Cities Index.
Agenda packet

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 29, 2024

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
October 29, 2024
Body
City Council and Authorities Concurrent
Pages
7
Original file
112.0 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on santaclara.legistar.com. That file is the official record.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan? How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty?
What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
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 you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings.

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

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

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

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

I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty?
:KDW·VWKHZHDSRQSROLF\"+RZFDQ\RXPDNHVXUHWKH\GRQRWKDYHZHDSRQVZLWK WKHP"
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
+RZZLOOWKHPD[LPXPKRPHOHVVSHRSOHEHPDQDJHG"%\ZKRP":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.

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,
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.

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,
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.

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

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

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

3. The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood

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

5. Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse

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

7. County providing false and misleading info

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

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

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.

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: 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
To: Adam Marcus
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misleading information from SC city council and county supervisors Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 8:42:12 PM
Thank you. We will review the project page. Would it be possible to provide a view that doesn't require clicking on each '+' sign? It only allows us to view one question/response at a time. Capturing and sharing that information with the community, especially the non-technical members and those requiring translation, can be quite difficult.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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

Best,
Sharilyn
From: Siyu Hou
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:59:52 PM
Hello!
Hope this email finds you well.

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

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

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.

Thank you!
Siyu
Santa Clara, 95051
From: Huan Hu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:25:50 PM
Hi there,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a 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. best,
Huan
From: Puan Xu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: 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]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:07:10 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.

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

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

Thanks,
Concerned Santa Clara resident
From: (null) (null)
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 6:03:09 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone
From: Alicia Deboe
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:32:00 PM
Dear Ms Hernandez,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sizhuo Zhang

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

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

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

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

Best,
Victoria
From: VW H
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:12:58 PM
Mr. Hernandez,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Best Regards,
- Yin Wei
Address: San Jose, CA
From: Zheyu Wu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:23:04 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf.

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

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

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: Yiming Xu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 2:00:51 PM
I am writing to express my extreme disappointment regarding the recent public hearing (March 9th) on the Benton project, specifically the use of invited supporters who were portrayed as local community members. It is unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak and disguised themselves as local neighbors. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion, clearly violating the principles of law and democracy.

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

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

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

From: Fan Chen
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:33:44 PM
Hello All,
As a taxpayer of Santa Clara County, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

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

Fan
From: Bing Tai
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:03:46 PM
Dear Mr. Hernandez,
My name is Bing Tai and I am extremely
disappointed that you invited some supporters of
the Benton project, portrayed them as members of
the local community then asked them to speak at
the March 9th Benton public hearing on the
neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their
opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that
institutions or individuals with a vested interest in
the project were invited to speak for the project and
disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9
meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing
advocate organizations, who don’t live in the
neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU
and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of
college students to support and speak for the
project. None of them are from the Benton
neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of
public support for the project and set up a plot to
manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law
and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such
behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Bing
From: Prashanth Kalluraya
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 10:13:12 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Concerned Citizen
-Prashanth Kalluraya
From: Xinrong Yang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 8:08:15 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Vipul Shah
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:55:00 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Thanks,
Vipul
From: Jonathan van Clute
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:24:26 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.

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

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

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.

HUIYUAN Tan
From: Zhenzhen (Viola) Gao
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:13:01 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: C L
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:26:47 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Cong Liu
From: Bowen Chen
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:58:02 AM
Dear offciers,
My Name is Bowen Chen and I lives in Santa Clara.

Home address is 743 Yale Ln, Santa Clara, CA 95051
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Regards,
Julia
From: Xuyan Gremminger
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:57:43 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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: Zhenzhen (Viola) Gao
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:10:42 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Rémy BERNARD
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:01:40 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Regards,
Rémy Bernard
From: Will C
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:13:42 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Haoyu Chen
From: Su Latt Win
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:41 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a 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: Shan-Ting Hsu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:05 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a 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: Sandrine Bernard
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:03:07 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. 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.

Thank you for listening.

Sandrine
From: Guilan Gao
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:59:02 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Guilan Gao
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58:50 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Leung Andy
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:57:28 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Rui Liang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:23 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Ray Leon
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:55:39 PM
Hello,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Best Regards,
Rui Liang
From: vidya g
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:00:13 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a 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: Imran C
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:37:11 PM
Attachments: BentonStShelter.pdf
Hi,
I am Mohammed Imran Choudhary, resident at 3472 Angelina Dr, Santa Clara, CA, 95051.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Mohammed Imran Choudhary
From: Xuri Feng
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:28:37 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: M Feng
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:27:31 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Ling Huang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:25:50 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Hongliang Fei
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:06:37 PM
Hi there,
As a resident of Santa Clara, I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood. This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to manipulate public opinion. It clearly violated law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

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

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

Lee
From: Hongliang Fei
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:04:47 PM
Hi County officials,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jeff Li
From: Yunqi Sun
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:18:28 PM
Hi Consuelo,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Gurinder Dhillon
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:31:38 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf.

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

Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood.

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Gurinder Dhillon
From: hardik darji
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:16:32 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Hardikkumar Darji
From: Sun Eva
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:11:53 AM
Hi there,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

Thanks,
Eva

From: Shea Shea
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:10:17 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Regards,
Jason Shea
From: Amber Hung
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:09:09 AM
Hi Sir,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Amber Hung
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:08:19 AM
Hi Sir,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant list are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
--
Regards,
Amber Hung
From: Mengxi Li
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:06:36 AM
To whom it may concern:

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

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

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

Toward a fair and open dialogue between the government and the people, we hereby request that 1) a representative from the neighborhood join the virtual meeting as a cohost alongside Ms. Consuelo Hernandaz. 2) The co-host shall have the same meeting permission and control, and host the meeting from the same physical location, for example, in Ms. Hernandez’s office. 3) Make sure that live comments and participant lists are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
-A Santa Clara resident
From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:56 AM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From:

To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom!
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:00:11 AM
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

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

By A Long term residents of Benton Neighborhood.

From: Yi Huang
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:59:28 AM
Hi,
I'm a current resident in the area that will be affected by this project and I'm writing to express my disappointment and concerns with what is going on recently. I heard that institutions and individuals that do not live in the community were taken into serious consideration in this matter, which I found unacceptable and unbelievable. For them, it is just one politically right thing to say with no costs to them at all. For us that are currently living in this area, there is a huge price to pay including sacrificing the safe community because of those unstable and dangerous peeple. The political right needs to stop! Do not act kind when you have nothing to lose.

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Yi Huang
From: Shaun Shroff
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:54:37 AM
Consuelo,
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Zhe Liu
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:14:05 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

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

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

From: Frank WONG
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop Benton Lawrence Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:49:32 PM
Dear Mr/Ms,
My name is Long Wang living in 3073 Adams Way, Santa Clara, CA 95051.

I'm strongly against the Lawrence-Benton Shelter. This location is the heart of South Bay, has high populations, with 4x schools and many communities nearby. I can not imagine there are hundreds of homeless of mental-illness live here and how scary our kids will be. You can not hear the voice of elementary kids but you know this shelter will hurt them. Shelter should build in industrial area, not residential area, it is so obvious but why county ignore this. We pay property taxes every year to the county. Such residential shelter may drive many high-tech employees to leave this area to other safer cities.

Stop this Benton-Lawrence Shelter and move to industrial or Mountain view area!!!!! That's my comments to it.

Thanks!
Sincerely,
Long
From: Dan Li
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop the Benton Shelter for Homeless Date: Saturday, March 11, 2023 5:25:41 PM
Hi Hernandez,
As a citizen and voter in Santa Clara County, I'm writing to express my grave concern on the proposed homeless shelter at the corner of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara.

Please see the rationales attached.

Thank you!
Dan

From:

To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] STOP the homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence!! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:34:10 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and
Santa Clara County:

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
B. Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: B W
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stop the Horrible Shelter Proposal at Lawrence and Benton Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:05:00 PM
My name is Brian West, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the Benton shelter proposal. This is absolutely the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote NO as our representative.

County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection. 1) Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police.
2) Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. 3) Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!) 4) The 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood. Our neighbors have shouldered more homeless issues than any other area already. Enough is enough! Don’t bring more homeless to our neighborhood.
5) High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves’ construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval! 6) Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse in any homeless shelter will only create more problems than it solves.
7) Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs, totally opposite to the stated goals of the proposed shelter.
8) County providing false and misleading info
300+ community’s questions unanswered as to date.

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

I’m counting on you to vote NO. Thank you.

Brian West
and family
From: B W
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] STOP the Proposed Homeless Shelter at Lawrence and Benton. Please vote NO!! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:27:34 PM
My name is Brian West, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the Benton shelter proposal. This is absolutely the wrong location. I urge you to stop considering this location, and vote NO as our representative.

County conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. There are 8 major reasons that the community opposes the Benton project and the location selection. 1) Low barrier housing allowing criminals and addicts, problematic occupants are unlikely to be removed from the site by the city or police. 2) Tremendous safety threat to 11,000 students and families. 3) Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites are seeing striking crime statistics (Milpitas total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022; MTV LifeMoves site police call has risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022!) 4) This is the 2nd shelter in the same neighborhood. Our neighbors have shouldered more homeless issues than any other area already. Enough is enough! Don’t bring more homeless to our neighborhood.
5) High operation cost of $4.3M as an estimate for now. Note that Palo Alto LifeMoves’ construction cost estimate doubled from $17M to $34.4M only one year after its approval! 6) Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurse in any homeless shelter will only create more problems than it solves. 7) Location selection is far from public transit, grocery and jobs, totally opposite to the stated goals of the proposed shelter. 8) County providing false and misleading info, 300+ community’s questions unanswered as to date.

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

I’m counting on you to vote NO. Thank you.

Brian West
and family
From: y xx
To: Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee; Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong objection!
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:41:22 PM
To whom may concern,
We strongly oppose building the low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton.

We understand the helpless for the homeless, however, the policy should think about the residents more. Before deciding, think about some questions below:

Have you guys consider the safety of the city and the community? Have you guys consider the use of the taxed money from the residents? What the residents really need?
Have you guys think about the duties? Why the residents vote for you guys? For the worst environment?
Please listen to our residents’ voice! And choose the locations of low barrier tiny homeless shelters cautiously! Better for far from any cities!
Regards,
Lily Xiao
From: Yuan Yao
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong Oppose the development of Benton Homeless shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:40:59 PM
To whom it may concern
The proposed Benton Homeless shelter brings a significant safety threat to nearby schools, including my kids' school. I urge the city council to stop consideration of this location Regards
Yuan Yao
From: Larry wang
To: mayorandcouncil@santaclaraca org; [email protected]; rchahal; Kathy Watanabe; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Ellenberg Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Hernandez Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong oppose to Benton and Lawrence homeless shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:31:47 PM
Dear Mayor, city council members,
cc. county council members,
I am writing to strongly oppose the project of Benton homeless shelter.

The homeless have been an issue for us for a couple of years. We understand that Santa Clara county and city are pushed to find a location for shelters. However, I do not think the cross street of Lawrence and Benton is an good choice. The noisy place with a low transit score to the bus stop and the traffic appears dangerous to pedestrian crossing Benton street. Like white oaks, where is rejected years ago, is a bad choice for those who need support. It brings huge concerns to local communities as well.

Here is a notable research paper posted in 2019. Bad transit score place can nigatively impact access to employment and educational opportunities, healthcare and social services. In particular, it has been found to prevent individuals' upward mobility out of homelessness.

https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Murphy%20%282019%29Transportation%20and%20Homelessness.pdf The transit score of Benton shelter is calculated under 40 by walkscore.com.

I do believe if we do really wanna support homeless, please choose some other places closer to the transportatio.

I do wish you can listen and accept my point.
thank you so much.
regards,
-Larry
From: Puan Xu
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo Subject: [EXTERNAL] strong opposition against shelters at Lawrence & Benton Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:47:22 AM
My name is Richard Xu, a resident of Santa Clara County.

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

Major concerns:

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

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

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

Admission of people with mental issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration
From: Nanxi Li
To: Nanxi Li
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong opposition to Benton & Lawrence Low-Barrier Shelter Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:19:22 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Benton & Lawrence Low-Barrier Shelter that is proposed to be established in our neighborhood. As a concerned resident, I believe that this shelter would be a wrong location for several reasons and poses significant risks to our community.

Firstly, the location of the proposed shelter is currently being used for a pumpkin patch and Christmas tree lot, which attracts many families and children during the holiday season. The establishment of a low-barrier shelter would change the character of this area, and the presence of individuals with mental illnesses or addiction issues could create an unsafe environment for families and children.

Secondly, the proposed location is too close to the expressway, which poses significant risks to individuals with mental illnesses who may wander and walk around the area. It is essential to consider the safety of these individuals and ensure that they are not at risk of harm from the nearby traffic.

Furthermore, the proposed shelter is located in close proximity to several schools. I am deeply concerned about the safety of children, as well as the potential impact that the shelter could have on the community as a whole. The presence of a low-barrier shelter could attract individuals with criminal records or addiction issues, leading to an increase in crime and other undesirable activities in the area.

In light of these concerns, I urge you to reconsider the establishment of the Benton & Lawrence Low-Barrier Shelter in our neighborhood. While I understand the importance of providing support for those in need, it is essential to consider the impact that this shelter could have on the safety and well-being of our community. I believe that there are other, more suitable locations that could provide a safe and supportive environment for those in need.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Nanxi Li, resident in Santa Clara
From: zhe yin
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee
Cc: [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposal of building homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 12:22:24 PM
Hello,
My name is Zhe Yin, a resident of Santa Clara County.

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

Reasons:

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

No prior research has been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood. 80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.

The shelter has no screening procedures and accepts people with criminal history, drug issues and mental issues to live in which brings safety concerns to the neighbourhood.

Oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings.

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

With a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio and only volunteers onsite, there are not enough professionals to treat mental illness.

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

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

Kids love the pumpkin patch here. It brings good memories to them over the years. DO NOT turn the good memories into nightmares!
Requests:

I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback and share the information to the public.

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

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

I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure, especially how to make sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.

What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
Regards,
Zhe
From: Wenyu Cai
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly appose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:41:15 PM
Dear Mayor and Council,
We are very shocked to know that there is a discussion or plan to build the low barrier homeless shelter on
Lawrence & Benton. It is so hard to believe that in an area surrounded by 24 schools and day cares, people would think
to build buildings and give the opportunities for those with criminal history and drug issues wandering around. That is such
an irresponsible plan and can potentially hurt our community hard. Safety is already a big concern for many people in
nowadays and it is terrible to try to do things like that to make it even worse. If you have kids going to school surrounded by
this, would you be comfortable and rest assured for this whole thing? As a Santa Clara citizen, we strongly appose building the low barrier home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton!!! Please
help to stop this. Thanks very much for your time and help! Thanks & Regards,
Vera
From: yun zou
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly concern about the lack of transparency in the homeless shelter project @Benton&Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:12:27 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process.

It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.

This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.

It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.

This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.

The fact that most of the neighborhood was not notified of this proposal is suspicious and raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. As residents, we have a right to be informed about proposals that will impact our community, and we deserve to have a say in decisions that will affect our safety and well-being.

I urge you to reconsider the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence and to engage in a more transparent and inclusive decision-making process. This could include holding public meetings, soliciting feedback from community members, and ensuring that all relevant information is made available to the public.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to ensure that the decision-making process around this proposal is fair, transparent, and inclusive of the needs and concerns of the community.

Sincerely,
Reed
From: yun zou
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly concern about the lack of transparency in the homeless shelter project @Benton&Lawrence Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:21:40 PM
Hi, do you still hear voices from us through this email? I haven't got any response yet, so will keep sending the emails.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence. While I understand that the issue of homelessness is a complex and pressing one, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process.

It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.

This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.

It has come to my attention that many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods were not notified or consulted about the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter in the area.

This lack of community involvement is deeply concerning to me, as it suggests that the decision was made without proper consideration for the needs and concerns of the community.

The fact that most of the neighborhood was not notified of this proposal is suspicious and raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. As residents, we have a right to be informed about proposals that will impact our community, and we deserve to have a say in decisions that will affect our safety and well-being.

I urge you to reconsider the proposal to establish a low barrier homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence and to engage in a more transparent and inclusive decision-making process. This could include holding public meetings, soliciting feedback from community members, and ensuring that all relevant information is made available to the public.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take these concerns seriously and work to ensure that the decision-making process around this proposal is fair, transparent, and inclusive of the needs and concerns of the community.

Sincerely,
Reed
From: Sophy Zhu
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:40:30 AM
My name is Sophy Zhu, a parent and resident in the neighborhood close to Benton & Lawrence intersection.

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

Again, I oppose the Benton Shelter!
From: Rui Liang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location.

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

I’m counting on you.
--
Best Regards,
Rui Liang
From: Jing
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; [email protected]; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chavez, Cindy; [email protected]; kleincouncil; [email protected]; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; Supervisor Simitian Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:00:27 PM
Dear officers,
I’m a resident near the proposed Benton shelter. I’m living 0.2 miles from this location and I strongly oppose this plan.

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

Thanks,
Jing Liu
From: Co Liu
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; khardy; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor.Lee Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:46:40 PM
Hi,
I’m strongly oppose the Benton St shelter project!
Regards
From: Wenyu Cai
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose building interim housing on Benton!! Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:15:16 PM
Dear Santa Clara Council members,
My name is Vera. I am a santa clara resident. I strongly oppose building interim housing on Benton
consider it's a no barrier, no screen homeless shelter. I attend today's meeting and 80% of community
residents oppose the project. 90% of people opposed from previous meeting and thousands signatures
are collected from people who oppose the project. What else you need to show you listen to the community
and residents?
Data from both San Jose and Milpitas similar project shows the crime rate increase dramatically after project
versus before project. Same storied are repeatedly happen again and again from big cities and small used to
be quite cities. Santa Clara is not special and will not be special in terms of crime rate increase if reckless decision
like this not getting prevented.

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

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

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

Thank you,
Vera
From: Hong, Lu
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose building the homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 9:24:27 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a Santa Clara resident & 3-kids mother living in Lawrence and Benton area, I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence and Benton. Below are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all the requests.

Reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty? :KDW·VWKHZHDSRQSROLF\"+RZFDQ\RXPDNHVXUHWKH\GRQRWKDYHZHDSRQVZLWK WKHP"
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
+RZZLOOWKHPD[LPXPKRPHOHVVSHRSOHEHPDQDJHG"%\ZKRP":KHUHGRHVWKH IXQGLQJFRPHIURP"
6LQFHUHO\\RXUV
$PEHU
From: Shuhong Chen
To: Ellenberg, Supervisor
Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose building the homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 9:59:19 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a Santa Clara resident & 3-kids dad living in Lawrence and Benton area, I strongly oppose building the low barrier homeless shelter on Lawrence and Benton. Below are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all the requests.

Reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty? What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
Will the city increase its police force?
What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
6LQFHUHO\\RXUV
Shuhong
From: Faye W
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly Oppose Homeless Shelter on Lawrence & Benton Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:57:38 PM
Hi Consuelo,
That's Faye, a resident of Santa Clara county. I am writing to you below to represent the family and community to strongly oppose building the low barrier tiny home homeless shelter on Lawrence & Benton. Here are my reasons and requests. Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.

Reasons:
• Too close to 24 schools and daycares. Serious safety concern. • We oppose no prior research having been done on the impact of this shelter to the neighborhood.
• 80-100 rooms are too many for this tiny land.
• We oppose a shelter accepting people with criminal history and drug issues.

We oppose no screening procedures.
• We oppose people with mental issues living in this shelter. • We oppose tiny removable homes, instead of concrete buildings. • No plans for management, no guarantee for neighborhood safety and quality of life.
• We oppose this shelter with a 1:100 staff/homeless ratio, and only volunteers onsite to treat mental illness.
• This shelter is only 0.5 miles from another shelter, Bella Vista. • No research and evidence can show LifeMoves’s MTV shelter succeeds in reducing the homeless population, and improving the homeless's mental issues.

Requests:
• I request you provide 300+ questions the attendees entered in chats during the first hearing meeting, and your answers.
• I request you provide the date, time and location of the April meetings among LifeMoves, city and county staff to discuss community feedback. and I request that info be shared to the public. and we all get notifications of the meetings. • I request that the County also set up a zoom meeting for the in person meetings, so that people like me who need to take care of kids at home, can also participate.
• I request you provide research/study on how an interim/emergency shelter impacts the neighborhood.
• I request you provide a solid plan for the steps to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and secure. and a detailed plan for funding and leading the effort? • I request plans on how you are making sure young kids and students are safe walking to schools.
• I request a plan on how to solve the potential problems on parking and traffic given that 80-120 units will be introduced to an already overcrowded neighborhood.
• I request you to plan to address the increased police funding and numbers needs, given the tremendous increase in population.How will community's safety be endured? What's your plan and city's plan?
• How can you ensure homeless people can be well-behaved? Are there any regulations for the occupants in the shelter? If they break the regulation, what's the penalty?
• What’s the weapon policy? How can you make sure they do not have weapons with them?
• Will the city increase its police force?
• What's their move-in process look like? How many days can they stay? Will they be allowed to get out of the shelter?
• Who will be sent to this shelter? Will it only for Santa Clara City's homeless, or homeless from anywhere can come and live here?
• How will the maximum 240 homeless people be managed? By whom? Where does the funding come from?
Thank you for your consideration and your time in reading the community's concerns! Please seriously consider my reasons, and reply back with detailed answers to all my requests.

Regards,
Faye Wang
From: Wei Wang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose homeless shelters building on Lawrence Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:11:03 PM
Strongly oppose this proposal!!
From: Joyce Huang
To: [email protected]; kleincouncil; MeltonCouncil; [email protected]; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Supervisor.Lee; khardy; [email protected]; Kathy Watanabe; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; rchahal; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy Subject: [EXTERNAL] strongly oppose Lawrence-Benton Shelter Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:05:40 PM
Dear County Supervisor, Mayor and Councilmembers of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, My name is Joyce Huang, a resident of Santa Clara. I and every member in my family strongly oppose the radical and experimental Benton development. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location as low-barrier shelter as soon as possible, and vote in opposition as our representative. The city and county need to find a non-residential land for the low-barrier interim housing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1: Schools within 1.5 Miles of the Proposed Benton Site Schools Distance from the
Property
Student population
Stratford School 0.25 miles 905
Laurelwood Elementary 0.26 miles 623
Pomeroy Elementary 0.33 miles 344
Monticello Academy 0.38 miles 340
Santa Clara High School 0.58 miles 2,030
Basis Lower School 0.62 miles 380
Peterson Middle School 0.63 miles 871
New Valley / Gateway High School 0.75 miles 160
John Sutter Elementary 0.81 miles 530
Briarwood Elementary School 0.90 miles 292
St. Lawrence Elementary and Middle School 0.93 miles 497 Central Park Elementary 1.2 miles 445
Millikin Basics+ Elementary School 1.2 miles 563
Ponderosa Elementary School 1.3 miles 542
Wilcox High School 1.4 miles 1,961
Total student population 10,483
Table 2: Comparison of Branhan and Benton location
Branham and Monterey shelter Proposed Benton shelter
Number of schools
within 1.5 miles 3 15
List of schools under 15
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
List of schools under 20
min walk
i) Hayes Elementary School - 12 min
walk
ii) Davis (Caroline) Intermediate
School - 16 min walk
i) Laurelwood elementary - 11 min walk
ii) Pomeroy elementary - 13 min walk
iii) Stratford - 14 min walk
iv) Santa Clara High School - 16 min walk
v) Basis lower school - 17 min walk
vi) Monticello - 19 min walk
Total number of students
affected
1,116 10,483
We are also deeply disappointed and angered by the intentional misinterpretation of our concerns for safety. The City, County and LifeMoves have depicted us, taxpayers and voters, as selfish individuals who prioritize our property value over human lives. Resorting to such an act of smearing has completely disregarded the fact that above all, we are parents, spouses, sons, and daughters who are fighting to protect our families and loved ones. We urge the City, County and LifeMoves to stop stereotyping residents and voters, and instead participate in constructive conversation and leverage the wisdom of residents to make our community a better place for everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Dong Liang
From: Connie (Qian) Zhang
To: [email protected]; Hernandez, Consuelo; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strongly oppose to the shelter at Benton Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:51:29 PM
Hi City council,
I live within 1.5 miles of proposed Benton low barrier shelter. Proposing such a shelter in high density neighborhoods and in the middle of 24 schools is very irresponsible and ignorant of local kids safety!!
I feel deeply disappointed and outraged after attending the first public hearing on March 1st.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Bo
From:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Safety &amp; 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 &quot;clients&quot; 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 &quot;clients&quot; walk around or visit
the parks/streets?
ż How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

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

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

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

I’d request moving the proposed low-barrier shelter to a less residential area and providing amenities and
support to help rehabilitate those individuals and get them on a path to becoming a productive member of society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major concerns:

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

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

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

Admission of people with mental issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
BB Huang
Proud Resident of Santa Clara
From:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liz
From:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several ways that you can share your comments.

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

2. Email City elected officials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for staying engaged.

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

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

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

Attachment Ϯ: ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚDĂƉƐ;3590 Benton Street, Santa ClaraͿ N
Francis
Avenue
Ruth
Cabral
Way
Lochinvar Avenue
Mark Spitz Place
Willett
Place
Lillick Drive
East El Camino Real
Cabrillo Avenue
Lehigh Drive
Druffel
Place
Poplar Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Magdalena
Circle
Henderson Avenue
Sunnydays Lane
Morse Lane
Buchanan Drive
Bowe Avenue
Bowers Avenue
Hubbard
Avenue
Helen Avenue
Flora Vista Avenue
Cozumel
Circle
Tamarack Lane
Valerian
Court
Wisteria
Street
El Capitan
Avenue
Brothers Lane
Bond Place
Sherwin
Avenue
Bray Avenue
Gazdar
Court
Meyer Place
Holmes
Place
Giannini
Drive
Miramar Way Drive
Roble
Valeri
Ruth
Court
Bluebird
Avenue
Miles Court
Halford Avenue
Cork
Harbor
Court
Bella Vista Court
Forbes Court
Ball Place
Quintinia
Drive
Brach
Way
Rustic Drive
Sally Court
Poplar Court
Klamath
Avenue
Glenbar Avenue
Tulip Court
Marietta
Court
Cabrillo Avenue
Sarita Way
Inverness Way
Wren Avenue
Via Roma
Place
Rebeiro Avenue
Burnley Way
Eastin
Place
Oxford
Court
Michele
Jean Way
Los Padres Boulevard
Peregrine Court
New
Hampton
Way
Hillsdale
Avenue
Meadow Avenue Carlysle Avenue
Roth Place
Madera
Drive
Robinson Avenue
Rebecca Lynn Way
Rutledge
Place
Lovell Place
Karina
Way
Lerwick Court
Wade Avenue
Valley
Court
Suntree Court
Soares Court
Granada
Court
Foley Avenue
Haines Place
Diane
Marie
Way
Teal Drive
Lyle
Court
Hastings
Court
Farmer
Place
Haight
Place
Miramesa
Court
Morales
Place
Miles Drive
Bella Vista Avenue
Andrea Place
Solano
Court
Colfax Court
Valeri
Ruth Court
Moonlite Place
Hayward Drive
Doon Court
Calabazas Court
Membrillo
Corte
Ball Place
Ball Place
Cotswald Court
Quercus
Court
Terstena Place
Sunset Drive
Redtail Court
Bryant Way
Miraverde Court
Ravizza Avenue
Mira
Alta
Drive
Holmes
Place
Peebles Place
Monterey
Court
Lawrence Place
Downing
Court
Thrush Court
Cozumel
Circle
Julie
Court
Emig
Court Christopher
Court
Ridge Court
Rosa
Court
Patricia Drive
Ridge Road
Castleton Way
Buckley
Street
Los Olivos Drive
James Court
De Varona Place
Starflower Court
Garner
Court
Barto Street
Wren
Court
Arroyo Drive
Hampton Knoll
Drive
Lansford
Place
Forbes Avenue
Lanark Court
Raney
Court
Lochness Court
Clair
Court
Katrine Court
Fairlane Avenue
Santa
Inez Court
Victoria Avenue
Adriatic
Way
Hood
Court
Royal Drive
Dallas
Court
Merced Court
Ralston Court
Withrow Place
Aza
Drive
Brady
Court
Santa
Rosa
Court
Graham Lane
San Tomas Expressway
Hobart Terrace
Kenyon Drive
Benton
Street
Princeton
Court
Redwood Avenue
Phillips Avenue Encina Way
Road Runner Terrace
Redwing Avenue
Webster
Court
Toledo Avenue
Partridge
Court
Purdue
Court
Peacock Court
Howell
Avenue
Sand
Piper
Court
Place
Kolb
Blackfield Court
Barcells Avenue
Cornell Drive
Rosa Avenue
Nobili Avenue
Jo Lane
Laurie
Nazareth Court
Bryant Way
Saint Lawrence Drive
Concord Lane
Princeton Way
Oxford Drive
Brannan
Place
Cherry
Lane
Kildare Avenue
Santa Cruz Avenue
Buchanan
Court
Cambridge Drive
Curtis Avenue
Benton
Street
Warbler
Way
Wallace Street
Stevenson Street
Golden State Drive
Hart Avenue
Serra Avenue
Durlane
Court
Caldwell
Place
Quail Avenue
Humbolt Avenue
Briarcliff
Court
Peacock Avenue
Lorne Way
Gloucester Court
Block Drive
Via Siena Place
Las Palmas Drive
Casa
Court
Rose Way
Clydebank
Court
Kay Drive
Susan Drive
Rose
Court
Swallow Way
Arlene Drive
Patricia Drive
Pomeroy
Avenue
Loyola
Court
Hampton
Brook
Drive
Dibble
Court
Anna Drive
Bing Drive
Shamrock Avenue
Swallow Drive
Sonoma Place
Harvard Avenue
Pacheco Street
Betty
Court
Bergin
Place
Barkley Avenue
Wehner
Drive
Amelia
Way
San Tomas Expressway
Granada
Avenue
Maryann Drive
Kensington
Avenue
Calabazas Boulevard
Wood
Duck
Court
Live Oak Drive
Calabazas Boulevard
Durham
Court
Firth
Court
Phillips
Court
Hamshire
Court
Benton
Court
Lawrence Road
Alpine Avenue
Moraga
Street
Wilson
Court
Marshall
Court
Cupples
Court
Starr
Court
Enos
Court
Columbus Place
Layton
Court
Hampton
Lake
Drive
Rogers
Court
Pritchard
Court
Benton
Street
El Sobrante Street
Kent
Avenue
Azevedo
Court
Kaiser
Drive
Hampton
Drive
Creek
Laguna
Court
Dominican Drive
Populus
Place
Bucher Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Shannon
Court
Sparrow
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Crosby
Court
Pepper Tree Lane
Natalie
Avenue
Thistle
Court
Perreira Drive
Jeffery
Court
Devos
Court
Dunford
Avenue
Buttitta
Lane
Quince Avenue
Pinto Palm Terrace
Rosalia
Avenue
Angelina
Drive
Thrush
Way
Cherry
Orchard
Place
Sprig Court
Sycamore
Terrace
Bancroft
Street
Jerald Avenue
Steinhart
Court
Ruth
Court
Kaiser Drive
Ramona
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Pepper
Tree Court
Tulane
Drive
Creekside
Place
Swift Court
Buckley Street
Castleton
Terrace
McPherson
Street
Salem Drive
Briarwood Drive
Dunford Way
Kerry Avenue
Snively
Avenue
Nicholson
Avenue
Waxwing Avenue
Malone Place
Yale Lane
East El Camino Real
Karmen
Court
Via Roma Place
Sunnydays
Lane
Gallatin Drive
Donovan Avenue
Poplar
Avenue
Mary
Vin
Lane
Valerian Way
Flannery Street
Hamilton Lane
Sumac
Drive
Fargher
Drive
London Avenue
Clara Vista Avenue
Wood Duck Avenue
Rockrose
Avenue
San Miguel Avenue
Carolyn Drive
Janice Drive
Baylor Drive
Salberg Avenue
Layton
Street
Marietta Drive
Via Torino
Place
Parrot Avenue
Harrison Street
Morton Avenue
Partridge
Avenue
Denise Drive
Woodhams Road
Dianne Drive
Laurel Drive
Via Dondera
Asbury Place
Fowler Avenue
Townsend Avenue
Sage Hen Way
Rayanna Avenue
Granada Avenue
Warbler Avenue
Madeline Lane
Vireo Avenue
Taper Avenue
Millar Avenue
Armanini Avenue
Tulip Drive
Apollo Place
Valley Way
Turnstone Way
Elizabeth Drive
Swallow Way
Thunderbird Avenue
Kennard Way
Kintyre Way
Leighton Way
Spoonbill Way
Santa Lucia Drive
Brookdale Drive
Capitola Way
Blossom
Drive
Flora Vista Avenue
Waterbird Way
Jones Avenue
Crowley Avenue
North Tantau Avenue
Barbara Drive
Rosalie Drive
Burbank Drive Hearth Place
Mark Avenue
Drive
Lillick
Bluebird Avenue
Austin Place
Larsen Place
Morse Lane
Oswald Place
Higgins Avenue
Franck Avenue
Laine Avenue
Scanlan Place
Karen Drive
Pomeroy Avenue
Menzel Place
Dixon Drive
Vanderbilt Way
East Homestead Road
Melody Lane
Alexander Avenue
Butte Street
San Marcos Way
Fresno Street
Roll Street
Arguello Place Eberhard Street Thompson Place Fatjo Place Raggio Avenue
Vargas Place
Castro Place
Menzel Place
Cunningham Street
Catalina Avenue
Forge Drive
Loma Alta Drive
Ryan Avenue
Loyola Drive
White Drive
Armstrong Place
Butcher Drive
Raggio Avenue
Johnson Place
Ramke Place
Forbes Avenue
Orthello Way
Shafer Drive
Blackfield Drive
Lawrence Expressway
Benton Street
Benton Street
Homestead Road
Homestead
Road
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
San Tomas Expressway
Benton Street
Lawrence Expressway
San Tomas Expressway
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Benton
Street
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Sanborn Map Company, Santa Clara County, Maxar

00 0.25 .51 Miles
3590 Benton Street Neighborhood Legend3590 Benton Street City of Santa Clara BoundaryCovenant House, Youth ShelterBella Vista Inn, Interim Housing (Limited Term)Salvation Army Citadel, Community Services SitePeacock Commons, Supportive Housing fortransitional age youthElementary SchoolMiddle SchoolMiddle and High SchoolHigh SchoolDaycare/PreschoolPrivate SchoolYouth Activity CenterGymnastic CenterLaurelwood Cabana ClubPlaygroundChurchMarket and Food AreaBus StopsShortest walking routes to Bus StopsParksBuffer 1/4 mile around the siteBuffer 1/2 mile around the siteBuffer 3/4 mile around the site Francis
Avenue
Ruth
Cabral
Way
Lochinvar Avenue
Mark Spitz Place
Willett
Place
Lillick Drive
East El Camino Real
Cabrillo Avenue
Lehigh Drive
Druffel
Place
Poplar Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Magdalena
Circle
Henderson Avenue
Sunnydays Lane
Morse Lane
Buchanan Drive
Bowe Avenue
Bowers Avenue
Hubbard
Avenue
Helen Avenue
Flora Vista Avenue
Cozumel
Circle
Tamarack Lane
Valerian
Court
Wisteria
Street
El Capitan
Avenue
Brothers Lane
Bond Place
Sherwin
Avenue
Bray Avenue
Gazdar
Court
Meyer Place
Holmes
Place
Giannini
Drive
Miramar Way Drive
Roble
Valeri
Ruth
Court
Bluebird
Avenue
Miles Court
Halford Avenue
Cork
Harbor
Court
Bella Vista Court
Forbes Court
Ball Place
Quintinia
Drive
Brach
Way
Rustic Drive
Sally Court
Poplar Court
Klamath
Avenue
Glenbar Avenue
Tulip Court
Marietta
Court
Cabrillo Avenue
Sarita Way
Inverness Way
Wren Avenue
Via Roma
Place
Rebeiro Avenue
Burnley Way
Eastin
Place
Oxford
Court
Michele
Jean Way
Los Padres Boulevard
Peregrine Court
New
Hampton
Way
Hillsdale
Avenue
Meadow Avenue Carlysle Avenue
Roth Place
Madera
Drive
Robinson Avenue
Rebecca Lynn Way
Rutledge
Place
Lovell Place
Karina
Way
Lerwick Court
Wade Avenue
Valley
Court
Suntree Court
Soares Court
Granada
Court
Foley Avenue
Haines Place
Diane
Marie
Way
Teal Drive
Lyle
Court
Hastings
Court
Farmer
Place
Haight
Place
Miramesa
Court
Morales
Place
Miles Drive
Bella Vista Avenue
Andrea Place
Solano
Court
Colfax Court
Valeri
Ruth Court
Moonlite Place
Hayward Drive
Doon Court
Calabazas Court
Membrillo
Corte
Ball Place
Ball Place
Cotswald Court
Quercus
Court
Terstena Place
Sunset Drive
Redtail Court
Bryant Way
Miraverde Court
Ravizza Avenue
Mira
Alta
Drive
Holmes
Place
Peebles Place
Monterey
Court
Lawrence Place
Downing
Court
Thrush Court
Cozumel
Circle
Julie
Court
Emig
Court Christopher
Court
Ridge Court
Rosa
Court
Patricia Drive
Ridge Road
Castleton Way
Buckley
Street
Los Olivos Drive
James Court
De Varona Place
Starflower Court
Garner
Court
Barto Street
Wren
Court
Arroyo Drive
Hampton Knoll
Drive
Lansford
Place
Forbes Avenue
Lanark Court
Raney
Court
Lochness Court
Clair
Court
Katrine Court
Fairlane Avenue
Santa
Inez Court
Victoria Avenue
Adriatic
Way
Hood
Court
Royal Drive
Dallas
Court
Merced Court
Ralston Court
Withrow Place
Aza
Drive
Brady
Court
Santa
Rosa
Court
Graham Lane
San Tomas Expressway
Hobart Terrace
Kenyon Drive
Benton
Street
Princeton
Court
Redwood Avenue
Phillips Avenue Encina Way
Road Runner Terrace
Redwing Avenue
Webster
Court
Toledo Avenue
Partridge
Court
Purdue
Court
Peacock Court
Howell
Avenue
Sand
Piper
Court
Place
Kolb
Blackfield Court
Barcells Avenue
Cornell Drive
Rosa Avenue
Nobili Avenue
Jo Lane
Laurie
Nazareth Court
Bryant Way
Saint Lawrence Drive
Concord Lane
Princeton Way
Oxford Drive
Brannan
Place
Cherry
Lane
Kildare Avenue
Santa Cruz Avenue
Buchanan
Court
Cambridge Drive
Curtis Avenue
Benton
Street
Warbler
Way
Wallace Street
Stevenson Street
Golden State Drive
Hart Avenue
Serra Avenue
Durlane
Court
Caldwell
Place
Quail Avenue
Humbolt Avenue
Briarcliff
Court
Peacock Avenue
Lorne Way
Gloucester Court
Block Drive
Via Siena Place
Las Palmas Drive
Casa
Court
Rose Way
Clydebank
Court
Kay Drive
Susan Drive
Rose
Court
Swallow Way
Arlene Drive
Patricia Drive
Pomeroy
Avenue
Loyola
Court
Hampton
Brook
Drive
Dibble
Court
Anna Drive
Bing Drive
Shamrock Avenue
Swallow Drive
Sonoma Place
Harvard Avenue
Pacheco Street
Betty
Court
Bergin
Place
Barkley Avenue
Wehner
Drive
Amelia
Way
San Tomas Expressway
Granada
Avenue
Maryann Drive
Kensington
Avenue
Calabazas Boulevard
Wood
Duck
Court
Live Oak Drive
Calabazas Boulevard
Durham
Court
Firth
Court
Phillips
Court
Hamshire
Court
Benton
Court
Lawrence Road
Alpine Avenue
Moraga
Street
Wilson
Court
Marshall
Court
Cupples
Court
Starr
Court
Enos
Court
Columbus Place
Layton
Court
Hampton
Lake
Drive
Rogers
Court
Pritchard
Court
Benton
Street
El Sobrante Street
Kent
Avenue
Azevedo
Court
Kaiser
Drive
Hampton
Drive
Creek
Laguna
Court
Dominican Drive
Populus
Place
Bucher Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Shannon
Court
Sparrow
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Crosby
Court
Pepper Tree Lane
Natalie
Avenue
Thistle
Court
Perreira Drive
Jeffery
Court
Devos
Court
Dunford
Avenue
Buttitta
Lane
Quince Avenue
Pinto Palm Terrace
Rosalia
Avenue
Angelina
Drive
Thrush
Way
Cherry
Orchard
Place
Sprig Court
Sycamore
Terrace
Bancroft
Street
Jerald Avenue
Steinhart
Court
Ruth
Court
Kaiser Drive
Ramona
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Pepper
Tree Court
Tulane
Drive
Creekside
Place
Swift Court
Buckley Street
Castleton
Terrace
McPherson
Street
Salem Drive
Briarwood Drive
Dunford Way
Kerry Avenue
Snively
Avenue
Nicholson
Avenue
Waxwing Avenue
Malone Place
Yale Lane
East El Camino Real
Karmen
Court
Via Roma Place
Sunnydays
Lane
Gallatin Drive
Donovan Avenue
Poplar
Avenue
Mary
Vin
Lane
Valerian Way
Flannery Street
Hamilton Lane
Sumac
Drive
Fargher
Drive
London Avenue
Clara Vista Avenue
Wood Duck Avenue
Rockrose
Avenue
San Miguel Avenue
Carolyn Drive
Janice Drive
Baylor Drive
Salberg Avenue
Layton
Street
Marietta Drive
Via Torino
Place
Parrot Avenue
Harrison Street
Morton Avenue
Partridge
Avenue
Denise Drive
Woodhams Road
Dianne Drive
Laurel Drive
Via Dondera
Asbury Place
Fowler Avenue
Townsend Avenue
Sage Hen Way
Rayanna Avenue
Granada Avenue
Warbler Avenue
Madeline Lane
Vireo Avenue
Taper Avenue
Millar Avenue
Armanini Avenue
Tulip Drive
Apollo Place
Valley Way
Turnstone Way
Elizabeth Drive
Swallow Way
Thunderbird Avenue
Kennard Way
Kintyre Way
Leighton Way
Spoonbill Way
Santa Lucia Drive
Brookdale Drive
Capitola Way
Blossom
Drive
Flora Vista Avenue
Waterbird Way
Jones Avenue
Crowley Avenue
North Tantau Avenue
Barbara Drive
Rosalie Drive
Burbank Drive Hearth Place
Mark Avenue
Drive
Lillick
Bluebird Avenue
Austin Place
Larsen Place
Morse Lane
Oswald Place
Higgins Avenue
Franck Avenue
Laine Avenue
Scanlan Place
Karen Drive
Pomeroy Avenue
Menzel Place
Dixon Drive
Vanderbilt Way
East Homestead Road
Melody Lane
Alexander Avenue
Butte Street
San Marcos Way
Fresno Street
Roll Street
Arguello Place Eberhard Street Thompson Place Fatjo Place Raggio Avenue
Vargas Place
Castro Place
Menzel Place
Cunningham Street
Catalina Avenue
Forge Drive
Loma Alta Drive
Ryan Avenue
Loyola Drive
White Drive
Armstrong Place
Butcher Drive
Raggio Avenue
Johnson Place
Ramke Place
Forbes Avenue
Orthello Way
Shafer Drive
Blackfield Drive
Lawrence Expressway
Benton Street
Benton Street
Homestead Road
Homestead
Road
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
San Tomas Expressway
Benton Street
Lawrence Expressway
San Tomas Expressway
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Benton
Street
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Santa Clara County, Maxar

00 0.25 .51 Miles
3590 Benton Street Neighborhood
Legend
3590 Benton StreetCity of Santa Clara BoundaryBus StopsShortest walking routes to Bus StopsBuffer 1/4 mile around the siteBuffer 1/2 mile around the siteBuffer 3/4 mile around the site Transportation
Francis
Avenue
Ruth
Cabral
Way
Lochinvar Avenue
Mark Spitz Place
Willett
Place
Lillick Drive
East El Camino Real
Cabrillo Avenue
Lehigh Drive
Druffel
Place
Poplar Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Magdalena
Circle
Henderson Avenue
Sunnydays Lane
Morse Lane
Buchanan Drive
Bowe Avenue
Bowers Avenue
Hubbard
Avenue
Helen Avenue
Flora Vista Avenue
Cozumel
Circle
Tamarack Lane
Valerian
Court
Wisteria
Street
El Capitan
Avenue
Brothers Lane
Bond Place
Sherwin
Avenue
Bray Avenue
Gazdar
Court
Meyer Place
Holmes
Place
Giannini
Drive
Miramar Way Drive
Roble
Valeri
Ruth
Court
Bluebird
Avenue
Miles Court
Halford Avenue
Cork
Harbor
Court
Bella Vista Court
Forbes Court
Ball Place
Quintinia
Drive
Brach
Way
Rustic Drive
Sally Court
Poplar Court
Klamath
Avenue
Glenbar Avenue
Tulip Court
Marietta
Court
Cabrillo Avenue
Sarita Way
Inverness Way
Wren Avenue
Via Roma
Place
Rebeiro Avenue
Burnley Way
Eastin
Place
Oxford
Court
Michele
Jean Way
Los Padres Boulevard
Peregrine Court
New
Hampton
Way
Hillsdale
Avenue
Meadow Avenue Carlysle Avenue
Roth Place
Madera
Drive
Robinson Avenue
Rebecca Lynn Way
Rutledge
Place
Lovell Place
Karina
Way
Lerwick Court
Wade Avenue
Valley
Court
Suntree Court
Soares Court
Granada
Court
Foley Avenue
Haines Place
Diane
Marie
Way
Teal Drive
Lyle
Court
Hastings
Court
Farmer
Place
Haight
Place
Miramesa
Court
Morales
Place
Miles Drive
Bella Vista Avenue
Andrea Place
Solano
Court
Colfax Court
Valeri
Ruth Court
Moonlite Place
Hayward Drive
Doon Court
Calabazas Court
Membrillo
Corte
Ball Place
Ball Place
Cotswald Court
Quercus
Court
Terstena Place
Sunset Drive
Redtail Court
Bryant Way
Miraverde Court
Ravizza Avenue
Mira
Alta
Drive
Holmes
Place
Peebles Place
Monterey
Court
Lawrence Place
Downing
Court
Thrush Court
Cozumel
Circle
Julie
Court
Emig
Court Christopher
Court
Ridge Court
Rosa
Court
Patricia Drive
Ridge Road
Castleton Way
Buckley
Street
Los Olivos Drive
James Court
De Varona Place
Starflower Court
Garner
Court
Barto Street
Wren
Court
Arroyo Drive
Hampton Knoll
Drive
Lansford
Place
Forbes Avenue
Lanark Court
Raney
Court
Lochness Court
Clair
Court
Katrine Court
Fairlane Avenue
Santa
Inez Court
Victoria Avenue
Adriatic
Way
Hood
Court
Royal Drive
Dallas
Court
Merced Court
Ralston Court
Withrow Place
Aza
Drive
Brady
Court
Santa
Rosa
Court
Graham Lane
San Tomas Expressway
Hobart Terrace
Kenyon Drive
Benton
Street
Princeton
Court
Redwood Avenue
Phillips Avenue Encina Way
Road Runner Terrace
Redwing Avenue
Webster
Court
Toledo Avenue
Partridge
Court
Purdue
Court
Peacock Court
Howell
Avenue
Sand
Piper
Court
Place
Kolb
Blackfield Court
Barcells Avenue
Cornell Drive
Rosa Avenue
Nobili Avenue
Jo Lane
Laurie
Nazareth Court
Bryant Way
Saint Lawrence Drive
Concord Lane
Princeton Way
Oxford Drive
Brannan
Place
Cherry
Lane
Kildare Avenue
Santa Cruz Avenue
Buchanan
Court
Cambridge Drive
Curtis Avenue
Benton
Street
Warbler
Way
Wallace Street
Stevenson Street
Golden State Drive
Hart Avenue
Serra Avenue
Durlane
Court
Caldwell
Place
Quail Avenue
Humbolt Avenue
Briarcliff
Court
Peacock Avenue
Lorne Way
Gloucester Court
Block Drive
Via Siena Place
Las Palmas Drive
Casa
Court
Rose Way
Clydebank
Court
Kay Drive
Susan Drive
Rose
Court
Swallow Way
Arlene Drive
Patricia Drive
Pomeroy
Avenue
Loyola
Court
Hampton
Brook
Drive
Dibble
Court
Anna Drive
Bing Drive
Shamrock Avenue
Swallow Drive
Sonoma Place
Harvard Avenue
Pacheco Street
Betty
Court
Bergin
Place
Barkley Avenue
Wehner
Drive
Amelia
Way
San Tomas Expressway
Granada
Avenue
Maryann Drive
Kensington
Avenue
Calabazas Boulevard
Wood
Duck
Court
Live Oak Drive
Calabazas Boulevard
Durham
Court
Firth
Court
Phillips
Court
Hamshire
Court
Benton
Court
Lawrence Road
Alpine Avenue
Moraga
Street
Wilson
Court
Marshall
Court
Cupples
Court
Starr
Court
Enos
Court
Columbus Place
Layton
Court
Hampton
Lake
Drive
Rogers
Court
Pritchard
Court
Benton
Street
El Sobrante Street
Kent
Avenue
Azevedo
Court
Kaiser
Drive
Hampton
Drive
Creek
Laguna
Court
Dominican Drive
Populus
Place
Bucher Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Shannon
Court
Sparrow
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Crosby
Court
Pepper Tree Lane
Natalie
Avenue
Thistle
Court
Perreira Drive
Jeffery
Court
Devos
Court
Dunford
Avenue
Buttitta
Lane
Quince Avenue
Pinto Palm Terrace
Rosalia
Avenue
Angelina
Drive
Thrush
Way
Cherry
Orchard
Place
Sprig Court
Sycamore
Terrace
Bancroft
Street
Jerald Avenue
Steinhart
Court
Ruth
Court
Kaiser Drive
Ramona
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Pepper
Tree Court
Tulane
Drive
Creekside
Place
Swift Court
Buckley Street
Castleton
Terrace
McPherson
Street
Salem Drive
Briarwood Drive
Dunford Way
Kerry Avenue
Snively
Avenue
Nicholson
Avenue
Waxwing Avenue
Malone Place
Yale Lane
East El Camino Real
Karmen
Court
Via Roma Place
Sunnydays
Lane
Gallatin Drive
Donovan Avenue
Poplar
Avenue
Mary
Vin
Lane
Valerian Way
Flannery Street
Hamilton Lane
Sumac
Drive
Fargher
Drive
London Avenue
Clara Vista Avenue
Wood Duck Avenue
Rockrose
Avenue
San Miguel Avenue
Carolyn Drive
Janice Drive
Baylor Drive
Salberg Avenue
Layton
Street
Marietta Drive
Via Torino
Place
Parrot Avenue
Harrison Street
Morton Avenue
Partridge
Avenue
Denise Drive
Woodhams Road
Dianne Drive
Laurel Drive
Via Dondera
Asbury Place
Fowler Avenue
Townsend Avenue
Sage Hen Way
Rayanna Avenue
Granada Avenue
Warbler Avenue
Madeline Lane
Vireo Avenue
Taper Avenue
Millar Avenue
Armanini Avenue
Tulip Drive
Apollo Place
Valley Way
Turnstone Way
Elizabeth Drive
Swallow Way
Thunderbird Avenue
Kennard Way
Kintyre Way
Leighton Way
Spoonbill Way
Santa Lucia Drive
Brookdale Drive
Capitola Way
Blossom
Drive
Flora Vista Avenue
Waterbird Way
Jones Avenue
Crowley Avenue
North Tantau Avenue
Barbara Drive
Rosalie Drive
Burbank Drive Hearth Place
Mark Avenue
Drive
Lillick
Bluebird Avenue
Austin Place
Larsen Place
Morse Lane
Oswald Place
Higgins Avenue
Franck Avenue
Laine Avenue
Scanlan Place
Karen Drive
Pomeroy Avenue
Menzel Place
Dixon Drive
Vanderbilt Way
East Homestead Road
Melody Lane
Alexander Avenue
Butte Street
San Marcos Way
Fresno Street
Roll Street
Arguello Place Eberhard Street Thompson Place Fatjo Place Raggio Avenue
Vargas Place
Castro Place
Menzel Place
Cunningham Street
Catalina Avenue
Forge Drive
Loma Alta Drive
Ryan Avenue
Loyola Drive
White Drive
Armstrong Place
Butcher Drive
Raggio Avenue
Johnson Place
Ramke Place
Forbes Avenue
Orthello Way
Shafer Drive
Blackfield Drive
Lawrence Expressway
Benton Street
Benton Street
Homestead Road
Homestead
Road
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
San Tomas Expressway
Benton Street
Lawrence Expressway
San Tomas Expressway
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Benton
Street
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Sanborn Map Company, Santa Clara County, Maxar

00 0.25 .51 Miles
3590 Benton Street Neighborhood
Legend
3590 Benton StreetCity of Santa Clara BoundaryElementary SchoolMiddle SchoolMiddle and High SchoolHigh SchoolDaycare/PreschoolPrivate SchoolYouth Activity CenterGymnastic CenterLaurelwood Cabana ClubPlaygroundChurchMarket and Food AreaParksBuffer 1/4 mile around the siteBuffer 1/2 mile around the siteBuffer 3/4 mile around the site Proximity toschools, daycare,parks, playgrounds
Francis
Avenue
Ruth
Cabral
Way
Lochinvar Avenue
Mark Spitz Place
Willett
Place
Lillick Drive
East El Camino Real
Cabrillo Avenue
Lehigh Drive
Druffel
Place
Poplar Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Magdalena
Circle
Henderson Avenue
Sunnydays Lane
Morse Lane
Buchanan Drive
Bowe Avenue
Bowers Avenue
Hubbard
Avenue
Helen Avenue
Flora Vista Avenue
Cozumel
Circle
Tamarack Lane
Valerian
Court
Wisteria
Street
El Capitan
Avenue
Brothers Lane
Bond Place
Sherwin
Avenue
Bray Avenue
Gazdar
Court
Meyer Place
Holmes
Place
Giannini
Drive
Miramar Way Drive
Roble
Valeri
Ruth
Court
Bluebird
Avenue
Miles Court
Halford Avenue
Cork
Harbor
Court
Bella Vista Court
Forbes Court
Ball Place
Quintinia
Drive
Brach
Way
Rustic Drive
Sally Court
Poplar Court
Klamath
Avenue
Glenbar Avenue
Tulip Court
Marietta
Court
Cabrillo Avenue
Sarita Way
Inverness Way
Wren Avenue
Via Roma
Place
Rebeiro Avenue
Burnley Way
Eastin
Place
Oxford
Court
Michele
Jean Way
Los Padres Boulevard
Peregrine Court
New
Hampton
Way
Hillsdale
Avenue
Meadow Avenue Carlysle Avenue
Roth Place
Madera
Drive
Robinson Avenue
Rebecca Lynn Way
Rutledge
Place
Lovell Place
Karina
Way
Lerwick Court
Wade Avenue
Valley
Court
Suntree Court
Soares Court
Granada
Court
Foley Avenue
Haines Place
Diane
Marie
Way
Teal Drive
Lyle
Court
Hastings
Court
Farmer
Place
Haight
Place
Miramesa
Court
Morales
Place
Miles Drive
Bella Vista Avenue
Andrea Place
Solano
Court
Colfax Court
Valeri
Ruth Court
Moonlite Place
Hayward Drive
Doon Court
Calabazas Court
Membrillo
Corte
Ball Place
Ball Place
Cotswald Court
Quercus
Court
Terstena Place
Sunset Drive
Redtail Court
Bryant Way
Miraverde Court
Ravizza Avenue
Mira
Alta
Drive
Holmes
Place
Peebles Place
Monterey
Court
Lawrence Place
Downing
Court
Thrush Court
Cozumel
Circle
Julie
Court
Emig
Court Christopher
Court
Ridge Court
Rosa
Court
Patricia Drive
Ridge Road
Castleton Way
Buckley
Street
Los Olivos Drive
James Court
De Varona Place
Starflower Court
Garner
Court
Barto Street
Wren
Court
Arroyo Drive
Hampton Knoll
Drive
Lansford
Place
Forbes Avenue
Lanark Court
Raney
Court
Lochness Court
Clair
Court
Katrine Court
Fairlane Avenue
Santa
Inez Court
Victoria Avenue
Adriatic
Way
Hood
Court
Royal Drive
Dallas
Court
Merced Court
Ralston Court
Withrow Place
Aza
Drive
Brady
Court
Santa
Rosa
Court
Graham Lane
San Tomas Expressway
Hobart Terrace
Kenyon Drive
Benton
Street
Princeton
Court
Redwood Avenue
Phillips Avenue Encina Way
Road Runner Terrace
Redwing Avenue
Webster
Court
Toledo Avenue
Partridge
Court
Purdue
Court
Peacock Court
Howell
Avenue
Sand
Piper
Court
Place
Kolb
Blackfield Court
Barcells Avenue
Cornell Drive
Rosa Avenue
Nobili Avenue
Jo Lane
Laurie
Nazareth Court
Bryant Way
Saint Lawrence Drive
Concord Lane
Princeton Way
Oxford Drive
Brannan
Place
Cherry
Lane
Kildare Avenue
Santa Cruz Avenue
Buchanan
Court
Cambridge Drive
Curtis Avenue
Benton
Street
Warbler
Way
Wallace Street
Stevenson Street
Golden State Drive
Hart Avenue
Serra Avenue
Durlane
Court
Caldwell
Place
Quail Avenue
Humbolt Avenue
Briarcliff
Court
Peacock Avenue
Lorne Way
Gloucester Court
Block Drive
Via Siena Place
Las Palmas Drive
Casa
Court
Rose Way
Clydebank
Court
Kay Drive
Susan Drive
Rose
Court
Swallow Way
Arlene Drive
Patricia Drive
Pomeroy
Avenue
Loyola
Court
Hampton
Brook
Drive
Dibble
Court
Anna Drive
Bing Drive
Shamrock Avenue
Swallow Drive
Sonoma Place
Harvard Avenue
Pacheco Street
Betty
Court
Bergin
Place
Barkley Avenue
Wehner
Drive
Amelia
Way
San Tomas Expressway
Granada
Avenue
Maryann Drive
Kensington
Avenue
Calabazas Boulevard
Wood
Duck
Court
Live Oak Drive
Calabazas Boulevard
Durham
Court
Firth
Court
Phillips
Court
Hamshire
Court
Benton
Court
Lawrence Road
Alpine Avenue
Moraga
Street
Wilson
Court
Marshall
Court
Cupples
Court
Starr
Court
Enos
Court
Columbus Place
Layton
Court
Hampton
Lake
Drive
Rogers
Court
Pritchard
Court
Benton
Street
El Sobrante Street
Kent
Avenue
Azevedo
Court
Kaiser
Drive
Hampton
Drive
Creek
Laguna
Court
Dominican Drive
Populus
Place
Bucher Avenue
Warburton Avenue
Shannon
Court
Sparrow
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Crosby
Court
Pepper Tree Lane
Natalie
Avenue
Thistle
Court
Perreira Drive
Jeffery
Court
Devos
Court
Dunford
Avenue
Buttitta
Lane
Quince Avenue
Pinto Palm Terrace
Rosalia
Avenue
Angelina
Drive
Thrush
Way
Cherry
Orchard
Place
Sprig Court
Sycamore
Terrace
Bancroft
Street
Jerald Avenue
Steinhart
Court
Ruth
Court
Kaiser Drive
Ramona
Court
Pomeroy
Avenue
Pepper
Tree Court
Tulane
Drive
Creekside
Place
Swift Court
Buckley Street
Castleton
Terrace
McPherson
Street
Salem Drive
Briarwood Drive
Dunford Way
Kerry Avenue
Snively
Avenue
Nicholson
Avenue
Waxwing Avenue
Malone Place
Yale Lane
East El Camino Real
Karmen
Court
Via Roma Place
Sunnydays
Lane
Gallatin Drive
Donovan Avenue
Poplar
Avenue
Mary
Vin
Lane
Valerian Way
Flannery Street
Hamilton Lane
Sumac
Drive
Fargher
Drive
London Avenue
Clara Vista Avenue
Wood Duck Avenue
Rockrose
Avenue
San Miguel Avenue
Carolyn Drive
Janice Drive
Baylor Drive
Salberg Avenue
Layton
Street
Marietta Drive
Via Torino
Place
Parrot Avenue
Harrison Street
Morton Avenue
Partridge
Avenue
Denise Drive
Woodhams Road
Dianne Drive
Laurel Drive
Via Dondera
Asbury Place
Fowler Avenue
Townsend Avenue
Sage Hen Way
Rayanna Avenue
Granada Avenue
Warbler Avenue
Madeline Lane
Vireo Avenue
Taper Avenue
Millar Avenue
Armanini Avenue
Tulip Drive
Apollo Place
Valley Way
Turnstone Way
Elizabeth Drive
Swallow Way
Thunderbird Avenue
Kennard Way
Kintyre Way
Leighton Way
Spoonbill Way
Santa Lucia Drive
Brookdale Drive
Capitola Way
Blossom
Drive
Flora Vista Avenue
Waterbird Way
Jones Avenue
Crowley Avenue
North Tantau Avenue
Barbara Drive
Rosalie Drive
Burbank Drive Hearth Place
Mark Avenue
Drive
Lillick
Bluebird Avenue
Austin Place
Larsen Place
Morse Lane
Oswald Place
Higgins Avenue
Franck Avenue
Laine Avenue
Scanlan Place
Karen Drive
Pomeroy Avenue
Menzel Place
Dixon Drive
Vanderbilt Way
East Homestead Road
Melody Lane
Alexander Avenue
Butte Street
San Marcos Way
Fresno Street
Roll Street
Arguello Place Eberhard Street Thompson Place Fatjo Place Raggio Avenue
Vargas Place
Castro Place
Menzel Place
Cunningham Street
Catalina Avenue
Forge Drive
Loma Alta Drive
Ryan Avenue
Loyola Drive
White Drive
Armstrong Place
Butcher Drive
Raggio Avenue
Johnson Place
Ramke Place
Forbes Avenue
Orthello Way
Shafer Drive
Blackfield Drive
Lawrence Expressway
Benton Street
Benton Street
Homestead Road
Homestead
Road
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
San Tomas Expressway
Benton Street
Lawrence Expressway
San Tomas Expressway
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Benton
Street
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Kiely Boulevard
Homestead Road
Santa Clara County, Maxar

00 0.25 .51 Miles
3590 Benton Street Neighborhood
Legend
3590 Benton StreetCity of Santa Clara BoundaryCovenant House, Youth ShelterBella Vista Inn, Interim Housing (Limited Term)Salvation Army Citadel, Community Services SitePeacock Commons, Supportive Housing fortransitional age youthShortest walking routes to Bus StopsBuffer 1/4 mile around the siteBuffer 1/2 mile around the siteBuffer 3/4 mile around the site Nearby Interim/Supportive Housing/Emergency Shelter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 4. PERCENTAGE CHANGE
NOMINAL GDP, 2014–2020

28.8%

17.6%

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

NOMINAL GDP
-1.5% -2.4%

11.6%

9.8%

CALIFORNIA ALL OTHER STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda
(4/4/23) • Our Current State: Division between
County/City and Residents
• Working Together: Understanding the life
cycle of homelessness and how we can
work together • Residents’ Recommendation for
Lawrence/Benton Site

Thank You!
References
• The country is watching (https://khn.org/news/article/california-homeless-crisis-governor-gavin-newsom-political-future) • Project Homekey (https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc) • 2022 PIT Report Santa Clara County (https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/2022%20PIT%20Report%20Santa%20Clara%20County.pdf) • California Spending on Homelessness (3 years) – Feb 2023 (https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report) • LifeMoves Mountain View article (https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report) • ASHADEEP: Rehabilitation of homeless with mental illness (https://www.ashadeepindia.org/rehabilitation-of-homeless-persons-with-mental-illness) • Addiction and Homelessness (https://socalsunrise.com/addiction-and-homelessness)

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

the Benton project's viability.

Regards,
Howard

From:

To:

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

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

Gaby Gemetti
From:

To:

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

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

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

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.

Sincerely,
Wu Wen
From:

To:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Jacob

programs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

homeless being housed in their shelter as of 2022. Moreover, a liquor store is just across the street, which may worsen the symptoms and increase likelihood of violent behaviors of those with mental illnesses and drug issues who frequently consume alcohol.

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

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

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

Pedestrian paths in every direction.

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

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.

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention,
Cindy
From:

To:

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

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

Regards
Venkat Akileshwaran
From:

To:

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

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

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

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

Thanks
Punit
President and Chairman
California Supportive Housing

From:

To:

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

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

Thanks,
Asha DuMonthier

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

3. Safety & Security (of clients): The residents, including me, are not at all satisfied by a lack of any acknowledgement by the county that the site has some inherent dangers for its clients. Understanding that some of the clients may not yet have been rehabilitated, when they initially get housing here, there were several open questions around their safety or impact to safety of others due to them:

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

4. Budget:

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

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

Add background checks (for anyone considered to be housed in a residential neighborhood)
Alternative plan for Benton
A majority of residents would like 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

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’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,
Pushpanjali S,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

Budget:

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

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

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

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

WIth regards,
Rachna Lal
Resident of Neighborhood

on market data. Moreover, the comparison should be done for similar interim housing (one that’s proposed for Lawrence/Benton) in a similar neighborhood (similarity in number of schools, proximity to residences).

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Santosh Singh,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

due to them:

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

4. Budget:

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

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

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,
Divyashree Ramesh,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

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)
We already have Bella Vista Inn right next to this area opened up. Why are we not distributing the homeless shelters across other areas of the county ? We have cities around here which have none.

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

I’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,
Sonia Singhal,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Helen Zong
--
Sincerely,
Sharon

https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-findstable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont From:

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincere,
Household and house owner of .

Ethan Chou

us, we'd be able to tackle the issue of the housing crisis for low income households along with tackling homelessness jointly, without compromising on the safety of your residents.

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

We need your support in making safety the topmost priority.

Regards,
Ashish
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

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

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

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

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,
Anupama T
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From:

To:

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

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

To:

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is common sense, but the article tells all.

Please do not approve of any contract with Life Moves at Benton and Lawrence.

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

To:

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

Best,
Chantal
From:

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

From:

To:

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From:

To:

Cc:

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

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

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

From:

To:

Subject: Homeless Low Barrier Housing @ Benton /Lawrence.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From:

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

← All documents from this meeting