Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, October 29, 2024 (part 3 of 7)

VOTE NO, PLEASE!
Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 10:32pm 05-01-23
Majority (~90%) of residents, we strongly OPPOSE!
1) Funding and lack of accountability: huge burden on Santa Clara residents at the cost of our safety. 2) No background checks which is a safety concern residents and homeless clients. 3) County imposing redlining of cities like Santa Clara 4) Misinformation from County and LifeMoves officials. They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan. 5) Misinformation from County and LifeMoves officials. They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan. ....
....
....

Zhihao Ji
Location:

Submitted At: 10:26pm 05-01-23
As a local resident, I strongly oppose the proposal.

The construction cost is way too high, almost $1 million per family unit, and there's still the financial gap every year. That's totally a waste of tax money.

Also LifeMoves cannot show it can really help homeless people move to their next step. In MTV LifeMoves, success rate is only 26%!
So I believe, LifeMoves & County are not trustworthy partners to work with. Please reconsider this project and vote NO!!!
Julie Camaganacan
Location:

Submitted At: 9:13pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the building of the Homeless Shelter!

1. We already have vandalism and destruction of propery - dumpster diving and illegal dumping of trash in our bins. Home owners can't throw their trash because its full. Breaking into vehicles and storage.

2. Unauthorized parking - strangers parking in homeowners stall doing drugs. Condo is hidden in the back where police does not patrol.

3. Gated condominium - strangers still come into the property and use the pool and loiter.

Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:40pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal
Tammy Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 6:49pm 05-01-23
Our family strongly oppose this proposal. It’s ridiculous to build a low barrier shelter so close to residential area and schools. Definitely will bring safety issues.

Please vote NO!
Lily Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 6:33pm 05-01-23
I oppose because Santa Clara has high ratio of shelters. Please don’t make city of Santa Clara a homeless headquarter! This proposal @ Lawrence / Benton is not suitable for homeless because the high speed of Lawrence expressway and no bus on this section of Benton! Not to mention that this location is too close to nearby school. Homeless kids have free transportation to school but regular kids have to walk to schools. With such close shelter nearby, it is a treat to children in the neiborhood! keesun Kwan
Location:

Submitted At: 6:22pm 05-01-23
Please don’t make my home area become homeless concentrated area.

I oppose because drugs and crime are root of homelessness. And, increase drug related activities due to Bella vista shelter.

Unreasonable cost of building this interim housing. 34 million builds 30 units of less than 300 square per unit.

That is outrageous. Please vote “ NO” on this proposal! Thank you Helen Kwan
Location:

Submitted At: 5:49pm 05-01-23
Oppose because within 300 ft of residential neighborhood with kids and increased drug related activity due to Bella vista shelter
Please it’s “ NO” thank you
Michael Loomis
Location:

Submitted At: 5:31pm 05-01-23
Any Council person who votes yes does not care about the community and clearly has their own agenda. When the community declines, police calls increase, and we have the first assaults, rapes or murders, it will be a result of their vote of yes. They should be held accountable.

Phyllis OSullivan
Location:

Submitted At: 5:21pm 05-01-23
The City cannot afford this fiscally or the liabilty. LifeMove's has a horrendous record for actually getting people housed considering MV. The homeowners and community have spoken, 5200 wet signatures and 1600 change.org signatures in opposition.

Vote No!
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:57pm 05-01-23
Our community's safety is non-negotiable. Kids and everyone will only be safe with law-abiding people. Kids will never be fine in close proximity with criminals, drug addicts and sex offenders. There are tons of data showing kids are more likely to be the victim of criminals, sex offenders and drug addicts. The supporter group keeps stereotyping us and kids to be lack of empathy or diversity. That is unacceptable! Alex Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:15pm 05-01-23
Our family strongly OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposal. It is a huge huge threat to the safety of our children!
Abby Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 1:58pm 05-01-23
STRONGLY OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!! PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO) Bob Gao
Location:

Submitted At: 12:04pm 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

In light of the many issues raised during the public hearings, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway proposal.

Please Vote NO! NO! NO!
Xiaoqing Jin
Location:

Submitted At: 12:03pm 05-01-23
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

All these good wills turn into disasters, drug smell in the community, uneasy feeling when talking alone or with kids, or even criminal instances in Milpitas, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. Hope the city council considers residents' voice (most people in my community heard about it were shocked and oppose it) and learn from the history.

Brenda Earl
Location:

Submitted At: 11:44am 05-01-23
Highly oppose this! Our Forbes avenue neighborhood do not welcome the low barrier shelter in our community.

Our neighborhood has a very low unsheltered rate, we do not want to sacrifice our safety. We believe the shelter should build in some place people welcome them. We will try our best to help as long as it is not built in our community.

Lynn Luckie
Location:

Submitted At: 11:33am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Please consider other alternative solutions that won't bring big safety concerns to the neighborhood.

SE Birdland
Location:

Submitted At: 11:31am 05-01-23
Police are concerned about neighbors. Shouldn't you be too? Add'l SCPD recommendations:
- Background checks. Anyone with a history of violence, sex offenses, or drug manufacturing in the last 3 years not allowed.
- Weekly room inspections
- Guests must produce and relinquish an ID to staff before being allowed entry. - Secured perimeter; single point of entry/exit onto the property grounds. security presence to screen visitors at that point of entry.
- Regular meetings with PD and Fire
Melanie Qiu
Location:

Submitted At: 11:25am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please do more investigations to understand how many kids are living in this area.

Please vote no!
Sean Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:16am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO!
Yan Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 05-01-23
I'm a parent of two kids. I'm seriously concerned about Children's safety considering the high dense schools in this neighborhood, even if it's potential threats. Family obligations only allow me to say “No” to the homeless shelter at Benton & Lawrence.

Angel Wong
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 05-01-23
Definitely strongly oppose! City needs to do more investigation, it’s too close to school and kids, plus the low barrier is an absolutely uncertain threat
Jing Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 05-01-23
Just Vote NO!
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

There will be lots of homeless wandering in the area in the future and making residence here in danger! Please vote No!
Qingyi Liu
Location:

Submitted At: 11:08am 05-01-23
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Joyce Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:55am 05-01-23
80-95% local residents strongly oppose this Bento no screening homeless shelter. The supporters are making money of this project. Please listen to the local residents who vote for the government officials. Otherwise this place will become a shithole full of drug addicts and criminals.

Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 9:43pm 04-30-23
n light of the many issues raised during the public hearings, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway proposal Just Vote NO!
Taimei Yeh
Location:

Submitted At: 9:35pm 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council
Members:

Please vote “No” to this interim homeless shelter @Lawrence / Benton project. With both Bella Vista and Western Motel another future homeless shelter site along El Camino Real plus this Benton / Lawrence site on the south, city of Santa Clara is making a homeless headquarter in the south of el Camino Real between Lawrence and Scott! There will be lots of homeless wandering in the area in the future and making residence here in danger! Please vote No!
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 12:16pm 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO!
BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:38am 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO! NO! NO!
Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 10:02am 04-30-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?
From: C L
To: Clerk; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Adam Marcus; Glen Googins; Lisa Gillmor; Nora Pimentel
Subject: ABC News at 6pm regarding the Benton Shelter Proposal Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:11:46 PM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my concern about the recent report on ABC News at 6pm regarding the Benton Shelter Proposal. As a resident of Santa Clara and someone who attended the public hearing on April 25th, I was surprised and upset to hear that the proposal had been approved, since we were clearly told at the hearing that the decision would be made on May 2nd.

I would like to know how ABC News obtained this information and who their sources were.

As a resident who has spent a lot of time opposing this proposal, I feel that it is important to have accurate and timely information about the decision-making process.

While I understand the news organizations strive to report accurately, it is possible that the report was based on incomplete or incorrect information. I urge you to provide accurate information to the public.

In addition, I would like to reiterate my opposition to Benton Shelter Proposal and to ask you to vote NO on May 2nd, 2023. As a resident of Santa Clara, we have entrusted you with the responsibility of making decisions that will make our city a better place to live. Please consider our voices and concerns.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,
Chen
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
From: J Pan
To: Clerk; Lisa Gillmor; Kevin Park; Karen Hardy; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Adam Marcus
Subject: How can City approve the Benton Shelter proposal before Voting? Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 9:46:31 AM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
When I watched ABC News at 6 pm on April 26, 2023, I was surprised, upset, and felt cheated to see that without the discussion and vote by Council members, the City of Santa Clara had approved, or delayed the approval of the Benton Shelter Proposal.

We were at the hearing on April 25th, 2023. And we all heard Mayor Gillmor said the hearing will be continued on next Tuesday evening, May 2nd, 2023. City Councilmembers will discuss the proposal and vote on May 2nd. However, before all these happened, ABC news already got inside information and aired the result of approval, or delayed approval. How could ABC news already know the result is an approval not a rejection? Who told them? Please investigate who the information source is.

Have you already made your decision? If so, why pretend to continue the discussion next week? We, Santa Clara residents, feel being fooled and are deeply disappointed.

If you haven’t made your decision, please vote NO to the Benton & Lawrence interim housing project. There are so many uncertainties about its fundings. A bipartisan group already called for an audit to the HomeKey program. LifeMoves cut their expenses by removing security and onsite services, but still get their profits. The City of Santa Clara will be the only one who is hurt. When the housing market and local business were impacted by the Shelter, the tax income of the City will be impacted for sure. Not to mention the increase of cost and manpower to maintain the safety of shelter and its surrounding community. This project will worsen the fiscal deficit of the City of Santa Clara.

If you haven’t made your decision, please vote NO on May 2nd, 2023! Let's work together to make Santa Clara a better place to live.

Best Regards,
Pan Family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: Jiayi Pan
To: Clerk; Lisa Gillmor; Kevin Park; Karen Hardy; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Nora Pimentel; Adam Marcus
Subject: Please Vote No to the Interim Housing at Benton St. & Lawrence Expy Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:25:47 PM
Good afternoon Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
Please vote NO to the Homekey Benton street Interim Housing proposal! Don’t ignore 5293 petitions from local residents who strongly oppose this proposal.

LifeMoves' proposal, presented at the April 25th hearing meeting, gave false or misleading information. Their plan and budget are unrealistic with contradictory statements and discrepant figures. Majority of LifeMoves' exclients didn't get the service they deserved in LifeMoves' shelters. 74% of them are still homeless. LifeMoves's performance shows they are incapable of achieving the objective of the proposal.

Please vote NO. Please don't go against the opinion of the local community and don't waste our tax dollars on LifeMoves!
Best Regards,
Megan Katz
Residents of Santa Clara
From: Mayor and Council
To: Santa Clara Housing Advocates
Cc: Clerk
Subject: RE: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25 Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 8:57:22 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello,
Our office confirms receipt of your email. Included in this reply is the Clerk’s Offce who can address your request.

Thank You,
Melissa Lee | Executive Assistant
Mayor & Council Offices | City of Santa Clara
(408) 615-2252 | www.santaclaraca.gov
From: Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Mayor and Council <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25

PLEASE REDACT MY ADDRESS DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 2:52 PM Mayor and Council <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
Our office confirms receipt of your email regarding the Public Hearing/General Business item:

Consideration and Possible Actions on a Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Including City Sponsorship and Partial Funding of Project Operations (CEQA: Statutory Exemption under Government Code Section 65913.4, SB 35 Affordable Housing Projects), which has been forwarded to the full City Council for their review.

Please note this correspondence will form part of the public record for the April 25, 2023, Special City Council meeting.

Thank You,
Melissa Lee | Executive Assistant
Mayor & Council Offices
(408) 615-2252 | www.santaclaraca.gov
From: Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 4:51 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25 On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
Attached are materials that we would like to be delivered to City Council PRIOR to the meeting on April 25, if possible.

Thank you,
Elysa Gurman
Santa Clara Housing Advocates
869 Bing Dr
From: [email protected]
To: Clerk; Mayor and Council
Subject: RE: Proposed Temporary Housing at Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway. How can city approve the Benton shelter proposal before voting?
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:51:34 AM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Council
Members,
When I watched ABC News at 6 pm on April
26, 2023, I was shocked, angrily, and felt
betrayed to see that without the
discussion and vote by Council members,
the City of Santa Clara had approved the
proposal already, and later ABC News
modified it to "delayed the approval" of
the Benton Shelter Proposal. Why is ABC
News so sure of the approval? Did they get
insider information?
We were at the hearing on April 25th,
2023. And we all heard Mayor Gillmor said
the hearing will be continued on next
Tuesday evening, May 2nd, 2023. City
Councilmembers will discuss the proposal
and vote on May 2nd. However, before all
these happened, ABC news already got
inside information and aired the result of
approval, or "delayed approval". How could
ABC news already know the result is an
approval not a rejection? Who told them?
We demand an investigation on the leaked
information source.

Have you already made your decision? If
so, why pretend to continue the discussion
next week? We, Santa Clara residents, feel
being fooled and are deeply disappointed.

Please vote NO to the Benton & Lawrence
interim housing project. There are so many
uncertainties about its fundings. A
bipartisan group already called for an
audit to the HomeKey program. LifeMoves
cut their expenses by removing security
and onsite services, but still get their
profits. The City of Santa Clara will be
the only one who is hurt. When the housing
market and local business were impacted by
the Shelter, the tax income of the City
will be impacted for sure. Not to mention
the increase of cost and manpower to
maintain the safety of shelter and its
surrounding community. This project will
worsen the fiscal deficit of the City of
Santa Clara.

Please vote NO on May 2nd, 2023! Please
don’t ignore 5293 petitions from local
residents who strongly oppose this
proposal. Let's work together to make
Santa Clara a better place to live.

Sincerely,
BP Huang Family
Residents of Santa Cara
PS: Attached a news clip for you to
consider. Homelessness and Drugs come hand
in hand. Our family is certainly not ready
for the National Guards to come in.

Putting 250 Most Challenging homeless in
our residential community, are you ready
for our City going down that route?
Gavin Newsom is sending California’s National Guard to
help San Francisco fight fentanyl
Gavin Newsom is sending California’s National
Guard to help San Francisc...

San Francisco has seen a more than 40% increase in overdose deaths between January and March 2023. What is fenta...

From: Benny Fong
To: Mayor and Council; Clerk
Subject: RE: Proposed Temporary Housing at Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:16:38 AM
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing
proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

In light of the many issues raised during the public
hearing, and the overwhelming opposition from the
community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO
on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Sincerely,
Kat & Alex
Residents of Santa Clara
From: B W
To: Mayor and Council; Clerk
Subject: RE: Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway.

Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:40:04 PM
Dear Mayor Gilmore, Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing
proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.
# Topic Context
1 Voice of the
Residents
A vast majority (80-95%) of residents voted in opposition in all 4 public hearings
>95% of comments on the 4/25 agenda were in
opposition
Residents living in the immediate neighborhood have
submitted ~5200+ wet signatures with their names, real
address and contact information.
2 Safety There is no background check or screening to exclude folks with criminal records or active drug addiction or Sex offense history
No ID verification to validate family or age of minor
So making it family priority facility does not make any difference, it just creates illusion of safety
Just 300 ft away we have a condominium community
where 76 families and many include kids and elderly.

Since we do not have any operational shelter in Santa
Clara county which is so close to schools and residential neighborhoods and schools - Which public safety
experts were consulted? What were the raw inputs from
them? We want full, unfiltered information.

In first public meeting county official did not know how many schools are nearby which created huge concern
majority of
residents
Santa Clara city staff shared their grave concerns
regarding safety and being able to manage such a large
site in our private meetings between residents and police staff. Police staff also pointed us to Milpitas data. They mentioned that they have shared their concerns with
council and county staff through private communication.

Nobody published that data to public
2 Funding City would need to fund [XYZ] for next [X] years and after that there is no clarity on operational cost coverage Drawing funds from FLHA implies the city would have
lesser funds to build affordable housing and other
programs for the housing crisis
It was mentioned that the construction overrun budget
will be covered from the operational budget that
HomeKey provides which will create more gap budget to
run this facility. Eventually it will result reduced amount of services offered and staffing or will increase burden on city to fill the gap - Palo Alto Deja Vu
4 CEQA The proposed site is in Flood Zone and hence can not be assumed to be CEQA exempt
We strictly recommend city to not provide HomeKey
application support letter till full CEQA evaluation is done and environmental impact is known to city council and
public
5 Falsified data? Bus stops are >0.5 miles away. This measured from end of the lot not from entrance
7/11 can not be classified as a grocery store. In the
report it is shown as Market place which is misguided.

Number of schools nearby is deliberately reduced not
counting preschools and daycares as it will reduce
HomeKey points
6 Lack of Trust FAQs are still not fully answered and for quite a few, the text is cut out so we don’t see the entire answer
County produced a highly biased community
engagement report - feedback cards are deliberately
cherry picked and all the cards showing opposition are
not included. Any emails sent after 3/21 to demonstrate opposition of this project are not included in report
In the presentation it was presented as a family only
facility but in the proposal it has clear provision to house single adults. Also it is being constructed as flex style configurable units which can be all separate 90 rooms - so it being constructed with full intent to either converting it to adult only facility, just like original proposal or mixing adults and families together and leave city to manage it It was also presented based on community feedback
county & LifeMoves reduced the scope of the project to
1/4th - 30 units from 80-120 units. Technically this facility is being constructed as 90 configurable rooms across 30 modular units. Each room can host 2 adults or maybe 3
people if there is a mother with small kids. So there is no scope change at all - 90 rooms and the total population can be anywhere from 160 to 270 people.

Susan Ellenberg is a big proponent and a face behind
this project. There were numerous attempts made by
many many residents to contact or meet her over the
period of nearly 2.5 months. Never received a single
response
7 Huge burden
on Santa Clara
County is gifting an elephant to our city
Board of supervisors asked the search for land to be
done exclusively in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale (and not
other cities like Los Gatos, Saratoga etc.)
Santa Clara already has a very high ratio of shelters or beds per homeless at a city level as compared to most
of the other cities of the county
8 Police Staffing Bella Vista is already going down the Hillcrest (Milpitas) route with respect to crime and service calls. Once it
converts into permanent housing it would be even more
comparable to the Milpitas site and having an interim
housing in close proximity to it without increase in Police staffing doesn’t seem appropriate. Milpitas PD had to
make reactive measures. SCPD should be proactive.
9 Drugs We are already seeing increased activity in our neighborhood due to Bella Vista
In light of the many issues raised during the public
hearing on 5/25/23, and the overwhelming opposition
from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Sincerely,
West Household
Residents of the City of Santa Clara
From: Xinxin Jin
Subject: Say No to the Benton Shelter Proposal
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:53:05 PM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
I'm a resident living in Santa Clara near the Benton site. I'm utterly shocked and disappointed when I heard ABC News at 6 pm on April 26, 2023 announcing Santa Clara approved the temporary housing project, without the discussion and vote by Council members. We, our whole family, feel being fooled. At the hearing on April 25th, we all heard Mayor Gillmor said the hearing will be continued on next Tuesday evening, May 2nd and city Councilmembers will discuss the proposal and vote on the same day. How come it has already been approved before that? Where is justice and transparency? Please investigate the source of the fake news.

Please vote NO to the Benton street Interim Housing proposal. Please listen to 5293 local residents who strongly oppose this proposal.

Best Regards,
Xinxin Jin
Resident of Santa Clara
From: [email protected]
To: Mayor and Council; Clerk
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Approval of Benton Shelter Project Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 10:17:40 AM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and Council Members,
I am writing to express my grave concern about the recent approval of the Benton Shelter. The decision raises serious questions about the City Council's decision-making process and the trustworthiness of our elected officials.

Despite months of community outreach meetings
and public comments, the county and LifeMoves
have consistently ignored our valid and critical
questions, provided false and misleading
information, and given vague proposals. During
the recent hearing, the City's representatives
were unable to provide any solid
explanations to the community's concerns,
including critical flaws in the funding
calculation, price per unit, unit design,
family unit size, site design, occupancy
composition and numbers, location
selection, and more. They even failed to
answer the simplest question such as how
many people will live onsite, and if the site
will be “family-only”.

As a law-abiding resident, I find it shocking that
supporters of the Benton Shelter, majority of
whom are students and professional housing
advocates, have resorted to politically
motivated speeches and baseless accusations
against the community. Their lies and distortions
of facts have no place in our community and have
only served to further damage our trust in the
City's decision-making process.

Furthermore, the recent news from ABC7 has only added to our suspicions that the decision may have already been made and that the City Council's discussion and voting next Tuesday are merely a formality. If this is the case, the community will not hesitate to take legal action to protect our rights and interests.

We must confirm with the city whether the
approval of the Benton project has already been
decided, and if the discussion and voting next
Tuesday are just a formality. If so, the
community will immediately prepare for legal
action. If not, the city needs to explain who the
source of ABC's information is and why they
insisted on approval even after being
reminded by the community, only to delay
it. Some neighbors in the community have
already started the process of requesting public
records of the city council members' behavior and
communication regarding the Benton proposal.

We will not let go of any possible evidence of
violations of regulations and laws.

If the city council still has not yet voted, please vote “NO” to this proposal and project to save the city and its law-abiding, hard-working residents.

Sincerely,
Ross
Resident of the City of Santa Clara
From: Phil Zhao
To: Clerk
Subject: Vote NO to Temporary Housing at Benton in Santa Clara Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:03:31 PM
Hello,
This is Phil, a father with two elementary school kids living in this neighborhood with my family. I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton, to jeopardize the safety of so many kids living nearby.

Only the people who LIVE in this neighborhood have the right to make the decision, NOT those who live miles away. Please vote NO to this temporary housing at Benton in Santa Clara.

Thanks,
Phil

1 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
Mountain View Community Guidelines
LifeMoves programs are designed to meet the specific needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and to assist them with increasing self-sufficiency and moving to more stable housing. To help our clients set and meet these goals, LifeMoves programs include shelter, case management, workshops, community activities, and individual chores. In these guidelines, the term “program” encompasses all these services, “program facility” or "facility" refers to the LifeMoves Mountain View facility, and "client" refers to residents at this facility and participants in this facility's programs.

Non-Discrimination Policy: It is LifeMoves policy to treat our clients without regard or consideration for the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, veteran or marital status, medical condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or any other basis protected by federal, state or local law. To comply with applicable laws ensuring equal opportunities to clients with a disability, LifeMoves will make a reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental limitations of a client with a disability unless undue hardship would result.

1. Clients Bill of Rights
a. Clients' rights will be exercised in ways that also respect the rights of others. No individual's rights are absolute.
b. Clients are entitled to enjoy a safe and healthful living environment in the program facility. c. Clients are entitled to be treated in a manner that respects their dignity and individuality. d. Clients with disabilities, personal, and cultural differences are entitled to reasonable accommodations under fair housing laws when such accommodations are necessary because of their disability, personal, and cultural identity. LifeMoves will accommodate clients’ needs (expressed, implicit, or implied) as long as such accommodation will not result in an essential change to the program or residential structure.
e. Clients are entitled to remain in the program and not be involuntarily removed without reasonable cause and just procedures.
f. Clients are entitled to just and standardized procedures for determining eligibility, admissions, sanctions, discharges, and resolving grievances.
g. Clients are entitled to reasonable privacy and confidential treatment of personal, social, financial, medical, mental and behavioral health records, except as necessary to further treatment, information and referral services and in compliance with the client’s written consent to release information.
h. Clients are entitled to the full exercise of their civil, constitutional, and legal rights.

2. Reasonable Accommodation Notice
Those wanting to make a reasonable accommodation request to aid a physical and/or mental health disability should speak with their case manager and/or program director as soon as possible to alert staff to the request. Some reasonable accommodation requests will be asked to be placed in writing and may require follow up paperwork before such requests can be considered for accommodation.

3. Eligibility
The program is available to adults, couples, and families experiencing homelessness. Individuals who have recently stayed in a LifeMoves residential program are not eligible for this program unless the time since discharge is at least 90 days.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 2 of 10 Ver 5/4/21

4. Required TB Testing
New clients must show a record of a negative TB test (PPD Skin Test, chest x-ray, or blood work) within the past 12 months. If no record is available, LifeMoves staff will refer clients to a TB testing provider.

Clients have one week to provide the new record of a negative TB test.

5. Sobriety and Clean Environment
Our facility strictly supports an environment that is free of the use of alcohol/ETOH and drugs (nonprescription/medication). New clients will be asked to provide proof of sobriety to enter the program.

Unannounced alcohol and drug testing may be conducted when there is probable cause that may raise a clinical or safety issue. Results of any drug test or breath alcohol test ("breathalyzer" or BAC test) will be used to establish appropriate treatment plans. Clients are expected to adhere to treatment plans as a show of good faith in respecting other clients’ sobriety and clean living.

6. Length of Stay
The program length of stay is up to 90 days. Extensions may be granted by LifeMoves management on a case-by-case basis, based on the client's:
• Focus and progress in meeting case plan goals (for example, stable housing, employment, mainstream benefits, and increased self-sufficiency).
• Compliance with program policies and procedures.
• Consistently contributing to their housing fund.

7. Daily Wellness Checks
Staff will complete daily wellness checks, which will include visual unit inspections and client health screens. There will always be at least two staff going into units. If a client refuses, entry staff will contact the Program Director, who will instruct staff next steps. Program Director will assess the situation if needed the police may be called for further assistance.

Each unit is one adult, unless approved by management.

Clients who do not return to shelter site within 24 hours will be given an Ask To Leave Letter (ATL) and will have the opportunity to appeal. If clients do not return to shelter within 72 hours all belongings will be discarded.

8. Case Management
Clients meet with their Case Manager on a weekly basis to ensure that measurable goals are being met and to discuss any barriers to self-sufficiency. Successful case management means TOGETHER, the client and Case Manager will review goals and accomplishments. The Case Manager will assist with referrals to outside agencies and provide information about community resources as appropriate. Case management will cover the following:
• Housing search, to include regular housing search logs, viewing and applying for housing, creating a tenant portfolio and acquiring a credit report. • Financial planning, to include referral to financial benefits (as appropriate), referral to financial counseling, assistance in budgeting.
• Improving self-sufficiency and skills, to include working on/learning self-care, coping skills, vocational skills, general life skills, etc.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 3 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
• Special attention will be made to any client who expresses intent to harm themselves or others.

A client identified as high risk must develop a Safety Plan within the first week. During weekly case management meetings, the safety plan is reviewed and updated as needed.

Clients will promptly contact their Case Manager when any of the following occur:
• Require reasonable accommodation to meet program policies and requirements. • Source of income changes.
• Loss of job, or change of employment, training or educational programs. • Having problems achieving personal and program goals. • Having problems with other clients or staff.
• Unable to consistently contribute to their housing fund. • Unable to attend mandatory case management meetings, classes, or workshops.

9. Medication Management
Clients must store their prescribed and over-the-counter medications safely in their assigned rooms. It is prohibited for anyone in the program to sell or share any prescription or over-the-counter medications.

Medication management is an essential part of maintaining the safety of everyone in the facility and stabilizing the client’s health when indicated by their case plan. For these reasons, clients must agree to adhere to medication and treatment therapy as ordered by appropriate physicians, and for the proper storage, control, and documentation of all medications (prescription and non-prescription). LifeMoves staff is not responsible for administering or dispensing medications, however, staff may observe you taking your medications, as prescribed.

10. Housing Fund
LifeMoves has designed a Housing Fund program to support clients in their search for permanent living arrangements. Clients have the option to participate in LifeMoves’ Housing Fund Plan or to save money in their own fund. In either case, clients are strongly encouraged to contribute 50% of their income each pay period into their housing fund.

Clients choosing to participate in the LifeMoves Housing Fund Plan, will discuss with their Case Manager how to contribute money to the fund and how to keep receipts for deposited funds. When a client is discharged, they will be provided a check for the amount they saved during the program. Clients who leave the program before their discharge date must give their Case Manager 48 hours' notice to provide time to prepare a check for their savings contributions.

11. Facility Hours
• The facility is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• Mealtimes: (Meal times may be subject to change with little or no notice) − Breakfast: 7:00 AM – 8:00 AM
− Lunch: 12:00 AM - 12:30 AM
− Dinner: 5:30 PM – 6:00 PM
• Family Laundry hours: Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM • Singles/couples laundry hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM
• Chores: Morning chores must be done by 10:00 AM; evening chores must be done by 8:00 PM • Curfew: Mon-Fri 8:00 PM/ Weekends: 10:00 PM
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 4 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
• Quiet hours: ("lights out") begin every night at 10:00 PM • Required bed checks: 11pm everyday

12. Client Mail
Clients may receive mail at the following address:

LifeMoves Mountain View
2566 Leghorn St
Mountain View, CA 94043
Att: CLIENT NAME
Clients may receive mail at this address while the client is in active case management. Beginning 14 days after the client discharges from the program or terminates case management services, all mail will be returned to sender. For clients who are discharged from the program under ‘Grounds for Immediate Discharge,’ mail will be returned to sender beginning the day of discharge.

13. Telephones
This facility does not have telephones for resident use, except in an emergency.

14. Computers and Office Equipment
This facility provides Chrome Books and other office equipment to support housing and employment goals (e.g., job searches, housing research, interview preparation). LifeMoves staff will provide clients with additional instructions about using the Chrome Books.

15. Visitors
No visitors allowed in units without management approval. If a visitor refuses to leave staff may contact the police as the person is trespassing.

Personal Visitors - Personal visitors, including family and friends, are not allowed on the facility site. This is to protect the confidentiality of other clients. Confidentiality rules also require that the staff will not confirm nor deny if an individual is a resident. It is the client's responsibility to make arrangements to meet off-site with people they wish to visit with.

Official Visitors - Clients must notify their Case Manager when they expect visits from social workers, probation officers, and other service providers. When requested, facility staff will try to provide a private space to meet. All official visitors (service providers) must sign in at the front desk and provide their ID and a badge or business card.

16. Service and Assistance Animals
Clients who have a service animal and/or emotional support animal should refer to the reasonable accommodation request.

17. Pets at the Facility
Pets are not permitted on the facility grounds or in the facilities unless approved by LifeMoves management. Animals that are approved, must be accompanied by the client at all times. Pets may be allowed on the property with proper documentation. Clients are responsible for cleaning up after their pets. Cleanliness of the unit will be expected.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 5 of 10 Ver 5/4/21

18. Chores
Clients are expected to maintain a safe and clean environment by picking up/cleaning up after themselves. Clients must complete daily chores as assigned by LifeMoves staff. It is the client’s responsibility to ensure that their assigned chores are completed, and to locate a substitute if necessary.

It is never acceptable to pay another client to complete a chore on your behalf.

Clients who are unable to complete chores due to physical limitations should request a reasonable accommodation with their Case Manager. A physician’s written statement may be required.

19. Workshops
Workshops are offered to support client goals toward self-sufficiency and stable housing. Clients should attend workshops that are listed in or relevant to their case management plan.

20. Attendance, Curfew, and Passes
Attendance: Clients are responsible to be on time for all appointments with their Case Manager, group meetings, and outside appointments.

Overnight Stay: Clients must spend every night in the facility to remain eligible in the program, except for specific approvals by LifeMoves management (e.g., the Overnight Pass program). If a client is absent for two nights without an overnight pass or other management approval, they may be discharged from the program.

Curfew: Clients with children must return to the facility by 8:00 PM every evening. Clients without children must return to facility by 8:00 PM every evening.

Passes: The facility staff will inform clients about the following Pass programs: Late Night Pass; Overnight Pass; Work Pass; Lay-In Pass.

21. Personal Living Space
• Clients will be assigned a room for the duration of their stay. • Clients may not be in each other’s assigned rooms. Non-compliance may result in discharge. • Clients are responsible to keep their personal living spaces neat, clean, and sanitized according to requirements explained by the facility staff. Beds must be made each morning. All personal items must be properly stored. This will be ensured through weekly facility inspections. • For safety reasons, candles, incense, hot plates, open flames, heating elements, and certain types of lights are prohibited. These must be turned over to facility staff for storage and will be returned upon discharge.
• Absolutely NO FOOD OR BEVERAGE, except for water, is allowed in rooms. Facility cleanliness, including personal living spaces, will be monitored by regular inspections. Failure to keep personal and common spaces clean may result in warnings and even discharge from the program.
• All electronic devices must be silenced or on vibrate mode at all times. When using any electronic devices, headphones must be used instead of speakers. • Proper hygiene and grooming must be maintained at all times. For example, urinating is only permitted in the bathroom toilets/urinals.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 6 of 10 Ver 5/4/21

22. Personal Belongings
• Clients may not bring more than the equivalent of 2 large bags (60-gallon) of personal belongings into the facility.
• LifeMoves is not responsible for lost, misplaced, or stolen belongings during the client’s stay.

Clients are encouraged to safeguard their valuables.
• Clients will be held responsible for any destruction or theft of LifeMoves or other client’s property and will be discharged and subject to legal action. • Clients will be held responsible for any destruction or theft of LifeMoves or other client’s property and will be discharged and subject to legal action. • Clients are required to take ALL belongings (including medication & medical equipment) with them upon discharge.
• Belongings will NOT be stored for anyone who is no longer a client for longer than 72 hours after a client is discharged. Personal belongings that are left in the program facility after 72 hours from when a client discharges will be disposed of by program staff unless arrangements are made with the Case Manager or by contractual obligation. Any belongings that are left longer than the agreed upon period will be disposed of.
• No glass or silverware is allowed in the possession of clients. Items such as mugs must be plastic to be allowed in the facility. Any glass or silverware that does not fit these criteria will be confiscated immediately or the client can remove the item from the property. • Clients are prohibited from stealing, gambling, trading, selling or buying personal belongings or services including but not limited to cigarettes, food, clothing, and services such as errand running.

23. Items Not Allowed Onsite
Due to fire hazards and safety reasons, the following items are Not Allowed onsite:
• Floor/space heaters
• Heated blankets
• Candles
• Hot Plates and/or Double Burners
• Bleach
• Cooking/Frying Oil
• Cutting knives
• Personal monitors or TV’s
• Personal appliances
• Oxygen tanks needs to have management approval
• Limit of two bags of clothing items per client

24. Signing In and Out
For the safety of everyone, clients must sign out when leaving the premises and sign in on return. Staff will use the sign-out/in sheet for roll call in case of an emergency.

25. Dress Code
Clients should dress professionally for their case management meetings and outside appointments.

Shoes, slippers and appropriate clothing must be worn at all times. Clients must wear clothing to sleep and when going to and from bathrooms. Pajamas may not be worn in common areas or outside. Clients Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 7 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
will be asked to change clothes if LifeMoves staff deems any clothing to be inappropriate. Failure to comply with the dress code may result in discharge from the program.

26. Bicycles
Bikes are not allowed in units
And are to be properly stored in designated locations
Management will provide bikes locks when needed

27. Alterations and Furniture
No alterations or additions may be made in the rooms or building. For example: No hanging objects on the walls, no drawing on the walls, no hanging pictures on walls, no installing wires/ phones, do not pin Curtains, etc. Only the furniture we provide may be used. Furniture is not to be moved unless participants obtain prior approval from staff.

28. Storage
LifeMoves does not store belongings for anyone other than current clients. Clients must take all personal belongings with them at the time of their discharge. Personal belongings that are left in the facility after discharge will be disposed of appropriately by program staff within 72 hours.

29. Linens and Laundry
Upon arrival, clients will be given bed linens and towels. Clients are responsible to keep these linens clean and return the linens to staff upon discharge. Laundry facilities are provided on site. Laundry hours are from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The last load of laundry should be started no later than 7:00 PM and must be removed by 8:00 PM.

30. Food and Kitchen
Meals are provided as a service to all clients; however, clients may buy their own food to eat in the facility dining areas. Client’s personal food or drink may not be stored in the facility's refrigerators.

Clients are only allowed in kitchen areas with staff escort to complete assigned chores.

Clients may request reasonable accommodations for dining exceptions to their Case Manager.

31. Smoking
Smoking is permitted ONLY in designated smoking areas. Smoking is prohibited anywhere within 50 feet of the main entrance of the facility.

32. Cars/Parking
• Please be mindful: All clients with cars must submit vehicle information to the front desk upon intake. Provide make, model, color, and license plate of the car(s). If we do not have this and you park your car in any of the lots, it could be towed at owner’s expense. • Only certified placard holders can access handicap spaces. • Car repairs and car washing are not permitted on the property (this includes our parking lots). • All transportation, like Lyft, Uber, Taxi Cabs, etc. are required to pick you up on the street as they cannot drive into the parking lot.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 8 of 10 Ver 5/4/21

33. Facilities Maintenance
Facility maintenance issues should be reported immediately to LifeMoves staff, who will contact the appropriate maintenance personnel or service provider.

34. Confidentiality
LifeMoves is required by law to protect client confidentiality. For this reason, LifeMoves staff cannot confirm nor deny that a client resides at this facility or participates in its programs unless the client provides a written, signed consent. Case Managers can provide more information on LifeMoves' privacy policies and practices.

35. Emergency Procedures
In the event of an emergency at the facility, all occupants must calmly and quietly follow the direction of LifeMoves facility staff (or emergency services personnel, if present). Staff will call "911" as necessary.

Clients should call "911" only if instructed to do so by the staff, or if the staff is unavailable or unable to make a necessary "911" call.

If the facility must be evacuated, occupants will follow posted evacuation route signs or follow LifeMoves staff (or emergency services personnel, if present) to a meet-up location. At the meet-up location(s), staff will take roll call to support evacuation efforts by emergency services.

36. Illness / Contagious Disease
To protect the safety of everyone in the community, anyone with a contagious illness or condition such as active TB, chicken pox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, pink eye, lice, scabies etc., will be immediately discharged from the facility to prevent the spread of the communicable condition. Clients, or their family members, discharged in this manner will be placed on "automatic return" status. The individual may return as a resident after the facility Program Director receives medical documentation (signed by a physician) that the individual is no longer contagious, and as soon as accommodations are available.

Clients with latent Tuberculosis must be under the LifeMoves TB Regimen to stay in the program.

Clients with symptoms of or a positive test for COVID-19 will be handled according to current LifeMoves COVID-19 policies. These policies change periodically, based on local conditions and county/ state/ federal guidance.

37. COVID-19 Safety Protocols:
• Wear a mask that covers your nose and mouth at all times you are outside of your room. If you need replacement masks, please contact any staff.
• Follow social distancing guidelines by having at least 6 feet of space between you and another person. • Complete the daily temperature check: Staff will conduct a temperature check daily with each program participant. If staff can’t find you for the daily temperature check, a wellness check will be done.

38. Good Neighbor Policy
The LifeMoves Good Neighbor Policy is comprehensive and tailored to each facility. All residents, businesses, agencies, and property owners within the neighborhood (neighbors); LifeMoves staff; and clients have a right to personal safety, to safe and quiet enjoyment of their properties and public spaces, to access services, and to meet their basic needs.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 9 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
The quality of life and the overall character of the neighborhood can be greatly influenced by the behavior of staff and clients. Displaying a respectful and courteous attitude makes the neighborhood a more pleasant place to work and live. Staff and clients are expected to exercise good judgment and be sensitive to the needs of their neighbors. Clients should not loiter at nearby locations.

39. Written Warnings
Written warnings may be given to clients for the following:
• Violations of program policies, rules, or community guidelines • Behaviors or actions that are disruptive, maladaptive, or abusive to other individuals or to the community
• Knowingly providing false or untrue information to a Case Manager • Failing to actively follow a case management plan to which the client has agreed to The Case Manager will be informed when a client receives a written warning. Clients who receive a warning for a serious offense, or more than one warning for lesser infractions, may be discharged and terminated from the program.

40. Program Termination
Federal, state, and local laws are strictly enforced. Should clients, friends or associates be suspected of illegal activity or disturbing the staff or other clients, the client may be terminated from the program.

If for some reason you are terminated from the program (e.g., use of alcohol, drugs, violent conduct, not following the program guidelines, etc.) you will agree to leave by the time designated by staff. LifeMoves staff will give you notice in writing whenever possible which will outline the reason and time of your departure.

Right to appeal decisions: Clients who do not agree with a decision made by staff regarding denial into the program, termination, or consequences related to program violations may appeal. In order to do so, you must submit your appeal in writing before your termination deadline or within one day of the incident in question. Your Case Manager is available to assist you in writing your appeal. Your appeal will be decided by the Program Director and Case Manager. Whenever possible the Program Director will meet with you and your Case Manager as a part of the appeal decision. You should receive a written response from the Program Director to your appeal as soon as possible.

If you wish to continue with the appeal process you may request that the Program Director Committee review your situation. This request must be made in writing immediately after receiving the decision from the Program Director. The Program Director Committee will review your written appeal, consult with staff and when possible review your case file and/or meet with you. The Program Director Committee will provide a final decision in writing as soon as possible.

During the appeal process you may remain on the premises even if it goes beyond your termination date unless your remaining represents a threat to anyone’s safety (i.e., violent conduct, disorderly conduct).

If the appeal decision is that the termination is upheld you are expected to comply with that decision and the termination date given on the written response.

41. Ground for Immediate Discharge
Clients will be subject to immediate discharge for violating any of the rules listed below. Discharged clients are ineligible for re-entry for 30 days, then LifeMoves management may re-assess eligibility back into the program.

Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 10 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
a. ABSOLUTELY NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL ARE ALLOWED ON LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.

LifeMoves programs are clean and sober living environments. Any client suspected of using, selling, or storing drugs or alcohol will be asked to leave the program immediately; suspicion may include, but is not limited to, bizarre behaviors, acting out, slurred speech, dilated pupils, and staggering gait. Drug and alcohol testing may be done without prior notifications. Any client who does not agree to a request for drug/alcohol testing will be subject to immediate discharge from the program.
b. ABSOLUTELY NO WEAPONS ARE ALLOWED ON LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.

LifeMoves operates a safe living environment. Any clients suspected of concealing or using weapons will be asked to leave the program immediately and the appropriate authorities will be notified. Weapons include guns, knives, tasers, mace and pepper spray, and all other devices whose primary purpose is to injure or kill. In addition, any object or substance used to attack or threaten another person will be considered a weapon.
c. ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL ASSAULT, GESTURES, OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge.
d. ABSOLUTELY NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge. e. ABSOLUTELY NO VERBAL ABUSE INCLUDING OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, HARRASSMENT, AND RACIAL SLURS. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge.
f. ABSOLUTELY NO ENGAGING IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES ON OR OFF PREMISES. This includes, but is not limited to, panhandling and buying or selling any medication or substance. Staff will contact the police if necessary.
g. ABSOLUTELY NO DESTRUCTION, VANDALISM, OR THEFT OF LIFEMOVES OR ANOTHER CLIENT’S PROPERTY. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge.

I have read, understand, and agree to comply with the program policies, community guidelines, and client expectations described above.

Client Name ______________________________________________ Client Signature ___________________________________________Date ________________ I have reviewed these Community Guidelines and client expectations with this client.

Staff Name _____________________________________________ Staff Signature ____________________________________________Date ________________

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

Complete Petition Submitted on April 14, 2023

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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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.

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.

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 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
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
Resolution/Homekey Benton Site Page 1 of 2
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING JOINT APPLICATION TO AND

PARTICIPATION IN THE HOMEKEY PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has issued a Notice of Funding Availability, dated March 29, 2023 (“NOFA”), for the Homekey Program (“Homekey” or “Program”). The Department has issued the NOFA for Homekey grant funds pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50675.1.3 (Assem. Bill No. 140 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), § 20.);
WHEREAS, CITY OF SANTA CLARA (“City”) desires to jointly apply for Homekey grant funds with LIFEMOVES (“Co-Applicant”). Therefore, City is joining Co-Applicant in the submittal of an application for Homekey funds (“Application”) to the Department for review and consideration; and,
WHEREAS, The Department is authorized to administer Homekey pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code). Homekey funding allocations are subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, the Application, the Department-approved STD 213, Standard Agreement (“Standard Agreement”), and all other legal requirements of the Homekey Program.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That City of Santa Clara is hereby authorized and directed to submit a Joint Application to the Department in response to the NOFA, and to jointly apply with LifeMoves for Homekey grant funds in a total amount not to exceed $70,000,000.

2. That City of Santa Clara acknowledges and agrees that if the City is awarded and the City Council accepts the Homekey grant funds, it shall be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Standard Agreement, and that the NOFA and Application will be incorporated in Resolution/Homekey Benton Site Page 2 of 2
Rev: 11/22/17
the Standard Agreement by reference and made a part thereof. Any and all activities, expenditures, information, and timelines represented in the Application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for the allowable expenditures and activities identified in the Standard Agreement.

3. That the City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to execute the Joint Application and the Homekey Documents associated with the Application on behalf of City for participation in the Homekey Program.

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference: None
Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Project Name: Benton and Lawrence
Site Address: Benton and Lawrence
Operator: LifeMoves
Other Project Partners: City of Santa Clara and John Sobrato City Council District: Councilmember Park
Supervisorial District: Board President Susan Ellenberg, District 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Opportunity:

In July 2021, the Santa Clara City Council asked City staff to find a site that could be used to develop a new emergency interim housing facility by leveraging the State of California’s Homekey Program. Soon after, the 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey reported that homelessness in Santa Clara increased by 35% from 2019 to 2022. Then, Santa Clara’s Homelessness Task Force reported that Santa Clara does not have enough interim housing options for unhoused people.

Around the same time, the County’s Board of Supervisors asked County staff to look for County-owned land that could be used for interim housing in partnership with local jurisdictions. The site at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway was no longer needed for its original purpose. It is close to services and public transit, good conditions for people to stay while they rebuild their lives. The Board of Supervisors also approved a Challenge Grant program to help support the construction of new interim housing options using modular construction, and LifeMoves responded with ideas.

LiveMoves, in partnership with the Sobrato Foundation, began by exploring the development of 80 – 120 units of emergency interim housing on the Benton and Lawrence site for single adults. Based on input gather through four community meetings, LifeMoves has modified their proposal to a 90-door emergency interim housing site for families.

Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Summary of Community Engagement Strategy:

The community engagement included a series of in-person and zoom meetings focused on bringing awareness and education regarding the opportunity to develop a new interim housing site in the City of Santa Clara on a County-owned parcel. In addition, staff responded directly to several members of the public that were interested in having 1:1 conversations and better understanding the proposal.

A project website was hosted on the County’s website and all meetings materials as well as recordings from the meetings can be found here:

Benton and Lawrence - Office of Supportive Housing - County of Santa Clara (sccgov.org) A total of four (4) meetings were held in person or via zoom. Summaries of each meeting are contained in the following pages.

Community Discussion Boards and News Articles

1. Petition · Say NO! to the homeless shelter at corner of Benton Street and Lawrence Exp in Santa Clara · Change.org

2. https://www.svvoice.com/temporary-homeless-housing-project-upsets-community/

3. Santa Clara Residents Blast Homeless Housing Plan | Campbell, CA Patch

4. Home | Safe Santa Clara New (bentonlawrencesc.wixsite.com)

5. Nextdoor

6. Benton | SC Housing Advocates

7. Say No to Benton Shelter (google.com)

8. Create Interim Housing in Santa Clara - Action Network Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Table 1: Summary of Community Engagement Activities and Meetings Meeting Type /
Stakeholders
Tentative
Meeting Date
Proposed Meeting Details and Summary of Meeting
City Council Study Session January 10, 2023 Meeting Type: City Council Study Session Summary of Council Requests: Develop a robust
community engagement strategy.

Community Forum No. 1
Zoom
February 10, 2023
6:00 – 7:30PM
Meeting Type: Webinar Style zoom meeting with a
presentation, prepared FAQs with panel responses,
followed by public comment.

Attendance: Approximately 400 community members
joined the meeting and submitted over 350 questions
and comments submitted through the Q&A function.

Summary of Comments, Concerns and Questions:
- Provide more information about the approval
process and who is required to approve the project.
- How can I remain informed?
- Explain why this site was selected and the analysis
behind the site selection.
- There seems to be an overconcentration of shelters
in this area, why are you proposing another one so
close to Bella Vista?
- How do the project partners propose to address
safety and security concerns?
- How will this property impact real estate values for
the adjacent neighborhood?
- Provide information for similar sites and share any
impacts this has had on their community.
- What impacts to parking will this site have?
- What will happen to the pumpkin patch? Wil the City
accommodate a different location?
- We want to help the homeless but not at this
location?
- Will the City and County consider an alternative
location?
- I was not properly notified of this meeting.

Summary of Q&A:

The zoom meeting was set up as a webinar style zoom
meeting where participants were encouraged to share
their comments. 350 questions and/or comments were
submitted. Meeting materials can be located on the
project website.

Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Meeting Type /
Stakeholders
Tentative
Meeting Date
Proposed Meeting Details and Summary of Meeting
Community Forum No. 2
In-person
Mission City Church
1290 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara, 95051
March 1, 2023
6:00 – 8:00PM
Meeting Type: In-person meeting with a presentation
which included the first draft of the proposal followed by public comment. Vice Mayor Park and
Councilmember Hardy both spoke at the end of the
meeting. Members of the public wishing to speak were
given 1 minute each to share their questions or
concerns.

Attendance: Approximately 390 community members
joined the meeting and submitted 86 comment cards
(See Attachment B).
• 81 opposed
• 3 supporting
• 2 questions
Summary of Comments, Concerns and Questions:
- Do residents get a vote?
- Is this a done deal? If not, who has to approve or
reject the proposal?
- Did you factor the safety of the children in the
neighborhood?
- Can you tell us how many schools are within 1.5 miles from the proposed location of the new interim
housing site?
- What other locations did the County consider?
- Why can’t you find a location that is not so close to residential uses or close to parks?
- Show us other examples of other sites being built
near residential uses.
- Explain why this site was selected and the analysis
behind the site selection.
- Consider providing housing for families and children. - Will you allow those with criminal background to live at the facility?
- Provide a summary of the staff that will be available on site.
- Provide data that shows the impacts of similar
projects.
- The church uses the parking lot for overflow, what
will they do now? How will this impact parking in the
neighborhood?
- What services are offered on site?
- What about people that have a mental health illness?
How will they receive services?
Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Meeting Type /
Stakeholders
Tentative
Meeting Date
Proposed Meeting Details and Summary of Meeting
Community Forum No. 3
In-person
Mission City Church
1290 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara, 95051

March 9, 2023
6:00PM – 8:00PM
Meeting Type: In-person meeting including a
presentation and responses to several questions asked
during the prior meetings. Assistant Chief of Police
responded to several community questions about safety
and crime rates. Members of the public wishing to
speak were given 1 minute each to share their questions or concerns.

Attendance: Approximately 265 community members
joined the meeting and submitted 92 comment cards
(Attachment C).
• 75 opposed
• 2 supporting
• 15 had questions
Summary of Comments, Concerns and Questions:
- Who is responsible for paying for services?
- The Palo Alto project saw a significant increase in
cost, how will you ensure that does not happen at
this site?
- If this project is built, who will I call?
- I am worried about the low-barrier entry? How will
you decided who is housed at the facility?
- This project will draw more homeless people into our
neighborhood.
- I am concerned that you are placing too many rules
on the unhoused population.
- Will you consider a project proposal that serves more families. The White Oak Lan project was 100%
families, why can’t you do that at this time site?
- I read a New York Times article about a study that
clearly shows the negative impacts to property values
that were close to a shelter.
- How is interim housing different than congregate
shelter?
- What do people do all day when they are staying at
the facility?
- I am afraid they are going to walk through my
neighborhood.
- Is this work part of a larger strategy?
- Why can’t you build this 10 miles south of this area? - People don’t want shelter; I visited a site and it did not seem like it was being used.
- Give us information about other sites.
- What are the typical rules for these types of
facilities?
Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Meeting Type /
Stakeholders
Tentative
Meeting Date
Proposed Meeting Details and Summary of Meeting
Community Forum No. 4
Zoom
March 22, 2023
6:00PM – 8:00PM
Meeting Type: Zoom meeting. Staff provided a
presentation that included responses to several
questions raised in the prior meeting and introduced
two alternative options that LifeMoves would be
exploring in partnership with the City and County teams.

Members of the public wishing to speak were given 1
minute each to share their questions or concerns.

Attendance: Approximately 400 community members
joined the meeting. The chat function was disabled due
to participants not following the rules.

Summary of Comments and Concerns:
- What exactly is the point of a Community Advisory
Committee?
- You cannot compare our neighborhood with the San
Jose neighborhood.
- There are more schools and a higher student count in
our neighborhood compared to San Jose.
- The cost to serve one person per year is too
expensive. Who is responsible for paying this?
- Why don’t you find an alternative like renting hotel
rooms.
- Explain in more detail how you will ensure our safety. - I spoke to a homeless family and they don’t want to
live here.
- How is this project different than the Milpitas
Homekey site.
- How will a decision be made by the City Council?
- What can I do to help the future tenants and are
there volunteer options?
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Frequently Asked Questions
Attachment B: Community Meeting No. 2 – Public Comment Cards Attachment C: Community Meeting No. 3 – Public Comment Cards Attachment D: Emails received by County Staff
Attachment E: Emails received by City Staff
Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Attachment A – Frequently Asked Questions
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
What is interim housing?
Interim housing is short-term housing intervention designed to provide unsheltered individuals with private sleeping units, restrooms and showers, similar to very small studios. Program participants typically stay in interim housing for a few months while they stabilize their lives and look for permanent housing. While living in emergency interim housing, participants recuperate from the physical and mental stress of living in “crisis mode” on the street, and they have access to supportive services that can lead to positive outcomes.

How is interim housing different than other shelter programs? Older shelter models included the use of large congregate shelters that serve people in one large space with shared restroom and community facilities. Over the past five years, communities across the nation have been moving away from congregate shelter and have been exploring new non-congregate approaches to sheltering people who are homeless. Locally in Santa Clara County this includes tiny homes like, pallet shelters like Casitas de Esperanza, Mountain View Homekey, and [insert]. This new approach of providing non-congregate shelters provides a more dignified transitional step than the traditional congregate shelter setting. Participants have shared the benefits of having a private room with their own restroom and the amenities on site that focus on wellness and housing.

Why is interim housing necessary in the City of Santa Clara? According to the 2022 homeless census conducted in February, at least 440people are homeless in Santa Clara on any given night, including 375who have no shelter (i.e., live on the street or elsewhere outside).

People experiencing homelessness often find themselves trapped in a downward spiral. When someone falls into homelessness, it becomes harder to find a job, harder to find permanent housing, harder to stay healthy, harder to maintain relationships with family and friends, and harder to preserve mental wellness.

What about on-site staffing and security?
The facility will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

How and when will a decision be made about the target population? Staff will propose a recommendation during the April 25, 2023 City Council meeting. During this meeting the City Council may direct staff to consider a different target population.

Who is currently experiencing homelessness in the City of Santa Clara? According to County HMIS data from 2021, the majority (79%) of City of Santa Clara-affiliated households experiencing homelessness are households without children. The following table summarizes household types that are experiencing homelessness and who are affiliated with the City of Santa Clara:

City of Santa Clara-Affiliated Households who Experienced Homelessness in Calendar Year 2021, by Household Type
(HMIS)
Single Adult Households 520
Families with Children under 18 137
Multiple-Adult Households 19
Unaccompanied Children under 18 10
Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Attachment A – Frequently Asked Questions
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development

What supportive services will be provided to interim housing participants? The services offered to participants are intended to address the trauma of homelessness. Participants have access to healthcare, mental health counseling, addiction treatment, job placement assistance, housing search assistance, and life skills classes such as financial literacy. Each participant is assigned a case manager who acts as an advisor and helps connect participants to these services.

How does interim housing impact nearby neighborhoods?
The City and the County expect the interim housing participants to be good neighbors. The interim housing community will have 24/7 professional staffing and security. All interim housing participants and visitors check in upon arrival, and staff monitors the surrounding area for loitering. The City and the County are committed to creating a community advisory committee (CAC) that includes neighbors who want to be involved. CACs are vital resources that help problem solve, improve operations and neighborhood compatibility, and celebrate successes.

Will the siting of this interim housing project next to my neighborhood negatively impact the value of my property?
No. There is no local study that shows the value of properties being negatively impacted as a result of siting interim housing next to other residential properties.

There Doesn’t Go the Neighborhood: Low-Income Housing Has No Impact on Nearby Home Values - Trulia Research
Will the interim housing site add to parking challenges and pedestrian safety in nearby neighborhoods? The proposed interim housing community will include on-site parking for staff and participants. The site will also include bicycle parking. The proposal has been designed with a focus on traffic and pedestrian safety.

How does the County select sites for interim housing?
The County evaluates sites based on several factors, including lot size, accessibility for construction equipment, proximity to transit, access to utilities, access to medical services, and access to grocery stores.

In addition, County staff consider the current location of permanent interim housing options across the County and work with local jurisdictions who are interested in expanding interim housing options in their communities.

Has the proposal already been approved?
No. On January 10, 2023, the City Council held a study session on homelessness response strategies. During the meeting the City Council indicated they wanted staff to work with the County to conduct community outreach and explore the potential development of interim housing at the County owned site located at Benton and Lawrence Expressway. The project partners held four community meetings to listen and learn about any community concerns or ideas that can shape the design, programming, and or operations of the proposed interim housing. Based on the input received, LifeMoves and the Sobrato Foundation have modified the first draft of the proposal and this version will be presented to the City Council on April 25, 2023 for their consideration.

Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Attachment A – Frequently Asked Questions
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development
Is the Benton and Lawrence site already zoned for the proposed shelter and does the General Plan allow for this use?
The site is zoned R1-6L Single Family and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Very Low Density Residential. The state’s HOMEKEY program provides funding to expand housing for persons experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. The Program is exempt from CEQA (environmental review) and state law deems HOMEKEY funded projects consistent and in conformity with any applicable local plan, standard, or requirement, and allowed as a permitted use, within the zone in which the structure is located, and shall not be subject to a conditional use permit, discretionary permit, or to any other discretionary reviews or approvals (Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 50675.1.1). Rezoning would not be required to build the proposed project.

How will the site be funded in the short and long term? Funding to support the operations will include an annual capital contribution from LifeMoves, funding allocated to the City of Santa Clara through the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program, and funding from various grants managed by the County’s Office of Supportive Housing and the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care.

Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Attachment B – Community Forum No. 2
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development

COMMENT CARDS COVER PAGE

Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Attachment C – Community Forum No. 3
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development

COMMENT CARDS COVER PAGE

Community Engagement Report
Benton and Lawrence Interim Housing
Attachment D – Emails Received by County Staff
Office of Supportive Housing Updated April 19, 2023
Housing and Community Development

EMAIL RECEIVED BY COUNTY STAFF

COVER PAGE
From: Monica Bansal
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
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]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:03:20 AM
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

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 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.

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?

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.

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

4. Budget:

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

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

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,
Monica Bansal, J.D. Parent and Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From: Nanxi Li
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IMPORTANT] Eight Reasons to Oppose Benton Shelter, with data Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:39:29 PM
Hi,
As a Santa Clara resident named Nanxi Li, I strongly object to the proposed Benton shelter, which I believe is a reckless and radical experiment. There are eight major reasons why I oppose this project and the chosen location.

Firstly, the low barrier housing will potentially allow criminals and addicts to occupy the shelter, and the city or police may not be able to remove problematic tenants from the site.

Secondly, the shelter poses a significant safety threat to the 11,000 students and families in the area, as evidenced by the striking crime statistics in Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites.

Thirdly, this would be the second shelter in the same neighborhood, which may lead to further issues.

Fourthly, the estimated high operational cost of $4.3M, and the doubling of construction costs in a similar project, casts doubt on the reliability of LifeMoves' promise.

Fifthly, the shortage of staff and licensed nurses is a major concern, as LifeMoves recommends only one vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants, many of whom have serious mental health issues.

Sixthly, the location is far from public transit, grocery stores, and job opportunities.

Seventhly, the county has provided false and misleading information.

Lastly, over 300 community questions remain unanswered to date.

This project could take police resources away from the rest of the community and put all our lives in danger. Furthermore, it will lead to significant debt for the city of Santa Clara. In a live poll conducted by the county, over 80% of more than 400 participants strongly opposed the Benton project.

I urge the city council to reject this radical experiment as soon as possible, and I trust that you will take into account the overwhelming opposition from the community. Thank you for your attention.

Nanxi Li
From: Connie Leung
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]; Steven Yu-Chuan Chou Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Please Read] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:21:19 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 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 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.

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? 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:

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? 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?
Why does this location NOT offer any nearby public transport or commercial working opportunities?

3. 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)? 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: 廊ᾎ
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] A mom and santa clara resident strongly oppose to the homeless project at Benton/Lawrence location
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:30 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 country's future, thanks. --
Best regards,
Dan Zhao
From: 廊ᾎ
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] A mom living in Santa Clara reject the emergency shelter at Benton and Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:38:21 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, 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 speak for the community members.
if you are a parent, for sure you want a safe environment for your kid to grow up, thanks. --
Best regards,
Dan Zhao
From: Alex Wang
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] Against Benton Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:09:21 PM
Hi,
I am a resident and a homeowner living less than half a mile away from the proposed shelter on Benton and Lawrence. I strongly oppose this plan due to the disregard for the safety of neighborhoods, elders, and children.

By building a shelter at a high-speed crossing, this plan will also increase the possibility of traffic incidents. I strongly encourage you to veto this proposal and bring back the safety and confidence of the community.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
--
Alex Wang
From: Ethan Gong
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] against benton shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:23:19 PM
Hi there! I'm really worried about something and I want to tell you about it. They want to turn Lawrence & Benton into another homeless shelter and that's not good for our community.

There's already a shelter for homeless people really close by, and we need to work on making our neighborhood better for everyone who lives here. We need more places like daycares, schools, parks, and houses for people to live in.

Turning Lawrence & Benton into a shelter could be really dangerous too. There's a lot of traffic on the street next to it, and it's not safe for people to be there. Plus, there's a playground and other fun things for kids nearby that might get taken away if they make the shelter there.

I also heard that the shelter will let in people who have some problems, like being sick or taking drugs or even being in jail before. That could be really dangerous for us and our kids who use the parks and schools nearby.

The plan is formed but didn't ask us what we thought or how we felt about it. That's not fair to us.

We need to make sure our neighborhood stays safe and happy for everyone who lives here.

We should think of better ways to help homeless people instead of just making more shelters.

Best
Ethan
From: Enhao Gong
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] against low-barrier shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:24:40 PM
I am writing to you today to share my extreme concerns about the plan of turning Lawrence & Benton into another homeless shelter. As a resident of the area, I am deeply worried about the potential negative impacts this plan will have on our community.

First and foremost, Bella Vista, which is only 0.5 miles away, is already being converted into a facility for the homeless. We need to invest more in daycares, schools, parks, and residential homes to improve the overall living standards in our area. Adding another homeless shelter will only exacerbate the existing problems.

Furthermore, a similar plan at White Oak Lane project was rejected in 2021 by the City of Santa Clara based on safety and other serious concerns. This location poses even more safety issues as it is right next to Lawrence Express Way with tons of traffic day and night. The potential risks and dangers that this poses to the local community are simply not worth it.

In addition, this plan will forfeit a playground, seasonal pumpkin patch, and Christmas tree shopping for kids of all ages. These recreational facilities are crucial for the healthy development of our children and should not be taken away from them.

From what the county shared, this plan has a "lower barrier entry," including people with physical or mental health issues, those released from jail, and drug addicts. Shelter residents can pose potential risks to the high-density residential areas and to users of parks, and kids in many daycares, schools, and children’s playgrounds in this area. We cannot let the safety and well-being of our community be compromised.

Finally, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and outreach efforts from the city. I only learned about this plan 2 weeks ago, and many others in the community are similarly unaware. The lack of consultation and communication with the local community is unacceptable.

In the last meeting, I joined the local community and shared many concerns. The concerns were shared loud and clear. This is the WRONG LOCATION! I urge you to consider the clear will from the local community, which is your responsibility to serve the Santa Clara residents not to just come up with a project to apply homekey money at cost of residents! We need to prioritize the safety and well-being of our community and invest in long-term solutions to address homelessness, rather than creating more problems! Sincerely
Enhao
--
ⴀㆾ㺾
Enhao Gong
From: cuiping wang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:24:11 PM
Hello Offices
I am a local resident and living in Santa Clara county (San Juan Ave, 95051). I strongly oppose building 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 reconsider another location in a non-residential area.

Thanks
From: zheng zhao
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:28:33 PM
Hello all,
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 a non-residential area.

Thanks,
Joyce
From: hawkeye lyuuu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:46:19 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！
Haokai
From: Puxiao Han
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:39:38 PM
Hi all,
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!
From: Puxiao Han
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor Simitian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:35:09 PM
Hi all,
As a local resident, I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 3 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. They will threat the safety of our family.

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

Thanks,
Puxiao
From: Puxiao Han
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:27:54 PM
Hi all,
As a local resident, I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 3 years.

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

Thanks,
Puxiao
From: Xingwei Yang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:46:30 PM
I live less than 1.5 miles of the pumpkin patch of Benton/ Lawrence for more than 5 years.

I strongly oppose building the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence, this is not a right location for the neighborhood, which will negatively impact all the nearby residents, students and facilities.

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

Thanks
Xingwei
--
Sincerely Yours
Xingwei Yang
From: Cui Cao
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:41:32 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
Cui Cao
From: Kate Cao
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] As a local resident, I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence interim housing Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:05:02 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
Kate Cao
--
From: Wu Wen
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton project - Request for future public hearings Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:36:07 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.

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

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

Sincerely,
Wu Wen
From: Safe Santa Clara
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]; Safe Santa Clara; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton project - Second Open Letter Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:25:14 PM
County Supervisors, Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

This is the second open letter to Santa Clara County and 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. Also, when you presented the data from KQED of five shelters in San Jose with declined crime, you intentionally presented the total number but not the number for each site. Because if you look at the number of police calls for each site respectively, 3 out of 5 sites witnessed an increase in almost all types of police calls. Worse, the earlier the shelter opened, the larger increase in crime it showed. Also the KQED data missed a lot of types of crime, such as drugrelated, suspicious activity, burglary/theft, mental health, disorders, violation and violence. 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.

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

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the
government and the people, we hereby request
that 1) a representative from the neighborhood
join the virtual meeting as a 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.

From: graypink
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton project
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2023 12:41:49 PM
Hi Consuelo,
Thanks for hosting the 1st community meeting and posting the recording and slides for the Benton&Lawrence project.

I have some questions and would appreciate it if you could respond. 1) I couldn’t find the answers to the 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the meeting. You said that every question would be answered and provided to the public. Could you tell me how I can find the answers? If they are not available, when will it become available?
2) You mentioned in April, LifeMoves, city and county staff will report back on the input that you received from the community engagement, and the residents have an opportunity to provide feedback at a future city council and or Board of Supervisors meeting. Do you know the date, time and location of the meetings? If not, how can I get notifications of the meetings? 3) As a working mother with young kids, I am afraid it’s really difficult for me to attend the next two meetings in person. I would like to request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meeting, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate, or at least listen in.
4) During the meeting, a lot of good questions were asked by the attendees (see following).

Please provide responses to these questions as well. I resonate with all the concerns and am eager to know the answers.

1. Have you done any study about the impact of such a shelter in the adjacent communities? Please provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood?

2. What other options were evaluated as potential sites especially away from schools and established single family communities?

3. From residents’ feedback, increased problems on safety and security are expected when a shelter is introduced. What will be the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure? Who will be funding and leading the effort?

4. Who will be making sure young kids and students are safe as you perhaps already know now there are more than 10 schools and countless daycare centers in the walking distance. Many students walk to school and young kids play at the parks, how do you protect them?

5. It was brought up several times that the site is highly dangerous as it’s next to Lawrence. How do you ensure the safety of homeless people who have mental and drug issues?

6. How do you solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.

7. Suggestions on a better screening and rethinking solutions.

Thanks for reading my email. I look forward to your response.

Best regards,
LH
From: Yakov Vaysman
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton project
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:21:42 AM
L 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.

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

Thanks,
Jacob
From:

To: Adam Marcus; Hernandez, Consuelo; Marie Jackson
Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Mayor & City Council Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton shelter statement 3/1 comment card Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:08:05 PM
All,
Thank you for answering the questions presented at the 2/13 Zoom meeting at the 3/1 in-person meeting.

Below is the statement that I was prepared to present at the in-person meeting on 3/1.

I chose to email instead as I didn’t want to be a participant of the unruly & divisive atmosphere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was born in San Jose long before many of the folks in this room were even a twinkle in their parent’s eyes & I have witnessed many changes to the landscape of our county over the years.

I am a homeowner & taxpayer of Santa Clara since the 1970’s.

Since the 1990’s, I have lived across the street from the proposed low barrier shelter site & I can see the property from my living room.

I have made my peace with no longer buying my Christmas tree from the discounted area in the back of the lot or no longer planning weekend gatherings at my condo due to the church parking overflowing onto Flora Vista. Access will be difficult if not impossible for my older mobility impaired friends & family that will have to park down by DMV since our condos have only 3 designated guest parking spots.

I am baffled as to why the county chose a neighborhood of mainly families & seniors in an area that already has Bella Vista Inn, a short 2 blocks away. Bella Vista Inn Phase I includes 64 units & Santa Clara Gardens Phase II will add another 120 units coming next year. Is the Benton property even zoned for an interim shelter?
I am also really baffled as to why neither the County nor City elected officials seem to have no voice in the matter, but instead have put employees for the various entities on the firing line.

I respectfully propose an alternate housing solution of affordable housing, like rent to own which may include teachers, seniors, tech & service workers.

Thank you,
Caprice Silva
From: Debbie Dempsey
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:13:02 PM
Attachments: March 12, 2023 letter re Benton-Lawrence.pdf I adamantly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton and Lawrence Expressway for the reasons set forth in my attached letter.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
From: Debbie Dempsey
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:45:36 PM
Attachments: March 12, 2023 letter re Benton-Lawrence.pdf I adamantly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton and Lawrence Expressway for the reasons set forth in my attached letter.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
From: Debbie Dempsey
To: Supervisor.Lee
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:32:15 PM
Attachments: March 12, 2023 letter re Benton-Lawrence.pdf I adamantly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway for the reasons set forth in my attached letter.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
From: Debbie Dempsey
To: [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo; Police
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 3:40:36 PM
Attachments: March 12, 2023 letter re Benton-Lawrence.pdf I am re-sending to correct e-mail addresses on prior message Attached please find my letter regarding the proposed Benton/Lawrence “Housing Site” Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
Santa Clara
mobile:

From: Debbie Dempsey
To: [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo; Police
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 3:35:00 PM
Attachments: March 12, 2023 letter re Benton-Lawrence.pdf Attached please find my letter regarding the proposed Benton/Lawrence “Housing Site” Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
Santa Clara
mobile:

From: Debbie Dempsey
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:15:21 PM
Attachments: March 12, 2023 letter re Benton-Lawrence.pdf I adamantly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton and Lawrence Expressway for the reasons set forth in my attached letter.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
From: Cecil Mossotti
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Adam Marcus Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benton-Lawrence Homeless Project
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:44:18 PM
March 20, 2023
All,
This is a follow-up to my March 8 email and to my comments at the March 9 meeting as I will be unable to participate in the March 22 virtual meeting.

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

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

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

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

Ms Cecil May Mossotti
Santa Clara
From: Asha DuMonthier
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Adam Marcus Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on interim housing project meeting #4 Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:13:29 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: HARSHA VASHISHT
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] Community Feedback - Still a “Big No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter 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.

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.

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?

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: Jitesh Jain
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] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:40:37 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?

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,
Jitesh Jain, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From: Rachna Lal
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] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter 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.

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.

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

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

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 Sunnyvale Birdland Neighborhood
From: Santosh Singh
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]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Community Feedback - Still 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.

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?

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

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

5. Screening: The residents, including me, are not very clear on the screening requirements. Even if the project gets approved despite our opposition to low entry barrier shelter, we insist that the following points are incorporated for any such housing near schools and residences in Santa Clara:-
ż Only US citizens
ż Exclude Criminals and Drug Addicts
ż Put Families first
ż Only Santa Clara city residents are considered
ż Folks who should be institutionalized (posing threat to themselves or others) are NOT allowed
ż Occupants shouldn’t be in violation of Megan’s law, especially given the vicinity to multiple schools, residences, and children’s parks.
ż Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like affordable housing, preferably a rent-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: Pushpanjali S
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] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 3:06:50 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 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 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.
○ What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
○ If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

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

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

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

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.

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: Shaun Shroff
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] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:50:57 AM
Dear Ms. Consuelo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

1. Safety & Security (of residents): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by the data presented in meeting #3 on 3/9 based on 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.
○ What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
○ If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Shaun Shroff, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From: Divyashree Ramesh
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 3:00:46 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.

2. What is the guarantee that this site would not go in the direction of Milpitas or Mabury for safety and security?
If a decision is forced on us, and we see a spike in crime rate, who is liable?

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

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

4. Budget:

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

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

Regards,
Divyashree Ramesh,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Gautam K
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Community Feedback - Still a “No” to a Low Entry Barrier Homeless Shelter at Lawrence/Benton Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:21:54 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. 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.

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?

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)?

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

Regards,
Gautam Kulkarni, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood From: saihua lin
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] concern over building the shelter at Benton&Lawrence Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 9:50:49 PM
Dear All
I’m the Santa Clara resident who is living near Benton with two small kids. My home address is 250 manzanita ave, santa clara. I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter close to my home. I have joined last time’s zoom meeting, the choice is lacking consideration as there are lots of schools nearby. I voice up here to let you know that majority of people are opposing this location.

We’d like to protect our children and history will remember those make bad decisions today. Please think carefully and thoroughly.

Saihua
From: yeru liu
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concerns about proposed shelter at Lawrence and Benton Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 9:12:41 PM
Dear officer,
I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed shelter for drug users and criminals that is planned to be built at Lawrence and Benton. As a resident of this neighborhood and a parent of a young child, I am extremely worried about the potential safety risks that such a facility could pose to my family and the community as a whole.

It is well-known that drug addiction and criminal activity often go hand in hand, and I fear that this shelter will attract more of these elements to our already vulnerable neighborhood. The presence of drug users and criminals so close to my home and my child's school could greatly compromise our safety and quality of life.

I understand that the goal of this shelter is to provide a safe space for those in need of help, and I support efforts to help those struggling with addiction and other issues.

However, I strongly believe that this location is not suitable for such a facility. There are many other areas in the county that are better equipped to handle the challenges that come with providing services to this population.

I urge you to reconsider this proposal and find a more appropriate location for this shelter.

The safety and well-being of our community must be the top priority, and I hope that you will take my concerns into consideration.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Yeru Liu
From: Shu C
To: Shu C
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concerns about the benton&lawrence shelter proposal Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:20:59 PM
Hi,
I am writing this letter to formally express my concerns and strong opposition to the proposal of a homeless shelter at the intersection of Benton street and Lawrence Expressway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Shu
From: Rui Diao
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concerns and Requests Regarding Proposed Shelter for Unhoused People in Santa Clara Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 7:14:50 PM
Dear Supervisors of Santa Clara County,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed shelter for unhoused people at the corner of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. While I understand the need for such a shelter, I am extremely concerned about the potential impact on the safety and well-being of our community.

As a resident of the area, I am particularly concerned about the fact that the shelter would accept people with criminal histories and drug issues without any screening process. The shelter's location, which is just a 10-minute walk from several schools, including the one my daughter attends, is also highly problematic. I believe that the proposed low-barrier approach to the shelter will inevitably lead to an increase in criminal activity and drug use in the area, which will negatively impact the safety and well-being of our community.

Furthermore, I am concerned that not many people in the community are aware of this plan, and that there has not been enough opportunity for residents to express their concerns.

Therefore, I request that the following measures be taken:

Develop a comprehensive outreach strategy to ensure that as many residents as possible are aware of the proposed shelter and the community hearing.

Consider alternative locations for the shelter that are not in such close proximity to schools and residential areas.

Conduct a thorough screening process for all individuals seeking to stay at the shelter, including background checks and drug tests.

Establish a security plan that includes regular patrols by law enforcement and on-site security personnel to ensure the safety of residents and the surrounding community.

Provide resources and support for residents with criminal histories and drug issues, including counseling and job training programs, to help them successfully reintegrate into society.

I urge you to take my concerns and requests seriously and to work towards a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Rui Diao
From: Quinn Perfetto
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Expression of opposition for the LiveMoves facility on Benton and Lawrence Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 7:13:54 PM
Hello city contact people and city council,
I wanted to express my general opposition for the proposed LiveMoves facility on Benton and Lawrence aswell as give feedback on how the city handled the community meeting on wednesday march 1.

With regards to the life moves facility:

I understand that choosing the location of a homeless shelter without incurring opposition is impossible, but I really think that if you objectively evaluate the proposed location you'll find that it truly is unsuitable. It is < 1 mile from so many locations that house children: Pomeroy elementary, Monticello academy, happy scholars daycare, Laurelwood elementary school, stratford school, santa clara high school, and the Neighborhood Christian Center. On top of all that, it directly abuts a residential neighbourhood, is located on a very busy intersection, and just across that busy intersection is a liquor store. If you consider the 2035 white oak location that was rejected in 2021 (source), this location is strictly worse: It's on a busier intersection and closer to more schools. If that facility was rejected, then it would make no sense to approve this one.

WIth regards to the march 1 meeting:

I actually felt the first half of the meeting was really productive and insightful. The city accurately categorized the complaints and had a great overview of the project information. I was however very disappointed with how the city "addressed" the concerns. I'm going from memory here, but some of the most notably bad arguments I heard were:
- Residents were concerned that this shelter is very close to the bella vista one. The city's response was: the bella vista site is only going to be interim housing for 2 years, then afterwards it will become longer term. That is not any reason to place two homeless shelters right next to each other, by that logic we should just encircle the entire area in homeless shelters of differing stay lengths
- Residents were concerned about lowered property values. The city's response was: the county assessor has assured us you won't lose property values. The county assessor's office has absolutely 0 bearing on home prices, home prices are entirely decided by the buyer, and countless studies have been done which all conclude they have negative value (source). I'll be honest: home values is a crumby reason not to build a homeless shelter, however the city loses major credibility in my (and probably my neighbour's) eyes by pushing this argument based on the county assessor's office.
- Residents were concerned about the low barrier of entry. The city's response was to cite the mountain view location and how great that worked out. The problem is, the mountain view location is tailored towards families (source) and is located in a very industrial area with only a single small prep school within a mile of it. These two locations and admission criteria are totally apples and oranges.

Then came the "Q&A" section where the speaker literally refused to answer any questions.

The city council woman started quoting the bible, which I felt was extremely inappropriate, we have separation of church and state for a reason.

In summary: I oppose the location of this homeless shelter and i am disappointed about the handling by the city. If you look at this situation objectively you'll see that this shelter needs to be moved to a different location.

Here is another example from a twitter thread by Andrej Karpathy who is the founding member of OpenAI talk about the safety issues due to these homeless folks in San Francisco https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1644782325857927174?s=20 "We moved out of San Francisco to Menlo Park a year ago after two meth addicts broke into our house while we were home and robbed us. They are both free now. The police who arrested them -- and were later forced to release them by the DA -- said these criminals were "frequent flyers." We didn't want to leave SF -- we love it there -- but we have a young kid and it seemed irresponsible to stay in a place where drug addicts commit home invasions to the point where they are called "frequent flyers." 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.

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. 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,
Bala K
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Pushpanjali S
To: [email protected]
Cc: Adam Marcus; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fear of the KNOWN: Firm “No” to any low entry barrier homeless shelters near residential neighborhoods like Lawrence/Benton
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:34:18 AM
Attachments: Working together in solving homelessness crisis along with improving safety 4.4.23.pdf Hi All,
Thank you for listening to the Santa Clara residents in the last City Council meeting (on 4/4/23) regarding the impact to our safety due to the Lawrence/Benton "Low Entry Barrier" Homeless Shelter project.

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

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

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,
Anjali
Wood duck Ave, Santa Clara
(Lawrence/Benton neighbourhood)
From: Anu & Amol
To: [email protected]
Cc: Adam Marcus; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fear of the KNOWN: Firm “No” to any low entry barrier homeless shelters near high density neighborhoods like Lawrence/Benton
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:37:13 PM
Dear Mayor and Council members,
Thank you for listening to the Santa Clara residents in the last City Council meeting (on 4/4/23) regarding the impact to our safety due to the Lawrence/Benton "Low Entry Barrier" Homeless Shelter project..

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

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

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

We need your support in making safety the topmost priority.

Regards,
Anu Joshi
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Belinda Song
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback for the Proposed Benton Street low barrier shelter Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 12:53:38 PM
Attachments: Google review MTV site.PNG
Hi Ms. Hernandez,
Good afternoon! My name is Ci Song, I am a resident of Santa Clara City. I live at Santa Clara, CA 95051.

I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. I will explain my response. Please seriously consider my concerns and requests, and reply back with detailed answers. Thanks!
I went to the community meeting yesterday and listened to your presentation about the program. I understand it is your job to help with solving the homeless issue in the county. We will support the work that is effective and reasonable. We hope to give our help by seeing a better plan that can really work. The current plan of building a low barrier shelter on Benton Street is really hurting the feelings of most people in the community, all my neighbours are strongly opposing this current plan. If the county can reconsider other locations and plans, our community really hopes to give our love and help!
Concerns:

1. The location is very close to 24 schools and daycares. (I live right across the street from John Sutter Elementary School, we have around 300-400 students in this school which is only less than 1 miles walk away from the proposed shelter.) A lot of the kids (aged 3 - 9) walk to school in our community. How will the city/county make sure students who go to this school will not be kidnapped/harassed by people staying at the shelter going around in the daytime?) Does the city really hope to see increasing cases of missing children?

2. I carefully read the proposal, and see there is already another shelter Bella Vista Inn within

0.5 mile distance from this new proposal. Why do we need two shelters at almost the same location? Is it a clustering of shelters to attract more homeless to the city of Santa Clara and try to get rid of the homeless people from other cities? Do you have a headcount of how many homeless people are in the City of Santa Clara?

3. There is no research showing that the LifeMovers's MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless mental issues. I read the google review for that site. I attached the review. People who really need help don't even want to live there. Why do the city believe this shelter can help with the homeless situation if homeless people do not want to live here?

4. Are there any plans for people who lost their eligibility to live in that shelter? When homeless people (low barrier shelter might attract more drug dealers, people with mental issues) get kicked out from this facility, where should they go? If there is no plan for them after they are kicked out, they will just stay around the community, and break into homes or parks around.

Requests:

1. I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among livemovers, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. And I request the information to be shared to the public. We hope as community members we can join or hear the meeting in person.

2. I request you provide a solid plan for the actions to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. Will the city fund neighbood with a home security system?

3. I request you provide a detailed plan that shows how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to the 24 schools/daycares and back home after school. And who will protect the
young kids playing around in the community. I request you provide the detailed number of total students/kids attending school within 1.5 - 2 miles distance. (1.5 - 2 miles are still walkable, it does not make sense only to count schools in 3/4 mile)

4. I request to share how the city will address the increased police fundings and numbers needs, given there would be a tremendous increase in the population. Will the city hire more police, doctors, and
Emergency response workforce?
As a community member, I really like this lovely city. People who live in this community work hard, are very friendly and nice to each other.

We are not saying the city/county should not build shelters for people who need help, we just do not want to see the low barrier shelters built in our community. There are lots of other locations in Santa
Clara County that need more shelters. For example, the Great America Park (5099 Stars and Stripes Dr, Santa Clara, CA 95054) announced in the news, should we reconsider another place for the shelter?
Thanks!
Ci Song
From: Mary Pisapia-Sinn
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback from Lawrence Expressway/Benton Meeting Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:29:28 PM
Good Evening,
I appreciate your efforts to find housing for all individuals and to listen to community feedback. It was very challenging to even ask informative questions with the format that was selected for this evening's Zoom presentation. As someone who went into the meeting with an open mind, I was a bit concerned with the lack of unique data and information for our specific community. I would have loved to hear how these concerns were going to be met. I waited at the end of the meeting but had no way to tell you that I needed to see the last slide again to get your email (luckily a neighbor had taken a picture). It may be helpful to have that information in a QR code or linked in chat.

I would like to hear more specific details about the placement of this facility and the routes that are typically used by children for schools, playgrounds, the gymnastic center, and the pool. The proximity to schools and playgrounds were not addressed in the meeting. Our community loves to walk and can be frequently seen all over the neighborhood in the afternoons and evenings.

As a neighbor to the Laurelwood Cabana Club, that has a large number of children walking to the facility and waiting for parent pick-ups outside, I am concerned that this facility was not mentioned or brought up since it is 0.6 of a mile away and on the path to El Camino (VTA) The low barrier entry to this facility was concerning because of the residential nature of our community. In addition, I would hope that someone would take seriously the need for onsite parking. I am curious if a representative from the Santa Clara City could provide some alternatives for the Tree lot and pumpkin patch to allow for a more open discussion.

Lastly, I would love for the county to look at other projects and report back what the community has said after they have been built. Have there been problems with trash? Has there been an increase with crime? What have those projects looked like a year after completion?
Thanks so much for asking for our feedback and I look forward to another informative meeting (preferably on Zoom)
Mary Pisapia-Sinn
From: Julia Okeefe
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Project Homekey on Benton
Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:15:16 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Julia Okeefe <
Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:38 PM
Subject: Project Homekey on Benton
To: <[email protected]>
Dear Consuelo,
Thank you so much for moderating the community meeting last evening. It is not easy, and your composure and even-handedness was remarkable.

I did not have a chance to speak, but I would like to make a few comments.

First of all, I think the project has lots of potential, but the management will be key. I am not clear on how one would apply and be selected for the transitional housing. I know the housing is neither jail nor hospital, but how does the manager of the project ensure that an applicant is the right fit? If a resident is unable to abide by the rules of Homekey, what will the procedures be?
I also think some residents might be confused by the stereotype of a "shelter," meaning the 4:30-7:00 a.m. dormitory style, rather than the transitional model of providing a home for some months. Transitional housing seems to me one of the most humane and effective tools available: a place to call one's own, a place where resources and help are offered and available, a place to rest and regroup after the trauma of being unhoused. Some residents of the area near Benton seem to believe that a transitional housing unit will generate more unhoused people wandering the neighborhood rather than fewer.

What is a "low barrier?"
How many stories are you projecting for the housing?
How might neighborhood incidents, such as resident confrontation by neighbors or encounters with school children, be handled?
I am just beginning to look at the resources you introduced last evening, but I wanted to say thank you before the week ends. I am so happy to have evidence of competent and dedicated government staff and hope for some partial solutions to the crisis of unhoused citizens.

Thanks again.

Julia O'Keefe
Santa Clara, CA 95050
From: Bay One Limo Shaila
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location ......

Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:43:14 AM
Hi I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location because Homeless Shelter for residents can pose potential risks to the high-density residential areas and to users of parks,
kids in many daycares, schools and children’s playgrounds in this area. AND I request that I vote NO on this project:

Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter Thank You

BAY ONE LIMO
408-506-5052
www.bayonelimo.com

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

From: I S Gill
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location .........

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

Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Thanks & Regards,
Bay Star Limo
Cell: 408-571-9311
Cell: 408-515-8209
Website: www.baystarlimo net
* If cancellation is made less than 24 hours we will charge 100% of original fees.

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

From: Huan Li
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the construction of the shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:37:27 PM
Dear Council Member,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. While I understand the importance of helping homeless people, I believe that there are better ways to achieve this goal than by building this shelter in our neighborhood.

Firstly, the proposed location is entirely wrong. The shelter is designed with low barriers that admit people with prior criminal records and ongoing drug abuse. This is a major safety concern for our community, especially since there are several elementary schools and parks in the vicinity. I fear that the safety of young children in the area will be compromised.

Secondly, there is already a homeless care facility under construction half a mile away. Why do we need another one so close to an already vulnerable area? Instead of building another shelter, this location would be better suited for permanent housing.

I urge you to vote NO and seek alternative solutions to help homeless people. Building a shelter in our neighborhood is definitely not the answer, and I hope that you will take my concerns into consideration.

Sincerely,
Huan Li
From: saihua lin
To: [email protected] ; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the project at this location Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:01:35 PM
Hi
I don’t have the chance to speak up during the meeting. I just want to share my opinion that I oppose the shelter at this location. I live in santa clara with two kids. The people who showed support in the meeting are not belong to santa clara. Two are from Sunnyvale, two don’t want to share where they live and only saying live in bay area, one is public official. Please be aware and listen to the local people in santa clara
Saihua
From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:07:22 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Eric Sung
From: Janet Kim
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:40:57 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

First, this proposed shelter is in the middle of very walkable residential neighborhood which has quite a few schools, public parks and many homes. Since the city plans to admit people with prior criminal background, with prior or ongoing drug abuse, with mental health issues to this shelter, it will create an unsafe environment for people in this neighborhood. I live across from the proposed shelter location, during the past decade, our family experienced a car theft, our license plate being stolen and other issues. With each incident, our family had to spend so much time and effort to resolve the issue and not to mention all the stress and agony, even though we were the victims, so it is our top priority for me and our family to live in a neighborhood that is safe and to keep it safe.

Helping people who are going through difficult time is a good act and I and our family do support that. But this should be done in a way that ensure safety for innocent citizen.

And a helping act should cause no harm and danger to the majority of the population.

Also, I learned that the county has converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility this year which is only about half a mile away from the Benton/Lawrence location. After learning this, it seems questionable as to why our neighborhood is being targeted and it seems rather unfair for our community which is near the proposed shelter location to host another shelter.

For above reasons, I strongly ask the city to consider a non-residential area for a homeless shelter. I heard the city of Palo Alto built a homeless shelter in a nonresidential area which is a very reasonable approach. Since the County owns a number of parcels further away from residential areas, this would be an ideal approach to build a shelter.

To preserve the neighborhood that is rather safe, we ask you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
Janet Kim

From: Adele Chen
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:45:39 PM
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 of quite a few 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 a 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, lower air quality, and proximity to a high volume of vehicle traffic is conducive to rehabilitation and stabilization of life after living on the street.

With all the 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,
Lan Chen
From: Jui Hui Lin
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:42:12 AM
Dear 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 several 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 and elderly citizens spend their retirement days in the communities.

The county has clearly indicated that this shelter will 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, we strongly feel that mixing the “most challenging elements of the population” with some of the most innocent and 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.

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,
Julia Huang
From: Vivian Lee
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:55:30 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

Regards,
Hsiangyun Lee
From: Rui Liang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:17:31 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

This location sits within walking distance to quite a few elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single family homes, apartments, senior homes.

Families stroll in the area with their kids. Young students walk to and from their schools daily.

Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

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

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 isavailable, 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.

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. --
Best Regards,
Rui Liang

From: Zoey Long
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:09:00 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

Regards,
Juexuan Long
From: Ran Duan
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:08:20 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

Regards,
Ran Duan
From: Jessica Wong
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:49:40 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. This location sits within walking distance to quite a few elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single family homes, apartments, senior homes. Families stroll in the area with their kids.

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

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,
Jessica Wong
From: Jane Ma
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 10:14:09 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

As a City of Santa Clara resident for over a decade, 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 several elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single family homes, apartments, senior homes. My children walk to those schools every day. 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.

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.

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,
Jane
From: Feng Shao
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 10:13:14 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

As a City of Santa Clara resident for over a decade, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Young students walk to and from their schools daily. Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

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.

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,
Feng
From: Shen Yu
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:50:42 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

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

Besides 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, 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 isavailable, 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,
Shen
From: Xiaoyun Wang
Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:16:32 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

The county has clearly indicated that this shelter shall admit people with prior criminal background, with prior or ongoing drug abuse, with mental health issues … We believe people living a difficult life deserve a helping hand, 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.

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 isavailable, 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.

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,
Xiaoyun Wang
From: Liya Leah Ye
To: Liya Leah Ye
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:00:23 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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 isavailable, 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.

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,
Liya (Leah) Ye
From: Robert Vu
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:20:28 AM
Dear Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County, I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

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

Regards,
Robert Vu
From: Henry L
To: Henry L
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I say NO to Benton/Lawrence shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:57:29 PM
Dear elected / appointed officials, LifeMoves executives:

Please reconsider the Benton/Lawrence location. Based on publicly accessible research and data, re-integrating the homeless population with society does NOT benefit to any meaningful extent from a shelter being located in a residential community. This location is at the heart of residential / school areas. I won't blame people when they say any violent crimes against kids by a homeless individual would be blood on your hands.

I believe you guys have more than enough resources and data access to find alternative locations that will do the job of helping the homeless without putting a community in harm's way.

Speaking of ending the homeless crisis, if you are really serious about the issue you cannot ignore the big picture. Building more shelters has always failed to reduce the number of people on the street. That is just so crystal clear to see. While the number of homeless people hits a record as we speak, many of the existing homeless care facilities continue to have very low occupancy rates. There are a long list of solutions/services that cannot be after-thought, or skipped entirely right after you put a roof over their head. I do not see any hint of a comprehensive approach to address the homeless crisis. Against that backdrop, the effort to build the Benton shelter does seem rushed, disingenuous and should I say, a bit "convenient" after White Oak Lane was rejected in 2021?
If any of you would refuse to open your arms to a shelter like this where you live or where you kids, your grandkids go to school, I'm afraid that would be the very definition of NIMBY. If you do welcome a shelter near your home, that's very noble of you, but the safety concerns are still very real no matter where you stand.

Please reconsider.

Thanks,
Henry
From: Joyce Huang
To: khardy
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter as a local resident Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:57:04 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. --
Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: Joyce Huang
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter as a local resident Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:54:59 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. --
Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: Joyce Huang
To: Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter as a local resident Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:51:31 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. --
Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: Joyce Huang
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter as a local resident Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:50:31 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. --
Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: Joyce Huang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter as a local resident Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:49:33 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. --
Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: Joyce Huang
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter as a local resident Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:58:02 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

With all above facts, I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. --
Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: L H
To: Adam Marcus; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the Benton project Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:05:35 PM
Elected City and County Officials and LifeMoves Leaders, I am writing this email to express my strong opposition to the interim housing project at the intersection of Benton and Lawrence.

I am a resident of the City of Santa Clara and live 1000 ft away from the proposed site and 2000 ft away from Bella Vista Inn (another shelter in Santa Clara). For the past three weeks, I have been following this project closely.

I oppose to this project for the following reasons:

1. It is a wrong proposal to build a low barrier shelter in a residential area. Building a shelter with “the more challenging elements of the population” risks everyone’s safety, especially in a high density populated neighborhood with countless schools and daycares.

2. It is a wrong proposal to build two shelters within 0.5 mile in the same neighborhood. This area, with two large shelters in close vicinity, will become a hotbed for crimes and substance abuses. This will have significant negative impacts on the overall well-being of our neighborhood and the wider Santa Clara community over time.

3. It is a wrong proposal to build a shelter near a dangerous intersection. The Benton site is not a safe location for unhoused individuals due to its proximity to a particularly dangerous intersection. The crossing at Lawrence on Benton is a high-risk area, with a red light duration of 2 minutes and 30 seconds. For those struggling with addiction or mental illness, waiting for such a long time to cross a 9-lane expressway could pose a significant danger. The possibility of impatience leading to risky behavior is concerning, particularly given the high speed limit of 50 MPH on Lawrence. I drive across this intersection multiple times every weekday, however, I have made an effort to avoid walking across it for the past 8 years.

4. It is a wrong proposal to build a shelter near a liquor store. Directly across from the Benton site, there is a liquor store that raises additional concerns related to safety. The Mountain View site at 2556 Leghorn St and the Milpitas site at 1000 Hillview Ct have both had multiple incidents reported involving alcohol use. The presence of a nearby liquor store only exacerbates these safety concerns, making the situation potentially even more hazardous.

In the meantime, I am deeply disappointed by the County and LifeMoves' disregard for our community's concerns and safety. Despite the clear opposition from our residents, the County and LifeMoves are pushing ahead with this project without taking our comments and concerns.

During a Milpitas Council meeting on Aug 2022 (https://www.youtube.com/live/8BR0sffdNLg? feature=share&t=9458), the Police Chief presented data indicating that the number of police calls in the area around a similar interim/permanent housing project (1000 Hillview Ct, Milpitas) had drastically increased. Additionally, the Mayor of Milpitas reported that tenants were leaving and businesses were relocating due to the high number of crime incidents. This proves our concern on safety is valid and by no means should be ignored.

Ms. Consuelo was in the Milpitas meeting. I am disappointed that, Ms. Consuelo, you have not been transparent and honest with the public and instead, have sugar-coated the project with Brian Greenberg from LifeMoves.

I appreciate the good intentions behind this project, but I believe there are better solutions that can be developed to address this issue in a way that works for everyone. Rather than building the housing project in residential areas, a more practical approach would be to construct interim/permanent housing in non-residential areas with shuttle services and onsite amenities. This approach can effectively address the housing needs of unhoused individuals while minimizing negative impacts on the community. It's worth noting that many unhoused individuals own cars, which I believe is why the site plan has 80 parking spaces at Benton.

I urge you to vote against this project and take immediate action to halt its progress.

Thanks for your time reading this email.

Regards,
Santa Clara resident, LH
From: family Wu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:58:05 PM
Hi All,
I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

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

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

Regards,
Family Wu
From: Yuki Li
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:54:38 PM
Dear Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am a Santa Clara County resident, voter, tax payer and mother of a 5 year old and 8 year old both going to a nearby school. I am deeply concerned about the safety risk this project will expose the neighborhood to!
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. This has aroused tremendous community concern not only in the neighborhood but also among the entire Santa Clara County residents.

Where are the benefits of bringing a homeless shelter deep into a residential area? This is going to put the 7000+ students within a 1-mile radius at a huge safety risk and causing good business fleeting the area!
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 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.

Thank you for your consideration!
Shi Li
From: (null) (null)
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I STRONGLY OPPOSE the new shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:33:35 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara
County:

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

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

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

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

The County does own a number of parcels further
away from residential areas. Palo Alto has had
experience with building a homeless shelter in a nonresidential 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
Meredith
Sent from my iPhone
From: Monica Bansal
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I Strongly Oppose the Proposed Shelter in Lawrence and Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:59:48 PM
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 across the street from my house, AND 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.

MY KIDS walk to and from their schools daily. Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

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.

Data from Shelters in Milpitas show significant increase to crime and services needed to surrounding areas.

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,
Monica Bansal-Mother of small school children
Arya & Raina Shubhakar -9 years old-walk to Laurelwood elementary Gopinath Shubhakar-Loving Father
From: Jing Zheng
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Saturday, March 11, 2023 8:00:57 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

As a resident living nearby the proposed homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposal.

While I agree that people living a difficult life deserve a helping hand, I strongly oppose the location of the proposed shelter for several reasons.

Firstly, the site is located within walking distance of several elementary schools, daycares, public parks, and a residential neighborhood consisting of single-family homes, apartments, and senior homes. This location is frequented by families with young children, students, and senior citizens. The county has indicated that the shelter will admit individuals with prior criminal backgrounds, drug abuse, and mental health issues. While it is admirable to help those in need, I believe that this proposal shows a lack of thoughtfulness and sincerity on the part of the county/city in their effort to locate such a homeless care facility.

Secondly, the proposed site is situated in a densely populated residential area and is adjacent to a section of Lawrence Expressway that is 2-way, 8-lane with a tremendous amount of weekday traffic. This environment, including loud, continuous noise, resultant lower air quality, and proximity to a high volume of vehicle traffic, is not conducive to rehabilitation and stabilization of life after living on the street.

Thirdly, the county owns a number of parcels further away from residential areas, and there are successful examples of homeless shelters in non-residential areas. These areas provide more space, enabling more space allocation per unhoused individual compared to the 4-story, container-like tiny rooms for individuals and couples proposed for the Benton site.

Lastly, research shows that a homeless shelter inevitably brings negative impacts onto the surrounding neighborhood, including a rise in crime rates and a fall in property market value. The county has recently converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility this year, which is located barely half a mile away from the Benton/Lawrence location. It is unfair and unthoughtful to subject communities in the Lawrence/El Camino Real area to another homeless shelter.

In light of these concerns, I urge you to vote against any upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Jing Zheng
From: Guilan Gao
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:22:18 PM
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 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 isavailable, 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.

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.

From: Guilan Gao
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:21:46 PM
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 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 isavailable, 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.

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.

From: Ray Leon
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:18:19 PM
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 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 isavailable, 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.

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.

From: Diane C. Avila
To: Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I STRONGLY OPPOSE the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:52:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I live off Benton and Live Oak, have been in Santa Clara for 45 years. I am writing to express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposal of constructing a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. I’m also disappointed that I was only notified of this by a flyer left at my home volunteers and not the city.

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. I personally would not feel comfortable going for a walk in my neighborhood, nor would I want my parents going for a walk.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Best Regards,
Diane
Diane C. Avila, CPA
Manager
Serving Silicon Valley & beyond for over 40 years
1550 The Alameda, Suite 211, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 942-6888 x348 Fax: (408) 942-0194
www.crawfordpimentel.com
Click Here to Securely Upload Files
This email message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email and destroying all copies of the original message From: Erin Garrido
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 4:31:40 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

Regards,
Erin Garrido
Santa Clara, CA 95051
From: Yi Zhang
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I strongly oppose to build interim housing in Benton/Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:26:23 PM
As a local resident, I have lived in the birdland community for over 7 years and I like this community a lot.

I strongly oppose to build the interim housing in Benton/Lawrence. This is a wrong location for the neighborhood as well as for the unhoused people. This proposal poses a significant threat to local students and residents.

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

Thanks
From: Lisa Eckstein
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] in support of Benton + Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59:43 PM
Hi, I'm writing in support of the Benton and Lawrence interim housing project. I attended in tonight's Zoom community meeting but did not join the speaker queue in time to speak.

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

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

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

Thank you,
Lisa Eckstein
From: Sarah Foad
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of Housing
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:06:33 PM
Good evening Consuelo,
First, I want to say thank you for taking time to facilitate these community meetings. While challenging, they are much appreciated.

I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara County.

Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need. As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because I have seen first-hand the impact of homelessness on an individual and family. I work at Stanford Health Care and see the effect on the community daily. I feel this project will improve safety for the community, increasing resources for underserved community members, and restoring dignity to those who deserve it as much as you and I. I have also spoken to many members of the community who feel similarly, but are too afraid to attend community meetings out of fear of retaliation and abuse. It is not easy to knowingly put oneself and one's family in the line of fire. There is significant support for this project whether it is publicly voiced or not.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Sarah Foad, MS
Santa Clara, CA 95051
LinkedIn
Board of Directors, Women Health Care Executives
From: Sarah Foad
To: Sarah Foad
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of Interim Housing
Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 8:35:38 PM
Good evening,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara County. Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the everincreasing need. As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because I believe everyone deserves the right to secure, consistent 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,
Sarah Foad, MS
Resident of Santa Clara
LinkedIn
Board of Directors, Women Health Care Executives
From: R. Elysa Gurman
To: R. Elysa Gurman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:49:37 PM
I am writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

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

Today I'd like to tell you about children.

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

Scary Mommy - What Happened When A Homeless Shelter Moved Into My Upper Class City Neighborhood
HumanKind - Raising Empathetic Humans: Four Tips for Talking to Kids About Homelessness
Invisible People - What Happens When Kids are ‘Exposed’ to Homelessness? National Center for Education Statistics - Homeless Children and Youth in Public Schools ACLU West Virginia - Five Reasons Why We Don't Need to Ban Homeless Services Near Schools
ACLU Northern California - ACLU Leads Young People on Mission Targeting Teen Homelessness
Search Homeless Services - How To Talk To Your Children About Homelessness San Francisco Examiner - Here are 5 Tips for Talking With Your Children About Homelessness
R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From: R. Elysa Gurman
To: R. Elysa Gurman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 5:01:57 PM
Hi,
I'm writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

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

Today I'd like to tell you about safety.

It is generally accepted by people in the field that getting unhoused people into houses is safer for everyone. It removed public incidents because the people have privacy as well as support services. There is actually evidence that housing facilities like this one reduce crime in a given neighborhood. Additionally, unhoused people are shown to be much more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. The recent KQED report about 5 housing sites in San Jose showed that the only increased emergency call was ambulances, which is not a bad thing.

You can find more details on our website here. And below are some of my sources:

KQED: Emergency Calls, Complaints Are Down Near San José's Temporary Housing Sites.

So Why Are They Still So Politically Risky?
Enterprise - Record: Chico State study finds Safe Space shelter didn’t impact neighborhood crime
National Low Income Housing Coalition: New Study Finds that Providing People Experiencing Homelessness with Housing has Positive Impacts on Health, Crime, and Employment
National Homeless Civil Rights Organizing Project: A Report of Hate Crimes and Violence Against People who are Homeless in the United States in 2000 NYU: Homeless youths most often victims of crime: study R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From: R. Elysa Gurman
To: R. Elysa Gurman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:01:13 PM
I am writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

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

Today I'd like to tell you about location.

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

Sources:

Finding Homeless Patients A Place To Heal
Transportation and Homelessness: A Systematic Review
Homelessness & Food Deserts in Los Angeles
Community Amenities
Why Neighborhoods—and the Policies that Shape Them—Matter The Importance of Place: Neighborhood Amenities as a Source of Social Connection and Trust Strategies for Improving Homeless People's Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services Shelter Environment and Placement in
Community Affects Lifestyle Factors
Among Homeless Families in Minnesota
R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From: Eric Forster
To: Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Interim Homeless housing at Lawrence & Benton Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 1:27:23 PM
Hr. Lee
My name is Eric Forster and I live on Kintyre Way in Sunnyvale and you are my county supervisor representative.

I am adamantly apposite to the proposed interim homeless housing project for the Pumpkin Patch lot @ Lawrence and Benton.

There are many reasons why this is not a good idea some of which is the interim homeless housing project on ElCamino at the Bella Vista Inn property is all ready under way, the Pumpkin Patch lot is used by the church next door as well as the by-yearly used for a Christmas Tree farm & pumpkin patch.

I would appreciate it very much if you would represent me in apposing this project.

Sincerely
Eric Forster
From: SHALINI Venkatesh
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Interim Housing at Lawrence and Benton Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 7:46:55 PM
Ms Hernandez and Mr Marcus,
I attended the February 13th online meeting on the interim shelter program proposal for a site at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, and was taken aback at the strong reactions expressed in opposition by a lot of those attending it. Like many of them, I live in the neighborhood, less than a mile from the site, but I feel very differently. I am strongly in support of the proposal as presented by the County, City and LifeMoves and think it will be a fine use of public land. Losing a few weeks a year of commercial use and a few hours a week of overflow parking amounts to very little when balanced against the benefits a housing program like this one could provide.

I have lived in my current home for over 30 years, and am all too aware of the huge increase over that period in the number of people who sleep on the sidewalks, in the parks (including one very close to the proposed site) and in cars parked on the streets, all in this city neighborhood. I would far rather have them safely accommodated in a well designed shelter, with professional support of whatever type is necessary for them to deal with any health problems, and find their way out into long term housing. Such a program would surely improve the quality of life not only for the individuals currently unhoused, but also for the rest of us. I expect there are potential problems of the type associated with any new development, like the issue of pressure on parking space brought up by several of the meeting attendees, but I am sure these problems are not insurmountable. Also, I see no factual basis to fear that the existence of this type of shelter would cause any more local crime than the lack of one currently does.

I applaud the County and the City for identifying this piece of land as a potential site for a supportive shelter, for stepping up to try to better serve those who desperately need its support, and for involving the community at a very early stage. I sincerely hope the project continues to move forward and receives all the necessary approvals to be implemented.

Sincerely,
Shalini Venkatesh
From: Debbie Dempsey
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Interim Housing
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:56:57 PM
I live within the 1000 foot radius of the proposed interim housing site. I adamantly oppose building interim housing on this very low density zoned parcel because it is too small to adequately address the underlying cause of each individual’s homelessness.

The Benton/Lawrence Site (owned by the County of Santa Clara) should be used for affordable housing for:
firefighters
police
health care workers
social workers
employees of nearby businesses (within a close specified area to include Sunnyvale, San Jose and Cupertino) A requirement for such housing could be a number of volunteer hours at the interim housing project that should instead be included in the Related Santa Clara development of 3155 Stars & Stripes Drive. The Stars & Stripes Drive site consists of 9.2 million square feet, on 240 acres, of mixed use development and is owned by the City of Santa Clara.

The larger site would allow for services to explore the route causes of homelessness such as:
comprehensive on-site social services
benefits assistance
safe place to stay
substance abuse recovery services
laundry services
3 meals a day (Food Bank)
courtyard to stay during the day
showers
safes
acute care clinic
medical care
Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
Santa Clara
From: Jean
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lawrence and Benton Interim Shelter Comment Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:23:01 PM
Attachments: image.png
Greetings,
Thank you all for the meeting this evening.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jean L
From: Tina Liu
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] Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:55:21 PM
Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
I am writing this email as a citizen who cares about the safety of the neighborhood as well as contribute towards solving the homelessness crisis, especially in California.

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

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

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

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

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

Tina Liu
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Angela Rausch
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; District1; Chavez, Cindy; Supervisor.Lee; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor Simitian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] LifeMoves site support
Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 6:25:44 PM
Attachments: SVDP Benton and Lawrence Site.pdf
Dear All,
Our group, Saint Vincent de Paul at Church of the Resurrection in Sunnyvale is in full support of this Life Moves project at Benton and Lawrence.

Thank you for your hard work.

Angela Rausch
From: ying d
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Low Barrier Homeless Shelter on Lawrence and Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:32:37 PM
Dear County Supervisors, District Council members, Housing Director and managers:

I am a Santa Clara county resident for more than 2 decades and have experienced many changes over the years. Recently the news that you are deciding to build a Low Barrier Homeless Shelter on Lawrence and Benton for upto 200 residents concerns me.

I am strongly oppose it for the following reason.

1. 200 residents are too crowded for that location

2. No survey is published regarding the safety of the future residents in terms of noise, traffic of that location. Please share if you have.

3. The qulification criteria of the residents is not published to county residents (Please forward a copy if you have)

4. The process of location selection is not published and transparent for county resident to review and inputs (PLease share a copy if you have)

5. No information has been shared how the future resident and facility would be managed by the Supervisor Susan Ellenberg and Otto Lee along with the cost (in terms of county tax and budget alloaction). Please share if you have.

6. No survey has been received from county in terms of impact analysis to the nearby residents and businesses. Please share if you do.

I urge you to take the time and do your due diligence in evalauting all other options and present the options and analysis to county resident for inputs before any decision making.

Also to make sure you take the ownership and resposibility for the decision you make and its outcome.

Thanks for your attention.

Ying
From: Tin Tran
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:44:26 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 college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

From: Ray
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Kpark@santaclara...

Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:47:51 PM
Content:

I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. 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 cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Thanks!
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Misleading information from SC city council and county supervisors Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 3:32:04 PM
Mr. Marcus,
A number of Santa Clara city council members stated that the city has no say in which location is selected for an interim shelter, yet the county website states that both Santa Clara city and county asked their staff to look for properties and prepare a proposal without considering or consulting with the local, tax-paying residents. Is it true that Santa Clara really has no say? The city canceled the White Oak project and claims that Benton, a half mile to the south, is a better option because it is county property. This also implies that the Ponderosa neighborhood's concern actually had no impact on the decision. It also implies that the future operating costs are irrelevant. Now, you're dealing with Birdland which has an even greater concern and much louder voice. However, you have conveniently failed to inform the Birdland Neighborhood which is directly across the street from the proposed facility.

It is inappropriate and potentially illegal to mislead and/or block information from reaching taxpayers and voters. We are certain we can find a law that protects us and was not overridden by Project Homekey's Covid Emergency temporary laws, a state of emergency that has recently expired.

While we are certain this is one of many hundreds of emails you've received on the subject, we would like to share few of our concerns about the misinformation and misleading public statements on county and city websites and in recent meetings:
- Ms. Hernandez' statement that homelessness increased in Santa Clara by 35% in Santa Clara is misleading and poor justification for building interim housing. Starting from a small number always results in a larger change. e.g. 3/10 is 30%.
- Ms. Hernandez is also leaving out the fact that San Jose, San Francisco, and other large cities pushed their homeless out of their cities and camps (e.g. Guadalupe River encampments, North San Jose encampments near Apple property, Cupertino/280 encampments, West San Jose/280 encampments) into surrounding easy-access towns, including Santa Clara. Therefore, their numbers decreased while ours increased.
- Please advise, given that Ms. Hernandez' email address is a .org, not .gov, is she employed by the county government or is hhs.sccgov.org a separate entity? We would like to confirm that we are communicating with the government representative of this project and understand the management structure and contractors involved. Thank you. - There are claims that the 'unhoused' population that recently landed on our streets and creeks are locals. This is false. That would imply that Santa Clara suddenly produced a significant number of citizens with issues. It did not. Santa Clara, SCVW, and the state/county have created a magnet for the homeless and provide easy access, especially at the borders to other cities.

Public Safety confirmed most are not from here and has stated that their hands are tied. Arrest records also show that most are not local to Santa Clara. Please prove to us that this sudden increase of homeless individuals came from Santa Clara. Show us the complete and factual data history of each individual, anonymized if not part of public record, of course, and let us draw our own conclusions.
- Moratoriums on evictions have only recently been lifted. We cannot conclude that locals who were recently unemployed during the pandemic are now homeless. Please show us the data. - Bella Vista, another Homeky project that quietly slipped past the community, will house more than two hundred homeless or low/no-income homeless. That hotel was already housing prostitution, drug deals, and whatnot (see Arrest Records and Crimereports.com on LexisNexis).

This, plus the new project will bring the number to 300-400 within a 1/4 mile radius (please provide the projected numbers). The area is already losing businesses and is seeing a significant increase in crime. Can this area handle another 200 given how poorly the current situation is being managed? We don't go to that Walgreens anymore. It's frightening. They'll probably be gone soon.
- Claiming that Santa Clara city needs to house more drug addicts, repeat offenders/criminals and parolees, and individuals with serious mental or personality disorders is exacerbating the issue. Placing 120-200 of them in 'stacked containers' on a 1 acre parcel, across from liquor and convenience stores, next to an expressway, a hundred yards (or feet in some cases) from community swimming pools, parks, churches, and schools in an area where they will never find a job is as unfair and abusive to them as it is to local residents. It's a fact that homeless shelters attract homeless and trouble. People have friends, patrons, dealers that they'll need to meet with in the minimart parking lot since they won't be allowed to invite them into their tiny home complex. - Isolating these individuals from the services they need and unloading the responsibilities onto local public safety and middle income families that are already struggling to afford living near work is irresponsible and kicking the can down the road. Expecting them to jump on public transit to visit their social worker in another part of the county is a pipe dream. They will more likely be tempted to panhandle or steal from neighboring properties. It will only increase their chances of breaking laws, future incarceration and perpetuation of their dangerous lifestyle. Do we leave an open bottle of vodka in the same room with a recovering alcoholic? No! - We all knew of a few kids in high school that chose to party rather than to work hard and study.

They had the same standard of living and opportunities as the rest of us. In fact, I know of one that partied and dealt drugs, committed armed robbery, is homeless living under a building in Folsom, attempted to burn down that building, and is in and out of the county jail. He would likely tell you himself that you wouldn't want him as a neighbor. His family and county services tried to help him as a teenager. Unfortunately, he was enabled rather than discouraged and treated. He doesn't belong in a strange neighborhood. He needs psychiatric treatment in a location far removed from where he can do harm to himself or others. There is a reason rehab facilities are in remote, peaceful areas where distractions, temptations, and easy access to illegal drugs are at a minimum.
- Claims that crime won't increase and home values won't decrease are not based on complete facts. We wouldn't buy here knowing there will be an interim housing facility for previously unhoused is across the street. We estimate a loss of between $100k and $500k for my own home's value. Multiply that by at least 400 homes of those represented at recent meetings and you have a combined loss of $40 million to $200 million, which far exceeds the project that will cost at least $30 million.
- We will no longer be able to walk our children to school, dog to the park, or stop at the Walgreen's for medicine. We are afraid. We're an outdoorsy neighborhood. This will only lock us indoors and cause people to purchase guns for self-protection, the exact opposite of what we as Californians want. New neighbors are going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, not just because of the impending recession, but because NO young families are going to purchase a home near a homeless shelter. Please show us the complete analysis or give us the raw data and we'll do our own analysis of potential home values. Show us data of similar neighborhoods that ended up with homeless shelters within their community, pre pandemic. The data doesn't exist, because most cities don't place them in neighborhoods and the Homekey project is the first of its kind to override zoning and existing laws/regulations. The SF housing authority figured out in the 70's and 80's that projects of the 1950's congregating a large number of low or no income individuals in a confined area resulted in very high crime. We don't want to live in SF nor do we want our community to resemble it.
- It is alarming that yet another mass homeless housing development is being proposed at the edge of town next to the border of Sunnyvale rather than near Santa Clara University, light industrial, and large corporations with loud voices. It seems we have a 'keep the center of Santa Clara beautiful' situation. We work at those large corporations and they likely don't want us living in dangerous areas. It's only a matter of time before more companies and their employees choose to relocate to other states due to high taxes that are being spent on projects such as Homekey which simply attracts more troubled individuals and criminals from other parts of the country and world.
- Some of us volunteered at Joint Venture Silicon Valley 20 years ago. Our goal was to help bring job opportunities to this area. We're disappointed and concerned with what we're seeing and hearing about the relationship and influence between Santa Clara leaders, JVSV and Sobrato.

Please explain more about this relationship.
- We should be sending the homeless back home to their own families and communities to handle, not inviting them to enjoy free shelter, food, and services funded by local taxpayers. The non-profits and large developers with 'philanthropic' arms are simply perpetuating and enabling the issue, not to mention, landing significant contracts to pay their commercial organizations and contractors to build shelters near existing homes.
- It is the county's and city's job to provide factual data and evidence that crime does not increase in or near a homeless shelter. It is also their job to represent us, the people that pay you. We're an audience of middle income technology workers, engineers, analysts, and executives that couldn't afford to live in Los Altos, Monte Sereno, or Los Gatos. Both parents work 10-12 hour days and have massive mortgages and property tax bills while trying to raise families. We do not live in luxury. Our only guilty pleasures are the ability to take our kids and dogs for walks to the parks in the evening. We're talking about teaching self defense. - We have several senior citizens in this area in addition to the young families. They are not wealthy. The county would likely love to see them move so that property taxes can increase beyond Prop 13 protections. Unfortunately, in addition to the pending recession, this project has already damaged property resale values and their nest eggs they've worked their entire lives to build.
- The meeting on Mar 1 did not address any of our questions. It simply restated what was already presented during the virtual meeting and angered the local community. In addition, the facility was not large enough. The meeting was very poorly managed and displayed complete disregard for the community. It is inappropriate to expect a project manager to manage a community discussion about a project that will cause millions of dollars in losses and safety issues for local residents. We recommend you bring in higher level leadership that can answer questions and properly manage a crowd of very smart people with tough questions. Please tell us how many were in attendance and how many could not get in due to fire codes? We have never seen this neighborhood and community so angered. This situation already has

From: centralpark geese
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No criminal homeless shelter near central park, strongly oppose the benton and lawrence project Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:28:52 PM
Attachments: image.png
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Benton Shelter Project. As a long-time resident of the area near Central Park, I have been feeding the cats in the park for over ten years. I have grown to love these animals and feel a deep responsibility to protect them.

My biggest concern with the Benton Shelter Project is that it will attract individuals with criminal backgrounds, who may pose a threat to the vulnerable lives in our community. I have heard stories of homeless individuals using booby traps to kill wild cats, which is both heartbreaking and concerning. I worry that this shelter will only attract more individuals with mental illness, who may not be able to control their impulses and could potentially harm not only the cats, but other members of our community.

I understand the importance of providing shelter and support for those in need, but I believe that the Benton Shelter Project is not the answer. There are other ways to address homelessness and mental illness that do not involve placing a shelter in such a heavily populated area. I urge you to consider the safety and well-being of the community before making a decision on this matter.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sandra
From: Zhu Grace
To: Zhu Grace
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No danger to our kids please!
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 7:06:49 PM
Dear sir/madam,
We strongly oppose building the low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. Here are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests. Reasons:

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

We oppose no prior research having been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood.
80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.

We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues. We oppose no screening procedures.

We oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter.

We oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings.

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

We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.

This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.

No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.

Requests:

I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.

I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings.

I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.

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

I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort? I request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.

I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.

I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty? :KDW·VWKHZHDSRQSROLF\"+RZFDQ\RXPDNHVXUHWKH\GRQRWKDYHZHDSRQZLWK WKHP"
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
+RZZLOOWKHPD[LPXPKRPHOHVVSHRSOHEHPDQDJHG"%\ZKRP":KHUHGRHV WKHIXQGLQJFRPHIURP"
7KDQN\RX
*UDFH
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO INTERIM HOUSING AT BENTON & LAWRENCE Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:29:37 PM
Affordable housing for a reasonable number of residents: MAYBE.

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

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

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

Thank you for representing your constituents.

From: Rui Zhang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:59:49 PM
Dear all,
My name is Rui, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location and vote no as our representative.

The county conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.
-Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.
-Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!)
-The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
-High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves’ construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval! -Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
-Location selection is far from public transit, grocery, and jobs -County providing false and misleading info
-300+ community questions unanswered as to date.

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

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

I’m counting on you to vote NO, or, I am not going to vote for you next year. Thanks, Regards,
Ray
From: Chao Huang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway shelter Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:11:09 AM
To the 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 is a densely populated area with many schools, daycares and seniors/elderly actively and frequently walking in the neighborhood and using the outdoor spaces. I believe in extending a helping hand whenever I can, but just as a homeless person has his/her/their right, I also have an equal right to safety and property protection as a law abiding and tax paying citizen.

There are already several homeless shelters nearby, including the converted Bella Vista Inn that's within easy walking distance. Why is the city and the county putting so much burden on our community? Are we somehow less of a person and deserve less rights? All men are created equal. This is extremely unfair to our neighborhood.

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

Regards,
Chao-Wen Huang
From: Phuong Wong
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; Ellenberg, Supervisor Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to homeless shelter at Benton/Lawrence Date: Thursday, February 23, 2023 2:52:54 PM
To whom it may concern,
Here's the gist:

An emergency shelter comprising 80-120 units is slated to be built by Sobrato & managed by LifeMoves on the county owned property across from 7-11 at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street.

We already have a homeless shelter at El Camino and Lawrence intersection, less than 0.5 miles from this site.

The first community outreach was on 2/13 where we got to learn about the low entry barrier for such a shelter implying we could have mentally ill, drug addicts and criminals along with other folks who need care in such a facility.

It is a transient shelter with only 1-2 people planned to administer ~120 people.

Feedback from the community wasn’t taken until 2/13 and it remains unclear whether the impact to safety, security and quality of life of the neighborhood was even considered in the choice of locations, and why specifically this location was selected.

There was an overwhelming opposition to the proposal by the community primarily due to safety concerns for children and residents around the site.

The community is not opposed to the initiative to build low income housing and homeless shelters per se. We feel that it should not be at the cost of safety of children and tax paying residents as well as severely affecting the quality of life and housing prices. Some other ideas for this specific parcel that could be mutually beneficial where the residents including children could volunteer enriching the lives of future residents and themselves could be:

Subsidized housing for senior citizens
Housing for physically disabled
There could be better locations where such safety concerns may not be there. Most of such facilities are surrounded by commercial landmarks (e.g. 2566 Leghorn St Mountain View), quite away from elementary schools. We’d recommend that such shelters be located away from dense residential areas, especially far away from schools.

Safety and security, better quality of life are some of the top priorities of your residents. In trying to solve one complex issue (homelessness), it is not OK to create multiple new issues that affect safety, security, law and order.

Summarizing, we the residents of Santa Clara, say “No” to the location choice due to the following main reasons and would like to work with you to find some other alternative use of the parcel that helps the city:

1. Adverse impact to Safety and security (of school going children): A facility like this shouldn’t be next to so many schools. There are at least seven schools within 0.5-1.5 miles radius. How do we ensure the safety of all the kids walking to and from schools?

2. Adverse impact to Safety, Security and quality of life of all residents in proximity: Proximity of such shelters to densely populated areas have a negative impact on the community (increase in crime, vandalism, drug use). The low entry bar for such a site increases the probability of such incidents which could potentially be very damaging for kids.

The city would need more resources to provide safety for the community.

3. More than one such shelter impacting the same neighborhood: Old Bella Vista Inn site for Sunnyvale homeless being built right now (Phase 1) and bigger plans for Phase 2 to make it permanent. Why should this specific community bear such a disproportionate burden associated with the shelters?

4. Adverse impact to Traffic and potential accident hazards: The site is at a very dangerous intersection of Lawrence Expressway & Benton that could impact the homeless clients as well as residents.

5. Adverse impact to Property Values: There is a risk of decrease in property values making it harder for homeowners to sell, rent or refinance their homes.

A petition, started by one of the concerned residents, has already been signed by more than 1000 residents. https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-the-homeless-shelter-at-corner-of-benton-street-and-lawrence-expressway-in-sant We need your help in shifting the location of this homeless shelter! Would you be willing to support your residents in their effort to keep safety and security of all residents one of the top priorities for Santa Clara? Can you help?
Regards,
Phuong Wong
From: Jonathan van Clute
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to the Benton Street homeless shelter!! Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:55:06 PM
You don’t need another form letter from yet another nearby resident telling you to vote no on this project. So this is all I have to say.

Vote NO on this or we will most definitely be showing our displeasure at re-election time, and any other chance we get. You have a job specifically to listen to and represent us, the residents. So do that job and stop this abhorrent project from moving forward.

Jonathan van Clute (born 50 years ago, and still live, within easy walking distance of this site) From: Jiayi Wang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] object/decline the proposal of Lawrence & Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:59:21 PM
Hi，
I hope this letter finds you well. I appreciate your efforts to propose the low-barrier interim housing near Lawrence & Benton. However, I regret to inform you that I and my family must decline the proposal.

While I understand the importance of low-barrier interim housing for those who need it, I think it is not suitable for our neighborhood: this proposal will cause additional safety concerns.

I would like to thank you for your time and effort. Please know that I appreciate your dedication to serving the community, and I respect the work you do to support those in need.

But again, this proposal is not suitable in our neighborhood and I want to express my objection.

Regards,
Jiayi
From: Em Wong
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection: Lawrence and Benton Homeless Shelter Plan Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:29:10 PM
Dear supervisors, council members, division manager and whom may be concerned, I am a writing to disapprove the homeless housing plan on Lawrence and Benton cross road. Reasons include but not limited to:

1. Negative effect on neighborhood safety with more homeless people in the area with more consistency

2. Negative effect on nearby school area. There many schools in the area and a kinder garden right next to the proposed location. Parents will highly likely change for a different school.

3. Negative effect on nearby businesses due to reasons above

4. It will scare away future home buyers, and give current residents a reason to relocate, affecting entire housing market

5. Negatively affect current residents’ trust on county decision makers, eventually affecting voting decisions
Optional solution:

1. Provide shelter in a more remote area. This is a prime location near Kaiser, Apple, Costco. The ROI and economic impact do not justify such decision.

Sincerely,
Emmeline Wong
Santa Clara Resident (Zip code, CA 94087)
From: Agou Cheng
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] Oppose Benton at Lawrence Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:44:52 PM
Dear Mayor Gilmor and Council Members,
My name is Yu-Chuan Chou and I am a resident of Santa Clara living on Benton St. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Benton shelter. I believe this is an inappropriate location for such a facility and it poses a safety risk for our children in the community. I urge you to reconsider this plan and vote against it as our elected representatives. The city and county should look for a non-residential land that is more suitable for this purpose.

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

Sincerely,
Yu Chuan
From: Tianqi Liu
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE Benton Shelter！
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:23:58 PM
This is Christy, resident of Santa Clara. I STRONGLY OPPOSE Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

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

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

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

I’m counting on you.

Thanks,
Christy
From: Likhit Ganga
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:44:03 PM
Hi all, I am Likhit, living in Santa Clara with my family. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.

It is disappointing and concerning that county officials, LifeMoves, and city council members have provided misleading information regarding the proposed Benton shelter. The officials' lack of knowledge about the surrounding schools and child facilities, and their inaccurate information regarding the number of schools in the area, demonstrates their ignorance of the community's safety and well-being. It is imperative that we hold these officials accountable and urge the City Council to find a non-residential location for the shelter.

Please REJECT this radical experiment! Thank you!
Best,
Likhit
From: Tao Zhang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:25:21 PM
Hi there!
This is Tao, a parent and resident in the neighborhood close to Benton & Lawrence intersection. I strongly oppose the proposed Benton development.

The location of this shelter is a major safety threat to the community, particularly the children in the area. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, the potential risks are too high to ignore.

I urge the City Council to reconsider and find an alternative non-residential location and do not put our children at risk.

Best Regards,
Tao
From: Xiao Wang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:11:47 PM
My name is Xiao, and I'm a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is a reckless proposal and radical experiment.

County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of nearly 500 participants strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

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

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,
Xiao
From: Tin Tran
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:02:00 PM
My name is Tin Tran, a resident of Santa Clara county. I strongly oppose the Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

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

I’m counting on you.

Thank you,
TIn
From: Connie Zhang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chavez, Cindy; [email protected]; kleincouncil; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Supervisor Simitian Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 7:25:44 PM
Hi,
My name is Connie, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location.

I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood
High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves’ construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval!

4. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse
Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs

5. County providing false and misleading info
300+ community’s questions unanswered as to date.

I’m counting on you！thanks!
From: Smile
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 6:37:14 PM
My name is Xin Li , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location.

I urge you to stop considering this location and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.
--
Thank you,
Xin Li
From: Lavender Wen
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 6:32:28 PM
Hi，My name is Mengqi Wen, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.

From: Ada Yeung
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 6:08:56 PM
My name is Ada Yeung, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.

From: Joyce Huang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:04:06 PM
My name is Yulin Huang , a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.
--
Best regards,
Yulin "Joyce" Huang, PHD
From: James Sun
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:04:30 PM
Hi，
My name is James Sun , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

I’m counting on you.

James
From: Lei Fan
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:31:29 PM
My name is Lei Fan, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

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

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

I’m counting on you.

From: emma Zh
To: [email protected]; Chavez, Cindy; Hernandez, Consuelo; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kleincouncil; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Supervisor Simitian Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:17:34 PM
Hey:

My name is Emma , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

I’m counting on you.

From: 炥㸐⒣
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:05:22 PM
My name is Zhihua Qi, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.

From: Zhenzhen (Viola) Gao
To: [email protected]; Chavez, Cindy; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; kleincouncil; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Supervisor Simitian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:44:00 AM
My name is Zhenzhen Gao, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

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

I’m counting on you.

From: Jiayi Wang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:38:07 AM
hi,
My name is Jiayi Wang, a concerned citizen of Santa Clara, I strongly oppose the proposed Benton development.

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

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

Jiayi
From: huang lin
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:36:35 AM
Hi,
My name is Lin Huang, a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.

Thanks,
Lin
2023-04-06
From: Zhenzhen (Viola) Gao
To: [email protected]; Chavez, Cindy; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; kleincouncil; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Supervisor Simitian
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:32:08 AM
My name is Viola Gump, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

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

I’m counting on you.

From: Jiayi Pan
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:25:17 AM
Good morning,
This is Jiayi Pan. As a concerned citizen of Santa Clara, I strongly oppose the proposed Benton development. The location of this shelter is a major safety threat to the community, particularly the children in the area. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, the potential risks are too high to ignore. I urge the City Council to reconsider and find an alternative nonresidential location and do not put our children at risk.

This is the top factor determine my vote in the next election! I am counting on you. Thanks.

Regards,
Jiayi
From: YangXiaoya
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:20:43 AM
My name is Sharon, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location.

I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

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

I’m counting on you.

From:

To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:28:50 AM
My name is Wenhua Zhang , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

I’m counting on you.

Wenhua

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

I’m counting on you.

From:

To: [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] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:03:52 PM
My name is Chris Zhang , a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

I’m counting on you.

From: Bei
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kleincouncil; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:29:28 PM
My name is Bee, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

I’m counting on you!
Thanks,
Bee
--
pei
From: Ray Leon
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] Oppose Benton Shelter, Wrong location Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 9:20:20 PM
Hello,
My name is Ray de Leon , resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative. City and county need to find a non-residential land for the facility like this.

I’m counting on you.

From: Yuanyuan Zhang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:27:53 PM
Hi,
My name is Yuanyuan Zhang, a resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. I have a strong belief that this project presents a significant safety hazard for the children in our community. Despite the county's assertions, data from a comparable facility in Milpitas reveals that police-involved incidents rose by 300% after the project's implementation. It is not acceptable for this project to transform our community into a breeding ground for crime.

Please vote NO. I’m counting on you.

Thanks!
Sincerely,
Yuanyuan
From: Maggie Ren
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:54:47 PM
Hello,
I’m Maggie. As a concerned citizen of my beloved Santa Clara, I strongly oppose the proposed Benton shelter. The potential safety threats to the community, particularly nearby schools and residents, are too great to ignore. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, and research showing that crime rates increase by 56% within 300 ft of a shelter, it is imperative that the City Council finds a safer location for the shelter. We cannot afford to take such risks with our community's safety and well-being.

Best,
Maggie
From: Xia Hong
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] oppose building the low barrier tiny homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Saturday, February 25, 2023 2:45:10 PM
To everyone,
I strongly oppose building the low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton.

Here are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.

It's too close to 24 schools and daycares and has Serious safety concerns. I oppose no prior research having been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood. I oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter. This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista. No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.

I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers. I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings. I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate. I request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.

Thanks,
Amy
From: Shirley Yang
To: Supervisor.Lee; Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Saturday, February 25, 2023 11:00:17 PM
Dear Supervisors,
My name is Shirley, living at Briarwood Dr, Santa Clara. Our family strongly opposes building the homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton.

Here are my reasons, please seriously consider.

1. There is already a homeless shelter in Bella Vista Inn nearby, why do we need an additional one?

2. We hear that there will be removable homes with 80-100 rooms, this is too crowded and not safe.

3. This location is close to many schools, laurelwood elementary and Stratford school are both within ~0.25 miles. We have lots of safety concerns about our kids. No one can take responsibility if anything happens to the kids at school!

4. We don't see any plans to help the homeless's mental health, how could you help the homeless people without mental treatment?

5. We strongly oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal histories and drug issues in such a dense neighborhood.

Please take our concerns into consideration, we really appreciate it! Thanks,
Shirley
From: Tin Tran
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Cc: Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; aurton
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Santa Clara Homekey
Date: Sunday, February 26, 2023 9:13:48 PM
My name is Tin Tran, a resident of Santa Clara County.

I strongly oppose building the low barrier container style homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. Here are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.

Reasons:

Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern with zero screening including sex offenders.

We oppose no prior research having been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood.
80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.

We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues. We oppose no screening procedures.

We oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter.

We oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings.

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

We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.

This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.

No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.

Homeless families with values do not move into shelters due to fear of criminals and drug abusers. Typically more criminals, drug dealers and hardened people will stay at the shelters. The more news gets out there, the more homeless from other states will show up in our neighborhoods.

This is not a solution, it is a trap for California taxpayers and homeowners.

Requests:

I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.

I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.

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

I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.

I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.

How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan? How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty?
What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
This is very concerning that this project is moving forward. As recorded in the city meeting, no one even knew how many schools were nearby when asked.

Thank you,
-Tin Tran
From: A Max
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence&Benton Date: Sunday, February 26, 2023 4:53:19 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a Santa Clara resident & 2 kids dad living in Lawrence and Benton area for over 10 years, I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence and Benton due to the concerns of community safety. Below are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all the requests.

Reasons:

This place is too close to 24 schools and daycares that raises serious safety concerns.

We oppose any actions without considering the impact of this shelter to the safety of the neighborhood.

We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues, especially accepting those people without formal screening procedures.

We oppose anyone with mental issues living in this shelter with so many kids living in this area.

We oppose tiny removable homes in such a small place. 80-100 rooms are too crowded there.

We oppose any action that doesn't have any guarantee for the neighborhood's quality of life.

We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.

Also, this shelter is only 0.5 miles from the other shelter, Bella Vista. This action doesn't consider the neighborhood at all.

No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter has succeeded in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.

Requests:

I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.

I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in-person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.

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

I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.

I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty?
:KDW·VWKHZHDSRQSROLF\"+RZFDQ\RXPDNHVXUHWKH\GRQRWKDYHZHDSRQVZLWK WKHP"
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
+RZZLOOWKHPD[LPXPKRPHOHVVSHRSOHEHPDQDJHG"%\ZKRP":KHUHGRHV WKHIXQGLQJFRPHIURP"
6LQFHUHO\\RXUV
0D[
From: Howard Yan
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose the shelter built at Benton street & Lawrence Expy Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:32:37 PM
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.

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,
Howard
From: gyl
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose the shelter location at Benton Street & Lawrence Expy Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:43:52 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

Regards,
Grace
From: Qi Ren
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose to Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:28:35 PM
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Council members of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, My name is Qi REN, a home owner at neighbored near Benton and Lawrence. I and every member in my family strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton shelter development.

This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote no as our representative.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

Our community is counting on you.

Best regards,
Qi REN

From: Tan Youyou
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose to Shelter at Benton-Lawrence Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:18:51 AM
Dear Officer,
I am a resident of Santa Clara county. I strongly oppose the Shelter at Benton-Lawrence.

We want to know who is responsible for the harmness if it is conducted by a person with mental health issues. Before that. Big NO
Best wishes
Youyou Tan
From: freyzhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposing Benton-Lawrence Homeless Shelter Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:27:15 PM
Hi,
I'm a Santa Clara resident and I live on Thrush way, walking distance away from the proposed homeless shelter. I strongly oppose building the low-barrier shelter in dense residential area. The Mountain View site is built in the center of industrial area, and why can't we just follow them? I don't understand why proposing a similar location when white oak shelter was rejected less than a year ago.

Please vote 'NO' to this.

Best,
Frey
From: Xiangfei Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposing Benton-Lawrence Low Barrier Shelter Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:16:52 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of building Benton-Lawrence homeless shelter in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for providing shelter and support for homeless individuals, I believe that the negative impacts on our community would far outweigh any potential benefits.

First and foremost, there are legitimate safety concerns associated with having a homeless shelter in our neighborhood. As we all know, many homeless individuals (especially in the low barrier shelter) struggle with mental health issues and addiction, and the presence of a shelter in our community would likely increase the risk of crime and violence.

Furthermore, the construction of a homeless shelter in our neighborhood would have a negative impact on property values. Potential buyers would be less likely to invest in our community, resulting in a decline in property values and a loss of financial stability for our homeowners.

In addition, the increased traffic and foot traffic associated with a homeless shelter would likely disrupt the peaceful and quiet nature of our neighborhood, causing further inconvenience to residents and visitors alike.

In conclusion, I urge you to consider the long-term consequences of building a homeless shelter in our neighborhood. While I appreciate the need for addressing the issue of homelessness, there are other locations that would be better suited for a shelter that would not negatively impact our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
--
Concerned Santa Clara residents.

Xiangfei(Frey) Zhou
From: Xiao Wei
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition and Requests Regarding Proposed Low Barrier Tiny Home Homeless Shelter on Lawrence & Benton
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:49:18 PM
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. There are several reasons why I believe this shelter should not be built, and I have a few requests that I hope you will address in your response.

Firstly, I believe that the proposed location is too close to 24 schools and daycares, which is a serious safety concern. Additionally, there has been no prior research done on the impact of this shelter on the neighborhood, which is another reason for my opposition.

Furthermore, the 80-100 rooms planned for this tiny land seem excessive, and I object to the idea of accepting people with criminal history and drug issues without proper screening procedures. I also oppose the idea of allowing people with mental issues to live in this shelter, as I believe it would be detrimental to their health and safety. Finally, I am concerned that the use of tiny removable homes instead of concrete buildings will not provide a sufficient level of protection for those living in the shelter.

In addition to these reasons, I am also concerned about the lack of planning and management for this shelter. There is no guarantee for neighborhood safety or quality of life, and the proposed 1:100 staff/homeless ratio with only volunteers on site to treat mental illness is insufficient. Moreover, the shelter is located just 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista, which seems unnecessary. Lastly, there is no evidence to show that LifeMoves's MTV shelter has succeeded in reducing the homeless population or improving the homeless's mental health issues.

In light of these concerns, I have a few requests that I hope you will address. Firstly, I request that you provide me with a list of the 300+ questions asked by attendees during the first hearing meeting, along with your answers. Secondly, I would like to know the date, time, and location of the April meetings between LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback, and I would like this information to be shared with the public and for us to receive notifications about these meetings. Additionally, I request that the county set up a zoom meeting for the in-person meetings so that people like me, who have to take care of kids at home, can also participate.

Furthermore, I request that you provide me with research/studies on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood. I would also like to see a solid plan for ensuring the safety and security of the neighborhood and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort. Additionally, I request that you provide plans for how you will ensure young kids and students are safe while walking to schools, as well as how you plan to solve any potential problems related to parking and traffic. I am also concerned about the increased need for police funding and numbers, given the tremendous increase in population, and I would like to know what your plan is for ensuring community safety.

Lastly, I have some questions about the shelter itself. How can you ensure that homeless people will behave well? Are there any regulations for the occupants of the shelter, and what is the penalty if they break the regulations? What is the weapon policy, and how can you make sure that they do not have weapons with them? Will the city increase its police force, and how will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom and where will the funding come from? Who will be sent to this shelter, and will it only be for Santa Clara City's homeless, or will homeless people from anywhere be able to come and live here?
I appreciate your time and attention to these matters and look forward to hearing back from you with detailed answers to my requests.

Sincerely,
Shaun Wei
Sunnyvale, 94085
From: Ru Wang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Bento development
Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 2:26:30 PM
Dear Madam or Sir,
We live in Santa Clara near to Bento street, and we oppose to the Benton development plan, which propose to build a low-barrier shelter at Bento & Lawrence. The proposed location poses a significant safety threat to nearby schools.

It is located at the center of more than 15 schools. We believe it is better to move the proposed low-barrier shelter to a non-residential area and providing amenities and support to help rehabilitate those individuals. Please instead of just caring about the money, take care of local resident (who are also taxpayers and votes) and safety of kids.

Thanks,
A Santa Clara Resident
From: erji wang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Benton Homeless Shelter Project Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:39:12 PM
Dear Consuelo & Adam
Firstly, I want to thank you for hosting the four public meetings regarding the proposed Benton Homeless Shelter Project. As a concerned citizen and a resident of the neighborhood, I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this matter.

However, despite these meetings, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the project.

There are several reasons why I believe that this project should not be approved.

Firstly, the proposed location of the shelter is within a 1.5-mile radius of 15 schools. This raises serious safety concerns for the children who attend these schools, as they could be at risk from the increased traffic and footfall that the shelter would generate. The safety of our children should be our top priority, and I believe that this project would put them in harm's way.

Secondly, the source of funding for the shelter's operation is not clear yet. Without a clear plan for funding, it is impossible to know if the shelter will be financially sustainable in the long term. This could result in the shelter being shut down, leaving the homeless population without a place to stay and potentially causing more harm than good.

Thirdly, the safety impact of the Milpitas 1000 Hillview Shelter on the surrounding neighborhood has not been properly explained yet. This raises concerns about the potential impact of the Benton Homeless Shelter on our own neighborhood, particularly with regard to crime and other safety issues.

Fourthly, in the four public meetings that have been held, two proposals were presented, each with 15-20% of the units designated for families. However, in the shared slides deck, the number is listed as 45%. It is unclear which number is the final one, and this lack of consistency is concerning.

Lastly, despite four rounds of meetings, there are still many unanswered questions from our neighbors, with over 60% of their questions still not addressed. This lack of transparency and communication suggests that the project is not yet ready for a vote by the city or county.

In light of these concerns, I strongly oppose the construction of the interim housing in Benton and Lawrence. I urge you to consider the safety and well-being of our community and to stop this proposal.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Erji
From: erji wang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Benton Homeless Shelter Project Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:41:52 PM
Dear Consuelo & Adam
Firstly, I want to thank you for hosting the four public meetings regarding the proposed Benton Homeless Shelter Project. As a concerned citizen and a resident of the neighborhood, I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this matter.

However, despite these meetings, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the project.

There are several reasons why I believe that this project should not be approved.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Erji
From: Michelle Zhang
To: [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to building a homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Saturday, March 11, 2023 10:25:37 AM
Hello,
My name is Michelle Zhang, a resident of the city of Santa Clara.

Together with my husband and my two children, we are writing to express our strong opposition to building the low barrier container style homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton.

Here are our reasons and requests. Please seriously consider our reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all our requests.

Reasons:

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

We oppose no prior research having been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood.
80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.

We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues. We oppose no screening procedures.

We oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter.

We oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings.

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

We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.

This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista.

No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.

This is not a solution, it is a trap for California taxpayers and homeowners.

Requests:

We request that you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.

We request that you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings.

We request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.

We request you provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.

We request that you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort?
We request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.

We request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.

We request that you address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.

How will community safety be protected? What's your plan and city's plan? What, if any, measures are in place to ensure homeless residents abide by the law? Are there any rules or regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the rules or regulation, what're the consequences? How do you plan to hold them accountable? What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapon with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here? How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
Once again, we strongly urge you to consider all the issues raised by the community and please DO NOT proceed without properly addressing the problems and concerns raised here.

Sincerely yours,
Michelle Zhang, Hang Liu, Ryan Liu, and Aidan Liu
From: Peiwen Lyu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Proposed Homeless Shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:14:12 PM
Dear Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. As you are aware, this location is within walking distance of several elementary schools, daycares, public parks, and a densely populated residential area consisting of single-family homes, apartments, and senior homes. It is a community where families with young children, students, and senior citizens live and enjoy their daily lives.

While I acknowledge the need to help those living difficult lives, I firmly believe that mixing "the most challenging elements of the population" with the most innocent and vulnerable members of the community shows a lack of thoughtfulness and sincerity on the part of the county and city. The shelter's proposed admission of individuals with prior criminal backgrounds, drug abuse, and mental health issues makes this proposal even more concerning.

Furthermore, the proposed site is adjacent to a section of Lawrence Expressway with significant weekday traffic, which will adversely affect the quality of life of those staying in the shelter. The environmental characteristics, including loud and continuous noise, and proximity to high-volume vehicle traffic, are not conducive to the rehabilitation and stabilization of individuals who have been living on the street.

There are other parcels owned by the county further away from residential areas, which would be more appropriate for a homeless shelter. Additionally, Palo Alto has successfully built a homeless shelter in a non-residential area, providing more space per individual.

Lastly, data-backed research shows that homeless shelters inevitably bring negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, such as an increase in crime rates and a decrease in property market value. The county recently converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility, which is barely half a mile away from the proposed Benton/Lawrence location. It is unfair and unthoughtful to subject communities in the Lawrence/El Camino Real area to another one again.

In light of these concerns, I urge you to vote against any upcoming proposals or projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Best regards,
Wendy Lyu
From: Shengqian
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Proposed Homeless Shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:24:24 PM
To the Honorable Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter at the intersection of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. I understand the need to provide aid and support to those who are struggling, but I believe that this particular location is unsuitable for such a facility.

The proposed site is in close proximity to several elementary schools, daycares, public parks, and a densely populated residential area that includes single-family homes, apartments, and senior homes. This community is where families with young children, students, and senior citizens live and carry out their daily lives. I fear that mixing vulnerable members of society with individuals who may have a history of criminal activity, drug abuse, and mental health issues in such a setting could endanger the safety of the surrounding community and negatively impact the quality of life of those seeking shelter.

Additionally, the proposed site is situated next to a busy section of Lawrence Expressway with significant weekday traffic, which could pose further challenges to the rehabilitation and stabilization of individuals who have been living on the streets. The environmental characteristics, such as constant noise and proximity to high-volume vehicle traffic, are not conducive to creating a supportive environment for those seeking shelter.

I believe that there are alternative parcels owned by the county that are more suitable for a homeless shelter and would be further away from residential areas. Furthermore, Palo Alto has successfully built a homeless shelter in a non-residential area, providing more space per individual.

Finally, studies have shown that homeless shelters inevitably bring negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, including an increase in crime rates and a decrease in property values. The county recently converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility, which is barely half a mile away from the proposed Benton/Lawrence location.

I believe it would be unfair to subject the Lawrence/El Camino Real area to another shelter and its potential negative impacts.

In light of these concerns, I urge you to vote against any upcoming proposals or projects associated with a homeless shelter at the Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway location.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my objections.

Best regards,
Peter Liu
From: Kim Short
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please answer 1 question without canned response Date: Saturday, March 11, 2023 4:34:47 PM
Kevin and Consuelo,
Many people have proposed this question and no one from the County or the City have addressed this.

Does the City of Santa Clara or Santa Clara County have a NON-residential location that can be used for this project?
This would be a win/win for everyone involved. The reason people don't think you've been listening, is because you haven't answered this question.

Kind Regards,
Kim
From: mi zhou
To: [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please help residents to stop HomeKey project (Lawrence & Benton) Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 1:34:19 AM
Dear Santa Clara council members,
I am writing this letter to ask your help to stop the HomeKey project near Lawrence & Benton. It brings a big safety concern to the local residents. As a local resident, I understand that people experiencing homelessness is a big issue that our community
needs to solve. However, build things like this in a place close to more than 20 schools and close to high-density residents is absolutly an irresponsilbe plan. No one would want to try solve one issue while creates another big safety problem to the community.

City like moutain view, when they build shelter, they built those at industry area,do the screening and does not accept sex offenders. Compare with this project, planned in residential area, no screen and low barrier are needed.

Does this sound a careful plan at all? From residents' view, things considered by mountain view should be a minimum requirement for project like this. We don't want to tear down the peaceful community one by one just like what big cities does. It could just potentially attacts more and more people with drug and criminal history coming to this area. So please please help the residents to stop the HomeKey project and keep our community safe. It would be very appreciated if the community's voice can be heard and the project can be stopped! Thanks a lot for your time and help!
Thanks & Regards,
Mi
From: Dang Clash
To: [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; aurton; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please No Benton Shelter!
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 9:30:07 AM
Attachments: No Benton Shelter Signed.pdf
Hello Expert,
Please re-consider the project of "Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Shelter".

As a resident of santa clara county I'm very concerned about this project and it's consequences.

Please see my attached signed pdf for my concern.

Thank you,
James
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James(Yixuan)Dang
From: Jie Han
Cc: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please reconsider the shelter proposal at Lawrence & Benton, Santa Clara Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:10:57 PM
Hello!
My name is Jie Han, a resident of Santa Clara City living in zip code 95050.

I strongly oppose building the low-barrier container-style homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton. There are more than 20 schools and daycares nearby, many of them are within walking distance. Our kids go across the road every day. They play in the nearby playground and grassland often. Given that shelter is intended to be low-barrier, without screening, and expect many occupants to have crime records and mental issues, it doesn't look like a good idea to have such a shelter so close to our kids to me. wdyt? Not to mention there is already another shelter, Bella Vista, under construction 0.5 miles away from the proposed site. We don't know yet how that shelter would change the dynamics of the neighborhood, nor do we know if that shelter will run as expected. It's not responsible to add more loads to the community without even a "test run".

Apart from the concerns of impact to local residents, I'm also uncomfortable about the proposed plan of the shelter construction itself. It will be a stretch to host 80-120 units / maximum 240 people with a 1:100 staff/residents ratio as proposed in a small area. And given people living there could have drug and mental issues, the proposal suggests relying on volunteers to help them -- is that really a good enough support plan? Will those people get what they need to recover from the hardship? Or it'll just be yet another build-and-forget project that people don't bother to take a look at after spending the time and money.

I believe many people including myself have more than enough valid reasons to be worried.

Many questions have been asked during the Feb 13, 2023 community meetings. I would urge the board/committee/people involved to review and address them first, and to share a solid plan on shelter operation, funding, staffing, as well as procedures and resources planned to ensure the neighborhood safety.

Thank you for reading my email. I hope it could give you some reasons to say no to the shelter proposal when you're asked to make a call.

Best,
Jie Han
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Say NO for Lawrence Benton Shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:28:28 PM
Hi Consuelo,
I'm a resident who lives about 2 minutes away from the planned site. I'm really concerned about this shelter, and strongly oppose this plan.

My concerns are:

1. As a local resident, I'm extremely concerned about the safety of my loved ones, my parents and my kids. They walk around the site every day and I don't think this area will be safe again to walk around. Because in the public hearing, they mentioned the misbehavior in the shelter before, and I believe a single misbehavior is just part of the shelter's normal work, but this will be a huge loss for a family in the community.

2. As a local resident, I know how much traffic is near the Lawrence expressway and benton street. I believe this is also an obvious danger for the people living there. So I don't think this is a safe place to build a shelter where many people there could be drunk.

I visited the Branham homekey site in San Jose, and talked with many local communities. ALL of them are opposing the Branham site, and as they mentioned, many of their community members have already moved out to other cities. They are all extremely disappointed and I can feel their upset. I don't believe the city wants to sacrifice us, and this definitely is not a win-win situation.

Please please please reconsider the plan, and find another better location for this project.

Thank you!
Zhihao
From: Denisse Locascio
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Project on Benton and Lawrence
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58:19 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.

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.

Regards
Denisse Tostado
Resident of 95051
From: Debbie Dempsey
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing Site Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:27:09 PM
Attachments: Mayor Gillmore 3-13-2023.pdf
Mayor Gillmore
I adamantly oppose building the interim housing at the Benton/Lawrence location for the reasons expressed in my attached letter.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey
From: Garick C
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Stephanie Watt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed shelter at Lawrence Expwy and Benton in Santa Clara Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 10:14:54 PM
I am highly opposed to the proposed shelter by LifeMoves at Lawrence Expressway and Benton in Santa Clara and wanted to voice my concerns.

I imagine there's going to be high demand for shelter spaces which will quickly lead to overcrowding. This will then result in cramped living conditions, lack of privacy, and increased risk of spreading illness or infection. (Yes, Covid-19 is still a thing and will be even after May 11th)
Additionally, homeless shelters can also be dangerous places, especially for women and children. They are often filled with drug users, drug dealers and drug sales. Violence and theft are also common problems at shelters in California, which is why many homeless actually choose to avoid them.

And what resources will be provided?Usually shelters can only provide basic necessities like food, shelter, and clothing. Many homeless people also need mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training or other support services. What quality of services will be provided here and will success/failure/recidivism rates be tracked? Not to mention that homeless shelters are communal living spaces so there's very little privacy for tenants. This can be difficult for people who are trying to cope with trauma or mental health issues.

And shelters are designed to be short-term solutions, typically providing a bed for a few nights or weeks. This means that residents must constantly move from one shelter to another, which can be disruptive and stressful. How is that a solution to anything? How can they take advantage of career or transition back to society services? Where is a path out of poverty and what happens then? Will they simply roam and set up shop in the local neighborhood? Thank you for hearing my concerns and I hope you will vote not to move forward with this project. As a parent, I am highly concerned for the safety of my children and family.

Sincerely yours,
Garick Chan
From: Shan-Ting Hsu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Put an end to astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion. Either make the 3/22 meeting inperson or include a co-host from the neighborhood for the Zoom meeting Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:21:10 PM
I am deeply disappointed that individuals with vested interests in the Benton project were invited to speak at the March 9th public hearing disguised as local community members. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, it is unacceptable to present the views of project advocates as those of genuine community members. At the meeting, several speakers were from housing advocate organizations who do not reside in the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
To: Adam Marcus; Hernandez Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Q&A Answers not visible
Date: Friday, April 14, 2023 10:09:17 PM
Hello,
We wanted to let you know that the answers in the Q&A are not visible in a large portion of the pdf. It appears many of the cells were not expanded to display the full answer.

Please let us know when you've had the opportunity to upload the corrected document. https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/QAResponses_20230321_BL_Mtg1.pdf Thank you
Birdland Neighbors
From: R. Elysa Gurman
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Question
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:19:50 PM
Hi,
I am very much in support of the housing project on Lawrence and Benton. I have a question just because I'm trying to gather as much information as possible.

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

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

To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Questions for Interim Housing
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:07:53 PM
Attachments: Opposition Strategy to Lawrence-Benton.docx Ms. Hernandez,
Thank you to you and your team for providing community comment sessions for the proposed Lawrence/Benton interim housing. For the record, I am in support of this project. I have a few questions I am hoping you will be able to address at Thursday night’s meeting. I plan to be in attendance just as I was for the February 13th and March 1st meetings.

1. Where is the money coming from for construction and services of this project? Is it already in hand? What percentage of the costs are to be covered by the city, county, state, other? Has it been budgeted and approved for the approved site wherever it may be? How long is the money available? What happens when/if it is used up?

2. Is there a mandate/law required of the city and/or county to provide a certain amount of rooms/beds and by when? Who has made this mandate? What are the consequences if the numbers are not met?

3. Why is this facility proposed not to include families? Given the proximity to schools, residences, and parks, this would be a perfect place for families and I would encourage a possible change in the proposal of who would be invited into the program. This may help gain more support by families objecting to the project.

4. Does the County Board of Supervisors vote on this first or does the City of Santa Clara? If one says yes and the other says no, what happens? When are the votes to take place?

5. Is there a list of possible sites for this project posted somewhere? Please either provide a link or create the list.

6. Assuming this project is approved, what would the process be for design, construction, and decisions on who will be serviced? Will there be another round of public comment sessions?

7. Please address the law about having convicted pedophiles in a facility such as this. I know there is a law that does not permit pedophiles within a certain amount of distance to schools and parks. Remind people about Megan’s Law and how to access the registry. This may calm down some opposition.

8. How will Trans & LBGTQ+ people be made to feel safe and helped? What is the proposal for services for this segment?
I found a copy of the strategy being shared by the opposition to this project and thought it would be helpful to you in planning your presentation for Thursday’s meeting and for providing detailed information on the website. Much of what is written is incorrect and inflammatory. This is attached.

As a side note, I want you to be aware that many people who spoke in favor of the project were harassed outside the meeting and as people were dispersing. Some people were directly threatened.

I would request that signs and posters not be allowed in the church as they can turn into weapons should the tone of the meeting become even more hostile. Please consider escorting disrupters out of the building to keep a respectful dialogue going and to avoid interruptions. The threat is so real we have discouraged those who may benefit from this proposal from attending for their own personal safety.

Personally, I don’t want to hear from any politicians. They are supposed to remain unbiased and by speaking up last week, they only riled up the audience after they had calmed down. They will all have an opportunity to speak during their respective meetings but should not be allowed to take up public comment time. Kevin Parks suggested he was going to try to get more time before a vote would happen. I strongly discourage this. It will only serve to delay services and housing for our most vulnerable neighbors.

Melinda Berlant
LinkedIn
From: David Melius
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Questions for Lawrence and Benton Project Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:36:38 PM
Attachments: homeless meeting 3.docx
Attached are questions I submitted at the previous meeting. I have not heard back, so I'm sending it along to make sure it enters the record.

I have some additional questions about the proposed project:

1. Is it possible to get the reports and data that were made by the people who recommended this project location?

2. Can we see the locations that were accessed and rejected, and the reasons why?

3. Along those lines, is there a list of all county, state, or city owned land in Santa Clara, along with a description of its condition and current use?

4. There has been presentations about how the new location wll be safe for the clients.

How about revealing how it will be safe for the neighborhood?

5. Given the presence of other nearby shelters on El Camino, it seems they are being clustered in the "Koreatown" neighborhood. Is this a deliberate choice, and if so, why? Thank you for your attention to these questions.

David Melius
Santa Clara, CA 95051
From: 倄即叏㢄
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Benton and Lawrence - Schools Follow Up Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:12:45 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Hello Ms Hernandez,
Thanks for getting back to me. As for the schools, it's a fact that 15 schools are within 1.5 mile from the Benton location, and it will be a much larger number if you count in 20+ daycares and after schools. As for the Braham location, it was a reckless decision and horrible mistake made by the city of San Jose, which should never be repeated by the city of Santa Clara, or any other cities.

I do have a few questions and suggestions for the third community meeting:

Can I know the format for the 3rd meeting?
Also, will questions from the first and second meetings be answered? Specifically, the questions regarding safety for the community:
- what's your screening process
- who will manage the shelter on a daily basis, how many staff - who will bear the operation cost
- how will you make sure sex offenders will not live here I'd like to see all the questions and detailed answers being published on your website at least a day before the 3rd meeting.

In addition, can we extend the meeting to 2.5 hours, given so many people were preparing to speak during the 2nd meeting?
Thank you,
Cindy
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 11:54 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good Evening Cindy,
Thank you for sharing your information with me this evening. I let the City team know about our conversation and they are going to check the data around schools. It would be great if we could set up a time to chat with you and others you would like to invite to focus on sharing our data around schools. I am happy to offer a zoom option or can also meet in person.

Separately, the paper where you wrote down your contact information is the community generated flyer that shows the schools and on the back is information about the other two LifeMoves sites. I said this during the meeting but wanted to share it with you here. San Jose is building the largest interim housing of this type. Below are the details and the map showing the neighborhood is similar to Santa Clara. We will add this to our next power point presentation but wanted to share with you in advance.

City of San Jose – Branham and Monterey 208 Units – the largest project in the Interim Housing Pipeline. The pin on the map is the Library and the vacant parcel Thank you and look forward to learning more about your concerns and whether there are things we can do to modify the proposal to assuage these concerns.

Consuelo Hernandez
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From: Judy Crates
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Adam Marcus; Marie Jackson
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Benton and Lawrence Updates - New Information Posted to the Project Website Date: Saturday, April 1, 2023 3:30:59 PM
This is a key article that all should forward to City Council:

From the Mountain View Voice 3/30/23. It gives details on why this should not be allowed in Santa Clara on Benton and Lawrence!
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-helphomeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont? utm_source=express-2023-03-
30&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express#.ZCbF4fvyI2M.mailto Judy Crates
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 1:05 AM Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for signing up to receive updates on the proposed Interim Housing Development at Benton and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. We appreciate your continued engagement. Below are a few updates posted on the project website.

Tonight! Community Meeting No. 3 is taking place this evening at 6:00PM at the Mission City Church located at 1290 Pomeroy Avenue. The meeting will be recorded and both the meeting materials and video will be posted on the project website by Monday, March 13th. In response to community feedback, the format for this meeting will be primarily a “Question and Answer Session”.

New Information has been posted on the website including neighborhood maps and partial responses to the Q&A from the First Community Meeting.

Community Meeting No. 4 will be held via zoom on Wednesday, March 22nd from 6- 8PM. Join the Zoom Meeting
https://sccgov-org.zoom.us/j/94536865765
A Santa Clara City Council public hearing will be scheduled for April 25th. If you would like to be notified, please sign up for email updates at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScvqekJ_RgyyalhYwQ5Gu08L64tBbZAYSbe GQGX2O14Q6f4Ig/viewform
Thank you for staying engaged with us.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

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

From: Quyen Dang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Cc: Mike Loomis; Quyen Dang
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Benton interim housing support - questions for community meetings Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:19:50 PM
Resending with Consuelo's email corrected
Hi Consuelo, Andrew,
First, thank you for providing your contact info to send questions in advance of the community meetings.

I’d appreciate your response at or as soon as possible after tomorrow’s meeting for the following questions/requests. Some of these have already been brought up at the first meeting. Capturing here again in case they haven’t already been answered. I could not find the list of questions and answers from meeting # 1. Not sure if I missed it on the website when I skimmed thru the prior meeting materials:

Recording of Meeting 1
Slide Deck from Meeting 1 (PDF)
Thank you for your consideration and taking my concerns constructively. - Q

1. Please provide like for like data for review
Citing Mountain View as an example is relevant if the layout of project, neighborhood, #s of schools, location (industrial vs. commercial vs. residential), etc. are similar
I’d would not want to compare shelter metrics that house families and sr. citizens if that is not the intended demographic for the proposed Benton facility

2. Looking to get a better understanding of this process.

Is there a # or metric the task force adheres to when deciding what to propose back to the council? E.g. any unofficial poll tracked on the Zoom, etc? It sounds like there are 3 total community meetings, but does the task force retain the power to override despite community feedback? What happens after you make a proposal to council. Is there a vote? By who? Is the community meeting the only opportunity to influence; not to vote?

3. What is the proposed layout of the facility? High density multi-level complex at 3+ levels? If that high level detail is not known at this time, how can we be expected to factor into our decision making process?

4. It does not seem logical to expect the community to provide feedback or support their positions between 2/13 – 3/9 (less than 4 weeks). Very little data seemed to be available to address questions on 2/13. The response to questions posed at 2/13 meeting was that the requested data would be provided at the next meeting on 3/1.

Assuming all the requested data is provided tomorrow, 3/1, that leaves 8 days until 3/9 for the community to really review data before the final community meeting.

5. Greenberg's response about having 1+ staff at the facility to handle incidents (at facility). Please define “handle”? What are their qualifications to "handle"? For the estimated # of ppl planned at a given time in that sq. foot facility, has any analysis or forecast been done to model increased police support in adjacent areas for increased density of ppl living in the small area? Funding? Response time? What is the plan to enforce (not by a LifeMoves staff member)? Is facility funding is from grants? Is there any study about costs to community for infrastructure that is not directly related to the facility? E.g. will city residents see increased taxes to support the local police, fire services, community parks and rec upkeep, or something?

6. Any info or pointers to get data re. impact to cost of renter, homeowner insurance in other places that have had similar facilities?

7. Greenberg wants low barriers to entry and expects people not to be excluded for criminal records.

Any screening at all? Are there any scenarios for disqualification? Are ppl w/ criminal record of violent/assault treated the same as someone with a felony DUI? What's the screening and minimal reqmts that constitute the “barrier to entry”? Who's enforcing this? Is there funding and infrastructure in place to enable the screening? What existing procedures or mitigation plan if ever had to "evict" someone at another location? Once doors open is it a done deal? What recourse do we have as residents?

8. If Bella Vista is to be an interim housing shelter for 1-2 years prior to converting to long term shelter, then why can't more time be allowed to see initial findings and come back to council with a more thoughtful recommendation. The process seems to be rushed with minimal studies or data made available to the community that can be used to inform different scenarios and weigh options. It’s coming across like a Yes or No question that we’re stuck with no consideration for nuances, alternatives, or mitigation plans.

Lastly, please provide the list of questions and answers from meeting # 1. As mentioned above, I could not find a handy link.

Thanks again!
From: Dawn Thompson
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Adam Marcus; Marie Jackson
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway - Community Meeting Update Date: Saturday, March 4, 2023 6:49:57 PM
Hi Consuelo,
Thank you for this email reminder. This project is so important to our community. We would truly have appreciated it being accessible on Zoom. We hope you will be able to make that happen for the next meetings.

There is much discussion (challenging) on Nextdoor regarding this issue. We feel it is important to be able to share our thoughts, hopes and concerns in a forum that is safe and professional.

We hope you will be able to make that happen. And unfortunately, we were unable to attend as we had Covid for the first time and wanted to be respectful of others.

Sincerely,
Tim and Dawn Thompson
Lifelong residents of Sunnyvale/Santa Clara
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, 2:29 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for signing up to receive updates on the proposed Interim Housing development on Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway. We hope to see you this evening in person to learn more about the opportunity and share responses from the Development team on questions and concerns raised by the community during meeting No. 1.

The meeting details can be found below:

Join us for a Community Meeting!
Wednesday, March 1, 2023 | 6:00-8:00PM
Mission City Church
1290 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
If you are unable to attend, please note we will be publishing the meeting materials and recording of the meeting on the project website tomorrow. A few FAQs have also been posted to the website and we are working on publishing the 300+ comments and questions from the first community meeting.

Finally, the Development team is also working on exploring a hybrid option for community meeting number 3 and scheduling a 4th community meeting that will be held via zoom to accommodate those that are unable to participate in person.

We appreciate your continued engagement.

Thank you,
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing
(408) 510-8595
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From: Sunny Chow
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Benton/Homekey project - question - admission requirements Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:16:01 PM
Hello again -
I imagine you both are very busy responding to emails concerning this project. I've gone through the current question/answer checklist, but didn't find an answer to my question yet.

Whenever possible, could you also spare a moment to help answer my question too? Thanks,
Sunny.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:11 AM Sunny Chow <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi there -
I'm a concerned neighbor living on the corner of Benton/Pomeroy. I have a question regarding entry requirements as a recent statement of "low barrier of entry" has generated a considerable amount of community concern.

At the Mountain View Homekey project - the admissions criteria was stated in public notices as follows:
"Access to the facility: Admission will be via referral only. Access is provided to the broader County system that will work to assist by geo graphic area; The goal is local access to shelter wherever possible. Priority will be given to individuals referred from the local area, by qualified EAN providers including Mountain View Police and CSA. Please email [email protected] for information about future referrals and admissions in early spring 2021."
Will this site have the same admissions guidelines? If not - how does this compare to similar sites with similar scales, such as the one at Milpitas?
Thanks!
Sunny.

From: Jean
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Lawrence and Benton Interim Shelter Comment Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:38:33 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Oh yes, I would also like Lifemoves to address why the cost for the Palo Alto location increased again and again.

Thank you again,
Jean L
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:22 PM Jean wrote:

Greetings,
Thank you all for the meeting this evening.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jean L
From: Ashish Verma
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 8:17:42 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
There were a couple of topics that got debated quite a bit in the last few days. These were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can partner with certain NGOs for this.

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

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

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

Regards,
Ashish
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:28 PM Adam Marcus <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Ashish for highlighting these questions. We are working to address these concerns and intend to share responses at the meeting next week.

Adam Marcus (he/him)
City of Santa Clara
Housing & Community Services Division
(408) 615-2491
[email protected]
From: Ashish Verma >
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:35 PM
To: [email protected]; Adam Marcus <[email protected]> Cc: Mayor and Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
Some of the residents worked together to compile a list of questions that either haven't yet been addressed in FAQ/Slides so far or the response hasn't completely addressed those concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Budget:

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

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

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

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

8. Quality of Life:
o How would the project respect the privacy of residents due to its height? o What would be the responsibility of LifeMoves or site managers in keeping the surroundings clean (free of litter etc. from its clients)? Note yet covered on FAQ
Regards,
Ashish
From: Ashish Verma
To: Adam Marcus; Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Santa Clara CITY Council; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:45:55 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
I recently heard from several folks that there could be a correlation to the increase in the number of homeless people in Santa Clara county with the release of prisoners during peak Covid times. I haven't been able to look into this myself from a data perspective. Granted,that doesn't change anything regarding the total number of homeless folks that need housing, it actually makes the concern around safety and security even more grave (if that assumption is valid). Would it be possible for you to cover this in the next session on 3/22?
A number of people that I have personally talked with, supported the solution of getting rehabilitation from substance abuse first, before getting such folks in close proximity to kids and residents. Please understand that if it were a fail safe screened process where families with jobs in the area on the verge of being homeless (eviction etc.) could be provided a relief and prevented from going down that cycle, you'd have seen an embracing community. I hope that we find a path in which we all could come together, not just for this project but for overall solution.

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

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

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

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

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

We can partner with certain NGOs for this.

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

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

Regards,
Ashish
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:28 PM Adam Marcus <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Ashish for highlighting these questions. We are working to address these concerns and intend to share responses at the meeting next week.

Adam Marcus (he/him)
City of Santa Clara
Housing & Community Services Division
(408) 615-2491
[email protected]
From: Ashish Verma
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:35 PM
To: [email protected]; Adam Marcus <[email protected]> Cc: Mayor and Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Lawrence/Benton: Some unanswered questions or open items that could be covered in FAQ or upcoming Zoom Call on 3/22
Dear Ms. Consuleo and Mr. Adam,
Some of the residents worked together to compile a list of questions that either haven't yet been addressed in FAQ/Slides so far or the response hasn't completely addressed those concerns.

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

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

4. Budget:

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

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

We've been on the email notification for about a week but have not received any communications to date. Were any sent?
Thank you
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 4:28 PM Adam Marcus <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Birdland Neighbors SE, your message has been received. We will review it and include it in the public record. Please be advised that the project webpage has been updated with responses, slides, and recordings from the first two meetings. We will post more responses on Monday and next week. I encourage you to sign up on the County’s email notification list if you haven’t already. You can sign up at the project webpage below:
https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton#3925188384-2744796317 I look forward to hopefully meeting you next week at meeting #3:

Thursday, March 9, 2023 | 6:00-8:00PM
Mission City Church
1290 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Adam Marcus
Division Manager
Community Development Department
Housing & Community Services Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: (408) 615-2491 Email: [email protected]
From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 3:30 PM
To: Adam Marcus <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Karen Hardy <[email protected]>; Kevin Park <[email protected]>; Russ Melton <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council <[email protected]>; Lisa Gillmor <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Misleading information from SC city council and county supervisors Mr. Marcus,
A number of Santa Clara city council members stated that the city has no say in which location is selected for an interim shelter, yet the county website states that both Santa Clara city and county asked their staff to look for properties and prepare a proposal without considering or consulting with the local, tax-paying residents. Is it true that Santa Clara really has no say? The city canceled the White Oak project and claims that Benton, a half mile to the south, is a better option because it is county property. This also implies that the Ponderosa neighborhood's concern actually had no impact on the decision. It also implies that the future operating costs are irrelevant. Now, you're dealing with Birdland which has an even greater concern and much louder voice. However, you have conveniently failed to inform the Birdland Neighborhood which is directly across the street from the proposed facility.

Arrest records also show that most are not local to Santa Clara. Please prove to us that this sudden increase of homeless individuals came from Santa Clara. Show us the complete and factual data history of each individual, anonymized if not part of public record, of course, and let us draw our own conclusions.
- Moratoriums on evictions have only recently been lifted. We cannot conclude that locals who were recently unemployed during the pandemic are now homeless. Please show us the data.
- Bella Vista, another Homeky project that quietly slipped past the community, will house more than two hundred homeless or low/no-income homeless. That hotel was already housing prostitution, drug deals, and whatnot (see Arrest Records and Crimereports.com on LexisNexis). This, plus the new project will bring the number to 300-400 within a 1/4 mile radius (please provide the projected numbers). The area is already losing businesses and is seeing a significant increase in crime. Can this area handle another 200 given how poorly the current situation is being managed? We don't go to that Walgreens anymore. It's frightening. They'll probably be gone soon.
- Claiming that Santa Clara city needs to house more drug addicts, repeat offenders/criminals and parolees, and individuals with serious mental or personality disorders is exacerbating the issue. Placing 120-200 of them in 'stacked containers' on a 1 acre parcel, across from liquor and convenience stores, next to an expressway, a hundred yards (or feet in some cases) from community swimming pools, parks, churches, and schools in an area where they will never find a job is as unfair and abusive to them as it is to local residents. It's a fact that homeless shelters attract homeless and trouble. People have friends, patrons, dealers that they'll need to meet with in the minimart parking lot since they won't be allowed to invite them into their tiny home complex.
- Isolating these individuals from the services they need and unloading the responsibilities onto local public safety and middle income families that are already struggling to afford living near work is irresponsible and kicking the can down the road. Expecting them to jump on public transit to visit their social worker in another part of the county is a pipe dream. They will more likely be tempted to panhandle or steal from neighboring properties. It will only increase their chances of breaking laws, future incarceration and perpetuation of their dangerous lifestyle. Do we leave an open bottle of vodka in the same room with a recovering alcoholic? No! - We all knew of a few kids in high school that chose to party rather than to work hard and study. They had the same standard of living and opportunities as the rest of us. In fact, I know of one that partied and dealt drugs, committed armed robbery, is homeless living under a building in Folsom, attempted to burn down that building, and is in and out of the county jail. He would likely tell you himself that you wouldn't want him as a neighbor. His family and county services tried to help him as a teenager. Unfortunately, he was enabled rather than discouraged and treated. He doesn't belong in a strange neighborhood. He needs psychiatric treatment in a location far removed from where he can do harm to himself or others. There is a reason rehab facilities are in remote, peaceful areas where distractions, temptations, and easy access to illegal drugs are at a minimum.
- Claims that crime won't increase and home values won't decrease are not based on complete facts. We wouldn't buy here knowing there will be an interim housing facility for previously unhoused is across the street. We estimate a loss of between $100k and $500k for my own home's value. Multiply that by at least 400 homes of those represented at recent meetings and you have a combined loss of $40 million to $200 million, which far exceeds the project that will cost at least $30 million.
- We will no longer be able to walk our children to school, dog to the park, or stop at the Walgreen's for medicine. We are afraid. We're an outdoorsy neighborhood. This will only lock us indoors and cause people to purchase guns for self-protection, the exact opposite of what we as Californians want. New neighbors are going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, not just because of the impending recession, but because NO young families are going to purchase a home near a homeless shelter. Please show us the complete analysis or give us the raw data and we'll do our own analysis of potential home values. Show us data of similar neighborhoods that ended up with homeless shelters within their community, pre pandemic. The data doesn't exist, because most cities don't place them in neighborhoods and the Homekey project is the first of its kind to override zoning and existing laws/regulations. The SF housing authority figured out in the 70's and 80's that projects of the 1950's congregating a large number of low or no income individuals in a confined area resulted in very high crime. We don't want to live in SF nor do we want our community to resemble it.
- It is alarming that yet another mass homeless housing development is being proposed at the edge of town next to the border of Sunnyvale rather than near Santa Clara University, light industrial, and large corporations with loud voices. It seems we have a 'keep the center of Santa Clara beautiful' situation. We work at those large corporations and they likely don't want us living in dangerous areas. It's only a matter of time before more companies and their employees choose to relocate to other states due to high taxes that are being spent on projects such as Homekey which simply attracts more troubled individuals and criminals from other parts of the country and world.
- Some of us volunteered at Joint Venture Silicon Valley 20 years ago. Our goal was to help bring job opportunities to this area. We're disappointed and concerned with what we're seeing and hearing about the relationship and influence between Santa Clara leaders, JVSV and Sobrato. Please explain more about this relationship.
- We should be sending the homeless back home to their own families and communities to handle, not inviting them to enjoy free shelter, food, and services funded by local taxpayers. The non-profits and large developers with 'philanthropic' arms are simply perpetuating and enabling the issue, not to mention, landing significant contracts to pay their commercial organizations and contractors to build shelters near existing homes.
- It is the county's and city's job to provide factual data and evidence that crime does not increase in or near a homeless shelter. It is also their job to represent us, the people that pay you. We're an audience of middle income technology workers, engineers, analysts, and executives that couldn't afford to live in Los Altos, Monte Sereno, or Los Gatos. Both parents work 10-12 hour days and have massive mortgages and property tax bills while trying to raise families. We do not live in luxury. Our only guilty pleasures are the ability to take our kids and dogs for walks to the parks in the evening. We're talking about teaching self defense. - We have several senior citizens in this area in addition to the young families. They are not wealthy. The county would likely love to see them move so that property taxes can increase beyond Prop 13 protections. Unfortunately, in addition to the pending recession, this project has already damaged property resale values and their nest eggs they've worked their entire lives to build.
- The meeting on Mar 1 did not address any of our questions. It simply restated what was already presented during the virtual meeting and angered the local community. In addition, the facility was not large enough. The meeting was very poorly managed and displayed complete disregard for the community. It is inappropriate to expect a project manager to manage a community discussion about a project that will cause millions of dollars in losses and safety issues for local residents. We recommend you bring in higher level leadership that can answer questions and properly manage a crowd of very smart people with tough questions.

Please tell us how many were in attendance and how many could not get in due to fire codes? We have never seen this neighborhood and community so angered. This situation already has people discussing future elections, political parties, and laws even though most of this area has been accommodating and moderate. If any of this project moves forward as is, there will be ongoing challenges for both sides. Let's think outside the box and not put our homeless into tiny boxes that resemble prison cells next door to our schools and parks. It is simply incomprehensible that the county, a non-profit, and our governor assume they can trample on the rights of those who pay them and likely voted them into office. No one wants to see anyone fail or lose their job.

We look forward to you addressing all of our concerns and showing us alternate, sensible solutions and appropriate use of this county airports and roads equipment parking lot and for properly caring for our own community's struggling population. Please stop asking the community to come up with alternatives. That is your job. Not ours.

Thank you.

Birdland Neighbors SE
Note: This email is not approved for publication. We welcome you to request an interview with our public representation.

Benton and Lawrence - Office of
Supportive Housing - County of Santa
Clara
osh.sccgov.org
In July 2021, the City of Santa Clara’s City Council asked the staff to find a site to house unhoused people. They wanted to apply for state funding that would be available for that use.

Soon after, the 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey reported that homelessness in Santa Clara increased by 35% from 2019 to 2022. Then, Santa Clara’s Homelessness Task Force reported that Santa Clara does not have enough interim housing for unhoused people. The need is clear.

Around the same time, the County’s Board of Supervisors told staff to look for County-owned land that could be used for interim housing. ...

From: Kim M
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Recording/Slides from 2/13 meeting Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 6:50:43 PM
Thank you!
Can you please answer the questions:
1) What efforts were taken to inform Santa Clara residents of this initiative (time line)? 2) What criteria was taken into account on who would be notified directly (not via next door) and specifically city outreach/initiatives)?
3) How will the success of this program be measured?
4) What other locations within Santa Clara are in consideration? Kim
On Feb 17, 2023, at 1:45 PM, Adam Marcus <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Murphy, you can find the recording and other information on the project webpage at:
https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton
The County will be adding frequently asked questions next week.

Thanks,
Adam Marcus
Division Manager
Community Development Department
Housing & Community Services Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: (408) 615-2491 Email: [email protected]
<image001.jpg>
From: Kim Murphy
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 1:02 PM
To: [email protected]; Adam Marcus <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Recording/Slides from 2/13 meeting
Hi! Can you please share the recording link and presentation that was used for the 2/13 meeting RE:

Temp Housing at Lawrence/Benton? Where can we find answers to the questions that were not addressed?
KMF
From: Asha DuMonthier
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Support for interim housing at Lawrence and Benton Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:28:22 AM
Thank you, Adam. Is there a virtual attendance option for the meetings this Wed and next Thurs?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 5:36 PM Adam Marcus <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Ms. DuMonthier for your comments. I recommend that you visit the County’s project webpage for more information, frequently asked questions (coming soon), prior meeting materials, and to sign up for email updates. Also, please see below for information on two upcoming in-person meetings.

Wednesday, March 1, 2023 | 6:00-8:00PM
Mission City Church
1290 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Thursday, March 9, 2023 | 6:00-8:00PM
Mission City Church
1290 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Best Regards,
Adam Marcus
Division Manager
Community Development Department
Housing & Community Services Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: (408) 615-2491 Email: [email protected]
From: Asha DuMonthier
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 4:32 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Adam Marcus <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for interim housing at Lawrence and Benton Hello City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County staff and LiveMoves Staff, I am writing to express my strong support of the Proposed Temporary Housing on Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway and to urge you to pursue the project.

I grew up and currently live in Pomeroy West (located on Pomeroy Ave. and Benton Street). I have witnessed firsthand the growing need for improved housing and supportive services in our city. One of the neighbors I grew up with at Pomeroy West who I’ll call Dan for his privacy, became unhoused several years ago and regularly parks around the City in search of a safe place to sleep each night. Dan and his partner are both disabled and struggle to afford the medical care they need, let alone find housing. Recently, Dan’s partner’s wheelchair was stolen off of the street where they were parked and she can no longer move outside of the vehicle they live in. Seeing someone who helped my parents out when I was a child, now suffering without housing or needed medical assistance, is a heart-breaking reality that hits whenever I see him and his partner around the city. Interim housing in the City of Santa Clara could provide crucial assistance to people like Dan who are lifelong Santa Clarans in need of support.

Of course, Dan is not alone. The number of visibly unsheltered people in my neighborhood has increased dramatically over the past few years. When I walk to Central Park, or the grocery store, it is highly unusual to not see an unhoused person. When I was a child in the area, seeing an unhoused person was a rarity.

I have a Master in Public Policy degree from the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley and have written two published reports on housing, including one specifically about homelessness. The only evidence-backed way to reduce homelessness in the long-term is to invest in supportive housing. The longer communities postpone creating supportive housing, the more people end up on the streets, creating health and safety problems. There is extensive research that indicates that investing in supportive housing reduces public costs related to incarceration and health care, in addition to helping vulnerable individuals achieve stability. By investing in housing and supportive services at Lawrence and Benton, the City and the County will help make the area safer, more equitable, and more sustainable for all residents in the long-run.

I live half a mile away from the proposed location of the project and support the choice of that location for the shelter because the land is currently underutilized and I believe that every neighborhood needs to be part of the solution to the housing crisis. Currently, the land is used twice a year for Christmas Trees and Pumpkins - products that are available in many other locations around the city. What the city does not currently have, is a shelter for the unhoused. It is undeniably more important from a moral standpoint, equity standpoint, and public resource efficiency standpoint, to provide housing rather than pumpkins. The housing shortage in our area is severe enough that every neighborhood must be part of the solution--ours included.

Please put our most vulnerable residents first and support the proposed interim housing at Lawrence and Benton so that we can make progress toward solving our housing crisis. Also, please let me know how I can support your efforts in making sure that this project happens despite some of the vocal residents organizing against it!
Sincerely,
Asha DuMonthier
From:

To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:17:20 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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: Ashish Verma
To: [email protected]
Cc: Santa Clara CITY Council; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Safety First - Propose alternate options for Lawrence/Benton instead of Homeless Shelter Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 1:30:06 PM
Dear Clerk,
Please help put this in front of our Mayor and council members in today's meeting. _________________________
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am strongly opposed to the Lawrence/Benton low entry barrier homeless shelter development. I believe this development is wrong for Santa Clara, wrong for the Benton location specifically and also wrong for its intended patrons. I urge the City Council to cease consideration of this project, due to the following main reasons:

1. Safety of residents and patrons

2. Proximity to more than 10 schools and over 7,000 school children (in 1.5 miles) I also propose an alternative option for the site to have a low-income rent-to-own housing project for teachers, retail workers or hospital staff. I am a member of Safe Santa Clara County association where we are aligned on our concern as well as the alternate option.

Safety of residents as well as patrons
The proposed location poses a tremendous safety threat to nearby residents, with the closest one being less than 20 ft. away. The data shows that crime increases by 56% within 100m, and the negative effects are highly 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 incidents have increased to 3 times of what they were when the facility was a hotel. Note that the Milpitas HomeKey project is not yet a no-screen, low barrier shelter. The comparison 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 had asked for such data in both sessions but we haven't been provided with any information and ultimately found this in a public domain. Here is the video recording (https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=8BR0sffdNLg). The update starts at 2:37:35. At around 2:57;58, the mayor concludes that the level of crime at the facility is unacceptable.

The site is at the intersection of a very busy expressway, with a liquor store across the street, posing significant risk to the patrons (some of whom may have mental disabilities).

Proximity to schools
The proposed location poses a tremendous safety threat to nearby schools, especially as it is located at the center of more than 10 schools with 7,471 students. We are deeply concerned about the decision to establish a shelter for "the most challenging elements of the population" 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.

County providing misleading and wrong information
We are also deeply disappointed to discover that we have been provided misleading and false information in their communications regarding the proposed shelter. During the first meeting, officials from the county and LifeMoves didn't even know how many schools were located near the proposed shelter, indicating a lack of research and preparation. Even more concerning is that in the second 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 11, almost three times of 4, not including daycares and after-school programs.

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 misleading, as the Branham and Monterey location is not yet operational and we don't understand its impact on crime rates or safety yet. Additionally, the impact on the safety of schools near the Benton location will be significantly greater than that of the Branham location, as data shows there are 11 schools with a total student population of 7,417 within 1.5 miles of Benton, compared to only three schools and 1,116 students near Branham.

This risk and potential consequences of the Benton location will be 7 times greater than that of Branham, and this doesn't even include the students from daycares and after-school programs, as well as teachers and staff.

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 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
Total student population 7,417
Branham and Monterey shelter Proposed Benton shelter
Number of schools
within 1.5 miles 312
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 7,417
Stereotyping residents and taxpayers
We are also deeply disappointed by the misinterpretation and biased understanding of our concerns for safety. The comments from certain officials in prior sessions portrayed us, the taxpayers and voters, as selfish middle-class individuals who prioritize our property value over others' lives. The truth is, we are parents, spouses, sons, and daughters who are fighting to protect our families and loved ones. We urge the city and county officials to initiate a constructive conversation and leverage the creativity of talented residents to make our community a better place for everyone.

Alternative plan for Benton
In fact, we are actively seeking alternative ways to help the unhoused population by proposing alternative uses for the land. Majority of residents are proposing a low-income rent-to-own housing project for teachers, hospital staff and retail workers who work hard to uplift our community but cannot afford to live in this expensive city.

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.

Safe Santa Clara County 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 and LifeMoves.

Regards,
Ashish, Safe Santa Clara County
From: Xufei Wang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Safety
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:18:04 PM
Hi Consuelo,
I have been a Santa Clara resident for nearly 9 years. I thought our community was safe and it indeed is, until one day that totally changed my mind. At around 12:30 am in the morning of Feb 08 2023, we as a family with three kids at 4, 6, 8 years old, became the victims of an attempted break-in into our house. I didn't know how to explain this to our kids until now.

If not because of the protection of the iron door, we could have been killed in our sleep.

The proposed site at Benton St & Lawrence Expy for a homeless shelter is just 200 feet away from us. I am really concerned about the safety going forward, what if an accident happened to my kids. I just can't imagine that.

I totally understand the government wants to solve the homeless problem and that is for the good of our whole community.

Yesterday I met a guy from Milpitas at our Santa Clara Community Center at Central Park, he told me that the Milpitas homeless shelter has been turned into a hubspot of criminals and drug dealers.

Considering the site is hugely populated with 17 schools within 1 mile range, not to mention the parks, churches and library we visit frequently. Can my kids and other kids play safely like before, this is a question.

I think, as a whole, the residents and government will find a solution that works out for all. We need a little more patience and creativity. Please double think about the proposal and our concerns, then I believe you will make a good decision.

Best,
Xufei Wang
From: Craig Mortensen
To: khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; Ellenberg, Supervisor; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Santa Clara Valley Water District & Shelter @ Benton&Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 8:47:38 AM
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location because:
1) The Calabazas Creek (which borders the proposed site @ Benton&Lawrence) runs through our neighborhood that will be effected by the shelter. People do trespass in this creek and often break into our houses that border the creek. My house borders the creek.

I often have to call the police to come out and make people leave. If the shelter goes through, we WILL find more people in this creek using it as a place to sell drugs, use it as a thoroughfare, and hangout.
2) Bella Vista, only 0.5 miles away, is already being converted into a facility for the homeless. The characteristics of the location & method of modular construction (stacked-up container-style tiny houses) are identical to White Oak Lane project, rejected in 2021 by the City of Santa Clara based on safety and other serious concerns.

Forfeit of a playground, seasonal pumpkin patch & Christmas tree shopping for kids at all ages. Shelter residents can pose potential risks to the high-density residential areas and to users of parks, kids in many daycares, schools and children’s playgrounds in this area.

The project lacks transparency and outreach efforts.

It is with that said that I request that you vote NO on this project: Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Service Enriched Shelter
Craig Mortensen
Santa Clara
From: Anne Hausler
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Save Our Neighborhood
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 9:32:16 PM
Dear Consuelo:

I'm writing you today as a concerned tax paying resident in the City of Santa Clara across the street from the proposed site for the emergency shelter on Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street in Santa Clara. (Sobrato and LifeMoves project)
I have lived in this neighborhood 30 years and purposely moved here for the community and safety of my family. I am very concerned about the development of this shelter across the street. My property has already been vandalized multiple times . My car has been broken into and did not have any valuables in site. My neighbors have had their cars broken into multiple times. Homeless people have slept outside my front door as well as the carport and linger on the property throughout the day. We also have an ice cream truck that comes down the street at dusk regularly even during the cold of winter and stops to make a few quick drop offs along Flora Vista. It's adults on the receiving end, not children.

We established a neighborhood watch program to help mitigate these activities. We regularly report incidents to the Santa Clara Police Department and several of my neighbors on the property have installed cameras. Despite these measures, we continue to have criminal activity on our property. Last week, my neighbor shared a video of someone walking through our carports trying to open car doors.

These activities have got to stop.

I feel for people in need and they do need help. I donate to my church in the neighborhood that feeds people daily, provides clothing, necessities and other support.

Building a shelter across the street is not the answer. It masks the problem. It also sends a message inviting others outside the City of Santa Clara and the State of California to come here for free housing, food and other support on tax payer dollars as well as the freedom to steal, damage property and deal drugs. That is not acceptable.

I believe in supporting people to get the care and attention they need to get back on their feet. The location for this shelter makes absolutely no sense. It's in the middle of housing developments, multiple churches and schools putting our residents, children and property in a high risk zone. This is absolutely unacceptable.

I am certain there is a better solution for Santa Clara County, The City of Santa Clara, Sobrato and LifeMoves to resolve this shelter matter. Rather than creating this initial plan and disrupting the neighborhood, it would be much wiser to get the public involved in a very different way. We have creative people in our communities throughout Silicon Valley and it's time for local government to learn how to engage people in developing solutions that make sense. Local businesses have been successful with problem solving for years by inviting employees and the public to come up with viable solutions. It's like a hackathon. Acknowledge a real problem, get people involved beyond city, county and state government for real collaboration to develop a more viable and productive solution. I'd bet our schools have more creative and thought provoking minds to contribute to the discussion and focus on solving the real problem.

Best regards,
Anne Hausler
From: Fay Dustin
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Say No to Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 5:04:27 PM
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale:

My name is Fay, and I am a resident of Santa Clara. I am writing to you not only to represent myself but also my neighborhood and the 5,000 local residents who signed the petition that rejects the proposed shelter at Benton & Lawrence. This is the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote NO as our representative.

In the last community public hearing (the 4th public hearing), the county conducted a live poll in the meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. We urge you to represent the local resident, and not against them.

There are 9 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection.

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood and this is not fair to the neighborhood.

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

6. Location selection is far from public transit, grocery, and jobs, considering potential residences are on foot and a lot of them have serious mental or physical illness.

7. The busy intersection at Benton & Lawrence Expressway creates great danger for people who have mental health issues or with alcohol and drug addict’s issues.

8. County providing false and misleading information.

9. 300+ community’s questions unanswered as to date and decisions should NOT be made in a rush.

In addition, I have more concern as to how false and misleading information has been shared by the county and its representatives during the 4 public hearings.

And therefore, I would like to remind you of the FSAA (False Statement Accountability Act) that was issued by the United States Department of Justice in 1996. Government officials will be held accountable and liable for any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

During all 4 of the public hearings (that have been recorded), false statements were noted by the public (e.g. No. of schools nearby, housing value impact, crime rate...) all this information contains false statements which have misled the public for their decision making. We reserve the right to take further actions on this. And I hope you will make your decision and vote "No" based on the true data.

We have received and reviewed the Mountain View Public Safety Data and noticed significant increases after the Lifemove site was built. In 2019 & 2020 there were only single digits crimes reported. However, in 2021, there were 94 incidents, 2022 were 141 incidents and in the first 2 months of 2023, 22 incidents were reported already. The increased crime rate is the direct result of the LifeMove site. Similar trend was also identified at the Milpitas LifeMove site. As our representative, I hope you will spend some time researching the public safety data impact.

This reckless project will not only impose a danger to the neighborhood near the site (as shared to you above in the public safety data above), but will also take police resources away from the rest of the community, and put all our lives in danger and will have a greater impact for the Santa Clara County as a whole!
We, as a community that is devoted to SAFE Santa Clara County, will be fighting really hard to keep our city/county safe to our local residents. In the last 3 weeks, we have already collected more than 5,000 petition signatures from local residents against the proposed shelter at Benton & Lawrence.

Our community has elected each of you to be our officers to represent us in public matters. The majority of the local residents have said "No" to the Benton and Lawrence Shelter (e.g. the polls in the 4th public hearings and the ratio of the yes/no from speakers in all 4 public hearings, petition signed against this proposal). Please stay on the residents' side (instead of the builders or lifemoves) and we count on you to put our citizen's life first and reject this radical experiment.

Thank you!
Fay
From: Patrick Keegan
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Shelter - Lawrence and Benton
Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:58:09 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

This location is 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.

I 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 judgement on the part of the county/city.

Additionally, while this program "feels good" it does nothing to deal with the underlying cause of the chronic homelessness - drug abuse and/or mental illness. We need to invest in the root cause not just provide a better box for these people to live in. And let's not create a bigger magnet to attract these people or further enable their disease.

Finally, should there be human or economic damage due to this project, you will be putting yourself and your organizations in harm's way from a liability perspective. We won't forget.

Sincerely,
Patrick Keegan
Local Resident
From: Jame Ann
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] Simply vote NO on the homeless shelter project at Benton & Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:21:56 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. As a resident of the Lawrence/El Camino Real area, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts that this facility could have on our community.

The proposed shelter is intended to admit people with prior criminal backgrounds, prior or ongoing drug abuse, and mental health issues, which makes locating it in a densely populated residential area such as ours simply doesn't make sense. There is indisputable, data-backed research showing that a homeless shelter, whether an “interim shelter”, “emergency shelter” or called by any other name, inevitably brings negative impacts onto the surrounding neighborhood. Crime rates will rise, and property market values (NOT assessed value thanks to Prop 13 in California) will fall.

Furthermore, the county has converted the previous Bella Vista Inn into a homeless care facility this year, which is barely half a mile away from the proposed location. It seems unfair and unthoughtful to subject communities in the Lawrence/El Camino Real area to another one again, especially when it is clear that the placement of such a facility has the potential to significantly harm our community.

I urge you to consider the potential negative impacts 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,
James
From: Jame Ann
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Simply vote NO on the homeless shelter project at Benton & Lawrence Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:20:32 PM
Hi, I wonder if you got my mail yesterday, if I don't hear back, I will keep sending until 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 resident of the Lawrence/El Camino Real area, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts that this facility could have on our community.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentOctober 29, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 29, 2024