23-272 Consideration and Possible Actions on a Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Including City Sponsorship and Partial Funding of Project Operations (CEQA: Statutory Exemption under Government Code Section 65913.4, SB 35 Affordable Housing Projects)
I strongly disagree with the proposal as there are numerous daycare centers and schools located within a mile radius. Additionally, the transportation options are not convenient for the homeless population, and their potential presence in the area would create a safety concern for the children.
My family and I strongly oppose the proposal. The low barrier shelter will bring severe safety problems to nearby residents. There is no convenient public transportation nearby in this area. Overall, it's a very bad choice to build shelter in this location
The community has voiced a large number of reasons for why the shelter should not be located in such a dense residential neighborhood, some of which are concerning. The City needs to find a different location.
My husband and I live 10 mins walk from the proposed site. We strongly opposed building the shelter in the proposed location. Our concerns are safety of neighborhood and its financial burden on tax payer, not only in construction but also in maintaince.
We live very close to the proposed site and I strongly oppose the Benton shelter project in Santa Clara. There are definitely better alternatives to help the homeless than building a shelter in this location. With so many schools around, it could have negative effects on safety for children and neighborhood as a whole.
Please take our concerns into account and reconsider this proposal.
- safety concerns due to a low barrier to entry
- short term shelter instead of a longer term shelter catering to families
- no committed funding putting burden on city of santa clara
- close to 10+ parks and schools
- busy/unsafe intersection for homeless folks who are mentally ill
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I oppose the Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street.
This project reduces the sense of security if the neighborhood - this project is in close proximity to schools, apartments and homes.
I oppose this project in the best interest of the community that will be impacted.
Our family live only one block away and we oppose this low barrier shelter. It's unacceptable to build another shelter within walking distance to primary school. It's hard to be a safety and nice community with two shelters so close.
We live 3 blocks away & strongly oppose the proposed Benton location.
1. Safety for our children and seniors. This is a dense residential area with many schools and high foot traffic. This project shouldn't be placed so close to the vulnerable.
2. With a 26% success for 3m placement, where are the homeless going to go after? Our streets &park.
3. Already witnessing an increase in property crime.
4. We want to help the homeless but NOT at the expense of safety of our family &community.
While I support the City's goal to build more housing for the homeless, I am opposed to the Benton-Lawrence site due to the location's inability to successfully serve the homeless. The Benton-Lawrence site is off a busy expressway designed more for people with cars making a quick stop. The proposed site is right across the street from a discount liquor store and the nearest public bus stop is 0.7 miles away (not a short walk) - increasing risk to safety-health for all. Find a better location.
My family strongly oppose the proposal. The low barrier shelter will bring severe safety concerns to the closely located schools, houses, apartments, and parks. Also there is no good public transportation to support the commute for the people live in. It they walk around the streets without a good manner, it impacts the peace of the whole community. There is a shelter just 10 min walk away. No reason to built another one next to it. Please reconsider and put the efforts on the things worth it.
The shelter is not helping the homeless people who really want to change their life via finding jobs. Because there is no job opportunities nearby. There are high percentage homeless people with mental issues, they won't be back to job at all.
The shelter harm the community a lot. There are lots of schools within one mile. The homeless people with criminal history and drug issues will wandering around and put in danger of our kids.
I strongly oppose the proposal due to the following reasons:
1) Safety Concerns: There is no background check to screen out criminals and drug addicts
2) No committed/ear marked funding for policing
3) Financial burden on Santa Clara: The city lacks funding to sustain the huge burden after the homekey funding runs out (we the people would need to bear the brunt)
I strongly oppose this this plan! This land is for community event purpose, city and county can not just ignore its original purpose and force it into a homeless shelter ignoring community residential's benefit. There are a lot of problems of the project itself, LifeMoves has been failing in all recent homeless shelter projects, they are not reliable at all to run this project. There is a huge funding gap that city and country don't even have idea how to run this project for coming 3-5 years.
A project like this one should not be in a residential neighborhood with so many schools surrounding it. This housing is not necessary as we already have one on Bella Vista. Drug abuse and crime are #1 concern and there has been no mention of how these will be addressed or controlled. If the city refuses to heed to tax payer's requests, we will be forced to move to safer neighborhoods where our voices are heard and expected.
Our family strongly oppose to this proposal. We live very nearby and this site location is not suitable for building such temporary housing.
The density LifeMoves proposed is too high, with >90 rooms on a 1 acre lot. It raises concerns about the environmental impact and safety of housing so many people on such a small site.
Also it's located at a very busy intersection with lots of car traffics. It would be dangerous for homeless, especially with physical/mental issues, to walk around
As a resident of Santa Clara city, I strongly opposed this project. First, it’s not an good position for people to live in. The proposed location is right beside the Lawrence expressway which is dangerous and full of noise. Secondly, I worried about the safety of our children and seniors. The company Life Movers has never earned the trust from the community. I hope my voice is heard! Thanks!
I've attended two of the sessions regarding this project and have questions I don't think have been addressed fully:
What is the enforcement of illegal activity prevention?
How is "low barrier" entry defined? What are the guidelines?
Are rehabiliation services included?
Why was there such a discrepancy between the # of schools presented?
What's the plan for funding runs out in 3 years?
Lowered property values? There was an attempt to discredit the report by citing criticism of the analysis.
I strongly disagree with the proposal as there are numerous daycare centers and schools located within a mile radius. Additionally, the transportation options are not convenient for the homeless population, and their potential presence in the area would create a safety concern for the children.
My family and I strongly oppose the proposal. The low barrier shelter will bring severe safety problems to nearby residents. There is no convenient public transportation nearby in this area. Overall, it's a very bad choice to build shelter in this location
The community has voiced a large number of reasons for why the shelter should not be located in such a dense residential neighborhood, some of which are concerning. The City needs to find a different location.
I oppose the Benton/Lawrence project.
My husband and I live 10 mins walk from the proposed site. We strongly opposed building the shelter in the proposed location. Our concerns are safety of neighborhood and its financial burden on tax payer, not only in construction but also in maintaince.
We live very close to the proposed site and I strongly oppose the Benton shelter project in Santa Clara. There are definitely better alternatives to help the homeless than building a shelter in this location. With so many schools around, it could have negative effects on safety for children and neighborhood as a whole.
Please take our concerns into account and reconsider this proposal.
I strongly oppose due to the following reasons -
- safety concerns due to a low barrier to entry
- short term shelter instead of a longer term shelter catering to families
- no committed funding putting burden on city of santa clara
- close to 10+ parks and schools
- busy/unsafe intersection for homeless folks who are mentally ill
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I oppose the Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street.
This project reduces the sense of security if the neighborhood - this project is in close proximity to schools, apartments and homes.
I oppose this project in the best interest of the community that will be impacted.
Bests,
K Rajesh Jagannath
Our family live only one block away and we oppose this low barrier shelter. It's unacceptable to build another shelter within walking distance to primary school. It's hard to be a safety and nice community with two shelters so close.
We live 3 blocks away & strongly oppose the proposed Benton location.
1. Safety for our children and seniors. This is a dense residential area with many schools and high foot traffic. This project shouldn't be placed so close to the vulnerable.
2. With a 26% success for 3m placement, where are the homeless going to go after? Our streets &park.
3. Already witnessing an increase in property crime.
4. We want to help the homeless but NOT at the expense of safety of our family &community.
People who don't want Sunnyvale to be safe have proposed this project. So far, Sunnyvale was rated as the safest city in US.
While I support the City's goal to build more housing for the homeless, I am opposed to the Benton-Lawrence site due to the location's inability to successfully serve the homeless. The Benton-Lawrence site is off a busy expressway designed more for people with cars making a quick stop. The proposed site is right across the street from a discount liquor store and the nearest public bus stop is 0.7 miles away (not a short walk) - increasing risk to safety-health for all. Find a better location.
My family strongly oppose the proposal. The low barrier shelter will bring severe safety concerns to the closely located schools, houses, apartments, and parks. Also there is no good public transportation to support the commute for the people live in. It they walk around the streets without a good manner, it impacts the peace of the whole community. There is a shelter just 10 min walk away. No reason to built another one next to it. Please reconsider and put the efforts on the things worth it.
I strongly oppose the shelter.
The shelter is not helping the homeless people who really want to change their life via finding jobs. Because there is no job opportunities nearby. There are high percentage homeless people with mental issues, they won't be back to job at all.
The shelter harm the community a lot. There are lots of schools within one mile. The homeless people with criminal history and drug issues will wandering around and put in danger of our kids.
I strongly oppose the proposal due to the following reasons:
1) Safety Concerns: There is no background check to screen out criminals and drug addicts
2) No committed/ear marked funding for policing
3) Financial burden on Santa Clara: The city lacks funding to sustain the huge burden after the homekey funding runs out (we the people would need to bear the brunt)
I strongly oppose this this plan! This land is for community event purpose, city and county can not just ignore its original purpose and force it into a homeless shelter ignoring community residential's benefit. There are a lot of problems of the project itself, LifeMoves has been failing in all recent homeless shelter projects, they are not reliable at all to run this project. There is a huge funding gap that city and country don't even have idea how to run this project for coming 3-5 years.
A project like this one should not be in a residential neighborhood with so many schools surrounding it. This housing is not necessary as we already have one on Bella Vista. Drug abuse and crime are #1 concern and there has been no mention of how these will be addressed or controlled. If the city refuses to heed to tax payer's requests, we will be forced to move to safer neighborhoods where our voices are heard and expected.
Our family strongly oppose to this proposal. We live very nearby and this site location is not suitable for building such temporary housing.
The density LifeMoves proposed is too high, with >90 rooms on a 1 acre lot. It raises concerns about the environmental impact and safety of housing so many people on such a small site.
Also it's located at a very busy intersection with lots of car traffics. It would be dangerous for homeless, especially with physical/mental issues, to walk around
As a resident of Santa Clara city, I strongly opposed this project. First, it’s not an good position for people to live in. The proposed location is right beside the Lawrence expressway which is dangerous and full of noise. Secondly, I worried about the safety of our children and seniors. The company Life Movers has never earned the trust from the community. I hope my voice is heard! Thanks!
I've attended two of the sessions regarding this project and have questions I don't think have been addressed fully:
What is the enforcement of illegal activity prevention?
How is "low barrier" entry defined? What are the guidelines?
Are rehabiliation services included?
Why was there such a discrepancy between the # of schools presented?
What's the plan for funding runs out in 3 years?
Lowered property values? There was an attempt to discredit the report by citing criticism of the analysis.