1. 23-591 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) - Continued from the April 25, 2023 Council Meeting
NEW information that the County and LifeMoves did not present during the public hearing last Tuesday, 4/25/23. We the public did not have a chance to review them, comment on them. In light of this new information and the many issues raised during the public hearing on 4/25/23, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara immediately strike down this deceiving proposal on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Homeless Shelter
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.
Strongly oppose low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton. It is going to make the neighborhood very unsafe. The authorities havent been able to come up with a concrete workable plan to ensure safety of the peaceful neighborhood. This housing is going to increase the crime rate significantly and make lives of everyone around the neighborhood miserable. Do not build the low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton. It will ruin the peaceful neighborhood permanently
Stop wasting taxpayer money on "feel good" projects. The purpose of "interim" housing is to allow residents to stabilize their personal situation and establish roots in the neighborhood community. This predicates on availability of public transportation, suitable entry-level job market, permanent housing affordability. Benton & Lawrence site is subpar choice for this: 30/100 transit score, no manufacturing facilities, high rent prices in the area, liquor store across the street.
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
Given the proximity to schools and densely populated neighborhood, I strongly oppose building a low-barrier temp shelter at this location and risking the safety and security of families and children.
There is not change from original proposal. The fact that each family unit has 3 entry doors, it being built with full intent of converting into 90 unit adult single and couple only facility which can host 180 adults. Ms. Consuelo, County and LifeMoves are providing misleading information in public forum in plain sight.
This an experiment being conducted with Santa Clara city, Only example of an Interim housing being so close to schools and residents is one Branham which simply does not exist
An overwhelming majority of residents have strongly opposed this misguided project. This is the most inappropriate location for housing drug addicts and criminals as there are no background checks. It will severely compromise the safety of over 10,000 children in surrounding schools. The lack of transparency and accountability combined with misinformation is appalling and you have lost the trust of the people. Please respect the will of the people and vote NO.
1. SCUSD has already identified homeless families through the McKinney Vento act. There are hundreds and growing.
2. These families should get priority because they are bona fide homeless and community members.
3. If this facility is to be in our residential neighborhoods, we want to serve LOCAL families who have roots here.We want to give LOCAL families the opportunity to stay for stability. We do NOTwant to attract homeless families from other areas.
Until these criteria are carved in stone
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 $6M financial gap for 7 years. 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!!!
I am a resident of the Birdland neighborhood for the past 23 years. I have worked very hard to build my life and I am raising my family. One of my children attends Santa Clara High and sometimes bikes to school. Thus traffic safety at Benton and Lawrence is a serious concern for me. Last week there were two homeless people who kept running near Benton and Lawrence. Without any committed budget on public safety, background check and traffic safety, I am requesting you to oppose this.
I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal did not take full respect of neighboring's voice at the very beginning and will introduce a lot of safety concerns.
Majority oppose ~90% !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.
We strong oppose this proposal, it’s unsafe for the community and lifemoves try to hide info from people, who add the design of 90 doors for 30 units after last meeting. It’s definitely not designed for families!
I strongly oppose the plan taking into account all the considerations around the proximity of the site to several schools and residential neighborhoods in the area. While I generally supportive of helping the homeless, this particular site seems to be ill suited for the purpose.
Per the proposal, certain registered sex offenders would not be placed at the site while children are living there. Without screening for entry, no way to execute this policy. Putting kids with “uncertain” registered sex offenders will ruin the kids! Also LifeMoves plan to transfer families from Sunnyvale site to Benton site. What is the point to move already sheltered families? This exactly reflects that LifeMoves always neglect their plan and change it after approval. Shame on LifeMoves!
NEW information that the County and LifeMoves did not present during the public hearing last Tuesday, 4/25/23. We the public did not have a chance to review them, comment on them. In light of this new information and the many issues raised during the public hearing on 4/25/23, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara immediately strike down this deceiving proposal on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Homeless Shelter
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.
Strongly oppose low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton. It is going to make the neighborhood very unsafe. The authorities havent been able to come up with a concrete workable plan to ensure safety of the peaceful neighborhood. This housing is going to increase the crime rate significantly and make lives of everyone around the neighborhood miserable. Do not build the low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton. It will ruin the peaceful neighborhood permanently
Stop wasting taxpayer money on "feel good" projects. The purpose of "interim" housing is to allow residents to stabilize their personal situation and establish roots in the neighborhood community. This predicates on availability of public transportation, suitable entry-level job market, permanent housing affordability. Benton & Lawrence site is subpar choice for this: 30/100 transit score, no manufacturing facilities, high rent prices in the area, liquor store across the street.
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
Given the proximity to schools and densely populated neighborhood, I strongly oppose building a low-barrier temp shelter at this location and risking the safety and security of families and children.
There is not change from original proposal. The fact that each family unit has 3 entry doors, it being built with full intent of converting into 90 unit adult single and couple only facility which can host 180 adults. Ms. Consuelo, County and LifeMoves are providing misleading information in public forum in plain sight.
This an experiment being conducted with Santa Clara city, Only example of an Interim housing being so close to schools and residents is one Branham which simply does not exist
An overwhelming majority of residents have strongly opposed this misguided project. This is the most inappropriate location for housing drug addicts and criminals as there are no background checks. It will severely compromise the safety of over 10,000 children in surrounding schools. The lack of transparency and accountability combined with misinformation is appalling and you have lost the trust of the people. Please respect the will of the people and vote NO.
1. SCUSD has already identified homeless families through the McKinney Vento act. There are hundreds and growing.
2. These families should get priority because they are bona fide homeless and community members.
3. If this facility is to be in our residential neighborhoods, we want to serve LOCAL families who have roots here.We want to give LOCAL families the opportunity to stay for stability. We do NOTwant to attract homeless families from other areas.
Until these criteria are carved in stone
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 $6M financial gap for 7 years. 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!!!
I am a resident of the Birdland neighborhood for the past 23 years. I have worked very hard to build my life and I am raising my family. One of my children attends Santa Clara High and sometimes bikes to school. Thus traffic safety at Benton and Lawrence is a serious concern for me. Last week there were two homeless people who kept running near Benton and Lawrence. Without any committed budget on public safety, background check and traffic safety, I am requesting you to oppose this.
I strongly oppose this proposal. This proposal did not take full respect of neighboring's voice at the very beginning and will introduce a lot of safety concerns.
Majority oppose ~90% !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.
We strong oppose this proposal, it’s unsafe for the community and lifemoves try to hide info from people, who add the design of 90 doors for 30 units after last meeting. It’s definitely not designed for families!
I strongly oppose due to the impact that it will have to the communities safety.
I strongly oppose the plan taking into account all the considerations around the proximity of the site to several schools and residential neighborhoods in the area. While I generally supportive of helping the homeless, this particular site seems to be ill suited for the purpose.
Per the proposal, certain registered sex offenders would not be placed at the site while children are living there. Without screening for entry, no way to execute this policy. Putting kids with “uncertain” registered sex offenders will ruin the kids! Also LifeMoves plan to transfer families from Sunnyvale site to Benton site. What is the point to move already sheltered families? This exactly reflects that LifeMoves always neglect their plan and change it after approval. Shame on LifeMoves!
STRONGLY OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!!
PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO)