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..
I live in Benton & Lawrence community. My family and I strongly oppose the proposal. Please vote NO.
The proposal calls the Benton lot a Vacant Land, but it is NOT true. It is one of the last few community hubs for families to celebrate holiday traditions. There are at least 3000 families visiting the land every year to celebrate holidays.
Also, the site is too close to schools, to kids and seniors! It is a safety risk for the community.
My family and I strongly oppose this low barrier zero screening housing. I’m an elementary school teacher working with low socioeconomic families, and I’ve had homeless students; and I know they won’t choose this kind of shelter as their home because it is not even safe for them. If you really want to support families in need, try again and come up with a real plan that can convince us and people you are trying to help. Be responsible, make the right decision and don’t disappoint your people.
I strongly oppose this proposal. We want a safe community. Along with me we have 5000+ wet signatures. City CANNOT add or discuss information that was not released to the public in the April 25 meeting. Does County/City Intentionally hide that information ( 4-25-23 Post Meeting Materials Page 10-12 WAS NOT PRESENTED NOR RELEASED TO PUBLIC DURING THE 4/25 MEETING. Since these are new info for the public, there needs to be another round of public comments
I strongly oppose this proposal! More than enough statistical data and facts have been provided to the city council members! Please do not disrupt already settled residential area by compromising their safety and security!
Please listen to the majority and check the facts with open mind !
I strongly oppose this project. The project is a real threat to public safety. To everyone of us in the community, it means daily dealings with safety risk including loss of life. For the sake of our own lives, we have to veto this project.
We strongly oppose this interim housing proposal since the proposal itself is not convincing. Palo Alto online has an article describing how LifeMoves has a low success rate in helping homeless find stable housing in their mountain view site. Yet our government keeps letting this proposal move forward with changing content, despite this is a proposal receiving historical number of opposition from nearby residents. Listen to them (instead of housing advocate supporters) and vote no!
The flex style of units is unacceptable in my opinion. If we want families, we should not keep a loophole for single adults. The opposition to this project is loud and clear with main point against this being safety. I am in strong opposition.
Like Majority(~90%) residents, I strongly OPPOSE !Please listen to your residents and don’t put our families at risk.
Red flags:
1) Funding and lack of accountability : Huge burden on Santa Clara residents at the cost of our safety.
2) No background checks or ID verification which is a safety concern residents and homeless clients.
3) County imposing redlining of cities like Santa Clara
4) Misinformation from county officials and Homekey officials.They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan.
I strongly oppose this proposal. I have 3 daughters 1. They go to school nearby area. 2. My parents walk with them almost everyday passing this location and they encounter the homeless individuals once a while while they walk and those homeless individuals were inappropriately acting/showing/getting so close to kids and my parents in not so great conditioned body because they’re senior citizens had to try and run so hard not to show kids how homeless individuals in drug could look or act like.
I’m really concerned because it is too close to our school districts. I’m a father of 3 kids, so safety and drug free neighborhoods are the most vulnerable.
Yesterday, while walking my dog on Homestead Road, I encountered a homeless individual smoking drugs. Additionally, my neighbor's front yard was once used as a sleeping spot for a homeless individual until the police had to intervene. Our community is not an appropriate location for a homeless shelter. The proposed shelter would be located near residential areas, posing a significant threat to the safety of our families and children.
We strongly oppose this proposal. This is on the walking route for most kids to near by schools and it's not a great location to start with. This will ruin the neighborhood and make us lose trust in the county. Tons of incidents everyday on El Camino nearby which the local authorities are unable to attend to, how can this be under control. We're prepared to leave this place if this happens. Please consider a Industrial area where there are less schools like near the SJC Airport/Trimble.
We strongly oppose this proposal. This is on the walking route for most kids to near by schools and it's not a great location to start with. This will ruin the neighborhood and make us lose trust in the county. Tons of incidents everyday on El Camino nearby which the local authorities are unable to attend to, how can this be under control. We're prepared to leave this place if this happens. Please consider a Industrial area where there are less schools like near the SJC Airport/Trimble.
Strongly oppose!! Around my former home, there was a person with mental health issues in the neighborhood and often shouted aloud during the day. My kids were so scared and not willing to play outside of the house. This causes both mental and physical harms to my kids and forced me to move to the current home in Santa Clara. The proposed unscreened shelter will likely have people with mental issue. That would be a serious threat to the safety and mental health of the kids in our community.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I live in Benton & Lawrence community. My family and I strongly oppose the proposal. Please vote NO.
The proposal calls the Benton lot a Vacant Land, but it is NOT true. It is one of the last few community hubs for families to celebrate holiday traditions. There are at least 3000 families visiting the land every year to celebrate holidays.
Also, the site is too close to schools, to kids and seniors! It is a safety risk for the community.
Please vote NO!
My family and I strongly oppose this low barrier zero screening housing. I’m an elementary school teacher working with low socioeconomic families, and I’ve had homeless students; and I know they won’t choose this kind of shelter as their home because it is not even safe for them. If you really want to support families in need, try again and come up with a real plan that can convince us and people you are trying to help. Be responsible, make the right decision and don’t disappoint your people.
I strongly oppose this proposal. We want a safe community. Along with me we have 5000+ wet signatures. City CANNOT add or discuss information that was not released to the public in the April 25 meeting. Does County/City Intentionally hide that information ( 4-25-23 Post Meeting Materials Page 10-12 WAS NOT PRESENTED NOR RELEASED TO PUBLIC DURING THE 4/25 MEETING. Since these are new info for the public, there needs to be another round of public comments
Like Majority(~90%) residents, I oppose. Please listen to your residents.
Red flags:
1) Funding and lack of accountability : Huge burden on Santa Clara residents’ safety.
2) Potential Huge financial burden for the City of Santa Clara
3) No background checks or ID verification which is a safety concern for the near-by residents and for the families with kids homeless clients.
I strongly oppose this proposal! More than enough statistical data and facts have been provided to the city council members! Please do not disrupt already settled residential area by compromising their safety and security!
Please listen to the majority and check the facts with open mind !
I strongly oppose this project. The project is a real threat to public safety. To everyone of us in the community, it means daily dealings with safety risk including loss of life. For the sake of our own lives, we have to veto this project.
We strongly oppose this interim housing proposal since the proposal itself is not convincing. Palo Alto online has an article describing how LifeMoves has a low success rate in helping homeless find stable housing in their mountain view site. Yet our government keeps letting this proposal move forward with changing content, despite this is a proposal receiving historical number of opposition from nearby residents. Listen to them (instead of housing advocate supporters) and vote no!
The flex style of units is unacceptable in my opinion. If we want families, we should not keep a loophole for single adults. The opposition to this project is loud and clear with main point against this being safety. I am in strong opposition.
Like Majority(~90%) residents, I strongly OPPOSE !Please listen to your residents and don’t put our families at risk.
Red flags:
1) Funding and lack of accountability : Huge burden on Santa Clara residents at the cost of our safety.
2) No background checks or ID verification which is a safety concern residents and homeless clients.
3) County imposing redlining of cities like Santa Clara
4) Misinformation from county officials and Homekey officials.They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan.
Strongly oppose.
I strongly oppose this proposal!
I strongly oppose the proposal. Stronger than stronger.
I strongly oppose the proposal. STRONGLY!!!
I strongly oppose the 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing program in our residential neighborhood due to safety concerns for our community and children.
I strongly oppose this proposal. I have 3 daughters 1. They go to school nearby area. 2. My parents walk with them almost everyday passing this location and they encounter the homeless individuals once a while while they walk and those homeless individuals were inappropriately acting/showing/getting so close to kids and my parents in not so great conditioned body because they’re senior citizens had to try and run so hard not to show kids how homeless individuals in drug could look or act like.
I’m really concerned because it is too close to our school districts. I’m a father of 3 kids, so safety and drug free neighborhoods are the most vulnerable.
Yesterday, while walking my dog on Homestead Road, I encountered a homeless individual smoking drugs. Additionally, my neighbor's front yard was once used as a sleeping spot for a homeless individual until the police had to intervene. Our community is not an appropriate location for a homeless shelter. The proposed shelter would be located near residential areas, posing a significant threat to the safety of our families and children.
We strongly oppose this proposal. This is on the walking route for most kids to near by schools and it's not a great location to start with. This will ruin the neighborhood and make us lose trust in the county. Tons of incidents everyday on El Camino nearby which the local authorities are unable to attend to, how can this be under control. We're prepared to leave this place if this happens. Please consider a Industrial area where there are less schools like near the SJC Airport/Trimble.
We strongly oppose this proposal. This is on the walking route for most kids to near by schools and it's not a great location to start with. This will ruin the neighborhood and make us lose trust in the county. Tons of incidents everyday on El Camino nearby which the local authorities are unable to attend to, how can this be under control. We're prepared to leave this place if this happens. Please consider a Industrial area where there are less schools like near the SJC Airport/Trimble.
Strongly oppose!! Around my former home, there was a person with mental health issues in the neighborhood and often shouted aloud during the day. My kids were so scared and not willing to play outside of the house. This causes both mental and physical harms to my kids and forced me to move to the current home in Santa Clara. The proposed unscreened shelter will likely have people with mental issue. That would be a serious threat to the safety and mental health of the kids in our community.