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)
As a local resident, I strongly oppose this project!!! Lifemove has no good track record to keep their promises such as 7/24 staff, case managers etc, they are really understaff , the local newspaper has 4 articles about Lifemove that they are understaffed, poor success rate to meet their promises and spent more much more money than planning!! How can you trust this kind of company? They have high turnover rate for their employees and the cost will be even more!!
I strongly oppose the proposed Homekey project. Its in middle of thick residential area with many schools around. We are worried about the risk of increased crime, drugs which impacts children severely. Please find a place away from Schools.
I am strongly opposed to the current proposal as there are no adequate counter-measures to help the existing community feel safe. None of their valid concerns (as extensively voiced already in other comments) are addressed in the current proposal.
Bill Wilson Center strongly supports the proposed Homekey project at Lawrence Exp. & Benton. For 50 years we have offered safe housing to homeless youth in Santa Clara. By providing 80 – 120 interim housing units that are near public transit and provide on-site supportive services (including case management to help with linkages to employment resources, education, and health care), the City is offering homeless individuals and families a safe place to stay while they rebuild their lives.
We already have many Homekeys in the area and limited resources for police & security, as the policies do not respond even if we feel unsafe for individuals trespassing on our properties. My questions are:
1. Would you, as councilmembers be responsible for our community safety?
2. If safety issues arrive due to this, and with limited resources, who will be responsible? Would the council members be accountable for our financial loss or emotional damage due to this?
Strongly oppose! The proposed plan and the few meetings I attended fail to convince me on the long term advantage of such a shelter in this neighborhood. With no proper screening and long term security measures in place, I’m hugely concerned about the safety of the vulnerable residents of such a low-barrier shelter along with the rest of the neighborhood. I urge my reps to strongly oppose this initiative and look at other ways to resolve homelessness.
I strongly oppose this proposal. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Parents of kids are worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
The low barrier entry bar will bring drug addicts, mentally unstable homeless people to the scene, which will harm the safety of nearby neighborhoods, especially to children. It’s so close to so many schools, day cares. Such high density building will create traffic and parking problems as well. The noise from Lawrence will not be good for people with mental illness to live inside. Putting people with crime history in a high density building will make it a crime scene in the end.
Oppose! Community concerns are being ignored despite schools and parks within 2000 ft. of the proposed housing site and the lack of background checks for residents. "Family only" doesn't guarantee safety. Feedback cards are selectively considered, excluding emails after March 21st. A new proposal has been presented and put to vote, disregarding previous engagement meetings. Council members deny involvement in the county project and officials coach students to speak in support of it.
I strongly oppose the proposed shelter in Benton. It's too close to residential areas, schools, and community hubs, and could increase crime rates and harm children. The lack of screening for occupants is a safety risk, and the unclear funding and inability to ensure building standards are met are concerning. This proposal is not a solution to homelessness and would sacrifice the safety of the community.
I strongly oppose this proposal. The county is trying to rush the project. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Parents of kids are worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Strongly oppose the location for the proposed project. Idea to help homeless persons is welcome but the place is not right. In my work I see lot of homeless people that say there is rampant drug use in these kind of places. With so many schools close by, not safe. Please find a place away from schools and thickly populated residential units.
I strongly oppose this project due to to its location close to residential community and many schools in the near vicinity. I’d be highly concerned about safety and security of our children and families. If city would like to provide a shelter for homeless, keep it outside of the city and give them appropriate rehabilitation and work opportunities.
Strong NO to this proposal. It is too close to residential area which will raise crime rate and damage the community. Sacrifice other people’s safety is not the way to solve homelessness problem!
Oppose this proposal. There are many schools around this area. Without screening the shelter residents, it’s irresponsible for the kids. If anything happen to the kids because of this, will city take full responsibility?
I oppose this proposal. Allowing occupants who have not been screened, particularly those with criminal records, could create safety concerns for the area.
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
As a local resident, I strongly oppose this project!!! Lifemove has no good track record to keep their promises such as 7/24 staff, case managers etc, they are really understaff , the local newspaper has 4 articles about Lifemove that they are understaffed, poor success rate to meet their promises and spent more much more money than planning!! How can you trust this kind of company? They have high turnover rate for their employees and the cost will be even more!!
I strongly oppose the proposed Homekey project. Its in middle of thick residential area with many schools around. We are worried about the risk of increased crime, drugs which impacts children severely. Please find a place away from Schools.
I am strongly opposed to the current proposal as there are no adequate counter-measures to help the existing community feel safe. None of their valid concerns (as extensively voiced already in other comments) are addressed in the current proposal.
Bill Wilson Center strongly supports the proposed Homekey project at Lawrence Exp. & Benton. For 50 years we have offered safe housing to homeless youth in Santa Clara. By providing 80 – 120 interim housing units that are near public transit and provide on-site supportive services (including case management to help with linkages to employment resources, education, and health care), the City is offering homeless individuals and families a safe place to stay while they rebuild their lives.
Unsafe for neighborhood kids, schools are in close vicinity. Potentially risks increase in illegal activities.
We already have many Homekeys in the area and limited resources for police & security, as the policies do not respond even if we feel unsafe for individuals trespassing on our properties. My questions are:
1. Would you, as councilmembers be responsible for our community safety?
2. If safety issues arrive due to this, and with limited resources, who will be responsible? Would the council members be accountable for our financial loss or emotional damage due to this?
Screening is a must for letting someone in.
Strongly oppose! The proposed plan and the few meetings I attended fail to convince me on the long term advantage of such a shelter in this neighborhood. With no proper screening and long term security measures in place, I’m hugely concerned about the safety of the vulnerable residents of such a low-barrier shelter along with the rest of the neighborhood. I urge my reps to strongly oppose this initiative and look at other ways to resolve homelessness.
I strongly oppose this proposal. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Parents of kids are worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
The low barrier entry bar will bring drug addicts, mentally unstable homeless people to the scene, which will harm the safety of nearby neighborhoods, especially to children. It’s so close to so many schools, day cares. Such high density building will create traffic and parking problems as well. The noise from Lawrence will not be good for people with mental illness to live inside. Putting people with crime history in a high density building will make it a crime scene in the end.
Oppose! Community concerns are being ignored despite schools and parks within 2000 ft. of the proposed housing site and the lack of background checks for residents. "Family only" doesn't guarantee safety. Feedback cards are selectively considered, excluding emails after March 21st. A new proposal has been presented and put to vote, disregarding previous engagement meetings. Council members deny involvement in the county project and officials coach students to speak in support of it.
I strongly oppose the proposed shelter in Benton. It's too close to residential areas, schools, and community hubs, and could increase crime rates and harm children. The lack of screening for occupants is a safety risk, and the unclear funding and inability to ensure building standards are met are concerning. This proposal is not a solution to homelessness and would sacrifice the safety of the community.
I strongly oppose this proposal. The county is trying to rush the project. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Parents of kids are worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Strongly oppose the location for the proposed project. Idea to help homeless persons is welcome but the place is not right. In my work I see lot of homeless people that say there is rampant drug use in these kind of places. With so many schools close by, not safe. Please find a place away from schools and thickly populated residential units.
I strongly oppose this project due to to its location close to residential community and many schools in the near vicinity. I’d be highly concerned about safety and security of our children and families. If city would like to provide a shelter for homeless, keep it outside of the city and give them appropriate rehabilitation and work opportunities.
I strongly oppose to this proposal as it will make our neighborhoods not safe anymore.
Strong NO to this proposal. It is too close to residential area which will raise crime rate and damage the community. Sacrifice other people’s safety is not the way to solve homelessness problem!
Oppose this proposal. There are many schools around this area. Without screening the shelter residents, it’s irresponsible for the kids. If anything happen to the kids because of this, will city take full responsibility?
I oppose this proposal. Allowing occupants who have not been screened, particularly those with criminal records, could create safety concerns for the area.
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