The City of Santa Clara is conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely).
• Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1(669) 900-6833
How to Submit Written Public Comment Before City Council Meeting:
1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx). eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff, and become part of the public record. eComment closes 15 minutes before the start of a meeting.
2. By email to clerk@santaclaraca.gov by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those emails will be forwarded to the Council and will be uploaded to the City Council Agenda as supplemental meeting material. Emails received after the 12 p.m. cutoff time up through the end of the meeting will form part of the meeting record. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. NOTE: Please note eComments and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.
Agendas, Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk at Sana Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft contracts, ordinances and resolutions posted on the Internet site or distributed in advance of the Council meeting may not be the final documents approved by the City Council. For the final document, you many contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 615-2220 or Clerk@santaclaraca.gov..
The proposal is not imperfect, it is completely wrong, wrong location! The LifeMoves doesn’t have detailed plans supporting mental health or safety maintenance, because they don’t care. They don’t care Santa Clara residents’ safety, they don’t care homeless people safety, they don’t care how much money we need to pay.
Vote NO on Benton & Lawrence Exp shelter. LifeMoves shelters @ 2570 Leghorn St. Mountain View, 260 Commerical St. San Jose, and 1580 Maple St. Redwood City are ALL in commercial-zoned areas or next to a police station. Why are you proposing a site 100 yards from residential housing? A liquor store is across the street too! We have crime in our neighborhoods. Look @ your police stats for Sunnyvale & not just Santa Clara near the location. Clients gave bad reviews for LifeMoves just a month ago!
This project is not perfect. I agree with the safety concerns for the tenants of this complex. Benton is wide at the Lawrence Expressway and there is a risk of j-walking. Although there are also noise and pollution concerns with the site being directly adjacent to Lawrence Expressway, I think these risks can be mitigated. This project is good and needed.
The benefits of this project outweigh the risks. Communities are safer when people are housed and receiving services.
Dear Council Members,
Please vote NO on the Benton& Lawrence homeless shelter.
First, the low-barrier shelter will create safety concerns of the neighborhood. Second, the high construction cost and operation cost are appalling.
Third, the plan is three-story 30 family units. I don’t think this shelter is safe for children.
Fourth, i am told lifemover operated other shelter poorly. I don’t trust them.
Five, there is not sustainable financial resources for this shelter.
Please vote NO. Thank you.
I strongly oppose this this plan! LifeMoves is an unreliable partner to deliver success. It fails in all aspects: budget estimate, staff, service, execute policy, help homeless, manage neighborhood safety, and more.
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.
I Strongly oppose this proposal. The cost of this project is more than Hilton Homewood Suites for 160 units. If the construction costs increase then the money is taken from funds for operating expenses. This would be result in Lifemoves reducing their staff and putting the neighborhood at risk. What happens after the funding runs out? Please take a look at what has happened to San Francisco and the standard of living there. We do not want our neighborhood to become another SF. Please vote No
Strongly oppose this proposal. There is a clause that says if not enough homeless families sign up then they will have singles with criminal history to be housed in the shelter. This is a huge safety concern to the densely populated neighborhood with so many kids. Also why does this location be concentrated with 2 shelters? what happens when funding runs out, Instead of occasional 1 or 2 homeless folks we will now have 100s of them roaming in the neighborhood? Please move to a different location
I'm strongly against this Benton shelter project. I listened to the meeting on Apr-25th. There were many solid concerns about this project and none of them was addressed properly. For example, who should be held responsible for bad safety issues that occur because of the shelter(or initiated by people living in the shelter)? There are also many unanswered questions regarding the gap in the funding numbers. As a tax payer and a local resident, I can't support something like this!
I strongly oppose to this proposal. The shelter is too close to the schools and houses, imposing significant security concerns to our community. The proposal has huge gap in fundings. The money needed per family is also even higher than normal rent. Please vote NO!
Proposal is not fully vetted operational funding is still a gap. Very conservative outlook provided for 7 year only funding. Even though is it sufficient for HomeKey application, this is something city has to maintain for 30 years. 100% family is an illusion. Drawings updated last night clearly show that it is being build with full intent of converting it to 90 room adult only facility with very less parking availability on-site. Each so called family unit has 3 entrances conversion is confirmed
80-95% local residents strongly oppose this Benton location for non screening homeless shelters. Who vote for yes will be voted out for the next election,
My family want city council to vote “NO” against “Low Entry Barrier “ shelters in residential neighborhoods.
Please listen to voice of the residents affected.
Please help keep Santa Clara Safe for everyone!
Please Vote “NO” to low Entry Barrier Interim Homeless Shelter @ Lawrence /Benton!!
The reasons:
1, Please listen to voice of the residents affected.
2, This doesn’t qualify for CEQA Exemption.
There are still too many unanswered questions about this project.
1) Who will fill the financial gap for the first 7 years?
2) Where's funding for the rest 23 years?
3) Does county inform Sunnyvale the potential change of use of the existing shelter? From mix with family to singles
4) Whether this shelter can have non-family tenants? This is really vague and got conflicted answers for county staffs in the meeting.
...
VOTE NO, PLEASE!
As a local resident, I strongly oppose the proposal.
The construction cost is way too high, almost $1 million per family unit, and there's still the financial gap every
year. That's totally a waste of tax money.
Also LifeMoves cannot show it can really help homeless people move to their next step. In MTV LifeMoves,
success rate is only 26%!
So I believe, LifeMoves & County are not trustworthy partners to work with. Please reconsider this project and
vote NO!!!
Please vote NO! The project is not financially viable.
Stop turning Santa Clara into SF No.2!
The proposal is not imperfect, it is completely wrong, wrong location! The LifeMoves doesn’t have detailed plans supporting mental health or safety maintenance, because they don’t care. They don’t care Santa Clara residents’ safety, they don’t care homeless people safety, they don’t care how much money we need to pay.
Please be thoughtful and vote NO!
We are Santa Clara residents. Our family strongly oppose this proposal.
Please vote NO!
I live in Santa Clara, I strongly oppose the proposal. We have over 5000 wet signatures collecting from the neighborhood.
Please stay with the Santa Clara community and vote NO!
Vote NO on Benton & Lawrence Exp shelter. LifeMoves shelters @ 2570 Leghorn St. Mountain View, 260 Commerical St. San Jose, and 1580 Maple St. Redwood City are ALL in commercial-zoned areas or next to a police station. Why are you proposing a site 100 yards from residential housing? A liquor store is across the street too! We have crime in our neighborhoods. Look @ your police stats for Sunnyvale & not just Santa Clara near the location. Clients gave bad reviews for LifeMoves just a month ago!
This project is not perfect. I agree with the safety concerns for the tenants of this complex. Benton is wide at the Lawrence Expressway and there is a risk of j-walking. Although there are also noise and pollution concerns with the site being directly adjacent to Lawrence Expressway, I think these risks can be mitigated. This project is good and needed.
The benefits of this project outweigh the risks. Communities are safer when people are housed and receiving services.
Dear Council Members,
Please vote NO on the Benton& Lawrence homeless shelter.
First, the low-barrier shelter will create safety concerns of the neighborhood. Second, the high construction cost and operation cost are appalling.
Third, the plan is three-story 30 family units. I don’t think this shelter is safe for children.
Fourth, i am told lifemover operated other shelter poorly. I don’t trust them.
Five, there is not sustainable financial resources for this shelter.
Please vote NO. Thank you.
I strongly oppose this this plan! LifeMoves is an unreliable partner to deliver success. It fails in all aspects: budget estimate, staff, service, execute policy, help homeless, manage neighborhood safety, and more.
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.
I Strongly oppose this proposal. The cost of this project is more than Hilton Homewood Suites for 160 units. If the construction costs increase then the money is taken from funds for operating expenses. This would be result in Lifemoves reducing their staff and putting the neighborhood at risk. What happens after the funding runs out? Please take a look at what has happened to San Francisco and the standard of living there. We do not want our neighborhood to become another SF. Please vote No
Strongly oppose this proposal. There is a clause that says if not enough homeless families sign up then they will have singles with criminal history to be housed in the shelter. This is a huge safety concern to the densely populated neighborhood with so many kids. Also why does this location be concentrated with 2 shelters? what happens when funding runs out, Instead of occasional 1 or 2 homeless folks we will now have 100s of them roaming in the neighborhood? Please move to a different location
I'm strongly against this Benton shelter project. I listened to the meeting on Apr-25th. There were many solid concerns about this project and none of them was addressed properly. For example, who should be held responsible for bad safety issues that occur because of the shelter(or initiated by people living in the shelter)? There are also many unanswered questions regarding the gap in the funding numbers. As a tax payer and a local resident, I can't support something like this!
I strongly oppose to this proposal. The shelter is too close to the schools and houses, imposing significant security concerns to our community. The proposal has huge gap in fundings. The money needed per family is also even higher than normal rent. Please vote NO!
Proposal is not fully vetted operational funding is still a gap. Very conservative outlook provided for 7 year only funding. Even though is it sufficient for HomeKey application, this is something city has to maintain for 30 years. 100% family is an illusion. Drawings updated last night clearly show that it is being build with full intent of converting it to 90 room adult only facility with very less parking availability on-site. Each so called family unit has 3 entrances conversion is confirmed
80-95% local residents strongly oppose this Benton location for non screening homeless shelters. Who vote for yes will be voted out for the next election,
My family want city council to vote “NO” against “Low Entry Barrier “ shelters in residential neighborhoods.
Please listen to voice of the residents affected.
Please help keep Santa Clara Safe for everyone!
Please Vote ” NO” !
Please Vote “NO” to low Entry Barrier Interim Homeless Shelter @ Lawrence /Benton!!
The reasons:
1, Please listen to voice of the residents affected.
2, This doesn’t qualify for CEQA Exemption.
Please Vote “NO”
Please VOTE NO for this project!
There are still too many unanswered questions about this project.
1) Who will fill the financial gap for the first 7 years?
2) Where's funding for the rest 23 years?
3) Does county inform Sunnyvale the potential change of use of the existing shelter? From mix with family to singles
4) Whether this shelter can have non-family tenants? This is really vague and got conflicted answers for county staffs in the meeting.
...
VOTE NO, PLEASE!
As a local resident, I strongly oppose the proposal.
The construction cost is way too high, almost $1 million per family unit, and there's still the financial gap every
year. That's totally a waste of tax money.
Also LifeMoves cannot show it can really help homeless people move to their next step. In MTV LifeMoves,
success rate is only 26%!
So I believe, LifeMoves & County are not trustworthy partners to work with. Please reconsider this project and
vote NO!!!