 300%, fire calls by 400%, and average police service time close to 50 hours per month.
a. Contrary to Consuelo Hernandez's claims, most of the 911 calls were about crimes such as assault, drug, buggery, rape, sex registrant, stolen vehicles and other suspicious circumstances. b. Ziploc bags of meth were found onsite, despite the county and management company having promised no drug onsite.
c. At the business park next door, tenants are leaving and the owner is selling the property because of the significant negative impacts from Homekey Milpitas. d. Despite millions of operating expenses, occupants of Homekey Milpitas have been living in fear and some even say they daren’t come out of their units without an open knife. e. Councilmember Chua and Vice Mayor Carmen Montano challenged Consuelo that the county had changed the admission criteria without informing the city, and their screening process is not working.
2. Palo Alto – LifeMoves project cost estimate increased from $17.6 million to $26 million just two months after its approval, and then skyrocketed to $34.4 million within a year of approval. City of Palo Alto is facing a $6 million funding gap and is seeking donations to close it. At the same time, LifeMoves is reducing 24/7 security, onsite facilities for supportive service, and family spaces to cover up the cost gap.
3. Mountain View – LifeMoves site, operational since 2021, is plagued by staffing challenges, constant staff turnover, and under-qualified personnel. With only 26% of clients placed in permanent housing, LifeMoves Mountain View has the 2nd lowest successful rate in the county. a. Since its opening, the number of police calls has increased significantly, skyrocketing from 3 calls in 2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022.
b. The organization has failed to address sexual harassment and remove tenants who violate site policy, and has not fulfilled its promise to prepare clients for permanent housing.
This evidence unequivocally proves that low-barrier housing becomes a breeding ground for crime and that LifeMove consistently fails to deliver on its promises. These are not an illusion nor hypothesis. These are facts and reality currently happening in our nearby cities! Were the Benton location approved, the mistakes of Milpitas, Palo Alto, and Mountain View would not only be replicated in Santa Clara, but also with much graver consequences due to our financial situation and the project's proximity to residential areas.
We demand that the City Council immediately halt this ill-conceived plan. Our community's future is at stake, and we refuse to allow such a high risk to be imposed upon us. It's time for our elected officials to prioritize our safety and well-being over this misguided proposal and county’s paper promises. In the last community meeting, a public poll revealed that over 80% of members opposed the Benton interim housing. Across all four community meetings, opposition consistently exceeded 80-90%. This is just a glimpse of the lengths our community will go to defend its safety. You should hear us loud and clear.
This community contains a rapidly rising immigrant demographic, who came to America for stability and opportunity. Feeling safe is our bottom line. This is non-negotiable for our community, and we will not hesitate to hold our elected officials accountable. Take heed of San Francisco, where the most liberal population in America recalled their school district board and District Attorney, signaling their limit had been reached. Do not underestimate the determination of immigrants. We have fought tirelessly to make America our home, and if our safety is threatened, we will take drastic measures and mobilize with maximum effort to protect it. The recent recall of San Francisco's officials by majority Asian American voters should serve as a stark reminder of the power of a united community.
Regards,
SafeSCC
April 14, 2023
Dear Council Members,
On April 25th, you will vote on the Homekey project in partnership with LifeMoves at Benton & Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. SafeSCC, a grassroot association of residents in Santa Clara, presented in City Hall today and submitted a petition on behalf of local residents who strongly oppose the proposal, with 5,293 signatures collected since the proposal became public knowledge. In the 4th community public hearing, a live poll conducted by the county showed that over 80% of the community opposes the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition is even higher.
We urge you to listen to the majority of residents and vote "No" to the Benton project, as numerous concerns must be addressed, including neighborhood impact, location justification, fiscal concerns, design and policy concerns, environmental issues, project justification, and the credibility and accountability of the county and LifeMoves.
Neighborhood impact:
1. According to county data, over half of Santa Clara's homeless population have criminal backgrounds, spent time in jail, suffer from serious mental illness, and over 80% have drug addictions. The low barrier design of the Benton project would allow individuals with criminal backgrounds, drug addicts, and those with mental illnesses to reside in the facility and stay in the neighborhood. These individuals will increase the likelihood of criminal activity and disturbances, disrupting the lives of nearby residents and students. This assumption is fully evidenced by the spike of crimes in Mountain View, Milpitas and our Kifer site, including violence, burglary, stolen vehicles, rape, and drug-related crimes.
2. The city of Santa Clara has not shown any signs of being prepared to handle an increase in crime rates associated with the project. Santa Clara's police force is already understaffed, and current California laws make it difficult to control or remove problematic or dangerous occupants. The increased demand on police resources could lead to slower response times and an overall increase in crime throughout the city.
3. The Benton project could negatively impact surrounding businesses, as evidenced by the recent closure of Whole Foods' flagship store in San Francisco due to public safety concerns, and the sale of the business park next to Milpitas' site by its owner. We do not want Santa Clara to become another city that loses its businesses.
Location justification:
1. The Benton location is not a vacant or abandoned land as claimed by the county.
In fact, it is one of the last few places in the area where regular community and family events take place during traditional holidays such as Christmas and Halloween. According to ABC Tree Farms, the Benton land sees approximately 2,500-3,000 local families visiting each year for community and family events during the holiday seasons. This is an irreplaceable community and family tradition for local families. There are many vacant lots in the business area of Santa Clara that could be used for shelter at similar or cheaper cost. It is inhumane, reckless, and against the spirit of democracy for the city and county to force the community lot to be taken away from local residents when they have many other options available and face 90% opposition from local residents.
2. Existing homeless shelters in Santa Clara County are primarily located in industrial or commercial areas, or separated from residential neighborhoods. This minimizes the impact of criminal activity and disturbances on nearby residents.
However, the Benton project deviates from this pattern.
3. The county claims that building near El Camino Real will help homeless individuals find jobs, but there is no data to support this claim. In fact, many homeless individuals in Santa Clara lack the desire or ability to work or need addiction treatment and mental health care for the entire 4 months in interim housing. Those who do want to work are not limited to job opportunities on one street. For those without cars, proximity to public transportation is more important, yet the Benton site is nearly a mile from the nearest bus stop. In fact, there are more job opportunities in industrial and commercial zones than in residential areas.
4. Additionally, the county claims the Benton location is convenient for various amenities, but much of the provided information is inaccurate. Nearby Kaiser Hospital only serves patients with its own insurance, the closest station and supermarket are nearly a mile away, and there is a liquor store across from the site, posing a potential safety hazard for over 60% of the residents with addiction, alcoholism, and mental health issues.
5. The intersection of Benton and Lawrence Expressway is a bustling crossroads, with vehicles speeding by, posing a significant danger to individuals struggling with mental health, alcohol, and drug addiction. Moreover, the high noise levels are not suitable for residents living in the vicinity.
Fiscal implications:
● The construction cost of the project is not expected to be borne by the city.
However, the cost of the Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction doubled from $17 million to $34.4 million in just one year, leaving the city of Palo Alto with a $6 million funding gap. This calls into question the credibility of LifeMoves' and the county's budgeting and planning. The operational cost of the project is estimated at $4.3 million, but it is unclear who will cover this expense. ● There are concerns among the public that the information provided about a certain project is not clear enough. Despite several rounds of public meetings, there are still unanswered questions that remain.
○ One of the primary concerns is about who will cover the operation cost of the Benton project. It is unclear how much the Santa Clara city will be responsible for paying for the operation cost after the Homekey funding runs out.
○ Additionally, if the construction cost exceeds the budget, it is not clear if the city will have to fill the funding gaps.
○ Moreover, the public is curious to know if the county has made any commitment to financially support the shelter operation for the next 15 years.
These unanswered questions are causing anxiety among the community and need to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure transparency and accountability in the project. If the fiscal questions regarding the project are not properly answered, it could make people more concerned about the service quality and staffing in the housing project.
Design and policy concerns:
● LifeMoves and the county have not provided complete design plans and management policies. The operation of LifeMoves' Mountain View site demonstrates that their policies are not being enforced. We believe the city should not consider the project until LifeMoves and the county can guarantee a reduction in the number of units, stricter screening criteria, effective security measures, appropriate doctor/nurse over patient radio, and mandatory participation in on-site services and treatments.
● Despite Lifemoves sharing detailed background check protocols, there are still concerns about how they can guarantee that they will not repeat the failures seen in other supportive housing sites, such as Leghorn in Mountain View and Hillview in Milpitas. The Hillview site in Milpitas is a clear example of how poor management of supportive housing can have negative consequences. In Hillview, people with severe criminal backgrounds were admitted, which caused alarm in the neighborhood. Furthermore, as more people were housed in the site, the reported cases of criminal behavior increased. These issues have understandably made the community skeptical about the potential success of the interim housing project. Lifemoves and the county need to provide reassurance to the community by outlining clear plans for ensuring that those with severe criminal backgrounds are not admitted and that the number of residents does not lead to increased crime in the neighborhood. Without addressing these concerns, Lifemoves and the country cannot gain the trust of the community and the City should not consider the interim housing project.
● LifeMoves has a longstanding issue with staff shortages and a lack of qualified personnel on their current sites. For example, their Mountain View Leghorn site never has had enough case managers. It has also changed three directors in less than two years, with the first one under arrest warrant for physically assault client and second one failing to remove drug additive and sextual assault client from site. Although Covid-19 may be a contributing factor to the labor shortage, the trend existed before the pandemic. Given the ongoing struggle to provide sufficient and competent staff at their current locations, it may be more prudent for LifeMoves to focus on improving these sites rather than opening new ones, which could worsen the staffing crisis.
● A psychiatric unit requires a minimum 1:6 licensed nurse/patient radio, 24 hours a day by California law. Yet LifeMoves recommends only ONE vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants. With 57% of occupants having serious mental issues, the nurse/patient ratio is far behind the law requirement.
Project justifications:
1. There is already an interim housing facility within 0.5 miles, capable of accommodating over 100 people, cycling every 3-4 months, serving 300-400 people annually. Data indicates that Santa Clara has fewer than 300 homeless individuals, so there is no evidence to suggest the need for a similar project in such close proximity. Blindly accepting the county's pressure for this project would be a waste and disrespect of taxpayers' money and a betrayal of voters and residents.
2. At the same time, neighboring cities of Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Cupertino seem to be making no progress on projects under Homekey. It is evident that the taxpayers of the City of Santa Clara are effectively being asked to make significant expenditures to support solutions for other nearby cities.
Credibility and accountability of county and LifeMoves
● County and LifeMoves have consistently provided false or misleading information, such as incorrect school numbers, and have confused the community with shelter terminologies, and housing advocacies who don't live in the neighborhood were invited to speak in support at all four community meetings. This has greatly eroded the trust and confidence of local residents in both County and LifeMoves. It is imperative that County and LifeMoves take steps to demonstrate their reliability and accountability before proceeding with any further actions. Residents of the neighborhood need to see evidence that these organizations are trustworthy and can be held responsible for their actions.
We believe that these concerns - especially the environmental, neighborhood, and site-specific issues - should warrant proper consideration by the city to reject the Benton project. In fact, should the City insist on moving forward with this project, we will demand an environmental and social impact study. Our association is currently in the process of retaining counsel to ensure that both the City and Developer adhere to all applicable local and state ordinances for this project.
Sincerely,
SafeSCC
10 Essential Facts to Know Before April 25th voting
on Benton Shelter Proposal
Prepared by SafeSCC
In the lead-up to the crucial April 25th meeting regarding the proposed Benton shelter, I would like to share ten crucial points that city council must know before making any decisions regarding the Benton shelter proposal:
1. HomeKey projects may be exempt from CEQA, but only after meeting specific requirements, including evaluations and reports submitted for approval.
2. Despite four community hearings, the county and LifeMoves have only presented promotional videos and Palo Alto site plans without providing a concrete proposal. They haven't answered questions about yearly operational cost, nor funding source.
3. Neither the county nor LifeMoves have presented detailed operational plans, including site policy, services provided, staffing and security measures, nor did they talk about any enforcement for those policies and plans. Additionally, the county has not addressed whether it can assign extra police officers for site patrol, a request made by Milpitas but seemingly disregarded.
4. LifeMoves, formerly InnVision, has a troubling history of failing to deliver promised services, staff shortages, security concerns, inadequate maintenance, and insufficient supportive services.
5. LifeMoves and the county have a record of significantly underestimating costs, which could lead to financial trouble for the city. For example, Palo Alto's site construction cost estimate doubled within a year of proposal approval.
6. County and LifeMoves' paper promises are not guarantees and can be broken at any time. Carefully scrutinize their proposals and evaluate whether their commitments are realistic and enforceable. Ensure that there are clear mechanisms for holding them accountable should their promises not be met.
7. Milpitas shelter’s crime rate increased by 300%, and Mountain View LifeMoves shelter’s police calls went from 3 to nearly 150 in two years. While you may argue that these shelters differ from the proposed Benton project, the fact remains that each site faces problems, suggesting the current model is flawed and shouldn't be replicated.
8. Mental illness will not be scary only when treated in professional medical facilities with appropriate staffing ratios. California law requires a minimum 1:6 nurse/patient ratio for psychiatric units. LifeMoves' proposed shelter, with 120+ mentally ill patients to 1 vocational nurse, is far from meeting this standard. This staffing inadequacy raises serious safety concerns, as untreated or inadequately treated mental health issues, combined with drug addiction and alcohol problems, could pose significant risks to the community.
9. Situations can worsen rapidly, as evidenced by San Francisco's fast decline. Be proactive in preventing the city of Santa Clara from experiencing a similar fate by critically examining the proposed shelter's potential impact on the community, safety, and quality of life. The consequences of inaction or accepting a flawed proposal could be far-reaching and long-lasting.
10.The term "homeless" or “unhoused” is a superficial description that wrongly groups mentally ill, addicted, and criminal individuals with law-abiding citizens who have lost their homes. Housing alone cannot solve crime or heal patients.
SafeSCC urges the city council to consider these 10 points and demand clear answers and transparency from the county and LifeMoves before making any decisions regarding the Benton shelter proposal. The safety and well-being of our community and of the city are at stake.
Ten Reasons Why Everyone Should
Oppose Benton Shelter, with Data
Prepared by SafeSCC
1) 80% - 95% local residents strongly oppose Benton shelter: Live poll in the 4th community meeting showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher.
2) Benton location is one of the last few bustling community hubs:
3,000+ local families visit Benton land every year for holiday events, making it an irreplaceable community and family tradition.
3) Low barrier with minimum screening for occupants. 90% have drug addiction, 57% serious mental illness, many with criminal records, coming from jails. Sex offenders allowed. Benton shelter will be located at the center of over 11,000 school kids and families, putting their everyday life at high risk. 4) Striking crime statistics at similar sites at Milpitas and MTV: In Milpitas, total police calls increased by 300%. Mountain View LifeMoves, police calls have risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022
5) Second shelter in the same neighborhood: Bella Vista, opened only 0.5 miles away from Benton last month and police have already been burned out by the higher-than-normal crime calls they received.
6) High operation cost and unreliable LifeMoves’ budget estimate:
$4.3 million operation cost each year paid to LifeMoves.
LifeMoves’ Palo Alto construction cost doubled from $17 to $34 million just one year after its approval, making it difficult to trust LifeMoves.
7) Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurses: State law requires a 1:6 nurse-patient ratio in a psychiatric unit, but LifeMoves recommends only one vocational nurse for 120+ serious mental health patients onsite.
8) Unqualified staff and failed operation: 4 directors shuffled in just 2 years of operation at LifeMoves MTV, plus case managers and supportive services missing. The 26% success rate of tenants getting permanent housing ranked the second lowest in the county.
9) Location selection is far from public transit (1 mile), grocery (0.9 mile) and jobs.
10) False and misleading data from county i n all four community meetings: leaving 500+ community questions unanswered to date.
4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 1/6 LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless
clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't
The governor wants to replicate its model across the state, but client testimony and county data show it hasn't been working well
by Magali Gauthier and Malea Martin / Mountain View Voice Uploaded: Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 9:42 am
On a sunny summer day, 61-year-old Brigitte Barron parked her Toyota 4Runner under a tree at Greer Park in Palo Alto. The trunk is packed to the brim with Barron's belongings. Her two service dogs, Dolce and Gabbana, let out shrill yips anytime another creature strolls by.
Just five months earlier, she was living in a coveted unit at LifeMoves Mountain View, an interim shelter program that aims to get clients housed in three to four months. But Barron never found stable housing while staying at LifeMoves. She eventually left the program and went back to sleeping in her car.
When LifeMoves Mountain View opened in 2021, it was a monumental milestone for the Menlo Park-based nonprofit: The site's 100 modular units were built from the ground up and launched in less than a year. The program has the capacity to serve 124 people, making it one of LifeMoves' largest shelters. The nonprofit operates more than a dozen programs across Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, including Haven Family House in Menlo Park, the Opportunity Services Center in Palo Alto and the Redwood Family House in Redwood City.
"I would say that there's a lot of excitement and pride within the city about how quickly this was rolled out," former Mountain View City Council member Sally Lieber told this news organization.
The speed at which the modular project got people off the street and into shelter beds caught Gov. Gavin Newsom's eye: He called for the model to be replicated across the state. In addition to the interim shelter, the LifeMoves Mountain View model promises its residents case management and customized support to find housing.
But after interviewing more than 15 former and current residents, as well as reviewing Mountain View city staff emails, court documents, police reports and program exit data, this news organization found that LifeMoves Mountain View struggles to keep its promises.
Former staff and homeless residents, referred to as clients, say the program's opening was rushed, with LifeMoves opening before a director was in place and failing to hire enough case managers. Multiple clients said they never received specialized support in their search for housing, their grievances went unheard, and that conflict was mishandled by both program directors and staff.
LifeMoves has partnered with the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose to build two more sites emulating Mountain View's. Yet, according to county data, the program is far from living up to the expectations heralded at its opening: LifeMoves Mountain View places clients in permanent housing at a significantly lower rate than other interim shelter programs in the county, ranking close to the bottom. 'Housing is a partnership'
The majority of LifeMoves' shelters along the Peninsula and in the South Bay cater to specific populations, like veterans or single women. But the Mountain View program serves a range of clients with unique needs, from seniors living on fixed incomes and teenagers in high school, to single parents with young children, domestic violence survivors and adult couples who have lost their jobs and homes.
Located at 2566 Leghorn St., the site was made possible by a $14.4 million Homekey grant, a state program launched during the COVID-19 pandemic that provides funds to local public agencies to buy hotels and other properties to house people experiencing homelessness. Between land acquisition and construction, the project cost $25 million. The Mountain View program offers clients a private room and supportive services to help them secure permanent housing in just three to four months. LifeMoves said there's an option for residents to extend their stay by two weeks at a time if they don't find housing after four months.
A key piece of the model is meeting with a housing specialist provided by LifeMoves, who has the training and resources to help clients find homes. But out of the 18 clients this news organization interviewed, the majority said they did not meet with a housing specialist and most did not find housing with the help of the program.
Barron said it took two months for a housing specialist to give her a call when she was at LifeMoves Mountain View. "Most of (the apartments), the waiting list was closed or was too expensive," Barron said of those that the housing specialist suggested.
When she was interviewed last July, Barron was back to sleeping in her car after living at the site for four months — and she wasn't the only one. At least six clients reporters spoke to were living in vehicles after participating in the program.
When asked why some clients never get to see a housing specialist, LifeMoves Vice President Brian Greenberg said that not every client is ready to see one when they enter the program. He said that every client is assigned a case manager, but housing specialists are only called in when a client is ready.
"Nothing makes us happier than if someone comes in one day, and a few days later they have the wherewithal and the access to resources to get into housing," Greenberg said. "If it was a simple thing, there wouldn't be that challenge. So I can't address individual complaints, but getting people housing is a partnership, and we do our best to hold up our end of the partnership." 4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 2/6 Caroline Mathangani, who moved into LifeMoves in February 2022, said her case manager repeatedly suggested she apply to apartments she knew she wouldn't qualify for because at the time, Mathangani didn't have a credit score or recent pay stubs.
Mathangani left LifeMoves Mountain View after receiving a notice that her time was up. She said she didn't bother filing an extension after being asked to leave.
"I felt like my case manager was betraying me," she said. "She had made me a promise and said, 'I'm not going to ask you to leave until we figure this out.'"
Clients are asked to fill out extension forms every two weeks and document what they're doing to work toward housing. According to LifeMoves leadership, the extensions are almost always granted if the resident is safe in the facility and working toward securing stable housing.
After moving in, each person receives a customized plan from a case manager that establishes goals and tasks for housing, employment, finance, health and education, according to a sample case plan the organization shared. Case managers are there to help connect clients with resources and get them closer to securing permanent housing, as well as give referrals to the housing specialists.
Former client Lily moved into LifeMoves in January 2022. She said shortly into her stay her case manager quit, leaving her without any case management services for about a month.
"They're supposed to be helping people find housing," Lily said. "I was there for over three months and I never saw a housing specialist.
Never once did I get an appointment with one. I emailed, and I called, and I did everything I could to get in contact." When she left the program in April, she wrote an email to her case manager that she shared with this news organization, stating that she did not receive any support to find housing in the three months she was there. She said she never received a response from LifeMoves.
Reporters agreed to use a pseudonym for Lily, a request made by many of the clients interviewed. Sources who are referred to by a first name only in this story, unless otherwise stated, are using a pseudonym.
Staffing challenges
Emmanuel, a teenager and former LifeMoves Mountain View client, said his experience was positive when he first arrived at the shelter.
He quickly made a few friends and grew close to his case manager. "(She) was the best kid case manager I've had," said Emmanuel. "She was really outgoing. She made all the kids feel like that was their home. She had a lot of activities during the holidays and everything." But Emmanuel said his case manager eventually told him she was quitting because she had too much on her plate. "When she quit, none of the kids had anybody for a while," Emmanuel said.
Greenberg acknowledged staffing is a challenge for LifeMoves, as is the case at many homeless services organizations. "People can't afford to live on the Peninsula or in Silicon Valley," he said. "We have staff coming in from Manteca and Livermore and south of Gilroy, all over the East Bay."
Greenberg said the organization aims to employ one case manager for every 17 single adults living at the site. For families, the goal is about 12 to 14 families per case manager. There's also a children-focused case manager, housing specialists, benefits specialists and vocational specialists employed by LifeMoves, as well as a full-time licensed vocational nurse on-site. If clients aren't already connected with mental health care in the community, they can access care on-site through graduate-level interns pursuing degrees in psychology or social work, Greenberg said.
Former LifeMoves case manager Grace, whose name this news organization agreed to change for this story, said in an interview that she and other staff members were often overwhelmed by their caseloads. "We needed to have at least one or two, maybe three additional case managers on-site," Grace said.
Patterns of mismanagement alleged
Greenberg said that, staffing challenges aside, anyone hired at LifeMoves goes through "intensive onboarding regarding agency policy, boundaries, professionalism (and) de-escalation."
Grace said she received substantial training when she started at LifeMoves. But she found there was a disconnect between the training she received and the level of support required to implement it. When case managers needed to make referrals for their clients, for instance, Grace said it was unclear what support and resources staff had at their disposal. "That's probably where my disappointment came in," Grace said. "LifeMoves has been around for a while, and they've got many shelters and many sites and they're out there doing a lot of different things, but I guess it just seemed to be that each site kind of operated on its own."
Valentina Carrion, 44, who lived at LifeMoves from October 2021 to August 2022, said staffers were unequipped to handle the needs of their clients.
"I would make all the staff members have some kind of background or classes on mental illness," Carrion said, when asked what she would change about LifeMoves. "A lot of the mental illnesses were just thought of as people being lazy. … When you're homeless, you're going to have mental illnesses; you're going to have things because of trauma that you've experienced." 4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 3/6 Despite staff receiving de-escalation training, multiple current and former clients told this news organization that they got into altercations with staff, some of which turned physical. One former client said he was physically assaulted by LifeMoves Mountain View's first program director in December 2021. Court records corroborate his allegations. In June 2022, the district attorney charged the former director on suspicion of misdemeanor battery. There's an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office for the former director.
Citing confidentiality, Greenberg said in an interview that he could not comment on internal personnel matters but confirmed that the program's first director is no longer working for LifeMoves.
Multiple clients also trace their issues with the program back to the second director who took over after the first left.
Former client Lily said three men living at the site repeatedly sexually harassed her and that the harassers were permitted to stay in the program even after she brought it to the second program director's attention. "I don't feel safe," Lily wrote in an April 2022 email to her case manager, which she showed this news organization. "My interactions have ranged from inappropriate comments from intoxicated men to one of them kissing me without consent." LifeMoves Mountain View's community guidelines include a section outlining grounds for immediate discharge from the program.
Included in that list, in bold and underlined letters, is "absolutely no sexual harassment." When asked whether he knew of any unchecked sexual harassment cases at LifeMoves, Greenberg said he had not been made aware of any complaints.
Lily said she filed multiple written grievances with the program director at the time. "She said she would take care of it; it started up again; and that was kind of the theme," Lily said. "She would talk to them and they would leave me alone for a few days, and then we'd be right back to where we started." One of Lily's most persistent harassers was a client struggling with sobriety. The director told her she couldn't remove him from the program until he got his substance abuse issues under control, Lily said.
Greenberg confirmed in an interview in November that this director was also no longer with the LifeMoves Mountain View program, and instead was operating LifeMoves' Safe and Supportive Parking Program in Redwood City. He declined to comment on why and when she left the Mountain View program.
"We do tend to rotate around program directors," Greenberg said.
The former director did not respond to multiple attempts to contact her for comment and on Feb. 7, reporters received an automatic response from a LifeMoves email account stating that she was no longer with the nonprofit. LifeMoves Mountain View is currently on its third program director since opening nearly two years ago.
One model doesn't fit all
Adult residents in the program each live in their own unit, measuring 80 to 100 square feet, with 80 rooms for individuals and eight for couples. The rooms are just long enough to fit a bed with storage space underneath, as well as a desk and chair. They each have air conditioning, electricity, a window and a door with a lock.
A walkway through the adult units is dotted with bright planters filled with artificial flowers and leads to a communal area on the 1-acre site where clients are served three meals daily. Residents have access to an outdoor dining area, food storage, laundry machines, bathrooms and showers, a community room where classes are hosted, dog kennels, bike storage and supportive services offices.
There are 12 family units between the common area and Leghorn Street, each with its own bathroom. There's also a community room and a green-and-blue playground for children in this gated portion of the complex.
For those living in single or couple units, there are a handful of communal bathrooms and showers located in the common area, which the majority of clients said are dirty and a health hazard.
A current LifeMoves resident said they haven't showered at the site in half a year. Instead, they joined the Palo Alto Family YMCA for access to clean showers because they said the floor next to the showers at LifeMoves Mountain View were frequently flooded and that the curtains were often moldy.
Former client Lily reported to her case manager in an April 2022 email that bathrooms are frequently filthy. "The restrooms are disgusting, often smeared with feces, and urine is all over the toilets and floor," Lily's email reads. "I genuinely feel safer and cleaner in my car on the street."
When asked about the state of the bathrooms, LifeMoves said that "the facility does house clients with serious mental illness, who occasionally present challenges to shower and toilet facilities," adding that the organization "relies on both a professional janitorial service and client chores to keep bathrooms clean."
Homeless advocate Malia Pires from Reach Potential Movement said that, from her experience working with Mountain View's unhoused community, transitional housing programs like LifeMoves can be "a hard sell" for people who are used to controlling their own environment.
"They're downsizing, if they're living in an RV, into a smaller unit," Pires said of the LifeMoves program. "A big one that we hear, a reason people don't want to move into the program, is because they really want to be able to make their own food and have a greater measure of independence. And so they feel like they're going to be losing some of that if they move into the program." In addition to being assigned chores like cleaning bathrooms, clients must adhere to strict rules, including a nightly curfew, no visitors permitted in their rooms and only using plastic utensils during meals. 4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 4/6 When commenting on LifeMoves Mountain View's approach to client safety, Greenberg said that the program caters to many different types of people.
"They're co-ed environments," Greenberg said. "The people that come in are frequently fragile, and as you can imagine, traumatized by years on the street."
For this reason, Greenberg said, certain rules must be in place and apply to everyone to ensure the facility is "completely safe for the most vulnerable residents at all times."
But for current client George, those rules make him feel stereotyped, as if being unhoused means he is "a violent criminal or a drug addict or capable of a suicide." But he said he follows the rules closely to keep a roof over his head. "The way the rules are set up, I would characterize my being here less as a client and more of an inmate," George said.
Income, a pivotal factor for success
Grace said some of her clients, especially those who had jobs, were able to find housing with the help of LifeMoves.
She said one client found part-time work at a Ross department store down the street from the site after being laid off. She started contributing to the housing fund LifeMoves maintained for her. Eventually, she got hired back at her old job and saved up enough to find permanent housing.
Carolyn, a former client, started her stay at LifeMoves in November 2021. She said LifeMoves gave her and her children a safe place after they escaped domestic violence.
When she came to the shelter, Carolyn said she already had a job and a good credit score. She just needed help finding housing she could afford as a single mom, with enough space to accommodate her kids.
Carolyn benefited from mental health therapy while she was at LifeMoves, which she called "the best I've ever received." She had a case manager as well as a housing specialist, whom she met with on a weekly basis and ended up helping her find the apartment she still lives in today.
"At times I felt like giving up," Carolyn said, who described sometimes seeing 20 apartments in one weekend. But having a housing specialist in her corner made it a lot easier.
"Feeling empowered and just having somebody guide you through all of this when you've never had to do it yourself, it really helped me not be so overwhelmed," she said.
But Carolyn said her stable job and a good credit score were also pivotal factors to finding housing. "Some people don't have that," Carolyn said. "(LifeMoves) can't turn your world or remove your trauma. They just provide the resources and you do what you can with them."
Greenberg acknowledged that when a client is dealing with underlying challenges, like poverty, trauma or mental health issues, it can be harder for them to find success with the program. But, he maintained, "We want to get people housed as quickly as possible, regardless of the challenges."
Yet Grace said sometimes those barriers become so high that they're insurmountable.
People need a stable income and savings to be approved for most housing, she said. But some clients may not physically be able to work. Others face mental health challenges that prevent them from holding down jobs, or are too elderly to work. Others are at risk of losing their Social Security benefits if their income gets too high. "Three-to-four-months, tops, is the goal for people to come in, kind of get settled, get situated, save their money," Grace said. "But the reality is not every client is going to fit that mold." By the numbers
While some residents are able to meet the goals of the program, the data shows that a majority of clients leave LifeMoves Mountain View without finding stable housing. Exactly how many is unclear because data provided by LifeMoves is not consistent with Santa Clara County data.
According to LifeMoves, out of 219 clients who exited the program, 95 individuals, or about 43%, transitioned into stable housing between the site's opening in May 2021 and the end of June 2022.
Data provided by Santa Clara County showed 281 clients exited the program between its opening and September 2022, and that only 73 individuals, or 26%, were placed in permanent housing.
LifeMoves attributes this discrepancy to differences in how the county and the nonprofit categorize their data and define stable housing, as well as the county data representing a slightly longer time frame. LifeMoves Director of Community Engagement & Public Affairs Ben Biscocho said some housing situations that are considered a "temporary destination" by the county may be considered "stable" by LifeMoves, such as people who stay with family or friends or go into residential treatment programs. "Although temporary, these exits reflect clients working towards stability through reconnecting with loved ones and sobriety, among other things," Biscocho said.
LifeMoves leadership added that across its 26 locations in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, families generally have a higher success rate in getting housed than single adults or couples. They said that "82% of our families and 65% of all clients engaged in supportive services" found stable housing but declined to specify how many people participated in those services. LifeMoves said it served over 7,000 clients in the 2021-22 fiscal year, agencywide. 4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 5/6 When asked for a data breakdown for families versus singles adults or couples at the Mountain View site specifically, the organization would not provide it for this story.
Data discrepancies aside, the county's numbers also show that LifeMoves Mountain View's rate of getting clients into stable housing is significantly lower than similar programs in Santa Clara County.
At 26%, LifeMoves has the second lowest rate of individuals who exit to permanent housing out of eight noncongregate shelters identified in the county's dataset, which included Santa Clara County programs that utilize "tiny homes or similar models," such as converted hotels. The six shelters ahead of LifeMoves range from 41% to 70% of clients moving into permanent housing. The only program that performed below LifeMoves Mountain View in the county's dataset is the HomeFirst Bridge Housing Community program on Felipe Avenue in San Jose, with 24% of clients exiting into permanent housing.
When asked about LifeMoves' relatively low success rate compared with other county programs, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian said it's "awfully tough to compare and contrast different shelters with different models and different populations in different communities."
"It's hard to make that apples-to-apples comparison," he said.
According to public records obtained by this news organization from the city of Mountain View, LifeMoves leadership is aware that the site's rate of getting clients into permanent housing is low. In an internal email, LifeMoves CEO Aubrey Merriman acknowledged concerns about how the Mountain View site was performing. That email was eventually forwarded to city staff, making it a public record.
After receiving an email last May from a Mercury News reporter inquiring about LifeMoves' exit data and asking to interview program participants, CEO Merriman forwarded the email to LifeMoves leadership, warning that "there is always a risk involved when you put a microphone in front of a client," and that there was "additional risk that our Mountain View exit statistics might be a little underwhelming given the excitement and expectations attached to the site when it first opened." Merriman wrote, "I wouldn't be surprised if the subtle angle here is that (with) all this buzz about these modular projects the outcomes aren't dramatically better," adding, "I'm speculating here." Merriman did not agree to be interviewed for this story, despite more than a dozen requests made over the course of three months.
What comes next
Shortly after the Mountain View site opened in 2021, Merriman said the nonprofit's long term vision is to have 10 interim shelter sites across the Bay Area, with an ultimate goal of solving the region's homelessness crisis. The nonprofit created a playbook that outlines how it developed and built LifeMoves Mountain View, and how other jurisdictions can do the same in their communities.
LifeMoves currently plans to open at least three more interim modular shelters modeled after the Mountain View site. The nonprofit has partnered with the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose, with plans to use $78.1 million in Homekey funds this year to build two more interim housing communities, totaling 292 units.
LifeMoves leadership told this news organization that one lesson they've learned from the Mountain View site is that it's better to build up: The organization is planning a three-story shelter in Palo Alto, leaving more open space for residents, whereas the Mountain View shelter is constructed as a single-story facility. Though the shelter was initially estimated to cost around $17.6 million, that figure has incrementally increased, most recently to about $32 million for construction alone.
LifeMoves, the city of Redwood City and San Mateo County are also close to completing a 240-unit, modular, multi-story navigation center on 2.5 acres of land that broke ground last April. The project received $55.3 million in Homekey funds from the state.
Santa Clara County and LifeMoves are also proposing an interim shelter site using Homekey funds in the city of Santa Clara. That project is still going through the public input process and hasn't been approved yet.
Meanwhile, Mountain View and Santa Clara County continue to fund the existing LifeMoves Mountain View program, each pledging $2.4 million for operational costs over the next two years.
Former case manager Grace said the lack of affordable housing in Mountain View and the greater Bay Area was a major hurdle to her ability to help clients succeed. For clients who were unemployed, she cobbled together various forms of financial aid so they could qualify for the few affordable units available. And even those who worked full time jobs struggled to make enough to afford a place of their own.
"For a lot of clients that were coming in, I think for many of them, they probably just had these expectations that, 'Oh well, there's already housing already set up. And I'll just be here for a little bit. And then from there, they're going to recommend me to whatever affordable housing situation is out there,'" Grace said.
Vice President Greenberg emphasized that LifeMoves is a "housing-first" model, and the goals that clients are given reflect that overarching objective. In a sample case plan that LifeMoves shared, the first bullet point atop a list of 12 distinct goals is "Client will obtain stable housing."
But out of the 18 clients who were interviewed for this story, the majority were unable to meet that goal. At the time of publishing, reporters could only confirm one client who became housed with the help of LifeMoves. Some are still participating in the program.
Others found a home on their own after leaving.
Among them is Mathangani, who lives in a room in a shared house in Santa Clara that she found herself. Lily said she had to move out of state to use a housing voucher that she secured on her own. And when reporters last spoke to Barron, she and her protective pups were still living in their packed SUV.
This is a multi-part series. In the next installment, reporters investigate the barriers that make it challenging for programs like LifeMoves Mountain View to get clients housed, and what experts say are the best solutions. 4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 6/6 © 2023 Palo Alto Online. All rights reserved.
From: J Pan
To: Clerk; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; Kevin Park; Karen Hardy; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Adam Marcus
Subject: Add to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:40:03 AM
Dear Mayor Glimore and City Councilemenbers,
Please vote NO to the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter proposal.
I am a mother with two elementary school kids living in the City of Santa Clara. My whole family opposes the proposed Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan because LifeMoves, who supervises the project, has a very bad record of running other homeless shelters in nearby cities. There is no plan that LifeMoves would improve and supervise the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter project better than similar projects. That is why we are deeply concerned about the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter project, which will impact our communities badly.
LifeMoves supervised similar shelter projects in the nearby cities, and they created very poor records in achieving projects’ goals. For example, the construction cost estimate of LifeMoves’ Palo Alto shelter was doubled within a year after the approval date, however, the average inflation rate in the past three years was 5%-7% per federal and state government’s reports.
Does this unreasonable construction cost increase indicate LifeMoves is losing control of their projects? The intention of shelters is to provide a safe place for many homeless people to live.
However, LifeMoves kept harassers in the Mountain View shelter despite repeated sexual harassment reports per Almanac News, Mountain View Voice. How can they achieve the purpose of the project by keeping the harassers in the shelters and leaving well-behaved homeless people out of the shelters due to the threats by harassers.
Per local news, the success rate of LifeMoves’ shelters is only 26%, and they lack qualified staff and nurses to operate their existing shelters even though the shelters have not reached their full capacities up to now. How can LifeMoves provide qualified service for the existing shelters during national-wide labor shortage and has resources to operate new shelters? Without resolving the problems with the existing shelters but rushing to construct another new bigger shelter will only make the problems worse. We are afraid the proposed Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan will be another non-successful project by LifeMoves, taxpayers will be very disappointed and will vote for another party’s candidates.
LifeMoves needs to provide taxpayers a plan and put it into action to improve their supervision by demonstrating their ability to provide quality of service with a timeline, within budget for at least one existing shelter. LifeMoves should resolve their existing problems first, before acquiring any new projects.
There is another shelter with a full capacity of 536 people per year in the City of Santa Clara approximately 0.5 miles from this location. The existing shelter is not full yet, why is there a need to build another bigger shelter in this area?
The City of Santa Clara is facing a fiscal deficit. Our city libraries are only open half-day on weekdays and are closed on Sunday to cut expenses. As a working mother, weekends and evenings are the only time I can bring my kids to city libraries. The libraries in nearby Cities, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, etc., open 7 days a week and full day on weekdays. Our public facilities, such as swimming pools, need to be repaired and maintained but do not have funding to schedule such work per the Santa Clara swimming facility staffs’ comments at the City Council Meeting on April 11, 2023. With such a bad fiscal deficit, should our tax dollars be well spent and balanced between meeting existing residents’ needs and building more homeless shelters?
It is a sad fact that the crime rate increased significantly after the opening of the existing shelters in their communities with a good intention of residing homeless people in residential areas and providing them access to all kinds of community services. Does the City of Santa Clara have any plan to prevent the increase in the crime rate in our community with a new shelter? Does the City of Santa Clara have a budget to enhance the manpower of first responders, law enforcement, first aids, street sanitation, etc.? Where can the City of Santa Clara find funding for the operation of many shelters and mitigating negative impacts to our communities? Who will take responsibility for over budget, increase of crime rate, and shortage of public resources if the project was approved? Is there any agency evaluating the quality-of-service LifeMoves provided? Have you set up explicit evaluation standards, procedure, and schedule? Is there any consequence for LifeMoves to take for their poor supervision leading to low performance of the shelters? Is there possible any circumstance that the City will close the shelter in the future? For example, if the crime rate including burglaries, break-in, fire, harassment, sex offense, and drug related violation increases 50% after the opening the shelter within 1.5 miles of radius of the shelter; or the shelter will be closed if the success rate are all lower than 50% for three consecutive 90-days terms; or the shelter will be closed if its cost increased 50% more than budget.
We voted for our city council members in the trust that we would work together to make the City of Santa Clara a better place to live. We hope the city council members vote based on Facts instead of Promises.
We really appreciate it if you address our concerns for the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan project clearly at the public hearing on April 25, 2023.
Please vote NO to the homeless shelter plan at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway! Thank you!
Best Regards,
Pan Family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: carole baldwin
To: Clerk
Subject: Benton Project
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 1:53:29 PM
I have lived in the City of Santa Clara my entire life. I just recently retired from my law enforcement job.
I have several concerns about LifeMoves putting a shelter on the corner of Benton and Lawrence. There are many schools located with a mile of this location. Multiple council members have claimed that 'students won't have to walk past the facility'. This is incorrect. They also stated that they are not concerned about the safety of high schoolaged children walking past the facility. They claim that high school children are 'old enough'. They have no concerns about the children walking past on their way to the local swim club. - The majority of people concerned about the shelter/interim housing are women and seniors. Women fear for their own safety and the safety of their children. Men have a better chance of not being attacked and being able to defend themselves.
- Initial claims are that more than 800 homeless are 'associated' with Santa Clara, yet the county refuses to provide the data or explain how they arrived at this number
- Initial claims that Santa Clara homeless will have priority. However, other cities have confirmed this promise has not been fulfilled and the county uses VISPDAT standards - Requests were submitted to the county for additional details/facts surrounding the PIT survey and County claims.
The county declined to provide the information.
- Actual crime data at other similar locations was requested but not provided. Instead, they provided a media outlet analysis. Residents were forced to submit their own public records requests, which disclose significant increases in police/fire calls at existing interim housing and permanent supportive housing facilities. - Council members do not appear to be representing their constituents, leading to concerns about relationships with developers and non-profits/NGOs
- Public records (police/fire) data provided by citizens is treated as unsubstantiated and refuted by council members, non-profits, and developers
- Multiple studies show that crime increases and property values decrease near shelters, interim housing, permanent supportive housing, and affordable housing. All parties supporting the proposed project claim there is no increase in crime and no decrease in property values.
- Multiple council members have told residents to find alternative properties for the project, putting the burden on the residents/constituents.
- Multiple council members have told residents to provide minimum requirements for the project, putting the burden on the residents/constituents.
- Multiple residents inquired whether or not other properties were evaluated, and if so, which ones and why not. The county stated that other properties were evaluated but the Benton and Lawrence property provides better access to services. 'The Benton and Lawrence site was identified by the County as an underutilized parcel that could be made available for interim housing. The County does not own any other property in the City of Santa Clara that is available to be used for interim housing. In addition, several factors were taken into consideration when making the recommendation for this site including the size, proximity to transit, grocery stores and medical services, and that the site is vacant.
I’m so disappointed in my council members. Council Member Becker was just arrested for perjury which is a difficult crime to prove. The County of Santa Clara District Attorney felt there was more than enough information to do so.
After reading the indictment, it read that many other Santa Clara Council Members have been dishonest and that they have an inappropriate relationship with the 49ers.
I have no confidence in this City Council to make appropriate decisions about developments or projects that will affect the citizens of Santa Clara.
Sincerely Submitted Birdland Citizen
From: Rui Diao
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: for 4/25 council meeting on Benton project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:05:57 AM
Hi
Please read this report: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/25/tiny-homes-and-homelessness-whatthe-datashows/#:~:text=But%20tiny%20homes%20work%20better,much%20more%20expensive%20to%20operate.
Key summary is this:
Title: Do tiny homes really work as a solution to homelessness? Here’s what the data shows The Bay Area News Group spent four months following several tiny home residents and analyzed three years of data from Santa Clara and Alameda. Their analysis found:
Tiny homes don’t work for most participants: People moving out of tiny homes in Alameda County failed to find permanent housing nearly three-quarters of the time between June 2019 and June 2022. In Santa Clara County, people failed to find permanent housing more than half of the time.
But tiny homes work better than traditional homeless shelters: Stays in the two counties’ largest dorm-style homeless shelters failed to lead to permanent housing between 84% and 98% of the time. Tiny homes also tend to offer more services than other shelters, but as a result, can be much more expensive to operate.
More support helps: The data suggests there are several things tiny home programs can do to up their odds of success, although all of them boost costs – including connecting residents to case workers and giving them access to private bathrooms. Allowing people more time to get back on their feet also can help, as participants who stay longer than six months are more likely to move into permanent housing. But most tiny home programs are set up for stays of just two to six months.
It all comes back to the affordable housing shortage: There just isn’t enough permanent housing available for everyone leaving a tiny home. Bay Area rents are among the highest in the country and wait lists for subsidized units and housing vouchers are discouragingly long.
With this, how do we know we are going to do a good job with Benton shelter? Best regards,
Rui
From: Santa Clara Housing Advocates
To: Clerk
Subject: For April 25
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:01:26 PM
Attachments: Reasons April 25.pdf
Support 4_19.pdf
Please include these documents in the packet for April 25 Safer for Everyone: Data collected from 5 projects in San Jose show that the number of emergency calls in the area around interim housing sites went down in every category except health. Getting people off the street and into shelter means public incidents are contained to an area with support staff who can mitigate any real or perceived danger. Multiple sources state that unhoused people are more likely to be the victims of crime than perpetrators. Providing the unhoused with housing is shown to bring down chances of crime and sickness. *https://www.kqed.org/news/11942734/emergency-calls-complaints-are-down-near-san-joses-temporary-housing-sites-so-why-are-they-still-so-politicallyrisky *https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Navigation-Center-Neighborhood-Impacts-Final-Report-1.pdf Additional Sources: American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists: A Longitudinal Study of Housing Status and Crime in a Homeless Population, Enterprise: Chico State Studies Finds Safe Space Shelter Didn’t Impact Neighborhood Crime, UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy: Navigation Centers: What do Neighbors Have to Fear?, National Low Income Housing Coalition: New Study Finds that Providing People Experiencing Homelessness with Housing has Positive Impacts on Health, Crime, and Employment, Mayor Matt Mahan of San Jose: Groundbreaking The Kids are Alright: Encountering and engaging with people different from ourselves is a good thing. It leads to creating more compassionate, empathetic members of our community. Different life experiences, like financial situations, cultures, religions, and genders, are all valuable for understanding our world. Unhoused or homeless families are in schools across Santa Clara Unified. Your kids might already know homeless people and not even realize it. Parents can use age appropriate language to explain this building and the people within it to their kids.
*https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/tips-and-advice-for-talking-to-your-kids-about-homelessness/article_23c01e44-557f-11ed-a71b-cf9f5d81059 a.html
*https://www.acluwv.org/en/news/five-reasons-why-we-dont-need-ban-homeless-services-near-schools *https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/child-care-and-safety/child-welfare/homeless-students-enrolled-in-local-educational-agencies/ Additional Sources: ACLU West Virginia: Five Reasons Why We Don't Need to Ban Homeless Services Near Schools, HumanKind: Raising Empathetic Humans: Four Tips for Talking to Kids About Homelessness, Scary Mommy: What Happened When A Homeless Shelter Moved Into My Upper Class City Neighborhood.
Good Location: With grocery stores, convenience stores, parks, a hospital, and churches all within a mile or less walking distance, the proposed location is ideal for a population that may not have access to personal transportation. Placing a facility like this in an industrial district would make it impossible for residents to meet their basic needs. The county already owns this land, making it less expensive to obtain. It is currently under used, only occupied for 3 months out of the year. There are several other places in the county for seasonal activities. Research suggests that, "shelters should be located in areas that are accessible to guests such as a central location in proximity to other services. Common political expectations that homeless needs may be served in other regions of the city do not fully grasp the inescapable need for accessibility. " (Canadian Journal of Urban Research)
Additional Sources: Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Conceptualizing Optimum Homeless Shelter Service Delivery: The Interconnection Between Programming, Community, and the Built Environment, American Journal of Health Promotion: Shelter Environment and Placement in Community Affects Lifestyle Factors among Homeless Families in Minnesota, American Enterprise Institute: The Importance of Place: Neighborhood Amenities as a Source of Social Connection and Trust, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless: Transportation and Homelessness: A Systematic Review, Kaiser Health Network: Finding Homeless Patients A Place To Heal
Limited Neighborhood Impact: Unlike dorm-style shelters, which are being phased out, this facility will not have people lining up all day hoping to get a spot. Individual units with locks on the doors give residents dignity and privacy. People will live here for several months, and want to take care of their space. The current proposal includes 80 parking spots for residents and staff. Considering many unhoused people do not have a car, this should be plenty. Neighbors of similar sites in San Jose report no changes to their neighborhood. (KQED) *March 1 Community Meeting presentation
*https://www.kqed.org/news/11942734/emergency-calls-complaints-are-down-near-san-joses-temporary-housing-sites-sowhy-are-they-still-so-politically-risky Additional Sources: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology: Affordable Housing Decreases Crime, Increases Property Values, Jamboree: Does Affordable Housing Drive Down Property Values?, City Community HHS: Do Affordable Housing Projects Harm Suburban Communities? Crime, Property Values, and Taxes in Mount Laurel, NJ, Citizens Housing and Planning Council: Homeless Shelters & Their Neighbors
Low Barrier is Better: By meeting people where they are at and providing supportive services, this program can be more effective at helping the people who need it most. Low-barrier does not mean no barrier. LifeMoves has told us that they implement rules that residents have to follow, like signing in at night and keeping a curfew.
Many unhoused people have “criminal records” due to infractions directly related to the criminalization of homelessness.
Additional Sources: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness: Emergency Shelter, CSH: Housing is the Best Medicine: Supportive Housing and the Social Determinants of Health, Arnold Ventures: Low-Barrier Approaches,, Center for American Progress: Preventing and Removing Barriers to Housing Security for People With Criminal Convictions, All Home: Strengthening Interim Housing as a Housing First Approach, United State Interagency Council on Homelessness:
The Evidence Behind Approaches that Drive an End to Homelessness Interim Leads to Permanent: The goal for everyone is to get into safe, permanent housing. This is only possible by creating entry points into the county system. Interim housing is one of the best entry points. People living on the streets are more likely to accept placement into interim housing with private units than congregate shelters. Research suggests that the longer a person is experiencing homelessness, the harder it is to exit.
Interim housing helps to mitigate this.
*https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DOC__ReimaginingInterimHousing_StagesActionAreas_FINAL.pdf *https://www.allhomeca.org/2022/05/19/how-interim-and-permanent-housing-can-work-together-to-end-homelessness/ *https://siliconvalleyathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2018PITPlan-to-End-Homelessness.pdf Additional Sources: All Home: How Interim and Permanent Housing Can Work Together to End Homelessness, National League of Cities: Permanent Housing is the Goal – But it Won’t Address Homelessness Now, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health: Making the Case for Proactive Strategies to Alleviate Homelessness: A Systems Approach, The Framework for an Equitable Homelessness Response: Reimagining Interim Housing: Stages and Action Areas for Transforming Approaches to Sheltering People Experiencing Homelessness, McKinsey: The Ongoing Crisis of Homelessness in the Bay Area: What’s Working, What’s Not Proven Health Benefits: Housing is considered to be a social determinant of health, meaning that it is a proven factor in a person's quality of health. Evidence supports decreased mortality among homeless people when they are sheltered vs on the street. Research reports that there is a "reduction in emergency department use," for homeless veterans that receive integrated social services alongside health services. (CDC) Health systems are frequently designed to discriminate against unhoused people. This program is intended to include access to healthcare.
Additional Sources: National Health Care for the Homeless Council: Addressing Health Equity through Health and Housing Partnerships, BMC Public Health: Care Avoidance Among Homeless People and Access to Care, Public Health Program at Santa Clara University: Deaths of Unhoused People in Santa Clara County, The New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency: Health System Investments in Housing, CSH: Housing is the Best Medicine: Supportive Housing and the Social Determinants of Health, National Alliance to End Homelessness: Study Data Show that Housing Chronically Homeless People Saves Money, Lives, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825747/Preventing Chronic Disease (CDC): Tailoring Care to Vulnerable Populations by Incorporating Social Determinants of Health Mental Illness is Not Dangerous: 40 to 52 million people suffer from mental illness or substance abuse, and the vast majority do not experience homelessness. Mental illness is not a moral failing. Often it comes from specific experiences or even genetics. Studies show that providing shelter, especially shelter with dignity such as this facility, significantly improves a person's mental health. Meanwhile, living on the streets can cause trauma which negatively impacts mental health. People with mental illness are typically a bigger danger to themselves than those around them. Proposed support programs in this facility can help mitigate the threat they pose to themselves. It is illegal to discriminate against disability, including mental illness.
Additional Sources: Treatment Advocacy Center: Are People with Serious Mental Illness Who Are Not Being Treated Dangerous?, UCSF: Debunking the Myths of Homelessness, American Mental Health Counselors Association: Gun Violence and Mental Illness: Myths and Evidence-Based Facts, Center for American Progress: Lack of Housing and Mental Health Disabilities Exacerbate One Another, New York University: The 12 Biggest Myths about Homelessness in America
Regular People: Unhoused people are just people without a house. Growing numbers of families are living paycheck to paycheck. This means that they are one emergency away from losing their home. All it takes is a medical emergency, a traffic ticket, or any other unexpected expense, and a family who was living on their own can lose their shelter. The demographics of unhoused people in our county include elderly and disabled people. Homelessness is not a moral failure, but a combination of factors including systematic failure, income disparity, housing shortages, and being let down by friends and family.
Additional Resources: Annie E Casey Foundation: 2018 California Profile Transition-Age Youth in Foster Care, Spotlights: Homeless Children and Youth in Public Schools, American Journal of Preventative Medicine: Intimate Partner Violence and Housing Instability, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University: The Growing Problem of Older Adult Homelessness Efficient Use of Taxpayer Money: Currently, our society tends to rely on the criminal justice system and emergency rooms when confronting unhoused people. Both of those systems cost tax payers millions.
Supportive housing is shown to be less expensive, and bring down costs in those other systems. The county already owns this land, making the process of obtaining it for this purpose affordable compared to purchasing a new piece of land from a private owner. HomeKey grants and commitments from LifeMoves and Sobrato mean less responsibility for the city and county.
Additional Resources: Bloomberg: How Much Would It Cost to End Homelessness in California for Good?, RAND Corporation: Supportive Housing Reduces Homelessness - and Lowers Health Care Costs by Millions, Vox: The Most Cost-Effective Way to Help the Homeless is to Give Them Homes Community Is About Support: We all share this world, but more than that, we are a community and neighbors. As responsible, compassionate people, we should care about the welfare of others, even when it does not relate to us. There is never going to be a perfect solution to solve the "homeless problem", but we have to try something. Getting anyone off the streets and into shelter with access to resources is a win, even if we can't help everyone. We have the moral imperative to support this project, and our leaders have the responsibility to do what is best for all of their constituents, not just the ones with wealth.
Additional Resources: BetterUp: Community For the Win - How Collective Solutions Help Individual Problems Privacy & Dignity: Access to private bathrooms and showers allows for better personal hygiene. Much of the stigma and dehumanization of unhoused people comes for perceived poor hygiene, which would not exist if those people had access to personal hygiene. The proposal plans to place residents in the facility through a process and allow them to stay for several months is a more dignified than the outdated model of lining up for one night at a time. Individual units with locks on the doors and a stable residence will limit crime between those staying in the facility.
Addressing Systemic Failures: 25% of unhoused people in our county report a history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. The foster system has let down many young people, who find themselves without a safe place to go after aging out. The criminalization of homelessness has resulted in unhoused people with criminal records for things like sleeping outside, trespassing on public property, or other minor offenses that should not equate to jail time, fines, or a record. The result of these records is more difficulty in being approved for housing. There is a significant lack of affordable housing in our county, making it even more difficult for lower income people to find a home to live in.
Social & Racial Justice: No social issue exists independently. When addressing housing, we must always consider its intersections with identities and justice. Homelessness disproportionately impacts BIPOC and LBGTQ+ people. By creating a safe housing environment, we can begin to address these disparities. Although it is illegal to discriminate based on gender, sexuality, race, and disability, many shelters or similar programs find subtle ways to do it. Building a facility which is low-barrier will remove the covert ways other programs keep people out. Addressing homelessness can be an important step in addressing systemic problems in our society. Increasing housing can help individuals and their communities, elevate their social - economic status.
Increasing Need: Santa Clara City and County have both seen rising numbers of unhoused people in recent years. The exact numbers are generally understood to be much higher. At least 3/4 of homeless people in Santa Clara county are unsheltered. They are living on the street and in the creeks where it is unsafe.
Data shows that more people than ever are accessing homeless services in California. In our county, the list for unhoused people trying to get shelter is so long that people are waiting months for assistance. (CalMatters) More beds means a shorter list and less wait time. California is just not building new homes. Not enough houses or apartments exist to accommodate a growing population. The State of California is requiring each county to increase the number of beds for unhoused people. If Santa Clara County does not fulfill this obligation, it will face a significant fine.
*https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf *https://destinationhomesv.org/understanding-homelessness/numbers/ Additional Resources: Bay Area Council Economic Institute: Bay Area Homelessness: New Urgency, New Solutions, County of Santa Clara: County of Santa Clara Point In Time Report on Homelessness, The State of the Supportive Housing System in Santa Clara County: Ending Homelessness, Destination: Home: Understanding Homelessness in Santa Clara County
SANTA CLARA HOUSING ADVOCATES
SUPPORTERS OF BENTON & LAWRENCE PROJECT
Groups and Organizations......................................................................................................................................... 2 Destination: Home................................................................................................................................................... 3 SV@Home.............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Housing Action Coalition......................................................................................................................................... 3 Greenbelt Alliance........................................................................................................................................... 3 South Bay YIMBY.................................................................................................................................................... 4 Helping Hands Silicon Valley................................................................................................................................... 4 Peninsula Democratic Coalition.............................................................................................................................. 5 Individuals.................................................................................................................................................................... 6 David Donaldson..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Mohammed Nadeem............................................................................................................................................... 7 Kathy Almazol................................................................................................................................................. 8 R. Elysa Gurman..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Sarah Foad.............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Asha DuMonthier.............................................................................................................................................9 Melinda Berlant....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Alon Altman............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Groups and Organizations
Destination : Home SV@Home Housing Action Coalition South Bay YIMBY Greenbelt Alliance Helping Hands SV
Santa Clara Community
Advocates
Peninsula Democratic
Coalition
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Destination: Home
Through our collective impact model, we incubate new ideas, advocate for policies, and fund impactful strategies that address the root causes of homelessness and help ensure that our most vulnerable neighbors have a stable home.
SV@Home
A membership organization, SV@Home works with a broad coalition of strategic partners to address the urgent housing need by boosting production of homes at all income levels, preserving existing affordable homes, and protecting the families in them.
Housing Action Coalition
Greenbelt Alliance
Helping Hands Silicon Valley
To support the most vulnerable in our community who lack access to the basic needs of food and shelter, and assist them in moving towards self sufficiency.
South Bay YIMBY
We are South Bay Area residents who seek solutions to our area’s housing shortage. "South Bay YIMBY strongly supports the interim housing project proposed for Benton Street in the City of Santa Clara. Hundreds of our neighbors in Santa Clara are unhoused and unsheltered, and the Benton Street interim housing project will provide a vital opportunity for these individuals to stabilize their lives, gain access to supportive services, start to recover from the stress of living on the street, and look for permanent housing. We believe that we need to counter anger and fear with pragmatism and compassion. Our community cannot solve homelessness without providing safety, stability, and care to those most in need.
South Bay YIMBY represents hundreds of pro-housing advocates in Santa Clara and throughout the South Bay working towards plentiful, inclusive, and affordable housing. We aim to provide evidence-based solutions to the housing crisis and a political voice to residents struggling to afford housing." Silicon Valley Community Foundation
People working together for the greater good is where transformation happens Silicon Valley Community Foundation supports an increase in interim supportive housing at suitable sites in Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara as an initial yet vital component of systemic approaches to address the needs of unhoused people in our communities.
Peninsula Democratic Coalition
The Peninsula Democratic Coalition works to promote the Democratic Party and get local Democrats elected. Our members come from throughout the communities in Silicon Valley.
April 10, 2023
To: City Council of Santa Clara
Lisa Gillmor, Mayor
Anthony Becker
Raj Chahal
Karen Hardy
Sudhanshu Jain
Kevin Park
Kathy Watanabe
Dear Members of the Santa Clara City Council,
As President of the Peninsula Democratic Coalition (the oldest and largest Democratic Club on the Peninsula), I would like to extend support of the PDC along with the Santa Clara Housing Advocates for the interim supportive housing project that the City and County of Santa Clara have been working on with Life Moves. The PDC also supports applying for HomeKey funding.
We as an organization advocate for housing of the homeless and express the hope that this project will lead to more permanent housing with appropriate social service resources for the participants involved. Interim housing is not the complete answer if the participants have no place to go once the interim services are completed.
Finding and providing housing for those who don’t have any is a very important cause and the PDC encourages that it be done effectively, with transparency, and with accurate data collection.
Respectfully submitted,
Lorri Holzberg
Peninsula Democratic Coalition President
Individuals
David Donaldson Mohammed Nadeem Kathy Almazol R. Elysa Gurman Sarah Foad Alon Altman Melinda Berlant Asha DuMonthier
David Donaldson
2023-24 State Democratic Party Assembly District 26 Delegate Neighbor & Homeowner
Mohammed Nadeem
Former Santa Clara City Council Candidate
I support an increase in interim supportive housing at suitable sites in Santa Clara County, including the Benton & Lawrence site in the City of Santa Clara.
Kathy Almazol
Former head of Catholic Schools in Diocese of San Jose
Neighbor & Homeowner
I fully support interim housing in Santa Clara County, including the Benton and Lawrence site in Santa Clara, as a way to provide systemic programs that will address the many needs of the unhoused people who are our community members.
R. Elysa Gurman
Founder & Lead Community Organizer, Santa Clara Housing Advocates Neighbor
Sarah Foad
Healthcare Worker, Board of Directors, Women Health Care Executives Neighbor & Homeowner
Asha DuMonthier
Political Educator, National Nurses United
Masters, Public Policy, UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy Masters Thesis: Decriminalizing Houselessness in Hawaii Neighbor
Melinda Berlant
Community Volunteer & Former Homeowner
Neighbor & Parent
Alon Altman
Senior Site Reliability Engineer, Google
Neighbor
From: B W
To: Clerk
Subject: For the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 10:19:24 AM
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing
proposed 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.
The following are some urgent issues that must be fully addressed before any proposal can move forward. I
urge you to immediately vote NO on the proposed
homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence
Expressway.
1) How do Santa Clara County and City of Santa Clara
ensure the safety of the 11,000 children who are
attending the more than 15 schools near the proposed
homeless site? The failed experiment at MTV and
Milpitas clearly have shown crimes have shot up 300%
after the shelter was built in the surrounding
neighborhood. What is the County's plan on the safety
of the 11,000 children in the immediate neighborhood?
2) What is the successful rate of the homeless people
who entered the shelter and later found permanent
housing? According to statistics from the two nearby
locations, MTV and Milpitas, the homeless who entered
these facilities and later found permanent homes is less than 20%! That is less than 1 out 5 successful rate.
Where do the other 4 homeless go? This is clearly a
waste of tax dollars! Creating so many problems for the surrounding neighborhood for such meager results. I
would rather give each homeless person the full amount
of funds per head count that is needed to operate such a shelter. We need to work on improving the failing
existing homeless shelters before building more of them.
Repeating a failed model will only result in failure. Let's work on improving the existing shelters first. Are there any plans to improve the outcome of the two existing
shelters, before we build more?
3)The homeless people who don't find permanent
housing and who are at the end of their “interim” stay are going to be forced out of the shelter. They are going to congregate near the shelter site, thereby impacting the immediate neighborhood. It will only get worse as time
goes by! There will be more and more homeless in our
neighborhood. This is not solving the homeless
problem. It is just dumping the homeless, and issues
that come with being homeless in our neighborhood. We
must stop this from happening. What is the County's
plan to mitigate this problem?
4) If as proposed the "low barrier interim homeless
shelter" will take on the "most challenged homeless”,
what kind of security force does a 200+ persons
homeless shelter come with? One clearly would expect
a higher ratio of security force for the "most challenged homeless". A 20 person security force (a one to ten
ratio) may or may not be even enough to handle the
situations that surely will arise. Does the County have done any study on this matter, and will the County
provide the dedicated full time security personnel's?
5) If the "interim homeless shelter" is a drug free
environment as stated, what kind of medical help is
provided for the 200+ persons homeless at the shelter?
We can't expect a drug addict to become clean on the
day he/she moved into the shelter. If he/she can not find immediate help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drugs on the street near the shelter, in nearby parks, at the school yards, in our neighborhood! With the shelter's
plan to admit the "most challenged homeless", there got to be a high number of doctors and nurses on site to
meet the challenges. Many homeless people also have
mental issues, that is just a fact of life. Will the County provide enough specialists on site to help these
homeless people with mental issues? How many
doctors and nurses does the County plan to assign to
this shelter full time?
6) A homeless shelter is not a jail. Thus the homeless
are free to go in and out of the shelter, as I understand it. And keep in mind these are the "most challenging
homeless". 200+ “interim homeless shelter” residents
will be out doing their “business” and wandering around the immediate neighborhood. With the concentration of
200 plus "most challenging homeless", many no doubt
with drug additions at this location, drug dealers will be attracted to come; it is well documented a concentration of homeless people will attract drug dealers, as in
Tenderloin, San Francisco. How many additional police
officers are assigned to this precinct, dedicated to the “low barrier interim homeless shelter?
7) What does Santa Clara County plan to do at the end
of a homeless "interim" stay, when a homeless person
does not find permanent housing? Does the county
have any plan to bus them back to where they were
found? Or the county just let them out and hope for the best? Where does the county think the homeless will
go? The answer is very obvious. They will just walk into the immediate neighborhood, OUR neighborhood, and
be homeless again! Does the County have any busing
plan to move the homeless to where they want to go?
Does the County have the funding dedicated to deal with such a large army of homeless people concentrating in
our neighborhood?
8) This proposed location has been used for community
activities for many many years, such as pumpkin
patches, Christmas tree sales, and more. Where will the thousands of local families go for these kind of activities if the County takes away this lot by inserting a homeless shelters here. What will the County provide as an
alternative for the local families?
In summary, the Benton Street and Lawrence
Expressway location is absolutely wrong for any
homeless housing.
In light of the the above issues, we encourage that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the proposed homeless
shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.
Sincerely,
Wong Family
Residents of the City of Santa Clara
From: puredancing
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: Information to add to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton project (item #1 Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 2:02:56 PM
Hello Nora,
I would like to have the following information added to 4/25 council meeting agenda (Benton project or item #1). Let me know if you need me to put all of those into a single word document.
Thank you,
Cindy
1.Milpitas council meeting on 1000 Hillview Ct apartment, in August 2022:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:37:41 Chief police Hernandez gave update on its impact on public safety services. Starting 2:37:41
Mayor comment - tenants in the business park next door who have been there for 22 years are leaving. And the business park is listed for sale by the owner. 2:58:35
A ziploc bag of drugs were discovered in the property. Mayor requested a K9 dog to search onsite, Consuelo refused the request. 3:06:02 - 3:09:01 Consuelo responded about the crime number spike. 3:12:00 Councilmember challenged Consuelo that she and the county had changed the admission criteria without informing the city. 3:14:50
Only 10 Milpitas homeless have been housed at 130 units in 1000 Hillview Ct. 3:16:05
Councilmember challenged the property management manager that they have never had staff onsite to do repairs. 3:19:35
Consuelo acknowledged the crime spike and said the spike will last 3-4 years until it stabilizes. Councilmember said 3-4 years is unacceptable. 3:25:33 Mayor challenged Consuelo and the property manager of the site’s weapon and drug policy. Both of them failed to answer directly. 3:27:06 Mayor called it a shame that the site is missing all kinds of services for its tenants. 3:34:20
Police officer Hernandez urged the site manager and Consuelo to ensure the site is a safe place for everyone. 3:48:40
4:04:00 Vice Mayor Carmen Montano: “I am dismayed about all the increasing crime and Consuelo, thank you. However I do NOT agree with your comment that the crime has gone up because the housing of residents has gone up. so that really tells me that your screening process needs to improve. Because that obviously the residents you are selecting are committing crimes. And there is something wrong with your screening process, i think you need to improve on that. ”
2.Milpitas council meeting on 1000 Hillview Ct apartment, in November 2022:
https://www.youtube.com/live/1sqJldTlpmU?feature=share&t=2570, starts 43:00 Chief police Hernandez gave update on its impact on public safety services. Starting 1:03:21
Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) expressed a lot of concerns for safety and urge them to be addressed immediately. Starts 1:31:38
3.Disabled South Bay residents stuck after elevator stops working at supportive housing facility: https://abc7news.com/hillview-court-apartmentsmilpitas-supportive-housing-broken-elevator-disabled-residents-elderly/12856383/
4.As costs rise, LifeMoves’ Palo Alto's transitional housing project seeks to reduce amenities: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-paloaltos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities
5.LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help its homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don’t:
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view- promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-thevast-majority-dont
6.Life Moves Mountain View aims to house people in just three months. Experts say that its model doesn't work:
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-tohelp-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 1 Nora Pimentel
From: J Pan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Nora Pimentel
Subject: Add to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project (item #1) Dear Mayor Glimore and City Councilemenbers,
Please vote NO to the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter proposal.
I am a mother with two elementary school kids living in the City of Santa Clara. My whole family opposes the proposed Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan because LifeMoves, who supervises the project, has a very bad record of running other homeless shelters in nearby cities. There is no plan that LifeMoves would improve and supervise the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter project better than similar projects. That is why we are deeply concerned about the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter project, which will impact our communities badly.
LifeMoves supervised similar shelter projects in the nearby cities, and they created very poor records in achieving projects’ goals. For example, the construction cost estimate of LifeMoves’ Palo Alto shelter was doubled within a year after the approval date, however, the average inflation rate in the past three years was 5%-7% per federal and state government’s reports. Does this unreasonable construction cost increase indicate LifeMoves is losing control of their projects? The intention of shelters is to provide a safe place for many homeless people to live. However, LifeMoves kept harassers in the Mountain View shelter despite repeated sexual harassment reports per Almanac News, Mountain View Voice. How can they achieve the purpose of the project by keeping the harassers in the shelters and leaving well-behaved homeless people out of the shelters due to the threats by harassers.
Per local news, the success rate of LifeMoves’ shelters is only 26%, and they lack qualified staff and nurses to operate their existing shelters even though the shelters have not reached their full capacities up to now. How can LifeMoves provide qualified service for the existing shelters during national-wide labor shortage and has resources to operate new shelters? Without resolving the problems with the existing shelters but rushing to construct another new bigger shelter will only make the problems worse. We are afraid the proposed Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan will be another non-successful project by LifeMoves, taxpayers will be very disappointed and will vote for another party’s candidates.
LifeMoves needs to provide taxpayers a plan and put it into action to improve their supervision by demonstrating their ability to provide quality of service with a timeline, within budget for at least one existing shelter. LifeMoves should resolve their existing problems first, before acquiring any new projects.
There is another shelter with a full capacity of 536 people per year in the City of Santa Clara approximately 0.5 miles from this location. The existing shelter is not full yet, why is there a need to build another bigger shelter in this area?
The City of Santa Clara is facing a fiscal deficit. Our city libraries are only open half-day on weekdays and are closed on Sunday to cut expenses. As a working mother, weekends and evenings are the only time I can bring my kids to city libraries. The libraries in nearby Cities, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, etc., 2 open 7 days a week and full day on weekdays. Our public facilities, such as swimming pools, need to be repaired and maintained but do not have funding to schedule such work per the Santa Clara swimming facility staffs’ comments at the City Council Meeting on April 11, 2023. With such a bad fiscal deficit, should our tax dollars be well spent and balanced between meeting existing residents’ needs and building more homeless shelters?
It is a sad fact that the crime rate increased significantly after the opening of the existing shelters in their communities with a good intention of residing homeless people in residential areas and providing them access to all kinds of community services. Does the City of Santa Clara have any plan to prevent the increase in the crime rate in our community with a new shelter? Does the City of Santa Clara have a budget to enhance the manpower of first responders, law enforcement, first aids, street sanitation, etc.? Where can the City of Santa Clara find funding for the operation of many shelters and mitigating negative impacts to our communities? Who will take responsibility for over budget, increase of crime rate, and shortage of public resources if the project was approved? Is there any agency evaluating the quality-of-service LifeMoves provided? Have you set up explicit evaluation standards, procedure, and schedule? Is there any consequence for LifeMoves to take for their poor supervision leading to low performance of the shelters? Is there possible any circumstance that the City will close the shelter in the future? For example, if the crime rate including burglaries, break-in, fire, harassment, sex offense, and drug related violation increases 50% after the opening the shelter within 1.5 miles of radius of the shelter; or the shelter will be closed if the success rate are all lower than 50% for three consecutive 90- days terms; or the shelter will be closed if its cost increased 50% more than budget.
We voted for our city council members in the trust that we would work together to make the City of Santa Clara a better place to live. We hope the city council members vote based on Facts instead of Promises.
We really appreciate it if you address our concerns for the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan project clearly at the public hearing on April 25, 2023.
Please vote NO to the homeless shelter plan at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway! Thank you! Best Regards,
Pan Family
Residents of Santa Clara
1 Michelle Estabillo
From: Neelu Kumawat <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:45 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: 4/25 council mtg item #1 Benton project
Hello
Providing shelter to homeless people is a noble idea but putting dangerous elements in the middle of a community not such a great one.
Please know that a Homeless is different from homeless with mental illness. A decent familyman trying to get back on his feet is very different from a repeated sex offender.
A Kind homeless person is very different than a drug addict.
Please vote no for the low bar entry.
Here are a couple of suggestions:
Provide shelter to the homeless families whose children are enrolled in SCUSD schools.
Or
Only to the females who are trying to get back on their feet… they may be with children, pregnant or without children.
Thanks
Neelu
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Re: Material #3 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:37:57 AM
Hi Nora,
I am not sure if the protocol allows for a video clipping from news associated with material #3.
Here is a video link that shows the attack and the associated news:
(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6M1ohsVKc)
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 9:31 AM Ashish Verma <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this document to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.
This shows an example of safety issues associated with an increase in folks with substance abuse in any neighborhood.
We do not want to have issues like these in Santa Clara.
Attached is a PDF version of this article.
(Link: https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-franciscocrime-metal-pipe/13100484) Regards,
Ashish
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: Re: Photos show people protested against benton project, please attach to the 04/25 meeting agenda Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:58:36 PM
Attachments: event photos.zip
Looks like the email was sent failed because the attachments are too large. I compressed them and try again.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:46 PM Zhihao Ji <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I want to provide some photos that the neighbours protested against the benton project, can you help to attach to the 04/25 meeting agenda?
There were two protests for this project, 03/01 at Earl R. Carmichael Park and 04/14 at Santa Clara City Hall. As the local community, we're extremely concerned about this project. We have volunteers to collect petition signatures every weekend, and we saw thousands of people share the same concerns with us. I hope council members can listen to the local neighbors.
Thank you!
Zhihao
s\\£.\_ 1f
~fl-\ \0 \\Ot'\tS
~~o OL5
\
'
-
-:-----:-- -,.,.. ..... ..-L.:.,~·- $ - ~ • - ______ ,,_ • , "" . •
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: The poll from 03/22 meeting, please attach it to 04/25 meeting agenda Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:53:51 PM
Hi,
I want to provide a screenshot from the 03/22 benton project community meeting, which shows only 14% of people support this project. I think it's very clear that local neighbors' opinions are against this project. I hope council members would take the local community's opinion into consideration before voting for the project. Please help to attach this picture to the 04/25 meeting agenda.
Thank you! Really appreciate it!
Best,
Zhihao