Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, May 2, 2023 (part 3 of 6)

Reason 1: Gathering criminals, drug addicts, and mental-disordered without professional treatment together in one building will dramatically increase violence and danger to the neighborhood.

It is confirmed in the past three meetings that people who will live in Benton interim housing will largely be drug addicts, criminals, sex offenders and mentally disordered. Those people need to be treated in professional facilities, NOT in an interim housing with only a few staff and a vocational nurse. Tons of data worldwide have confirmed the positive relation between drug addicts/mental illness without professional treatment and violence. Putting those dangerous people in a neighborhood full of young children, family and seniors is risky and reckless, and will definitely lead to devastating consequences. It only needs one tragedy to ruin a family, the entire neighborhood, and all voters’ trust towards all the decision makers who fail to vote no to the Benton project.

Reason 2: Data confirmed crime rate trippled for a similar site in Milpitas. Neighborhood's concern on safety is real
The Report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in 2022 showed that police-involved incidents have increased 300% compared to before the project was executed. Note, the Milpitas site is still isolated from the neighborhood. The closest house is ½ miles away. For Benton, the closest house is less than 20 ft away. The level of crime rate at the facility is unacceptable. It is a strong proof that a shelter can turn the area into a hotbed for crime. Despite three hearings, we have seen no progress or initiatives in addressing our safety concerns, especially on crimes. The truth is: City and County cannot ensure our safety in the face of a shortage of police resources. We want to strongly remind you that what Milpitas is currently experiencing will be Santa Clara’s problem in the future, and the damage to residential areas will only be greater. This is not speculation, but rather a very real and ongoing situation.

Reason 3: No plan on operation fund and cost even after three community hearings.

County and city just want to rush to approve to secure the last round of HomeKey funding.

Consuelo said the site will be partially funded by Homekey fund for the first 2-3 years. It means even for the initial stage, city or county have to fund it but there is no discussion at all on how much and if they have sufficient money. Also the site will be here for at least 15 years. What would happen for the remaining 13 years? It is very likely the Benton site in 2-3 years will become an abandoned building full of criminals, drug addicts and mentally disordered homeless. City or county have no plan at all. All of those plannings need to happen before voting on the project, and actually should have happened before public hearing. So I urge the city to pause voting on this until the funding and operational plan become sound and solid.

Majority of residents are willing to consider a low-income rent-to-own affordable permanent housing project for teachers or first responders who work hard but cannot afford to live here. Again, we urge you to stop considering any types of low barrier interim housing at Benton.

Thanks a lot. Have a great day!
Best regards,
Joyce Huang
From: Maggie Ren
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose low-barrier shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway!!! Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:20:20 PM
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

Safe Santa Clara County is a grassroots association of residents from across Santa Clara. Our aim is to promote livable cities and neighborhoods which work for all of our residents.

Members of our association strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. We believe this development is wrong for Santa Clara, wrong for the Benton location specifically, and also wrong for its intended patrons. We urge the City Council to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible.

The proposed location poses a significant safety threat to nearby schools. It is located at the center of more than 15 schools serving 10,483 students. We are deeply concerned about the decision to create this shelter for "the more challenging elements of the population” (B. Greenberg of LifeMoves, in the 2nd hearing) in such close proximity to thousands of vulnerable and innocent children. This decision poses an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of the children and can lead to devastating consequences. We believe that there are other locations in Santa Clara where no schools are within a 20-minute walk and should be considered instead.

The proposed location also poses a tremendous safety threat to nearby residents, with the closest one being less than 20 ft away. Research shows that crime increases by 56% within 300 ft of a shelter, and the negative effects are concentrated within 0.35 miles. For this proposed location, there are more than 2,000 residential homes, which means approximately 6,000 residents within 0.35 miles. The Report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in 2022 showed that police-involved incidents have increased 300% compared to before the project was executed. The contrast is terrifying. The level of crime rate at the facility is unacceptable. It is a strong proof that a shelter can turn the area into a hotbed for crime. It has a devastating impact on the safety and security, economic growth and public health of the affected neighborhoods and the wider Santa Clara community.

We are deeply disappointed and outraged about the misleading communication from county officials, LifeMoves, and city councilmembers regarding the proposed shelter. In the first outreach meeting, officials from the county and LifeMoves showed an apparent lack of knowledge about how many schools and other child facilities were located near the Benton location. In the 2nd meeting, Ms. Consuelo Hernandez claimed there were only four schools located within 1.5 miles of the shelter, which is still incorrect. The correct number is 15, and will go much higher if we include daycares and after-school programs. This grossly inaccurate information demonstrates the officials' ignorance of the safety and well-being of the community, as well as the poor quality of their work.

Furthermore, Ms. Consuelo Hernandez attempted to use the Branham and Monterey shelter as an example to justify the proposed location near Benton, stating that the neighborhoods are similar. However, this comparison is illogical and misleading, as the Branham and Monterey location was a terrible mistake made by the city of San Jose, which should not be repeated by the city of Santa Clara. Additionally, the impact on the safety of schools near the Benton location will be significantly greater than that of Branham, as there are 15 schools with a total student population of 10,483 within 1.5 miles of Benton, compared to 3 schools and 1,116 students near Branham. This risk and potential consequences of the Benton location will be almost 10 times greater than that of Branham, and will be much higher if we include teachers and staff, and students from daycares and afterschool programs.

Table 1: Schools within 1.5 Miles of the Proposed Benton Site Schools Distance from the
Property
Student population
Stratford School 0.25 miles 905
Laurelwood Elementary 0.26 miles 623
Pomeroy Elementary 0.33 miles 344
Monticello Academy 0.38 miles 340
Santa Clara High School 0.58 miles 2,030
Basis Lower School 0.62 miles 380
Peterson Middle School 0.63 miles 871
New Valley / Gateway High School 0.75 miles 160
John Sutter Elementary 0.81 miles 530
Briarwood Elementary School 0.90 miles 292
St. Lawrence Elementary and Middle School 0.93 miles 497 Central Park Elementary 1.2 miles 445
Millikin Basics+ Elementary School 1.2 miles 563
Ponderosa Elementary School 1.3 miles 542
Wilcox High School 1.4 miles 1,961
Total student population 10,483
Table 2: Comparison of Branhan and Benton location
Branham and Monterey shelter Proposed Benton shelter
Number of schools
within 1.5 miles 3 15
List of schools under 15
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
List of schools under 20
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
ii) Davis (Caroline) Intermediate
School - 16 min walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
iv) Santa Clara High School - 16 min walk
v) Basis lower school - 17 min walk
vi) Monticello - 19 min walk
Total number of
students affected
1,116 10,483
We are also deeply disappointed and angered by the intentional misinterpretation of our concerns for safety.

The City, County and LifeMoves have depicted us, taxpayers and voters, as selfish individuals who prioritize our property value over human lives. Resorting to such an act of smearing has completely disregarded the fact that above all, we are parents, spouses, sons, and daughters who are fighting to protect our families and loved ones. We urge the City, County and LifeMoves to stop stereotyping residents and voters, and instead participate in constructive conversation and leverage the wisdom of residents to make our community a better place for everyone.

We are actively seeking alternative ways to help the unhoused population by proposing alternative uses for this land.

Majority of residents are willing to consider a low-income rent-to-own housing project for teachers or first responders who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live here. This investment would uplift the community and make it even more thriving, especially given the proximity of the location to schools. This is also suggested by city councilmember Kevin Park.

The association suggests moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a non-residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation and addressing the underlying issues.

We believe that these concerns should warrant proper consideration and mitigation by the City, County and LifeMoves.

Regards,
Maggie
From: Shuai L
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the Benton st shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:50:52 PM
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

Safe Santa Clara County is a grassroots association of residents from across Santa Clara. Our aim is to promote livable cities and neighborhoods which work for all of our residents.

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.

We believe that these concerns should warrant proper consideration and mitigation by the City, County and LifeMoves.

Regards,
Board Members, Safe Santa Clara County
From: Julie Z
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton&Lawrence (0 mi ) Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:16:45 PM
Hi, I sent you a letter yesterday, but haven't heard back from you, so I want to make sure my voice is heard, and is part of the public record. Thanks.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I believe that this location is simply not suitable for such a facility.

First and foremost, I am deeply concerned about the impact that a low barrier homeless shelter would have on the safety and well-being of the surrounding community. The area around Benton and Lawrence is already home to many families, small businesses, and schools, and introducing a large population of homeless individuals with complex needs could lead to increased crime, drug use, and other negative outcomes. I am particularly worried about the impact that this shelter could have on the safety of children who attend schools in the area.

Additionally, I am worried about the impact that this shelter could have on property values and the local economy. Many businesses and homeowners in the area have invested a great deal of time and money in building up their properties, and I believe that the presence of a low barrier homeless shelter could have a negative impact on property values and deter new businesses from investing in the area.

Finally, I believe that there are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter in our city. I urge you to explore other options and work with community members to identify a location that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of the surrounding community.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that works for everyone.

Sincerely,
Julie
From: Aha Mihn
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:16:50 PM
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a parent and concerned community member, I am deeply worried about the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of the children who attend schools in the area.

There are 10 schools within 1 mile of the proposed location, and introducing a large population of homeless individuals with complex needs could lead to increased crime, drug use, and other negative outcomes. This is particularly concerning given that many of these schools serve young children who are especially vulnerable to the dangers that can arise from an increase in criminal activity and drug use.

As a parent, I believe that the safety and well-being of our children should be the top priority in any decision that affects our community. I urge you to consider the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of our children and to explore other options for addressing the issue of homelessness in our city.

There are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter in our city, and I urge you to work with community members to identify a location that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of our children and the surrounding community.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Mihn
From: Julie Z
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton&Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:08:21 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I believe that this location is simply not suitable for such a facility.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that works for everyone.

Sincerely,
Julie
From: Aha Mihn
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:18:04 PM
Did you hear the people sing? I just want to make sure my voice is heard and part of the public record. Thanks.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a parent and concerned community member, I am deeply worried about the potential impact that this facility could have on the safety of the children who attend schools in the area.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Mihn
From: Natalia Bondarenko
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] STRONGLY OPPOSE the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:57:39 AM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. It is close to my school and park and I am concirned about safety of my children.

From: C L
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose the Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Date: Saturday, February 25, 2023 10:16:49 PM
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed low barrier tiny home homeless shelter at the corner of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. As a new mom living near this location, I am deeply concerned about the safety of my child and our family. While I understand the importance of addressing homelessness in our community, I believe that this location is highly unsuitable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the proposed shelter is too close to 24 schools and daycares, posing a serious safety concern for children and parents in the area. Prior surveys conducted by the City of Santa Clara show that 50% of the homeless have addiction problems. 25% have been in jail in 2020- 2021. The presence of a large number of homeless people with drug and criminal histories would create a significant risk to the safety of the community and especially to our children. I am requesting that you provide detailed plans on how you will ensure the safety of young kids and students who walk to schools in the area.

We oppose a shelter that accepts people with criminal history and drug issues, and the no screening procedures. We believe that it is imperative that strict screening procedures be put in place to ensure that the shelter is safe for the community. Additionally, we oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter. It is not appropriate to house people with mental health issues in such a densely populated area with children and families.

Furthermore, we oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness. This is not an adequate staff-to-resident ratio to properly manage the shelter, and the reliance on volunteers to provide mental health services is inadequate and insufficient.

This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista. Placing another shelter so close to an existing one would only serve to compound the negative impacts on the surrounding community.

In addition, I would like to know how the county plans to ensure that the occupants of the shelter can behave appropriately and safely. What regulations will be put in place for the occupants of the shelter, and what penalties will be enforced if these regulations are not followed? As a member of the community, I believe it is crucial to prioritize the safety and well-being of our residents, especially children and families. I urge you to consider the concerns of the community and to work towards finding an alternative location for the shelter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Cong Liu
From: Grace Yu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose the shelter at Benton & Lawrenece expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:07:38 PM
Hi,
I strongly oppose the shelter!!
Grace
From: Xinda Hu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to homeless shelter Lawrence Expy@Benton St, Santa Clara Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:16:56 PM
Hi, Ms. Hernandez,
As residents of Santa Clara county, Sunnyvale birdland community, we STRONGLY OPPOSE building the homeless shelter with no barrier at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Santa Clara next to Sunnyvale, middle of many schools, playground, and densely populated areas.

We have STRONG CONCERNS to the safety of children attending nearby schools, not only many of them walk/bike by the said location, but also the overall safety of schools/playgrounds nearby.

We have STRONG CONCERNS to the Safety, Security and quality of life of all residents in proximity, the shelter would negatively impact on the community, increase in crime, vandalism, drug use.

We ask you to reconsider such a solution to homelessness which has a very negative impact to the community, relocate shelters of such to less-populated industrial zones for example.

Thanks
Xinda Hu, Run Huang
From: Beyoung D
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.

Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:27:38 PM
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the negative impact that such a facility could have on our neighborhood.

It has come to my attention that there is already another homeless shelter within 0.5 miles of the proposed location that was established last year. This raises the question: why is there a need for another shelter in such close proximity? It seems that the burden of addressing homelessness is being disproportionately placed on our community, and this is simply unfair and unsustainable.

Furthermore, the proposed location is currently used as a pumpkin patch during the holidays, which is a beloved tradition for families in our community. I believe that it would be more acceptable to turn the location into affordable housing for people who work nearby and need homes. However, I strongly oppose the idea of a low barrier homeless shelter accepting individuals with criminal backgrounds and mental health issues. This would not only be detrimental to our community but would also make it difficult to attract decent homeless or diligent work people who are trying to improve their lives.

I urge you to consider the impact that this facility could have on our community and to explore other options for addressing the issue of homelessness in our city. There are other, more suitable locations for a low barrier homeless shelter that can meet the needs of homeless individuals while also preserving the safety and well-being of our community.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Bill
From: Beyoung D
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:19:21 PM
Hi, I didn't hear back, so I want to check if my voice is heard.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the negative impact that such a facility could have on our neighborhood.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Bill
From: Zheng Zhao
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:26:13 PM
Hello,
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.

The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore and kept lying to us with biased data. Ms.

Consuelo Hernandez claimed there were only 4 schools within 1.5 miles of the shelter. But there are definitely more than 10 schools. How can you lie to us in public, in front of so many local residents? I’m deeply hurt.

I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this project.

Regards and thanks,
Zheng
From: Dong Liang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton. There could be better choice for the location.

Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:22:36 PM
Dear City council,
I live within 1.5 miles of the proposed Benton low barrier shelter. Proposing such a shelter in high density neighborhoods and in the middle of 24 schools is very irresponsible and ignorant of local kids safety.

I feel very disappointed after attending the first public hearing on March 1st. The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore the fact. We hope it is not intentional. Ms. Consuelo Hernandez falsely claimed that there were only 4 schools within

1.5 miles of the shelter. However, there are already 10 schools within 1 mile. Please check the map below.

I urge city councils and county officials to PLEASE vote NO for this project! Please propose a different location with less safety impact to the neighborhood with so many kids.

Sincerely,
Dong Liang
BRALY CORNERS t"UNIJP;KU!t-" l PARK f
OGU,. i f r
, ..

New Valley/
Gateway Hig'I,~"
..
• Schools ~- 0.75 mile •
9 " • Daycares and Preschools ■ 1• •L • Public Facilities Serving Children ~ Briarwood Elementary - lla•d <A '' 0.90 mile
,, , · Bella Vist Shelte
9 oo,Sup,, (under con~ttH~ n)
Peterson Middle -
, ,0.63 mile
michael Park - 750
Stratfo_rd School - 0.25 mile
,, ...
"' . Laur~ d Eltt,m~ ary- 0.26 mile Cl.''11fr I •~l ., ,c;, NFIGHOORS • .. • Go • Monticello Academy - 0.38 mile _
"'
From: Connie (Qian) Zhang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:51:29 PM
Hi City council,
I live within 1.5 miles of proposed Benton low barrier shelter. Proposing such a shelter in high density neighborhoods and in the middle of 24 schools is very irresponsible and ignorant of local kids safety!!
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.

The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore and kept lying to us with biased data. Ms.

I urge city councils and county officials to PLEASe vote no for this project! Please propose a different location with less safety impact to neighborhood with so many kids!!! Regards,
Connie
From: JING LIU
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:48:34 PM
As a local resident, I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 5 years.

I strongly oppose to build the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence, this is not a right location for the neighborhood as well as for the unhoused people who will live there.

Please re-consider another location in non-residential area.

Thanks
Jing Liu
Sent from my iPhone
From: Zoe Zhang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:33:39 PM
As a local resident, I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 5 years. I have serious concern about the shelter location!
I strongly oppose to build the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence, this is not a right location for the neighborhood as well as for the unhoused people who will live there.

Please re-consider another location in non-residential area.

Thanks
Zoe
From: Jenny Yu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:56:18 PM
Hi there,
I’m very disappointed and outraged after attending the public hearing on March 1st. The county officials and city councils didn’t show they care about the safety of local residents and kept lying with biased data. There are definitely more than 4 schools within 1.5 miles of the proposed shelter. Please do your research and stop lying to us.

I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this project.

Thanks,
Jenny
From: Bo Zhou
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:27:32 PM
Hi all,
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.

The proposed location poses a significant threat to local students and residents. However the county officials and city councils chose to ignore and kept lying to us with biased data. Ms.

I urge city councils and county officials to vote no for this project.

Thanks,
Bo
From:

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:33:27 PM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing in my neighborhood at Lawrence and Benton in Santa Clara!!! Jing Zhao
Sent from my iPhone
From: Zihao Gu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Opposite for Homeless Shelter in Lawrence & Benton Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:56:12 PM
Dear County Supervisor,
I am writing to urgently express my opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in our community. There are several reasons why I believe this shelter would have a negative impact on our neighborhood and the safety of our children.

Firstly, there are more than 20 preschools, daycares, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools within close proximity to the proposed shelter. It is only 700ft from Davya Daycare and 1400ft from Monticello Academy. The community has not been informed of any prior research on the impact of this shelter on our children's safety. We demand a plan to ensure that toddlers and students can walk to school safely. We need to know what the weapons policy is and how we can be sure that shelter occupants are not armed. Will the city increase its police presence to maintain safety in the neighborhood? Secondly, we are concerned about the shelter housing all people with criminal histories and drug problems. We strongly object to there being no screening process in place. We do not want people with mental health problems living in this shelter. We need to know how the homeless people will be monitored and disciplined for any inappropriate behavior. Are there any rules for the occupants of shelters? What are the penalties if they violate the rules? Thirdly, there is no research or evidence that Life Moves' MTV shelter has succeeded in reducing the homeless population or improving the mental health of the homeless. According to 2021 data, there are 769 displaced people in Santa Clara, 57% of whom have serious mental problems and 90% who are involved in drugs. We urge you to provide research on how temporary or emergency shelters affect the community before approving this shelter in our neighborhood.

Lastly, we would like to know how our voice can be involved. The County and City jointly held their first online hearing on Feb. 14, but the whole hearing was not transparent. The chat function was closed, and participants could not see the number of attendees or questions from others. However, the objections made by citizens were clear and unambiguous. I request that you provide the 300+ questions that attendees entered in the chat at the first hearing, along with your answers.

I request that a date, time, and place be provided for the April meetings where Life Moves, City and County staff will discuss community feedback. We also request that information be shared with the public and that we are all notified of the meeting.

In conclusion, while I understand the urgency and importance of addressing the issue of homelessness, I do not believe that establishing a homeless shelter in this area is the best way.

I urge you to consider the impact of this shelter on our community and the safety of our children. We request that you take our concerns into account and conduct thorough research before approving this shelter. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Sincerely,
One resident in Santa Clara,
Zihao Gu
From: Vidushi Gupta
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Subject: Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 3:54:31 PM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute
towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Vidushi Gupta, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From:

To: Melinda Berlant
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Interim Housing Proposal Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:49:37 PM
Good afternoon,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in the city and county of Santa Clara. Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need.

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Melinda Berlant
LinkedIn
From: Asha DuMonthier
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for option 1 over option 2
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:52:05 PM
Hi Adam,
Sorry for the double email, but I just wanted to respond to the two options for the interim housing project you presented this evening and voice my support for option 1 which includes more units of housing. More units in the site means more housing for those who need it and means more effective use of taxpayer money, as you pointed out in the cost estimates.

Thanks,
Asha DuMonthier
From: Celeste Lindberg
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Proposed Interim Santa Clara Shelter Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:00:07 PM
Dear City and County officials,
I am a resident of Santa Clara and I am reaching out today to voice my strong support for the proposed interim housing project at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street.

I support this project because I believe every neighborhood needs to be part of the solution to homelessness and that housing is a human right.

Please represent the interests of our city and county by supporting this important project!
Thank you,
Celeste Lindberg
Santa Clara, CA 95051
From: Pamela Rollins
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Unfair Style of Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:41:11 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Jessica Wong
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; aurton; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote No on Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:25:35 PM
My name is Jessica Wong, a resident of Santa Clara County.

I strongly oppose building the low-barrier container-style homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. Here are a few points of concern. I’d appreciate it if you take them seriously and respond with a detailed answer to address them.

Major concerns:

Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern.

No serious and prior research on the impact of this shelter on the surrounding neighborhood. 80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.

Admission of people with a criminal history and drug issues, essentially no screening procedures.

Admission of people with mental issues.

Stacked-up, container-style tiny homes create a subpar living environment even for the unhoused.

No specific plans for management; no guarantee for neighborhood safety and quality of life.

Proposed staff/residents ratio of 1:100, and a plan that would utilize only volunteers to treat the mental illness of residents
This location is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.

There is no solid data or evidence showing that LifeMoves’s Moutain View homeless shelter succeeded in reducing the homeless population in the city or improving the homeless's mental issues.

Homeless families with kids and/or some belongings will very likely avoid moving into this shelter due to fear of crimes and drug use. Since the shelter will design to have a “low entry barrier” (essentially no screening of residents at all), it is quite likely that people with a criminal background, history of drug use/dealing, and repeat offenses will stay here. It will not be surprising that homeless from other states with questionable backgrounds will show up in our neighborhoods.

From White Oak Lane to Benton & Lawrence, these choices of location have repeatedly shown that some of the elected officials put spending up taxpayer’s dollars before ensuring the safety of the community.

Requests:

I request that you address the 300+ questions raised by the attendees in the first community meeting held on Feb-13, 2023 instead of cherry-picking a few to answer and ignoring the majority.

I request that you provide the date, time, and location of the April meetings to be attended by LifeMoves, and city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared online & publicly accessible, so members of the community have a chance to join the discussion.

I request that the County always provide a virtual way (e.g. Zoom) to join the meetings that are held in person so that busy parents like me can participate.

I request that you provide verifiable research/study/data on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.

I request that you share the plans about how you are making sure that young kids and students are safely walking to/from schools.

I request that you share the plans about how to handle the potential increase in parking and traffic gave that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.

I request that you share how you would help the city of Santa Clara cope with the inevitable requirement to increase police funding/staffing in response to the increase in incidents/crimes in this area due to this shelter.

Are there any rules/regulations applicable to residents of the shelter? If they break the regulation, what accountability will be enforced?
What does the move-in process look like? Is there a maximum of time a resident can stay in this shelter? What is their day-to-day schedule (e.g. curfew)? Is the shelter designed to accommodate unhoused people from the city of Santa Clara only, or from the county, or from anywhere in the country? How do you enforce geographical restrictions, if any?
Please share the details of resident management, including Lifemoves’ plan, and source of first-year and long-term funding.

From:

To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on the Benton/Lawrence
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:54:54 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. If you are elected to represent our community, you should listen to the community's voice, show that you care about our opinon and our concerns!
This location is within walking distance to several elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single-family homes, apartments, and senior homes. Families stroll in the area with their kids. Young students walk to and from their schools daily. Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Savannah (resident on Benton st)
From: C L
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO to the homeless shelter of Lawrence & Benton Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 7:31:13 PM
Dear Consuelo,
I am a resident living in Santa Clara city. I write this email to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. I have elderly and kids at my home, and also this place is too close to so many elementary schools.

As a parent, a daughter, and member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the potential bad impact this shelter could have on the safety of our community.

Please vote No to the shelter. Please hear the voice from the community! Thanks,
Chen Liao
From: C L
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO to the homeless shelter of Lawrence & Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:58:42 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident living in Santa Clara city. I write this email to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. I have elderly and kids at my home, and also this place is too close to so many elementary schools.

As a parent, a daughter, and member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the potential bad impact this shelter could have on the safety of our community.

Please vote No to the shelter. Please hear the voice from the community! Best regards,
Chen Liao
From:

To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] We Need to STOP the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. STOP! STOP! STOP!
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:06:40 AM
I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

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

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

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

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

Regards,
BB Huang
Proud Resident of Santa Clara
From:

To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15:41 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Ben Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: Haiying Wu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:59:54 AM
Director, Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo Hernandez, Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Haiying Wu
Santa Clara , California 95051
From: Raymond Chi
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:59:47 AM
Director, Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo Hernandez, Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Raymond Chi
[email protected]
3271 Tracy Dr
Santa Clara, California 95051
From: Fay Dustin
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:19:10 AM
Director, Office of Supportive Housing Consuelo Hernandez, Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, As a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as soon as possible, and vote opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the interim housing like this.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Fay Dustin
Santa Clara, California 95051
From: Liz Goldman
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy; District1
Subject: [EXTERNAL] You should not build low-barrier shelter at Benton, and here are the reasons.

Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:45:14 PM
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale,
As a resident of BIrdland. I and every member in my family strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as low-barrier shelter as soon as possible, and vote in opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the low-barrier interim housing.

Reason 1: Gathering criminals, drug addicts, and mental-disordered without professional treatment together in one building will dramatically increase violence and danger to the neighborhood.

Reason 2: Data confirmed crime rate trippled for a similar site in Milpitas.

Neighborhood's concern on safety is real
The Report on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in 2022 showed that police-involved incidents have increased 300% compared to before the project was executed. Note, the Milpitas site is still isolated from the neighborhood. The closest house is ½ miles away. For Benton, the closest house is less than 20 ft away. The level of crime rate at the facility is unacceptable. It is a strong proof that a shelter can turn the area into a hotbed for crime. Despite three hearings, we have seen no progress or initiatives in addressing our safety concerns, especially on crimes. The truth is: City and County cannot ensure our safety in the face of a shortage of police resources. We want to strongly remind you that what Milpitas is currently experiencing will be Santa Clara’s problem in the future, and the damage to residential areas will only be greater.

This is not speculation, but rather a very real and ongoing situation.

Reason 3: No plan on operation fund and cost even after three community hearings. County and city just want to rush to approve to secure the last round of HomeKey funding.

Liz
From:

To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible hybrid community meeting? Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:35:02 PM
Counselo,
P.S., another point I want to add to below is that the existing Benton Lawrence lot is already zoned for residential, so there is no need to go through re-zoning process to convert it to residential. That adheres to my other point that the project is planned on a land that’s intended for its purpose.
“Please include the following comments to the community engagement report:

If an interim housing has to be built in Santa Clara, I think Benton and Lawrence is not a bad location. The property is bounded by two main streets that already have busy traffic; therefore, the project itself will not negatively increase the noise and traffic. The east side of property is a church, which is non-residential. There are residential homes at south of the property, but there is also a Calabazas Creek separating the property and the homes, creating a nice buffer between the two. All other residential communities are across the streets from Benton or Lawrence - they all have sound walls and the streets are very wide, so the impact to those homes will be minimal.

As for services and amenities, the site is across the street from a gas station and a strip mall - very convenient to the future occupants of project. There’s also a Kaiser hospital down the street on Homestead - it’s ideal for occupants who may need health care services. Next to Kaiser, there’s also a commercial plaza with more restaurants and services available. The location itself is convenient.

I understand the community has concerns about security and privacy with this project. These can be resolved by having proper security oversight, and build tall trees/barrier in area of concerns. I suggest having additional community workshops, getting inputs from neighbors on design of the site will be beneficial.

I also see that there is not a bus line close by on Benton and Lawrence, but there is bus services on Homesteads and El Camino within walking or biking. I suggest the project to provide sufficient on-site bike parking, and/or suggest the city to make a more pedestrianfriendly walking path on Lawrence, such as increasing the width of sidewalk and add barriers on the east side of Lawrence for safety. I believe that will also benefit nearby communities by having pedestrian/biking improvements on Lawrence.

I think this site is a good selection with minimal impact to the community. If the County decides to change the site to another location in Santa Clara, it will always be next to other schools and other homes. The problems will be the same, but shifting to another area, and it will become someone else’s problems. There has been suggestions to move this to a remote industrial area of Santa Clara, but that will leave the project occupants with no services or amenities.

I believe this site is great for what’s intended. I heard the site was already planned for RV parking or some sort of shelters, so building an interim housing there is not out of the line. The site is vacant with no existing structures, so no demolition is needed. Renovating existing structures can be more costly than putting new modular/prefab homes on a vacant lot.

Therefore, I support the site location for this project at Lawrence and Benton.” Sincerely,
-Cindy
On Mar 1, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:

There are several ways that you can share your comments.

1. Email staff and your email will be included with the community engagement report we will be publishing and sharing with our elected officials ([email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected])

2. Email City elected officials

3. Email Board President Ellenberg's as this site is located in her district [email protected]

4. Email Vice President Lee as his district abuts the site [email protected]
Thank you for staying engaged.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
-----Original Message-----
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible hybrid community meeting? Consuelo,
I am glad to hear the zoom option is being considered, and tonight’s and March 9’s meetings will be recorded and posted.

Also, If I have a few public comments to make to the decision makers of this site selection, who should I write to?
-Cindy
On Mar 1, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning Cindy,
We are working to add a fourth zoom meeting for the community.

Since we are hosting the in-person meetings at a local faith-based facility, we are limited in our ability to provide a hybrid option. We are going to see if there is a way to do this but not making any premature commitments at this time. We will be recording the meeting and posting it on the project website.

Thank you for staying engaged.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
-----Original Message-----
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Possible hybrid community meeting?
Hi Consuelo,
I support the LifeMoves project at Benton and Lawrence. However, I am not able to attend tonight’s and the next community meetings because I can’t make it in person. Is there a way to add a zoom option for the future community meeting on March 9?
Sincerely,
Cindy
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. 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
STAIN MASTER!.
11 w 111
Visualize your new
flooring
Use t he Lowe's Flooring Visualizer to see how
carpet options will look in virtual room scenes.
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.

ABC7 San Francisco SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - 4/19/23, 9:26 AM 3/8 https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 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.

Is SF's violent crime as 'horrific' as tech execs claim? Here's MORE:
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
01:12 01:11
Top Stories ,. .. l•l•
-
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
STAINMASTE~.

Visualize your new flooring
Use the Lowe's Flooring Visualizer to see how carpet
options will look in virtual room scenes.
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. 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
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
SafeSCC
Promoting Safe
Neighborhoods
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 residents1 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 illnesses2. 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 Clara3. 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 required4for 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 data5, 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 owner6. 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” criteria7, does not allow any vetting of residents. Santa Clara County’s own statistics8 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.

Total Events:

Past 3-Years
8 Does not include Patrol Check events
e 43.3 - Average number of Calls for
Service for August through October
Total PD Calls by Month
60 51 51 53 50
so 43
40 I- 34
z
Ii ::::, 30 27 0
iii Jj Iii
24 (..)
ii 20 17 15 ii
13 10
a ii ii Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
450
400
350
300
~ 250
:::,
8 200
150
100
so
a
41 36
11 Sep
Total PD Calls by Year
393
206
ii
46 19
15 16
ii I J Oct Nov Dec
2020
2021
2022 YTD*
*October 31
2020
2021
2022 YTD*

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
TYPE OF CALI (All)
LifeMoves Mountain View Leghorn Incidents
Month 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total
1 9 10 19
2 1 11 12 24
3 1 4 5
4 11 11
5 4 14 18
6 11 12 23
7 11 12 23
8 15 13 28
9 19 23 42
10 2 12 7 21
11 9 7 16
12 13 18 31
Grand Total 1 3 94 141 22 261
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 KQED9that 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/ Count of EVENT NUMBER Year
TYPE OF CALL 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total
211 Robbery 1
242 Battery 2
261 Rape
273.5 Domestic Violence
415 Disturbance 12 10 24
422 Death Threats 1 2 3
487 Grand Theft
488 Petty Theft
647 Drunk In Public
1021 Phone Ca ll
1033 Alarm
1062 Subject Possibly Wanted
1065 Missing Person 4
1095 Pedestrian Stop
1154 Suspicious Vehicle
1182 Accident
1195 Car Stop
10851Stolen Vehicle
602L
7V
ATC
BOL
CIVIL
CPSRPT
FCRIME
FDASST
FIREINFO 34 69 108
FOOT 19 31
FOUND 1
FU
HS
INFO
NR-MV
PR 3
SERVMIS 4

SPECIAL
SUSCIRC 1
WELCHK 4 1
Grand Total 94 141 22 261

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.

Number of Calls in Year Before/After Interim Housing Sites Opened IMaburyRd. (opened Feb.2020)
I Yeartiefo,eopening I Yearafte,opening
FireOept.calls -
!mc<lic~I)' -
FireOept.call, (fi re -
andotherservicesl' -
'lnvolvingsuspectedindividua/se"pe,iencinghome/essness
#ofc~Us
Source:SanJos<eoepanmentofHousing;DepanmentofPark,.RecreationandNeighborhoodServkes ChJttbyMatthewGreen/l(Q[D
Number of Calls in Year Before/After Interim Housing Sites Opened 1Ev•n•lue(openedllpril20ll)
l vearbefo,eopenini l vea r afteropen,ni
lllegaldumpi ng~
FireDept.calls -
lmedical)' -
FireOept.calls(fi,e -
aodother,..rvices)' -
'lnvoMng,usp«redindMduai,experiencmghcmele.,ne.,
Source:SanJosE!Departmentof Housi ng;De panmentofPa,ks.RecreationandNeighborhoodServices ChartbyM3tthewGreen/KQED
Number of Calls in Year Before/After Interim Housing Sites Opened IMonten,y&.Bernal(openedOd.2020) ,..I
I Ycarl>cforcopcning l Ycaraltc,opcning
Illegal dumping
Grafin,m"
FireOEpt.calls I (medical)'
FireOept.caU, (fire -
andotherservices)' -
#ofc~lls
'lnvo/vingwspectedindividualse"periencinghome/essness
Source:SanJoS<!Oepa,tmentofHousing;Depanmento/Parks.RecreationandNeighborhoodServices ChartbyMatthewGreen/KQED
Number of Calls in Year Before/After Interim Housing Sites Opened IRue Ferrarl(openedFeb. 1011)
I Yearbeloreopeoing l Yea,afte,opening
FircD<,ptcalls -
(medical)'
FireDEpt.calls(fire -
andotherservices)' 1111
'/nvolllingsu,p,;<:tedindividua/se"fM'iencinghome/e;sngs Sou,ce:SanJoseoepanmentofHousing;Depanmento/Parks,Rec reationandNeighborhoodServices Chartby/olartlu!wGre.,njliQED

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 guests10. 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) Type of Calls for Service Call Category
Burglary/Theft
Disorders
Drug Related
Mental Health/Health
Suspicious Activity
Violation
Violence
Welfare Check
Other
Examples
Commercial Burglary, Residential Burglary, Found property, Grand theft, Petty theft, Receive/possess stolen prop,
Recovered stolen vehicle, Robbery, Stolen vehicle, Tampering with a vehicle, Theft, Vehicle burglary
Disorder (combined events, family, fight, music, neighbor, unknown, weapon)
Controlled Substance, Possession, Possession for Sale,
Under the influence
Suicide, Attempted suicide, Mentally disturbed person,
Possible dead body
Suspicious circumstances, Suspicious person, Suspicious package, Suspicious vehicle, Suspicious alarm
Municipal code violation, Vehicle violation, Violation of protective order, Weapons Violation, Traffic hazard
Assault, Assault with deadly weapon, Battery, Resist Arrest, Domestic violence, Attempted Homicide, Homicide, Rape,
Carjacking
Welfare check
Arson, Fraud/Forgery, Sex Reg, Family Neglect/Abuse, Liquor Laws, Drunk, Gambling, DUI , Trespass, Prowling, Animal Noise, Accident, Warrants , Officer Fill, Courtesy Service, Civil Problem, Property Tows, E911 Hang-up, Registrants ,
Vandalism, Court Order Violation
Total Events: Total PD Calls by Year
Past 3-Years
f> Does not include Patrol Check events
f> 43.3 - Average number of Calls for
Service for August through October
Total PD Calls by Month
51 50 51 53
~
§ : iii Ji iii ii ii ii ii Ap, Ma,
~ 250
8 200
206
ii
393
2020
2021
2022 YTD•
"October31
2020
2021
2022 YTD•
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.

Count of EVENT NUMBER Year
TYPE Of CALL 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total
211 Robbery 1
242 Battery 2 2
261 Rape 2 2
273 .5 Domestic Violence
415 Disturbance 12 10 24
422 Death Threats 2 3
487 Grand Theft 1
488 Petty Theft
647 Drunk In Public 2
1021 Phone Call 1 2
1033Alarm 2 2
1062 Subject Possibly Wanted 2
1065 Missing Person 2 4
1095 Pedestrian Stop
1154 Suspicious Vehicle
1182 Accident 2
1195 Car Stop 1
10851Stolen Vehicle 2 3
602L 2 6 8
7V
ATC 2
BOL
CIVIL s CPSRPT 3 6
FCRIME 1
FDASST 3 s FIREINFO 34 69 s 108
FOOT 19 9 3 31
FOUND 1 1
FU 2 3
HS
INFO
NR-MV 1 1
PR 6 3 9
SERVMIS 2 4 7

SPECIAL
SUSCIRC 6 8
WELCHK 4 1 1 6
Grand Total 1 3 94 141 22 261
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.

Reed Ave Monroe S
• \
e : ARK Elem!~~=; =~i~dle \ Wilcox High - 1.4 mile
~ALY COR~:RS PO DEROSA ! i
L • GLEN Ponderosa El entary - 0 ~~" 0 il~e i.,, . • u~ ~~~ ~ ~ • Gateway High- /
us,
TS

0.75 mile Brarw1 od Elementaryo.9! mile
he a· Within 1 milf!Je"'
,nt Ave India Cash
Pet 'f son Middle -
A PARK i!).63 mile
a' •
Laurelwo~
Elementary new si

0.38 miif •
Basis Lower s • ool - 0. • -7
••
v1arket9 •
8 ~ r lrfffid Elementary
NEIGHS .26mile e
•• Kaiser Permanente
Santa Clara Medical Ctr
Schools John Sutter Elemen
• -0.81 mile • Daycare Centers
• Senior Homes
• Parks and Swim Center
Pa N -0
~ entary1
Central Parke
ementary School
-1.0mile
- [7
Highile • hool
e hopCi)

0.38 mile
Rd :r.:, 1;~
iljgin Basu:)!+
Elem~ - 1.:t'mile
I?
I
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 years12. 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 plan13 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 sale14. ● 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

SITE PLAN
First floor
Supporting:
• 124 units - currently
planned for
individuals and
couples
Ensuite bathrooms
• Stairways and
Elevators
ADA Compliant
80 Parking Spaces -·
--
FIRSTFLOOfl
---
--- ""'
......
llftMOffl

SANTA CLARA
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 increased16. 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 AREA 3: SAFETY AND SECURITY
Site Specific Rules & Community Guidelines

ABSOLUTELY NO ORUGS OR ALCOHOL ARE ALLOWED
ON LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.

ABSOLUTELY NO WEAPONS ARE ALLOWED ON
LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.

ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL ASSAULT. GESTURES. OR
THREATS OF VIOLENCE.

ABSOLUTELY NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

ABSOLUTELY NO VERBAL ABUSE INCLUDING OFFENSIVE
LANGUAGE. HARRASSMENT. AND RACIAL SLURS.

ABSOLUTELY NO ENGAGING IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES
ON OR OFF PREMISES.

ABSOLUTELY NO DESTRUCTION. VANDALISM. OR THEFT
OF LIFEMOVES OR ANOTHER CLIENT'S PROPERTY.
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.
•
•
Neighborhood Safety
•
Public Safety Data on Milpitas Homekey Project
Total police calls increased by 300% in 2022
Councilmember Chua and Vice Mayor Carmen Montano chal lenged Consuelo t hat the county had changed the admission criteria without informing the cit y, and their screening process is not working.

Ziploc bags of meth were found on site.

Problemat ic tenants and drug addictions were not likely to be removed from t he site due to State law.
• Only 10 Milpitas homeless live w it hin the 132 units apartment. =··
o No staff onsite to repair elevator, fire alarm, smoke detector, et c.
o Tenants from the business park next door uwere Leaving, and the business owner put the property on sale becaus e of the negative impacts from Hillview Ct. "
h/(Q$/Anm: YOtl/Vbft com(welfb?v-RRWffdffl g«,t;9458s !lf8f!S 2:37:00 D!IPn'Annr\:'PWUkcCQm,1/w'.fsq/JdTipmlf?t@NUfftSffitvfHSf=257Q s/arfs4J:OO Neighborhood Safety
Public Safety Data on Milpitas Homekey Project
As of November 2022:
o Striking crime rate remained
o Counci lmember Kari na R. Dominguez (who is t he initial supporter for t his project) visited the site one day prior to city's scheduled check. and commented angri ly: There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors ... carpets and re strooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors ... no eviction for crimes. "These need to be addressed immediately."
As of February 2023:
o Milpitas requested addit ional police officers to be funded by County since August 20 22, but has yet to receive a response from the County.
o Disabled occupants are stuck due to broken elevator for at least 8 months. "It goes down at least once a week", said Reeve. one of t he residents.
"Tenants are afraid for their lives." - Karina, council member "People are afraid to come out of their rooms. I don 't leave my room without an open knife."
-~• - Reeve, resident of 1000 HIiiview Ct buos·{Ayww rouWPff aorndi&ts2 JldDPml/?feat,,w•sbace&./:lQIQ starts 4:wo hUDs'/1aix:ZMws GQO'IOl//lvj(tW::CQUt1·1t®t1rort01$-roi/PhltS·SCWQ9t1fvtt·OOJ${QQ·brolmo:rt/rtYJl(Q(-{iisab/fHt·atsJdrtOIS::ftldftrlr/1285618V Total Events: TotalPDC.lbbvV.,ar
Past 3-Years
e Does not include Patrol Check events
e 43.3 - Average number of Calls for
Service for August through October
Total PD Calls by Month
.LI
"When compare the crime statistics,
Hillview Ct will outpace any apartment
complex in the city of Milpitas."
- Jared Hernandez, Milpitas Police Chief
"Screening process needs to improve.

Because obviously the residents you
are selecting are committing crimes."
BurgtaryfTheft
Drug Re lated
Mental Health/Health
Suspicious Activity
Violation
VIOlenoo
ou,. ,
- Carmen Montano, Mayor of Milpitas
Commercial &irglary, Residential Burglary, Found property, Grand theft, Petty theft, RecetVWpoisMH istolen prop,
Recovered stolen vehicle, Robbery, Stolen vehicle, Tampering with a vehicle, Then, Vehicle burglary
Disorder (combined events, family, f"ight, music, neighbor, unknown, weapon)
Controlled Substance, Possession, Possession for Sale,
Under the influence
Suicide, Attempted suicide, Mentally disturbed person,
Posslble dead body
Suspicious circumstances, Suspicious person, Suspicious package, Su6piclouis vehicle, Suspicious alarm
Municipal code vlolallon, Vehicle violation, Violation of protective order, Weapons Violation, Traffic hazard
A6saull, Assault with deadly weapon, Battery, Resist Arrest, Domestic violence, Attempted Homicide, Homicide, Rape,
Carjacking
Welfare check
Arson. Fraud/FOf88ry, Sex Reg. FamHy Neglect/Abuse. Llqua lt1ws, Drunk, Gt1mbling, DUI, Tresp8ss, Prowling, Animt1I Noise. Accldenl , Warrants, Officer Fill, Courtesy Service. Civil Problem , Property Tows, EQ11 Ht1ng-up, Registrants,
vandalism. court Order Violation
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 Credibility and accountability
Failure to Fulfill Commitment: Evidence from LifeMoves MTV • 2nd lowest successful rate
o 281 clients exited the program between its opening May 2021 and September 2022, only 73 individuals. or 26%. were placed in perm anent housing, the 2nd lowest rate of successful exit in the county.
• Disqualified management and staffing:
•
•
o Former client physically assaulted by the first program director in 2021, t here is still an outstanding arrest warrant for the director
o A former client reported multiple sexual harassment cases: however. the second site director cannot remove the harassers due to LifeMoves' policy against relocating drug addicts from the site until they conquer their addiction-a feat that is nearly impossible in 90-120 days.
0 Shuffled at least 3 directors within only 1.5 years of operation Services are missing:
o Multiple clients never received specialized support in searching for housing o Shortage of case managers. housing specialists; no licensed nurses (only interns).

Crimes to the nearby business:
o Testimony from nearby business has reported burglaries and littering issues.

Consequently, they hired a 24/7 security guard at t heir own expense. o MTV has added dedicated police force to patrol at the site.

Source: bltps-flwwwatroaoacnews mmloewSr'2PZWlC1MiferuoYf!S:iZIPCmtaio-Yiew.pmmises·¼:belP:boarelt:ss::dieats·liod·slabkt·bousina·lo·tham·WPOlhs·lhe:vasf·roalorirlffiQOJ hthU'//Q(l/ga/[QQOlinff cqm/tJffW&'W2:WV3QJ1ifamove5iJNWD:WD-vieW:9roroiMM!h'2ftln:-h2roffhW-CliAnl$·find-/ilaPffl-M!1sjnq-in-lhree-roonthHhff-YBS/-rmt/9rlty-dQnf LifeMoves Mountain View
■ Unknown or place unfit for habi~tion
Lifemoves MTV has the
second lowest rate of
successful exit, 26%.

The other shelters ahead of
Lifemoves range from 41%
to 70% of clients moving into
permanent housing. Many
returned to street and
chose not to extend the
contract with Lifemoves.

Hillview in Milpitas, where ziploc bags of meth were found in the surrounding neighborhood17 ,
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 fence19.

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 tenants20. 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 businesses21. 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 Community Hearing Highlights - County and LifeMoves consistently provide false and misleading information Topic Question/Concern County/LifeMoves said ... Fact Check Terminology County and LifeMoves "Shelter" is an old model, which is totally different from "Shelter" and " interim/supportive housing" are used interchangeably in provided false and "interim/supportive housing" that Benton is proposed past community meetings by Consuelo. They are the same thing, meaning misinformation and intend to for. the target population is homeless and onsite supportive service will be mislead the city and the provided.
community 1000 Hillview Ct, Milpitas is a permanent supportive housing.

Safety Impact on crime rates or Consuelo said no data have showed crime would > 300% increase in police calls at and around Milpitas' 1000 Hillview Ct service calls on the site or increase in and near the shelter Apartments; Consuelo attended the meeting and acknowledged the neighborhood significant crime surge.

Safety Number of Schools Nearby First time knew nothing about number of schools 15 schools with 10,483 students; Second time counted only 4 within 1.5 miles At least 31 daycares within 1.5 miles Third time missed all the schools west of Lawrence
Safety Pedestrian safety concern No one will walk passing by the location, as there is no Pedestrian paths in every direction. Regular foot traffic from families, path available for walking past it. seniors, couples with strollers, and students on weekdays and weekends.

Students frequently visit the 711 across Benton for snacks.

Location Proximity to Grocery Walking distance to necessities 0.9 miles or minimum 18 minutes walk to nearest grocery Location Proximity to Health Services Kaiser is close by Kaiser requires insurance; Only emergency services without insurance Location Local Homeless Folks Homeless individuals are already present in the area. Allocation based on queue, no guarantee of housing Santa Clara's We should provide them with shelter here. homeless in this shelter; Milpitas facility data shows only 10 Milpitas homeless in 132-unit apartment; as of 2022, two years since its launch, only 25 out of 274 homeless in Milpitas have been housed Location Proximity to bus stop Public transportations is very close by The closest bus stop is on El ~ & Henderson, 1 miles away from the Benton location, and 21 min walk.

Location Proximity to liquor store Ignored Across the street. Research shows that people with mental illnesses who frequently consume alcohol experience worsened symptoms, leading to an increased propensity for violence and criminal behavior.

Credibility and accountability - County and LifeMoves consistently provide false and misleading info (con't) Topic Question/Concern CountyllifeMoves said ... Fact Check Data on County and LifeMoves MTV's homeless number dropped because of the Mountain view city's homeless number dropped: is because of the homeless provided false and shelter built new RV parking restriction! number misinformation and intend After Mountain View banned oversized vehicles from parking on the to mislead the city and the community majority of city streets in 2019 and began enforcing those rules in 2022, Lieber speculated, some of Mountain View's homeless population may have relocated to areas that are more lax about RV street parking.

Data on Impact on crime rates or Consuelo sited KOED's news that complaints are That statement is very misleading. First, none of the five San Jose crime rate service calls on the site or down after interim housing sites opened. sites in that news are in the residential area. They all in industrial neighborhood area. Second, the bar chart in the presentation shows the total -- _., number for all the five sites. because one site is much larger than the .......... ___ _.,. __ other four so it skews the average. If you filter by sites, you will find 3 J out of 5 sites have increased crime numbers compared with -- ~- before they were open. This data also didn't take into account many --- types of crime, such as violence, drug-related, mental disordered, theft -- and ~ crime . So to sum up, the data supporters provided in fact is ...... -- exactly consistent with the milpitas interim housing data we found. !;!:=!;--- which is the crime rate tripled after the site opened. The crime rate is - . - - - - . - - - unacceptable.
··-
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.

MICHAEL YAMAMOTO LLP

SENT VIA EMAIL
Nora Pimentel
City of Santa Clara Clerk's Office
1500 Warbmton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
April 19, 2023

SENT VIA EMAIL
Glen Googins, Esq.

City Attorney's Office
1400 Shattuck Ave., #412
Berkeley, CA 94709
T: 510.296.5600
F: 510.296.5600
https://my.law/
Dorothy C. Yamamoto
dorothy@my .law
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
FOR THE CITY HALL APRJL 25, 2023, MEETING AGENDA
Re: Proposed Temporary Housing at Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Notice to Cure or Correct; Potential Legal Issues
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers, and Boardmembers:

Our law firm represents neighbors in the Benton community who are committed to identifying meaningful ways to assist the homeless while still preserving the safety of their community. The purpose of this letter is twofold:
(1) to provide notice to the City of the need to cure or correct current legal violations regarding the proposed Homekey project to construct interim housing at the Lawrence and Benton intersection ("Benton Project"); and (2) to notify the City of some of the potential legal risks it faces should it vote "yes" on the proposed Benton Project at the April 25, 2023, City Council meeting based on currently available public information.

Notice to Cure and Correct

1. The Benton Project Is Subject to CEQA Review Despite the Homekey CEQA Exemption Statute.

The County of Santa Clara incorrectly claims California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.1.4 (i.e., "AB 140" or the "Homekey CEQA Exemption") exempts the Benton Project Re: Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Current and Potential Legal Issues
April 19, 2023
from CEQA review because the Benton Project would be funded by Homekey. 1 The Homekey CEQA Exemption only exempts housing projects that meet all nine requirements delineated in the statute, including the requirement that the housing project "does not result in an increase in the existing onsite development footprint of structure, structures, or improvements by more than 10 percent." Cal. Health & Safety § 50675. l .4(a)(9). If all nine requirements are not met, then the housing project remains subject to CEQA. In other words, the Homekey CEQA Exemption is only intended to apply to Homekey projects that entail remodeling/ converting pre-existing structures; not projects that involve erecting a new structure on a vacant lot.

Here, the Benton Project is not remodeling a pre-existing building and thus is not exempt from CEQA under Health and Safety Code Section 50675.1.4. The Benton Project entails constructing a completely new four-story building, consisting of up to 120 units on the vacant lot, which will result in a 100% increase of structures on the lot since the lot currently has zero buildings on it. Thus, the Benton Project does not qualify for CEQA exemption under this statute.

Furthermore, the Benton Project does not qualify for other exemptions under CEQA such as the "commonsense exemption." "[I]f a reasonable argument is made to suggest a possibility that a project will cause a significant environmental impact, the agency must refute that claim to a certainty before finding the exemption applies." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 106, 118 [bold emphasis added; italics in the original].) As the California Supreme Comt recently held, a reasonable argument of environmental impact exists if new construction could theoretically change patterns of foot and automobile traffic around the area. (Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 1171, 1198.) Here, the Benton Project poses a high possibility of causing a significant environmental impact and thus the City must refute the claim to a certainty before finding that an exemption applies or undergo CEQA review. For instance, the Benton Project anticipates constructing 80 additional parking spaces, which demonstrates that the County itself already anticipates a substantial change to patterns of automobile traffic around the once vacant lot. Moreover, the are less than the 120 units that are anticipated to be built. Other foreseeable environmental impacts also include possible contamination of the Calabazas Creek, which currently flows into the Bay.

Given these foreseeable impacts on the environment, the City should comply with its statutory obligations before rushing to approve a project, especially one that is based on false information.

Potential Legal Issues

2. Violation of Due Process Clause
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees prope1ty owners due process of law when the government interferes with their 1 See "Frequently Asked Questions, Is the Benton and Lawrence site already zoned for the proposed shelter and does the General Plan allow for this use?" https://osh.sccgov.org/projecthomekey-scc/benton#3925 l 88384-2245695837 (last visited April 17, 2023)

Page 2 of 5 ends

MK:HAE
~ L YAMAMOTO l lP
Re: Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Current and Potential Legal Issues
April 19, 2023
prope1iy interests. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. A substantive due process claim exists when a deprivation of one's property interest transpired in such a way that it "shocks the conscience" or "interferes with the rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." (Corales v. Bennett, 567 F .3d 554, 568 (9th Cir. 2009) ( citations omitted).

Indeed, acts that "shock the conscience" include instances where the government acts in a manner that creates a dangerous situation for citizens, such as putting citizens at an increased risk of harm by moving forward with a rushed proposal based on false information. (See Hernandez v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2018), 897 F.3d 1125, 1138 [recognizing the state-created danger doctrine]; Woodv. Ostrander (9th Cir. 1988) 851 F.2d 1212, 1214 [holding an intentional assertion of government power that tended to show a disregard of the plaintiffs physical safety may amount to gross negligence, recklessness or deliberate indifference sufficient for a substantive due process claim].)
Here, the City risks violating the neighbors in the Benton community's substantive due process rights by approving a proposal that relies on false and incorrect information from the County and LifeMoves. For instance, the proposal contains key omissions of fact, such as the fact that the Benton Project would be built in the middle of the highest concentration of daycare facilities and K-12 schools compared to all other Santa Clara communities.2 Similarly, the proposal also fails to address or rectify several publicly known deficiencies with Santa Clara's Care of Continuum, of which the Benton Project is a pa1i, which have not yet been addressed and essentially guarantee the failure of the Benton Project at the risk of the safety, health, and constitutional rights of the neighbors in the Benton community. For instance, per the California State Auditor Report 2020-112 dated February 2021, Santa Clara's Care of Continuum was critically deficient in adequately assessing whether the types of service providers and number of service providers that exist in the CoC area are sufficient to effectively combat homelessness in an area.

This deficiency identified by the State Auditor-i.e., Santa Clara's inadequacy of assessing the types of service providers needed and quantity of providers needed for a housing project-has a direct impact on the amount of crime, violence, drug use, and continued homelessness in an area around a Project Homekey development as noted by a study in 2022 conducted and published by the Pacific Research Institute. Specifically, the study found that the lack of such service providers was a critical component to failed Project Homekey eff01is implemented in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose. Indeed, the study concluded that such deficiencies were tied to the failure of Project Homekey housing developments in those cities, whereby those cities continued to experience increases in homelessness, continued crime, drug use, and overdose deaths around the project areas.

Such deficiencies are also presumably the reason why similar housing projects in Mountain View, Milpitas, and Kifer have failed. Milpitas observed a 3x increase in crime around the homeless housing facility as there was insufficient staff and supp01i to effectively operate the 2 See Slide 8 of powerpoint presentation presented at the April 4, 2023, meeting.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Re: Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Current and Potential Legal Issues
April 19, 2023
facility. Similar spikes of crime were witnessed in other areas. The Benton Proposal only copies these already tried-and-failed projects. By rushing forward with the proposal-despite objective evidence indicating the inevitable failure of such a proposal that risks an increase of crime, health, and safety to existing residents-would undoubtably demonstrate a reckless or deliberate indifference to Santa Clara residents physical safety in violation of their substantive due process rights.

3. Public Nuisance (Cal. Civ. Code§§ 3490, et seq.)
California has defined nuisance as "[a]nything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property .... " (Cal. Civ. Code§ 3479.) In addition to health and safety hazards, "[a] reduction in property values caused by activities on a neighboring piece of land, and an assault on the senses by noise, dust, and odors, are just the kinds of harm that common law suits to abate a nuisance are designed to redress." (Solid Waste Agency of N Cook Cty. v. US.

Army Corps of Eng'rs (7th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d 503, 505.) The adoption of the Benton Project proposal in this rushed manner and based on false information without adequate correction of the negative effects such a proposal will have on the community will undoubtably result in a public nuisance. As already communicated to the City in prior meetings, the Benton Project mirrors already tried-and-failed homeless shelter projects around the area including Mountain View, Milpitas, Kifer, and Bella Vista (Santa Clara) that have faced significant increases in crime due to financial unsustainability, poor management, low staffing, and under prioritized handling of addiction and mental health problems. Project Benton does not address any solutions to these issues. As a result, there is a high likelihood that the Santa Clara community will imminently experience a substantial and unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property and will be threatened with respect to his or her or their health and welfare by reason of the increased threat of disease, human waste, trash, and drug use on the sidewalks and streets.

4. Possible Violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 54952.2 (Brown Act prohibition against serial meetings). 3
California Government Code Section 54952.2 prohibits a majority of members of a legislative body to engage in a series of private communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the City's jurisdiction. This prohibition applies to situations where the majority of members directs one specific individual to engage in such private communications on their behalf, or uses such 3 The neighbors in the Benton community also reserve any legal issues related to the deficiencies in the City Council's Notice of Public Hearing detailing the City's potential sponsorship of the Santa Clara County's Project Homekey application, which include an etTor regarding the address of the Benton Project and the fact that the notice was distributed only within 1000 feet of the construction site.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Re: Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Current and Potential Legal Issues
April 19, 2023
privately obtained information to collectively take action on an item of business without sharing such information with the public. (See Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Members of Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 95, 103.)
Here, neighbors in the Benton community are aware that councilmember Suds Jain has been privately meeting with LifeMoves repeatedly and exchanging information that is never published, released, or noticed to the public. It is currently unclear whether Suds Jain has acted pursuant to the instruction of the majority of City Council members, or exchanged information with the majority of City Council members gained from these private meetings. Neighbors in the Benton community are aware that they may need to request records pursuant to the California Public Records Act to more fully investigate the issue. But in the meantime, if the City Council has been persuaded by privately gathered information, the City Council should not approve the measure until the public has a meaningful oppmtunity to review the private information and communications exchanged between Suds Jain and LifeMoves.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the neighbors in the Benton community emphasize that that they are not opposed to the ultimate goal of housing the homeless to help them transition to a more stable living. But the residents know that mimicking tried-and-failed methods will not meaningfully effectuate any noble goal and instead only dramatically endangers current residents.

In light of the above concerns, my client respectfully encourages the City to vote "no" on the Benton Project or postpone the decision until the City can undergo CEQA review and provide its residents with the opportunity to review the information discussed privately with LifeMoves.

Sincerely,
Dorothy C. Yamamoto, Esq.

Page 5 of 5 ends

MICHAEL YAMAMOTO lLP
..

Promoting Safe
Neighborhoods
April 14, 2023
Dear Council Members, c2fJ
r. 'T". OF r: '\Ti\ f'.Lf..,RI\ , , , TV r' r
'
On April 25th, you will vote on the~omekey project in partnership with LifeMoves at Benton & Lawrence xpressway in Santa Clara. SafeSCC, a grassroot association of residen~e in Santa Clara, presented in City Hall today and submitted a petition qh be.half of local residents who strongly oppose the proposal, with ~1 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. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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.

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 90-200 residents would also put tremendous pressure on traffic, parking, waste management, internet speed, power supply, water supply, and Bioretention Compliance. While the Homekey project can 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.

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 reiect the Benton proiect. 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
Please sign, date wUh your address then return to :Y.Lu:J.0111ef:c1-·.C:.,'w1h1CluraS111111n'l't!euikmui/.co111. Please note that signing 011 electronic devices (e.g. tablet. PC) is not considered a wet signalure. {{you do nor have access lo a printe,; simply write "I strongly oppose the shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway'' on a piece l?(
paper then sign, date with address in the same way
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

As a local resident, I understand that people experiencing homelessness is a big issue that our community must solve. However, I am very concerned about the HomeKey project "Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Shelter".

I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location because Ef Bella Vista, only 0.5 miles away, is already being converted into a facility for the homeless. 0 The characteristics of the Benton location & the method of modular construction (stacked-up container-style tiny houses) are identical to White Oak Lane project, reiected in 2021 by the City of Santa Clara based on safety and other serious concerns. � Forfeit of a playground, a seasonal pumpkin patch & Christmas tree shop for kids of all ages.

ISJ!No screening for shelter residents, admitting people released fi:om jail, with criminal background, with history of or ongoing drug abuse. In all practicalities, they may pose risks to the high-density residential areas, to visitors of parks, to kids in many daycares, schools, playgrounds in this area. ef The project lacks transparency and outreach efforts.

D Additional conunents:
1 urge you to engage with us, hear out our genuine concerns and discuss/explore alternative locations. It is with that said that I request that you vote NO on this project: Benton Street at Lawrence Expresswav Service Enriched Shelter
Name (Print): ___ , :::..,:_> \,,.:_,'--"C=, -�::....,\u:,'\·ti,..:,.. ✓ _ _:{_:�\:::...c�l.s.:. -
d,t.:..1
.,__ ___ i _
i (
,,,-Address:----------�--
i I Date: .:.:.; / C I / /
� I fl � 1
;._ Name (P1·1·nt).· 0 · � 0 Y 1
1 __ ___,,
' S:\,;..:,.,_.,_l_'-'( \-"-1\.\'------'{N"-, _,._).:c..."':...::• 6'--" A,1J4..i. ____ _
/ ;�Address: ___________ <...:..! ________________________ _ I Du� S ,_<_��
I
I
\ Name (Print): _____ \ .. ...1-h_,_,u"'-L"'-:-'-,(-=<4'-._,,___,,_2_,_e_,J}=:'l.-/�_''.,1_,, __ _ Signature: _---1�•/_--_·-_ •.. _ ..... _· _______ _ -�ddress: ___________ .....:::.'--.:...\ ________________________ _ Date:

Excerpt from petition submitted (2 form letters)- See Below Signature: _~_--_--l.1._..,/c::::__ _ _ ___ ____ _
,Ii\/\ .,, jl.1Jr._,,1: \--. \/ \ 0
( 1..,,_;
___ /2023
I
I
_l__ ; _~S°- I 2023
I
I
t
To the Representatives of the city of Santa Clara and the county of Santa Clara, As a local resident. I understand that people experiencing homelessness is a big issue that our community needs to solve. However, I am very concerned about the Homekey project site proposed for Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway.

I oppose the proposed Homekey site due to the following reasons:

Er' Losing a community playground, seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas tree shopping for kids at all ages.
d Potential safety risks to the high-density residential areas and to parks, schools and child playgrounds.
0 The proposed location is not fit for individuals in need of shelter.

IS2f The project lacks transparency and outreach efforts. 121 Additional justifications or explanations regarding the aforementioned points:

I urge you to engage with us and have more public hearings to discuss alternative location choices and answer public concerns.

It is with that said that I request you vote NO on this project:

Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Ser-vice Enriched Shelter Please sign below. Multiple people can use the same petition, and thank you for letting the neighbors know about this!!
Name (Print) Signature Address
He { Q.,V\ r C'\A J) it
r: -· , Y,(i}\ .;,·, ..:, '5 eve
J)ttff_
Complete Petition Submitted on April 14, 2023
4/28/2023
1 Evaluation of
the Benton LifeMoves Project
by Safe Santa Clara
April 25, 2023
Agenda
Part I: Community Sentiment
Part II: Project Evaluation

1. : Environmental Impacts

2. : Neighborhood Safety

3.: Location Concerns 2.4:

Site Specific Concerns

5. : Fiscal and Developer Concerns

6. : Credibility and Accountability of the County and LifeMoves Part VIII: Alternative Plan and Benton Proposal
Part IV: Conclusion
1 2
4/28/2023
2 Part I: Community Sentiment
5293 wet signatures from local residents strongly opposing Benton project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWdCFJ8DDHg
Part I: Community Sentiment
Participants in Community Meetings
● 80%+ strongly oppose Benton
project
● Project supporters include
professionals from housing advocacy
organizations who do not live in the
neighborhood
3 4
4/28/2023
3 Part I: Community Sentiment
Hundreds of local residents protests against Benton project at Earl R Carmichael Park, Mission City Church, and Santa Clara City Hall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEhXev9F0Ms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gY8mUCrEO0 Part II
Project Evaluation
5 6
4/28/2023
4 Part 2.1
Environmental Impacts
Environmental Impacts
● High Density - up to 248 people on 1 acre land
● Increase in foot traffic at this busy intersection (Lawrence, Benton, Floral Vista)
● Increase in vehicle traffic
● Increase in parking
● Waste Management
● Bioretention Compliance
7 8
4/28/2023
5 Part 2.2
Neighborhood Safety
Neighborhood Safety
Low Barrier Entry
● Criminal background
● Serious mental problems
● Drug addictions
Understaffed police force
“Low barrier entry…we prefer to take, to be honest, the more challenging elements of the population”
- Brian Greenberg, LifeMoves
9 10
HOM ELESSNESS IN SANTA CLARA - CY 2021
I ,. I I
7 69 individuals "afflllated" with the City of Santa Claro • 57% with serious physlcal or mental health conditions 50% chronlco lly homeless (disabled and unhoused 1 2+ months) • 34% have experience of domestic violence or trafficking Sy Age By Household Type
10 I I I - • WhhAdul110nly
" • W!thAduhsondChlldren I • UnoccomponledO.lldr""
~ N1td for lnte,im Hoij~ing

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

2.Who,• doloubmilmy"-9f,l,obOUllhhp«>po>oJt
J. Why a,e you<ontido,lngiot0<lm"""'ln9 ao:,dno, .,_,___,t~atlhhlllef ,. Why dooi S,,,,ra Clora Jlffd toP<0¥1delot• rlm """'in9'

5.Hawhlhh !ypeollotffimhoutlngdill••""""'°"""'ll'~l•Mlllng"

6. Who,..IN b.al""-d to,tay ol lho poloftllalr.l• rlm~>ll<>f 4/28/2023
6 Public Safety Data on Milpitas Homekey Project
● Total police calls increased by 300% in 2022
● 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.
● Ziploc bags of meth were found on site.
● 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.”
“When compare the crime statistics,
Hillview Ct will outpace any apartment
complex in the city of Milpitas.”
- Jared Hernandez, Milpitas Police Chief
“Screening process needs to improve.

Because obviously the residents you
are selecting are committing crimes.”
- Carmen Montano, Mayor of Milpitas
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:37:00 https://www.youtube.com/live/1sqJldTlpmU?feature=share&t=2570, starts 43:00 Neighborhood Safety
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/live/1sqJldTlpmU?feature=share&t=2570, starts 43:00 https://abc7news.com/hillview-court-apartments-milpitas-supportive-housing-broken-elevator-disabled-residents-elderly/12856383/ Neighborhood Safety
– Reeve, resident of 1000 HIllview Ct
Public Safety Data on Milpitas Homekey Project
● 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.”
● 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.
“Tenants are afraid for their lives.” – Karina, councilmember "People are afraid to come out of their rooms. I don't
leave my room without an open knife."
11 12
Total Events: TotalPDCallsbyVear
Past 3-Years
t> Does not indude Patrol Check events
t> 43.3 -Average number of Calls for
Service for August through October • 21121
• ZOZ2 YTO"
BurgtaryfTheft
Disorders
Drug Related
Mental Health/Health
Suspicious Activity
Violation
Violence
Welfare Check
Other
Total PO Calls by Month
.i J
Commercial Burglary, Residential Burglary, Found property, Grand theft, Petty theft, Receive/possess stolen prop,
Recovered stolen vehicle, Robbery, Stolen vehicle , Tampering with a vehicle, Theft, Vehicle burglary
Disorder (combined events, family, fight, music, neighbor, unknown, weapon)
Controlled Substance, Possession, Possession for Sale,
Under the influence
Suicide, Attempted suicide, Mentally disturbed person,
Possible dead body
Suspicious circumstances, Suspicious person, Suspicious package, Suspicious vehicle, Suspicious alarm
Municipal code violation, Vehicle violation , Violation of protective order, Weapons Violation, Traffic hazard
Assault, Assault with deadly weapon , Battery, Resist Arrest, Domestic violence, Attempted Homicide, Homicide, Rape,
Carjacking
Welfare check
Arson, Fraud/Forgery, Sex Reg , Family NeglecUAbuse , Liquor Laws , Drunk, Gambling, DUI, Trespass, Prowling, Animal Noise, Accident, Warrants, Officer Fill, Courtesy Service, Civil Problem, Property Tows, E911 Hang-up, Registrants,
Vandalism, Court Order Violation
4/28/2023
7 Neighborhood Safety
Public Safety Data on LifeMoves Mountain View
Significant increase
Public Safety Data on Bella Vista
29 incidents at or next to Bella Vista since
Jan 21. Majority are drugs/narcotics,
vandalism, assault, car break‐ins.

Note that the Bella Vista interim housing
was opened in February 2023.

Neighborhood Safety
13 14
Count of EVENT NUMBER Year
TYPE OF CALL 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total
211Robbery 1
242Battery 2
261 Rape
273.SDomesticViolence
415 Disturbance 12 10 24
422 DeathThreats
487 GrarnlTheft
488 Petty Theft
TYPE OF CALI (All) 647 Drunk In Public
1021PhoneCall
LifeMoves Mountain View Leghorn Incidents 1033Alarm
1062SubjectPossibly Wanted
Month 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total 1065MissingPerson 9 10 19 1095Pedestrian5top
1154SuspiciousVehicle
2 11 12 24 1182Accident
3 4 5 119SCarStop
10851StolenVehicle
4 11 11 602l
5 4 14 18 7V
ATC
6 11 12 23 SOL
7 11 12 23 CIVIL
CPSRPT
8 15 13 28 FCRIME
9 19 23 42 FDASST 3
FIREINFO 34 69 108
10 2 12 7 21 FOOT 19 31
11 9 7 16 FOUND
FU
12 l3 JS 31 HS
Grand Total 3 94 141 22 261 INFO
NR-MV
PR

SERVMIS

SPECIAL

SUSCIRC
WELCHK 1
G,.n ... • .,
4/28/2023
8 Neighborhood Safety
Public Safety Data at Five San Jose sites
Ms. Consuelo Hernandez cited a news report by
KQED that complaints are down after interim
housing sites opened (ref: third community
meeting)
It was misleading because
● None of the 5 sites are in residential areas
● Data was skewed by only one site
○ Number of calls increased for 4 sites
● Data showed the longer a site has been open,
the more crimes it generates
● Changes in types of crimes
Part 2.3
Location Concerns
15 16
Number of Calls in Year Before/After Interim Housing Sites Opened IMabury Rd. (openedFeb.2020)
l vearbeforeopening l vearafteropening
Policequalily•of•life
calls
Illegal dumping
Grafitti
FireDept.calls -
(medical) "
FireOept.calls(fire -
andotherservices)'
#ofcalls
"Involving suspected individuals experiencing homelessness Source:SanJoseDepartmentofHousing;DepartmentofParks,RecreationandNeighborhoodServices Chart by Matthew Green/KQ£D
4/28/2023
9 Location Concerns - Land Purpose
2,500-3,000 local families visiting
each year for community and family
events during the holiday seasons
Location Concerns - Schools
● The county failed to show any research on impacts
to this neighborhood. Using schools as an example:
○ 02/14/2023: county and Lifemoves knew
nothing about how many schools are in the
vicinity
○ 03/02/2023: the county said there were only
4 schools within in 1.5 miles. This is wrong.
○ 03/09/2023: the county showed only 6
schools and 8 daycares within 1.5 miles. Still
wrong.
● 15 schools (10,483 students) and at least 31
daycares within 1.5 miles of Benton location; no
other Santa Clara communities have such a dense
concentration of schools.
17 18
ABC Tree Farms
to me .,
Mon. Apr 3. 2:20 PM * ~ Rep ly
Thank you for your email. We have approximately 2500-3000 local families that visit us each year at the 3590 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA location. We love being a part of the community but because we lease these spaces , we unfortunately do not have much control otherwise. •• ~ALY CORNERS PO DEROSA
PARK
Reed Ave MomoeS
• i
i St Lawrence
• '.'.. • Elementa~ & Mid
Le GLEN Pond. ro1,_a3 Eml~,I e ntary - 0/1t n~,il~e NewVal!Py/ ■ 0 \ Wilcox High - 1.4 mile
t
l
IUSA
TS
• Gateway High- 1

0.75 mile Br'arw1 od Elementary -
o.c! mile
,nAve India Cas~
Laurelwo8J
Elementary new

0.38 mirf Basis Lower j • ool -
v1arket9 • Kaiser Permane~t:

Santa Clara Medical Ctr
Within 1 mi/ee...,
lementary1
jtratfoJi:h~~~ • • ~ 0.25 mile
onticello Ac~ my - 0.38 mile >te Rd ~ • :, d +,
J • mkJn Bas~ s+
Schools
• Daycare Centers
• Senior Homes
~ Ele mentary - 1.2:;,,mile
John Sutter El mentai? i J CJ e - 0.Slmile
p,r )geA1
• Parks and Swim Center
4/28/2023
10 Location Concerns - additional
● Distance to Job Opportunities: no proof this location has more job opportunities ● Distance to Transport: El Camino bus corridor, located 0.9 miles from the site (~18min walk for healthy adults without bags etc.)
● Distance to Supportive Services: lack of easy access to locations for transportation, healthcare, food distribution, government benefits, and support services ● Liquor Store: across Benton
● Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing: less than 0.5 mile ● Similar Project Location: commercial/light industrial Part 2.4
Site Specific Concerns
19 20
4/28/2023
11 Site Specific Concerns - Site Design
● Fence Design: 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.
● Entrance: There is no clear information regarding the number of entrances to the site and whether they will be 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.
● 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.

Site Specific Concerns - Onsite Policy
Detailed policy is not provided:
● Screening process is unclear
● Eviction policy is unclear
● Curfew policy is unclear
● Guest policy is unclear
● Drug policy is unclear and drug
test will be performed
● etc
Slide from the third community meeting
Multiple sex harassessment incidents happened
at LifeMoves MTV, but the sex harassers were
not evicted.
21 22
AREA 3: SAFETY AND SECURITY
• ABSOLUTELY NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL ARE ALLOWED
ON LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.
• ABSOLUTELY NO WEAPONS ARE ALLOWED ON
LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.
• ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL ASSAULT GESTURES OR
THREATS OF VIOLENCE.
• ABSOLUTELY NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
• ABSOLUTELY NO VERBAL ABUSE INCLUDING OFFENSIVE
LANGUAGE HARRASSMENT AND RACIAL SLURS.
• ABSOLUTELY NO ENGAGING IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES
ON OR OFF PREMISES.
• ABSOLUTELY NO DESTRUCTION VANDALISM OR THEFT
OF llFEMOVES OR ANOTHER CLIENT'S PROPERTY.
4/28/2023
12 Part 2.5
Fiscal and Developer Concerns
Fiscal & Developer Concerns - Funding and
Operation
● $3.3M - $4.3M estimated annual operating cost
($55k per person); unclear funding source from
year 1 to year 15+.
● A psychiatric unit requires a minimum 1:6
licensed nurse/patients radio, 24 hours a day
by California law. Yet LifeMoves recommends
only ONE vocational nurse for 200 unscreened
homeless tenants, where 57% have serious
mental issues.

Source:https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton 23 24
4/28/2023
13 Fiscal & Developer Concerns: Evidence from
LifeMoves Palo Alto
● LifeMoves’ Palo Alto 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.
● LifeMoves is removing 24/7 security and onsite
supportive services in order to cut $2 million cost
● LifeMoves is also planning to shrink spaces for
families, dining and common area, reduce common
bathrooms, and fence.
● The City of Palo Alto confronts a $6 million
funding deficit, covering only construction costs
and not accounting for the annual recurring
operational costs that will persist year after year.

Source of Funds for
Capital cost Amount
Homekey $21,732,228
Sobrato $5,000,000
Total received $26,732,228
Estimated construction
cost as for March 2023
$34,400,000
Construction cost gap $8 millon
Source: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton
Part 2.6
Credibility and Accountability of the County and
LifeMoves
25 26
4/28/2023
14 Credibility and accountability
● Though the county and LifeMoves had multiple opportunities, they consistently provided false or misleading information.A fact-check list is provided in the next slide.
● County also invited housing advocacies who don’t live in the neighbourhood to speak in support at all four community meetings.
● Also 300+ questions from the community are still not fully answered.

Topic Question/Concern County/LifeMoves said… Fact Check Terminology County and LifeMoves
provided false and
misinformation and intend to
mislead the city and the
community
“Shelter” is an old model, which is totally different from “interim/supportive housing” that Benton is proposed
for.
“Shelter”and “interim/supportive housing” are used interchangeably in past community meetings by Consuelo. They are the same thing, meaning the target population is homeless and onsite supportive service will be provided.
1000 Hillview Ct, Milpitas is a permanent supportive housing.

Safety Impact on crime rates or
service calls on the site or
neighborhood
Consuelo said no data have showed crime would
increase in and near the shelter
> 300% increase in police calls at and around Milpitas' 1000 Hillview Ct Apartments; Consuelo attended the meeting and acknowledged the significant crime surge.

Safety Number of Schools Nearby First time knew nothing about number of schools Second time counted only 4 within 1.5 miles
Third time missed all the schools west of Lawrence
15 schools with 10,483 students;
At least 31 daycares within 1.5 miles
Safety Pedestrian safety concern No one will walk passing by the location, as there is no path available for walking past it.

Pedestrian paths in every direction. Regular foot traffic from families, seniors, couples with strollers, and students on weekdays and weekends.

Students frequently visit the 711 across Benton for snacks.

We should provide them with shelter here.

Allocation based on queue, no guarantee of housing Santa Clara's homeless in this shelter; Milpitas facility data shows only 10 Milpitas homeless in 132-unit apartment; as of 2022, two years since its launch, only 25 out of 274 homeless in Milpitas have been housed Location Proximity to bus stop Public transportations is very close by The closest bus stop is on El Carmino & Henderson, 1 miles away from the Benton location, and 21 min walk.

Credibility and accountability - County and LifeMoves consistently provide false and misleading information 27 28
4/28/2023
15 Topic Question/Concern County/LifeMoves said… Fact Check Data on
homeless
number
County and LifeMoves
provided false and
misinformation and intend
to mislead the city and the
community
MTV’s homeless number dropped because of the
shelter built
Mountain view city’s homeless number dropped: is because of the new RV parking restriction!
After Mountain View banned oversized vehicles from parking on the majority of city streets in 2019 and began enforcing those rules in 2022, Lieber speculated, some of Mountain View's homeless population may have relocated to areas that are more lax about RV street parking.

Data on
crime rate
Impact on crime rates or
service calls on the site or
neighborhood
Consuelo sited KQED’s news that complaints are
down after interim housing sites opened.

That statement is very misleading. First, none of the five San Jose sites in that news are in the residential area. They all in industrial area. Second, the bar chart in the presentation shows the total number for all the five sites, because one site is much larger than the other four so it skews the average. If you filter by sites, you will find 3 out of 5 sites have increased crime numbers compared with before they were open. This data also didn’t take into account many types of crime, such as violence, drug-related, mental disordered, theft and felon crime. So to sum up, the data supporters provided in fact is exactly consistent with the milpitas interim housing data we found, which is the crime rate tripled after the site opened. The crime rate is unacceptable.

Credibility and accountability - County and LifeMoves consistently provide false and misleading info (con’t) Credibility and accountability
Failure to Fulfill Commitment: Evidence from LifeMoves MTV ● 2nd lowest successful rate
○ 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.
● Disqualified management and staffing:
○ Former client physically assaulted by the first program director in 2021, there is still an outstanding arrest warrant for the director
○ A former client reported multiple sexual harassment cases;however, the second site director cannot remove the harassers due to LifeMoves' policy against relocating drug addicts from the site until they conquer their addiction—a feat that is nearly impossible in 90-120 days.
○ Shuffled at least 3 directors within only 1.5 years of operation ● Services are missing:
○ Multiple clients never received specialized support in searching for housing ○ Shortage of case managers, housing specialists; no licensed nurses (only interns). ● Crimes to the nearby business:
○ Testimony from nearby business has reported burglaries and littering issues.

Consequently, they hired a 24/7 security guard at their own expense. ○ MTV has added dedicated police force to patrol at the site.

Lifemoves MTV has the
second lowest rate of
successful exit, 26%.

The other shelters ahead of
Lifemoves range from 41% to
70% of clients moving into
permanent housing. Many
returned to street and
chose not to extend the
contract with Lifemoves. Source: 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 29 30
_ .. c..a, _____ ....,.. __
---
-==-
::::::=-
Life Moves Mountain View
■ Unknown or place unfit for habitation
4/28/2023
16 Part VIII
Alternative Plans and Benton Proposal
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.
31 32
4/28/2023
17 Appropriate locations
● We have so far identified several
lands that is convenient to job
opportunities, facilities and
transportation.
● The City and County should
continue their search for suitable
land if pursuing interim housing
remains a goal.

Lincoln st & Civic Center Dr.

De La Cruz Blvd & El Camino Real,
next to Santa Clara Police Station,
as an expansion to the existing
supportive housing facility
Seven lands at intersection of
South Bay Fwy, Gold St, &
Lafayette St.

Parking Lots at Levi's Stadium Central Expy & San Tomas Expy What could be considered for Benton land?
● Proximity to schools makes this 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.
33 34
4/28/2023
18 Part IV
Conclusion
Conclusion
● The city should vote NO to this project
● Neighborhood strongly oppose this project
● Site evaluation shows serious concerns from multiple
perspectives including environmental, safety, fiscal, etc ● Alternative sites should be identified and evaluated by the County and LifeMoves
● SafeSCC proposes rent-to-own affordable housing for
teachers and law-abiding families
35 36
4/28/2023
1 Community Comments to
City Proposal on the Benton Project
SafeSCC
04/25/2023
2 Vast majority of the residents oppose the project.

SafeSCC strongly urge the City Council vote NO.
1 2
SafeSCC
Promoting Safe
Neighborhoods
4/28/2023
2 3
This is an extremely short notice to the community
City proposal:
● Was released to the public on Friday 04/21/2023 at 5 PM! Community comments:
● This is a new proposal which is totally different from the proposals the community has been engaged with.
● Community needs more time to read and think about it. ● Sufficient time should also be given to the city council before they can vote on it.
4 Site design and operation details are missing
City proposal:
● Details are not included
Community comments:
● Site internal and external design details are missing ○ E.g. size of each room, arrangement of buildings, site plans, fence, etc ● Operation details are missing
○ Program guidelines are vague and lacking details
● No mention of how LifeMoves’ operation will be supervised ○ What if LifeMoves failed to accomplish their commitment like that in Mountain View? 3 4
4/28/2023
3 5
The “Low Barrier” nature remains unchanged
City proposal:
● Page 5: “Housing First principles and a low barrier placement process limit what screening criteria can be applied.”
Community comments:
● No matter if it’s families with children or singles, 30 units or 100 units, if the low barrier nature doesn’t change, meaning no/little background check will be done, the site remains a serious safety risk to the neighborhood as well as the tenants of the shelter.
● This is a major concern from the community.
6 Site selection neglects neighborhood safety
City proposal:
● Page 7: “the Homekey program is highly competitive and points are awarded to projects that are in proximity to essential services such as grocery stories, health facilities, libraries, pharmacies, and public parks.” Community comments:
● The site is selected because of how the Homekey points are awarded. ● Neighborhood safety is completely ignored in site selection. ● San Jose Branham just started construction last week. No data is available yet and can’t used to justify Benton site selection.
5 6
4/28/2023
4 7
Program rules don’t consider community safety
City proposal
● Page 9: “Community Guidelines: specific rules around warnings, grounds for program termination, and grounds for immediate discharge including drugs or alcohol on premises, weapons, physical assault or threats of violence, sexual harassment, illegal activities, destruction, vandalism, or theft.” Community comments:
● The guidelines are for the Benton site. There is no guarantee that such behaviors will NOT occur in the neighborhood. How can the city prevent crime from happening outside the site?
● If tenants are evicted due to violation of the guidelines, they may stay in the neighborhood and become safety threat to the community. 8 Tenant placement is questionable
City proposal:
● Page 8: “to place these families with children (999 Hamlin Court, Sunnyvale) at the Benton/Lawrence site and set aside space at 999 Hamlin Court for singles and couples from Santa Clara”
● Page 9: “If at some point there were no unhoused households with children to place, the building would place single clients in dorm style “flex” units.” Community comments:
● This demonstrates rules for tenant placement can be easily changed during operation.
● The site even though proposed as family only can place single clients in the future.
7 8
4/28/2023
5 Interim Housing is not effective
City proposal:
● Page 5: “63% of people served by interim housing programs found permanent housing”
Community comments:

For the eight programs in Santa Clara County,
● an average of 44% of people found permanent
housing,
For LifeMoves Mountain View:
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
● only 26% people at LifeMoves Mountain View
found permanent housing
● Many didn’t receive any supportive service and
chose to go back to streets 9
Unit cost is TOO HIGH
City proposal:
● Pages 10: $34 Millions to construct 30
family units.

Community comments:
● More than $1 million per family unit without land.
● For LifeMoves Mountain View site, it’s < $95k/door with land. ● Please breakdown cost estimate to justify.
● What if Palo Alto case happens again here?
10 9
10 LifeMoves Mountain View
■ Unknown or place unfit for habitation
Estimated Construction Cost I
I
Updated Proposal $34,000,000 C
'
(30 family Units)
4/28/2023
6 Financial gap is unresolved
City proposal:
● Pages 10 and 11: $5.5M Operating
Gap for the first 7 years.

Community comments:
● If LifeMoves doesn’t fill the gap, city will face $9M operation cost in 7 years. ● Homekey requires operation duration for 30 years.
● How is the project going to be operated after year 7? If operation remains the same, there is a significant operating gap for the next 23 years: $4M-$5M/year. ● All these fundings assumed best scenario. Who will fill the gap if best scenario didn’t happen? 11
12 Benton site is similar to White Oak Lane (rejected)
City proposal:
● Page 2: “City Council members expressed concern about the financing gap for the White Oak Lane project which could end up needing a City contribution of approximately $14MM over seven years. Councilmembers were also concerned with the shape and orientation of the site in relation to the nearby expressway, and the location which directly faces residential uses on White Oak Lane and Poinciana Drive.”
Community comments:
● City council rejected White Oak Lane in 2021
● If White Oak Lane shouldn’t pass, why should Benton?
11 12
Year 1 Year 2 Year3 Year4
Homekey Ooeratina Subsidy $ 1 080 ODO $ 1 080 ODO $ 1 080 ODO Citv of Santa Clara IPLHA Funds\ $ 500 ODO $ 500 ODO $ 500 ODO $ 500 ODO Citv of Santa Clara /Other\
UfeMoves Match Commitment $ 1 ODO ODO $ 1 ODO ODO $ 1000 ODO $ 500 ODO Countv Challenae Grant $ 368 37 1 $ 394 193 $ 526 091 $ 1789355 Countv HHAP
Totals $ 2 948 371 $ 2 974193 $ 3106091 $ 2 789 355
"'"°"""" ~""""'° 1-<1: 'l ,t,tQ 'l71 $ 1474 rna $ 'l '-n '- na1 $ 'l rua ".I<.<.

I Oneratina Ga $ rsoo ooo $ rsoo ooo $ rsoo ooo $11 ODO ODO Years Year6 Year?
Homekey Operatina Subsidy
City of Santa Clara (PLHA Funds) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 City of Santa Clara (Other)
UfeMoYes Match Commitment $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 County Challenge Grant $ 921 ,990
Countv HHAP $ 968,007 $ 2,088,828 $ 2,122,874
Totals $ 2,889,997 $ 3,088,828 $ 3,122,874
Ooeratina Exoense a$ 3889997 $ 4 088 828 $ 4122874
I Operating Ga1 $ (1 ,000,000 $ (1 ,000,000 $(1,000,000 4/28/2023
7 13
Report is full of false and misleading information
● Page 2: City of Mountain View attributes its 43% decline from 2019 to 2022 to a variety of City investments into homelessness services including the LifeMoves interim housing site.-> True reason is MTV started to ban RV parking on streets from 2019 and fully forbidden in 2022.
● Page 8:The County evaluated sites based on several factors, including lot size, accessibility for construction equipment, proximity to transit, and access to utilities, medical services, and grocery stores. -> The site is not close to these facilities.
● Page 6: The proposed site is vacant land located at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street near the Santa/Clara Sunnyvale border -> Not vacant, more than 3000 families visited each year for holiday celebrations and used as church parking every weekend
● Page 6: In addition, a project that receives funding under Project Homekey is exempted from local land use authority as well as CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) environmental review. -> Could not be exempted ● 30 units -> 30 modules, 90 families at most, could stay more than 120 ● Program participants typically stay in interim housing for three to twelve months depending on their needs while they stabilize their lives and look for permanent housing. -> Could potentially stay longer. ● Page 9: “The City’s Police Department has confirmed there is not a shortage of uniformed police officers and that the Police Department will be ready to respond if there is an increase in calls for service.”-> PD is understaffed 14 Conclusion
The proposal is rushed, flawed and poses safety and financial risks:
● Short notice to the public
● Ignorance of community concerns
● False and misleading statements
● Missing design and operation details
● Financial risks
SafeSCC strongly urge the City Council to vote NO.
13 14
-
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.

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.

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.

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:4 [email protected] Knovvleage Center ~: 5 star rat1rig on Yelp G 5 star rating on Google ~; S star rating on Yelp on Yelp on Google G 5 star rating on Google (.Q 24/7 Help (818) 358-4359
~ SERVICES ABOUT US AREAS WE SERVE PRICING RESOURCES
ECOBEAR BlOHAZAAD O..EANING COMMHY

CONTACT US
Eco Bear » Knowledge Center » Homeless Encam~ » 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 encampments 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.

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.

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 w ith 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.
2/7
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 aP-pear as:

At its core. the term Mcurb 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 ngt Limited tQ the state of an individu§l resjdsmtial Rl'.QrumY., 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 significaht 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.

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

CALL US 818-358-4359
OR
Email us using the form below to get a quote.

Name
Contact Number
£mail
5/7
Message
SUBMIT

POPULAR POSTS
Cleaning out an Apartment After a Family Member. Friend or Tenant Pies ,C.Qmprehensive Guide for After Death Estate Cleaning
How to Get Rid of Mouse DroplJ.ings Smell
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
~-,1:. j111 11111~ ...... ,
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 esp_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 diwying up funding to local governments, issued a report detailing just 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:J/calmatt.ers.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/callfomia-homelessness-spendin,g-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
o BUFFY WICKS +
State Assembly, District 14 (Oakland)
ExP.and for mace about this legislator
COREY JACKSON +
State Assembly, District 60 (Perris)
Exgand for more about this legislator
o WENDY CARRILLO +
State Assembly, District 52 (Los Angeles)
https:J/calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/callfomia-homelessness-spending-report/ 3/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters ExRand 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, conve ing unused hotel ooms during the andemic into temporary housingJ building shelters, and setting up permanen 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 online 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 IO-figure sum that the https:J/calmatt.ers.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/callfomia-homelessness-spending-report/ 4/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMalters 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 Rrice 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:J/calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/callfomia-homelessness-spending-report/ 5/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatlers 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/callfornia-homelessness-spending-report/ 6/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMalters

3. The burden of homelessness is not equally distr.ibuted Drawing on the most recent ugoint-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, l ·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:J/calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/callfomia-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." meless opula io 'Seniors
Some seniors have been homeless for years and are now grow ng older. But the increasing nu bers , lso reflect a not er trend: those experiencing home essness for the first time after age --o. by Ana B. Ibarra FEBRUARY 101 2023
Abou -face: y
h eless plan
e so e n , le se er ocal
T e governor threw communities into disar ay two weeks ago by withholding $1 billion in ho etessness f nd ng for plans he aw as unambitious. Bu local officials said ·he assignment itself discouraged ambition. No N e fl/Som is yie din
by Manuela Tobias NOVEMBER 21, 022
© 2023 CALMATTERS.

PROUDLY POWERED BY NEWSPACK BY AUTOMATTIC
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/califomia-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.

In this letter, we have explained each concern in details, with data and evidence.

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

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.

Section II: Neighborhood Impact

Additionally, the county had promised that they will prioritize Milpitas homeless in this facility.

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.

Number of police calls over the years
Police call by type

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

We have also been informed that there has also been significant police activity at the site.

This includes (but is not limited to) capacity, tenant selection, security arrangements, curfews, maintenance obligations, neighborhood engagement.

This happened within just one year of site approval.

Section III: Location Concerns

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.

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 reality, jobs such as cleaning and floor maintenance are more abundant in industrial and commercial areas than in residential neighborhoods.

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.

LifeMoves Palo Alto
The LifeMoves facility at 2566 Leghorn St in Mountain View is also located in the middle of a commercial / industrial zone.

Section 4: Site Specific Concerns

4.1 Site Design
LifeMoves and the county have not provided complete design plans and management policies.

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.

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 increased16. 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 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.

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 neighborhood17 ,
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

5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves

Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the
County and LifeMoves

This is perceived as a discriminatory act, targeting racial minority taxpayers and voters to sacrifice their safety and interests, and may have legal implications.

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.

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.

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.

We are actively seeking alternative ways to help the unhoused population by proposing alternative uses for this land.

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.

Neighborhood impact:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 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:

OC.'1-1. \ 0 \-\0 E.
p..\l~ OL

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
Close

Project Homekey Provides No Way Home for California’s Homeless Kerry Jackson and Wayne Winegarden
July 2022
Pacific Research Institute
P.O. Box 60485
Pasadena, CA 91116
www.pacificresearch.org
Nothing contained in this report is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation. The views expressed remain solely the authors’. They are not endorsed by any of the authors’ past or present affiliations. ©2022 Pacific Research Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior written consent of the publisher.

Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Evolution of Project Homekey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project Homekey Has Not Stemmed the Rise in Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Project Homekey Is Failing Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Project Homekey Is Not Helping San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Project Homekey Is Similarly Ineffective in Rest of the Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Claiming Success Does Not Make It So . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Los Angeles’ Measure HHH Fails to Deliver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 CARE Court Proposal Shows Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conclusion/Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 About PRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3 Executive Summary
California is spending billions of dollars on Project Homekey, which the governor claims is successfully addressing California’s homelessness crisis. The evidence does not support his rosy evaluation.

While California’s homelessness crisis had been consistently worsening since 2014, the COVID-19 pandemic was supposed to be a watershed moment. Turning lemons into lemonade, Governor Newsom’s plan was to leverage billions of dollars of federal stimulus money and turn unused hotels, motels, and vacant apartment buildings into shelter for the homeless. Despite spending billions, Project Homekey is not helping to alleviate the crisis.

For years, California’s homeless crisis has been the worst in the country. While both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations were declining for the nation overall, they were increasing in California. Making things worse, whereas most homeless are sheltered for the nation overall, most homeless are unsheltered in California. The consequences of growing tent cities, feces littering the sidewalks, the spread of disease, and used drug needles covering parks and beaches have become dire.

The early evidence from Project Homekey is not encouraging. Based on the homeless counts from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the state’s homeless problem persists despite the billions of dollars of expenditures. Worse, as reporting from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the rest of the Bay Area demonstrates, Project Homekey is costly and rife with abuse and inefficiencies. The renovated housing units are plagued with violence and drugs indicating that Project Homekey is failing to address the core problems causing many people to fall into homelessness in the first place.

Instead of relying on Project Homekey’s “Housing First” approach, California requires a comprehensive strategy to address the crisis. To start, California should support programs that focus on shelter (often institutional shelter) and effective mental health treatment. Ideally the state would leverage the successful private nonprofit organizations that efficiently address the root causes of homelessness. To help facilitate treatment, California should use services, such as homeless dayrooms, to connect people with the appropriate treatment options. The state should also broadly implement homeless courts that can turn criminal infractions into opportunities to “sentence” mentally ill people experiencing homelessness to treatment rather than incarceration.

Policies should better leverage public resources, such as local law enforcement, to help connect homeless people with the resources and private nonprofits that can help. Law enforcement can also successfully reunite the homeless with their families or those who had previously provided them services, as Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, and Anaheim have demonstrated.

Reforms must also address the policies driving the problem including zoning laws, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other regulations to promote greater housing supply and improved housing affordability across the state. The state should also actively discourage homeless encampments, enforce laws against theft that include repealing initiatives such as Proposition 47, and promote a high quality-of-life standard for all neighborhoods that includes eliminating the open-air drug markets and disregard for laws.

California cannot address the homelessness crisis without resolving the social problems that have caused so many people to be on the streets or without resolving the underlying financial and regulatory issues that make housing so expensive. This requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes driving the problem and leverages the private sector to deliver services more efficiently. 4 Introduction
California’s homeless crisis continues to deteriorate despite the billions of dollars that the governor and legislature are throwing at the problem. As a March 2022 Guardian article documented, in the two years since [the COVID-19 pandemic hit], California’s humanitarian catastrophe has worsened: deaths of people on the streets are rising; college students are living in their cars; more elderly residents are becoming unhoused; encampment communities are growing at beaches, parks, highway underpasses, lots, and sidewalks.

California has the fifth largest economy in the world, a budget surplus, the most billionaires in the U.S. and some of the nation’s wealthiest neighborhoods. Yet the riches of the Golden State have not yielded solutions that match the scale of the crisis that’s been raging for decades.1 The reality that the crisis has worsened since the outbreak of COVID-19 is critical. The pandemic was initially viewed as an opportunity to implement programs that would sustainably address the growing homeless problem – the goal, as Rahm Emanuel might say, was to not let the pandemic crisis go to waste. The centerpiece of these efforts was Project Roomkey, which evolved into Project Homekey. Backed with federal financial support, the premise of these programs is to leverage the current unused motel and hotel infrastructure to move people from the streets to housing.

The Roomkey/Homekey programs are predicated on the “Housing First” approach. Housing First programs claim that a permanent and stable home is the best platform to help people overcome the challenges that led to their homelessness, including the problems of mental illness and addiction. The ineffectiveness of Project Homekey (the ongoing program) stands as a stark reminder that Housing First policies, while well intentioned, are incapable of resolving California’s ever-worsening homelessness crisis. “
The reality that the
crisis has worsened
since the outbreak of
COVID-19 is critical.”
5 The Evolution of Project Homekey
Project Roomkey was launched in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic “to provide non-congregate shelter options for people experiencing homelessness, protect human life, and minimize strain on health care system capacity.”2
It was “a first-in-the-nation effort to leverage Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding.”3 By the end of the month, Project Roomkey had across the state “secured 10,974 hotel and motel rooms and 1,133 trailers for extremely vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness, to help flatten the curve and preserve hospital capacity.”4
Project Homekey grew out of Project Roomkey. Project Homekey was created by Assembly Bill 83, enacted later in 2020. The law directed state and federal emergency funds to be used to buy hotels and motels, renovate them, and “convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing homelessness.”5 The initial goal
was to secure up to 15,000 rooms.6
In July 2020, $550 million in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds were made available by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development. Another $50 million in state General Fund dollars, and eventually $46 million in philanthropic funds for cities, counties, or other local public entities, including housing authorities or federally recognized Native American governments within California, was released. By October 2020, an additional $200 million was announced, bringing the total to $750 million in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds and $50 million in General Fund dollars.7 Funds were dedicated for the purchase and rehabilitation of “housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, and other buildings, and convert them into interim or permanent, long-term housing,” according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.8
The bulk of federal dollars were awarded for the renovation of motels, hotels, hostels, and other buildings, making the program, says the Department of Housing and Community Development, “extremely cost-effective and efficient.” All federal Coronavirus Relief Funds were initially required to be spent by December 30, 2020, but Congress later extended the deadline one more year.9, 10
Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed in September 2021 an additional $200 million from federal relief funds for Project Homekey. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee approved the governor’s proposal within days.11 In September 2021, Newsom announced a $2.75 billion program expansion “to purchase and rehabilitate buildings – including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, tiny homes and other properties – and convert them into up to 14,000 more permanent, long-term housing units for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.” At that time, the governor’s office said, “since its launch in 2020, Homekey has been the fastest, largest, most cost-effective addition of permanent housing in California history, successfully re-engineering the strategy to create more housing for people experiencing homelessness.”12
The evidence does not support such a glowing review. Although Project Homekey has spent large sums, it has failed to reach its goals while, as measured by the numbers of homeless, the problem continues to worsen. “
Although Project
Homekey has spent
large sums, it has failed
to reach its goals while,
as measured by the
numbers of homeless,
the problem continues
to worsen.”
6 Project Homekey Has Not Stemmed the
Rise in Homelessness
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains Point-in-Time (PIT) counts of the homeless population that, according to HUD, “is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January” of the respective years. Currently the data for 2022 is in the processing stage and HUD will not release the final data until 2023. Several localities, including eight of the ten counties with the largest homeless populations, have self-reported the preliminary data that will be incorporated into the national database.13 These data indicate that the total number of homeless continued to grow in 2022 in six of the eight counties (Santa Clara, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento, and Alameda).14 Consequently, it cannot be said that Project Homekey has reduced the total homelessness problem through 2022.

The number of unsheltered homeless has declined in four of the eight counties (Orange, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Riverside), which could be viewed as signs of progress, but even these results are less than they appear. Both Riverside and Santa Clara saw rises in their overall homeless populations indicating that the problem is not improving in these counties.

Further, Sacramento’s experience is likely the canary in the coal mine for Project Homekey. Despite spending almost $4,000 per room to house about 1,800 homeless persons under Project Roomkey, which was extended through March 2022,15 Sacramento County’s homeless population increased by two-thirds from 2019 to 2022, from 5,570 to almost 9,300, surpassing San Francisco’s total.16 But that might be an incomplete account, Dustin Luton, president of the board of directors of the American River Parkway Foundation, a non-profit “focused on active conservation of all 23 miles of the American River Parkway,” suggested. “The American River Parkway is ground zero for the homelessness crisis in Sacramento County. … Imagine what the count would have showed if the whole Parkway had been included,” Luton said.17 Sacramento County’s homeless population was fewer than 2,700 as recently as 2015.18 As the reporting on the program summarized below demonstrate, the results thus far provide little indication that the modest improvements that can be gleaned from the preliminary data are sustainable.

The PIT data through 2021 (2020 for the unsheltered homeless because the impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic prevented HUD from measuring the unsheltered homeless in 2021), demonstrate that California has been experiencing a long-term rise in homelessness prior to the implementation of Project Homekey whereas homelessness was declining in the rest of the country. This underperformance was not impacted by the implementation of Project Homekey. In other words, these programs have failed their primary goal of sustainably improving the homelessness crisis in the state. These failures are visualized in Figures 1 through 5. “
The PIT data through
2021 ... demonstrate
that California has been
experiencing a long-term
rise in homelessness prior
to the implementation of
Project Homekey whereas
homelessness was
declining in the rest of
the country.”
7 Figure 1 presents the total number of people experiencing homelessness in California compared to the rest of the country. It illustrates that homelessness in California has been worsening since 2014 even though the problem was improving for the rest of the country.

FIGURE 1. TOTAL HOMELESSNESS: CALIFORNIA COMPARED TO OTHER 49 STATES, 2007–2020 138,986
113,952
161,548
508,272
462,498
418,918
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 To al Home ssnes: Ca ifornia Compa ed o O er 49 ta es
2007 - 2020)
California (LHS)
All Other States (RHS)
Source: HUD
When viewing these trends, it is important to recognize that Project Homekey essentially takes the same “Housing First” approach as California’s previously unsuccessful policies. Housing First became California’s official homelessness policy in 2016 with the passage of Senate Bill 1380. With the approval of Proposition HHH, Los Angeles voters gave a thumbs up to Housing First that same year, which authorized the city to issue $1.2 billion in bonds to support the construction of permanent housing for homeless people. As Figure 1 demonstrates, the implementation of the Housing First approach in California did not stem the growth in the state’s homelessness crisis.

Figures 2 and 3 break down the homeless population into the unsheltered (Figure 2) and sheltered (Figure 3) populations. Taken together these figures demonstrate several important trends. First, California’s crisis is driven by increases in unsheltered homeless and to a lesser extent, and not until 2019, increases in the sheltered homeless population.

Second, the growth in the sheltered homeless population starting in 2019 did not have any appreciable impact on the trend growth of the unsheltered population. Instead, both types of homelessness – sheltered and unsheltered – continue to worsen through 2020. Importantly, while the COVID-19 pandemic prevented a count of the unsheltered population in 2021, the data from the sheltered population indicates that these troubling trends continued. 8 FIGURE 2. UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS: CALIFORNIA COMPARED TO OTHER 49 STATES, 2007–2020 90,475
71,437
113,660
165,382
103,962 112,420
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 California (LHS)
All Other States (RHS)
Source: HUD
FIGURE 3. SHELTERED HOMELESSNESS: CALIFORNIA COMPARED TO OTHER 49 STATES, 2007–2021 48,511
42,515
47,888
51,429
342,890
358,536
306,498
274,697
145,000
195,000
245,000
295,000
345,000
395,000
30,000
50,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sh lter d H me es es: ali i C m ed o he 49

California (LHS)
All Other States (RHS)
Source: HUD
Third, the unsheltered homelessness crisis is particularly acute in California. Whereas in the rest of the country most people experiencing homelessness are sheltered, in California the majority are unsheltered. In fact, California’s sheltered homeless account for 14.5 percent of the total U.S. sheltered homeless population but California’s unsheltered homeless account for 50.3 percent of the total U.S. unsheltered population. As the case studies discussed below further demonstrate, there is no evidence that Project Homekey has meaningfully altered these trends. 9 The failure of California’s approach is more apparent once California’s relatively stronger rate of economic growth is considered. Unadjusted for inflation, California’s economy grew 28.8 percent between 2014 and 2020, which was significantly higher than the growth in the rest of the country, which was 17.6 percent. California’s economic outperformance persisted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as well. In 2020, total economic activity in the rest of the country contracted a more severe 2.4 percent compared to a smaller reduction of 1.5 percent in California. California also bounced back stronger. In 2021, California’s economy expanded 11.6 percent compared to a 9.8 percent expansion in nominal GDP - the total value of all goods and services sold in the economy not adjusted for inflation - for the rest of the country.

These growth discrepancies are important because a growing economy should reduce the number of homeless people.

The growth in the homeless population in California relative to the decline in homelessness in the remaining states raises further questions regarding the efficacy of California’s programs, which include Project Homekey.

FIGURE 4. PERCENTAGE CHANGE
NOMINAL GDP, 2014–2020

28.8%

17.6%

CALIFORNIA ALL OTHER STATES
Fig 4
Pe centage C
Source: Author calculations based on data from the BEA
FIGURE 5. PERCENTAGE CHANGE

NOMINAL GDP
-1.5% -2.4%

11.6%

9.8%

CALIFORNIA ALL OTHER STATES

% Change 2019–2020
% Change 2020–2021
Source: Author calculations based on data from the BEA
The documented performance of Project Roomkey/Homekey provides additional evidence that the program is an expensive disappointment.
10 Project Homekey Is Failing Los Angeles
Los Angeles, where roughly one-third of the state’s more than 161,548 homeless are located, is the epicenter of California’s crisis. Not surprisingly, Los Angeles’ version of Project Roomkey “was even more ambitious” than the state plan, said KNOCK.LA. “The Los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority (LAHSA), a joint powers authority of L.A. City and L.A. County, set the goal of providing 15,000 rooms in L.A. County alone for vulnerable unhoused individuals,” who are defined as those over 65, or those whose chronic health conditions would likely make the novel coronavirus a life-threatening event.19
As of late August 2020, those goals had not been met – only 4,177 rooms had been secured countywide, reported KNOCK.LA.20 That turned out to be the high-water mark. By the end of June 2021, only 1,794 rooms of the 15,000 promised were occupied.21
Despite failing to live up to the standard the LAHSA set for the program, in February 2021 Project Roomkey was extended through the end of September of that year. It was extended again, through the end of 2021, as the end of the previous extension was reached. At its conclusion, just 9,118 had gone through the program, and only 2,474 of those were placed into permanent housing; 3,388 made it into interim housing, while about 900 chose to return to their lives on the streets.22 An evaluation by the Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and Coordination of the county’s program said its success “should be celebrated,” but further noted “it also came at a significant financial cost.”23 “Project Roomkey is estimated to have cost about $260 per participant per night. This is many times higher than congregate shelter and in line with other service-intensive environments such as medical respite centers. Therefore, while the PRK [Project Roomkey] model may be more effective than congregate shelter at addressing homelessness, its cost could make it most viable as a short-term intervention, not a long-term solution for people experiencing homelessness.”24
Even where the program successfully moves people into permanent shelter, Project Homekey’s costs are excessive.

When Governor Newsom was announcing an $18 million grant to Los Angeles County as part of Project Homekey, the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation said the county was paying far too much for Project Homekey units, such as $275,000 each for 20 rooms at one hotel and $330,000 for each per room for 39 rooms in two motels in Lancaster. “By comparison,” Business Wire reports, “AHF paid an average of $102,000 per room for over 1,350 rooms in 12 SRO hotels and motels for its Healthy Housing Foundation housing program.”25 That Project Homekey is financially unsustainable in Los Angeles should be unsurprising. Zoning laws and complex regulations inflate housing costs. Add in the additional regulatory complexity of administering Project Homekey and an excessively costly program is the inevitable result. The failure of Project Homekey to sustainably help a significant share of the homeless population should have been anticipated as well. Far too many of the homeless suffer from addiction and mental health problems and addressing these problems should be the top priority. These problems cannot be resolved efficiently, nor cost effectively, from a hotel room. The unexpected result is a costly program that poorly serves the city’s homeless population.
“
Even where
the program
successfully
moves people into
permanent shelter,
Project Homekey’s
costs are excessive.”
11 Project Homekey Is Not Helping San Francisco
In its year-long “Broken Homes” investigation of sheltering the homeless, the San Francisco Chronicle found the city “spends millions of dollars to shelter its most vulnerable residents in dilapidated hotels,” but “with little oversight or support, the results are disastrous.” Reporters found “rodent infestation” so severe that one resident in a “run-down, century-old hotel” in the Tenderloin district “pitched a tent inside her room to keep the mice away.” At one facility, residents threatening each other with knives, crowbars and guns is so common that sometimes police were called “to the building several times a day.” Death has also been frequent, with at least nine people succumbing to drug overdoses through late April 2022.26 The Chronicle describes a “complex arrangement” in which “the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, or HSH, pays nonprofit groups to provide rooms and aid to formerly homeless people in about 70 single-room-occupancy hotels, known as SROs, which the nonprofits generally lease from private landlords.” The rooms “are the cornerstone of a $160 million program called permanent supportive housing, which is supposed to help people rebuild their lives after time on the streets.”27 Over time, the city of San Francisco has been awarded tens of millions of dollars from Project Homekey, including $29.1 million in capital and operating costs to buy a 130-room hotel, $45 million to buy a 232-room hotel,28 and $54.7 million in state funds that will help the city purchase a 160-room building in the SoMa district to house the homeless.29 The city, however, has not shown that it is capable of effectively deploying the resources.

Even though San Francisco is slightly smaller than Jacksonville, Florida, the California city’s homelessness budget, at $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021–22, is nearly 80 percent of Jacksonville’s entire city budget, UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian has pointed out. “But despite this enormous spending,” he continues, “homelessness and the attendant problems of drug abuse, crime, public health issues, and an overall deterioration in the quality of life, spiral further downwards each year.” That $1.1 billion “is just the latest installment in San Francisco’s constant failure to sensibly and humanely deal with an issue that it chronically misdiagnoses and mismanages about as much as is humanly possible.”30 One of the principal reasons why San Francisco policies continue to fail to even make a slight improvement in homelessness “is that there is little or no accountability within the city’s government to evaluate the efficacy of its spending,” says Ohanian. In fact, some programs are so poorly managed that “some homeless people likely prefer living on the streets to the facilities that are being provided to them at enormously inflated costs to taxpayers.”31 The city’s record in caring for the residents in the 16 hotels housing the homeless is egregious:
• Placing the homeless in the hotels is supposed to be a process in which the residents develop enough stability to enter more independent housing. But of the 515 tracked by government after leaving permanent supportive housing, 21 percent returned to homelessness, 27 percent left for an “unknown destination,” and a quarter died while still in the program, leaving “only about a quarter living in stable homes, mostly by moving in with friends or family or into another taxpayer-subsidized building.”32
• At least 166 residents fatally overdosed in city-funded hotels in 2020 and 2021,” the Chronicle reports, a total of “14% of all confirmed overdose deaths in San Francisco, though the buildings housed less than 1 percent of the city’s population.”33 12 • In the years since the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing was created in 2016, homelessness in San Francisco has grown by 56 percent, according to data that was exclusively obtained by the Chronicle.34
• Violence and property damage are widespread. “Residents have threatened to kill staff members, chased them with metal pipes” and started fires inside of rooms. “Much of the instability,” says the Chronicle, “stems from a small group of tenants who do not receive the support they need.”35
• Case managers who aid the residents have at times in recent years supported as many as 85 tenants apiece. That’s five times higher than federal recommendations.36 “It is hard to imagine a more inhumane outcome than watching the train wreck of homelessness evolve in San Francisco,” says Ohanian, “as the city spends billions on flawed policies that facilitate drug abuse and on badly designed systems to carry out those policies.”37
Project Homekey Is Similarly Ineffective in Rest of
the Bay Area
In San Jose, “The rejection of the two Project Homekey applications has set the city back,” according to media reports. “We have a lot of ambitious goals to try and hit and we need to hit those numbers,” said Councilmember Raul Peralez. “But the reality is that getting these projects approved is very difficult.”38 Using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Marin County group, the South Eliseo Neighborhood Alliance, has “filed a legal action” against “plans for an apartment building for homeless people in Larkspur.” The project, “vehemently opposed by many neighbors,” is intended to “house 43 to 50 chronically homeless people in a former skilled nursing center.”39
As the San Jose Mercury News reported:40
• Plans for converting a motel “near the San Jose airport into permanent housing have stopped in their tracks after a state lawmaker accused the city of proposing rents that would displace the very people it’s supposed to be helping.”
• Alameda County plans for a pair of hotels have “stalled because officials haven’t found nonprofit developers and service providers to take on the projects.” • In the North Bay, “a developer is scrambling to come up with money for extensive renovations on the buildings it bought.”
“A look at some of the Bay Area’s original Homekey projects shows the challenges that came with the innovative model,” says the newspaper.41
13 Claiming Success Does Not Make It So
Despite the trends in the HUD homeless data and the reports of Project Homekey’s failings reviewed above, Governor Newsom claimed in his 2022 State of the State address that “we’ve moved a record 58,000 people off the streets since the beginning of the pandemic, we recognize, we have more to do – particularly to address what’s happening on our sidewalks, reaching people who need the help the most.”42 His claim of 58,000 people was directly fact-checked by CalMatters, which found the real number taken off the streets through Homekey was, not surprising, much smaller.43 According to CalMatters factcheckers, only about one-fifth of those housed by Project Roomkey are now in permanent housing:44 The actual number of people out of the streets and in housing via the governor’s signature Project Homekey thus far is about 8,000, although the program – which turned dilapidated hotels and motels across the state into permanent housing with wraparound services – is expanding to bring on another 12,000 units in the coming years using $2.75 billion in last year’s budget.

His emergency Project Roomkey program, which sheltered another 50,000 people, has mostly wound down. Only about a fifth of them are now in permanent housing.45 The governor’s claim also defies the HUD data. Figure 6 presents the change in the number of sheltered homeless people in California between 2008 and 2021. The increase in the number of sheltered homeless in 2021 was 3,541 – a fraction of the governor’s claim of 58,000 people.

Further, the claim of 58,000 people moved off the streets defies logic. This figure equals 51 percent of the total unsheltered people in the state as of 2020. Therefore, for the governor’s claim to be correct, in addition to the measured increase in the sheltered homeless population, an additional 48 percent of the unsheltered population would have been moved to shelters and then an equivalent number would
have been moved from shelters to permanent housing. The 2022 preliminary data from eight of the ten counties with the largest homeless populations indicate that such a scenario is detached from reality. Consequently, the governor’s estimates are simply inaccurate.
“
According to CalMatters
factcheckers, only
about one-fifth of those
housed by Project
Roomkey are now in
permanent housing.”
14 FIGURE 6. CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA’S SHELTERED HOMELESS POPULATION, 2008 – 2021 (1,546)
3,812
122
(208)
(4,801)
(336)
(3,039)
(476)
(2,287)
2,884
(2,207)
2,417
5,042
3,541
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Source: Author calculations based on HUD data
Simply put, the initial results from the Project Homekey program are disappointing. The state is throwing billions of dollars at the problem but with little to show for it.

Los Angeles’ Measure HHH Fails to Deliver Results
The ineffective results from Project Homekey should not have been unexpected based on California’s results from previous Housing First programs. One glaring example is Measure HHH, approved by more than 77 percent of the voters in the city of Los Angeles during the 2016 General Election. A “yes” vote favored the “issuing $1.2 billion in bonds to fund housing for homeless people and people at risk of becoming homeless and to fund facilities that provide mental health care, addiction treatment, and other services.” The goal is “to provide safe, clean affordable housing for the homeless and for those in danger of becoming homeless.”46 Officials have estimated that total debt service cost for the loan, including principal and interest, will reach $1.893 billion. They further “estimated the average property tax rate required to repay these bonds to be $9.64 per $100,000 in assessed property value.”47 Measure HHH, while not officially part of Project Homekey, uses the same Housing First approach to address the problem. Given that the data on Project Homekey is limited, Measure HHH provides additional evidence that government efforts to solve homelessness based on the Housing First philosophy typically fall short of their objectives.

Some have even mocked the measure, calling it “Proposition HaHaHa.”48 15 In December 2021, Los Angeles Controller Ron Galperin issued a review of Measure HHH’s performance over its first five years. In it, he said that problems overshadow progress.49 “Over the past year HHH per-unit costs in the primary pipeline continue to climb to staggering heights,” Galperin reported. “For projects in construction, the average per-unit cost increased from $531,000 in 2020 to $596,846 in 2021. Fourteen percent of the units in construction exceed $700,000 per unit, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost nearly $837,000 per unit” (Emphasis Galperin’s), $100,000 more per unit than the most expensive project in 2020.50
“It is,” he continued, “indisputable that higher overall per-unit costs have contributed to project delays, leaving fewer units available in a timely manner. The City must find a way to bring down the overall per-unit cost of developing homeless housing now and in the future.”51
The review also noted that while the goal is to develop 10,000 units in 10 years, only 1,142 units had been completed in five years. Another 4,205 units were under construction and 1,880 in pre-development. By January 2023, fewer than half will be completed.52
Meanwhile, in the years since HHH was passed, the city’s homeless population has increased by 45 percent. It “simply isn’t working,” says PRI fellow M. Nolan Gray, a professional city planner and UCLA housing researcher.53
“The fundamental problem that Los Angeles faces in dealing with homelessness is that it continues to address the issue as a housing crisis and not a human one involving drug addiction and mental illness,” writes Soledad Ursua, a finance professional who is also a board member of the Venice Neighborhood Council.54 Rather than reallocate HHH funds or use remaining dollars “to develop interim housing facilities and emergency-shelter options instead of permanent supportive housing, which is too expensive and takes too long to build,” and has been suggested by Galperin, officials have instead continued “to ignore Los Angeles’s rampant drug addiction and mental illness.” They have failed “to understand that simply providing housing units will never eliminate homelessness, no matter how many emergencies they declare or how many dollars they spend.”55 “
Los Angeles Controller
Ron Galperin issued
a review of Measure
HHH’s performance over
its first five years. In it,
he said that problems
overshadow progress.”
16 CARE Court Proposal Shows Potential
Thankfully, there are some optimistic signs. In March 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed “a new framework to get people with mental health and substance use disorders the support and care they need.” Called CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment) Court, it “is aimed at helping the thousands of Californians who are suffering from untreated mental health and substance use disorders leading to homelessness, incarceration or worse.”56 From the administration’s fact sheet:

CARE Court connects a person struggling with untreated mental illness – and often also substance use challenges – with a court-ordered Care Plan for up to 24 months. Each plan is managed by a care team in the community and can include clinically prescribed, individualized interventions with several supportive services, medication, and a housing plan. The client-centered approach also includes a public defender and supporter to help make self-directed care decisions in addition to their full clinical team.57
The idea is based “on the evidence that many people can stabilize, begin healing, and exit homelessness in less restrictive, community-based care settings.” A date with the court “can be initiated by family, county and community-based social services, behavioral health providers, or first responders.”58
Though it has some opposition because of its involuntary nature and “coerced treatment, enforced by an expanded judicial infrastructure,”59 the Senate voted 38-0 in May 2022 for Senate Bill 1338, which includes provisions for CARE Court.60 The court will certainly end up in a court somewhere itself.61 But as a practical application, the required institutionalization of those suffering from mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness has merit.

As Christopher Rufo noted, “following the mass closure of state hospitals and the establishment of a legal regime that dramatically restricted involuntary commitments, we have established an ‘invisible asylum,’” which is made up of three primary institutions: the street, the jail, and the emergency room. “In slaying the old monster of the state asylums, we created a new monster in its shadow,” one that has the appearance of freedom yet condemns a multitude of the mentally ill to “a life of misery” on the street.62 “
In March 2022, Gov.

Gavin Newsom proposed
‘a new framework to
get people with mental
health and substance use
disorders the support and
care they need.’”
17 Conclusion/Recommendations
It is unsurprising that Project Homekey has underperformed expectations. Based on the Housing First philosophy, it fails to fully diagnose the causal factors driving California’s homelessness crisis; therefore, it provides an incomplete approach to addressing the problem. Worsening these results, its implementation has been inefficient and wasteful.

As a result, the program’s costs per homeless person sustainably housed has been excessively expensive.

Further, while based on early data, the program has not altered the trend of rising homeless in the state. This failure is likely compounded by the likelihood that, as a Cicero Institute study noted, programs based on the Housing First philosophy appear “to attract more people from outside the homeless system, or keeps them in the homelessness system, because they are drawn to the promise of a permanent and usually rent-free room.”63 Rather than throwing billions of dollars toward the failed Homekey strategy, there are more effective policies that California should consider, many of which we explored in detail in the Pacific Research Institute book No Way Home (Encounter Books, 2021). These policies begin with the recognition that California’s homelessness crisis requires multi-faceted solutions.

The first facet of a comprehensive strategy would be targeted toward aiding the homeless who struggle with mental health and addiction. Helping this population requires programs that directly address these causal issues. Priority number one is to implement policies that focus on providing shelter and effective mental health treatment. Given the state’s poor track record running these programs, ideally the state would leverage the successful private nonprofit organizations that efficiently address the root causes of homelessness. Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute has suggested a “back-to-the-future approach,” in which state mental hospitals are “dedicated to serving this particular population.”64
To help facilitate treatment, California should use services, such as homeless dayrooms, to connect people with the appropriate treatment options. The state should also broadly implement homeless courts that can turn criminal infractions into opportunities to “sentence” mentally ill people experiencing homeless to treatment rather than incarceration.

The second facet should better leverage public resources, such as local law enforcement, to help connect homeless people with the resources and private nonprofits that can help. Law enforcement can also successfully reunite the homeless with their families or those who had previously provided them services, as Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, and Anaheim have demonstrated.65
The third facet should address the policies helping to drive the problems. These include reforming zoning laws, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other regulations to promote greater housing supply and improved housing affordability across the state. The state should also actively discourage homeless encampments “
To help facilitate
treatment, California
should use services,
such as homeless
dayrooms, to connect
people with the
appropriate treatment
options.”
18 (which ought to be replaced with humane bridge shelter in which private organizations and government agencies work together to provide temporary housing, often tents), enforce laws against theft that include repealing initiatives such as Proposition 47, and promote a high quality-of-life standard for all neighborhoods that includes eliminating the open-air drug markets and disregard for laws big and small.

California cannot possibly build enough housing for the homeless – often at costs that exceed $700,000 a unit, and in Los Angeles as much as much as $837,000 – without resolving the social problems that have caused so many people to be on the streets nor without resolving the underlying financial and regulatory issues that make housing so expensive. A comprehensive approach that focuses on the root causes and leverages the private sector to deliver services more efficiently is the best path to alleviate the crisis. 19 Endnotes
1 S. Levin “‘We have failed’: how California’s homelessness catastrophe is worsening,” The Guardian, March 22, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/22/california-homelessness-crisis-unhoused-and-unequal. 2 “Project Roomkey/Housing and Homelessness COVID Response,” Department of Social Services, accessed Jun 17, 2022, https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cdss-programs/housing-programs/project-roomkey 3 “Project Roomkey: Impact to Date and Looking Ahead,” California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, August 3, 2021, available at https://news.caloes.ca.gov/project-roomkey-impact-to-date-and-looking-ahead/ 4 “Governor Newsom Visits Project Roomkey Site in Santa Clara County to Highlight Progress on the State’s Initiative to Protect Homeless Individuals from COVID-19,” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 18, 2020, available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/18/governor-newsom-visits-project-roomkey-site-in-santaclara-county-to-highlight-progress-on-the-states-initiative-to-protect-homeless-individuals-from-covid-19/ 5 “Frequently Asked Questions about Homekey,” County of Los Angeles, accessed Jun 17, 2022, https://lacounty.gov/homekey/ 6 “At Newly Converted Motel, Governor Newsom Launches Project Roomkey: A First-in-the-Nation Initiative to Secure Hotel & Motel Rooms to Protect Homeless Individuals from COVID-19,” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 3, 2020, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/03/at-newly-converted-motel-governornewsom-launches-project-roomkey-a-first-in-the-nation-initiative-to-secure-hotel-motel-rooms-to-protecthomeless-individuals-from-covid-19/ 7 “Homekey: A Journey Home,” 2021 Legislative Report, California Department of Housing and Community Development,” April 1, 2021,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/hcd100_homekeyreport_v18.pdf 8 Ibid.
9 “Coronavirus Relief Fund,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, accessed July 6, 2022, https://home.treasury.gov/ policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/coronavirus-relief-fund 10 “Homekey: A Journey Home,” 2021 Legislative Report, California Department of Housing and Community Development,” April 1, 2021,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/hcd100_homekeyreport_v18.pdf 11 Ibid.
12 “Newsom Administration Announces $2.75 Billion Expansion of Homekey,” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, September 9, 2021, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/09/newsom-administration-announces-2-75-billion-expansion-of-homekey/ 13 See for instance, https://rivcopitc2022-countyofriverside.hub.arcgis.com/; https://voiceofoc.org/2022/05/ county-of-orange-releases-2022-point-in-time-count-results/; https://www.marincounty.org/main/county-press-releases/press-releases/2022/hhs-pitcountpreliminary-051622; https://news.sccgov.org/news-release/ county-santa-clara-and-city-san-jose-release-preliminary-results-2022-point-time. 20 14 Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Joseph Herrera, and Hans Johnson “Early Evidence of Shifts in Local Homeless Populations during the Pandemic” Public Policy Institute of California, June 7, 2022, https://www.ppic.org/blog/early-evidence-of-shifts-in-local-homeless-populations-during-the-pandemic/, see bar chart titled “2022 PIT count preliminary results show declines in the homeless population in Orange and San Francisco Counties”. 15 Chris Nichols, “With no exit strategy, Sacramento will keep Roomkey motels for homeless residents open through March,” CapRadio, December 10, 2021, available at https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/12/10/withno-exit-strategy-sacramento-will-keep-roomkey-motels-for-homeless-residents-open-through-march/ 16 Theresa Clift, “Sacramento County’s homeless population surpasses San Francisco’s for first time, report shows,” Sacramento Bee, June 28, 2022, available at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article262941053.html?ac_cid=DM664617&ac_bid=306232924 17 Chris Nichols, “Sacramento’s homeless population spikes 67% to nearly 9,300 since 2019,” CapRadio, June 28, 2022, available at https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/06/28/sacramentos-homeless-population-spikes-67-to-nearly-9300-since-2019/ 18 “American River Parkway Foundation Responds to the Low Data Present in the Latest Point in Time Count,” American River Parkway Foundation, available at https://arpf.org/8655-2/ 19 “Project Roomkey is Failing in Los Angeles–Now We Know Why,” KNOCKLA, September 15, 2020, https:// knock-la.com/homeless-los-angeles-project-roomkey-lahsa-12027aafec7b/ 20 Ibid.
21 Project Roomkey Tracker, accessed June 17, 2022, https://projectroomkeytracker.com/ 22 “Project Roomkey Fell Short Of Expectations In LA County, Experts Say,” CBS Los Angeles, September 29, 2021, available at https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/project-roomkey-fell-short-of-expectations-in-lacounty-experts-say/ 23 “Evaluating Project Roomkey in Alameda County: Lessons from a Pandemic Response to Homlessness,” Cody Zeger, Summary of a report for the Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and Coordination, May 2021, https://homelessness.acgov.org/homelessness-assets/img/reports/Final%20PRK%20Report%20Summary.pdf 24 Ibid.
25 “L.A. County Paying Too Much for Project Homekey Rooms,” Business Wire, April 15, 2022, https://www. businesswire.com/news/home/20220414005920/en/L.A.-County-Paying-Far-Too-Much-for-Project-HomekeyRooms 26 Joaquin Palomino, Trisha Thadani, “Broken Homes,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 26, 2022, https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/san-francisco-sros/ 27 Ibid.
28 “San Francisco Awarded $29 Million from State’s Project Homekey for Purchase of 130-room Hotel for Homeless Housing” Office Mayor London N. Breed, October 23, 2020, https://sfmayor.org/article/san-franciscoawarded-29-million-states-project-homekey-purchase-130-room-hotel-homeless 29 J.D. Morris, “San Francisco gets $54.7 million to buy SoMa building for homeless housing,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 24, 2021, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-gets-54-7-million-to-buySoMa-16721040.php 21 30 Lee Ohanian, “Despite Spending $1.1 Billion, San Francisco Sees Its Homlessness Problems Sprial Out Of Control,” California on Your Mind, Hoover Institution, May 10, 2022, https://www.hoover.org/research/despitespending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out-control 31 Ibid.
32 Joaquin Palomino, Trisha Thadani, “Broken Homes,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 26, 2022, https://www. sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/san-francisco-sros/
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Lee Ohanian, “Despite Spending $1.1 Billion, San Francisco Sees Its Homlessness Problems Sprial Out Of Control,” California on Your Mind, Hoover Institution, May 10, 2022, https://www.hoover.org/research/despitespending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out-control 38 Tran Nguyen, “San Jose wants hundreds of short-term homes, only 76 in the pipeline,” San Jose Spotlight, April 27, 2022
39 Richard Halstead, “Marin residents sue county over Larkspur homelessness plan,” Marin Independent Journal, April 4, 2022, https://www.marinij.com/2022/04/02/marin-residents-sue-county-over-larkspur-homelessnessplan/ 40 Marisa Kendall, “From hotel to homeless housing: Bay Area projects struggle to make the switch,” Mercury News, November 9, 2021, https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/08/from-hotel-to-homeless-housing-bay-area-projects-struggle-to-make-the-switch/ 41 Ibid
42 Governor Newsom Delivers State of the State Address 3.8.22,” Office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, accessed July 11, 2022, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/03/08/governor-newsom-delivers-state-of-the-state-address-3-8-22/ 43 Manuela Tobias, “Fact-checking Gavin Newsom’s State of the State speech 2022,” CalMatters, March 8, 2022, https://calmatters.org/politics/2022/03/fact-checking-newsom-speech-2022-state-of-state/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us 44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 “Los Angeles, California, Homelessness Reduction and Prevention Housing, and Facilities Bond Issue, Measure HHH (November 2016),” Ballotpedia, accessed May 19, 2022, https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles,_California,_Homelessness_Reduction_and_Prevention_Housing,_and_Facilities_Bond_Issue,_Measure_HHH_(November_2016) 47 Ibid.
22 48 Soledad Ursua, “L.A.’s Homeless Scourge,” City Journal, March 31, 2022, available at https://www.city-journal. org/homelessness-a-top-issue-among-los-angeles-voters
49 Los Angeles City Controller’s Office, “The Problems and Progress of Prop. HHH,” February 23, 2022, https:// lacontroller.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2.22.23_The-Problems-and-Progress-of-Prop-HHH_Final.pdf 50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 M. Nolan Gray, “Los Angeles’ Campaign To End Homelessness Isn’t Working. What Now?” Pacific Research Institute, Right By The Bay, March 21, 2022, https://www.pacificresearch.org/los-angeles-campaign-to-endhomelessness-isnt-working-what-now/ 54 Soledad Ursua, “L.A.’s Homeless Scourge,” City Journal, March 31, 2022, https://www.city-journal.org/homelessness-a-top-issue-among-los-angeles-voters 55 Ibid.
56 “Governor Newsom’s New Plan To Get Californians In Crisis Off The Streets And Into Housing, Treatment, And Care,” Fact Sheet, Office of the Governor, accessed June 17, 2022, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Fact-Sheet_-CARE-Court-1.pdf 57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 “HRW Opposition to CARE Court, California SB 1338,” Human Rights Watch letter to Sens. Tom Umberg and Susan Talamantes Eggman, April 12, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/12/hrw-opposition-care-court-california-sb-1338 60 California Senate Bill 1338, LegiScan, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1338/2021 61 Tim Anaya, “Will Newsom’s CARE Court plan help get the ‘perilous trifecta’ off the streets and into treatment?” Right By The Bay blog, Pacific Research Institute, March 17, 2022, https://www.pacificresearch.org/will-newsoms-care-court-plan-help-get-perilous-trifecta-off-the-streets-and-into-treatment/ 62 Christopher Rufo, “The Invisible Asylum,” City Journal, Winter 2021, https://www.city-journal.org/olympia-washington-mental-hospitals 63 Judge Glock, “Housing First is a Failure” Cicero Institute, January 13, 2022, https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/ housing-first-is-a-failure/.
64 Kerry Jackson, Christopher Rufo, Joseph Tartakovsky, Wayne Winegarden, No Way Home: The Crisis of Homelessness and How To Fix It With Intelligence and Humanity, (New York: Encounter Books, 2021), page 110 65 Ibid., page 105
23 About the Authors
Wayne Winegarden, Ph.D., is a Sr. Fellow in Business & Economics, Pacific Research Institute, as well as the Director of PRI’s Center for Medical Economics and Innovation.

Dr. Winegarden’s policy research explores the connection between macroeconomic policies and economic outcomes, with a focus on fiscal policy, the health care industry, and the energy sector. As Director of the Center for Medical Economics and Innovation, Dr. Winegarden spearheads research and advances policies that support the continued viability and vitality of the U.S. biomedical and pharmaceutical industries to the benefit of patients and overall economic growth.

Dr. Winegarden’s columns have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Investor’s Business Daily, Forbes.com, and USA Today. He was previously economics faculty at Marymount University, has testified before the U.S. Congress, has been interviewed and quoted in such media as CNN and Bloomberg Radio, and is asked to present his research findings at policy conferences and meetings.

Dr. Winegarden is also the Principal of an economic advisory firm that advises clients on the economic, business, and investment implications from changes in broader macroeconomic trends and government policies.

Clients have included Fortune 500 companies, financial organizations, small businesses, and trade associations.

Previously, Dr. Winegarden worked as a business economist in Hong Kong and New York City; and a policy economist for policy and trade associations in Washington D.C. Dr. Winegarden received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Economics from George Mason University.

Kerry Jackson is an independent journalist and opinion writer with extensive experience covering politics and public policy.

Currently a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), Kerry writes weekly op-eds and blog posts on statewide issues, and occasional books and policy papers.

He is the author of Living in Fear in California, a book that explores well-meaning changes to California’s public safety laws enacted in recent years that have undermined safe communities, and offers reforms that strike a balance between the state’s obligation to crime victims and the rights of the accused and convicted.

In 2017, he wrote Unaffordable: How Government Made California’s Housing Shortage a Crisis and How Free Market Ideas Can Restore Affordability and Supply, an issue brief on California’s housing crisis which won bipartisan praise.

His 2018 brief on poverty in California, Good Intentions: How California’s Anti-Poverty Programs Aren’t Delivering and How the Private Sector Can Lift More People Out of Poverty, garnered national attention for his Los Angeles Times op-ed asking, “Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?” Jackson is a leading commentator on California’s growing homeless crisis. In 2019, he co-authored (with Dr.

Wayne Winegarden) a brief on San Francisco’s homeless crisis, which was presented to Mayor London Breed’s administration.
24 His commentaries have been published in the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CALmatters, City Journal, the Daily Caller, the New York Observer, Orange County Register, Bakersfield Californian, San Francisco Examiner, Fresno Bee, Ventura County Star, Forbes, and Fox and Hounds Daily, among others.

He regularly appears on radio and television programs commenting on the problems affecting California.

Jackson has been a past guest on National Public Radio, One America News Network, Newsmax TV, and “The Dr. Drew Show,” among others.

Before coming to PRI, Jackson spent 18 years writing editorials on domestic and foreign policy for Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) and three years as the assistant director of public affairs for the American Legislative Exchange Council. He has written for the American Media Institute and Real Clear Investigations and edited “The Growth Manifesto” for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.

A graduate of Georgia State University, Kerry has also served as a public affairs consultant for the George Mason University School of Law and worked as a reporter and editor for local newspapers in the metro Atlanta and northern Virginia regions.
25 About PRI
The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) champions freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility by advancing free-market policy solutions. It provides practical solutions for the policy issues that impact the daily lives of all Americans, and demonstrates why the free market is more effective than the government at providing the important results we all seek: good schools, quality health care, a clean environment, and a robust economy.

Founded in 1979 and based in San Francisco, PRI is a non-profit, non-partisan organization supported by private contributions. Its activities include publications, public events, media commentary, community leadership, legislative testimony, and academic outreach.

Center for Business and Economics
PRI shows how the entrepreneurial spirit—the engine of economic growth and opportunity—is stifled by onerous taxes, regulations, and lawsuits. It advances policy reforms that promote a robust economy, consumer choice, and innovation.

Center for Education
PRI works to restore to all parents the basic right to choose the best educational opportunities for their children. Through research and grassroots outreach, PRI promotes parental choice in education, high academic standards, teacher quality, charter schools, and school-finance reform.

Center for the Environment
PRI reveals the dramatic and long-term trend toward a cleaner, healthier environment. It also examines and promotes the essential ingredients for abundant resources and environmental quality: property rights, markets, local action, and private initiative.

Center for Health Care
PRI demonstrates why a single-payer Canadian model would be detrimental to the health care of all Americans. It proposes market-based reforms that would improve affordability, access, quality, and consumer choice.

Center for California Reform
The Center for California Reform seeks to reinvigorate California’s entrepreneurial self-reliant traditions. It champions solutions in education, business, and the environment that work to advance prosperity and opportunity for all the state’s residents.

Center for Medical Economics and Innovation
The Center for Medical Economics and Innovation aims to educate policymakers, regulators, health care professionals, the media, and the public on the critical role that new technologies play in improving health and accelerating economic growth.

PR I PACIFIC

RESEARCH

INSTITUTE
www.pacificresearch.org

MAILING ADDRESS
PO Box60485
Pasadena, CA 91116

SAN FRANCISCO HEADQUARTERS
601 California Street, Suite 620
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel 415-989-0833

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
2110 K Street, Suite 28
Sacramento, CA 95816
Tel 916-389-9774

PASADENA OFFICE
680 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 180
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel 626-714-7572
Connect with Us
(i) facebook.com/pacificresearchinstitute
0 @pacificresearch
0 youtube.com/pacificresearchl
0 www.linkedin.com/ company/
pacific-research-institute

Agenda
(4/4/23) • Our Current State: Division between
County/City and Residents
• Working Together: Understanding the life
cycle of homelessness and how we can
work together • Residents’ Recommendation for
Lawrence/Benton Site
Our Current State
Our Current State: Supportive Housing & Officials
Benton Street at Lawrence Ex resswa
Supportive Housing & officials' Viewpoint
• Multiple Efforts to identify other SC properties
• This site is an underutilized parcel
• County does not own any other property in the city of Santa Clara (for interim housing) • Proximity to transit, grocery and medical
Knee-ierk reactions from communities NIMBY's
Low entry barrier does not mean NO entry barrier Housing First Fear of Unknown
Homeless are already here Drugs are a bigger problem in High Schools There is no adverse impact to safety due to low entry barrier No adverse impact to assessed property values due to supportive housing There is no data suggesting homeless folks are getting hit by cars on streets 20% of Adult population has some mental illness, it is only ~30% more Our Current State: Santa Clara Residents {>80% per poll) Benton Street at Lawrence Ex resswa
Santa Clara Residents' Viewpoint
HO M ELE SS POPU LA tlON SY JURISDICTION AN O SHELT ER

STAT U S
= ,. "' "' ,.,
"' "' '" 0
0 " " , 0
0 " .. " "' ,,. 0 0 0
'" .. '" .,. ... " ... "' .,,., ...,
Police Response - M ilpitas Hillview
Source: Mih:>itas City Council MeetinR Au.I! 16, 2022. Chief Hernandez., presenter.

Num.D • r of ■ I n V•• r A • for•/Af'ter lnt• rlm Houa l n g Siltcaa Op• n • CI .............. .... ...... - I
Several adjoining cities have decreased homelessness without such shelters while Santa Clara, Milpitas and San Jose have seen increases in last 3 years despite several projects; Crime rate increases were significant in some of the sites Our elected officials are not listening to us Low Entry Barrier is a major concern for safety Tax Dollars are being misused Santa Clara is becoming the transient hub for homeless Middle Class cities are being targeted to tackle homelessness from more affluent cities Risk of increased drug related activities Homeless folks interviewed by residents did not want to go any shelter due to safety concerns Those with substance abuse issue or certain mental illness would have a high risk in crossing Lawrence Expressway We see news articles where folks in some of the shelters express a fear of their safety Property Values will decrease - we have mortgages! Ziploc bags with drugs found near some other shelter raising concerns around drug use Neighborhoods will be less walkable Residents concerned that folks not getting extensions or permanent housing may start to squat in the neighborhood Some reside nts had personal experience of unsafe encounters with a section of homeless population with substance abuse or mental illness where t hey felt very unsafe Working Together
Working Together: Background and facts
The homelessness crisis
seems to be getting
worse despite a lot of
money getting pumped
and specific programs
showing positive results
Diversity in health conditions within
homeless population, requiring
different approaches for rehabilitation
(beyond housing)
Insight into preventive measures
for homelessness based on
survey within homeless
population
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 detailing just how much the state has spent on the crisis between 2018and 2021-and what it's gotten in return.

H OMELESS POPUL A TI ON 6Y J URISD I CT I O N AN D SHELTER

S TA TUS
"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.

SELF REPORTED HEALTH •
C11rt>ent hffhh c.on.trtlon• th•t may .tt.ct lh• hOlol•'nv •t.blllt,. or •rnpto.,,...,.•nt of tho- ••~r .. nCJng h on-M'-ts•,...• 42• % PSVC::H&ATRIC/ £MOTIONAL
CON.OIT'IOH$
l
32% ALCOHOf.6
OAUGVSi
0 • 6.
36% 29% 28% PfSO CHRON.IC ....,.,CAL HEALTH OIS481UlY

CONDITION
. . .. .. City of Campt,ql
City of cuoenlno
City Of G!lro,y
City of Loo Aft0&
City of Lo::; Afto.s H ills
Town of l..0$ Gl.'llo::

City of Milp lt.as
City of M ontq $4r $no
Ciry o f M oro;9,n Hill
City of M ountain ViewCity of P&I<> Alto
City of Son .Jor..ci
City o f Sont.i Clo rn
Clty Of S8UUOQ8
City of St.mny..,618
ToHll Unlncorporatod
ConfidrnUal
Lcx:;9flons
Tot.ii
dQ i
12% 2 % TRAUMATIC HfV/ AjOS
UAAIN RE&..AT£0
INJURY 1U .. Nl S$
,.
a ... . " 74 2 16 0 0 7 4
159 102 0 0 159
345 606 359 208 704
76 65 0 0 76
2 0 0 0 2 ,. 58 0 0 1 6
125 2 4 0 0 25 1 25
0 0 0 0 0
114 60 0 0 ,,. 574 206 32 1 4 0 606
299 263 14 " >13
S,117 4,975 980 1 ,675 0.097
264 375 62 65 326
10 0 0 0 10
4 77 270 14 7 1 06 024
270 254 89 27 350
NA NA 101 63 101
7,922 7 ,708 1,784 2,3 2 0 9 ,706
When asked what might have prevented them from becoming homeless, the top answers among survey respondents were rent/mortgage assistance (reported by 34% of respondents), followed by employment assistance (28%), and alcohol/drug counseling (28%). ,,. ~
216 191%
102 ..... 8 14 16 ..
65 •1 4%
0 58
274 11Q%
0 60 ~47,;
346 ...... 274 ·12"
6,650 ... 440 , .... 0
385 •38"
28' 22"'
b3 ·38"'
10,028 ,,.,
Working Together:

Location Matters
• Sa nta Cla ra has great soil and weather
for citrus fruit trees.
• If one has space in their backyard,
and loves to nurture, an orange tree
wou ld be a great addition.
• However, if one is forced to accept
t he gift of a mango tree, even the
best nurturing may not work as our
soil and climate is not equatorial
potent ially affecting a stunted growth
or even death of the mango tree.
• Understanding which backyard is
suited for which tree is quite
important.
• Location Matters.

PSYCHIATRIC/

EMOTIOHAL CONDITIONS
32% ALCOHOL &
ORvc; USE

6. 28%
OIU.IIUTY """"'''
*For Illustration Purposes
Working Together: Lifecycle approach*
SELF REPORTED HEALTH+
C urrent. health condftlons that
may affec"t ~h• hou•lng •t.abfUty
or •mptoym.•nt of thos.e exper••nc1ng hom•l•s..sn••••
tl&
42%

P SVCHIAT'RIC/
E M O TIO NAL CC>N DmONS
Legal US Residents ~ a job/employment
Fllfflll• with IGds Not Applcalile Not Applcable Nat Applaible Couples without kids Not Appl1cable Not Applicable Not Applicable Single Adults Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Physical Dis.ability Posslble Not Applicable Not Appllcable Chronic Health PO$$lble Not Applicable Not Applicable
Legal US Resident s w ithout a job/employment
Grouping
Families with Kids
Couples without kids
Single Adults
Physical OicSabllity
Chronic Health
NO Subrtanc:e Abun OR CrimiMI Record OR Sex Offense
Rehabilitation Job Trainlnc Job Asslstanc.

Not Applicable Maybe Required/Suggested
Nol Applicable May be Requjred/Suggested
Not Applic-able May be Required/Suggested
Possible May be Not Applicable
Possible May be Not Applicable
L
32%

A L COH O L&

DRUG U S E
CloM to Schooll & Joi,
Close to Job
Close to Job
Close to Job & Services
Close to Job & Medical
Location
Close to Schools & Job
Assistance Services
Close to Job Assistance
Services
Close to Job Assistance
Services
Close to Job & Services
Close to Job & Medical
0 - ~ ~ A~
36% 29% 28% 12% P'TSO C H RONIC PHVSJCAL T RAUM ATIC
H EALTH D I SABILfTV BAAJN C O N DITI O N I N:JU-AY
Rehabilitation Job Traminc Job Assistance
Required/Suggested Not Applicable Not Applicable
Required/Suggested Not Appliceble Not AppNcable
Required/Suggested Not Applicable Not Appl1cable
Required/Suggested Not Applicable Not Applicable
Required/Suggested Not Applicable Not Applicable
Substance Abuse OR Criminal Re-cord OR Sex Offense
Rehabilitation Job Trainlnc Job Assistan<:e
Required/Suggested May be Required/Suggested
Required/Suggested May be Required/Suggested
Required/Suggested Maybe Required/Suggested
Required/Suggested May be Required/Suggested
Req uired/Suggested Maybe Required/Suggested
*For Illustration Purposes: It would be ideal to have residents vote which of these categories would they be willing to support and ensure screening is never compromised 2 2%

HIV/ AIDS

I LLNESS
location
{Close to) Rehabilitation Center
(Close to) Rehabilitation Center
(Close to) Rehabilitation Center
{Close to) Rehabilitation Center
{Oose to) Rehabilitation Center
location
(Close to) Rehabilitation Center
(OosNo) Rehabilitation Center
(dose to) Rehabilitation Center
{Close to) Rehabilitation Center
(Close to) Rehabilitation Center
Residents' Recommendation
l!I Top Obstacles for Permanent Housing
1 Affordability of Rent (69%)
2 Lack of Job/Income (55%)
3 Lack of available housing(28%)
921 898
2022
Focusing on families with jobs, without substance abuse or criminal records, through "rent to own" housing approach can help them avoid falling into homelessness void. This approach tackles two of the biggest obstacles for permanent housing and rapks nignest as preventive measure in 2022 PIT report.

Top Preventive Methods • Rent To Own
Permanent
Neighbors • Eliminate protests
Rent/Mortgage Assistance (34%)
2 Employment Assistance (28%)
3 Alcohol/Drug Counseling (28%) Prevent families from
a homeless future
• Uplift Families
• Uplift Communities
• Productive Citizens
• Reduced Operation
Costs (less taxes)
Happy Residents
Comparison between options
{For Lawrence/Benton Site)
Interim/Supportive Housing for Family, Singles & Couples (Some with Substance Abuse, Serious Mental Illness or Criminal Records) Ill
Permanent "Rent to Own" Housing for Family
Pros Allows broader demographics including the highest population amongst homeless (singles) No adverse impact to safety (real or perceived) to residents Cons Adverse impact to safety to residents
Adverse impact to property values of residents
Mainly reactive with housing first approach (doesn't address the root causes) Treats all locations as similar (based on proximity to VTA, grocery, hospital etc.) High Operation Costs - sometimes requiring compromises on services If crime rate increases, tax paying residents would start to move o ut with their families and it may become difficult to attract families with kids in this a rea Building/Structure would remind residents how their voices were unheard or not respected [Feeling of Loss]
No adverse impact to property values (real or perceived) of residents Proactive approach that could help stem the inflow of homeless by 34% Minimizes Operatio nal Costs (might even generate revenue) Building/Structure would remind residents how their voices were heard by their representatives and how they together uplifted this neighborhood [Feeling of Victory) Very specific to prevention of homelessness in families Thank You!
References
• The country is watching (https://khn.org/news/article/california-homeless-crisis-governor-gavin-newsom-political-future) • Project Homekey (https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc) • 2022 PIT Report Santa Clara County (https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/2022%20PIT%20Report%20Santa%20Clara%20County.pdf) • California Spending on Homelessness (3 years) – Feb 2023 (https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report) • LifeMoves Mountain View article (https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report) • ASHADEEP: Rehabilitation of homeless with mental illness (https://www.ashadeepindia.org/rehabilitation-of-homeless-persons-with-mental-illness) • Addiction and Homelessness (https://socalsunrise.com/addiction-and-homelessness) From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

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

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

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

2. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients. Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially
get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:
o Why are we placing these clients across from a liquor store and 7-11 when we know a good percentage of them suffer from past alcohol abuse? o How do we protect the clients from traffic impacts - such as Lawrence/Lillick intersection which has a high rate of accidents and comes in the walking path to the bus stop at El Camino?
o Why does this location NOT offer any nearby public t1·anspo1t or commercial working opp01tunities?

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

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

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

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

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

To:

Subject:

Date:

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

Best regards,
Dan Zhao
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:0S:20 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
The discussion surrounding the Benton project has continued for nearly two months, and recently, more data and news articles have emerged revealing serious issues wit h existing Bay Area homeless shelt ers. The informat ion raises doubts about t he reliabi lity of promises made by t he county, builders, and management/operation companies. I implore you t o thoroughly review the dat a and resources provided at t he end of t his email.

Upon examining the data, it becomes evident that the Bent on project is unsuitable for its locat ion, Sant a Clara, and it s intended purpose. For example:
• The permanent supportive housing at 1000 Hillview Ct, Milpit as, has experienced striking crime stat istics, wit h total police cal ls increasing by 300% and tot al fire calls by 400% in 2022. The average police service t ime is close to 50 hours per mont h, and crimes include assault, drug-related offenses, burglary, rape, sex offender incidents, st olen vehicles, and other suspicious circumstances. Mayor Carmen and Councilmember Chua challenged t he county's admission crit eria, claiming t hat t he screening process was not working and problematic t enant s and drug addict ions were not being removed.

Milpitas has asked the County for addit ional police officers t o patrol t he site, yet t o receive any responses.
• LifeMoves' Mountain View at 2566 Leghorn St, opened at the end of 2020, has seen police cal ls rise from 3 in 2020 t o 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022. This site has also fai led in it s mission t o assist the homeless. With only 26% of cl ients placed in permanent housing, disqual ified management and staffing (including staff under arrest warrant for physical assault), and a lack of special ized housing service, Life Moves Mountain View has t he second-lowest success rate in t he county.
• LifeMoves' Palo Alto project has seen its cost estimat e soar from $17 million to $34.4 million within just a year of approval. To cut costs, LifeMoves is removing 24/7 security and supportive services and decreasing family spaces. The City of Palo Alto is facing a $6 million funding gap, which only covers construct ion costs and does not account for the rising operational costs that wi ll increase year after year.

While you may argue t hat t hese shelters differ from t he proposed Benton project, the fact remains t hat each site faces problems. This suggests t hat t he current model is fundamental ly flawed and should not be replicated furt her. I urge you to consider t hese concerns and rethink the Benton project's viability.

Regards,
Howard
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:00:48 PM
As a local resident, I live less t han 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 5 years.

I strongly oppose to build the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence, this is not a right locat ion for t he neighborhood as well as for t he unhoused people who wil l live t here.

Please re-consider another locat ion in non-resident ial area.

Thanks
Kat e Cao
From:

To:

Subject: Benton / Lawrence Shelter
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:13:30 AM
Hello,
I have resided in the city of Santa Clara for over 40 years, and despite never having contacted an elected council member before, I now feel compelled to do so. My strong opposition to the Benton/Lawrence shelter stems from its location. The proposed site is within walking distance from my home, and I am concerned about the safety of my 13 and 10-yearold children. As the shelter is intended for adults, not families, who may have issues with drug and mental abuse, I believe that it is inappropriate for it to be located in a residential area.

There are other Lifemoves shelters, such as Mt. View, located in commercial areas, so I question why the county has proposed this location. This is not fair to Santa Clara residents who wish to raise their families in safe and prosperous neighborhoods. Therefore, I urge you to vote against this proposal.

Gaby Gemetti
From:

To:

Subject: Benton project - Request for future public hearings Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:36:09 AM
Hello,
I am writing to express my concerns on the Benton Project and the recent public hearings.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Wu Wen
From:

To:

Subject: Benton project
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:31:42 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited
some supporters of the Benton project,
portrayed them as members of the local
community then asked them to speak at the
March 9th Benton public hearing on the
neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express
their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable
that institutions or individuals with a vested
interest in the project were invited to speak for
the project and disguised themselves as local
neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5
speakers are from housing advocate
organizations, who don’t live in the
neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from
SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a
dozen of college students to support and speak
for the project. None of them are from the
Benton neighborhood. This action gave false
impressions of public support for the project
and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion.

It clearly violated law and democracy. I have
zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

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

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

Thanks.

Jacob
From:

To:

Subject: Benton S er - First Open Letter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 5 :26:04 PM
[ ri]
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers, County Supervisors:

Safe Santa Clara. County is a grassroots association of residents from across Santa Clara. Our aim is to promote livable cities and neighborhoods which work for all of our residents.

The proposed location poses a significant safety threat to nearby schools. It is located at the cente1· of more than 15 schools serving 10,483 students. We are deeply concerned about the decision to create this shelter for "the more challenging elements of the population" (B. Greenberg of LifeMoves, in the 2nd hearing) i11 such close proximity to thousands of vulnerable and innocent children. This decision poses an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of the children and can lead to devastating consequences. We believe that there are other locations in Santa Clara where no schools are within a 20-minute walk and should be considered instead.

The proposed location also poses a tremendous safety threat to nearby residents, with the closest one being less than 20 ft away. Research shows that crime increases by 56% within 300 ft of a shelter, and the negative effects are concentrated within 0.35 miles. For this proposed location, there are more than 2,000 residential homes, which means approximately 6,000 residents within 0.35 miles. The Repo11 on Project HomeKey shared in Milpitas council meeting in 2022 showed that police-involved incidents have increased 300% c.ompared to before the project was executed. TI1e contrast is te1rifying. TI1e level of crime rate at the facility is unacceptable. It is a strong proof that a shelter can tum the area into a hotbed for crime. It has a devastating impact on the safety and security, economic grow-th and public health of the affected neighborhoods and the wider Santa Clara community.

We are deeply disappointed and outraged about the misleading communication from county officials, LifeMoves, and city councilmembers regarding the proposed shelter. In the first outreach meeting, officials from the county and LifeMoves showed an apparent lack of knowledge about how many schools and other child facilities were located near the Benton location. In the 2nd meeting, Ms. Consuelo Hemandez claimed there were only four schools located within 1.5 miles of the shelter, which is still incoITect. The correct number is 15, and will go much Wgher if we include daycares and afte1·-school programs. Tius grossly inaccurate infomiation demonstrates the officials' ignorance of the safety and well-being of the community, as well as the poor quality of their work.

Fwihennore, Ms. Consuelo Hemandez attempted to use the Branham and Monterey shelter as an example to justify the proposed location near Benton, stating that the neigl1borhoods are similar. Howeve1·, this compa1ison is illogical and misleading, as the Branham and Monterey loc.ation was a tenible mistake made by the city of San Jose, whlch 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 v.rithin 1.5 miles of Benton, compared to 3 schools and 1,116 students near Branham. Thls 1isk and potential c.onsequences of the Benton location will be 9 times greater than that of Branham, and will be much higher if we include teachers and staff, and students from daycares and after-school programs.

We are actively seeking alternative ways to help the unhoused population by proposing alternative uses for this land.

The association suggests moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals. With significant government funding available, we can tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation and addressing the underlying issues.

We believe that these concerns should warrant proper consideration and mitigation by the City, County and LifeMoves.

Regards,
Board Members, Safe Santa Clara County
[email protected]
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:55:53 PM
Attachments: False and Misleading Info Provided by County and LifeMoves.png Good evening,
My name is Cindy, a proud Santa Clara resident for the past 5 years, and a dedicated volunteer with SafeSCC, a grassroots organization committed to preserving safe neighborhoods in Santa Clara County. I vehemently oppose the proposed low-barrier interim housing at Benton, as it blatantly disregards the fundamental right to safety for our community.

The Benton shelter is set to admit individuals with criminal backgrounds, severe mental health issues, and drug addictions, with minimal background checks and a complete absence of drug tests. Such a policy raises considerable concerns as problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed as evidenced in both Milpitas and MTV's shelters, thereby jeopardizing the safety and well-being of our community.

Also the county and LifeMoves failed to conduct any research on the impact of the Benton project on the neighborhood, as evidenced by their inco1Tect school count, and more. In the first community meeting, the county and LifeMoves had no idea at all how many schools were nearby. Second meeting, they claimed only 4 schools were within 1.5 miles, which was inco1Tect. Third time, they revised it to 6 schools and 8 daycares, still inco1Tect. In reality, 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. Amid the police's staffing sho11age of city of Santa Clara, how can we ensure the neighborhood's safety?
The estimated annual operating cost for the proposed shelter is also ve1y high as 4.3 Millions per year, with an unclear funding source from year 1 to year 15+. Despite California law requiring a minimum nurse/patient ratio of 1 :6 in a psychiatric unit, LifeMoves recommends only one vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants, with 57% of them having serious mental health issues.

Moreover, county and LifeMoves have consistently provided false or misleading info1mation, and housing advocates who don't live in the neighborhood were invited to speak in suppo11 at all four community meetings.

In the table below are just a few examples of the fact check SafeSCC did for the info1mation provided by the county. They said interim housing is different from shelter in the 2nd meeting, but they are ensencally the same, and they used them interchangeably in the first meeting.

County also claimed no one will walk by the shelter, but it's not tiu e! There are pedestrian paths in eve1y direction with regular foot traffic. Also, the location is far from life facilities and public transpo11ation, opposite to what county and LifeMoves claimed. Plus, there's no guarantee of housing Santa Clara's homeless in this shelter, with only 25 out of 274 Milpitas homeless being housed in their shelter as of 2022. Moreover, a liquor store is just across the street, which may worsen the symptoms and increase likelihood of violent behaviors of those with mental illnesses and drug issues who frequently consume alcohol.

Topic Question/Concern County/LifeMoves said… Fact Check Terminology County and LifeMoves
provided false and
misinformation and
intend to mislead the city
and the community
“Shelter” is an old model, which
is totally different from
“interim/supportive housing” that
Benton is proposed for.
“Shelter”and “interim/supportive
housing” are used interchangeably in
past community meetings by
Consuelo. They are the same thing,
meaning the target population is
homeless and onsite supportive
service will be provided.
1000 Hillview Ct, Milpitas is a
permanent supportive housing.

Safety Impact on crime rates or
service calls on the site
or neighborhood
Consuelo said no data have
showed crime would increase in
and near the shelter
> 300% increase in police calls at and
around Milpitas' 1000 Hillview Ct
Apartments; Consuelo attended the
meeting and acknowledged the
significant crime surge.

Safety Number of Schools
Nearby
First time knew nothing about
number of schools
Second time counted only 4
within 1.5 miles
Third time missed all the schools
west of Lawrence
15 schools with 10,483 students;
At least 31 daycares within 1.5 miles
Safety Pedestrian safety
concern
No one will walk passing by the
location, as there is no path
available for walking past it.

Pedestrian paths in every direction.

Regular foot traffic from families,
seniors, couples with strollers, and
students on weekdays and
weekends. Students frequently visit
the 711 across Benton for snacks.

Allocation based on queue, no
guarantee of housing Santa Clara's
homeless in this shelter; Milpitas
facility data shows only 10 Milpitas
homeless in 132-unit apartment; as
of 2022, two years since its launch,
only 25 out of 274 homeless in
Milpitas have been housed
Location Proximity to bus stop Public transportations is very close by
The closest bus stop is on El
Carmino & Henderson, 1 miles away
from the Benton location, and 21 min
walk.

Location Proximity to liquor store Ignored Across the street. Research shows that people with mental illnesses who
frequently consume alcohol
experience worsened symptoms,
leading to an increased propensity
for violence and criminal behavior.

Despite four community meetings, the county and LifeMoves have failed to present a solid proposal or address the community's concerns directly.

At the April 25 meeting, we demand they:
1) Provide clear, satisfactory answers to all 500+ community questions,including the 300+ questions that have remain unanswered since February;
2) Refrain from inviting outside speakers;
3) Prioritize feedback from nearby residents; and
4) Address our concerns with transparent, actionable solutions, holding them fully accountable for any discrepancies or broken promises.

Our community's safety is non-negotiable, and we urge you to take these concerns seriously.

Thank you for your attention,
Cindy
From:

To:

Subject: City council meeting - Benton and Lawrence homeless shelter Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 7:14:07 AM
Hello Adam
I got information from the Santa Clara city newsletter that a special Citi Council meeting is being scheduled on April 25 in order to discuss the Benton/Lawrence interim housing proposal.

However I do not see this meeting listed in the list of Santa Clara city council meetings. Could you prove more info on this regarding timings, venue and how to join? I am a resident of Santa Clara and I wish to participate and view this meeting.

Regards
Venkat Akileshwaran
From:

To:

Subject: Collaborating to build supportive housing in Santa Clara city Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 11:49:32 AM
Hello Adam,
Hope you are having a good week so far. I am Punit, President and Chairman of California Supportive Housing, a non-profit focused on supportive and 100% affordable Housing. We are working on multiple Homekey and LIHTC projects in the Bay Area and we are reaching out to work with you and the city to develop supportive housing in Santa Clara city using Homekey Round 3.

We are in contract with a well located reasonably priced 67 unit motel in Santa Clara and we are closely working with HomeFirst to provide supportive services for that property and for co-applying with us. We plan to develop the property in two phases first converting 67 units to interim housing and then to 160 permanent units. We had a review of our proposal with Steve Le from planning and had good initial reactions and support and will be working with the planning on the details of the phase 2. We also connected with OHA Director Consuelo H. and will be collaborating for PBV and additional Measure A funds for the project (that will not be in time for Homekey Round 3 application but would reduce the capex/opex gap when awarded).

We would like to work with you to collaborate to co-apply for Homekey Round 3. It would be great if we could connect with you to present our proposal (including site, development plan, proforma, opex/capex gap/matching funds).

Please let me know if there is any slot on this week or MondayWednesday next week that works for you for a quick conference call? Looking forward to working with you and the city to develop the much needed supportive housing for Santa Clara.

Thanks
Punit
President and Chairman
California Supportive Housing
From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 4:50:26 PM
*Please include this comment in your proposal to the City of Santa Clara City Council* I strnngly oppose the proposal to build a shelter at the comer of Benton and Lawrence Expressway. I have lived on-(directly behind the site) for 46 years. I am now a senior citizen and I am ve1y ~ out my personal safety and crime in my neighborhood increasing if this shelter is built. This shelter should be located in an industrial area away from schools and neighborhoods filled with families and seniors.

As a long tenn resident of Santa Clara and this neighborhood I urge you to vote NO on this proposal.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:21:41 PM
*Please include this comment in yow- proposal to the City of Santa Clara City Council* Alicia Deboe
Collllllent:

I strnngly oppose the proposal to build a shelter at the comer of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. I have lived on Shafer Drive, the street behind this location, since 1977. I grew up on this street and then bought a home on this street to raise my family. I am disappointed the city would even consider this type of housing in a neighborhood. At the community meetings, om concerns for safety and secmity are disregarded because we are "assuming" there will be criminals and drng addicts but Lifemoves stated that is exactly why the shelter is low baITier- people that can pass drng tests and background checks have other housing options. I am a Santa Clara Unified employee and I have been trained to use Naloxone because fentanyl and opioid overdose is a real concern in om schools, so please do not invite more drng activity into an area smTounded by school and parks. This shelter will not help clean up om city and the homeless population will only increase since this shelter will bring in people from all over the county. I understand the police need a drop off facility for those people who ask for or are willing to accept help and that type of shelter should be located in an industrial area. Other projects (Milpitas and San Jose) that are close to neighborhoods have not been open long enough to get data. on problems and crime rates. The police officer who spoke at the last in person meeting said he is in contact with Milpitas police and there are concerns about what is happening at that shelter, and that police are concerned about a high concentration of people in one area and a non secme perimeter- two things this proposal has.

This shelter should be located in an industrial area away from densely populated neighborhoods, schools and parks.

I mge you to VOTE NO on this proposal. Santa Clara does not need to be added to the list of cities who regret approving this type of shelter.

From:

To:

Subject: Comment on interim housing project meeting #4
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:13:25 PM
Hi City & County staff and elected officials,
My name is Asha and I grew up and still live within a mile of the proposed interim housing project in Santa Clara. Throughout my life I've seen Santa Clara get more exclusive and less economically diverse because of the rising cost of housing. Hardly anyone who I grew up with lives in the area because they simply can't afford it. We need to prioritize inclusivity in our neighborhood and that means investing in supportive housing as well as other types of affordable housing and renter protections.

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

Thanks,
Asha DuMonthier
From:

To:

Cc:

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

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

1. 2.

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

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

4. Budget:

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

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

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

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

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

To:

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To:

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WIth regards,
Rachna Lal
Resident of Neighborhood
From:

To:

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To:

Cc:

Subject:

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

1. 2.

2. 3.

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

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentMay 2, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
May 2, 2023