RTC 23-591 Part 3 — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, October 29, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

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 re- trieval 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 Introduc
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Evolu
tion of Project Homekey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project H
omekey Has Not Stemmed the Rise in Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Project H
omekey Is Failing Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Project H
omekey Is Not Helping San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Project Ho
mekey Is Similarly Ineffective in Rest of the Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Claimin
g Success Does Not Make It So . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Los Ange
les’ Measure HHH Fails to Deliver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 CARE Cour
t Proposal Shows Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conclusion
/Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 About the A
uthors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 bil- lions 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 con- sequences 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, Proj- ect 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 in- clude 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 Home- key (the ongoing program) stands as a stark reminder that Housing First policies, while well intentioned, are incapable of resolving Cal- ifornia’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) fund- ing.”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 Pr
oject 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, re novate 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 Com- munity 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 Cal- ifornia, was released. By October 2020, an additional $200 million was announced, bringing the total to $750 million in federal Corona- virus Relief Funds and $50 million in General Fund dollars. 7 Funds were dedicated for the purchase and rehabilitation of “hous-
ing, 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, say
s 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 go
vernor’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 homeless- ness 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 River- side), 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 Sacramen-
to County’s homeless population increased by two-thirds from 2019 to 2022, from 5,570 to almost 9,300, surpassing San Fran- cisco’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 expe- riencing 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 Com
pa 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 homeless- ness 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) popula- tions. Taken together these figures demonstrate several important trends. First, California’s crisis is driven by increas- es 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 unshel- tered 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 outper- formance 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 expan- sion 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%
1 1.6%

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 pro- gram, 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 con- clusion, 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 mov
es 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 ad- diction 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 over- doses 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 sin- gle-room-occupancy hotels, known as SR
Os, 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 hu- manly possible.”
30 One of the principal reasons why San Francisco policies co ntinue to fail to even make a slight improvement in home- lessness “is that there is little or no accountability within the city’s government to evaluate the efficacy of its spend- ing,” says Ohanian.

In fact, some programs are so poor
ly 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 overdos
e deaths in San Francisco, though the build-
ings housed less than 1 percent of the city’s population.” 33 12 • In the years since the Departm ent of Homelessness and Suppor tive Housing was created in 2016, homeles
sness 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 mem - bers, chased them with metal pipes” and started fires inside of rooms. “Much of the instabil - ity,” 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 Fran- cisco,” 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 r
eality 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 non - profit 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 br
ing 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 most- ly 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 home- less 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 un- sheltered 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 aver- age 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 gov- ernment 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 e
xceed $700,000 per unit, and one project in pre-develop- ment 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 emergen- cy-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 home- lessness, 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 suf- fering 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 in- cludes 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, communi- ty-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 infra- structure,”
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 practi- cal 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 to- ward aiding the homeless who struggle with mental health and addiction. Helping this population requires programs that direct- ly address these causal issues. Priority number one is to imple- ment policies that focus on providing shelter and effective men- tal 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 In- stitute 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 opportu- nities 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 expen- sive. 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-ne
ws/2022/mar/22/california-homelessness-crisis-unhoused-and-un- equal.
2 “Project Roomkey/Housing and Homelessness CO
VID 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 L
ooking 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 V
isits 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-santa- clara-county-to-highlight-progress-on-the-states-initiative-to-protect-homeless-individuals-from-covid-19/ 5 “Frequently Asked Questions about Homeke
y,” County of Los Angeles, accessed Jun 17, 2022, https://lacoun- ty.gov/homekey/
6 “At Newly Conv
erted Motel, Governor Newsom Launches Project Roomkey
: A First-in-the-Nation Initia-
tive 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-governor- newsom-launches-project-roomkey-a-first-in-the-nation-initiative-to-secure-hotel-motel-rooms-to-protect- homeless-individuals-from-covid-19/
7 “Homekey: A Journey Ho
me,” 2021 Legislative Report, California Department of Housing and Community Development,” April 1, 2021,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/hcd100_homekeyre- port_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 Ho
me,” 2021 Legislative Report, California Department of Housing and Community Development,” April 1, 2021,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/hcd100_homekeyre- port_v18.pdf
11 Ibid.
12 “Newsom Administration A
nnounces $2.75 Billion Expansion of Homekey,” Office of Governor Gavin New- som, September 9, 2021, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/09/newsom-administration-announces-2-75-bil- lion-expansion-of-homekey/
13 See for instance, https://rivcopitc2022-count
yofriverside.hub.arcgis.com/; https://voiceofoc.org/2022/05/ county-of-orange-releases-2022-point-in-time-count-results/; https://www.marincounty.org/main/coun- ty-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 Popu- lations during the Pandemic” Public P
olicy Institute of California, June 7, 2022, https://www.ppic.org/blog/ear- ly-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 wil l keep Roomkey motels for homeless residents open
through March,” CapRadio, December 10, 2021, available at https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/12/10/with- no-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=D- M664617&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-popula- tion-spikes-67-to-nearly-9300-since-2019/
18 “American River Parkwa
y 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 A
ngeles–Now We Know Why,” KNOCKLA, September 15, 2020, https:// knock-la.com/homeless-los-angeles-project-roomkey-lahsa-12027aafec7b/ 20 Ibid.
21 Project Roomkey Trac
ker, accessed June 17, 2022, https://projectroomkeytracker.com/ 22 “Project Roomkey Fell S
hort 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-la- county-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 T
oo 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-Homekey- Rooms
26 Joaquin Palomino, Trisha Thadani,
“Broken Homes,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 26, 2022, https://www.sf- chronicle.com/projects/2022/san-francisco-sros/
27 Ibid.
28 “San Francisco Awarded $29 Million fr
om State’s Project Homekey for Purchase of 130-room Hotel for Home- less Housing” Office Mayor London N. Breed, October 23, 2020, https://sfmayor.org/article/san-francisco- awarded-29-million-states-project-homekey-purchase-130-room-hotel-homeless 29 J.D. Morris, “San F
rancisco gets $54.7 million to buy SoMa building for homeless housing,” San Francisco Chron- icle, December 24, 2021, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-gets-54-7-million-to-buy- SoMa-16721040.php
21 30 Lee Ohanian, “Despite Spending $1.1 Billion, San Francisco Sees Its Homlessness Problems Sprial Out Of Control,” California on Y
our Mind, Hoover Institution, May 10, 2022, https://www.hoover.org/research/despite- spending-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/despite- spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out-control 38 Tran Nguyen, “San Jose wants hundreds of shor
t-term homes, only 76 in the pipeline,” San Jose Spotlight, April 27, 2022
39 Richard Halstead, “Marin residents sue count
y over Larkspur homelessness plan,” Marin Independent Journal, April 4, 2022, https://www.marinij.com/2022/04/02/marin-residents-sue-county-over-larkspur-homelessness- plan/
40 Marisa Kendall, “Fro
m 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-ar- ea-projects-struggle-to-make-the-switch/
41 Ibid
42 Governor Newsom Delivers S
tate 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-chec
king 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/+&c- d=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 “Los Angeles, California, Homelessness Reductio
n and Prevention Housing, and Facilities Bond Issue, Measure HHH (November 2016),” Ballotpedia, accessed May 19, 2022, https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles,_Califor- nia,_Homelessness_Reduction_and_Prevention_Housing,_and_Facilities_Bond_Issue,_Measure_HHH_(No- vember_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-end- homelessness-isnt-working-what-now/
54 Soledad Ursua, “L.A.’s Ho
meless Scourge,” City Journal, March 31, 2022, https://www.city-journal.org/home- lessness-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/up- loads/2022/03/Fact-Sheet_-CARE-Court-1.pdf
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 “HRW Opposition to CARE Court, Califor
nia SB 1338,” Human Rights Watch letter to Sens. Tom Um- berg and Susan Talamantes Eggman, April 12, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/12/hrw-opposi- tion-care-court-california-sb-1338
60 California Senate Bill 1338, LegiScan,
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1338/2021
61 Tim Anaya, “Wil
l 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-new- soms-care-court-plan-help-get-perilous-trifecta-off-the-streets-and-into-treatment/ 62 Christopher Rufo, “The In
visible Asylum,” City Journal, Winter 2021, https://www.city-journal.org/olym- pia-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 Homeless- ness 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 pub- lic 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 Mar- ket 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 Deliv - ering 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 Jour nal, 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 Sho
w,” 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 Ma - son 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-year- old 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.

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.

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.

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 Monday- Wednesday 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).

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

4. Budget:

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Harsha Vashisht, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Pushpanjali S,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

Budget:

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

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

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

WIth regards,
Rachna Lal
Resident of Neighborhood

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-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,
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)?

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)?

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 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-find- stable-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.

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-help- homeless-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

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.

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

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

Regards,

Eric Sung

From:

To:

Subject: I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:20:27 AM
Dear Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County, I strongly oppose the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

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

Regards,
Robert Vu

From:

To:

Subject: in support of Benton + Lawrence interim housing Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59:42 PM
Hi, I'm writing in support of the Benton and Lawrence interim housing project. I attended in tonight's Zoom community meeting but did not join the speaker queue in time to speak.

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

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

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

Thank you,
Lisa Eckstein

From:

To:

Subject: In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:49:31 PM
I am writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

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

Today I'd like to tell you about children
.

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

"Sometimes bad things happen to good people, or good people make mistakes" "Some people who need extra help can't support themselves. We can help by welcoming them into the neighborhood."

Sources:

Scary Mommy - What Happened When A Homeless Shelter Moved Into My Upper Class City Neighborhood
HumanKind - Raising Empathetic Humans: Four Tips for Talking to Kids About Homelessness
Invisible People - What Happens When Kids are ‘Exposed’ to Homelessness? National Center for Education Statistics - Homeless Children and Youth in Public Schools ACLU West Virginia - Five Reasons Why We Don't Need to Ban Homeless Services Near Schools
ACLU Northern California - ACLU Leads Young People on Mission Targeting Teen Homelessness
Search Homeless Services - How To Talk To Your Children About Homelessness San Francisco Examiner - Here are 5 Tips for Talking With Your Children About Homelessness

R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)
From:

To:

Subject: In Support of Lawrence & Benton
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:01:20 PM
I am writing today in support of the housing project at Lawrence & Benton. The opposition is using a lot of scare tactics and inaccurate information to get people riled up for no reason.

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

Today I'd like to tell you about location
.

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

Sources:

Finding Homeless Patients A Place To Heal
Transportation and Homelessness: A Systematic Review
Homelessness & Food Deserts in Los Angeles
Community Amenities
Why Neighborhoods—and the Policies that Shape Them—Matter The Importance of Place: Neighborhood Amenities as a Source of Social Connection and Trust Strategies for Improving Homeless People's Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services Shelter Environment and Placement in
Community Affects Lifestyle Factors
Among Homeless Families in Minnesota
R. Elysa Gurman (she/they)

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

○ How do we protect the students from having a run-in with such folks on their way to school, back from school, playing in the parks - when such "clients" walk around or visit the parks/streets?
○
How do we prevent the influx of drugs in this neighborhood due to such a project?

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

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

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

Tina Liu
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

security force for the "most challenged homeless". An 20 persons security force (an one to ten ratio) may or may not even be able to handle the situations that surely will arise. Have the County done any study on this matter, and will the County provide the security force?
5) This lot has been used for community activities for many many years, such as pumpkin patch's, Christmas tree sales and more. Where will the local kids go if the County takes away this activities lot? What will the County provide as an alternative?
6) A homeless shelter is not a jail. Therefore 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
doing their “business” and wandering around the immediate neighborhood.

With the concentration of 200+ "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 fulltime police officers are assigned to this precinct for this proposed project?

7) What does Santa Clara County plan to do when at the end of their "interim" stay, when a homeless does not find permeant 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! Does the County has any busing plan to move the homeless to where they want to go?
8) 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 help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drug 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.

How
many doctor and nurse does the County plan to assign to this shelter full time? Clearly the County needs to do much more extensive studies before proposing 2350 Benton Street for an interim housing development.

Please vote NO on homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway! Best Regards,
Wo Family
Residents of City of Santa Clara

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Meeting #4
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:28:21 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hello Consuelo,
I hope you are well Thank you for the additional information at meeting #4 I learned from a neighbor that residents on Tracy Dr in Santa Clara received flyers from the county about the meeting Our area, which ranges from 250ft to several thousand feet away, has not received flyers from the county, potentially because it is both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale Is there a way we can close that gap with sufficient time before the input deadline of April 7?
While I know the meetings are wrapped up, for the future, just an idea I believe there is a way limit the Zoom chat to communication with Panelists, similar to what was done by shutting off the Everyone feature This depends on the type of license

It was unfortunate that the chat became a social media tweet storm debate with supporters who joined with the primary goal of pushing back on opponents input That meeting is for residents that will be impacted long term by the project Supporters can hold their own community meetings if they wish to have a debate Some of the chat participants were fairly upset but upon review of the chat capture, those individuals were the antagonizers responding to opponents feedback entered for public record or as Q&A It was not the 'supporters' place to be responding to 'opponents' input A number of people were queued up just beyond the last speaker and, evidently, it appeared there were supporters moved ahead of opponents, including a retired police officer who didn't get to speak This may have been a Zoom glitch We'd like to see the recording with full details to confirm that the order wasn't intentionally altered Many fear that if they cannot speak in the public forum, their input may not be heard via other channels We greatly appreciate your help keeping the property owners up to date and giving them an opportunity to provide their input based on facts rather than rumors Renters can pick up and move Property owners cannot

Sierra
On Mar 10, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Hernandez, wrote:

Perfect If you let me know on Monday I can coordinate on our end

Thanks for sending the map I think there may also be an opportunity for us to list the schools by distance in a simple table

Appreciate you sending the maps over Have a wonderful weekend and look forward to connecting next week

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing

From: goog le
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Adam Marcus Marie Jackson
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City

Hi Consuelo,

Thank you for your message I will check with a few folks on their availability I might be on jury duty next week I hope to know on Monday whether or not I'll be called

I forgot to ask if you needed maps? It looked like the map in the presentation was showing the east side of Lawrence The west side has several schools, childcares, parks, an older family cabana club even closer to the location It's a bit of a challenge to capture everything on one map so apologies for providing three different maps centered on Benton and Lawrence (schools, parks, child care) They list most but not all It probably depends on whether or not they advertise on google Hopefully, these are somewhat helpful

Thanks again!

On Mar 9, 2023, at 11:34 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo wrote:

Thank you for chatting with me this evening and sending the information Would you be open to having a smaller group discussion to discuss the data? We could accommodate via zoom and bring our data team

Unfortunately the format of the meeting didn t really allow the space for a real discussion We have some ideas planned for the next zoom meeting but also interested in connecting with people direct or in small groups

Let us know either way and we can work out the logistics on our end

Thank you for engaging with us Have a wonderful evening

Consuelo

Get Outlook for iOS
From: goog le
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:14:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo
Cc: Adam Marcus Marie Jackson
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City

Hi Consuelo,

Thank you for sharing the additional information this evening

As promised, I've attached the analysis of the homeless data by city as well as a subset below Since there isn't a lot of data on where each person landed, we're left with broad assumptions Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions or ideas, or if you see any errors in the analysis If you have new data, I would be happy to help analyze that as well

I think the local community would be willing to work with your teams to find options that are a bit less extreme and would benefit everyone, as daunting a task as that might sound We're a large contingent of tech professionals, engineers and software developers that love to solve problems It often helps to state the problem/goal and have them provide recommendations so they can be a part of the solution

Thank you

TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW A REDUCTION OF UNSHELTERED (894)LEFT THESE CITIES OR WERE HOUSED Monte Sereno 0 0 0 16 14
Other Conf 0 0 0 16 14
Los Gatos 16 58 42 263% 13 13
Santa Clara 264 375 111 42% 7 3
Milpitas 125 249 124 99% 9 7
Campbell 74 216 142 192% 12 8
Gilroy 345 606 261 76% 4 2
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW AN INCREASE OF UNSHELTERED 680 WERE ADDED TO THESE THESE CITIES

On Mar 9, 2023, at 4 05 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo <Consuelo Hernandez@hhs sccgov org> 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 athttps://docs google com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScvqekJ RgyyalhYwQ5Gu08L64tBbZAYSbeGQGX2O14Q6f4Ig/viewform

Thank you for staying engaged with us

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. t 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 NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. t 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: No to the homeless project on Lawrence
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:35:40 PM
No
--
Gurinder Dhillon

From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Subject: One Size Does Not Fit All - No Shelter on Benton Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 2:29:41 PM
Dear City, County, State, and Federal elected representatives:

Providing low barrier 'interim' housing for the majority of the homeless will amplify existing issues. Putting the homeless together in a crowded facility to meet state mandates is unsafe for them and the neighbors.

The 2022 county PIT survey speaks for itself:
> 42% have a psychiatric/emotional condition of unknown severity > 32% have alcohol/drug abuse
> 25% have spent a night in jail in the past year (not including the ones who were immediately released) According to public records, LifeMoves Mountain View had more than 140 POLICE CALLS/INCIDENTS in 2022, ranging from alarms to public INTOXICATION to RAPE and domestic VIOLENCE. This is ONLY ONE ADDRESS, not the surrounding businesses and residents. Prior to the opening of the facility, there were 1-2 per year.

Milpitas 1000 Hillview now sees hundreds per year, for ONE ADDRESS.

This IS NOT a policing issue. It is a CITY, COUNTY and STATE STRATEGIC ISSUE that is being dumped on communities and public safety without thinking it through.

We know you are smart. Very smart. And will do the right thing for your constituents... > If the County wishes to place these facilities in cities next to homes, provide on-site 24/7 county sheriff and fire coverage. Sounds expensive, doesn't it?

> If you would like to serve the population that has serious psychiatric issues, build a mental health facility with APPROPRIATE staffing required by the state.
> If you would like to serve those with substance abuse, build a rehab facility with APPROPRIATE staffing required by the state.
> If you would like to serve criminals that were released on bail due to overcrowding or lax penalties, build a facility with APPROPRIATE staffing that requires proof of employment, provides job training and has solid security.
> If you want to help permanently house the homeless, build permanent apartments.

> If you simply want to put people inside a building in our neighborhood, NO drugs, NO criminal records, and NO serious mental health issues that put them or others in danger. Problem is, if we accept this promise, we know it will be broken.

DO NOT 'HOUSE' THEM OUTSIDE OUR DOORS while you build the appropriate facilities.

We have a zero tolerance policy. This means ZERO TOLERANCE for drug or alcohol consumption/dealing within several miles of the facility, schools, homes, and parks, not just on the property.

LifeMoves/InnVision and other homelessness services (e.g. Abode) have already demonstrated they cannot manage these populations effectively for
decades.

We know LifeMoves will not remove tenants for breaking the rules nor will they be able to search private rooms without a warrant.

Sincerely ,
Grace Tzeng and Shawying Chien

Santa Clara

From:

To:

Subject: Opposing Benton-Lawrence Homeless Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:27:17 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:

To:

Subject: Please do not build low barrier entry Temporary Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 9:30:33 AM
Dear Respected Mr. Marcus,
Good morning.

I live with my family on Golden State drive, less than 1000 feet away from the site of proposed low barrier entry temporary housing. I strongly oppose building a low barrier entry temporary housing at Benton and Lawrence. The long term safety concerns and questions from the residents of the community were not addressed adequately or in most cases ignored during and after the community meetings. This tells me that the project is not well thought through in terms of security risks and dangers it poses for the areas surrounding and close to the proposed low barrier entry temporary housing.

We have a beautiful and safe neighborhood. Please leave it like that. Please do not build a low barrier entry temporary housing at Benton and Lawrence. Instead consider alternatives like building permanent housing for low income families, for essential employees who cannot afford to live in the area, for temporary housing of homeless families etc that do not pose security dangers to the neighborhood.

Again, I strongly oppose the building of low barrier entry temporary housing at Benton and Lawrence.

Have a great day.

Thanks,
Chandrasekhar Maddipatla
Get Outlook for iOS

removing 24/7 security and supportive services and decreasing family spaces. The City of Palo Alto is facing a $6 million funding gap, which only covers construction costs and does not account for the rising operational costs that will increase year after year.

While you may argue that these shelters differ from the proposed Benton project, the fact remains that each site faces problems. This suggests that the current model is fundamentally flawed and should not be replicated further. I urge you to consider these concerns and rethink the Benton project's viability. --
Huasha Zhao

From:

To:

Subject: Project on Benton and Lawrence
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58:16 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.

Regards
Denisse Tostado
Resident of 95051

From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
To:

Subject: Q&A Answers not visible
Date: Friday, April 14, 2023 10:09:14 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:

To:

Subject: Question
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:19:47 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)

transparent and unbiased, we request that we nominate 1-2 people to co-host with you.

Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:50 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
wrote:

Hi Cindy,

We heard from the community that they would like to engage in small group discussions.

There is a function in zoom that allows breakout rooms. This is typically manageable when we have 100 – 150 people in attendance but we anticipate there will be at least 400 people like the first zoom meeting we held.

As such, we are working through the
logistics.

As staff we do not organize groups that support or oppose the proposal. Our summary of the meeting will include a note that identifies the advocacy group that made comments in support of the project.

I was not aware of a SJSU group but will ask our team to go back and watch the recording to see if anyone identified themselves specifically as a SJSU student.

I think a better idea would be for us to set up a separate and additional meeting where you can control the guest list and invite the project team to speak.

We have done this in other
communities, and it has led to a better discussion with a smaller group of concerned and direct neighbors.

Please let me know if you are interested and we can work on setting up a date and time before the City Council meeting on April 25th. We can also meet to discuss the logistics of hosting such a meeting and if it makes sense have representatives from your different neighborhood groups attend.

Thanks,
Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
> wrote:

Hi Cindy,

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to when you say “astroturfing” or “market false impressions of public support”. Our primary engagement has been with the local community and we invited everyone in attendance last week to speak. People were fairly provided with 1 minute each to speak. We also collected many comment cards that will be shared and included in our Community Engagement Report. Our objective is to share what we heard during the community meetings and have been transparently posting the materials and recordings of the meetings on the project website.

We are hosting the March 22nd meeting via zoom in response to concerns from the community who were not able to attend the in-person meetings. This announcement has already been made and we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions.

We will be sending postcards to the neighborhood
within a 1,000 foot radius in the coming week.

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on April 25th I would be happy to explore that with you and others in the neighborhood.

Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your thoughts.

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing

From: puredancing >
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 3:14 PM

Best,

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.

I understand you need to ”always find a way to get it done”, and you support the project at Benton location, but the way need to be transparent and unbiased. It cannot be like the 3/9 meeting, or the zoom meeting you hold for Crew View or Bella Visa where you invited supporters to cheat on public opinion.

To sum up, community
meetings are to hear from local neighbourhood residents. They should be residents living within a short distance from Benton, NOT everyone. We people who live in the neighbourhood need to make sure the 3/22 meeting is for our NEIGHBOURHOOD.

To do that, if you said you cannot change the format for the 3/22 meeting, we request that we nominate a co-host from our neighborhood to host the meeting together with you, so we can make sure the selection of speakers is transparent, and there won’t be anything behind the screen on your end.

Also, we request you and the co-host make the comments and participants’ list visible to everyone. If you have nothing going on behind the screen, I don’t see a reason why you won’t consider adjusting the zoom meeting settings.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
< org> wrote:

Hi Cindy,

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to when you say “astroturfing” or “market false impressions of public support”.

Our primary engagement has been with the local
community and we invited everyone in attendance last week to speak. People were fairly provided with 1 minute each to speak. We also collected many comment cards that will be shared and included in our Community Engagement Report. Our objective is to share what we heard during the community meetings and have been transparently posting the materials and recordings of the meetings on the project website.

We will be sending postcards to the neighborhood within a 1,000 foot radius in the coming week.

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on

2. Add 1-2 co-hosts that the majority of the neighborhood recommend to co-host with you (our Safe SantaClara County volunteer group can recommend 1-2 person, and they will represent thousands of homes in our community). That person should have the same access and permission as you do.

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

Again, I hope you both are on the same page with us for a transparent community meeting, which will not presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents, will not engage in astroturfing anymore.

Best,

request you to make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all. We request those because we saw and experienced cheating and manipulating of our opinion during the 3/9 community hearing. Therefore, we need to help you to make sure the 3/22 hearing is a transparent, fair and unbiased hearing truly representing opinions from the neighbour.

------
In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who support this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come.

All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

Given what has happened in the 3/9 meeting, the 3/22 Zoom meeting, without monitoring and supervision, can only be worse. Therefore, to make sure that the 3/22 meeting is transparent
and unbiased, we request that we nominate 1-2 people to co-host with you.

Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:46 PM puredancing > wrote:

Hi Consuelo,
In the 3/9 in person meeting, there were at least 5 speakers who support this project who came from house advocate organizations (and none of them live in our neighbourhood), one of them told us that you invited her to come. There was at least one speaker who was a student of Ken Yeager. Ken Yeager brought a group of students as well. I talked to the student after the meeting, he has little context for the Benton Project. He even could not tell where exactly the project will be built. He said his professor (Ken Yeager) asked him to come.

All of those behaviors during the public community hearing are considered cheating and manipulating public opinion. Those are unacceptable.

Also please make participants list, chat, and discussion board visible to all.

I will think about your idea of having another in-person public community meeting and get back to you later.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:50 PM Hernandez, Consuelo
wrote:

Hi Cindy,

Hello Consuelo,

Can you be more specific about "we are working on setting up the meeting in a way that will allow for small group discussions"? Who will be included in this "small group discussion"? How can you make sure they will represent the neighborhood who live close to Benton location?

To answer your question, by "astroturfing” or “market false impressions of public support”, I mean "institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community." There are at lease five of them from house advocate orgs, one told us that you invited her and a few others. Also there was a group of SJSU students who "were asked to come and support this project by our professor Ken Yeager" (quote from one of the students).

To sum up,
community meetings are to hear from local neighbourhood residents. They should be residents living within a short distance from Benton, NOT everyone.

We people who live in the neighbourhood need to make sure the 3/22 meeting is for our NEIGHBOURHOOD.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
< > wrote:

Hi Cindy,

My name is Cindy and I live in Birdland neighborhood. I want to strongly express my indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before in the third hearing held on March 9th, and for the upcoming meeting on 3/22. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community. This action to market false impressions of public support for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles of law and democracy. I have zero-tolerance towards such behavior.

The 3/22 meeting will be on Zoom, which is much easier to manipulate community opinion and engage in astroturfing. To make sure that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased, I strongly recommend you to do the following changes to the meeting format:

1. Change to in-person meeting instead, as covid has already ended.

2. Add 1-2 co-hosts that the majority of the neighborhood recommend to co- host with you (our Safe SantaClara County volunteer group can recommend 1-2 person, and they will represent thousands of homes in our community).

That person should have the same access and permission as you do.

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

Best,

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Meeting #4
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 11:04:41 AM
Hello Consuelo,
Thank you for the reassuring information Clearly, there is no perfect way to hold the meetings but everyone appreciates that they were held We'd need several hours to allow everyone to provide their input
I can try to bring a group of folks together for a meeting, but I want to make sure it's a small group that will be collaborative and not attack each other or your team Everyone wants to see the homelessness situation resolved using an approach that will work for the community as a whole rather than beneficial for some and damaging for others
Personally, I'm more of a fan of smaller housing facilities rather than large projects we've seen fail decade after decade (century)

From what I'm hearing, the community would likely embrace permanent housing for families with children But they will forcefully reject and fight allowing adults with drug/alcohol/serious mental issues, and recent parolees and criminals The children would have lots of other kids in the neighborhood to play with and plenty of schools and after school programs to choose from Parents have enough to worry about these days Older/Senior unhoused adults would be bored and lonely here They'd benefit by being near safe and active senior communities in Sunnyvale or Santa Clara downtown Working-age single adults need to be near drug rehab and job services/training (e g areas/towns with manufacturing/services jobs) Without a degree in engineering or computer science, there area very few job opportunities around here Even with those degrees, it's a challenge to compete with foreign workers brought in by large corporations and outsourcing
For mailers, I would suggest using direct mail lists within about a mile of the proposed site People walk a lot here so assume 15-30 min walking distance at 3 mph It should identify homeowners vs renters
Thanks again for staying in touch!
Sierra
On Mar 24, 2023, at 9:12 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo wrote:

Hi Sierra,
Thank you for staying engaged throughout the process
I am still hoping we can connect around the data in the coming weeks Perhaps we will find a way to publish the radius map so that people can see who is receiving a notification We save any and all returned postcards In terms of the meeting, it’s disheartening to hear that people feel we are somehow favoring some people over others We worked to address the community concerns about the type of meeting by making changes that I would normally not support for a meeting that we know is going to draw significant participation Neighbors asked that we activate the chat and show everyone in the virtual audience We did that There were over 100 people with their hands raised when we started the public comment period and only had 1 hour on the agenda for this Making it impossible for us to get through everyone who wanted to speak When we stopped there were still over 80 people in the queue to speak The speakers are automatically queued up by zoom We do not select the order This is exactly the way public meetings at the city council and county board meetings me are managed There is no way to show you this order as the recording doesn’t capture that view If you set up a zoom meeting or webinar style and test this out with friends and family you will see that the list is displayed in your list in the order that they raised their hands We take names from the top of the list in order We have been transparent during the meetings capturing the public sentiment and have introduced different ways in which the public can document their opinions Most recently this was done through
a polling function to show how people who attended the meeting felt about the project Yet there still seems to be distrust If you have other ideas I’d love to hear them At this point I feel like we have been responsive to the various requests, we have offered another neighbor the opportunity to have a small group discussion with members of the neighborhood that are selected by you all, we have offered to attend a meeting where the neighbors host and we answer questions but they have not taken us up on that offer
If there is interest we can start planning now and in advance of the April 25th city council meeting and actually have the opportunity to answer questions
Thank you again for staying engaged Have a wonderful weekend Consuelo
Get Outlook for iOS
From: goog le
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <
Cc: Adam Marcus ; Marie Jackson
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting #4

Hello Consuelo,
I hope you are well Thank you for the additional information at meeting #4 I learned from a neighbor that residents on Tracy Dr in Santa Clara received flyers from the county about the meeting Our area, which ranges from 250ft to several thousand feet away, has not received flyers from the county, potentially because it is both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale Is there a way we can close that gap with sufficient time before the input deadline of April 7?
While I know the meetings are wrapped up, for the future, just an idea I believe there is a way limit the Zoom chat to communication with Panelists, similar to what was done by shutting off the Everyone feature This depends on the type of license

as Q&A It was not the 'supporters' place to be responding to 'opponents' input A number of people were queued up just beyond the last speaker and, evidently, it appeared there were supporters moved ahead of opponents, including a retired police officer who didn't get to speak This may have been a Zoom glitch We'd like to see the recording with full details to confirm that the order wasn't intentionally altered Many fear that if they cannot speak in the public forum, their input may not be heard via other channels We greatly appreciate your help keeping the property owners up to date and giving them an opportunity to provide their input based on facts rather than rumors Renters can pick up and move Property owners cannot

Sierra
On Mar 10, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo
Perfect If you let me know on Monday I can coordinate on our end

Thanks for sending the map I think there may also be an opportunity for us to list the schools by distance in a simple table

Appreciate you sending the maps over Have a wonderful weekend and look forward to connecting next week

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing

From: goog le <
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <
Cc: Adam Marcus < Marie Jackson <
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City

Hi Consuelo,

Thank you for your message I will check with a few folks on their availability I might be on jury duty next week I hope to know on Monday whether or not I'll be called

Thanks again!

<image003 png>
On Mar 9, 2023, at 11:34 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo < wrote:

Let us know either way and we can work out the logistics on our end

Thank you for engaging with us Have a wonderful evening

Consuelo

Get Outlook for iOS
From: goog le <
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:14:49 PM
To: Hernandez, Consuelo <
Cc: Adam Marcus < Marie Jackson <
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Analysis - Unsheltered by City

Hi Consuelo,

Thank you for sharing the additional information this evening

Thank you

Jurisdiction Unsheltered 2019 Unsheltered 2022 CHANGE CHANGE RANK 2019 RANK 2022 Mountain View 574 206 (368) -64% 2 9
Sunnyvale 477 279 (198) -42% 3 4
San Jose 5117 4975 (142) -3% 1 1
Cupertino 159 102 (57) -36% 8 10
Morgan Hill 114 60 (54) -47% 10 12
Palo Alto 299 263 (36) -12% 5 5
Other 270 254 (16) -6% 6 6
Los Altos 76 65 (11) -14% 11 11
Saratoga 10 0 (10) -100% 14 14
Los Altos Hills 2 0 (2) -100% 15 14
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW A REDUCTION OF UNSHELTERED (894)LEFT THESE CITIES OR WERE HOUSED Monte Sereno 0 0 0 16 14
Other Conf 0 0 0 16 14
Los Gatos 16 58 42 263% 13 13
Santa Clara 264 375 111 42% 7 3
Milpitas 125 249 124 99% 9 7
Campbell 74 216 142 192% 12 8
Gilroy 345 606 261 76% 4 2
TOTAL OF CITIES THAT SAW AN INCREASE OF UNSHELTERED 680 WERE ADDED TO THESE THESE CITIES

On Mar 9, 2023, at 4 05 PM, Hernandez, Consuelo < wrote:

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for staying engaged with us

Consuelo Hernandez, AICP
Director, Office of Supportive Housing

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing - help to support Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:27:01 AM
Adding Councilmember Jain.

Regards,
Jeff Houston

From: [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:15 PM
To:

Cc: 'R. Elysa Gurman' < ; 'Santa Clara Housing Advocates' ;
Lawrence Interim Housing - help to support

Hello Consuelo,

I’m a member of Santa Clara Housing Advocates. Hopefully you’ve heard of us and know that we are trying to help get the Benton/Lawrence Interim Housing approved.

I’d like to learn more about contractual agreements between the city/county and LifeMoves for this project.

What agreements do we have with them already? Can you share them with us or point us to where we can find them? Will there be further negotiations/agreements before or after city/county approval?

Regards,
Jeff Houston

Join Zoom Meeting
https://sccgov-org.zoom.us/j/94536865765
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,94536865765#
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833
Meeting ID: 945 3686 5765

From: Shu C <
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 10:21 PM
To: Shu C >
Subject:

Concerns about the benton&lawrence shelter proposal

Hi,

I am writing this letter to formally express my concerns and strong opposition to the proposal of a homeless shelter at the intersection of Benton street and Lawrence Expressway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Shu
From:

To: @
Cc:

Subject: RE: Fwd: Our neighborhood NEEDS you!
Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 3:23:46 PM
Hello,

No to this Proposal at Benton and Lawrence.

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.

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.

- 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:

To:

Cc:

Subject: 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 8:17:43 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 > 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.

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

To: @
Cc: @ @
Subject: 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 10:45:50 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
I recently heard from several folks that there could be a correlation to the increase in the number of homeless people in Santa Clara county with the release of prisoners during peak Covid times. I haven't been able to look into this myself from a data perspective. Granted,that doesn't change anything regarding the total number of homeless folks that need housing, it actually makes the concern around safety and security even more grave (if that assumption is valid). Would it be possible for you to cover this in the next session on 3/22?
A number of people that I have personally talked with, supported the solution of getting rehabilitation from substance abuse first, before getting such folks in close proximity to kids and residents. Please understand that if it were a fail safe screened process where families with jobs in the area on the verge of being homeless (eviction etc.) could be provided a relief and prevented from going down that cycle, you'd have seen an embracing community. I hope that we find a path in which we all could come together, not just for this project but for overall solution.

Thanks,
Ashish
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:17 AM Ashish Verma > wrote:

Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
There were a couple of topics that got debated quite a bit in the last few days. These were:

1. US Citizenship
Most of the folks who brought it up wanted a verification that only US Citizens get assistance in such interim housing/shelter.

Any illegal or undocumented folks are routed to the facilities that can either get them to a path of citizenship or take corrective actions.

If none, it would be a good idea to determine exclusion criterias for different types of locations. For example:

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):

4. Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?
No response yet

7. Smoking Area
Would the facility have its own smoking area so that the "clients" do not congregate on the streets for smoking?
Not yet covered on FAQ

day he/she moved into the shelter. If he/she can not find help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drug 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.

How
many doctor and nurse does the County plan to assign
to this shelter full time?
6) A homeless shelter is not a jail. Therefore 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 doing their “business” and wandering
around the immediate neighborhood. With the
concentration of 200+ "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 fulltime police officers are assigned to this

precinct for this proposed project?
7) What does Santa Clara County plan to do when at the
end of their "interim" stay, when a homeless does not
find permeant housing? Does the county has 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! Does the County has
any busing plan to move the homeless to where they
want to go?
8) This lot has been used for community activities for many many years, such as pumpkin patch's, Christmas tree sales and more. Where will the local kids go if the County takes away this activities lot? What will the County provide as an alternative?
Clearly the County needs to do much more extensive studies before proposing 2350 Benton Street for an interim housing development.

NO homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway! Regards,
Ben W.
and family
Long Time Proud Residents of City of Santa Clara
From:

To:

Subject: Re: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:17:18 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

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

Regards,

Ben Wo and family
Residents of Santa Clara

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:31:59 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:09:08 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.

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,
Jo Yu
Hung

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:08:00 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.

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,
Amber Hung

From:

To:

Subject: 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.

HUIYUAN Tan

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:57:59 AM
Dear offciers,
My Name is Bowen Chen and I lives in Santa Clara.

Home address is
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.

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 regards,

Bowen
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:26:37 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.

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.

Cong Liu

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:43:36 AM
Dear Ms. Hernandez and Santa Clara City and County Council members, Let me start by saying when I went to the first community meeting on 3/1/23, I went expecting a cordial and constructive communication session, where there will be back and forth dialogues and the neighbors would get their questions answered right then.

This is Santa Clara after all! There was none of that. I was aghast and extremely disappointed with the hostility and exasperation exhibited toward the neighbors on both 3/1 and 3/9 meetings. This is our home, our neighborhood, our everyday lives -- unlike some or most of the council members and a good number of 3/9 "in favor" attendees who at least had the decency to admit they didn't even live in the neighborhood. Most of us are just everyday people, fortunate enough to have a roof but, look, it's not like we have a silver spoon. We're working ourselves to the ground dealing with this economy, trying to make the mortgage, trying to make the bills, and trying to provide for our families and keep them safe. We don't have a Plan B because we cannot afford one. Our home, our neighborhood is just a spot on the map to you and the housing agencies; but this is all we have, and this is our everyday life. Please find an alternative location for the project. The city and county members have alternatives and choices; we the neighbors do not have an alternative.

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

This action gave false impressions of public support for the project and set up a plot to

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

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

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

Regards,
Chao-Wen Huang
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:52 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:59:01 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58:38 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.

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.

--
Gurinder Dhillon
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:16:29 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.

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.
--
Hardikkumar Darji

Hongliang

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:05:33 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.

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,
Jeff Li

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:24:23 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.

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:

To:

Subject: 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.

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.

Regards,

Julia
From:

To:

Subject: 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.

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.

Junyu Zheng

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:57:27 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.

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:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:56:12 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.

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,
-Lorie

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:01:07 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.

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.

Luyao

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:27:28 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.

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:

To:

Subject: 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.

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 lists are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community

outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
-A Santa Clara resident

From:

To:

Subject: 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

Concerned Santa Clara resident
From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:50:18 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:55:41 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:01:31 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.

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,
Rémy Bernard

From: Rui
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:54 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.

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: Liang
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:18 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:54:40 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.

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 Regards,
Rui Liang

From: Sergey
To:

Subject: 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.

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-
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:00 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.

From: Sharilyn
To:

Subject: 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.

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,
Sharilyn

From: Shroff
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:54:35 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.

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: Shea
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:10:15 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.

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,
Jason Shea

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:59:53 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.

Thank you!
Siyu

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:20:51 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.

Sizhuo Zhang

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: Win
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:43 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.

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:16:17 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.

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,
Victoria

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:12:50 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.

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 Regards,
- Yin Wei

Address:

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:13:23 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.

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.
--
Haoyu Chen

From: Xuri
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:28:38 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:59:25 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.

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,
Yi Huang

From: Yunqi
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:18:26 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.

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: Zhe
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:14:03 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

towards such behavior.

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

From: Zheyu
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:22:58 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.

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

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

From:

To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 6:10:35 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

towards such behavior.

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

Sent from my iPhone

From: So
To:

Subject: Strong objection to benton&lawrence shelter project Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59:55 PM
Hi there,
I am a resident with young kids living in 95051. I am writing to express my strong objection to the benton&lawerence shelter project. I understand that the goal of this project is to provide shelter for the homeless, but I believe that the site is not a terrible choice.

The site is in walking distance to several private and public elementary schools.

The shelter will bring uncertainty in the neighborhood and is a huge safety concern to nearby students. I strongly urge you to reconsider the location.

Sincerely,

From:

To:

Subject: strongly oppose building interim housing on Benton!! Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:15:15 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:

To:

Subject: Support for Interim Housing Proposal
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 5:48:32 PM
Good evening,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara County. Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need. As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because I believe that housing is a basic human right, and by providing people with housing we will also be providing them with a sense of hope for their future.

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,
Cassidy Kearins
Resident of Santa Clara

From:

To:

Subject: Support for Interim Housing Proposal
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2023 10:17:27 AM
Good morning,
I’m writing to share my support of the proposed LifeMoves interim housing program for unhoused people at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara County.

Homelessness is a significant problem in Santa Clara, increasing 35% since 2019. You may recall the denial of a similar Project Homekey interim housing proposal on White Oak Lane, a devastating blow to the unhoused population and the City of Santa Clara. The need for additional interim housing is undeniable – the current resources for unhoused people are not robust enough to meet the ever-increasing need. As a resident of Santa Clara, I am in strong support of the proposal because I live here with my wife and 3 year old son, and we consistently witness the unhoused population struggling, living in and out of the nearby parks, and not getting the care and support they need to get back to a more normal life.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Dan Satran
Resident of Santa Clara

From:

To:

Subject: Support for Interim Housing Proposal
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:49:38 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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Melinda Berlant

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Support for option 1 over option 2
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:52:08 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:

To:

Subject: Thoughts on the Benton & Lawrence shelter program Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:38:55 PM
Hi Adam,
We have been residents of Santa Clara for over 9 years. We live less than 200 feet from this proposed site.

Few days ago, I met a guy from Milpitas at Santa Clara Community Center, where our kids go to the same ballet class. Somehow we talked about the homeless project. He said the Milpitas homeless is a complete failure. So I asked why. He explained that that site has become a hotspot for drug dealers and criminals.

I can't help thinking that the Benton & Lawrence project could become the next Milpitas project. A disaster we can avoid now!
My kids need to pass this site everyday to go to school. Just imagine from my perspective, and put yourself in my position.

We need a solution that works for everyone. I believe such a solution exists, we need to think creatively and work smartly, maybe with a little bit more patience. --
Best Regards.

Xufei Wang
You are very welcome to download our FoodSpot apps now available at both Android & iOS store. Your favorite dishes, discovered.

From:

To:

Subject: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15:39 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.

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:

To:

Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:02:24 PM
Housing Manager Adam Marcus,
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

From:

To:

Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:04:01 PM
Housing Manager Adam Marcus,
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.

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

From:

To:

Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:13:33 PM
Housing Manager Adam Marcus,
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.

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

--
Regards,
Wei
From: Rachel Zhang
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:49:55 AM
Hi,
My name is Shenqiu Zhang, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton Shelter. This low barrier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a potential safety risk to our children, and it is unacceptable. 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,
Shenqiu Zhang

From: Xiaolan Yang
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:21:17 AM
Hi,
My name is Xiaolan Yang, 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. 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.

The county conducted a live poll in the last community meeting and it showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate was 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. Please vote No to this radical experiment as soon as possible.

Thanks
very much for your help.

Best Regards,
Xiaolan

2023-04-06

From:

To:

Subject: S OP t e Be to /Law e ce Ho e ess S e te P o ect Date: Thursday April 6 2023 10:44:24 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 low barrier homeless housing initiative for male singles is a serious safety risk for the children and families in our community. The county's claim that there are no safety concerns for children is not supported by evidence from a similar facility in Milpitas where police-involved incidents increased by 300% after the project was executed. We need to work together to ensure the safety of our children and prevent our community from becoming a high-crime area I urge you to vote NO on any and all upcoming proposals/projects associated with homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

Regards,
BP Huang household
Residents of Santa Cara

From:

To:

Subject: STOP the homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence!! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:34:11 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:

To: Mayor and Council; Consuelo
Subject: We Need to STOP the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. STOP! STOP! STOP! Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:06:38 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

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)?

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.

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: Property Manager
To: Kevin Park; Mayor and Council
Subject: opposing the interim housing on the vacant lot between Lawrence and Benton Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 11:14:00 PM
Hello Mayor Lisa & Council Member Kevin
I am resident of district 4 of the city of Santa Clara. I would like to express my concern of the proposal of Interim Housing on between Lawrence and Benton for the following reasons :
1) The lot itself has been used for pumpkin patches and the Christmas tree lots which bring a
lot of beautiful memories for our residents.
2) The site is too close to the elementary schools on Pomeroy. 3) The site is too close to Earl Carmichael Park. There are a lot of residents nearby. If the Interim housing opens, many homeless people may take over the park and disturb residents nearby.
4) There are a few homeless between El Camino and Kiely. They walk on the streets and sometimes they look confused too and walk mindlessly to the intersection. To avoid any accidents, I drive very carefully each time on El Camino or Kiely when I see any homeless
people walking along El Camino or Kiely. Lawrence is a busy expressway and drivers drive at high speed on Lawrence Express. I am worrying that accidents may happen to both drivers and the homeless people if the homeless people walk along Lawrence express. 5) There are better options out there.Vacant office space is a quick option. The cost of building an interim housing from ground up is too costly. There is plenty of office space near Great America. those vacant offices - buildings are already there and modification of the interior will be less costly and the project may be ready sooner to provide service to homeless
people.

I am NOT opposing the project but the location needs to be further away from residential.

Somewhere by industrial or office area is a better choice.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,
Cindy
Resident of Santa Clara

From: No Homekey in Birdland Benton
Subject: NO INTERIM HOUSING AT BENTON & LAWRENCE
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:29:31 PM
Affordable housing for a reasonable number of residents: MAYBE.

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

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

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

Thank you for representing your constituents.

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: Zheyu Wu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:23:02 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.

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

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

From: VW H
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:12:54 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.

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 Regards,
- Yin Wei

Address:

From: Sizhuo Zhang
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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,
Victoria

From: Haiying Wu
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:02:29 PM
General office Santa Clara,
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.

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

From: Raymond Chi
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:04:06 PM
General office Santa Clara,
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.

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

maximum stay?

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

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

Regards,
Connie Chou, Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

From: C L
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 7:26:39 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.

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.

Cong Liu

From: Anna Tan
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 7:49:07 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.

HUIYUAN Tan

○ 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.

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: Fay Dustin
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Wrong location! Cease considering Benton for interim housing Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 10:13:33 PM
General office Santa Clara,
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.

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

From: Shan-Ting Hsu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Put an end to astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion. Either make the 3/22 meeting in-person or include a co-host from the neighborhood for the Zoom meeting
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:21:05 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 co- host 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: Lumeow Hsox
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion, Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:01:07 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.

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.

Luyao

From: Shan-Ting Hsu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:07 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.

From: Su Latt Win
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:12:39 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.

From: Will C
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:13:22 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.

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.
--
Haoyu Chen

From: Rémy BERNARD
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:01:32 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.

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,
Rémy Bernard

From: Leung Andy
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:57:26 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.

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: Guilan Gao
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58:38 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.

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: Guilan Gao
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:59:01 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.

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: Junyu Zheng
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:04:37 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.

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.

Junyu Zheng

Hongliang

From: M Feng
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:27:25 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.

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: vidya g
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:00:12 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.

From: Rui Liang
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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 Regards,
Rui Liang

From: Ray Leon
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:55:37 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.

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: Rui Liang
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:20 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.

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: Rui de Leon
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:56:54 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.

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: Chou Ethan
To: onsuelo
Subject: Entire household ) strongly against Homekey project "Benton Street at Lawrence" Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:48:52 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.

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

Professor Ken Yeager, a former Santa Clara County Supervisor. The turnout created the illusion that more neighbors started supporting this HomeKey project. It showcases the government’s campaign to skew the actual level of opposition from the people who actually work/live in the neighborhood. As a preventative measure, we plan to ask the city/county to add a co-host nominated by the neighborhood for the next virtual public hearing.

It is really a critical period for us and our community. Again, we need our voices heard! We need your emails, and your phone calls AS MANY AS POSSIBLE to say NO to officials. Let them know we care about our community and will try very hard to keep it safe.

We also need more WET
SIGNATURES!
Before the meeting on March 22nd, please spend 5 mins
emailing and
calling officials. You can do it multiple times with the same words!! Please call

1. Consuelo：（
Office line）

2. Any or all of the numbers below:
image.png

Email:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
To:

BCC:

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.

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:

To: Mayor and Council; Adam Marcus
Subject: 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.

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: hardik darji
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:16:27 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.

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.
--
Hardikkumar Darji

--
Gurinder Dhillon
From: Yunqi Sun
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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: Jeff Leon
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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,
Jeff Li

From: Ray
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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: Ling Huang
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:25:47 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.

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: Xuri Feng
To:

Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:28:39 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.

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.

once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?

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

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

Regards,
Shaun Shroff,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

4. Budget:

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

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

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

Regards,
Monica Bansal, J.D. Parent and Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

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

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

Regards,
Pushpanjali S,
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Benny Fong
To: Mayor and Council; Adam Marcus
Subject: DO NOT build any homeless shelter at Lawrence and Benton Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 9:07:58 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

We strongly OPPOSE to any homeless shelter at Lawrence
and Benton.

I am all for helping the homeless, and solving the homeless issue. But the County needs to do more studying and come up with a Win Win proposal. Just because there is an empty lot in our neighborhood Does Not mean the county's next project should be built here.

You don't need a PhD to know this
location is absolutely WRONG for any homeless shelter.

We have been living in this area for the past 15 years. Our two kids attend the elementary school that is half a mile from the proposed site.

I'm FURIOUS that the county is proposing this
location for homeless shelter, right in the middle of our residential community, where hundreds of children live and attend the many schools in the neighborhood, all within an one mile radius.

What this proposal to build a homeless shelter in our
residential community
is basically to turn our beautiful
neighborhood into a shit hole. We CAN NOT let this happen.

Please don't sacrifice our children.

NO homeless shelter at Lawrence and Benton.

Regards,
Ben W. and family
Resident of Santa Clara

From: Natalia Bondarenko
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE the low-barrier shelter project at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:57:43 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.

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

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

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

Tina Liu
Resident from Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood

From: Yuanyuan Zhang
To: Mayor and Council
Cc:

Subject: Oppose Benton shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:19:58 PM
Hello,
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: Ashish Verma
To: Adam Marcus; Consuelo
Cc: Mayor and Council;
Subject: 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 10:45:56 AM
Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
I recently heard from several folks that there could be a correlation to the increase in the number of homeless people in Santa Clara county with the release of prisoners during peak Covid times. I haven't been able to look into this myself from a data perspective. Granted,that doesn't change anything regarding the total number of homeless folks that need housing, it actually makes the concern around safety and security even more grave (if that assumption is valid). Would it be possible for you to cover this in the next session on 3/22?
A number of people that I have personally talked with, supported the solution of getting rehabilitation from substance abuse first, before getting such folks in close proximity to kids and residents. Please understand that if it were a fail safe screened process where families with jobs in the area on the verge of being homeless (eviction etc.) could be provided a relief and prevented from going down that cycle, you'd have seen an embracing community. I hope that we find a path in which we all could come together, not just for this project but for overall solution.

Thanks,
Ashish
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:17 AM Ashish Verma < > wrote:

Hi Mr. Adam and Ms. Consuelo,
There were a couple of topics that got debated quite a bit in the last few days. These were:

1. US Citizenship
Most of the folks who brought it up wanted a verification that only US Citizens get assistance in such interim housing/shelter.

Any illegal or undocumented folks are routed to the facilities that can either get them to a path of citizenship or take corrective actions.

If none, it would be a good idea to determine exclusion criterias for different types of locations. For example:

4. Budget:

Santa Clara city is already in a deficit. How would the city maintain the operations once the homekey funding runs out (after 3 years)?
No response yet

7. Smoking Area
Would the facility have its own smoking area so that the "clients" do not congregate on the streets for smoking?
Not yet covered on FAQ

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: Sharilyn Yao
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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,
Sharilyn

From: Zhe Liu
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:14:03 PM
I am extremely disappointed that you invited some supporters of the Benton project, portrayed them as members of the local community then asked them to speak at the March 9th Benton public hearing on the neighbors’ behalf. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions or individuals with a vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as local neighbors. In the 3/9 meeting, at least 5 speakers are from housing advocate organizations, who don’t live in the neighborhood. Ken Yeager, a professor from SJSU and former county supervisor, brought a dozen of college students to support and speak for the project. None of them are from the Benton neighborhood.

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

towards such behavior.

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

programs.

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

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

suggested by city councilmember Kevin Park.

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

Regards,
Board Members, Safe Santa Clara County

From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: I oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:07:22 AM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

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

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

Regards,

Eric Sung

From: Benny Fong
To: Adam Marcus
Subject: I Oppose to building a homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 12:50:23 PM
Elected Officials of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:

I am a long time resident of Santa Clara. 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 many elementary schools, daycares, public parks and a sprawling neighborhood of single family homes, apartments, senior homes.

Families stroll in the area with their kids. Young students walk to and from their schools daily. Senior citizens enjoy their retirement life in the communities.

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

Regards,
Ben Wong

From: Debbie Dempsey
To:

Cc: Mayor and Council;
Subject: Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 3:36:52 PM
I live on Shafer Drive which is within the 1000 foot radius of the proposed Interim Housing Site on the corner of Benton and Lawrence Expressway.

Because a low barrier interim housing site is strongly opposed by my community, myself included, I suggest that the site instead be used for affordable housing for:

1. Firefighters;

2. Police;

3. Nurses;

4. Health Care Workers; and

5. Employees of the City of Santa Clara.

The availability of affordable housing for the above will allow our community to build support services for our homeless population, including but not limited to:

A. Transformational case management for our City of Santa Clara homeless so we can better understand the needs of our homeless population;
B. Reach out to partner agencies for services, as for example:
dentists;
legal services and/or partners to help ensure that individuals attend all scheduled court appearances and do not re-offend;
health care oversight;
Goodwill or similar for clothing.

Once we are confident that we can successfully address the needs of our homeless population in the city of Santa Clara, then an interim housing site can be identified that is not in a residential neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dempsey

From: freyzhou
To: Mayor and Council
Subject: Opposing Benton-Lawrence Homeless Shelter
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:27:13 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

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 15:54 Hernandez, Consuelo
> wrote:

Hi Cindy,

We will be sending postcards to the neighborhood within a 1,000 foot radius in the coming week.

If there is a desire to host a different type of meeting before the City Council meeting on

3. All of you host the meet at the same place. For example, you can host the meeting together in Ms. Hernandez's office.

4. Open the chat, discussion and participant's list and make them visible to all participants.

Best,

By A Long term residents of Benton Neighborhood.

From: Yi Huang
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:59:27 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.

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,
Yi Huang
From: Eric Kyungwoo Sung
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:05:53 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.

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: Mengxi Li
To: Consuelo
Subject: 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.

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 lists are always visible to everyone. These are essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.
-A Santa Clara resident

From: Amber Hung
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:08:02 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.

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,
Amber Hung

From: Amber Hung
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:09:06 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.

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,
Jo Yu
Hung

From: Shea Shea
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:10:14 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.

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,
Jason Shea

From: Sun Eva
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:11:55 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.

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,
Eva

From: Shaun Shroff
To: Consuelo
Subject: Stop astroturfing and misrepresenting public opinion; Make 3/22 meeting in-person or add neighborhood co-host for Zoom
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:54:35 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.

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:

To: Mayor and Council; Adam Marcus
Subject: We Oppose the shelter built at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15:39 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.

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: Gautam Kulkarni
To: Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: 4/25 council meeting on Benton Project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:11:53 PM
Dear Santa Clara City Council,
I am a concerned citizen and taxpayer who lives close to the proposed Benton/Lawrence shelter site. I would like the council to vote
NO

on this misguided initiative. It is extremely
concerning and appalling

that the city and county would even consider putting a low-barrier homeless shelter in a family oriented neighborhood with so many children and schools in the immediate vicinity. The planners and representatives have displayed a cavalier attitude towards the safety concerns raised by hardworking, tax-paying citizens.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of concerns/questions:
- Neither the county nor the city nor Lifemoves showed the ability to do even basic

research

about the community. In the first meeting, they had no answer about schools in the neighborhood. In subsequent meetings, the county map excluded a large number of schools.
- The county/city employees tried to obfuscate the matter by trying to use terms such as "shelter" or "interim housing" as if they are different. The people know better. - The county/city employees

have always downplayed safety

concerns when numerous data
reports presented by several citizens show otherwise.
- Which public safety

experts were consulted and what was their feedback? We expect that information to be made

available to us without filtering.
- Supervisor Susan Ellenberg had organized a voter meeting at the San Jose Rose Garden, where she did not bother to show up.

- Consuelo Hernandez (Santa Clara County) was supposed to meet with community members earlier this week. That did not happen.
- City/county officials keep asking us to find alternatives. I would like to remind them that that is your job, not ours. We pay for your salaries, benefits and pensions and therefore expect you to do your job.

If you vote yes on this project, you are going against the interests of the vast majority of honest, hard working

taxpayers and voters. We are watching this closely and will either recall or vote you out.

Regards,
Gautam
From: Zhihao Ji
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Subject: a document for 04/25 council meeting on Benton Project (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:11:16 PM
Hi,
I want to provide a document

that discusses why homekey doesn't work for helping
homelessness. Please attach to the 04/25 meeting agenda. This document

shows a lot of data
and evidence that homekey failed in california. I hope council members can read and address issues it brings up before voting for this project.

Project Homekey Provides No Way Home for California’s Homeless https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Homekey_Final.pdf Thank you!
Zhihao
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Requesting this material to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 12:38:43 PM
Attachments: Working together in solving homelessness crisis along with improving safety 4.4.23.pdf Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this presentation and email to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.

Thanks,
Ashish
_________________
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Thank you for listening to the Santa Clara residents in the last City Council meeting (on 4/4/23) regarding the impact to our safety due to the Lawrence/Benton "Low Entry Barrier" Homeless Shelter project.

We, as residents, are afraid of the adverse impact of such a low entry barrier shelter created so close to our homes and schools. Per the data shown by the city, more than 57% of the clients serviced by such a facility could have mental disorders, addiction to drugs, criminal records etc. Per our local police, more than 90% of the unhoused homeless that they get into touch with have substance abuse issues.

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

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

Ms. Mayor and council members, the tax paying citizens, especially the middle class want safety first. Nothing comes above that for families that just want a safe environment to bring up their kids. So far we have not seen any tangible proof regarding the efficacy of screenings done by LifeMoves to allay our concerns.

Most of the residents also suggest moving such "low barrier entry shelters for singles/couples" in a relatively non-residential area, and providing amenities and support that help such individuals rehabilitate. There is so much money being pumped by the government that we can really tackle this problem at its root cause, by rehabilitation and learning the issues that are causing this situation in the first place. We have already found a number of locations within Santa Clara County that could be a better fit. If you can support us, we'd be able to tackle the issue of the housing crisis for low income households along with tackling homelessness jointly, without compromising on the safety of your residents.

We need your support in making safety the topmost priority.

Regards,
Ashish
Lawrence/Benton Neighborhood
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Material #3 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:32:44 AM
Attachments: SF fire commissioner attack_ New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco.pdf
Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this document to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.

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

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

Attached is a PDF version of this
article.
(Link: https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime- metal-pipe/13100484)
Regards,
Ashish
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 1/8 New details, video in brutal attack of
former SF fire commissioner in Marina
District
By Lyanne Melendez
Friday, April 7, 2023
ABC7 Bay Area 24/7 live stream
EMBED <> MORE VIDEOS
New details are emerging from the brutal attack of former San Francisco Fire Commissioner Don Carmignani in the city's Marina District
LOG INWATCH 50°
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 2/8 SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A brutal attack on a former fire department commissioner is putting in question, again, the safety on San Francisco's streets. It happened Wednesday night in the Marina District. Don Carmignani remains in the hospital.

Cell phone video shows the man San Francisco police say brutally assaulted former fire department Commissioner Don Carmignani, with some type of metal object.
"Right here, here, around the corner, in front of the gas station. He almost beat the man into the street with all these cars passing by," said one witness.

INTERACTIVE:

Take a look at the ABC7 Neighborhood Safety
Tracker
Several other people witnessed the attack which took place on Magnolia and Laguna streets in the Marina District, within a few paces from where Carmignani lives.
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 3/8 The man arrested is homeless and neighbors here say he befriended these two other homeless people who have made this area their home.

We spoke to one of them Nate Roye who gave us more details about the weapon that was said to be used by the alleged attacker.
"It wasn't a crow bar. It was two round pieces of metal that had been broken," said Roye who is from North Carolina but has lived on the streets of San Francisco for the past three years.

Is SF's violent crime as 'horrific' as tech execs claim? Here's what data shows
Roye, who says he was with the attacker, claims they were sprayed with bear mace because Carmignani didn't like that they were hanging out near his home.

Bay Area animal rescue and zoo
needs help as they recover from severe storm da…
01:1101:11 01:1201:12
Top Stories
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 4/8 We asked him why hit someone over the head like that and attack him. "Because he was being disrespectful?" Roye said. We asked him who was being disrespectful. He responded, "The fat guy. There was a big old bald guy. Yeah, Don."
We asked him if that was reason enough to beat him up. "Yeah, sometimes," Roye responded.
"These types of brutal attack and these types of brazen attacks, these are the types of things that have been anxious about what's happening," explained Police Chief Bill Scott.

While other crime statistics remained steady or have gone down, the police chief is right.

A look at homicides in SF this year, in light of Cash App founder Bob Lee's stabbing death
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 5/8 EMBED <> MORE VIDEOS
The death of Cash App's Bob Lee is a high profile case, with police giving it a lot of attention. But what about the other homicides in SF this year? According to the ABC7 News neighborhood Safety Tacker, so far this year the number of robberies has gone up by 14% compared to the same time last year and assaults are also on the rise by 2.2%.

Carmignani remains at San Francisco General Hospital with injuries to his head and face.

Civil rights attorney, Joe Alioto visited him and as we interviewed him, we were interrupted by someone incoherent.
"In San Francisco, we do not have a mechanism to take care of people who have mental health issues and so here we have a good example of this," said Alioto.

From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Material #4 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 1:10:22 PM
Attachments: Lower Property Values.pdf
Hi Nora,
I'd request you to add this document to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter.

This shows an article that shows impact to property values due to homeless shelters. (Link: How Homeless Encampments Lower Property Values (ecobear.co)) Thanks,
Ashish
i?.i [email protected] Knowledge Center ~: 5 star rating on Yelp G 5 star rating on Google ~: 5 star rating on Yelp on Yelp on Google G 5 star rating on Google (9 24/7 Help (818) 358-4359

SERVICES ABOUT US AREAS WE SERVE PRICING RESOURCES

CONTACT US
Eco Bear » Knowledge Center » Homeless EncamRment » Authoritative Research on How Homeless Encampments Lower Property Values

AUTHORITATIVE RESEARCH ON HOW HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS

LOWER PROPERTY VALUES
In the past few years. a growing number of residential neighborhoods have faced the establishment of homeless encampments in their environs . Because this is something of a newer phenomenon, there is little definitive research on the precise impact homeless encampments have on property values in residential neighborhoods in which these camps exist.

Historically, homeless encamQments tended to rise in city centers , including in commercial and industrial zones. In this day and age, in many metropolitan areas, homeless encampments can fairly be said to be cropping up everywhere.
1/7
Understanding the dearth in more definitive data specifically directed at the impact of homeless encampments on residential property values, we present a fair, reasonable extrapolation of data on matters impacting residential valuations that have a real, affirmative connection to the impact of homeless encampments.

Comparative Drag on Property Values: Cross Referencing
Property Value Decrease From a Homeless Shelter
The National Association of Realtors has done extensive research on the impact the establishment of different types of businesses in or near a primarily residential neighborhood has on property values.

One type of entity that the National Association of Realtors has examined is a homeless shelter.

Through its research and analysis, the National Association of Realtors has concluded that a homeless shelter in a residential neighborhood has the potential for lowering property values by 12.7 percent.

As of this moment in time, the National Association of Realtors has not undertaken a comprehensive study on the impact homeless encampments have on property values in a residential neighborhood .

With that noted , a fair extrapolation can statistically and realistic be made when using a homeless shelter in a residential neighborhood as a starting point for calculating the impact of a homeless encampment.

A basic fact is that a homeless encampment brings all of the same negative considerations to a residential enclave that are found with the presence of a homeless shelter - and then some. The negative elements homeless encampments share with homeless shelters include:
• Higher crime rates
• Increased police calls into the neighborhood
• Damage to residential property by homeless shelter residents • Significantly increased drug use in the neighborhood
• Increased public intoxication or inebriation
• Increased assaults on and threats to property owners or renters in the neighborhood In addition to these factors homeless encampments share with homeless shelters , camps have other negative features that outpace those associated with shelters :
• Raw human waste in the neighborhood
• Other dangers biohazards (including used hypodermic needles used for drug injection) • Unsightly encampments themselves
• Inability to access sidewalks
• Inability to access parks
• Lasting damage to public spaces
• Even higher crime rates than associated with shelters • Even more frequent police calls into the neighborhood than associated with shelters • Persistent odors emitting from an encampment
Anecdotally and statistically, it is correct to conclude that the presence of a more harmful entity in a residential neighborhood in the form of a homeless encampment will cause an even greater drag on residential property values.
217
Curb Appeal Extends Beyond Immediate Residence To
Entire Block and Beyond
A great deal of attention is paid to curb appeal when it comes to the marketability of a residence .

Million Acres, a service of Motley Fool, defines curb a1212ear as:

At its core, the term "curb appeal" refers to the way your home Looks when it's viewed from the street .

It's a combination of all the eye-catching design elements that are used to make your home's exterior Look its best. Homeowners often do their best to add curb appeal because they want their home to be aesthetically pleasing when they pull into their driveway at the end of a Long day However. it becomes even more important when thinking of putting the property on the market.

Spectrum, a support organization for homeowners' associations across the United States, emphasizes that curb appeal is not limited to the state of an individual residential 12ro12ertY,. The concept of curb appeal extends to a block or neighborhood in its entirety . Spectrum asserts:

Neighborhoods with plenty of curb appeal tend to maintain property values better: Surprised? No. we didn't think you would be. While it is obvious that well-kept homes. yards. and common areas help neighborhoods stay desirable, it's hard work keeping neighborhoods in Like-new condition! While not trying to sound overly superficial, the stark reality is that any type of eyesore on a block or in a neighborhood impacts the curb appear of those individual residences in the area. The word eyesore has become something of a technical term when it comes to the impact of something unsightly and its impact on surrounding property, including homes. A common place definition of eyesore is something that is largely "considered unpleasant or ugly." From a technical standpoint , the usage of eyesore is considered as "an alternative perspective " to a landmark.

Common examples of eyesores impacting the curb appear and associated property values of homes include:
• Litter
• Graffiti
• Dilapidated structures
• Polluted areas
• Excessive signage
• Transmission towers
• Weeds
• Mud
• Feces
A number of these common examples of eyesores are generally connected to homeless encampments, including litter, dilapidated structures , polluted areas, mud, and feces. Added to the list usually is used hypodermic needles used from illicit drug consumption . 3/7
Residential Property Unsellable in Neighborhood With
Homeless Encampment
If a neighborhood is the site of a homeless encampment, a real issue arises as to whether a home can be placed on the market effectively for sale. This becomes even a more significant issue if a homeless encampment is on the block where a particular residence is located.

We've already discussed the impact a homeless encampment can have on residential property values .

The market value of a residence can experience a significant drag if a homeless encampment is in the neighborhood. That alone may be a reason to hold off putting a home on the market, if at all possible.

On a related note, if a homeless encampment is in a neighborhood in which a house is on the market. odds are strong that attracting prospective buyers to even take a look at the property will be next to impossible. Not only will the value of a residence drop significantly while a homeless encampment exists on the block or in the neighborhood, a homeless encampment in and of itself very well may have the same impact on prospective buyers as a crucifix has on a motion picture vampire.

Property Values After a Homeless Encampment Is
Eliminated in a Neighborhood
Depending on ordinances and related factors in a particular community, a homeless encampment may prove relative transient. With that said, even in a county or municipality that has more aggressive regulation of homeless encampments, such camps may remain in place for a matter of months , not days or weeks .

On a closing note, issues regarding property values and homeless encampments, homeless encampments can persist even after camps are removed or otherwise eliminated. First of all, a comprehensive cleanup and sanitization process needs to occur to attempt to restore the property to a sanitary and safe condition .

Secondly, even after comprehensive cleaning and sanitization has occurred, the fact that a homeless encampment existed in a neighborhood may hang like something of a fog over the residences in the area. This can continue to impact property values into the future for what also can be a matter of a number of months .

In closing, the reality is that homeless encampments can and do have what oftentimes prove to be significant impacts on property values in residential neighborhoods. The residential property value drag is even likely to persist for some period of time once a homeless encampment in a neighborhood has been removed .

Category : Homeless Encampment By Emily Kil November 4, 2020 Author : Emily Kil
4/7
Emily Kil is co-owner of Eco Bear, a leading biohazard remediation company in Southern California. An experienced entrepreneur, Emily assisted in founding Eco Bear as a means of combining her business experience with her desire to provide assistance to people facing challenging circumstances. Emily regularly writes about her first-hand experiences providing services such as biohazard cleanup, suicide cleanup, crime scene cleanup , unattended death cleanup, infectious disease disinfection, and other types of difficult remediations in homes and businesses.

General Facts About Social
Security Disability Programs
October 15, 2020
Related Posts
Disability Considerations and
Homeless Advocacy :

Comprehensive Overview of the
Two Social Security Disability
Programs
September 28, 2020
Advocates For Housing the
Homeless : The Past. the Present
and What Can Be Done to Help
September 23, 2020

CONTACT US
Overview of Childhood Disability
Benefits
October 15, 2020
Protecting Your Family and
Neighbors : Safe and Effective
Homeless Feces Cleanup
September 24, 2020
Homeless Encampments on
Private Property : Squatter's
Rights Versus Landowner's Rights
in California
September 15, 2020
Fill out the form to get a quote over the phone from a trained intake coordinator at Eco Bear Biohazard Cleaning Company.

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

Name
Contact Number
Email
5/7
Message
SUBMIT

POPULAR POSTS
Cleaning out an AP-artment After a FamilY. Member. Friend or Tenant Dies ComP-rehensive Guide for After Death Estate Cleaning
How to Get Rid of Mouse DroP-P-ings Smell
What Types of Situations Reguire a Biohazard Cleaning Service? California Department of Health Trauma Scene Waste Management Practitioner #609 6/7
(818) 358-4359 [email protected]
3740 Alta Mesa Drive, Studio City, CA 91604
717
From: Ashish Verma
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Subject: Material #5 to be added for 4/25 Santa Clara City Council Meeting (item#1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:01:34 PM
Attachments: We want accountability.pdf
Last one:)
4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters

CAL MATTERS

HOMELESSNESS
California homelessness: Where are the state's billions going? Here's the new, best answer

BY BEN CHRISTOPHER
FEBRUARY 16, 2023
The tent of an unhoused person in a parking lot in Downtown Los Angeles on June 20, 2021. Photo by Teun Voeten, Sipa USA via Reuters Listen to this article
1111
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ Privacy - Terms
1/8
4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters

IN SUMMARY
For the first time, a new state report offers a bird-eye view of how much the state has spent to halt homelessness - nearly $10 billion over three years. Of the half-million Californians who made use of those services, more than 40% ended up housed. Which also means the majority did not, or the state lost track of their whereabouts.

Lea este artfcu/o en es{l.afiol.

In Sacramento, there's a word that keeps popping up during discussions about the state's homelessness crisis: "accountability."
Gov. Gavin Newsom has scolded cities and counties for failing to get more people off the street, hundreds of millions in state spending notwithstanding. "Californians demand accountability and results, not settling for the status quo," the governor said last November.

Republicans in the Legislature have called for an audit of the state's homelessness spending. Democrats are still absorbing the last one from 2021 , but many want to see the state's money come with strings attached. This week, Assemblymember Luz Rivas, an Arleta Democrat, introduced a bill that would demand "tangible results" from local governments before they receive homelessness grants - mirroring an idea from the governor's own budget proposal.

The increasingly bipartisan chorus points to two stark, seemingly contradictory trends: The state keeP-S ~Rending more to address the crisis, and the crisis keeP-S getting worse. So where, they ask, is all the money going?
On Wednesday, California lawmakers got something that resembles an answer.

The state's lnteragency Council on Homelessness, a state body tasked with overseeing the state's homelessness strategy and divvying up funding to local governments, issued a report detailingjust how much the state has spent on the crisis between 2018 and 2021- and what it's gotten in return.

The answer to those questions, according to the report: The state has spent nearly $10 billion and provided services to more than 571,000 people, each year helping more people than the last. https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 2/8 4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters And despite all that, at the end of year three, the majority of those more than half a million Californians still didn't end up with a roof over their heads. The number of unsheltered Californians continues to swell.

Presented at a three -hour joint committee hearing in the Assembly, the report has sent housing policy experts across the state into a twitter. Services for the homeless are so disjointed - split among nine state agencies, hundreds of county and municipal governments, nonprofits and charitable organizations - the 253-page document may be the first statistical birds-eye view of the state's many-tentacled efforts.

But it also shows just how intractable the problem is.
"One of the largest challenges facing the state is the inflow of new people into homelessness, even as efforts to help people experiencing homelessness expand," the report reads.

What the report did not address is how the state can spend its money more effectively. Nor was it asked to.

The report comes at the request of the Legislature, which included an ask in its 2021 budget for a "comprehensive view of the homelessness response system," not an audit nor a list of recommendations.

But it may provide lawmakers, service providers and advocates with some helpful hints about what's working, what isn't and for whom.
"We've sent people to the moon," said Oakland Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly 's housing committee. "We can solve homelessness in California." Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story
D BUFFY WICKS +
State Assembly, District 14 (Oakland)
Ex1::1and for more about this legislator
D COREY JACKSON +
State Assembly, District 60 (Perris)
Ex1::1and for more about this legislator
o WENDY CARRILLO +
State Assembly, District 52 (Los Angeles)
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 3/8 4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters Exi;iand for more about this legislator
Here are four takeaways from the homelessness assessment:

1. California has been spending a lot to remedy homelessness - mostly on housing Between 2018 and 2021, the state spent $9.6 billion trying to move the needle on homelessness.

Many Californians will be able to relate: The bulk of the spending, $5.5 billion in this case, went to the cost of housing.

That includes everything from building new units to preserving old ones, converting unused hotel rooms during the P-andemic into temP-orary housing, building shelters, and setting up P-ermanent SUP-P-Ortive housing facilities that provide a long-term subsidized place to stay along with other on-site social services.

According to the report, the state produced or kept on line 58,714 affordable housing units in the three year period, and added 17,000 new shelter beds.

Some of that spending has been more likely to lead people out of homelessness than others. Of the more than 75,000 people placed into permanent supportive housing of some kind, for example, only 8% wound up back on the street within six months.

Conversely, for those who left a state funded program to live with a family member or a friend, the rate of those who were homeless again within six months doubled. And for those who left for a rental with only a temporary subsidy, that rate of return to homelessness was 23%.

For some legislators and advocates, the figures underscored the importance of building more housing above all other interventions.
"Shelters are very expensive to build; they're very expensive to operate," said Emily Halcon, the director of Sacramento County's Department of Homeless Services and Housing. "What we know is a real solution is housing."
But building more housing- particularly with subsidized rents or other wrap-around services - is expensive. That's in part why some homelessness and housing advocates say the 10-figure sum that the https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 4/8 4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters state has spread across the three years of the assessment isn't even close to enough. A report from the Corporation for Supportive Housing and the California Housing Partnership at the end of last year put the P-rice tag of "solving" homelessness in California at $8.1 billion every year for more than a decade.

2. A lot of people have been housed - but most have not The report tracked more than half a million Californians who, over the three year period, made use of at least one of the services that the state funds, as recorded in a new state database.

The good news: More than 40% ended up in housing- supportive, subsidized or otherwise.

The bad news: The majority didn't, or the state lost track of their whereabouts.

Nearly 17% were, at the end of the period, still in a shelter or temporary housing of some other kind or had exited whatever program they were enrolled in "into homelessness." Another quarter fell out of the system entirely, their "destination" unknown .
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 5/8 4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters Where did they go?
Of the 571,246 Californians who received state-funded horn "final observed outcomes":

California lnteragency Council on Homelessness
* A Flourish hierarchy chart
Assemblymember Corey Jackson, a Democrat from Perris who chairs the Assembly Human Services committee, asked about the 17% who return to homelessness, which he called a "red flag" in the data. "We need to remember that this is the emergency response system, if you will," responded Dhakshike Wickrema, the deputy secretary of California's Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. "What more can we be doing which is outside the homeless system? It's like when you go to the emergency room - what could the primary care physician have done to prevent the acute diabetes?" https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 6/8 4/19/23 , 2:58 PM California homelessness : Where's the money going? - CalMatters

3. The burden of homelessness is not equally distributed Drawing on the most recent "P-oint-in-time" survey , which provides a blurry snapshot of how many people are living outside on a given night, the report emphasizes the stark racial and ethnic disparities that exist across the state's unsheltered population. Black people made up roughly 30% of the people counted on the street, more than five times their share of the state population. Indigenous Californians likewise were overrepresented five-fold .

And though Latino Californians were underrepresented, between 2015 and 2020, their numbers in surveys of the unsheltered increased by 65%, the fastest growing ethnic or racial group.

4. Not all homelessness looks the same
When politicians or talking heads use the word "homelessness," it's often meant to evoke a particular person experiencing a particular set of problems: someone asleep on the sidewalk, unbathed, suffering from acute mental illness, addiction, physical disability or some combination of the three.

That's the most visible version of the state's homelessness crisis, but as the new figures show, it isn't the most common one.

According to the report, 1 in 5 people who enrolled in state-funded homelessness programs were considered "chronically homeless" - unsheltered for at least a year while living with a complicating health issue.

But more than three times as many- two-thirds of all who sought state-funded services for homelessness - were people who hadn't popped up in the system for at least two years, if ever.

These might be families evicted and temporarily residing in a car, someone couch surfing while gathering the money for a rental deposit, or people who got their own apartment only to get slammed with an unexpected car payment and find themselves back in a shelter.

Acknowledging that continuum matters - not just for the sake of accuracy, said Assemblymember Wendy Carillo, a Los Angeles Democrat, but because different paths into homelessness might be best met with different pathways out.
"Whether it's someone living in their vehicle, being evicted from their home, someone experiencing chronic homelessness for decades, living on the streets of Skid Row for many, many years, all of these_~~ https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 7/8 4/19/23, 2:58 PM California homelessness: Where's the money going? - CalMatters things are different," she said. "They need to have different solutions." The fastest-growing homeless population? Seniors
Some seniors have been homeless for years and are now growing older. But the increasing numbers also reflect another trend: those experiencing homelessness for the first time after age 50. , by Ana B. Ibarra FEBRUARY 10, 2023
About-face: Why Newsom relented, released $1 billion despite lackluster local homeless plans
The governor threw communities into disarray two weeks ago by withholding $1 billion in homelessness funding for plans he saw as unambitious. But local officials said the assignment itself discouraged ambition. Now Newsom is yielding.
by Manuela Tobias NOVEMBER 21, 2022
© 2023 CALMATTERS.

PROUDLY POWERED BY NEWSPACK BY AUTOMATTIC
https://calmatters.org/homelessness-2/2023/02/california-homelessness-spending-report/ 8/8 From: Safe Santa Clara
To: Nora Pimentel; Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Add "Oppose Benton Project - Cover Letter from SafeSCC" to 4/25 meeting agenda on Benton (item #1) Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:02:57 PM
Attachments: Oppose Benton Project - Cover Letter from SafeSCS.pdf Hello Nora,
Please add the attached cover letter to the 4/25 meeting agenda. #1 on Benton Project. "Oppose Benton Project - Cover Letter from SafeSCC".

Let me

know if you have any questions or issue opening the letter.

--
SafeSCC.org

April 19, 2023
Mayor, Councilmembers,
On April 25th, you will vote on the Homekey project in partnership with Santa Clara County and LifeMoves at Benton & Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. SafeSCC, a grassroots association of residents in Santa Clara, presented in City Hall today and submitted a petition on April 14 2023, on behalf of local residents who stronglyoppose the proposal, with5,293 signatures collected since the proposal became public knowledge. In the 4th community public hearing, a live poll conducted by the county showed that over 80% of the community opposes the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition is even higher.

We urge you to listen to the majority of residents and vote "No" on the Benton project, as numerous concerns must be addressed, including neighborhood impact and safety, location justification, fiscal concerns, design and policy concerns, environmental issues, project justification, and the credibility and accountability of the county and LifeMoves.

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

We believe these concerns - especially the environmental, neighborhood, and site-specific issues - warrant proper consideration by the city toreject the Benton project. In fact, should the City insist on moving forward with this project, we will demand an environmental and social impact study. Our association is currently in the process of retaining counsel to ensure that both the City and Developer adhere to all applicable local and state ordinances for this project.

Sincerely,
SafeSCC

Content
Content 2
Section 1: Environmental Concerns 4

1.1 Density 4

1.2 Intersection 4

1.3 Traffic 5

1.4 Parking 5

1.5 Waste Management 6

1.6 Bioretention Compliance 6
Section II: Neighborhood Impact 6

2.1 Increased Burden and Fiscal Strain on Emergency Services 6

2.2 Crime 7

2.2.1 Public Safety Data on Milpitas 8

2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View 9

2.2.3 Public Safety Data at five San Jose sites 10

2.2.4 “There are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” 11

2.3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Local Area 12

2.4 Site Security 12

2.5 General Loitering, Solicitation and Other Impacts 13

2.6 Issues At Existing HomeKey Sites 13

2.7 Post Development Operating Restrictions 16
Section III: Location Concerns 17

3.1 Land Purpose 17

3.2 Distance to schools 17

3.3 Distance to Job Opportunities 18

3.4 Distance to Transport 19

3.5 Distance from Support Services 19

3.6 Air & Noise Quality 19

3.7 Liquor Store 20

3.8ProximitytoBellaVistaInterimHousing 20

3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities 20
Section 4: Site Specific Concerns 22

4.1 Site Design 22

4.2 Onsite Policy 23

4.3 Behavior outside the Site 26
Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns 27

5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability 27

5.2OperationCostConcerns 28

5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves 28

5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse 28

5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites 28

5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification 29
Section 6: Concerns over the Need for a New Homekey Project in Santa Clara 30 Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the County and LifeMoves 30

7.1False and misleadinginformation 30

7.2LifeMoves' LackofTransparencyonSitePlansandImpactData 31

7.3ResponsetoMeetingRequests 32

7.4DiscriminatorySiteSelectionConcern 32
Section 8: Alternative Land 32
Section 9: Best use for Benton land 35
Section 1: Environmental Concerns
The location near busy Lawrence Expressway poses safety hazards for individuals with mental health issues and disabilities. Moreover, the small, densely packed rooms can create a prison-like environment for those with mental and physical disabilities. The addition of 124 - 248 residents1would also put tremendous pressure on traffic, parking, waste management, internet speed, power supply, water supply, and Bioretention Compliance. While a Homekey project may be exempt from CEQA, it needs documentation proving that it meets all exemption requirements. We hope the city is aware of this and submits a CEQA evaluation request for the site.

1.1 Density
LifeMoves proposes the Benton location to house up to max of 248 people at any given time, in a prefabricated module. Given that interim housing would allow occupants to stay 3-4 months, for a proposed total of 600-800 residents per year. These will be stacked 3-4 units high, on a

1.27 acre lot (a significant portion of which will be reserved for parking). We are concerned about the environmental impact of housing so many people on such a small site, in a facility built using novel construction methods.

1.2 Intersection
3590 Benton Street is located at the intersection of 3 roads: Benton street, Flora Vista AVe, and Lawrence Expressway. Thousands of vehicles per day pass through even the smaller Benton / Flora Vista intersection, not to mention the busy Lawrence Expressway.

During the second community meeting, City Councilmember Suds Jain made an incorrect statement by claiming that there would be no students or pedestrians walking past the LifeMoves Benton site. However, this is not true, as there are pedestrian crossings in all four directions. It is expected that a significant number of LifeMoves Benton residents, many of whom have serious physical or mental illnesses and criminal records or are re-entering society from jails, will navigate these intersections on foot each day, including sex offenders who are permitted to reside on site.

Given the vulnerable condition of the residents, this increased foot traffic poses a significant danger to both pedestrians and vehicle drivers. Additionally, a significant portion of the pedestrians using these crossings are K-12 school-aged children, some accompanied by parents, and young children in strollers with guardians, who are even more susceptible to harm.

According to the county and LifeMoves, 57% of LifeMoves Benton residents will have serious physical or mental illnesses2. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the safety of all 2 https://youtu.be/3Q31bUIdBFU
1 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2023-03/Benton_Community_Mtg_No2_Presentation_030123_incl_map.pdf, slide 27. pedestrians, including vulnerable populations, when evaluating the potential risks associated with the increased foot traffic.

1.3 Traffic
It can also be expected that such a major development (approx. max of 248 people at any given time) will drive a significant increase in vehicle traffic - by staff, volunteers, delivery, police, fire, EMT, and some residents. Consistent with other HomeKey and Lifemoves developments, it is reasonable to expect that some residents will own vehicles (see section 1.4 for more information). We believe this traffic will have a significantly detrimental effect on the surrounding area’s environment, negatively impacting local residents - including noise, pollution, and congestion.

1.4 Parking
Benton and Flora Vista Ave already experienced significant parking issues as a result of the existing medium and high density housing developments on those streets, particularly during non-working hours. The church behind the site is short of parking space and has been using the site lot for overflow parking. Now as the site is no longer available for overflow parking, we can only expect parking to get worse with 248 new residents plus staff adding to the already packed neighborhood.

The proposed development allows for 80 parking spaces, some of which will likely be used by staff. The county’s most recent statistics show that over 18% of unhoused residents currently live in a vehicle (both cars and RVs). Therefore we can expect a significant number of Benton patrons to have a vehicle. Additionally, one would expect a significant number of patrons to acquire vehicles as they reintegrate into housing and the job market. Taken together, we expect this will cause significant parking overflow issues onto already congested neighborhood streets in both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

We believe our concerns here are justified. The similar but smaller LifeMoves development in Mountain View shows significant vehicle overflow, including both cars and RVs, onto nearby streets, with local business owners confirming that vehicles are often parked for months.

There is also significant vehicle overflow onto the streets surrounding the Milpitas Homekey site, including RV dwellers who park nearby in the hope of obtaining residency at the facility.

The RVs are a safety hazard to local residents as there have been reports of several RV fires on nearby streets. The City of Mountain View has prohibited RV parking within city limits in 2022, resulting in more homeless individuals with RVs moving to nearby cities like Santa Clara3. This change is also reflected in the reduction of the unhoused population numbers in Mountain View while seeing an increase in neighboring cities such as Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Redwood City.
3https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/03/30/five-key-takeaways-from-an-investigation-into-lifemoves-mountain-view

1.5 Waste Management
A site of this density, with such a large population, will be expected to generate a significant amount of waste. It is not clear that there will be sufficient facilities or space available for adequate waste management at this site.

1.6 Bioretention Compliance
Stormwater treatment measures (bioretention areas)are required4for all construction projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. We have not seen a plan that sets out areas of the development in compliance with the bioretention requirement. We have also not seen budget proposals and funding on maintenance and upkeep of bioretention areas, which from our personal experience as homeowners can be extremely expensive and difficult to maintain. This will likely result in increased budget requirements for the City to maintain.

Section II: Neighborhood Impact

2.1 Increased Burden and Fiscal Strain on Emergency Services Accordingtocountydata 5,over halfofSantaClara'shomelesspopulationhavecriminal backgrounds,spenttime injail,andsuffer fromseriousmental illness.Testimonyfrompolice, council membersinSantaClara and Sunnyvaleshowed80%-90%ofthehomelesspopulation inSantaClarahavedrugaddictions.Thelowbarrier designoftheBenton projectwouldallow individualswithcriminal backgrounds,drugaddicts,andthosewithseriousmental illnessesto resideinthefacilityandstayintheneighborhood.Theseindividualswill increasethe likelihood ofcriminal activityanddisturbances,disruptingthelivesofnearbyresidentsandstudents.This assumptionisfullyevidencedbythe spikeincrimeatandaroundMountainViewLeghorn, MilpitasHillview,andtheKifer CalabazasCommunitysupportive housingsites,including violence,burglary,stolen vehicles,rape,anddrug-relatedcrimes.

ThecityofSantaClarahasnotshownanysignsofbeingpreparedtohandleanincreasein crimeratesassociatedwiththeproject.SantaClara'spoliceforceisalreadyunderstaffed,and currentCalifornialawsmakeitdifficulttocontrol or remove problematicor dangerous occupants.TheincreaseddemandonpoliceresourcesfromtheBentonsitecould takeaway resourcesfromtherestofresidents,leadtoslower responsetimesandan overall increasein crimethroughoutthecity.
5chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/ BentonLawrence_Community-Meeting-1-Deck.pdf, or https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton 4https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public-works/environmental-programs/stormwater pollution-prevention/stormwater-resources-for-development-construction TheBentonprojectwill negativelyimpactsurroundingbusinessesaswell,asevidencedbythe recentclosuresofWholeFoods' flagship storein SanFrancisco,closureofaCVSnear a HomekeysiteinSanJoseduetoemployeeandpublicsafetyconcerns,and thesaleofthe businessparknexttoMilpitas' sitebyitsowner 6.Inaddition,businessessurrounding the MountainViewLeghornsitehavehadtoaddsecurity.WedonotwantSantaClaratobecome another citythatlosesitsbusinesses.

2.2 Crime
In order to appease concerns related to increase in crime related to this proposed site, LiveMoves claims the site will have strict policy. Project Homekey 2.0, per“housing first” criteria7, does not allow any vetting of residents.Santa Clara County’s own statistics8show that over 25% of the homeless population has spent at least one night in jail - in the past twelve months. 42% have Psychiatric/Emotional Conditions; 35% are experiencing issues with Drug or Alcohol use; 33% suffer from PTSD. These issues are vastly overrepresented in the unhoused vs. the general population.

Concentrating this population - without any vetting, in a radically experimental, ultra high density development in the middle of a residential neighborhood is likely to lead to significant issues in the local area, including serious crime, harm to property, petty crime and drug dealing.

LifeMoves themselves have talked about “curfew” and “building relationships with local law enforcement”. Neither of these provisions lend credence to the fact that the facility will not have a negative impact on the area. Clearly, crime and anti-social behavior IS a concern, otherwise, why the mitigations?
8https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2019SCCHomelessCensusandSurveyReport.pdf 7https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/HousingFirstGuidanceChecklist.pdf 6https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, Mayor comment - tenants in the business park next door who have been there for 22 years are leaving. And the business park is listed for sale by the owner. 2:58:35

2.2.1 Public Safety Data on Milpitas
Thecomparable Milpitasprojectprovidessolid evidenceoncrime spikes.Thesupportive housingat1000HillviewCtopenedatthe endof2020.Thecityisseeingstrikingcrime statistics,withtotal policecallsincreasingby300%andtotal firecallsby400%in 2022.The averagepoliceservicetimeiscloseto50hoursper month,andcrimesincludeassault, drug-related offenses,burglary,rape,sexoffender incidents,stolenvehicles,andother suspiciouscircumstances.Mayor CarmenandCouncilmember Chuachallengedthecounty's admissioncriteria,claimingthatthescreeningprocesswasnotworkingandthatproblematic tenantsanddrugaddictionswerenotbeingremoved.

Additionally,thecountyhadpromised thattheywill prioritizeMilpitashomelessinthisfacility.

Yet,only10Milpitashomelessindividualslivewithinthe132unitapartmentin2022.Thereisno staffonsitetorepair elevators,firealarms,smokedetectors.Finally,tenantsfromthebusiness parknextdoor areleavingduetothenegativeimpactsfrom1000HillviewCourtApartment.

Please notethatthisfacilityisapermanenthousingwithascreeningprocess.The interim housingatBenton withminimal screeningwill surelybemuchworse.

2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View
TheLifeMovesMountain Viewsiteopenedmid2021.Sinceitsopening,thenumber ofpolice callshasincreasedsignificantly,risingfrom3callsin2020to94in2021(7months) and141in 2022.WearecurrentlyrequestingmoredatafromtheMountainViewPoliceDepartmentto further analyzethesituationinthe nearbyneighborhood,basedoncomplaintsfromthatsite’s neighbors.

Numberofpolicecallsovertheyears

Policecall bytype

2.2.3 Public Safety Data at five San Jose sites
During the third community meeting, Consuelo Hernandez, Director, OSH County of Santa Clara, cited a news report by KQED9 that complaints are down after interim housing sites opened. However, her statement is highly misleading for several reasons. Firstly, none of the five San Jose sites mentioned in the news report are in residential areas, but instead are located in industrial or commercial areas.

Secondly, the bar chart presented during the meeting shows the total number of incidents for all five sites combined. One site is significantly larger than the other four, which skews the average. If you filter the data by individual sites, it becomes evident that four out of the five sites have experienced an increase in crime in one of the categories since they opened. Thirdly, the data shows that the longer a site has been open, the more crimes it generates, contradicting the notion that complaints are decreasing. Fourthly, the data presented during the meeting did not account for various types of crime, including violence, drug-related offenses, mental disorder-related incidents, theft, and felonies. 9 https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-city-expects-increase-in-homeless-residents-unhoused/

2.2.4 “There are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” To date, none of the safety concerns raised by the community have been addressed directly and seriously. Councilmember Suds Jains claimed several times that “there are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” and “your next door neighbor could be a murderer or criminal”, which he stated in an attempt to justify that interim housing or supportive housing facilities are no more dangerous than anywhere else.

Councilmember Suds’ argument is a typical example of the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. The logic of this fallacy is to shift the responsibility of proving a point from the person making the claim to the person opposing it. In this case, the community makes a claim about the crime rate or safety risk the Benton site would bring to the neighborhood, and councilmember Suds attempted to refute it without providing any evidence to support his rebuttal. This response does not address the community’s concerns and does not provide any useful information. Therefore, this type of rebuttal is a logical fallacy and there are several more examples that we will be happy to share.

2.3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Local Area
LifeMoves has stated that “Clients will not be permitted to use Drugs or Alcohol on site.” The Benton site is immediately adjacent to a 7-Eleven convenience store (open 24 hours), which sells alcohol. There is another liquor store in the same plaza. It is a reasonable expectation that some LifeMoves patrons will purchase alcohol there, and then move to the nearby Earl R Carmichael Park to consume it. Experience from other locations shows that clients will also use nearby parks and parking lots to purchase and use drugs - so as to technically be in compliance with not using substances on site.

LifeMoves has stated that “participants may be asked to leave for substance abuse that is disruptive to site services, residents or staff”. Given the high incidence of substance abuse in this population, it can be assumed that (1) patronswillregularly be asked to leave and that (2) being unhoused, those patrons will remain in the nearby neighborhood, specifically the Earl R Carmichael Park or the 7-Eleven plaza, a few steps away, and will continue to experience addiction issues there, with a commensurate negative impact on that park and the locality.

These are particular concerns to the surrounding neighborhood which mostly consists of senior citizens and families with small children who are looking forward to safely visiting our parks and playground. It is also highly concerning for women who wish to go for walks with their pets and children.

2.4 Site Security
In order to mitigate potential crime, LifeMoves has stated that the Benton project will have 24 hour security. However, other similar sites such as the Milpitas HomeKey also have 24 hour security and experienced on-site issues within months, including violent assault, rape, and even a murder (see 2.6 and Section 4 for more details).

Moreover, on-site security at the Milpitas site was deficient at times, as residents could not locate on-site security, and there was no one available to check in guests10. SafeSCC members also visited the MTV site at night and found that residents were still able to enter and exit the site after curfew.

On-site security also cannot take law enforcement action against problematic residents, as demonstrated by the Milpitas and MTV sites where residents who violated site rules were not removed and still reside on the site (refer to section 2.6 for more details).

Additionally, on-site security cannot address spill-over issues from this development to the broader neighborhood. We are concerned that LifeMoves may disregard actual security issues in the neighborhood by referencing proposed on-site security (refer to section 2.5 for more details).
10https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sqJldTlpmU&t=2570s, start 1:31:25, Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) visited the site one day prior to city’s scheduled check, and commented angrily: There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors…no eviction for crimes. “These need to be addressed immediately.”

2.5 General Loitering, Solicitation and Other Impacts
A development of 120-240 people can be expected to generate significant additional human traffic in the vicinity (friends, partners, acquaintances, business associates, etc). This LifeMoves facility has so little space (see appendix 3) that it seems clear there will not be sufficient, if any, room for guests and socialization within the facility. Further, it is unknown whether acquaintances who have a criminal background would be permitted on site or not. Therefore it is reasonable to assume we will see significant loitering in the neighborhood outside of the facility. Given the density of the area, it is likely loitering would occur either in the 7-Eleven parking lot or at the local park, which will be 600 meters away from the site.

Additionally, given the well documented addiction and social issues in this population, and the fact that drug and prostitution activity was well known at other sites currently frequented by the unhoused (such as nearby Bella Vista site), we expect to see a drastic increase in drug dealers, gangsters, pimps, and sex workers loitering in the surrounding neighborhoods. The surrounding neighborhoods currently consist of established suburbs largely consisting of families with small children.

It has been observed that LifeMoves' Mountain View site accepts families and has installed a fence and locked gate between the family units and other units. The argument being presented suggests that the presence of this fence and gate is strong evidence that LifeMoves is aware of the safety threat that single clients would pose to families and children, and that these clients are not law-abiding residents. However, in four community meetings, LifeMoves claimed that their clients can be part of the community without posing a safety threat.

The nearest grocery store to Benton will be Super Kyo-Po Plaza on Homestead and Lawrence.

Given the lack of transport, we expect to see carts from the store regularly brought to the Benton Site and abandoned. This would be consistent with what has been observed at the Mountain View site.

2.6 Issues At Existing HomeKey Sites

2.6.1 Homekey Milpitas
Similar concerns (crime, loitering) were raised about a recent HomeKey development in Milpitas, and those concerns, dismissed by officials at the time, have proven true. After two years of operation, police calls skyrocketed from 121 in 2020 to 393 in 2022 . Jared Hernandez, Milpitas Police Chief, said during the council meeting: “When comparing the crime statistics, Hillview Ct will outpace any apartment complex in the city of Milpitas.” The details of the crimes reported are listed below in the police report in Milpitas council meeting.

ThemanagementandoperationofMilpitasHomeKeyprojectisalso poor andproblematic. ● InHillviewCt,peoplewithseverecriminal backgroundswereadmitted ● Ziplocbagsofmethwerefoundonsite
● Problematictenantsand drugaddictionswerenotlikelytobe removedfromthesitedue toStatelaw.
● Only10Milpitashomelesslivewithinthe132unitsapartment. ● Nostaffonsitetorepair elevator,fire alarm,smokedetector,etc. ● Tenantsfromthebusinessparknextdoor “wereleaving,andthebusinessowner putthe propertyonsalebecauseofthenegativeimpactsfromHillviewCt.” ● AsofNovember 2022:
○ Strikingcrimerateremained
○ Councilmember Karina R.Dominguez(whoistheinitial supporter for thisproject)

visited thesite onedayprior tocity’sscheduled check,andcommentedangrily:

There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors…no eviction for crimes.“These need to be addressed immediately. 11”
● AsofFebruary2023:
○ Milpitasrequestedadditional policeofficerstobe fundedbyCountysinceAugust 2022,buthasyettoreceivearesponsefromtheCounty.
○ Disabled occupantsarestuckdue tobroken elevator for atleast8months.“It goesdownatleastonceaweek”,saidReeve,oneoftheresidents.

Benton, similar to Milpitas, would be a supportive housing facility. However, Benton is intended to be used as interim housing, a stepping stone to permanent housing. Despite all of the issues that the Milpitas project has experienced, they screen residents. Since the proposed Benton site would be intended to house low-barrier tenants as soon as possible, LifeMoves will not do background checks or impose restrictions on potential tenant selection. Their only goal is to get them off the street, at any cost to the local residents. It is therefore fair to anticipate increased crime rates and disruption at or near Benton than experienced at Milpitas Hillview.

2.6.2 LifeMoves Mountain View
The LifeMoves facility at Leghorn St in Mountain View has had a significant detrimental effect on the local neighborhood. A local business owner confirmed that there has been a significant exit of business owners from the vicinity since the LifeMoves site opened. It can be seen that three commercial properties directly opposite the LifeMoves site in Mountain View are now empty.

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

Sinceitsopeninginmid2021,the number ofpolicecallshasincreasedsignificantly,rising from3callsin2020to94in2021and141in2022.Wearecurrentlyrequestingmoredata fromtheMountainViewPolice Departmenttofurther analyzethesituation. 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sqJldTlpmU&t=2570s, starts 2:07:35 A visit to the Mountain View site confirmed the presence of alcohol containers on public and neighboring properties; abandoned cars; abandoned shopping carts. Further, our representative witnessed public urination outside of the facility and was accosted by an individual on the street outside of the facility.

2.7 Post Development Operating Restrictions
We are concerned that once this development is approved, any pre-development restrictions agreed to by LifeMoves which are not legally binding and enforceable will not be adhered to.

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

This concern is evidenced by what has happened at LifeMoves’ Palo Alto site. Because construction costs doubled resulting in a funding shortage of $8 million, LifeMoves broke commitments made and have removed 24/7 onsite security, supportive offices, and fencing.

This happened within just one year of site approval.

Section III: Location Concerns

3.1 Land Purpose
TheBentonlocationisnotavacantor abandonedlandasclaimed bythecounty.Infact,itis oneofthelastfewplacesintheareawhereregular communityandfamilyeventstakeplace duringtraditional holidayssuchasChristmasandHalloween.AccordingtoABCTreeFarms,the Bentonlandseesapproximately2,500-3,000local familiesvisitingeachyear for communityand familyeventsduringtheholidayseasons.Thisisan irreplaceablecommunityandfamily traditionfor local families.TherearemanyvacantlotsinthebusinessareaofSantaClarathat couldbeused for shelter atsimilar or cheaper cost.Itisinhumane,reckless,andagainstthe spiritofdemocracyfor thecityandcountytoforcethecommunitylottobetakenawayfrom local residentswhentheyhavemanyother optionsavailableandface90%opposition fromlocal residentsifplacedatBenton.

3.2 Distance to schools
Thereare15 schoolsandatleast31daycareswithin1.5 milesofBenton location,servingover 11thousandsstudentsandfamilies.Noother communitiesinSantaClara havesucha dense concentrationofschools.

Allowingindividualswithavarietyofcriminal backgrounds,includingassault,robbery,drugs, attemptedhomicide,andsexoffenses,aswell asmanywithseveremental instabilityanddrug addictiontoresidenear schools,familieswithyoungchildren,andsenior citizenscan pose a significantthreattothehealth,safetyand well-being ofthecommunity.Peoplewith criminal backgroundsmayhaveahistoryofviolenceor other criminal activities,puttingchildrenand familiesatriskofharm.Sexoffenders,inparticular,mayhaveahigh riskofreoffending,and livingin closeproximitytopotential victimscouldincreasethatrisk.Drug addicts,meanwhile, mayengageinbehavior thatisdisruptiveor dangerous,potentiallyleadingtoviolence or other criminal activity.Drug addictsandalcoholicscannotbeexpectedtokickthehabitwithina couple ofmonths.Theywouldbebetter servedataninpatientfacilitydedicated tosuch illnesses.

Furthermore,children are especiallyvulnerabletothe negativeeffectsofliving near individuals withcriminal backgrounds,sexoffenders,anddrugaddicts.Exposure tosuchindividualscan leadtoemotional trauma,anxiety,andfear,and negativelyimpactchildren'smental healthand overall well-being.Additionally,childrenmaybemore susceptibletotheinfluenceofthese individuals,potentiallyleadingtoearlyexposureto druguseor criminal activities.

It has been observed that LifeMoves' Mountain View site accepts families and has installed a fence and locked gate between the family units and other units. The argument being presented suggests that the presence of this fence and gate is strong evidence that LifeMoves is aware of the safety threat that single clients would pose to families and children, and that these clients are not normal and law-abiding residents. However, in four community meetings, LifeMoves claimed that their clients can be part of the community without posing a safety threat.

Schools and daycares within 1.5 miles radius of the Benton site LifeMoves MTV site has a secured gate restricting other tenants from accessing families. LifeMoves is fully aware of the potential safety threat to families and children.

3.3 Distance to Job Opportunities
Thecountyandcouncilmember SudsJainclaimedthatbuildingnear El CaminoReal will help homelessindividualsfind jobs.

However,currentlyneither thecountynor LifeMoveshaveprovided anydatato showthat:
1) Livingnear El CaminoReal iscrucial for thehomelesstofindjobs; 2) El CaminoReal offersmorejobopportunitiesfor individualswithcriminal records, drugaddiction,and mental healthissuesthanother locationsinSantaClaracity; 3) Homelessindividualscanonlyfindworknear their placeofresidence.

Infact,themajorityofthehomelesspopulationinSanta Claralacksthedesire andabilitytofind employment,withmanyindividualsnotwantingtoworkor needingtoovercomedrug addiction or mental healthissuesfirst.

Thosewhoarewillingandable tofind workwouldnotbe limitedtoonlyonestreet.Manyof theseindividualsalso havecars,andfor thosewhodo not,itismoreimportantfor thesiteto be near abusstop.However,theBentonprojectisnearly1mile awayfromtheclosestbusstop.

Inreality,jobssuchascleaning andfloor maintenance are moreabundantin industrial and commercial areasthaninresidential neighborhoods.

3.4 Distance to Transport
This proposed location is located at a significant distance from public transport. The nearest public transport option is the El Camino bus corridor, located 0.9 miles from the site (~18min walk for healthy adults without bags etc.). This is a significant distance if one is expected to travel with children, shopping / groceries, etc, or for persons who may have other health issues.

3.5 Distance from Support Services
The Benton Project site is located in the middle of a residential community and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on all sides (including on the opposite side of Lawrence Expressway). The site is far from the expected services and facilities that the unhoused population would be expected to rely on, including lack of easy access to locations for transportation, healthcare, food distribution, government benefits, and support services (e.g. centers for employment, rehabilitation, mental health, and multilingual services). Nearby Kaiser Hospital only serves Kaiser members except in the event of a life threatening emergency, which in most cases would be taken to a Level 1 trauma center such as Stanford or Valley.

The proposed site would isolate people in need and require them to walk to public transportation (0.9 miles away, as mentioned in 3.4) for virtually any of the above needs -- again, this would be particularly challenging for those with health issues. Their only conveniences would be access to a 7/11 and a liquor store.

3.6 Air & Noise Quality
As mentioned above, this site is located between three major roads, including an expressway, and between two major intersections. The minor intersection is used by thousands of vehicles per day, the major intersection by up to one quarter of a million vehicles per day. Per the LiveMoves proposals, the container units would be located just feet from these roads.

We are concerned that air quality at this location may not be safe for human habitation and specifically may be particularly dangerous for adults and children with chronic lung conditions such as asthma or COPD. Effects and exposure may be exacerbated by the non-standard construction methods proposed for the development.

We are also concerned that the noise quality at this location is above a level that is suitable for human habitation, especially for a population likely suffering from trauma and PTSD, in units which will likely have far less sound insulation that might be expected from conventional dwellings.

3.7 Liquor Store
Thereisaliquor storeacrossfromthesite,andthe7-Elevenalsosellsalcohol. Theyposea potential safetyhazardfor over 60%oftheresidentswithaddiction,alcoholism,andmental healthissues.

3.8 Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing
TheBentonlocationisonlyhalfamileawayfromBellaVistaInterimHousing.Havingtwo interimhousingprojectswiththe"more challengingpopulation"inoneneighborhood isnotonly recklessbutalsoirresponsiblefor thewell-beingoftheresidentsandenjoymentofthe community.The policehavealreadyexperiencedahigher thannormal volumeofcallsfromthe BellaVistasite,whichhasonlybeen openfor lessthantwo months.Adding another sitein such closeproximitywill onlyexhaustpoliceresourcesandtake awayresourcesfromother residents inthe neighborhood.Twositesinthesame neighborhoodwill significantlyconsumepublic safetyresourcesfromother residents,slowdownpoliceresponsetimes,andeventuallyputthe entirearea indanger.Thereisnoclear reasongivenwhythisneighborhoodhastoaccepttwo HomeKeyandinterimhousingprojects,and whythehomelesspopulationhastobeputinthis neighborhood,other than‘theproperty,anequipmentlot,isownedbythe county.’

3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities
Existinghomelesssheltersin SantaClaraCountyareprimarilylocatedinindustrial or commercial areas,or separatedfromresidential neighborhoods.Thisminimizesthe impactof criminal activityanddisturbancesonnearbyresidents.However,theBentonprojectdeviates fromthispattern.

The LifeMoves Benton development is a radically experimental development without any precedent.
● It would be the first LifeMoves “low barrier shelter” interim housing in an exclusively residential neighborhood location at the center of 15 schools over 11,000 school children and families.
● It would be the first Homekey 3.0 interim housing with operation duration required to be at least 30 years12. Previous Homekey interim housing operation duration is only 15 years. ● It would have the highest density of residents of any LifeMoves container development, given the large number of units and the small lot.

We do not believe that the Benton neighborhood is a suitable location for a novel housing experiment of this magnitude. Other nearby cities have chosen not to take a similar risk.

The aforementioned LifeMoves facility under development in Palo Alto will be located at 1237 San Antonio Road, on the edge of the Bay, in an industrial / commercial zone. The development is removed from residential neighborhoods by over one mile (on the other side of the 101 freeway).

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

LifeMoves MountainView
In contrast to the above facilities, LifeMoves Benton would be in a very low density residential neighborhood, immediatelyadjacent to existing low density residential developments with 12 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/homekey/Homekey-Round-3-Notice-of-Funding-Availability.pdf

thousands of homes. The Benton Shopping Center (gas station, 7-11, liquor store, etc) across the street is the only ‘neighborhood commercial’ zoned property in an otherwise exclusively residential neighborhood.

LifeMoves Benton
Otto Lee, a Santa Clara County Supervisor and one of the County's strongest supporters of HomeKey, has expressed concern about the current site design and low-barrier admission criteria. He has stated that such a site should not be located in a residential area.

This ultra high density interim housing model proposed for Benton is unproven and LifeMoves has no experience in operating or securing such a facility. This is effectively a radical social experiment in a residential neighborhood.

Section 4: Site Specific Concerns

4.1 Site Design
LifeMovesandthecountyhavenotprovided completedesignplansandmanagementpolicies.

Theonlysiteplan 13thecommunitywasinformedistheone atthesecondcommunitymeeting, whichmissedalotofimportantaspects.Therearemoreoptionswithfewunitsweresharedin thelastcommunitymeeting,butthosearethesiteplansofLifeMoves’ MountainViewsiteand PaloAltositeswithoutanychangestoadjusttotheBentonsite.So it’snotclear howthose optionsaregoingtobeuseful for Benton site.
13 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2023-03/Benton_Community_Mtg_No2_Presentation_030123_incl_map.pdf, slide 27.

Thoseaspectsincludebutnotlimitedto:
● Fence Design: Thedeckpresentedinthesecondcommunitymeetingonlyindicated thattherewouldbeafenceonthecreekside,butitisunclear iffenceswill alsobe installedon theother threesidesofthe site,and whattypeoffencewill beused.The existenceanddesign ofthefencecanmakea differencein howtheshelter couldimpact theneighborhood.For example,1000HillviewCt,the supportivehousing inMilpitas, doesn’thaveafence,thenitresultedinverynegativeimpacttothe nextdoor business park,leadingtomanybusinessesleavingandtheowner puttingtheparkon sale 14. ● Entrance:Thereisnoclear informationregardingthenumber ofentrancestothesite andwhether theywill becontrolled.Whether or nottheentranceisfullycontrolledis critical for thesafetyofthesiteand neighborhood.Policetestimonieshavestatedthat crimesanddamagescanbeabiteasier tomitigateifthereisonlyone entranceinand outofthesite,andthe entranceisfullycontrolled.
● Parking:Itisunclear whether the80parkingspotsprovided,whichincludetheparking lotfor LifeMovesstaff,will besufficientfor amaximumof248residents(detailsplease seesection1.4).
● Building Height:Thereisconfusionregardingthenumber ofstoriesthebuildingwill have.Inthe firstandsecondcommunitymeetings,LifeMovesstatedthebuildingwould be4 stories,butinthefourthmeeting,theyclaimeditcouldbe2stories.Meanwhile,the Notice letter sentbytheCityofSantaClarastatedthatthe building would be3stories.

4.2 Onsite Policy
LifeMovesbrieflymentionedduringthethirdcommunitymeeting afewpoliciesitplannedto implement.However,thesepoliciesdidnotincludeanydetailsonhowtheywouldbeenforced.

Rulesthatlackenforcementor penaltiesaremeaningless.Evidence fromLifeMoves’ Mountain 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:58:00

Viewsite showedthattenantswhohaveconducted sextual harassmentseveral timesstill stayedon thesite,andsitemanager wasnotabletoremovehim 15.

What County has briefly mentioned on site policy during the third community meeting Itisalso unclear howLifeMovesplanstoconductdrug testsfor itsclients,aswell ashowthe curfewpolicyandpenaltieswill beimplemented.Withoutdrugtests,screening,curfews,and enforcementofitspolicies,itisreasonabletoassumethatproblematictenantsonBenton will haveanegativeimpacton the neighboringcommunity.

EvenifweassumeLifeMovescould eventuallycarryoutexecutionandenforcementplans, therearestill concernsabouthowtheycan guaranteethattheywill notrepeatthe failuresseen inother supportivehousingsites,suchasLeghorninMountainViewandHillviewinMilpitas.

TheHillviewsitein Milpitasisaclear exampleofhowpoor managementofsupportivehousing canhavenegative consequences,eventhoughtherearewell documented policies.which causedalarmintheneighborhood.Furthermore,asmore peoplewerehousedinthesite,the reportedcasesofcriminal behavior increased 16.Theseissueshaveunderstandablymadethe 16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=14650s 15 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont

communityskeptical aboutthepotential successofthe interimhousingproject.

Evidence on poor management for HomeKey Supportive Housing. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting TheoperationofLifeMoves' Mountain Viewsitedemonstratesthattheir policiesarenotbeing enforced.Webelievethecityshouldnotconsider the projectuntil LifeMovesandthe countycan guaranteeareductioninthenumber ofunits,stricter screening criteria,effectivesecurity measures,appropriate doctor/nurseover patientradio,and mandatoryparticipationinon-site servicesandtreatments.

Evidence on LifeMoves MTV site failed to fulfill commitment to help homeless. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting Lifemovesandthecountyneed toprovidereassurancetothecommunitybyoutliningclear plansfor ensuringthatthosewithseverecriminal backgroundsarenotadmitted and thatthe number ofresidentsdoesnotleadtoincreasedcrimeintheneighborhood.Withoutaddressing theseconcerns,Lifemovesandthecountrycannotgainthe trustofthecommunityandtheCity should notconsider theinterimhousingproject.

4.3 Behavior outside the Site
Inthethirdcommunitymeeting,ConsueloHernandezand LifeMovespresentedthe policyat LifeMovessite.However,therehasnever beenadiscussiononhowtomanageindividualswho donotfollowregulationsintheinterimhousing,or aprotocol for removingindividualswhodo notfollowregulationsandwhere theywill beplaced.

Ifindividualswhoviolateregulationsintheinterimhousingarenotproperlymanaged,andare allowedtoremaininthesurroundingneighborhood,itcould poseasignificantrisktothe safety ofthecommunity.

AccordingtoMilpitasChiefPolice,manyunhousedintheareaprefer their spaceandfreedom touseillegal drugs.Theydonotwanttobe inclosequarterswithother potentiallydangerous peopleor have tofollowrules.Tenantswill spendtheir daysawayfromthefacilityinthelocal parkswheretheycanmeetwiththeir friendswhoarenotallowedintothefacility.But, Lifemoves andthecountyhavenotsharedanyplantomitigatethepotential safetyimpactonthenearby communityfromtheproposedinterimhousing.Theexamplesfromother housing sites,suchas

HillviewinMilpitas,whereziplocbagsofmethwerefoundinthe surroundingneighborhood 17, andincidentsoftrespassingand spittinghavebeenreported,highlighttheneedfor aclear and effectiveplantomanage clientbehavior inthesurroundingareas.Similarly,atLeghornin MountainView,theowner ofanadjacentautobodyshophad tocleanuplitter regularly.Given theproposedlocationoftheBentonproject,whichiscloser toresidential areasthanother sites, itiscrucial for Lifemovesandthe countytoaddresstheseconcernscarefully.Theymusthavea clear andeffectiveplaninplacetoregulateand managethebehavior ofinterimhousingclients inthe surroundingareatominimizeanynegative impacton the neighborhood'ssafetyand well-being.Withoutacomprehensiveplan,communitytrustintheprojectwill be undermined, andtheCityshouldvotenofor thisprojectgivenitscurrentstage.

Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns

5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability Thisisa newandexperimental projectandthereisconcernaboutLifeMoves’ abilitytodeliver withoutsignificantimpacttocityfinances.Todate,LifeMoveshassuccessfullydelivered only onesimilar facility- asinglestory,100person developmentatLeghornStreetinMountain view.TheBentonprojectwill be radicallydifferent- 3-4storieshigh,onasmaller lotbut occupying200%ofoccupants,inahigh-densityresidential neighborhood,asopposedto commercial or brownfieldarea.

Evenunder thebest-casescenario,the Bentonprojectwouldimposeasubstantial financial burdenontheCity.Duringthelastpublicmeeting,Consuelo Hernandezdisclosed thatthe projectwouldrequireanestimatedannual operatingcostof$3.3 millionto$4.3million, translatingtoaround$55,000per person($150per person per night).Thiscallsintoquestion thecredibilityofLifeMoves' andthecounty'sbudgetingand planning.

LifeMovescannotbetrustedasaresponsiblefinancial partner for theCity.Asimilar LifeMoves projectstill under developmentin PaloAltohasseen costs spiralfrom its original estimates of $17m by 202% or $17.4m, to $34.4m18,injustoneyear,leavingthecityofPaloAltowitha $6millionfundinggap. It is therefore unclear who will burden the additional cost if the same occurs to the Benton project.

Source of Funds for Capital cost Amount
Homekey $21,732,228
Sobrato $5,000,000
18 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/11/02/rising-costs-dont-deter-palo-alto-from-pursuing-interim-housing-projectand https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities 17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=10680s Total received $26,732,228
Estimated construction cost as for March 2023 $34,400,000 Construction cost gap $8 millon
Tosavecostonconstructionfor itsPaloAltosite,LifeMovesisconsideringremovingthe4/7 securityitoncepromisedthecityofPaloAlto,removing spacesfor supportiveoffices,and reducingthecostofitsfence 19.

5.2 Operation Cost Concerns
Thereareconcernsamongthepublicthattheinformation providedaboutacertainprojectisnot clear enough.Despiteseveral roundsofpublicmeetings,therearestill unanswered questions thatremain.
● Oneofthe primaryconcernsisaboutwhowill cover theoperation costoftheBenton project.Itisunclear howmuchtheSanta Claracitywill beresponsiblefor payingfor the operationcostafter theHomekeyfundingrunsout.
● Additionally,iftheconstructioncostexceedsthebudget,itisnotclear ifthecitywill have tofill thefunding gaps.
● Moreover,the publiciscurioustoknowifthecountyhasmadeanycommitmentto financiallysupporttheshelter operationfor thenext15years.

Theseunansweredquestionsarecausinganxietyamongthecommunityandneedtobe addressedassoonaspossibletoensuretransparencyandaccountabilityinthe project.Ifthe fiscal questionsregardingtheprojectarenotproperlyanswered,itcouldmakepeoplemore concernedabouttheservicequalityandstaffinginthehousing project.

5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves

5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse
Apsychiatricunitrequiresaminimum1:6licensednurse/patientradio,24hoursa dayby Californialaw.YetLifeMovesrecommendsonlyONEvocational nursefor 200unscreened homelesstenants 20.With57%ofoccupantshavingseriousmental issues,thenurse/patient ratioisfar behindthelawrequirement.

5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites
Accordingtothelatest newsreport,LifeMovesMountainViewsitehasfailedtofulfill its commitmentto helpthehomelesstoo.281clientsexitedtheprogrambetween itsopening May 2021andSeptember 2022,only73individuals,or 26%,wereplacedinpermanenthousing,the 2ndlowestrateofsuccessful exitinthecounty.
20 From Brian Greenberg, on the first community meeting. 19 https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities Thelackofservicesinacommunitycanhave detrimental effectsonitsresidentsand surroundingbusinesses 21.Inoneparticular area,multipleclientshavereported notreceiving specializedsupportinsearchingfor housing.Thisissueiscompounded bythe shortageofcase managersandhousingspecialists,andtheabsenceoflicensednurses,leaving onlyinternsto providemedical assistance.

Inaddition,testimoniesfromnearbybusinessesindicate ariseincrime,suchasburglariesand litteringissues.Thesecrimeshaveledtobusinessestakingmattersinto their own handsand hiringa 24/7securityguardattheir ownexpense.Toaddressthisissue,thelocal government hassteppedin,andMTVhasaddedadedicatedpoliceforce topatrol the site.However,without adequateservicesandsupport,thecommunitymaycontinuetostrugglewiththesechallenges.

5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification
LifeMoves’sprojectshavefacedseriousissueswithmanagementandstaffing,leadingto alack ofadequateservicesfor clientsandcrimesthatimpactthesurroundingcommunity.In2021,the firstprogramdirector physicallyassaultedaformer client,andanoutstandingarrestwarrantfor thedirector still exists.

Furthermore,aformer clientreportedmultiplecasesofsexual harassment,butthesecondsite director couldnotremovetheharassersduetoLifeMoves' policyagainstrelocating drugaddicts until theyovercome their addiction,whichisnearlyimpossiblein the90-120daytimeframe.

Injust1.5yearsofoperation,theprojecthasalreadyshuffledatleastthreedirectors.Intermsof services,multipleclientshavenotreceivedspecialized supportinsearching for housing,and thereisashortageofcasemanagers,housingspecialists,andlicensednurses.

Thecrimesreported bynearbybusinessesincludeburglariesandlitteringissues,leading them tohirea24/7securityguardattheir ownexpense.TheMTVsite hasaddeda dedicatedpolice forcetopatrol thearea,highlighting the severityofthesafetyconcernsin the community.

AlthoughCovid-19maybeacontributingfactor tothe labor shortage,thetrendexisted before thepandemic.Giventheongoingstruggleto providesufficientandcompetentstaffattheir currentlocations,itmaybemoreprudentfor LifeMovestofocusonimprovingthesesitesrather thanopeningnewones,whichcould worsenthestaffingcrisis.
21 data from this section came from
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont Section 6: Concerns over the Need for a New
Homekey Project in Santa Clara
BellaVistahasjustopened.Itwould makemore sensetowaitandseehowitworksoutwiththe burdenitaddstothepoliceandthe neighborhoodbeforedecidingwhether or notthesame neighborhoodcanbear another HomeKeyproject.

Similarly,theBrahamproject,theradical experimentinSanJosethatisoftencitedbythe County,juststartedconstructiona fewdaysago.Itwould berational andwisetowaituntil it startsoperatingandseehowthesiteaffectsthenearbyneighborhood.Onlyifeverythinggoes asthecountyandLifeMoveshavepromised,thenitcouldbethe timetore-proposeanother similar shelter atBenton.Otherwise,the countyandLifeMoveswouldberepeatingthesame mistakes.

Atthesametime,neighboringcitiessuchasSaratoga,LosAltos,LosAltosHills,and Cupertino seemtobemakingnoprogressonprojectsunder HomeKey.Itisevidentthatthetaxpayersof theCityofSantaClaraareeffectivelybeing askedtomakesignificantexpenditurestosupport solutionsfor other nearbycities.

Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the
County and LifeMoves

7.1 False and misleading information
CountyandLifeMoveshaveconsistentlyprovidedfalseor misleadinginformation(seethe tablesbelow),such asincorrectschool numbers,and haveconfusedthecommunitywithshelter terminologies.Furthermore,housingadvocateswhodon'tlivein the neighborhoodwereinvited tospeakinsupportatall four communitymeetings.Thishasgreatlyerodedthetrustand confidenceoflocal residentsinbothCountyand LifeMoves.ItisimperativethatCountyand LifeMovestakestepstodemonstratetheir reliabilityandaccountabilitybeforeproceedingwith anyfurther actions.Residentsoftheneighborhoodneedtosee evidence thatthese organizationsaretrustworthyandcanbeheldresponsible for their actions.

7.2 LifeMoves' Lack of Transparency on Site Plans and Impact Data
LifeMoveshasfailedtoprovideanupdatedplanto date.Theonlysite planwecanrefer toisthe onepresentedinthefirstcommunitymeetinginFebruary.Additionally,LifeMoveshasnot providedupdatesonsitedesign,includingbutnotlimitedtofencedesign,entrancedesign,and

securitydesign.Theyhavealsonotprovideddetailsregardinghowtheycanenforce thesite policy.

Similarly,LifeMoveshasnotbeenabletoprovideanydatashowing howmanyofitsresidents havelocatedpermanenthousing,foundajob,or foundajobnear thesite.Theyhavealsonot provideddatashowingthatthesitedoesnothaveanynegative impacton the nearbyresidents or neighborhood.Incontrast,wehavedatafromthelocal policedepartmentandnews reporters,showinganobviouscrimespike andnegativeimpacttothenearbyneighborhood.

7.3 Response to Meeting Requests
Ms.CounsueloHernandezemailed afewmembersofSafeSCCthatshewantedto meetwith thecommunityandaddresstheir concerns.However,somecommunitymembersemailedher backseveral timestosetup ameetingbuthavereceivedno confirmationtodate.Accordingto acommunitymember,ConsueloHernandezrepliedbacksaying sheisavailable,butwhenthe member replied backto confirmtheexactdate andtime,she disappearedagain.Her inconsistencywithcommunityconcernsisconsistent:itseemsshedoesn’tcareaboutthe community,contrarytowhatshe claimedinthecommunitymeetings,andisnotinterestedin their concernsnor listening.Furthermore,sheisnotrespectful ofcommunitymembers' timeand input,whichisconsistentin her performance,leavinghundredsofcommunityquestions unansweredto date(evenquestionsfromthefirstcommunitymeetingonFeb13haven'tbeen fullyansweredafter morethan2months) inall four communitymeetings' invitesto meet.

7.4 Discriminatory Site Selection Concern
Additionally,theneighborhoodhasraisedconcernsthatthe cityandcountychose thislocation duetothefactthatthe local residentsarelargelyfromminoritypopulationsor newimmigrants.

Thisisperceivedasadiscriminatoryact,targetingracial minoritytaxpayersandvotersto sacrificetheir safetyandinterests,andmayhavelegal implications.

Section 8: Alternative Land
Oppositetowhatwehave beenstereotypedandmisunderstood as“selfishhouseowners”,our empatheticcommunitycaresalotabouthomelesspeopleandtrulywanttohelp. Wewill never surrender tosacrificecommunitysafety,yettherearealternativeplanswewill consider.

Alternativeplansthatwill endina win-winsituation.

Wehave sofar identifiedseveral landsthatare notinuse andare convenienttojob opportunities,facilitiesandtransportation.

TheCityandCountyshouldcontinuetheir searchfor suitablelandsifpursuinginterimhousing remainsagoal.

1. De La Cruz Blvd & El Camino Real
ThesiteisnexttoSanta ClaraPoliceStation.Anexpansiontotheexistingsupportivehousing facilitycan bebuiltto accommodatetheunhousedpopulation.

2. South Bay Fwy & Lafayette St.

Thereareseveral unusedlandsnear theintersectionofSouthBayFwyandLafayetteSt.

3. Lincoln St & Civic Center Dr.

ThereisapieceofunusedlandnexttoSantaClaraCityHall.

4. Parking Lots at Levi's Stadium
Thereareseveral parkinglotsnear Levi’sStadium.Aninterimhousingcanbebuiltatthecorner ofoneofthelots.

5. Central Expy & San Tomas Expy
Thereisapieceofunusedlandnear the intersectionofCentral Expyand SanTomasExpy.

Section 9: Best use for Benton land
Proximitytoschoolsmakesthe Benton sitea potential goodfit for “rent-to-own” affordable housing for teachers whohave alivelihoodinor aroundSantaClara.

This“rent-to-own” affordable housingcouldalsoconsider law-abidingfamilies,whosemembers donothaveanysubstanceabuse or criminal records,havegoodcreditscoresandjobsto afford rent.

From: Safe Santa Clara
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Add seven documents to 4/25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project item#1 Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 1:51:35 PM
Attachments: 5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before April 25th voting on Benton Shelter Proposal.pdf

3.Third Open Letter to City Council - Oppose Benton Project - April 11.pdf

1. First Open Letter to City Council - Oppose Benton Project - March 9.pdf

2.Second Open Letter to City Council - Oppose Benton Project - March 13.pdf

4. Petition Submission Cover Letter-Benton Project - April 14.docx.pdf

6. Ten Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter, with Data.pdf

7.LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don"t _ News _ Palo Alto Online _.pdf
Hello Nora,
Pleaes find attached seven documents that SafeSCC requests to add to the April 25 council meeting agenda on Benton Project (item #1)

1. First open letter to city council oppose Benton project - March 9

2. Second open letter to city council oppose Benton project - March 13

3. Third open letter to city council oppose Benton project - April 11

4. Petition Submission Cover Letter-Benton Project - April 14

5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before April 25th voting on Benton Shelter Proposal

6. Ten Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter, with Data

7. news article: LifeMoves Mountain View promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't _ News _ Palo Alto Online

Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues opening the documents. --
SafeSCC.org

March 9, 2023
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are also deeply disappointed and angered by the intentional misinterpretation of our concerns for safety.

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

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

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

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

March 13, 2023
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

This is the second open letter to the city. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed Benton development. We believe this development is a mistake that the city of Santa Clara should never make. We urge the City Council to halt the consideration of this site immediately.

We want to strongly express our indignation and concern regarding the practice of astroturfing before and in the third hearing held on March 9th. Everyone is free to express their opinion. But it is completely unacceptable that institutions with vested interest in the project were invited to speak for the project and disguised themselves as part of the community. This action to market false impressions of public support for the project sets up a plot to manipulate public opinion, a clear violation of the principles of law and democracy. We have zero-tolerance towards such behavior. We strongly urge the city and county to not only stop presenting the view of incentivized participants as the view of the local residents, but also to refrain from engaging in astroturfing in the future. This is essential to ensuring that community outreach meetings are transparent and unbiased.

Additionally, we are extremely dismayed by the City and County's persistent dissemination of fake and false information, as well as the disregard for the community's concerns about safety. Y ou cursorily dismissed Milpitas' crime statistics relating to shelter areas. Y ou also consciously distanced yourselves from use of the word “shelter", carefully replacing it with "interim housing," as if the two terms carry appreciable differences. These tactics, though understandably employed to pacify the public, were clearly intended to mislead them as well. Despite three hearings, we have seen no progress or initiatives in addressing our safety concerns, especially on crimes. The fact is that the City and County cannot ensure our safety in the face of a shortage of police resources. We want to strongly remind you that what Milpitas is currently experiencing will be Santa Clara’s problem in the future, and the damage to residential areas will only be greater. This is not speculation, but rather a very real and ongoing situation.

Furthermore, like the rejected White Oak Lane project, the Benton project may receive initial funding from state/county but the ultimate cost of long-term management, operation and any liability associated with the facility will eventually be borne by Santa Clara taxpayers - the same taxpayers that voted you into office.

In summary, the public’s opposition to this project is very vocal and strong. It is undoubtedly representative of the opinion of the fine citizens living here for years and decades. Addressing homelessness is a humanitarian and necessary effort. But all these years what we have always seen is your hand-waving and virtue-signaling, as embodied in your repeated, irresponsible choice of location for different homeless shelters, in your misplaced emphasis on housing alone without much regard for other priorities helping the homeless. In this matter, the public’s patience and trust in you is, frankly, very thin. We urge you to heed the loud and clear message, to act on your good conscience, and to genuinely involve the community rather than just treating us as mere formality. If you put your

political career ahead of the interest of the Santa Clara residents whom you presumably represent, then fight we will.

We are determined to take all means necessary, including but not limited to legal action, to safeguard the place we call home, for ourselves but perhaps more importantly, for our children.

Regards,
Safe Santa Clara County

April 11, 2023
Mayor Gilmore, Santa Clara Councilmembers:

This is our third open letter concerning the deeply flawed Benton proposal. From the very beginning, we have persistently opposed it due to its low-barrier approach and complete lack of consideration for the community.

Despite attending four community outreach meetings, our opposition has only grown stronger, as the County Office for Supportive Housing and LifeMoves have repeatedly showcased their lack of integrity by presenting false information, misleading the audience and resorting to rhetoric and astroturfing. We are attaching a list of these behaviors to this letter. Their blatant disregard for the truth is an insult to our community and must not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, more reports and data on comparable shelter sites in Milpitas, Palo Alto, and Mountain View have surfaced, revealing alarming increases in crime rates, poor financial planning, and concerning operational procedures:

1. Milpitas – After the conversion of the 1000 Hillview Ct apartment to permanent supportive housing, total police calls increased by 300%, fire calls by 400%, and average police service time close to 50 hours per month.
a. Contrary to Consuelo Hernandez's claims, most of the 911 calls were about crimes such as assault, drug, buggery, rape, sex registrant, stolen vehicles and other suspicious circumstances. b. Ziploc bags of meth were found onsite, despite the county and management company having promised no drug onsite.
c. At the business park next door, tenants are leaving and the owner is selling the property because of the significant negative impacts from Homekey Milpitas. d. Despite millions of operating expenses, occupants of Homekey Milpitas have been living in fear and some even say they daren’t come out of their units without an open knife. e. Councilmember Chua and Vice Mayor Carmen Montano challenged Consuelo that the county had changed the admission criteria without informing the city, and their screening process is not working.

2. Palo Alto – LifeMoves project cost estimate increased from $17.6 million to $26 million just two months after its approval, and then skyrocketed to $34.4 million within a year of approval. City of Palo Alto is facing a $6 million funding gap and is seeking donations to close it. At the same time, LifeMoves is reducing 24/7 security, onsite facilities for supportive service, and family spaces to cover up the cost gap.

3. Mountain View – LifeMoves site, operational since 2021, is plagued by staffing challenges, constant staff turnover, and under-qualified personnel. With only 26% of clients placed in permanent housing, LifeMoves Mountain View has the 2nd lowest successful rate in the county. a. Since its opening, the number of police calls has increased significantly, skyrocketing from 3 calls in 2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022.
b. The organization has failed to address sexual harassment and remove tenants who violate site policy, and has not fulfilled its promise to prepare clients for permanent housing.

This evidence unequivocally proves that low-barrier housing becomes a breeding ground for crime and that LifeMove consistently fails to deliver on its promises. These are not an illusion nor hypothesis. These are facts and reality currently happening in our nearby cities! Were the Benton location approved, the mistakes of Milpitas, Palo

Alto, and Mountain View would not only be replicated in Santa Clara, but also with much graver consequences due to our financial situation and the project's proximity to residential areas.

We demand that the City Council immediately halt this ill-conceived plan. Our community's future is at stake, and we refuse to allow such a high risk to be imposed upon us. It's time for our elected officials to prioritize our safety and well-being over this misguided proposal and county’s paper promises. In the last community meeting, a public poll revealed that over 80% of members opposed the Benton interim housing. Across all four community meetings, opposition consistently exceeded 80-90%. This is just a glimpse of the lengths our community will go to defend its safety. Y ou should hear us loud and clear.

This community contains a rapidly rising immigrant demographic, who came to America for stability and opportunity. Feeling safe is our bottom line. This is non-negotiable for our community, and we will not hesitate to hold our elected officials accountable. Take heed of San Francisco, where the most liberal population in America recalled their school district board and District Attorney, signaling their limit had been reached. Do not underestimate the determination of immigrants. We have fought tirelessly to make America our home, and if our safety is threatened, we will take drastic measures and mobilize with maximum effort to protect it. The recent recall of San Francisco's officials by majority Asian American voters should serve as a stark reminder of the power of a united community.

Regards,
SafeSCC

April 14, 2023
Dear Council Members,
On April 25th, you will vote on the Homekey project in partnership with LifeMoves at Benton & Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. SafeSCC, a grassroot association of residents in Santa Clara, presented in City Hall today and submitted a petition on behalf of local residents who strongly oppose the proposal, with 5,293 signatures collected since the proposal became public knowledge. In the 4th community public hearing, a live poll conducted by the county showed that over 80% of the community opposes the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition is even higher.

We urge you to listen to the majority of residents and vote "No" to the Benton project, as numerous concerns must be addressed, including neighborhood impact, location justification, fiscal concerns, design and policy concerns, environmental issues, project justification, and the credibility and accountability of the county and LifeMoves.

Neighborhood impact:

1. According to county data, over half of Santa Clara's homeless population have criminal backgrounds, spent time in jail, suffer from serious mental illness, and over 80% have drug addictions. The low barrier design of the Benton project would allow individuals with criminal backgrounds, drug addicts, and those with mental illnesses to reside in the facility and stay in the neighborhood. These individuals will increase the likelihood of criminal activity and disturbances, disrupting the lives of nearby residents and students. This assumption is fully evidenced by the spike of crimes in Mountain View, Milpitas and our Kifer site, including violence, burglary, stolen vehicles, rape, and drug-related crimes.

2. The city of Santa Clara has not shown any signs of being prepared to handle an increase in crime rates associated with the project. Santa Clara's police force is already understaffed, and current California laws make it difficult to control or remove problematic or dangerous occupants. The increased demand on police resources could lead to slower response times and an overall increase in crime throughout the city.

3. The Benton project could negatively impact surrounding businesses, as evidenced by the recent closure of Whole Foods' flagship store in San Francisco due to public safety concerns, and the sale of the business park next to Milpitas'

site by its owner. We do not want Santa Clara to become another city that loses its businesses.

Location justification:

1. The Benton location is not a vacant or abandoned land as claimed by the county.

In fact, it is one of the last few places in the area where regular community and family events take place during traditional holidays such as Christmas and Halloween. According to ABC Tree Farms, the Benton land sees approximately 2,500-3,000 local families visiting each year for community and family events during the holiday seasons. This is an irreplaceable community and family tradition for local families. There are many vacant lots in the business area of Santa Clara that could be used for shelter at similar or cheaper cost. It is inhumane, reckless, and against the spirit of democracy for the city and county to force the community lot to be taken away from local residents when they have many other options available and face 90% opposition from local residents.

2. Existing homeless shelters in Santa Clara County are primarily located in industrial or commercial areas, or separated from residential neighborhoods. This minimizes the impact of criminal activity and disturbances on nearby residents.

However, the Benton project deviates from this pattern.

3. The county claims that building near El Camino Real will help homeless individuals find jobs, but there is no data to support this claim. In fact, many homeless individuals in Santa Clara lack the desire or ability to work or need addiction treatment and mental health care for the entire 4 months in interim housing. Those who do want to work are not limited to job opportunities on one street. For those without cars, proximity to public transportation is more important, yet the Benton site is nearly a mile from the nearest bus stop. In fact, there are more job opportunities in industrial and commercial zones than in residential areas.

4. Additionally, the county claims the Benton location is convenient for various amenities, but much of the provided information is inaccurate. Nearby Kaiser Hospital only serves patients with its own insurance, the closest station and supermarket are nearly a mile away, and there is a liquor store across from the site, posing a potential safety hazard for over 60% of the residents with addiction, alcoholism, and mental health issues.

5. The intersection of Benton and Lawrence Expressway is a bustling crossroads, with vehicles speeding by, posing a significant danger to individuals struggling with mental health, alcohol, and drug addiction. Moreover, the high noise levels are not suitable for residents living in the vicinity.

Fiscal implications:
● The construction cost of the project is not expected to be borne by the city.

However, the cost of the Palo Alto LifeMoves' construction doubled from $17 million to $34.4 million in just one year, leaving the city of Palo Alto with a $6 million funding gap. This calls into question the credibility of LifeMoves' and the county's budgeting and planning. The operational cost of the project is estimated at $4.3 million, but it is unclear who will cover this expense. ● There are concerns among the public that the information provided about a certain project is not clear enough. Despite several rounds of public meetings, there are still unanswered questions that remain.
○ One of the primary concerns is about who will cover the operation cost of the Benton project. It is unclear how much the Santa Clara city will be responsible for paying for the operation cost after the Homekey funding runs out.
○ Additionally, if the construction cost exceeds the budget, it is not clear if the city will have to fill the funding gaps.
○ Moreover, the public is curious to know if the county has made any commitment to financially support the shelter operation for the next 15 years.

These unanswered questions are causing anxiety among the community and need to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure transparency and accountability in the project. If the fiscal questions regarding the project are not properly answered, it could make people more concerned about the service quality and staffing in the housing project.

Design and policy concerns:
● LifeMoves and the county have not provided complete design plans and management policies. The operation of LifeMoves' Mountain View site demonstrates that their policies are not being enforced. We believe the city should not consider the project until LifeMoves and the county can guarantee a reduction in the number of units, stricter screening criteria, effective security measures, appropriate doctor/nurse over patient radio, and mandatory participation in on-site services and treatments.
● Despite Lifemoves sharing detailed background check protocols, there are still concerns about how they can guarantee that they will not repeat the failures seen in other supportive housing sites, such as Leghorn in Mountain View and Hillview in Milpitas. The Hillview site in Milpitas is a clear example of how poor management of supportive housing can have negative consequences. In Hillview, people with severe criminal backgrounds were admitted, which caused alarm in the neighborhood. Furthermore, as more people were housed in the site, the reported cases of criminal behavior increased. These issues have understandably made the community skeptical about the potential success of the interim housing project. Lifemoves and the county need to provide reassurance to the community by outlining clear plans for ensuring that those with severe criminal backgrounds are not admitted and that the number of residents does not lead to increased crime in the neighborhood. Without addressing these concerns, Lifemoves and the country cannot gain the trust of the community and the City should not consider the interim housing project.
● LifeMoves has a longstanding issue with staff shortages and a lack of qualified personnel on their current sites. For example, their Mountain View Leghorn site never has had enough case managers. It has also changed three directors in less than two years, with the first one under arrest warrant for physically assault client and second one failing to remove drug additive and sextual assault client from site. Although Covid-19 may be a contributing factor to the labor shortage, the trend existed before the pandemic. Given the ongoing struggle to provide sufficient and competent staff at their current locations, it may be more prudent for LifeMoves to focus on improving these sites rather than opening new ones, which could worsen the staffing crisis.
● A psychiatric unit requires a minimum 1:6 licensed nurse/patient radio, 24 hours a day by California law. Yet LifeMoves recommends only ONE vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants. With 57% of occupants having serious mental issues, the nurse/patient ratio is far behind the law requirement.

Project justifications:

1. There is already an interim housing facility within 0.5 miles, capable of accommodating over 100 people, cycling every 3-4 months, serving 300-400 people annually. Data indicates that Santa Clara has fewer than 300 homeless individuals, so there is no evidence to suggest the need for a similar project in such close proximity. Blindly accepting the county's pressure for this project would be a waste and disrespect of taxpayers' money and a betrayal of voters and residents.

2. At the same time, neighboring cities of Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Cupertino seem to be making no progress on projects under Homekey. It is evident that the taxpayers of the City of Santa Clara are effectively being asked to make significant expenditures to support solutions for other nearby cities.

Credibility and accountability of county and LifeMoves
● County and LifeMoves have consistently provided false or misleading information, such as incorrect school numbers, and have confused the community with shelter terminologies, and housing advocacies who don't live in the neighborhood were invited to speak in support at all four community meetings. This has greatly eroded the trust and confidence of local residents in both County and LifeMoves. It is imperative that County and LifeMoves take steps to demonstrate their reliability and accountability before proceeding with any further actions. Residents of the neighborhood need to see evidence that these organizations are trustworthy and can be held responsible for their actions.

We believe that these concerns - especially the environmental, neighborhood, and site-specific issues - should warrant proper consideration by the city to reject the Benton project. In fact, should the City insist on moving forward with this project, we will demand an environmental and social impact study. Our association is currently in the process of retaining counsel to ensure that both the City and Developer adhere to all applicable local and state ordinances for this project.

Sincerely,
SafeSCC
10 Essential Facts to Know Before April 25th voting
on Benton Shelter Proposal
Prepared by SafeSCC
In the lead-up to the crucial April 25th meeting regarding the proposed Benton shelter, I would like to share ten crucial points that city council must know before making any decisions regarding the Benton shelter proposal:

1. HomeKey projects may be exempt from CEQA, but only after meeting speci ﬁ
c
requirements, including evaluations and reports submitted for approval.

2. Despite four community hearings, the county and LifeMoves have only presented promotional videos and Palo Alto site plans without providing a concrete proposal. They haven't answered questions about yearly operational cost, nor funding source.

3. Neither the county nor LifeMoves have presented detailed operational plans, including site policy, services provided, sta
ﬃ
ng and security measures, nor did
they talk about any enforcement for those policies and plans. Additionally, the county has not addressed whether it can assign extra police o ﬃ
cers for site
patrol, a request made by Milpitas but seemingly disregarded.

4. LifeMoves, formerly InnVision, has a troubling history of failing to deliver promised services, staff shortages, security concerns, inadequate maintenance, and insu
ﬃ
cient supportive services.

5. LifeMoves and the county have a record of signi
ﬁ
cantly underestimating costs,
which could lead to ﬁ
nancial trouble for the city. For example, Palo Alto's site construction cost estimate doubled within a year of proposal approval.

6. County and LifeMoves' paper promises are not guarantees and can be broken at any time. Carefully scrutinize their proposals and evaluate whether their commitments are realistic and enforceable. Ensure that there are clear mechanisms for holding them accountable should their promises not be met.

7. Milpitas shelter’s crime rate increased by 300%, and Mountain View LifeMoves shelter’s police calls went from 3 to nearly 150 in two years. While you may argue

that these shelters differ from the proposed Benton project, the fact remains that each site faces problems, suggesting the current model is ﬂ awed and shouldn't
be replicated.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentOctober 29, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 29, 2024