RTC 23-591 Part 3 — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, October 29, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

8. Mental illness will not be scary only when treated in professional medical facilities with appropriate sta
ﬃ
ng ratios. California law requires a minimum 1:6
nurse/patient ratio for psychiatric units. LifeMoves' proposed shelter, with 120+ mentally ill patients to 1 vocational nurse, is far from meeting this standard. This sta
ﬃ
ng inadequacy raises serious safety concerns, as untreated or inadequately treated mental health issues, combined with drug addiction and alcohol problems, could pose signi
ﬁ
cant risks to the community.

9. Situations can worsen rapidly, as evidenced by San Francisco's fast decline. Be proactive in preventing the city of Santa Clara from experiencing a similar fate by critically examining the proposed shelter's potential impact on the community, safety, and quality of life. The consequences of inaction or accepting a ﬂ
awed
proposal could be far-reaching and long-lasting.

10. The term "homeless" or “unhoused” is a super
ﬁ
cial description that wrongly
groups mentally ill, addicted, and criminal individuals with law-abiding citizens who have lost their homes. Housing alone cannot solve crime or heal patients.

SafeSCC urges the city council to consider these 10 points and demand clear answers and transparency from the county and LifeMoves before making any decisions regarding the Benton shelter proposal. The safety and well-being of our community and of the city are at stake.

T en Reasons Why Everyone Should
Oppose Benton Shelter, with Data
Prepared by SafeSCC
1) 80% - 95% local residents strongly oppose Benton shelter : Live poll in the 4th community meeting showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher.
2) Benton location is one of the last few bustling community hubs :
3,000+ local families visit Benton land every year for holiday events, making it an irreplaceable community and family tradition.
3) Low barrier with minimum screening for occupants. 90% have drug addiction, 57% serious mental illness, many with criminal records, coming from jails. Sex offenders allowed. Benton shelter will be located at the center of over 11,000 school kids and families, putting their everyday life at high risk. 4) Striking crime statistics at similar sites at Milpitas and MTV: In Milpitas, total police calls increased by 300%. Mountain View LifeMoves, police calls have risen from 3 in 2019/2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022
5) Second shelter in the same neighborhood: Bella Vista, opened only 0.5 miles away from Benton last month and police have already been burned out by the higher-than-normal crime calls they received.
6) High operation cost and unreliable LifeMoves’ budget estimate :
$4.3 million operation cost each year paid to LifeMoves.

LifeMoves’ Palo Alto construction cost doubled from $17 to $34 million just one year after its approval, making it di
ﬃ
cult to trust
LifeMoves.
7) Critical shortage of staff and licensed nurses : State law requires

a 1:6 nurse-patient ratio in a psychiatric unit, but LifeMoves recommends only one vocational nurse for 120+ serious mental health patients onsite.
8) Unquali
ﬁ
ed staff and failed operation: 4 directors shu
ﬄ
ed in just
2 years of operation at LifeMoves MTV , plus case managers and supportive services missing. The 26% success rate of tenants getting permanent housing ranked the second lowest in the county.
9) Location selection is far from public transit (1 mile), grocery (0.9 mile) and jobs.
10) False and misleading data from county i n all four community meetings: leaving 500+ community questions unanswered to date.

4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients ﬁnd stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-ﬁnd-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 1/6 LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless
clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't
The governor wants to replicate its model across the state, but client testimony and county data show it hasn't been working well
by Magali Gauthier and Malea Martin / Mountain View Voice Uploaded: Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 9:42 am
On a sunny summer day, 61-year-old Brigitte Barron parked her Toyota 4Runner under a tree at Greer Park in Palo Alto. The trunk is packed to the brim with Barron's belongings. Her two service dogs, Dolce and Gabbana, let out shrill yips anytime another creature strolls by.

Just five months earlier, she was living in a coveted unit at LifeMoves Mountain View, an interim shelter program that aims to get clients housed in three to four months. But Barron never found stable housing while staying at LifeMoves. She eventually left the program and went back to sleeping in her car.

When LifeMoves Mountain View
opened in 2021, it was a monumental milestone for the Menlo Park-based nonprofit: The site's 100 modular units were built from the ground up and launched in less than a year. The program has the capacity to serve 124 people, making it one of LifeMoves' largest shelters. The nonprofit operates more than a dozen programs across Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, including Haven Family House in Menlo Park, the Opportunity Services Center in Palo Alto and the Redwood Family House in Redwood City.
"I would say that there's a lot of excitement and pride within the city about how quickly this was rolled out," former Mountain View City Council member Sally Lieber told this news organization.

The speed at which the modular project got people off the street and into shelter beds caught Gov. Gavin Newsom's eye: He called for the model to be replicated across the state. In addition to the interim shelter, the LifeMoves Mountain View model promises its residents case management and customized support to find housing.

But after interviewing more than 15 former and current residents, as well as reviewing Mountain View city staff emails, court documents, police reports and program exit data, this news organization found that LifeMoves Mountain View struggles to keep its promises.

Former staff and homeless residents, referred to as clients, say the program's opening was rushed, with LifeMoves opening before a director was in place and failing to hire enough case managers. Multiple clients said they never received specialized support in their search for housing, their grievances went unheard, and that conflict was mishandled by both program directors and staff.

LifeMoves has partnered with the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose to build two more sites emulating Mountain View's. Yet, according to county data, the program is far from living up to the expectations heralded at its opening: LifeMoves Mountain View places clients in permanent housing at a significantly lower rate than other interim shelter programs in the county, ranking close to the bottom. 'Housing is a partnership'
The majority of LifeMoves' shelters along the Peninsula and in the South Bay cater to specific populations, like veterans or single women. But the Mountain View program serves a range of clients with unique needs, from seniors living on fixed incomes and teenagers in high school, to single parents with young children, domestic violence survivors and adult couples who have lost their jobs and homes.

Located at 2566 Leghorn St., the site was made possible by a $14.4 million Homekey grant, a state program launched during the COVID-19 pandemic that provides funds to local public agencies to buy hotels and other properties to house people experiencing homelessness. Between land acquisition and construction, the project cost $25 million. The Mountain View program offers clients a private room and supportive services to help them secure permanent housing in just three to four months. LifeMoves said there's an option for residents to extend their stay by two weeks at a time if they don't find housing after four months.

A key piece of the model is meeting with a housing specialist provided by LifeMoves, who has the training and resources to help clients find homes. But out of the 18 clients this news organization interviewed, the majority said they did not meet with a housing specialist and most did not find housing with the help of the program.

Barron said it took two months for a housing specialist to give her a call when she was at LifeMoves Mountain View. "Most of (the apartments), the waiting list was closed or was too expensive," Barron said of those that the housing specialist suggested.

When she was interviewed last July, Barron was back to sleeping in her car after living at the site for four months — and she wasn't the only one. At least six clients reporters spoke to were living in vehicles after participating in the program.

When asked why some clients never get to see a housing specialist, LifeMoves Vice President Brian Greenberg said that not every client is ready to see one when they enter the program. He said that every client is assigned a case manager, but housing specialists are only called in when a client is ready.
"Nothing makes us happier than if someone comes in one day, and a few days later they have the wherewithal and the access to resources to get into housing," Greenberg said. "If it was a simple thing, there wouldn't be that challenge. So I can't address individual complaints, but getting people housing is a partnership, and we do our best to hold up our end of the partnership."

Mathangani left LifeMoves Mountain View after receiving a notice that her time was up. She said she didn't bother filing an extension after being asked to leave.
"I felt like my case manager was betraying me," she said. "She had made me a promise and said, 'I'm not going to ask you to leave until we figure this out.'"
Clients are asked to fill out extension forms every two weeks and document what they're doing to work toward housing. According to LifeMoves leadership, the extensions are almost always granted if the resident is safe in the facility and working toward securing stable housing.

After moving in, each person receives a customized plan from a case manager that establishes goals and tasks for housing, employment, finance, health and education, according to a sample case plan the organization shared. Case managers are there to help connect clients with resources and get them closer to securing permanent housing, as well as give referrals to the housing specialists.

Former client Lily moved into LifeMoves in January 2022. She said shortly into her stay her case manager quit, leaving her without any case management services for about a month.
"They're supposed to be helping people find housing," Lily said. "I was there for over three months and I never saw a housing specialist.

Never once did I get an appointment with one. I emailed, and I called, and I did everything I could to get in contact." When she left the program in April, she wrote an email to her case manager that she shared with this news organization, stating that she did not receive any support to find housing in the three months she was there. She said she never received a response from LifeMoves.

Reporters agreed to use a pseudonym for Lily, a request made by many of the clients interviewed. Sources who are referred to by a first name only in this story, unless otherwise stated, are using a pseudonym.

Staffing challenges
Emmanuel, a teenager and former LifeMoves Mountain View client, said his experience was positive when he first arrived at the shelter.

He quickly made a few friends and grew close to his case manager. "(She) was the best kid case manager I've had," said Emmanuel. "She was really outgoing. She made all the kids feel like that was their home. She had a lot of activities during the holidays and everything." But Emmanuel said his case manager eventually told him she was quitting because she had too much on her plate. "When she quit, none of the kids had anybody for a while," Emmanuel said.

Greenberg acknowledged staffing is a challenge for LifeMoves, as is the case at many homeless services organizations. "People can't afford to live on the Peninsula or in Silicon Valley," he said. "We have staff coming in from Manteca and Livermore and south of Gilroy, all over the East Bay."
Greenberg said the organization aims to employ one case manager for every 17 single adults living at the site. For families, the goal is about 12 to 14 families per case manager. There's also a children-focused case manager, housing specialists, benefits specialists and vocational specialists employed by LifeMoves, as well as a full-time licensed vocational nurse on-site. If clients aren't already connected with mental health care in the community, they can access care on-site through graduate-level interns pursuing degrees in psychology or social work, Greenberg said.

Former LifeMoves case manager Grace, whose name this news organization agreed to change for this story, said in an interview that she and other staff members were often overwhelmed by their caseloads. "We needed to have at least one or two, maybe three additional case managers on-site," Grace said.

Patterns of mismanagement alleged
Greenberg said that, staffing challenges aside, anyone hired at LifeMoves goes through "intensive onboarding regarding agency policy, boundaries, professionalism (and) de-escalation."
Grace said she received substantial training when she started at LifeMoves. But she found there was a disconnect between the training she received and the level of support required to implement it. When case managers needed to make referrals for their clients, for instance, Grace said it was unclear what support and resources staff had at their disposal. "That's probably where my disappointment came in," Grace said. "LifeMoves has been around for a while, and they've got many shelters and many sites and they're out there doing a lot of different things, but I guess it just seemed to be that each site kind of operated on its own."
Valentina Carrion, 44, who lived at LifeMoves from October 2021 to August 2022, said staffers were unequipped to handle the needs of their clients.
"I would make all the staff members have some kind of background or classes on mental illness," Carrion said, when asked what she would change about LifeMoves. "A lot of the mental illnesses were just thought of as people being lazy. … When you're homeless, you're going to have mental illnesses; you're going to have things because of trauma that you've experienced."

4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients ﬁnd stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-ﬁnd-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 3/6 Despite staff receiving de-escalation training, multiple current and former clients told this news organization that they got into altercations with staff, some of which turned physical. One former client said he was physically assaulted by LifeMoves Mountain View's first program director in December 2021. Court records corroborate his allegations. In June 2022, the district attorney charged the former director on suspicion of misdemeanor battery. There's an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office for the former director.

Citing confidentiality, Greenberg said in an interview that he could not comment on internal personnel matters but confirmed that the program's first director is no longer working for LifeMoves.

Multiple clients also trace their issues with the program back to the second director who took over after the first left.

Former client Lily said three men living at the site repeatedly sexually harassed her and that the harassers were permitted to stay in the program even after she brought it to the second program director's attention. "I don't feel safe," Lily wrote in an April 2022 email to her case manager, which she showed this news organization. "My interactions have ranged from inappropriate comments from intoxicated men to one of them kissing me without consent." LifeMoves Mountain View's community guidelines include a section outlining grounds for immediate discharge from the program.

Included in that list, in bold and underlined letters, is "absolutely no sexual harassment." When asked whether he knew of any unchecked sexual harassment cases at LifeMoves, Greenberg said he had not been made aware of any complaints.

Lily said she filed multiple written grievances with the program director at the time. "She said she would take care of it; it started up again; and that was kind of the theme," Lily said. "She would talk to them and they would leave me alone for a few days, and then we'd be right back to where we started." One of Lily's most persistent harassers was a client struggling with sobriety. The director told her she couldn't remove him from the program until he got his substance abuse issues under control, Lily said.

Greenberg confirmed in an interview in November that this director was also no longer with the LifeMoves Mountain View program, and instead was operating LifeMoves' Safe and Supportive Parking Program in Redwood City. He declined to comment on why and when she left the Mountain View program.
"We do tend to rotate around program directors," Greenberg said.

The former director did not respond to multiple attempts to contact her for comment and on Feb. 7, reporters received an automatic response from a LifeMoves email account stating that she was no longer with the nonprofit. LifeMoves Mountain View is currently on its third program director since opening nearly two years ago.

One model doesn't fit all
Adult residents in the program each live in their own unit, measuring 80 to 100 square feet, with 80 rooms for individuals and eight for couples. The rooms are just long enough to fit a bed with storage space underneath, as well as a desk and chair. They each have air conditioning, electricity, a window and a door with a lock.

A walkway through the adult units is dotted with bright planters filled with artificial flowers and leads to a communal area on the 1-acre site where clients are served three meals daily. Residents have access to an outdoor dining area, food storage, laundry machines, bathrooms and showers, a community room where classes are hosted, dog kennels, bike storage and supportive services offices.

There are 12 family units between the common area and Leghorn Street, each with its own bathroom. There's also a community room and a green-and-blue playground for children in this gated portion of the complex.

For those living in single or couple units, there are a handful of communal bathrooms and showers located in the common area, which the majority of clients said are dirty and a health hazard.

A current LifeMoves resident said they haven't showered at the site in half a year. Instead, they joined the Palo Alto Family YMCA for access to clean showers because they said the floor next to the showers at LifeMoves Mountain View were frequently flooded and that the curtains were often moldy.

Former client Lily reported to her case manager in an April 2022 email that bathrooms are frequently filthy. "The restrooms are disgusting, often smeared with feces, and urine is all over the toilets and floor," Lily's email reads. "I genuinely feel safer and cleaner in my car on the street."
When asked about the state of the bathrooms, LifeMoves said that "the facility does house clients with serious mental illness, who occasionally present challenges to shower and toilet facilities," adding that the organization "relies on both a professional janitorial service and client chores to keep bathrooms clean."
Homeless advocate Malia Pires from Reach Potential Movement said that, from her experience working with Mountain View's unhoused community, transitional housing programs like LifeMoves can be "a hard sell" for people who are used to controlling their own environment.
"They're downsizing, if they're living in an RV, into a smaller unit," Pires said of the LifeMoves program. "A big one that we hear, a reason people don't want to move into the program, is because they really want to be able to make their own food and have a greater measure of independence. And so they feel like they're going to be losing some of that if they move into the program." In addition to being assigned chores like cleaning bathrooms, clients must adhere to strict rules, including a nightly curfew, no visitors permitted in their rooms and only using plastic utensils during meals.

4/19/23, 1:33 PM LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients ﬁnd stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't | News | Palo Alto Online | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-ﬁnd-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 4/6 When commenting on LifeMoves Mountain View's approach to client safety, Greenberg said that the program caters to many different types of people.
"They're co-ed environments," Greenberg said. "The people that come in are frequently fragile, and as you can imagine, traumatized by years on the street."
For this reason, Greenberg said, certain rules must be in place and apply to everyone to ensure the facility is "completely safe for the most vulnerable residents at all times."
But for current client George, those rules make him feel stereotyped, as if being unhoused means he is "a violent criminal or a drug addict or capable of a suicide." But he said he follows the rules closely to keep a roof over his head. "The way the rules are set up, I would characterize my being here less as a client and more of an inmate," George said.

Income, a pivotal factor for success
Grace said some of her clients, especially those who had jobs, were able to find housing with the help of LifeMoves.

She said one client found part-time work at a Ross department store down the street from the site after being laid off. She started contributing to the housing fund LifeMoves maintained for her. Eventually, she got hired back at her old job and saved up enough to find permanent housing.

Carolyn, a former client, started her stay at LifeMoves in November 2021. She said LifeMoves gave her and her children a safe place after they escaped domestic violence.

When she came to the shelter, Carolyn said she already had a job and a good credit score. She just needed help finding housing she could afford as a single mom, with enough space to accommodate her kids.

Carolyn benefited from mental health therapy while she was at LifeMoves, which she called "the best I've ever received." She had a case manager as well as a housing specialist, whom she met with on a weekly basis and ended up helping her find the apartment she still lives in today.
"At times I felt like giving up," Carolyn said, who described sometimes seeing 20 apartments in one weekend. But having a housing specialist in her corner made it a lot easier.
"Feeling empowered and just having somebody guide you through all of this when you've never had to do it yourself, it really helped me not be so overwhelmed," she said.

But Carolyn said her stable job and a good credit score were also pivotal factors to finding housing. "Some people don't have that," Carolyn said. "(LifeMoves) can't turn your world or remove your trauma. They just provide the resources and you do what you can with them."
Greenberg acknowledged that when a client is dealing with underlying challenges, like poverty, trauma or mental health issues, it can be harder for them to find success with the program. But, he maintained, "We want to get people housed as quickly as possible, regardless of the challenges."
Yet Grace said sometimes those barriers become so high that they're insurmountable.

People need a stable income and savings to be approved for most housing, she said. But some clients may not physically be able to work. Others face mental health challenges that prevent them from holding down jobs, or are too elderly to work. Others are at risk of losing their Social Security benefits if their income gets too high. "Three-to-four-months, tops, is the goal for people to come in, kind of get settled, get situated, save their money," Grace said. "But the reality is not every client is going to fit that mold." By the numbers
While some residents are able to meet the goals of the program, the data shows that a majority of clients leave LifeMoves Mountain View without finding stable housing. Exactly how many is unclear because data provided by LifeMoves is not consistent with Santa Clara County data.

According to LifeMoves, out of 219 clients who exited the program, 95 individuals, or about 43%, transitioned into stable housing between the site's opening in May 2021 and the end of June 2022.

Data provided by Santa Clara County showed 281 clients exited the program between its opening and September 2022, and that only 73 individuals, or 26%, were placed in permanent housing.

LifeMoves attributes this discrepancy to differences in how the county and the nonprofit categorize their data and define stable housing, as well as the county data representing a slightly longer time frame. LifeMoves Director of Community Engagement & Public Affairs Ben Biscocho said some housing situations that are considered a "temporary destination" by the county may be considered "stable" by LifeMoves, such as people who stay with family or friends or go into residential treatment programs. "Although temporary, these exits reflect clients working towards stability through reconnecting with loved ones and sobriety, among other things," Biscocho said.

LifeMoves leadership added that across its 26 locations in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, families generally have a higher success rate in getting housed than single adults or couples. They said that "82% of our families and 65% of all clients engaged in supportive services" found stable housing but declined to specify how many people participated in those services. LifeMoves said it served over 7,000 clients in the 2021-22 fiscal year, agencywide.

Data discrepancies aside, the county's numbers also show that LifeMoves Mountain View's rate of getting clients into stable housing is significantly lower than similar programs in Santa Clara County.

At 26%, LifeMoves has the second lowest rate of individuals who exit to permanent housing out of eight noncongregate shelters identified in the county's dataset, which included Santa Clara County programs that utilize "tiny homes or similar models," such as converted hotels. The six shelters ahead of LifeMoves range from 41% to 70% of clients moving into permanent housing. The only program that performed below LifeMoves Mountain View in the county's dataset is the HomeFirst Bridge Housing Community program
on Felipe Avenue in San Jose, with 24% of clients exiting into permanent housing.

When asked about LifeMoves' relatively low success rate compared with other county programs, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian said it's "awfully tough to compare and contrast different shelters with different models and different populations in different communities."
"It's hard to make that apples-to-apples comparison," he said.

According to public records obtained by this news organization from the city of Mountain View, LifeMoves leadership is aware that the site's rate of getting clients into permanent housing is low. In an internal email, LifeMoves CEO Aubrey Merriman acknowledged concerns about how the Mountain View site was performing. That email was eventually forwarded to city staff, making it a public record.

After receiving
an email last May from a Mercury News reporter inquiring about LifeMoves' exit data and asking to interview program participants, CEO Merriman forwarded the email to LifeMoves leadership, warning that "there is always a risk involved when you put a microphone in front of a client," and that there was "additional risk that our Mountain View exit statistics might be a little underwhelming given the excitement and expectations attached to the site when it first opened." Merriman wrote, "I wouldn't be surprised if the subtle angle here is that (with) all this buzz about these modular projects the outcomes aren't dramatically better," adding, "I'm speculating here." Merriman did not agree to be interviewed for this story, despite more than a dozen requests made over the course of three months.

What comes next
Shortly after the Mountain View site opened in 2021,
Merriman said the nonprofit's long term vision is to have 10 interim shelter sites across the Bay Area, with an ultimate goal of solving the region's homelessness crisis. The nonprofit created a playbook that outlines how it developed and built LifeMoves Mountain View, and how other jurisdictions can do the same in their communities.

LifeMoves currently plans to open at least three more interim modular shelters modeled after the Mountain View site. The nonprofit has partnered with the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose, with plans to use $78.1 million in Homekey funds this year to build two more interim housing communities, totaling 292 units.

LifeMoves leadership told this news organization that one lesson they've learned from the Mountain View site is that it's better to build up: The organization is planning a three-story shelter in Palo Alto, leaving more open space for residents, whereas the Mountain View shelter is constructed as a single-story facility. Though the shelter was initially estimated to cost around $17.6 million, that figure has incrementally increased, most recently to about $32 million for construction alone.

LifeMoves, the city of Redwood City and San Mateo County are also close to completing a 240-unit, modular, multi-story navigation center on 2.5 acres of land that broke ground last April. The project received $55.3 million in Homekey funds from the state.

Santa Clara County and LifeMoves are also proposing an interim shelter site using Homekey funds in the city of Santa Clara. That project is still going through the public input process and hasn't been approved yet.

Meanwhile, Mountain View and Santa Clara County continue to fund the existing LifeMoves Mountain View program, each pledging $2.4 million for operational costs over the next two years.

Former case manager Grace said the lack of affordable housing in Mountain View and the greater Bay Area was a major hurdle to her ability to help clients succeed. For clients who were unemployed, she cobbled together various forms of financial aid so they could qualify for the few affordable units available. And even those who worked full time jobs struggled to make enough to afford a place of their own.
"For a lot of clients that were coming in, I think for many of them, they probably just had these expectations that, 'Oh well, there's already housing already set up. And I'll just be here for a little bit. And then from there, they're going to recommend me to whatever affordable housing situation is out there,'" Grace said.

Vice President Greenberg emphasized that LifeMoves is a "housing-first" model, and the goals that clients are given reflect that overarching objective. In a sample case plan that LifeMoves shared, the first bullet point atop a list of 12 distinct goals is "Client will obtain stable housing."
But out of the 18 clients who were interviewed for this story, the majority were unable to meet that goal. At the time of publishing, reporters could only confirm one client who became housed with the help of LifeMoves. Some are still participating in the program.

Others found a home on their own after leaving.

Among them is Mathangani, who lives in a room in a shared house in Santa Clara that she found herself. Lily said she had to move out of state to use a housing voucher that she secured on her own. And when reporters last spoke to Barron, she and her protective pups were still living in their packed SUV.

This is a multi-part series. In the
next installment, reporters investigate the barriers that make it challenging for programs like LifeMoves Mountain View to get clients housed, and what experts say are the best solutions.

From: J Pan
To: Clerk; [email protected]; Lisa Gillmor; Kevin Park; Karen Hardy; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Adam Marcus
Subject: Add to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:40:03 AM
Dear Mayor Glimore and City Councilemenbers,
Please vote NO to the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter proposal.

I am a mother with two elementary school kids living in the City of Santa Clara. My whole family opposes the proposed Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan because LifeMoves, who supervises the project, has a very bad record of running other homeless shelters in nearby cities. There is no plan that LifeMoves would improve and supervise the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter project better than similar projects. That is why we are deeply concerned about the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter project, which will impact our communities badly.

Does this unreasonable construction cost increase indicate LifeMoves is losing control of their projects? The intention of shelters is to provide a safe place for many homeless people to live.

However, LifeMoves kept harassers in the Mountain View shelter despite repeated sexual harassment reports per Almanac News, Mountain View Voice. How can they achieve the purpose of the project by keeping the harassers in the shelters and leaving well-behaved homeless people out of the shelters due to the threats by harassers.

Per local news, the success rate of LifeMoves’ shelters is only 26%, and they lack qualified staff and nurses to operate their existing shelters even though the shelters have not reached their full capacities up to now. How can LifeMoves provide qualified service for the existing shelters during national-wide labor shortage and has resources to operate new shelters? Without resolving the problems with the existing shelters but rushing to construct another new bigger shelter will only make the problems worse. We are afraid the proposed Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan will be another non-successful project by LifeMoves, taxpayers will be very disappointed and will vote for another party’s candidates.

LifeMoves needs to provide taxpayers a plan and put it into action to improve their supervision by demonstrating their ability to provide quality of service with a timeline, within budget for at least one existing shelter. LifeMoves should resolve their existing problems first, before acquiring any new projects.

There is another shelter with a full capacity of 536 people per year in the City of Santa Clara approximately 0.5 miles from this location.

The existing shelter is not full yet, why is there a
need to build another bigger shelter in this area?
The City of Santa Clara is facing a fiscal deficit. Our city libraries are only open half-day on weekdays and are closed on Sunday to cut expenses. As a working mother, weekends and evenings are the only time I can bring my kids to city libraries. The libraries in nearby Cities, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, etc., open 7 days a week and full day on weekdays. Our public facilities, such as swimming pools, need to be repaired and maintained but do not have funding to schedule such work per the Santa Clara swimming facility staffs’ comments at the City Council Meeting on April 11, 2023.

With such a bad fiscal deficit, should
our tax dollars be well spent and balanced between meeting existing residents’ needs and building more homeless shelters?
It is a sad fact that the crime rate increased significantly after the opening of the existing shelters in their communities with a good intention of residing homeless people in residential areas and providing them access to all kinds of community services. Does the City of Santa Clara have any plan to prevent the increase in the crime rate in our community with a new shelter? Does the City of Santa Clara have a budget to enhance the manpower of first responders, law enforcement, first aids, street sanitation, etc.? Where can the City of Santa Clara find funding for the operation of many shelters and mitigating negative impacts to our communities?

Who will take responsibility for over budget,
increase of crime rate, and shortage of public resources if the project was approved? Is there any agency evaluating the quality-of-service LifeMoves provided? Have you set up explicit evaluation standards, procedure, and schedule? Is there any consequence for LifeMoves to take for their poor supervision leading to low performance of the shelters? Is there possible any circumstance that the City will close the shelter in the future? For example, if the crime rate including burglaries, break-in, fire, harassment, sex offense, and drug related violation increases 50% after the opening the shelter within 1.5 miles of radius of the shelter; or the shelter will be closed if the success rate are all lower than 50% for three consecutive 90-days terms; or the shelter will be closed if its cost increased 50% more than budget.

We voted for our city council members in the trust that we would work together to make the City of Santa Clara a better place to live. We hope the city council members vote based on Facts instead of Promises.

We really appreciate it if you address our concerns for the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan project clearly at the public hearing on April 25, 2023.

Please vote NO to the homeless shelter plan at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway! Thank you!

Best Regards,
Pan Family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: carole baldwin
To: Clerk
Subject: Benton Project
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 1:53:29 PM
I have lived in the City of Santa Clara my entire life. I just recently retired from my law enforcement job.

I have several concerns about LifeMoves putting a shelter on the corner of Benton and Lawrence. There are many schools located with a mile of this location. Multiple council members have claimed that 'students won't have to walk past the facility'. This is incorrect. They also stated that they are not concerned about the safety of high school- aged children walking past the facility. They claim that high school children are 'old enough'. They have no concerns about the children walking past on their way to the local swim club. - The majority of people concerned about the shelter/interim housing are women and seniors. Women fear for their own safety and the safety of their children. Men have a better chance of not being attacked and being able to defend themselves.
- Initial claims are that more than 800 homeless are 'associated' with Santa Clara, yet the county refuses to provide the data or explain how they arrived at this number
- Initial claims that Santa Clara homeless will have priority. However, other cities have confirmed this promise has not been fulfilled and the county uses VISPDAT standards - Requests were submitted to the county for additional details/facts surrounding the PIT survey and County claims.

The county declined to provide the information.
- Actual crime data at other similar locations was requested but not provided. Instead, they provided a media outlet analysis. Residents were forced to submit their own public records requests, which disclose significant increases in police/fire calls at existing interim housing and permanent supportive housing facilities. - Council members do not appear to be representing their constituents, leading to concerns about relationships with developers and non-profits/NGOs
- Public records (police/fire) data provided by citizens is treated as unsubstantiated and refuted by council members, non-profits, and developers
- Multiple studies show that crime increases and property values decrease near shelters, interim housing, permanent supportive housing, and affordable housing. All parties supporting the proposed project claim there is no increase in crime and no decrease in property values.
- Multiple council members have told residents to find alternative properties for the project, putting the burden on the residents/constituents.
- Multiple council members have told residents to provide minimum requirements for the project, putting the burden on the residents/constituents.
- Multiple residents inquired whether or not other properties were evaluated, and if so, which ones and why not. The county stated that other properties were evaluated but the Benton and Lawrence property provides better access to services. 'The Benton and Lawrence site was identified by the County as an underutilized parcel that could be made available for interim housing. The County does not own any other property in the City of Santa Clara that is available to be used for interim housing. In addition, several factors were taken into consideration when making the recommendation for this site including the size, proximity to transit, grocery stores and medical services, and that the site is vacant.

I’m so disappointed in my council members. Council Member Becker was just arrested for perjury which is a difficult crime to prove. The County of Santa Clara District Attorney felt there was more than enough information to do so.

After reading the indictment, it read that many other Santa Clara Council Members have been dishonest and that they have an inappropriate relationship with the 49ers.

I have no confidence in this City Council to make appropriate decisions about developments or projects that will affect the citizens of Santa Clara.

Sincerely Submitted Birdland Citizen
From: Rui Diao
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: for 4/25 council meeting on Benton project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:05:57 AM
Hi
Please read this report:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/25/tiny-homes-and-homelessness-what- the-data-
shows/#:~:text=But%20tiny%20homes%20work%20better,much%20more%20expensive%20to%20operate.

Key summary is this:

Title: Do tiny homes really work as a solution to homelessness? Here’s what the data shows The Bay Area News Group spent four months following several tiny home residents and analyzed three years of data from Santa Clara and Alameda. Their analysis found:

Tiny homes don’t work for most participants:

People moving out of tiny homes in Alameda
County failed to find permanent housing nearly three-quarters of the time between June 2019 and June 2022. In Santa Clara County, people failed to find permanent housing more than half of the time.

But tiny homes work better than traditional homeless shelters:

Stays in the two counties’
largest dorm-style homeless shelters failed to lead to permanent housing between 84% and 98% of the time.

Tiny homes also tend to offer more services than other shelters, but as a result, can be much more expensive to operate.

More support helps:

The data suggests there are several things tiny home programs can do to up their odds of success, although all of them boost costs – including connecting residents to case workers and giving them access to private bathrooms. Allowing people more time to get back on their feet also can help, as participants who stay longer than six months are more likely to move into permanent housing. But most tiny home programs are set up for stays of just two to six months.

It all comes back to the affordable housing shortage:

There just isn’t enough permanent
housing available for everyone leaving a tiny home. Bay Area rents are among the highest in the country and wait lists for subsidized units and housing vouchers are discouragingly long.

With this, how do we know we are going to do a good job with Benton shelter? Best regards,
Rui
From: Santa Clara Housing Advocates
To: Clerk
Subject: For April 25
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:01:26 PM
Attachments: Reasons April 25.pdf
Support 4_19.pdf
Please include these documents in the packet for April 25 Safer for Everyone: Data collected from 5 projects in San Jose show that the number of emergency calls in the area around interim housing sites went down in every category except health. Getting people off the street and into shelter means public incidents are contained to an area with support staff who can mitigate any real or perceived danger. Multiple sources state that unhoused people are more likely to be the victims of crime than perpetrators. Providing the unhoused with housing is shown to bring down chances of crime and sickness. *https://www.kqed.org/news/11942734/emergency-calls-complaints-are-down-near-san-joses-temporary-housing-sites-so-why-are-they-still-so-politically- risky
*https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Navigation-Center-Neighborhood-Impacts-Final-Report-1.pdf Additional Sources: American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists: A Longitudinal Study of Housing Status and Crime in a Homeless Population, Enterprise: Chico State Studies Finds Safe Space Shelter Didn’t Impact Neighborhood Crime, UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy: Navigation Centers: What do Neighbors Have to Fear?, National Low Income Housing Coalition: New Study Finds that Providing People Experiencing Homelessness with Housing has Positive Impacts on Health, Crime, and Employment, Mayor Matt Mahan of San Jose: Groundbreaking

The Kids are Alright: Encountering and engaging with people different from ourselves is a good thing. It leads to creating more compassionate, empathetic members of our community. Different life experiences, like financial situations, cultures, religions, and genders, are all valuable for understanding our world. Unhoused or homeless families are in schools across Santa Clara Unified. Your kids might already know homeless people and not even realize it. Parents can use age appropriate language to explain this building and the people within it to their kids.
*https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/tips-and-advice-for-talking-to-your-kids-about-homelessness/article_23c01e44-557f-11ed-a71b-cf9f5d81059 a.html
*https://www.acluwv.org/en/news/five-reasons-why-we-dont-need-ban-homeless-services-near-schools *https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/child-care-and-safety/child-welfare/homeless-students-enrolled-in-local-educational-agencies/ Additional Sources: ACLU West Virginia: Five Reasons Why We Don't Need to Ban Homeless Services Near Schools, HumanKind: Raising Empathetic Humans: Four Tips for T alking to Kids About Homelessness, Scary Mommy: What Happened When A Homeless Shelter Moved Into My Upper Class City Neighborhood.

Good Location: With grocery stores, convenience stores, parks, a hospital, and churches all within a mile or less walking distance, the proposed location is ideal for a population that may not have access to personal transportation. Placing a facility like this in an industrial district would make it impossible for residents to meet their basic needs. The county already owns this land, making it less expensive to obtain. It is currently under used, only occupied for 3 months out of the year. There are several other places in the county for seasonal activities. Research suggests that, "shelters should be located in areas that are accessible to guests such as a central location in proximity to other services. Common political expectations that homeless needs may be served in other regions of the city do not fully grasp the inescapable need for accessibility. " (Canadian Journal of Urban Research)
Additional Sources: Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Conceptualizing Optimum Homeless Shelter Service Delivery: The Interconnection Between Programming, Community, and the Built Environment, American Journal of Health Promotion: Shelter Environment and Placement in Community Affects Lifestyle Factors among Homeless Families in Minnesota, American Enterprise Institute: The Importance of Place: Neighborhood Amenities as a Source of Social Connection and Trust, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless: Transportation and Homelessness: A Systematic Review, Kaiser Health Network: Finding Homeless Patients A Place T o Heal
Limited Neighborhood Impact: Unlike dorm-style shelters, which are being phased out, this facility will not have people lining up all day hoping to get a spot. Individual units with locks on the doors give residents dignity and privacy. People will live here for several months, and want to take care of their space. The current proposal includes 80 parking spots for residents and staff. Considering many unhoused people do not have a car, this should be plenty. Neighbors of similar sites in San Jose report no changes to their neighborhood. (KQED)

*March 1 Community Meeting presentation
*https://www.kqed.org/news/11942734/emergency-calls-complaints-are-down-near-san-joses-temporary-housing-sites-so- why-are-they-still-so-politically-risky
Additional Sources: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology: Affordable Housing Decreases Crime, Increases Property Values, Jamboree: Does Affordable Housing Drive Down Property Values?, City Community HHS: Do Affordable Housing Projects Harm Suburban Communities? Crime, Property Values, and T axes in Mount Laurel, NJ, Citizens Housing and Planning Council: Homeless Shelters & Their Neighbors
Low Barrier is Better: By meeting people where they are at and providing supportive services, this program can be more effective at helping the people who need it most. Low-barrier does not mean no barrier. LifeMoves has told us that they implement rules that residents have to follow, like signing in at night and keeping a curfew.

Many unhoused people have “criminal records” due to infractions directly related to the criminalization of homelessness.

Additional Sources: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness: Emergency Shelter, CSH: Housing is the Best Medicine: Supportive Housing and the Social Determinants of Health, Arnold Ventures: Low-Barrier Approaches,, Center for American Progress: Preventing and Removing Barriers to Housing Security for People With Criminal Convictions, All Home: Strengthening Interim Housing as a Housing First Approach, United State Interagency Council on Homelessness:

The Evidence Behind Approaches that Drive an End to Homelessness Interim Leads to Permanent: The goal for everyone is to get into safe, permanent housing. This is only possible by creating entry points into the county system. Interim housing is one of the best entry points. People living on the streets are more likely to accept placement into interim housing with private units than congregate shelters. Research suggests that the longer a person is experiencing homelessness, the harder it is to exit.

Interim housing helps to mitigate this.

*https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DOC__ReimaginingInterimHousing_StagesActionAreas_FINAL.pdf *https://www.allhomeca.org/2022/05/19/how-interim-and-permanent-housing-can-work-together-to-end-homelessness/ *https://siliconvalleyathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2018PITPlan-to-End-Homelessness.pdf Additional Sources: All Home: How Interim and Permanent Housing Can Work T ogether to End Homelessness, National League of Cities: Permanent Housing is the Goal – But it Won’t Address Homelessness Now, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health: Making the Case for Proactive Strategies to Alleviate Homelessness: A Systems Approach, The Framework for an Equitable Homelessness Response: Reimagining Interim Housing: Stages and Action Areas for Transforming Approaches to Sheltering People Experiencing Homelessness, McKinsey: The Ongoing Crisis of Homelessness in the Bay Area: What’s Working, What’s Not Proven Health Benefits: Housing is considered to be a social determinant of health, meaning that it is a proven factor in a person's quality of health. Evidence supports decreased mortality among homeless people when they are sheltered vs on the street. Research reports that there is a "reduction in emergency department use," for homeless veterans that receive integrated social services alongside health services. (CDC) Health systems are frequently designed to discriminate against unhoused people. This program is intended to include access to healthcare.

Additional Sources: National Health Care for the Homeless Council: Addressing Health Equity through Health and Housing Partnerships, BMC Public Health: Care Avoidance Among Homeless People and Access to Care, Public Health Program at Santa Clara University: Deaths of Unhoused People in Santa Clara County, The New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency: Health System Investments in Housing, CSH: Housing is the Best Medicine: Supportive Housing and the Social Determinants of Health, National Alliance to End Homelessness: Study Data Show that Housing Chronically Homeless People Saves Money, Lives, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825747/Preventing Chronic Disease (CDC): T ailoring Care to Vulnerable Populations by Incorporating Social Determinants of Health Mental Illness is Not Dangerous: 40 to 52 million people suffer from mental illness or substance abuse, and the vast majority do not experience homelessness. Mental illness is not a moral failing. Often it comes from specific experiences or even genetics. Studies show that providing shelter, especially shelter with dignity such as this facility, significantly improves a person's mental health. Meanwhile, living on the streets can cause trauma which negatively impacts mental health. People with mental illness are typically a bigger danger to themselves than those around them. Proposed support programs in this facility can help mitigate the threat they pose to themselves. It is illegal to discriminate against disability, including mental illness.

Additional Sources: Treatment Advocacy Center: Are People with Serious Mental Illness Who Are Not Being Treated Dangerous?, UCSF: Debunking the Myths of Homelessness, American Mental Health Counselors Association: Gun Violence and Mental Illness: Myths and Evidence-Based Facts, Center for American Progress: Lack of Housing and Mental Health Disabilities Exacerbate One Another, New York University: The 12 Biggest Myths about Homelessness in America
Regular People: Unhoused people are just people without a house. Growing numbers of families are living paycheck to paycheck. This means that they are one emergency away from losing their home. All it takes is a medical emergency, a traffic ticket, or any other unexpected expense, and a family who was living on their own can lose their shelter. The demographics of unhoused people in our county include elderly and disabled people. Homelessness is not a moral failure, but a combination of factors including systematic failure, income disparity, housing shortages, and being let down by friends and family.

Additional Resources: Annie E Casey Foundation: 2018 California Profile Transition-Age Youth in Foster Care, Spotlights: Homeless Children and Youth in Public Schools, American Journal of Preventative Medicine: Intimate Partner Violence and Housing Instability, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University: The Growing Problem of Older Adult Homelessness Efficient Use of Taxpayer Money: Currently, our society tends to rely on the criminal justice system and emergency rooms when confronting unhoused people. Both of those systems cost tax payers millions.

Supportive housing is shown to be less expensive, and bring down costs in those other systems. The county already owns this land, making the process of obtaining it for this purpose affordable compared to purchasing a new piece of land from a private owner. HomeKey grants and commitments from LifeMoves and Sobrato mean less responsibility for the city and county.

Additional Resources: Bloomberg: How Much Would It Cost to End Homelessness in California for Good?, RAND Corporation: Supportive Housing Reduces Homelessness - and Lowers Health Care Costs by Millions, Vox: The Most Cost-Effective Way to Help the Homeless is to Give Them Homes Community Is About Support: We all share this world, but more than that, we are a community and neighbors. As responsible, compassionate people, we should care about the welfare of others, even when it does not relate to us. There is never going to be a perfect solution to solve the "homeless problem", but we have to try something. Getting anyone off the streets and into shelter with access to resources is a win, even if we can't help everyone. We have the moral imperative to support this project, and our leaders have the responsibility to do what is best for all of their constituents, not just the ones with wealth.

Additional Resources: BetterUp: Community For the Win - How Collective Solutions Help Individual Problems Privacy & Dignity: Access to private bathrooms and showers allows for better personal hygiene. Much of the stigma and dehumanization of unhoused people comes for perceived poor hygiene, which would not exist if those people had access to personal hygiene. The proposal plans to place residents in the facility through a process and allow them to stay for several months is a more dignified than the outdated model of lining up for one night at a time. Individual units with locks on the doors and a stable residence will limit crime between those staying in the facility.

Addressing Systemic Failures: 25% of unhoused people in our county report a history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. The foster system has let down many young people, who find themselves without a safe place to go after aging out. The criminalization of homelessness has resulted in unhoused people with criminal records for things like sleeping outside, trespassing on public property, or other minor offenses that should not equate to jail time, fines, or a record. The result of these records is more difficulty in being approved for housing. There is a significant lack of affordable housing in our county, making it even more difficult for lower income people to find a home to live in.

Social & Racial Justice: No social issue exists independently. When addressing housing, we must always consider its intersections with identities and justice. Homelessness disproportionately impacts BIPOC and LBGTQ+ people. By creating a safe housing environment, we can begin to address these disparities. Although it is illegal to discriminate based on gender, sexuality, race, and disability, many shelters or similar programs find subtle ways to do it. Building a facility which is low-barrier will remove the covert ways other programs keep people out. Addressing homelessness can be an important step in addressing systemic problems in our society. Increasing housing can help individuals and their communities, elevate their social - economic status.

Increasing Need: Santa Clara City and County have both seen rising numbers of unhoused people in recent years. The exact numbers are generally understood to be much higher. At least 3/4 of homeless people in Santa Clara county are unsheltered. They are living on the street and in the creeks where it is unsafe.

Data shows that more people than ever are accessing homeless services in California. In our county, the list for unhoused people trying to get shelter is so long that people are waiting months for assistance. (CalMatters)

More beds means a shorter list and less wait time. California is just not building new homes. Not enough houses or apartments exist to accommodate a growing population. The State of California is requiring each county to increase the number of beds for unhoused people. If Santa Clara County does not fulfill this obligation, it will face a significant fine.
*https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf *https://destinationhomesv.org/understanding-homelessness/numbers/ Additional Resources: Bay Area Council Economic Institute: Bay Area Homelessness: New Urgency, New Solutions, County of Santa Clara: County of Santa Clara Point In Time Report on Homelessness, The State of the Supportive Housing System in Santa Clara County: Ending Homelessness, Destination: Home: Understanding Homelessness in Santa Clara County

SANTA CLARA HOUSING ADVOCATES

SUPPORTERS OF BENTON & LAWRENCE PROJECT
Groups and Organizations......................................................................................................................................... 2 Destination: Home...................................................................................................................................................3 SV@Home.............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Housing Action Coalition......................................................................................................................................... 3 Greenbelt Alliance........................................................................................................................................... 3 South Bay YIMBY....................................................................................................................................................4 Helping Hands Silicon Valley...................................................................................................................................4 Peninsula Democratic Coalition.............................................................................................................................. 5 Individuals....................................................................................................................................................................6 David Donaldson..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Mohammed Nadeem...............................................................................................................................................7 Kathy Almazol................................................................................................................................................. 8 R. Elysa Gurman..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Sarah Foad..............................................................................................................................................................8 Asha DuMonthier.............................................................................................................................................9 Melinda Berlant....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Alon Altman............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Groups and Organizations
Destination : Home SV@Home Housing Action Coalition South Bay YIMBY Greenbelt Alliance Helping Hands SV
Santa Clara Community
Advocates
Peninsula Democratic
Coalition
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation

Destination: Home
Through our collective impact model, we incubate new ideas, advocate for policies, and fund impactful strategies that address the root causes of homelessness and help ensure that our most vulnerable neighbors have a stable home.

SV@Home
A membership organization, SV@Home works with a broad coalition of strategic partners to address the urgent housing need by boosting production of homes at all income levels, preserving existing affordable homes, and protecting the families in them.

Housing Action Coalition
Greenbelt Alliance

Helping Hands Silicon Valley
T o support the most vulnerable in our community who lack access to the basic needs of food and shelter, and assist them in moving towards self sufficiency.

South Bay YIMBY
We are South Bay Area residents who seek solutions to our area’s housing shortage. "South Bay YIMBY strongly supports the interim housing project proposed for Benton Street in the City of Santa Clara. Hundreds of our neighbors in Santa Clara are unhoused and unsheltered, and the Benton Street interim housing project will provide a vital opportunity for these individuals to stabilize their lives, gain access to supportive services, start to recover from the stress of living on the street, and look for permanent housing. We believe that we need to counter anger and fear with pragmatism and compassion. Our community cannot solve homelessness without providing safety, stability, and care to those most in need.

South Bay YIMBY represents hundreds of pro-housing advocates in Santa Clara and throughout the South Bay working towards plentiful, inclusive, and affordable housing. We aim to provide evidence-based solutions to the housing crisis and a political voice to residents struggling to afford housing." Silicon Valley Community Foundation
People working together for the greater good is where transformation happens Silicon Valley Community Foundation supports an increase in interim supportive housing at suitable sites in Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara as an initial yet vital component of systemic approaches to address the needs of unhoused people in our communities.

Peninsula Democratic Coalition
The Peninsula Democratic Coalition works to promote the Democratic Party and get local Democrats elected. Our members come from throughout the communities in Silicon Valley.

April 10, 2023
T o: City Council of Santa Clara
Lisa Gillmor, Mayor
Anthony Becker
Raj Chahal
Karen Hardy
Sudhanshu Jain
Kevin Park
Kathy Watanabe
Dear Members of the Santa Clara City Council,
As President of the Peninsula Democratic Coalition (the oldest and largest Democratic Club on the Peninsula), I would like to extend support of the PDC along with the Santa Clara Housing Advocates for the interim supportive housing project that the City and County of Santa Clara have been working on with Life Moves. The PDC also supports applying for HomeKey funding.

We as an organization advocate for housing of the homeless and express the hope that this project will lead to more permanent housing with appropriate social service resources for the participants involved. Interim housing is not the complete answer if the participants have no place to go once the interim services are completed.

Finding and providing housing for those who don’t have any is a very important cause and the PDC encourages that it be done effectively, with transparency, and with accurate data collection.

Respectfully submitted,
Lorri Holzberg
Peninsula Democratic Coalition President

Individuals
David Donaldson Mohammed Nadeem Kathy Almazol R. Elysa Gurman Sarah Foad Alon Altman Melinda Berlant Asha DuMonthier

David Donaldson
2023-24 State Democratic Party Assembly District 26 Delegate Neighbor & Homeowner
Mohammed Nadeem
Former Santa Clara City Council Candidate
I support an increase in interim supportive housing at suitable sites in Santa Clara County, including the Benton & Lawrence site in the City of Santa Clara.

Kathy Almazol
Former head of Catholic Schools in Diocese of San Jose
Neighbor & Homeowner
I fully support interim housing in Santa Clara County, including the Benton and Lawrence site in Santa Clara, as a way to provide systemic programs that will address the many needs of the unhoused people who are our community members.

R. Elysa Gurman
Founder & Lead Community Organizer, Santa Clara Housing Advocates Neighbor
Sarah Foad
Healthcare Worker, Board of Directors, Women Health Care Executives Neighbor & Homeowner

Asha DuMonthier
Political Educator, National Nurses United
Masters, Public Policy, UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy Masters Thesis: Decriminalizing Houselessness in Hawaii Neighbor
Melinda Berlant
Community Volunteer & Former Homeowner
Neighbor & Parent
Alon Altman
Senior Site Reliability Engineer, Google
Neighbor

From: B W
To: Clerk
Subject: For the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 10:19:24 AM
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

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

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

The following are some urgent issues that must be fully addressed before any proposal can move forward.

I
urge you to immediately vote NO on the proposed
homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence
Expressway.

How do Santa Clara County and City of Santa Clara
ensure the safety of the 11,000 children who are
attending the more than 15 schools near the proposed
homeless site?

The failed experiment at MTV and
Milpitas clearly have shown crimes have shot up 300%
after the shelter was built in the surrounding
neighborhood. What is the County's plan on the safety
of the 11,000 children in the immediate neighborhood?
2) What is the successful rate of the homeless people
who entered the shelter and later found permanent
housing?

According to statistics from the two nearby
locations, MTV and Milpitas, the homeless who entered
these facilities and later found permanent homes is less than 20%!

That is less than 1 out 5 successful rate.

Where do the other 4 homeless go?

This is clearly a
waste of tax dollars!

Creating so many problems for the
surrounding neighborhood for such meager results.

I
would rather give each homeless person the full amount
of funds per head count that is needed to operate such a shelter.

We need to work on improving the failing
existing homeless shelters before building more of them.

Repeating a failed model will only result in failure.

Let's
work on improving the existing shelters first.

Are there
any plans to improve the outcome of the two existing
shelters, before we build more?

3)The homeless people who don't find permanent
housing and who are at the end of their “interim” stay are going to be forced out of the shelter. They are going to congregate near the shelter site, thereby impacting the immediate neighborhood.

It will only get worse as time
goes by!

There will be more and more homeless in our
neighborhood.

This is not solving the homeless
problem.

It is just dumping the homeless, and issues
that come with being homeless in our neighborhood.

We
must stop this from happening.

What is the County's
plan to mitigate this problem?
4) If as proposed the "low barrier interim homeless
shelter" will take on the "most challenged homeless”,
what kind of security force does a 200+ persons
homeless shelter come with?

One clearly would expect
a higher ratio of security force for the "most challenged homeless".

A 20 person security force (a one to ten
ratio) may or may not be even enough to handle the
situations that surely will arise.

Does the County have
done any study on this matter, and will the County
provide the dedicated full time security personnel's?
5) If the "interim homeless shelter" is a drug free
environment as stated, what kind of medical help is
provided for the 200+ persons homeless at the shelter?
We can't expect a drug addict to become clean on the
day he/she moved into the shelter.

If he/she can not find
immediate help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drugs on the street near the shelter, in nearby parks, at the school yards, in our neighborhood!

With the shelter's
plan to admit the "most challenged homeless", there got to be a high number of doctors and nurses on site to
meet the challenges.

Many homeless people also have
mental issues, that is just a fact of life.

Will the County
provide enough specialists on site to help these
homeless people with mental issues?

How many
doctors and nurses does the County plan to assign to
this shelter full time?
6) A homeless shelter is not a jail.

Thus the homeless
are free to go in and out of the shelter, as I understand it.

And keep in mind these are the "most challenging
homeless".

200+ “interim homeless shelter” residents
will be out doing their “business” and wandering around the immediate neighborhood.

With the concentration of
200 plus "most challenging homeless", many no doubt
with drug additions at this location, drug dealers will be attracted to come; it is well documented a concentration of homeless people will attract drug dealers, as in
Tenderloin, San Francisco. How many additional police
officers are assigned to this precinct, dedicated to the “low barrier interim homeless shelter?
7) What does Santa Clara County plan to do at the end
of a homeless "interim" stay, when a homeless person
does not find permanent housing?

Does the county
have any plan to bus them back to where they were
found?

Or the county just let them out and hope for the
best?

Where does the county think the homeless will
go?

The answer is very obvious.

They will just walk into
the immediate neighborhood, OUR neighborhood, and
be homeless again!

Does the County have any busing
plan to move the homeless to where they want to go?

Does the County have the funding dedicated to deal with such a large army of homeless people concentrating in
our neighborhood?
8) This proposed location has been used for community
activities for many many years, such as pumpkin
patches, Christmas tree sales, and more. Where will the thousands of local families go for these kind of activities if the County takes away this lot by inserting a homeless shelters here. What will the County provide as an
alternative for the local families?
In summary, the Benton Street and Lawrence
Expressway location is absolutely wrong for any
homeless housing.

In light of the the above issues, we encourage that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the proposed homeless
shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Sincerely,
Wong Family
Residents of the City of Santa Clara
From: puredancing
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: Information to add to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton project (item #1 Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 2:02:56 PM
Hello Nora,
I would like to have the following information added to 4/25 council meeting agenda (Benton project or item #1). Let me know if you need me to put all of those into a single word

document.

Thank you,
Cindy

1.Milpitas council meeting on 1000 Hillview Ct apartment, in August 2022:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:37:41 Chief police Hernandez gave update on its impact on public safety services. Starting 2:37:41
Mayor comment - tenants in the business park next door who have been there for 22 years are leaving. And the business park is listed for sale by the owner. 2:58:35
A ziploc bag of drugs were discovered in the property. Mayor requested a K9 dog to search onsite, Consuelo refused the request.

3:06:02 - 3:09:01
Consuelo responded about the crime number spike. 3:12:00 Councilmember challenged Consuelo that she and the county had changed the admission criteria without informing the city. 3:14:50
Only 10 Milpitas homeless have been housed at 130 units in 1000 Hillview Ct. 3:16:05
Councilmember challenged the property management manager that they have never had staff onsite to do repairs. 3:19:35
Consuelo acknowledged the crime spike and said the spike will last 3-4 years until it stabilizes. Councilmember said 3-4 years is unacceptable. 3:25:33 Mayor challenged Consuelo and the property manager of the site’s weapon and drug policy. Both of them failed to answer directly. 3:27:06 Mayor called it a shame that the site is missing all kinds of services for its tenants. 3:34:20
Police officer Hernandez urged the site manager and Consuelo to ensure the site is a safe place for everyone. 3:48:40
4:04:00 Vice Mayor Carmen Montano: “I am dismayed about all the increasing crime and Consuelo, thank you. However I do NOT agree with your comment that the crime has gone up because the housing of residents has gone up. so that really tells me that your screening process needs to improve. Because that obviously the residents you are selecting are committing crimes. And there is something wrong with your screening process, i think you need to improve on that. ”

2.Milpitas council meeting on 1000 Hillview Ct apartment, in November 2022:
https://www.youtube.com/live/1sqJldTlpmU?feature=share&t=2570 , starts 43:00
Chief police Hernandez gave update on its impact on public safety services. Starting 1:03:21
Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) expressed a lot of concerns for safety and urge them to be addressed immediately. Starts 1:31:38

3.Disabled South Bay residents stuck after elevator stops working at supportive housing facility: https://abc7news.com/hillview-court-apartments- milpitas-supportive-housing-broken-elevator-disabled-residents-elderly/12856383/

4.As costs rise, LifeMoves’ Palo Alto's transitional housing project seeks to reduce amenities:
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo- altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities

5.LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help its homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don’t:
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view- promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the- vast-majority-dont

6.Life Moves Mountain View aims to house people in just three months. Experts say that its model doesn't work:
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to- help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 1 Nora Pimentel
From: J Pan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Nora Pimentel
Subject: Add to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project (item #1)

Dear Mayor Glimore and City Councilemenbers,
Please vote NO to the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter proposal.

LifeMoves supervised similar shelter projects in the nearby cities, and they created very poor records in achieving projects’ goals. For example, the construction cost estimate of LifeMoves’ Palo Alto shelter was doubled within a year after the approval date, however, the average inflation rate in the past three years was 5%-
7% per federal and state government’s reports. Does this unreasonable construction cost increase indicate LifeMoves is losing control of their projects? The intention of shelters is to provide a safe place for many homeless people to live. However, LifeMoves kept harassers in the Mountain View shelter despite repeated sexual harassment reports per Almanac News, Mountain View Voice. How can they achieve the purpose of the project by keeping the harassers in the shelters and leaving well-behaved homeless people out of the shelters due to the threats by harassers.

There is another shelter with a full capacity of 536 people per year in the City of Santa Clara approximately 0.5 miles from this location. The existing shelter is not full yet, why is there a need to build another bigger shelter in this area?
The City of Santa Clara is facing a fiscal deficit. Our city libraries are only open half-day on weekdays and are closed on Sunday to cut expenses. As a working mother, weekends and evenings are the only time I can bring my kids to city libraries. The libraries in nearby Cities, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, etc., 2 open 7 days a week and full day on weekdays. Our public facilities, such as swimming pools, need to be repaired and maintained but do not have funding to schedule such work per the Santa Clara swimming facility staffs’ comments at the City Council Meeting on April 11, 2023. With such a bad fiscal deficit, should our tax dollars be well spent and balanced between meeting existing residents’ needs and building more homeless shelters?
It is a sad fact that the crime rate increased significantly after the opening of the existing shelters in their communities with a good intention of residing homeless people in residential areas and providing them access to all kinds of community services. Does the City of Santa Clara have any plan to prevent the increase in the crime rate in our community with a new shelter? Does the City of Santa Clara have a budget to enhance the manpower of first responders, law enforcement, first aids, street sanitation, etc.? Where can the City of Santa Clara find funding for the operation of many shelters and mitigating negative impacts to our communities? Who will take responsibility for over budget, increase of crime rate, and shortage of public resources if the project was approved? Is there any agency evaluating the quality-of-service LifeMoves provided? Have you set up explicit evaluation standards, procedure, and schedule? Is there any consequence for LifeMoves to take for their poor supervision leading to low performance of the shelters? Is there possible any circumstance that the City will close the shelter in the future? For example, if the crime rate including burglaries, break-in, fire, harassment, sex offense, and drug related violation increases 50% after the opening the shelter within 1.5 miles of radius of the shelter; or the shelter will be closed if the success rate are all lower than 50% for three consecutive 90- days terms; or the shelter will be closed if its cost increased 50% more than budget.

We really appreciate it if you address our concerns for the Benton and Lawrence Homeless Shelter Plan project clearly at the public hearing on April 25, 2023.

Please vote NO to the homeless shelter plan at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway! Thank you!

Best Regards,
Pan Family
Residents of Santa Clara
1 Michelle Estabillo
From: Neelu Kumawat <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:45 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: 4/25 council mtg item #1 Benton project
Hello

Providing shelter to homeless people is a noble idea but putting dangerous elements in the middle of a community not such a great one.

Please know that a Homeless is different from homeless with mental illness. A decent familyman trying to get back on his feet is very different from a repea
ted sex offender.

A Kind homeless person is very different than a drug addict.

Please vote no for the low bar entry.

Here are a couple of suggestions:

Provide shelter to the homeless families whose children are enrolled in SCUSD schools.

Or
Only to the females who are trying to ge
t back on their feet… they may be with children, pregnant or without children.

Thanks
Neelu

Sent from my iPhone
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Re: Material #3 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:37:57 AM
Hi Nora,
I am not sure if the protocol allows for a video clipping from news associated with material #3.

Here is a video link that shows the attack and the associated news:
(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6M1ohsVKc)
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 9:31 AM Ashish Verma <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this document to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.

This shows an example of safety issues associated with an increase in folks with substance abuse in any neighborhood.

We do not want to have issues like these in Santa Clara.

Attached is a PDF version of this
article.
(Link: https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco- crime-metal-pipe/13100484)
Regards,
Ashish
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: Re: Photos show people protested against benton project, please attach to the 04/25 meeting agenda Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:58:36 PM
Attachments: event photos.zip
Looks like the email was sent failed because the attachments are too large. I compressed them and try again.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:46
PM Zhihao Ji <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
I want to provide some photos that the neighbours protested against the benton project, can you help to attach to the 04/25 meeting agenda?
There were two protests for this project, 03/01 at Earl R. Carmichael Park and 04/14 at Santa Clara City Hall. As the local community, we're extremely concerned about this project. We have volunteers to collect petition signatures every weekend, and we saw thousands of people share the same concerns with us. I hope council members can listen to the local neighbors.

Thank you!
Zhihao

s\\£.\_ 1f
~fl-\ \0 \\Ot'\tS
~~o OL5

'
-
-:-----:-- -,.,.. ..... ..-L.:.,~·- • I $ - ~ -• ______ ,,_ , "" . •
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: The poll from 03/22 meeting, please attach it to 04/25 meeting agenda Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:53:51 PM
Hi,
I want to provide a screenshot from the 03/22 benton project community meeting, which shows only 14% of people support this project. I think it's very clear that local neighbors' opinions are against this project. I hope council members would take the local community's opinion into consideration before voting for the project. Please help to attach this picture to the 04/25 meeting agenda.

Thank you! Really appreciate it!
Best,
Zhihao

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentOctober 29, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 29, 2024