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)
Strongly oppose the location. Residential neighborhood surrounded by so many schools is not a good location for low barrier housing. Safety is a very big concern. The concerns of the community have been downplayed and feels like the stakeholders want to go ahead in spite of the strong push back. Please find non residential parcels to go ahead with this proposal. Use this site to build longterm housing for our first responders, teachers and retail workers.
Horrible planning. No financial viability. Huge security risks for neighborhood. No respect for taxpayers and voters. Proximity to schools, liquor stores and disruption to peaceful neighborhood. Expressway close by poses risk to ppl living in proposed site. Low barrier entry and lack of proper planning. Collusion with life works!
I live in walking distance to this location and know how many schools and kids are nearby. Strongly oppose this location! There needs to be a more careful assessment on the location and screening policy.
Strong oppose! Low barrier, no screening; occupants with drug addiction, criminal records, sex offenders
Benton location is a bustling community hub attracting 3,000+ families yearly
Over 11k families are at risk; similar sites experienced a rise in police calls
A second shelter opened 0.5 miles away
LifeMoves is poorly staffed, low success rate in permanent housing, and location far from public transit, grocery, jobs
False data was presented, no integrity!
Politically motivated supporters.
- We demand full CEQA evaluation before city provides HomeKey support letter for application
- Financing details are still not exposed. Homekey 3.0 requires city to operate for 30 years. How city will support once funding runs out without creating burden on tax payers
- We must preserve this last community resort
- Facility is NOT exclusive for families with children. Last minute slipping in provision to house adults only
- Without BC check, sec offenders can’t be identified. Megan’s law violat
I live in the neighborhood and I strongly oppose the proposed location of this shelter. It’s inappropriate to build a shelter so close to residential communities and many schools
As a concerned resident, I cannot support the implementation of a low barrier homeless shelter in our neighborhood. The shelter will attract drug users and criminals, increase crime rates, and decrease property values. I fear that this decision was made without considering the impact on our community. Let's work together to find a solution that benefits everyone and keeps our community safe and thriving.
I and my family strongly oppose this proposed shelter location. We support homelessness and agree that they need housing. But this location has many families and children which makes it a poor choice for the low-barrier shelter. Instead of further developing the area, this is a retrograde step for the hard-working, tax paying residents of Santa Clara city. County should instead consider other non-residential parcels with good public transit access for this cause.
SafeSCC promotes safe neighborhoods and has sent 7 documents to the city clerk for public agenda inclusion, but they were not added:
1-3. Three open letters to city council oppose Benton project - 3/9, 3/13, 4/11
4. 5293 Petition Submission Cover Letter - 4/14
5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before 4/25 vote
6. 10 Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter
7. "LifeMoves MTV promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't" Palo Alto Online
As a Santa Clara resident, I oppose the proposed location for a low-barrier, no screen check homeless shelter. Over 80% of residents opposed it, but the government ignores us. The Bella Vista location is only 0.5 miles away and too close to residential areas and a nearby school. Find a more appropriate location.
This is not a appropriate place as it's in middle of residential and school area and the occupants in this temporary dwelling are ex felony and mental health concern individuals which can endanger kids walking to schools
I live within 3 miles of the site and my kids go to the laurelwood elementary school, which is within 2 miles of the place. Given the data showing the crime rates and 911 calls go up once a no screening interim housing shows up and common sense, I strongly appose the plan. It is not the right place to build the facility and right way to solve the homeless issue. I really doubt the motivations of the supporters and city council members who proposed the plan.
Strongly oppose. LifeMoves is a horrible choice.
- Tricked Palo Alto city council by doubling construction budget after approval. Now reducing services promised to homeless clients
- MV site, previous to directors had criminal history and stole
- Benton site, slipped in last minute change to make provision to house single adults as well
- Previous MV site residents told stories about mismanagement, ill treatment in MV voice articles
- Qualification for case manager is highschool diploma
I strongly oppose this proposal. Housing folks wothout even a background check where data suggests presence of convicts, felons, sex offenders in such proximity to residential neighborhoods is beyond comprehension to tax paying residents who foot the bill eventually. Please listen to your residents. If you impose this on us, you are severly impacting safety and pursuit of happiness for more than 5000+ of your residents directly. Who is accountable? The folks who vote yes to this?
I strongly oppose the Benton Shelter Proposal. I have been a Santa Clara for over 10 years. Over the years, I observed, reported, and in person experienced more and more crimes: my neigbors’s cars were broken into, my bikes got stolen, even my home was attempted to break in march. We paid tons of tax each year, the government should at least make sure we live in a safe place called home.
We are equally important as those who need a home. why should we live in fear?
I live in Santa Clara, and I strongly oppose this project. The low barrier shelter with no-screening will collect lots of drug addicts and criminals. The shelters in Milpitas and Palo Alto have proved this point. The wrong location in a neighborhood with so many schools and daycares will result in serious safety concern. In last city council meeting, some opposers offered a few alternative spots for this housing project. Please carefully consider these proposals.
I strongly opposes the Benton Shelter Plan because LifeMoves has a very bad record of running homeless shelters in nearby cities. Do you know 74% of their clients are still homeless after existing LifeMoves' shelter, because they cannot get quality service from there? They don't even feel safe there. Do you know LifeMoves doubled the cost estimate of their existing shelter within a year of approval? The unreasonable cost overrun indicates LifeMoves are losing control of their project.
I strongly support the interim housing to be built at Benton and Lawrence. I've been a Santa Clara homeowner for over 20 years. I live near Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Tomas, a part of our city where many people live on the street. I applaud Santa Clara for addressing our local homelessness crisis by providing more safe housing and much needed resources. If you can find an additional spot for a similar housing project in my neighborhood, I'd support that as well.
Strongly oppose the location. Residential neighborhood surrounded by so many schools is not a good location for low barrier housing. Safety is a very big concern. The concerns of the community have been downplayed and feels like the stakeholders want to go ahead in spite of the strong push back. Please find non residential parcels to go ahead with this proposal. Use this site to build longterm housing for our first responders, teachers and retail workers.
Horrible planning. No financial viability. Huge security risks for neighborhood. No respect for taxpayers and voters. Proximity to schools, liquor stores and disruption to peaceful neighborhood. Expressway close by poses risk to ppl living in proposed site. Low barrier entry and lack of proper planning. Collusion with life works!
I live in walking distance to this location and know how many schools and kids are nearby. Strongly oppose this location! There needs to be a more careful assessment on the location and screening policy.
Strong oppose! Low barrier, no screening; occupants with drug addiction, criminal records, sex offenders
Benton location is a bustling community hub attracting 3,000+ families yearly
Over 11k families are at risk; similar sites experienced a rise in police calls
A second shelter opened 0.5 miles away
LifeMoves is poorly staffed, low success rate in permanent housing, and location far from public transit, grocery, jobs
False data was presented, no integrity!
Politically motivated supporters.
- We demand full CEQA evaluation before city provides HomeKey support letter for application
- Financing details are still not exposed. Homekey 3.0 requires city to operate for 30 years. How city will support once funding runs out without creating burden on tax payers
- We must preserve this last community resort
- Facility is NOT exclusive for families with children. Last minute slipping in provision to house adults only
- Without BC check, sec offenders can’t be identified. Megan’s law violat
I live in the neighborhood and I strongly oppose the proposed location of this shelter. It’s inappropriate to build a shelter so close to residential communities and many schools
As a concerned resident, I cannot support the implementation of a low barrier homeless shelter in our neighborhood. The shelter will attract drug users and criminals, increase crime rates, and decrease property values. I fear that this decision was made without considering the impact on our community. Let's work together to find a solution that benefits everyone and keeps our community safe and thriving.
I and my family strongly oppose this proposed shelter location. We support homelessness and agree that they need housing. But this location has many families and children which makes it a poor choice for the low-barrier shelter. Instead of further developing the area, this is a retrograde step for the hard-working, tax paying residents of Santa Clara city. County should instead consider other non-residential parcels with good public transit access for this cause.
SafeSCC promotes safe neighborhoods and has sent 7 documents to the city clerk for public agenda inclusion, but they were not added:
1-3. Three open letters to city council oppose Benton project - 3/9, 3/13, 4/11
4. 5293 Petition Submission Cover Letter - 4/14
5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before 4/25 vote
6. 10 Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter
7. "LifeMoves MTV promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't" Palo Alto Online
As a Santa Clara resident, I oppose the proposed location for a low-barrier, no screen check homeless shelter. Over 80% of residents opposed it, but the government ignores us. The Bella Vista location is only 0.5 miles away and too close to residential areas and a nearby school. Find a more appropriate location.
This is not a appropriate place as it's in middle of residential and school area and the occupants in this temporary dwelling are ex felony and mental health concern individuals which can endanger kids walking to schools
I live within 3 miles of the site and my kids go to the laurelwood elementary school, which is within 2 miles of the place. Given the data showing the crime rates and 911 calls go up once a no screening interim housing shows up and common sense, I strongly appose the plan. It is not the right place to build the facility and right way to solve the homeless issue. I really doubt the motivations of the supporters and city council members who proposed the plan.
Strongly oppose. LifeMoves is a horrible choice.
- Tricked Palo Alto city council by doubling construction budget after approval. Now reducing services promised to homeless clients
- MV site, previous to directors had criminal history and stole
- Benton site, slipped in last minute change to make provision to house single adults as well
- Previous MV site residents told stories about mismanagement, ill treatment in MV voice articles
- Qualification for case manager is highschool diploma
I strongly oppose this proposal. Housing folks wothout even a background check where data suggests presence of convicts, felons, sex offenders in such proximity to residential neighborhoods is beyond comprehension to tax paying residents who foot the bill eventually. Please listen to your residents. If you impose this on us, you are severly impacting safety and pursuit of happiness for more than 5000+ of your residents directly. Who is accountable? The folks who vote yes to this?
I strongly oppose the Benton Shelter Proposal. I have been a Santa Clara for over 10 years. Over the years, I observed, reported, and in person experienced more and more crimes: my neigbors’s cars were broken into, my bikes got stolen, even my home was attempted to break in march. We paid tons of tax each year, the government should at least make sure we live in a safe place called home.
We are equally important as those who need a home. why should we live in fear?
I live in Santa Clara, and I strongly oppose this project. The low barrier shelter with no-screening will collect lots of drug addicts and criminals. The shelters in Milpitas and Palo Alto have proved this point. The wrong location in a neighborhood with so many schools and daycares will result in serious safety concern. In last city council meeting, some opposers offered a few alternative spots for this housing project. Please carefully consider these proposals.
I strongly opposes the Benton Shelter Plan because LifeMoves has a very bad record of running homeless shelters in nearby cities. Do you know 74% of their clients are still homeless after existing LifeMoves' shelter, because they cannot get quality service from there? They don't even feel safe there. Do you know LifeMoves doubled the cost estimate of their existing shelter within a year of approval? The unreasonable cost overrun indicates LifeMoves are losing control of their project.
I live in Santa Clara and my family and I strongly oppose this shelter proposal because it is not safe!
I strongly support the interim housing to be built at Benton and Lawrence. I've been a Santa Clara homeowner for over 20 years. I live near Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Tomas, a part of our city where many people live on the street. I applaud Santa Clara for addressing our local homelessness crisis by providing more safe housing and much needed resources. If you can find an additional spot for a similar housing project in my neighborhood, I'd support that as well.