ECOMMENTS — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, May 2, 2023

Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting on 2023-05-02 5:00 PM Meeting Time: 05-02-23 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Council and Authorities Concurrent
Meeting on 2023-05-02 5:00 PM
05-02-23
17:00
13 308 9 287 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment

Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting on 2023-05-02 5:00 PM 05-02-23 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]..
105 2 98 0
5:00 PM ADJOURNED AND RECONVENED SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL FROM APRIL 25, 2023
15 0 14 0
Call to Order 10 0 10 0
Pledge of Allegiance and Statement of Values 10 0 10 0
Roll Call 10 0 10 0
PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL BUSINESS 13 0 12 0

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 61 7 52 0
REPORTS OF MEMBERS AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 9 0 9 0
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 9 0 9 0
ADJOURNMENT 6 0 6 0
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
The next regular scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chambers.
11 0 11 0
MEETING DISCLOSURES 8 0 7 0
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. If a person wishes to challenge the nature of the above section in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clara, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

STREAMING SERVICES: As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel 99), or the livestream on the City's Y ouTube channel or Facebook page.

Note: The public cannot participate in the meeting through these livestreaming methods; livestreaming capabilities may be disrupted at times, viewers may always view and participate in meetings in-person and via Zoom as noted on the agenda.

AB23 ANNOUNCEMENT: Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority and Housing Authority are entitled to receive $30 for each attended meeting.

Note: The City Council and its associated Authorities meet as separate agencies but in a concurrent manner. Actions taken should be considered actions of only the identified policy body.

LEGEND: City Council (CC); Stadium Authority (SA); Sports and Open Space Authority (SOSA); Housing Authority (HA); Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency (SARDA); Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority (BNPEA); Public Facilities Financing Corporation (PFFC)
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City's website and in the City Clerk's Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City's programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk's Office at 1 408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written 41 0 39 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 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:

2. By email to [email protected] 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 [email protected]..

Overall Sentiment
Kirk Hinton
Location:

Submitted At: 4:39pm 05-02-23
As a parent with three small children living within 1/5 of a mile of the proposed site, I strongly urge you to approve this project. Don't give into the fear mongering that has been so prevalent at the public meetings. The job of a council member is a difficult one, and one of the most difficult things that I imagine you have to do is to vote in the interests of ALL Santa Clara residents, including those who are less fortunate. I urge you to do the right thing and approve this project.

Peihong Guo
Location:

Submitted At: 4:22pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose this project.

The proposal from the city didn't properly account for the needs of the homeless people: the zero screen facility is not going to help the homeless people but instead create yet another source of instability to the local community.

The underfunded project is also recipe for future financial issues for the city as well as the operation of the site.

Liren Du
Location:

Submitted At: 4:17pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose Benton x Lawrence homekey project!!!
Hannah Young
Location:

Submitted At: 3:54pm 05-02-23
Please vote No!
Catherine Byrthen
Location:

Submitted At: 3:53pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose Benton x Lawrence homekey project!!!
marlene ma
Location:

Submitted At: 3:48pm 05-02-23

1. The homeless people needs way more help than a shelter in the public. The special group of peole will need something between a home and a hospital to heal their mental issues.

2. the shelter wouldn't help the homeless group, but it would damage our next generation also.

So please spend our tax payer's money wisely, seek a better solution! Xiaye Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:37pm 05-02-23
I strong oppose this proposal for safety concerns! Wrong location and high expense Qiumao Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 3:29pm 05-02-23
Oppose!!
City leader should think about the community, building this shelter will bring me homeless person to the community.

No one can prevent them from leaving the "home", when they are on the street, it introduces safety concerns to the community, especially there are so many schools around within 0.5 miles.

Magic Lin
Location:

Submitted At: 3:26pm 05-02-23
I strong oppose this proposal for safety issue. Please vote NO! Wen Xiong
Location:

Submitted At: 3:24pm 05-02-23
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE the proposal.
(1) Crime Statistics don't lie - the number of Mountain View LifeMoves police calls grew 47-fold from 2019 to 2022.
(2) Groundless proposal - explain why we need 2 shelter and 3 affordable housings in the same neighbord (3) Suspicious funding plan - $34 million for construction is more than Hilton Homewood Suites for 160 units. 80% of Santa Clara residents who pay property taxes, income taxes, and sale taxes lawfully said NO to this proposal.

Vanessa Chen
Location:

Submitted At: 3:21pm 05-02-23
My husband and I both oppose this site for shelter. Reasons are quite clear as so many of real residents-- people who actually live close by--we have concerns over safety of neighborhood. Also the proposed budget of construction and operation are way too high and thus looks fishy.

Yu Sun
Location:

Submitted At: 3:17pm 05-02-23
Please vote NO!
Bing Miao
Location:

Submitted At: 3:06pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose this proposal.

We have over 5000 wet signatures oppose this proposal, please vote No! L. H.

Location:

Submitted At: 3:00pm 05-02-23
This is a wrong proposal in many ways. I am a local resident and strongly oppose a low barrier entry interim shelter in my neighborhood. There is already a shelter less than 0.5 mile away.

Over $1M to construct 370 sqft tiny homes doesn't make sense. The 30 family units are really 90 units for singles/couples which will require much higher operating cost, for 30+ years. Citycouncil, please review the proposal carefully.

Citycouncil please vote NO.

Jessica Hu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:54pm 05-02-23
I opposed the homekey at Benton project
Xiao Yu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:53pm 05-02-23
Strongly opposed!
Dave Huoang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:45pm 05-02-23
LifeMoves is a disgraced non profit, their projects do not work and is wasting our tax funding on executive compensation instead without helping homeless land permanent housing. Any councilmember voting to support is also a disgrace with no accountability.

Sanfeng Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:31pm 05-02-23
The project is a financial disaster and leaves a huge burden for future 20+ years. And the money is spent with huge waste such as over 1 million for just 377 sqft room(only building cost not including land and maintenance).

Deny this Benton and Lawrence project and using such money will save much much more homeless people.

Please Say big "NO" to this project to save more homeless people. I support helping homeless people and extremely oppose this project! ________
SZ Qiu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:25pm 05-02-23
As parent and resident, we strongly oppose this proposal. This is NOT transparant project and completely ignoring the residents' safety.

The city should have communicated with the residents and found more thoughtful ways to help homeless and remain the community's safety in the meantime instead of seeking to pass the bill in such a rush way.

We build the community and we have responsibilty to protect our commuinity.

Jiatong Chen
Location:

Submitted At: 2:23pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose Benton and Lawrence Homeless housing due to its proximity to schools, parks. The low barrier entry criteria post a great threat to children nearby. We don’t want to see homeless with mentally illness, drug addicts, rapists are gathered in one place, so close to our neighborhood. They should be placed and separated in different hospitals or other session 8 housings. Bring them together in one place will ruin the neighborhood , turn the adjacent area into crime scenes.

Taoran Lu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:06pm 05-02-23
Please vote NO! The project is not financially viable.

Yanwu Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 1:52pm 05-02-23
Stop turning Santa Clara into SF No.2!
Shirley Yang
Location:

Submitted At: 1:26pm 05-02-23
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!
Fei Han
Location:

Submitted At: 1:24pm 05-02-23
We are Santa Clara residents. Our family strongly oppose this proposal.

Please vote NO!
Xue Yang
Location:

Submitted At: 12:57pm 05-02-23
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! elizabeth chetcuti
Location:

Submitted At: 12:39pm 05-02-23
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!

DENISE DELANGE
Location:

Submitted At: 12:12pm 05-02-23
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.

Yuwen Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:57am 05-02-23
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.

Ashlyn Ju
Location:

Submitted At: 10:24am 05-02-23
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.

Aihua Lei
Location:

Submitted At: 10:21am 05-02-23
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.

Vijay K
Location:

Submitted At: 10:10am 05-02-23
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
Naveen Yerneni
Location:

Submitted At: 9:54am 05-02-23
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 Siyu Hou
Location:

Submitted At: 9:42am 05-02-23
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!
Sizhuo Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 9:38am 05-02-23
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!
Vinod Tana
Location:

Submitted At: 9:27am 05-02-23
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
Joyce Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 7:58am 05-02-23
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,
Richard Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:52pm 05-01-23
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” !
Bethany Chen
Location:

Submitted At: 11:23pm 05-01-23
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”
Ryan Komand
Location:

Submitted At: 10:34pm 05-01-23
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!
Zhihao Ji
Location:

Submitted At: 10:26pm 05-01-23
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!!!
Qi Ren
Location:

Submitted At: 10:24pm 05-01-23
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!
Tsan Shen
Location:

Submitted At: 10:20pm 05-01-23
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.

Nanxi Li
Location:

Submitted At: 10:04pm 05-01-23
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 Helen Ch
Location:

Submitted At: 9:55pm 05-01-23
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.

Kirti Gokhale
Location:

Submitted At: 9:38pm 05-01-23
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 ! Sunshine Li
Location:

Submitted At: 9:36pm 05-01-23
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.

Shu Ch
Location:

Submitted At: 8:50pm 05-01-23
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. Y et 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!
Jitesh Jain
Location:

Submitted At: 8:49pm 05-01-23
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.

Anjali Surapaneni
Location:

Submitted At: 8:39pm 05-01-23
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.

Zhanwei Xu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:39pm 05-01-23
Strongly oppose.

Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:38pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal!
Zheyu Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:38pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the proposal. Stronger than stronger.

Yiming Xu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:35pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the proposal. STRONGL Y!!!
Yanhong Zhao
Location:

Submitted At: 8:31pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing program in our residential neighborhood due to safety concerns for our community and children.

Jo Lee
Location:

Submitted At: 8:25pm 05-01-23
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.

Hong Choi
Location:

Submitted At: 8:11pm 05-01-23
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.

Chao Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 7:02pm 05-01-23
Y esterday, 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.

Dhanya Bhat
Location:

Submitted At: 6:48pm 05-01-23
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.

Ashrith Sheshan
Location:

Submitted At: 6:40pm 05-01-23
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.

Elsa Ken
Location:

Submitted At: 6:20pm 05-01-23
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.

Connie Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 5:47pm 05-01-23
Again, strongly oppose Benton shelter!! By far, hasn’t it been clear that majority of local residence firmly oppose this shelter? Why still insist?? Budget gap, poor management, safety risk, you are DESTROYING this community! PLEASE STOP , and use a different location such as next to city hall, next to police station! Rachana Sharma
Location:

Submitted At: 5:19pm 05-01-23
Firmly oppose this project. LifeMoves has flip flopped in providing the details of the project and have falsely claimed that the voters support the project by having outsiders from SF and other areas come and speak in support of the project. If Susan Ellenberg and other corrupt and bribed politicians care so much about homeless, why don't build housing projects near their residences. How about building homeless shelters near the residences of Susan Ellenberg, Ro Khanna, BIden, Kamla, Trump etc? Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 5:00pm 05-01-23
There are so many parties who benefit from this proposed project except the City of Santa Clara Community! County of Santa Clara and LifeMoves have consistently provided false or misleading information, and housing advocacies who don't live in the neighborhood were invited to speak in support at all four community meetings.

They claimed they are volunteers but actually they get paid to attend the meeting. It would be very interesting to find out who paid them.
mario lee
Location:

Submitted At: 3:00pm 05-01-23
Strongly oppose because it is not safe for children and the elderly that lives very near this area.

Tianshan Cui
Location:

Submitted At: 1:58pm 05-01-23
NO NO NO! Please vote NO to this project! I strongly oppose the shelter project at Benton due to the concern of the safety of the nearby neighborhood. I don't want to repeat other folks' perspectives again and again. Please listen to your local residents, who lives here, loves here and trying to grow and protect the community. Thank you! Abby Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 1:56pm 05-01-23
STRONGL Y OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!! PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO) Ting Li
Location:

Submitted At: 1:39pm 05-01-23
This low bar shelter in a dense residential area and many near by schools implies much more cost on security and public facilities. It is not financially sustainable and should be avoided from the beginning.

Frey Zhou
Location:

Submitted At: 11:46am 05-01-23
Definitely not financially feasible. City should not count on Lifemoves’ paper promises and get dragged into this bottomless pit.

Chen Li
Location:

Submitted At: 11:18am 05-01-23
Strongly oppose this flawed proposal! The location could not be more wrong. This low-barrier shelter project will destroy the local neighborhood and thousands of preschool/elementary school students that come to the 15+ schools in walking distance. These kids already had multiple instances last year to have "dangerous men around" to cause school shutdowns because of sick people hanging around and endanger their school! This zero- transparency project will endanger the local community and kids! Jing Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:14am 05-01-23
Please vote NO.

We do not want a shelter in our neighborhood. It makes our neighborhood unsafe, especially to childeren studying in nearby schools.

Jie Han
Location:

Submitted At: 10:50am 05-01-23
No barrier shelter in the residential area and near the schools are not acceptable.

Zheng Qian
Location:

Submitted At: 10:13am 05-01-23
The majority of residents in our area have made it clear that we do not want a shelter in our neighborhood.

I am deeply troubled by the city's decision to invite outsiders to these meetings in an attempt to sway the outcome. This is not a fair or democratic process. It is clear that the city is trying to use its power to dictate the outcome of this proposal, regardless of what the community wants.

Jeff Yc
Location:

Submitted At: 10:01am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose to build the shelter at this location. Building it here would be a shame and a complete negligence of the voice of the residents of Santa Clara city.

Steven Chou
Location:

Submitted At: 9:50am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing program in our residential neighborhood due to safety concerns for our community and children, and the lack of transparency of Lifemove. Please listen to community voices and vote No!
Kate Cao
Location:

Submitted At: 9:30am 05-01-23
With nearby Lifemove’ s poor management and experience, please DON’T Vote Y es in a hurry since they did not set a successful examples!! All the financial situation is based on best scenario but there is still millions dollars gap!! And Lifemove shows very bad financial planning, with inflation rate , the gap will definitely become larger and larger and City needs to put all the money for affordable housing into this project and can’t fill the gap!! Not to mention there are TBD financial source!
Shawn Lou
Location:

Submitted At: 9:25am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose to build the shelter housing at Benton. It is really near the schools my kids go, and I'm really concerned about the safety after building the shelter. Moving the shelter to a place near highway or industry area will be more idea. Near highway and industry will also more convenient for people in the shelter to go to other places or get a job.

Alex Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 12:39am 05-01-23
Please vote NO for the sake of the safety, appreance and repulation of Santa Clara. Please don't attract more homolessness and leave it at the hand of the notorious LifeMoves. They already admitted that they have no plans regarding how to deal with people in need and will leave them on our streets after kicking them out.

Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 11:47pm 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We urge you to Vote NO!
Tao Sun
Location:

Submitted At: 10:41pm 04-30-23
I strongly oppose the proposal of Lawrence and Benton Interim Housing. It causes serious safety concern to thousands neighborhood residents with kids. The reasons and concerns have been explained multiple times by many people living nearby. Please vote NO to the proposal. xinxin jin
Location:

Submitted At: 9:24pm 04-30-23
Please vote NO to the Benton street Interim Housing proposal. Please listen to 5293 local residents who strongly oppose this proposal.

Huan Li
Location:

Submitted At: 4:33pm 04-30-23
At every previous community meeting, it was observed that over 80% of attendees were against the proposal.

There are a multitude of concerns and issues regarding the location and cost that are unresolvable. Please listen to our voice and be responsible to the community!
Ishani Bhatt
Location:

Submitted At: 3:07pm 04-30-23
I strongly oppose low barrier entry homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence interection location. there are many reasons as thousands of people already have explained, it's a huge safety issue for residents of the area and safety issue for families living in the shelter.

Laleeta Gollamudi
Location:

Submitted At: 2:49pm 04-30-23
We strongly oppose the homekey project on Lawrence & Benton to protect neighbors security. Please accept community voice and move this project to a different location to better serve low income community.

Reena Gupta
Location:

Submitted At: 2:31pm 04-30-23
We strongly oppose this homekey project on Lawrence and Benton and extremely concerned about the safety and security of the residential community due to low barrier, no background checks, no liability, no assurance of safety to our kids and elderly. We are empathetic to homeless people, we suggest to take this project away from residential community in other commercial areas to give them jobs and make them responsible citizens of the society. Please listen to the community!
BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:37am 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

In light of the many issues raised during the public hearings, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway proposal.

Please Vote NO!
Harini Va
Location:

Submitted At: 9:24am 04-30-23
Oppose strongly! Close proximity residents who will be directly impacted by the improper planning of this albeit good initiative don’t feel heard at all. After looking at similar initiatives in other closeby cities, not convinced at all that this one will do any better for the true recipients of this initiative and on the way totally convinced it will create safety issues for current residents of the neighborhood.

Deepak Rama
Location:

Submitted At: 9:14am 04-30-23

1. LifeMoves has been non-transparent. Their motive is to get funding. This is a huge burden for tax payers.

2. Safety - the location is not ideal for the purpose. close to 7-eleven (grocery store!!!), close proximity to 3 (read ~15) schools and day cares.

3. No access to public transportation - nearest bus stop is >0.5 miles!!!

4. City officials - please do the math before wasting the $27M. Please do not waste tax payer $$$.

5. No police protection to help in case of issues.

Lakshmi Vaidyanathan
Location:

Submitted At: 9:08am 04-30-23
The proposed site is close to several school hence am concerned about the neighborhood safety. Also the pumpkin patch a close and prime attraction for kids will be taken away and will be a big disappointment.

Sonia Singhal
Location:

Submitted At: 7:23am 04-30-23
The security issues are a big concern. Also the efficacy of bundling all sorts of homeless people in one place is questionable. Since these two issues have not been addressed well, I still strongly oppose this proposal. Our area lacks childcare facilities and low income housing. If pumpkin patch is not considered important (our family loves it), then I would request you to build an after school childcare center or low income housing here.

Mengqi Ren
Location:

Submitted At: 11:39pm 04-29-23
I strongly oppose Benton project. It's a totally wrong location. A no screening shelter shouldn't be built in residential areas. The homeless people with family also have concern to live in the shelter without screen. This proposal is not helping anyone. It'll raise crime rate. When the residential area becomes unhealthy, the homeless people won't get any benefits by living here either.

Lee Lee
Location:

Submitted At: 10:14pm 04-29-23
This location is the center of Silicon Valley where the people from the world come visit whether for business or pleasure. Why this location for this purpose??
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. Please vote NO.
raymond chang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:07pm 04-29-23
my families strongly oppose any form of low-barrier interim housing proposed on Benton site vivian zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:05pm 04-29-23
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. The majority of residents are against this proposal and the city does not listen. False/misleading info is given from city/Life moves. Who ever vote yes should not get our vote in the next election.

Puxiao Han
Location:

Submitted At: 9:08pm 04-29-23
Consistently 80% - 95% community residents strongly oppose Benton shelter: 5,293 wet signatures of opposition collected as of April 14. Live poll in the 4th community meeting showed over 80% of the community strongly oppose the Benton project. In the other three meetings the opposition rate is even higher. The majority of supporters are college students and professional house advocates who are politically motivated and do not live in the neighborhood.

Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 5:32pm 04-29-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?
Amrutha kollipara
Location:

Submitted At: 5:14pm 04-29-23
Life Moves is painting a rosy picture. The site is a flood zone, financially not viable and a huge safety issue for the quiet neighborhood. Pls do not let Santa Clara become another San Francisco. Please vote NO.

Megan Katz
Location:

Submitted At: 3:36pm 04-29-23
LifeMoves' proposal gave false or misleading information. Their plan and budget are unrealistic with contradictory statements and discrepant figures. Majority of LifeMoves' ex-clients didn't get the service they deserved in LifeMoves' shelters. 74% of them are still homeless. LifeMoves's performance shows they are incapable of achieving the objective of the proposal.

Please vote NO. Please don't go against the opinion of the local community and don't waste our tax dollars on LifeMoves
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 3:29pm 04-29-23
NO homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.

W. G.

Location:

Submitted At: 2:15pm 04-29-23
Hi, my families strongly oppose any form of low-barrier interim housing proposed on Benton site. We live in biking distance to the proposed site. We are house owners and voters and closely monitoring the result of this proposal.

This proposal will attract homeless from different cities to Santa Clara. There should be better method to solve homeless problem rather than migrating them to our city. Please listen to real voice from your voters, not students coming to the meetings from San Jose.

Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 2:05pm 04-29-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO!
Sri Gondi
Location:

Submitted At: 1:18pm 04-29-23
Dear Mayor, City Council members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

In light of the many issues raised during the public hearing, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Voting Y es is a serious breach of your fiduciary responsibility you hold to your city. Please consider this while voting.

Sri Gondi
Location:

Submitted At: 1:18pm 04-29-23
Dear Mayor, City Council members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Voting Y es is a serious breach of your fiduciary responsibility you hold to your city. Please consider this while voting.

Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 11:32am 04-29-23
Please vote NO to the proposal. A no screening shelter shouldn't be built in residential area. LifeMoves is playing tricks to use a plan of 30 units for families to fool community. LifeMoves admitted that they can change the shelter to host non-family clients after 6 months. In the proposal, LifeMoves used word “would” instead of determined verb, when they are talking about the supportive services. Those services are not guaranteed! There is no oversight to assure LifeMoves keep their promises!
Xiang Fu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:44am 04-29-23
Hi, my kid is studying close to the proposed area. I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton_please vote No. thanks you.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 10:43pm 04-28-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Agenda Item: eComments for 5:00 PM ADJOURNED AND RECONVENED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM APRIL 25, 2023
Overall Sentiment
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 4:21pm 05-02-23
No. Wrong location
Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:08pm 05-02-23
The data that the County and City keep citing regarding the number of calls declining in San Jose after the shelter was built is highly misleading. This is because the visualized data is heavily skewed by only one site which is still under construction. Number of calls is extremely high for all the in-operation sites. Additionally, the data has changed in terms of the types of crimes reported, intentionally excluding more serious crime types such as rape, sexual assault, theft, or robbery.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:56pm 05-02-23
Please Vote NO.

Just look at shelters already in operation near us. All numbers point to FAILURE! NO need for more failure of the same. The funding can be better used for the homeless people; they deserve better!
We deserve better.

Xiao Yu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:54pm 05-02-23
Please vote no!
Dave Huoang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:48pm 05-02-23
Say NO to LifeMoves, say NO to council member that do not exercise accountability to our tax money. Billionaire John Sobrato funded this LifeMoves to move the homeless here instead of next to his investment properties!!! Kate Cao
Location:

Submitted At: 2:45pm 05-02-23
There are hiding info from Last Meeting! County did not release the floor plan etc to the public! This is incorrect! Public needs the time to know and question those info! Please Vote no! Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 1:53pm 05-02-23
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.

This is just a money grab for the shelter operators.

Please vote NO.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 1:01pm 05-02-23
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

Please VOTE NO!
The City of Santa Clara clearly should not rush to partner with LifeMoves and the County, after what they have demonstrated, that they would basically do anything, misinformation and all, just to get our City hooked. If the City decided to go forward with this proposal, it will open a bottomless big hole in our city budget for years to come.

Everett Thomas
Location:

Submitted At: 12:27pm 05-02-23
Terrible Site Choice
The location of homeless shelter on Benton/Lawrence violates Santa Clara County's general plan rules for ensuring Health and Safety.Lawrence Expwy traffic is 50mph. Cars entering/exiting proposed site would back up westsward Benton traffic into Lawrence. Also backup traffic exiting Lawrence onto Benton. This creates 2 Catastrophic Hazard Severity Levels. Many schoolchildren will be endangered by transients. No bus or light rail services. Cars required for grocery shopping.

Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:39pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal!
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:16pm 05-01-23
There are many facts indicated that this location is wrongly selected. Actually there is no job in the residential area for homeless people. Most jobs are in commercial and business areas. Councilmember Suds said homeless people will look for jobs on El Camino Real. This is purely an assumption. No data has yet to support more homeless people get jobs on El Camino than in any other areas. Even not yet any data to support homeless people ever get jobs on El Camino.

Abby Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 1:56pm 05-01-23
STRONGL Y OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!! PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO) Lynn Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:25pm 04-30-23
Oppose
Please Vote NO!
Homeless shelter in the middle of 15 schools don't make any sense.

Don't sacrifice our children!
Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 5:26pm 04-29-23
There are so many reasons to oppose. Funding this would set Santa Clara City back quite bit not just now but for 30 years. The size is still 90 bedrooms with caveats of changing to singles/couples if required (similar to first couple of proposals). It still does not have any background checks or screening so the impact to neighborhood safety is still quite a lot. Parcel is in flood zone so not sure how it could be CEQA exempt. Bus stop is more than

0.5 miles. Vast majority say "No" in unison.

Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 9:01am 04-29-23
We OPPOSE the proposed homeless shelter Benton at Lawrence.

Please vote NO! We are counting on you.

Agenda Item: eComments for Call to Order
Overall Sentiment
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 4:21pm 05-02-23
Enough said.

Please vote no.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:04pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

I urge you all to just vote NO.

Do the right thing, for the local residents and for the homeless Xiaye Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:38pm 05-02-23
Wrong location
Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
Strongly oppose this location
Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:09pm 05-02-23
Not at this location.

Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 1:44pm 05-02-23
Please Vote No,
Helping the Homeless is Noble.

The Location is Absolutely Terrible!
Please Vote No, No, No.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 8:52am 05-02-23
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers:

We ask the City of Santa Clara immediately stop this proposal.

The County and LifeMoves sneaked in 8 pages of presentations into the "4-25-23 Post Meeting Materials"; they were not part of County and LifeMOves' presentation on 4/25.

We the public did not have a chance to review them, comment on them.

This is clearly a violation of Public Hearing codes and laws.

Please Vote NO!
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:21pm 05-01-23
There are many facts indicated that this location is wrongly selected. It is next to two liquor stores and 0.5 miles to another interim housing Bella Vista. How can the City justify why this neighborhood need two shelters, given this neighborhood have very few homeless people? The city of Santa Clara already have many shelters and they haven't reach their full capacity yet! Why not take a good use of existing facilities? Pushing to build new shelters is wasting and abusing public resources.

Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:26pm 04-30-23
Wrong location for any homeless shelter.

Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 10:32am 04-30-23
Strong NO!
Stop this radical experiment, at the expense of our community! No homeless shelters in dense residential areas.

Agenda Item: eComments for Pledge of Allegiance and Statement of Values Overall Sentiment
Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 4:07pm 05-02-23
Please vote No.

We are counting on YOU
Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 3:52pm 05-02-23
Mayor and City Council Members:

Please Vote No.

These funding, our tax money, are dedicated to helping the homeless. Since homeless people are not in a position to operate the shelter, we must be diligent and not waste their funding.

Need to partner with a more reliable operator and with a better model. Our City can do much better than just blindly go along with the flawed County proposal.

Please Vote NO.

Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 3:36pm 05-02-23
Please Vote No.

These funding, our tax money, are dedicated to helping the homeless. Since homeless people are not in a position to operate the shelter, we must be diligent and not waste their funding.

Get a more reliable operator with a better model. Our City can do much better than just blindly go along with the flawed County proposal.

Please Vote NO.

Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
Oppose! Strongly suppose this location!
Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:09pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:23pm 05-01-23
Does City have a budget to enhance the manpower of first responders, law enforcement, first aids, street sanitation, etc.?
It is a sad fact that the crime rate increased significantly after the opening of the existing shelters in their communities with a good intention of residing homeless people in residential areas and providing them access to all kinds of community services. Does the City have any plan to prevent the increase in the crime rate in our community with a new shelter?
Jeff Yc
Location:

Submitted At: 10:03am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose to build the shelter at this location. Building it here would be a shame and a complete negligence of the voice of the residents of Santa Clara city.

Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 9:46am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

In light of the many issues raised during the public hearing, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Proposed Homeless Shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO!
Lynn Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:28pm 04-30-23
There are so many reasons to oppose. It still does not have any background checks or screening so the impact to neighborhood safety is still quite a lot. Parcel is in flood zone so not sure how it could be CEQA exempt. Bus stop is more than 0.5 miles. Vast majority say "No" in unison.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:36am 04-30-23
Please Vote NO!
Homeless shelter in the middle of 15 schools don't make any sense.

Don't sacrifice our children!
Agenda Item: eComments for Roll Call
Overall Sentiment
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 4:19pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

Please vote no.

I believe that writing a check (let say $5000/Month each person) directly to the homeless people each month is a better solution than this proposed Benton Shelter. We can help more people with the same amount of funding.

The homeless are not limited to the shelter; they can go where ever they want. They will truly blend in with the community where ever they reside.

Please vote no and look into the direct funding to homeless.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:06pm 05-02-23
Please Vote NO
Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 3:54pm 05-02-23
Mayor and City Council Members:

Please Vote No.

These funding, our tax money, are dedicated to helping the homeless. Since homeless people are not in a position to operate the shelter, we must be diligent and not waste their funding.

Need to partner with a more reliable operator and with a better model. Our City can do much better than just blindly go along with the flawed County proposal.

Please Vote NO.

Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 3:35pm 05-02-23
Please Vote No.

These funding, our tax money, are dedicated to helping the homeless. Since homeless people are not in a position to operate the shelter, we must be diligent and not waste their funding.

Get a more reliable operator with a better model. Our City can do much better than just blindly go along with the flawed County proposal.

Please Vote NO.

Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:09pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:39pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal!
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:32pm 05-01-23
Our fact-checking has revealed several discrepancies in the county's claims. They have insisted that no one would walk by the shelter, but pedestrian paths with regular foot traffic exist in the area. Contradicting their claims, the location is far from essential amenities and public transportation. There's no guarantee the shelter will house Santa Clara's homeless, and the presence of a liquor store across the street may exacerbate issues for those battling mental illnesses and drug addictions.

Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 9:51am 05-01-23
Helping the homeless is noble.

This location is terrible!
Please Vote NO on the proposed Low-barrier Homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.

Lynn Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:31pm 04-30-23
I strongly oppose in this location
Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 11:07pm 04-28-23
I strongly Oppose the proposed shelter Benton at Lawrence. a)This is absolutely the Wrong location for homeless shelter. b) Consistently 80% - 95% community residents strongly oppose Benton shelter c) The LifeMoves presentations on Tuesday were full of ambiguous, misleading, and false information. d) If this proposal went through, this will be second shelter in the same neighborhood, in additional to three affordable housings.

Please vote NO on this.

Agenda Item: eComments for PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL BUSINESS Overall Sentiment
BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:04pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

I urge you all to just vote NO.

Do the right thing, for the local residents and for the homeless Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:09pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 1:54pm 05-02-23
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.

This is just a money grab for the shelter operators.

Please vote NO.

Amy Zh
Location:

Submitted At: 9:21pm 05-01-23
Strongly oppose the Benton shelter!! Our voices need to be listened! Please stop ruining our living environment! We do not need more crime in Santa Clara!
Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:40pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:36pm 05-01-23
This proposal is not ready to be voted on.
1) No internal or external design available in the proposal 2) No Benton site policy available in the proposal
3) No budget breakdown for operation and construction cost 4) Nothing in the proposal to hold LifeMoves accountable for if they do not commit. 5) Nothing would guarantee that city and LifeMoves will follow the proposal and will not make any changes (e.g., room number, bed number, admission) after approval.

Abby Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 1:57pm 05-01-23
STRONGL Y OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!! PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO) Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 9:45am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 9:21pm 04-30-23
W strongly oppose low barrier entry homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence interaction location.

There are many reasons as thousands and thousands of people already have explained. it's a huge safety issue for residents of the area and safety issue for families living in the shelter.

Please VOTE NO!
No homeless shelters at Benton and Lawrence!
Abhishek Gupta
Location:

Submitted At: 6:20pm 04-30-23
Resident on Waxwing avenue since 5 years - oppose the idea on this location given the funding strain the future.

Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 9:59am 04-30-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?
Xiao Yu
Location:

Submitted At: 1:12am 04-29-23
I am a resident of Santa Clara and I am living within a mile from the Benton and Lawrence location. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. Vote NO!
Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13pm 04-28-23
In light of the many concerns raised during the public hearing, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Vote NO.

Agenda Item: eComments for 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 Overall Sentiment
Ken Kratz
Location:

Submitted At: 4:43pm 05-02-23
Please vote yes.

Wei Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:37pm 05-02-23
This type of program (low-barrier, unconditional)will only encourage homelessness, and inevitably increase the population of homeless in Santa Clara City and neighboring area. Just look at what's happened in San Francisco.

Now is the time for city Council and Authorities to change direction, at least not to go down further to the wrong direction. I fully support any comprehensive housing program requesting accountability, e.g. low-income housing, shelter for family with kids, shelter for veteran
Diane Harrison
Location:

Submitted At: 4:35pm 05-02-23
Please vote YES.

Yiran Yan
Location:

Submitted At: 3:55pm 05-02-23
This project is not financially feasible.

There’s not even enough funds to cover the first several year. The City will be forced to take responsibility legally and financially after first 5 years with tax money from local residents. LifeMoves doesn’t have any long term plan for this project. After losing the financial resources, it’s the occupants, residents and the City pays the price.

Zhihua Qi
Location:

Submitted At: 3:41pm 05-02-23
Strongly oppose!
Kate Cao
Location:

Submitted At: 3:25pm 05-02-23
I have attended all previous 5 meetings in person and all of them shows majority of our community is strongly oppose to this, please listen to people and vote NO! Not in this location and not the plan with huge financial gap! Chao Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:17pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose the construction of a new homeless shelter in our community. While I recognize the importance of providing support for those experiencing homelessness, building a new shelter in this location is not the solution. It will only exacerbate existing issues such as safety concerns, increased traffic and noise, and potential decreases in property values.

Anke Dosedal
Location:

Submitted At: 3:15pm 05-02-23
Unhoused people can not just be shuffled off to another neighborhood.

Taxpayers spend less money when they help the unhoused get onto their own two feet.

Unhoused people will not affect Laurelwood Elementary, or Wilcox High School, any more than other unsanctioned homeless encampments.

I live in the Birdland neighborhood and do not fear this project.

Linda Luo
Location:

Submitted At: 3:13pm 05-02-23
As a resident living in the area, I strongly OPPOSE this proposal!! It’s not responsible for the nearby residents at all!!!!!!
George GZ
Location:

Submitted At: 3:13pm 05-02-23
I strongly oppose this project. The county and Lifemoves care only about advancing their own political or financial agenda, and they obviously could not care less how it would ruin the lives of residents. I have joined the public hearings - the level of their sheer ignorance about the neighborhood, incompetence to conduct proper research (don't even know # of nearby schools), tone deafness to legitimate safety concerns, and contempt for the community in silencing opposition is truly astonishing.

Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 3:11pm 05-02-23
Strongly oppose this location
Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Magic Lin
Location:

Submitted At: 3:06pm 05-02-23
Please Vote NO to this project
Alice Chen
Location:

Submitted At: 3:04pm 05-02-23
strongly oppose the low barrier shelter at Lawrence and Benton! Farokh Mehr
Location:

Submitted At: 2:55pm 05-02-23
I am opposed to this project, as the majority of the residence are. We do not want people with no background check to be housed by the tax payer money in the middle of our neighborhood. "Family" should be defined as "Fully background checked, non gang, drug free, stable but under financial drugs, capable of finding work". Last thing we want is gang members creating a fake family and taking over our area and schools, exposing our children to drug or crimes. Please understand our concerns BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:53pm 05-02-23
Please Vote NO.

Dave Huoang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:43pm 05-02-23
Abomination of anproject, LifeMoves is not an effective organization to be trusted with our tax funding and community good will.

Beth Ross
Location:

This is just a money grab for the shelter operators.

Please vote NO.

Elysa GURMAN
Location:

Submitted At: 1:08pm 05-02-23
This project is about helping people get off the streets and into housing. It is about helping the highest risk people - those most likely to DIE on the streets. Research and evidence shows over and over that this model works, and Council has a clear moral imperative to support it.

Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:05pm 05-02-23
There are NEW information in the "4-25-23 Post Meeting Materials" 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. The City CANNOT add or discuss information that was not released to the public in the April 25 meeting. This is clearly a violation of Public Hearing codes and laws.

Please Vote NO!
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 12:23pm 05-02-23
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

DENISE DELANGE
Location:

Submitted At: 12:15pm 05-02-23
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.

Yuwen Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:59am 05-02-23
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.

Chandra Maddipatla
Location:

Submitted At: 11:57am 05-02-23
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
Alex Kompel
Location:

Submitted At: 10:01am 05-02-23
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.

Naveen Yerneni
Location:

Submitted At: 9:53am 05-02-23
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 Gautam Chawra
Location:

Submitted At: 9:39am 05-02-23
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.

Vinod Tana
Location:

Submitted At: 9:30am 05-02-23
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 Gautam Kulkarni
Location:

Submitted At: 7:51am 05-02-23
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.

Judy Crates
Location:

Submitted At: 6:19am 05-02-23

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
Ryan Komand
Location:

VOTE NO, PLEASE!
Zhihao Ji
Location:

Submitted At: 10:26pm 05-01-23
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.

Submitted At: 9:23pm 05-01-23
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.

Yiming Xu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:37pm 05-01-23
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.

Anjali Surapaneni
Location:

Submitted At: 8:37pm 05-01-23
Majority oppose ~90% !Please listen to your residents and don’t put our families at risk.

Joe Cheng
Location:

Submitted At: 8:18pm 05-01-23
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! Christina Lo
Location:

Submitted At: 8:15pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose due to the impact that it will have to the communities safety.

Krishna Monian
Location:

Submitted At: 6:10pm 05-01-23
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.

Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 3:58pm 05-01-23
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!
Abby Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 1:55pm 05-01-23
STRONGL Y OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!! PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO) Neelu Kumawat
Location:

Submitted At: 1:06pm 05-01-23
Could you please create a list of who all will be allowed in this shelter when we permit low barrier entry here? Now why do you want to put people from this list in the middle of our neighborhood, close to schools, parks, our homes, our children?
We are not against helping homeless people, but people with low barrier entry cannot and should NOT be helped by placing them in a neighborhood.

Please vote responsibly as all the outcomes of this decision will be your responsibility.

Stephen Yang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:42am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the plan. Many people have shared the concerns and red flags of this project. I just want to address the supporters' arguments:

1. it is unsympathetic to not support the project. -- It is clearly a blackmailing technique to to push things through without considering the rights of the residents.

2. The county should take the Homekey funding opportunity to get the money to build the projects -- it is clearly putting the political agenda over residents' safety and mental health Pilar Furlong
Location:

Submitted At: 11:23am 05-01-23
Bill Wilson Center supports this interim housing development as a much needed step toward providing shelter for our unhoused neighbors. It is in alignment with the County's Community Plan to End Homelessness, which the City of Santa Clara endorsed. The project also aligns with the findings of the City's Unhoused Task Force that we do not have enough interim housing in Santa Clara. We
urge Council to take advantage of the Homekey funding opportunity and get the ball rolling on this project.

Chen Li
Location:

Submitted At: 11:21am 05-01-23
Strongly oppose this flawed proposal! The location could not be more wrong. This low-barrier shelter project will destroy the local neighborhood and thousands of preschool/elementary school students that come to the 15+ schools in walking distance. These kids already had multiple instances last year to have "dangerous men around" to cause school shutdowns because of sick people hanging around and endanger their school! This zero- transparency project will endanger the local community and kids! Jeff Yc
Location:

Submitted At: 10:04am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose to build the shelter at this location. Building it here would be a shame and a complete negligence of the voice of the residents of Santa Clara city.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 9:47am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Vote NO!
Daniel Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 12:36am 05-01-23
strongly oppose, reason listed below
1) funding plan is not clear! and this will be a huge burden for city of Santa Clara in the next 10 years! 2) detail design is not missing, we don't know why 337 sqft unit need such high cost for construction. and there is not floor plan, we don't know how people will share the kitchenette. 3) very close to schools, safety concern remains, as it is still low barrier interim housing.

Abhishek Gupta
Location:

Submitted At: 6:19pm 04-30-23
Strongly oppose low barrier entry on this location given the number of schools close by.

Huan Li
Location:

Submitted At: 4:38pm 04-30-23
At every previous community meeting, it was observed that over 80% of attendees were against the proposal.

There are a multitude of concerns and issues regarding the location and cost that are unresolvable. Please listen to our voice and don't be against the community!
Reena Gupta
Location:

Submitted At: 3:07pm 04-30-23
We strongly oppose this homekey project on Lawrence and Benton and extremely concerned about the safety and security of the residential community due to low barrier, no background checks, no liability, no assurance of safety to our kids and elderly. We are empathetic to homeless people, we suggest to take this project away from residential community in other commercial areas to give them jobs and make them responsible citizens of the society. Please listen to the community!
Susan Hinton
Location:

Submitted At: 2:01pm 04-30-23
In eComments, fear of homeless people is high, reminding me of the 1980s AIDS/HIV hysteria, when people believed they'd catch AIDS by standing next to an LGBTQ person. Also the attachment "Authoritative Research" on home value is silly, because there is no original document reference, just a fake-news style claim. Please produce this document. (Try finding it at www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-reports). Lack of hope induces crime. Home is hope, lessening crime. Y es to housing.

Mahesh Garg
Location:

Submitted At: 12:02pm 04-30-23
I oppose the interim housing proposed at Benton and Lawrence. My reasons are similar to as listed by others - close to schools, neighbors with young kids, and security concerns about residents of proposed housing.

Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 10:00am 04-30-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?
Jitesh Jain
Location:

Submitted At: 9:28am 04-30-23
I think it was pretty clear from April 25th meeting that the majority of nearby residents are opposed to this project.

Hopefully council members listen to their concerns.

Ishani Bhatt
Location:

Submitted At: 9:12am 04-30-23
I strongly oppose low barrier entry homeless shelter at this location. there are many reasons as thousands of people already have explained, it's a huge safety issue for residents of the area and safely issue for families living in the shelter.

Harini Va
Location:

Submitted At: 9:07am 04-30-23
Oppose strongly! Close proximity residents who will be directly impacted by the improper planning of this albeit good initiative don’t feel heard at all. After looking at similar initiatives in other closeby cities, not convinced at all that this one will do any better for the true recipients of this initiative and on the way totally convinced it will create safety issues for current residents of the neighborhood.

Mengqi Ren
Location:

Submitted At: 11:33pm 04-29-23
I strongly oppose Benton project. It's a totally wrong location. A no screening shelter shouldn't be built in residential areas. LifeMoves is playing tricks to use a plan of 30 units for families to fool the community. LifeMoves admitted that they can change the shelter to host non-family clients after 6 months. This proposal is not helping anyone. When the residential area becomes unhealthy, the homeless people won't get any benefits by living here either.
raymond chang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:07pm 04-29-23
strongly No!!
vivian zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:06pm 04-29-23
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Yuan Tian
Location:

Submitted At: 11:42am 04-29-23
Strongly oppose! The location was not carefully selected. The voice from people living nearby is not considered.

False information were given to misleading people. City should vote NO to this proposal.

Erji Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:05pm 04-28-23
The construction cost is super high! And lots of details are missing! City should vote NO Agenda Item: eComments for REPORTS OF MEMBERS AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Overall Sentiment
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 4:18pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

Please vote no.

The homeless are not limited to the shelter; they can go where ever they want. They will truly blend in with the community where ever they reside.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:02pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

I urge you all to just vote NO.

Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 1:38pm 05-02-23
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

Please Vote No.

Green Lighting this proposal is TAKING THE FOUNDING AWAY FROM HOMELESS PEOPLE, and giving the money to the incapable developers/operators. The people who need the founding the most, the homeless, end up with nothing.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 1:01pm 05-02-23
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

Again, VOTE NO!
Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 10:31pm 05-01-23
Majority (~90%) of residents, we strongly OPPOSE!
1) Funding and lack of accountability: huge burden on Santa Clara residents at the cost of our safety. 2) No background checks which is a safety concern residents and homeless clients. 3) County imposing redlining of cities like Santa Clara 4) Misinformation from County and LifeMoves officials. They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan. 5) Misinformation from County and LifeMoves officials. They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan. ....
....
....

Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:39pm 05-01-23
By reading the new proposal, I found it provided wrong information! On page 4, it credits the declined homeless population in Mountain View to LifeMoves shelter. But the actual reason is it declined because the city started to ban RV parking in the city from 2019 and fully forbidden it in 2022.

We have shared this resource and information with city council members at least five times, it is disappointing that you ignored our voice at all.

Lynn Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 3:34pm 04-30-23
Strongly oppose in this location
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?
Ashish Verma
Location:

Need more?
Agenda Item: eComments for CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overall Sentiment
BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:05pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

I urge you all to just vote NO.

Do the right thing, for the local residents and for the homeless Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 3:50pm 05-02-23
Mayor and City Council Members:

We count on you to Vote No.

Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 1:45pm 05-02-23
Please Vote No,
Helping the Homeless is Noble.

The Location is Absolutely Terrible!
Please Vote No, No, No.

Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 1:31pm 05-02-23
Mayor and City Council Members:

Please Vote NO!
Enough evident already for you to consider. The next move should be a big NO on this proposal.

Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:40pm 05-01-23
The proposal said The City worked closely with the County’s Office of Supportive Housing and LifeMoves.

Ironically, we met with councilmembers multiple times, each time they all said they don't know about the project.

There must be someone not telling the truth!
Also, I am wondering why LifeMoves can keep getting new projects from city and county with such a bad record of operating existing shelters?
Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 10:01am 04-30-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 3:28pm 04-29-23
Mayor and City Council Members:

Please Vote NO on the proposed shelter at Benton/Lawrence.

Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 9:04am 04-29-23
Mayor and City Council Members:

We Oppose this proposed shelter Benton at Lawrence, and Oppose any shelter at residential communities.

Please Vote NO!
Agenda Item: eComments for ADJOURNMENT
Overall Sentiment
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 4:09pm 05-02-23
Please Vote No.

Wrong Location. Wrong Partners. Wrong Model.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:05pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

I urge you all to just vote NO.

Do the right thing, for the local residents and for the homeless Vote NO
Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:25pm 05-02-23
Please vote NO!
The County and Lifemoves' proposal is basically asking our City to give them a blank check. If we go with their proposal, we are obligated for the next 30 years.

There is no plans, no environmental review. Our City civil engineers need to review and approve any plan first.

Please vote NO.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 9:28pm 04-30-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county. 4) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 5) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.
6) .........

Anyone of the above is a good reason for Voting NO!
Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 10:29am 04-30-23
Strong NO!
Stop this radical experiment, at the expense of our community No homeless shelters in residential areas.

Agenda Item: eComments for The next regular scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chambers.

Overall Sentiment
Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 4:00pm 05-02-23
Y es, the college students coming to the hearings will get their 3 college units from their "professor".

We the residents of this community, and the homeless people who need our help will get cheated out.

Please Vote No.

Kate Cao
Location:

Submitted At: 3:29pm 05-02-23
Some of those who support this project are college students who are actually not local residents and they will probably will leave Santa Clara after several years, some are with political interests and not local residents, please listen to the real local voices, please vote no! Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Alice Chen
Location:

Submitted At: 3:01pm 05-02-23
I’m astonished to find that in the newly added slide with the floor plan, what LifeMoves called “all for family units”- each unit has 3 exterior doors. It’s solid and sufficient proof that the “All for family units” is nothing but a BAIT. The floor plan shows LifeMoves has NO INTENT to host families on this site.

BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:55pm 05-02-23
Please Vote NO.

Wendy Nguyen
Location:

Submitted At: 12:42pm 05-02-23
None of our family members our neighbour was noticed with this information until the last minute. We strongly oppose this plan. LiveMoves has bad reputation and did not present all the proper material. The county already approved a homeless shelter a year ago, why putting an interim one right in our neighborhood again? This will destroy our area with such bad management plan. Our neighborhood do not accept this and we will not let it go until you make the right decision.

Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 12:28pm 05-02-23
NEW information that the County and LifeMoves did not present during the public hearing last Tuesday, 4/25/23 were inserted in the "4-25-23 Post Meeting Materials" . 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 Benton & Lawrence Shelter Vinod Tana
Location:

Submitted At: 9:35am 05-02-23
We have done enough. Please be reminded that this council and each person sitting on chair will be remembered and be reminded for years to come for the decision they make tonight. If you listen to your voters and residents, not college students from outside who appeared first time on April 25th, we will support you forever. If you exactly opposite we will come to campaign against you in your district even if election happens 2-3 years after. Every incident at this facility will tag your name
Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 9:41pm 04-30-23
No homeless shelters at Benton and Lawrence.

Why repeating a failed model? We the local residents are not your guinea pigs! Please VOTE NO!
Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:27pm 04-30-23
Absolutely NO!
Why all these homeless shelters in the City of Santa Clara alone?! Ashish Verma
Location:

Need more?
Agenda Item: eComments for MEETING DISCLOSURES
Overall Sentiment
BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 4:04pm 05-02-23
Mayor and Council Members:

I urge you all to just vote NO.

Do the right thing, for the local residents and for the homeless Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 05-02-23
not at this location
Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:40pm 05-02-23
No. No. No. No.

Please vote no on this proposal Benton at Lawrence shelter Brian West
Location:

Submitted At: 1:33pm 05-02-23
Please VOTE NO.

It is the wrong location, wrong partners, wrong models.

Just Vote NO.

Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 8:49am 05-02-23
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers:

We ask the City of Santa Clara immediately stop this proposal.

The County and LifeMoves sneaked in 8 pages of presentations into the "4-25-23 Post Meeting Materials"; they were not part of LifeMOves' presentation on 4/25.

We the public did not have a chance to review them, comment on them.

Is this a violation of Public Hearing codes and laws??
Please Vote NO!
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:45pm 05-01-23
The community guideline of MTV outlined what clients are supposed to do and not do. However, in terms of execution, LifeMoves MTV site failed to evict sexual assault client.

Also, how can city guarantee the safety in the neighborhood? Do you have any plans for that? How can City evaluate the service provided by LifeMoves? Is there Quality Assurance and Quality Control in place to ensure the quality of LifeMoves’ service? What penalty LifeMoves have to pay if they failed to execute? Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 12:15pm 04-30-23
Absolutely NO!
Please vote No! We are counting on you, our representatives.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
.

Ashish Verma
Location:

Need more?
Agenda Item: eComments for The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. If a person wishes to challenge the nature of the above section in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clara, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

AB23 ANNOUNCEMENT: Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority and Housing Authority are entitled to receive $30 for each attended meeting.

Note: The City Council and its associated Authorities meet as separate agencies but in a concurrent manner. Actions taken should be considered actions of only the identified policy body.

LEGEND: City Council (CC); Stadium Authority (SA); Sports and Open Space Authority (SOSA); Housing Authority (HA); Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency (SARDA); Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority (BNPEA); Public Facilities Financing Corporation (PFFC) Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City's website and in the City Clerk's Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

If a member of the public submits a speaker card for any agenda items, their name will appear in the Minutes. If no speaker card is submitted, the Minutes will reflect "Public Speaker." In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City's programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disability-related modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City's ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

Overall Sentiment

Bayer Pelling
Location:

Submitted At: 3:08pm 05-02-23
There is a tricky paragraph on page 9 of proposal. If at some point there were no unhoused households with children to place, the building would place single clients in dorm style “flex” units.

This uncover the nature of the proposal - the family is just a bait for the community and city to say yes. After it gets approved, city and LifeMoves can change the admission, number of units and beds at any time without informing the community.

Kate Cao
Location:

Submitted At: 2:46pm 05-02-23
Why all the News talking about this has been approved?! Does city has already made the decision and leaked to the news? Please vote No!
Sanfeng Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 2:32pm 05-02-23
The project is a financial disaster and leaves a huge burden for future 20+ years. And the money is spent with huge waste such as over 1 million for just 377 sqft room(only building cost not including land and maintenance).

Deny this Benton and Lawrence project and using such money will save much much more homeless people.

Please Say big "NO" to this project to save more homeless people. I support helping homeless people and extremely oppose this project!
Yanwu Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 1:56pm 05-02-23
Please vote “No” to protect Santa Clara.

LIMIN WU
Location:

Submitted At: 1:32pm 05-02-23
Definitely strongly oppose low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton!!!

YUE ZHENG
Location:

Submitted At: 1:30pm 05-02-23
Strongly oppose low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton.

Shirley Yang
Location:

Submitted At: 1:15pm 05-02-23
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!
Benny Fong
Location:

Submitted At: 12:59pm 05-02-23
The City of Santa Clara clearly should not rush to partner with LifeMoves and the County, after what they have demonstrated, that they would basically do anything, misinformation and all, just to get our City hooked. If the City decided to go forward with this proposal, it will open a bottomless big hole in our city budget for years to come.

Please VOTE NO!
Chandra Maddipatla
Location:

Submitted At: 11:53am 05-02-23
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
Vinod Tana
Location:

Submitted At: 9:38am 05-02-23
We must continue public hearing on 2nd May. County is doing "bait & switch" they uploaded yet another version and added more details in middle continued public meeting that was supposed be paused and resume without any new information being added to proposal. Now that they did, public must get chance to review new details and add their comments and ask questions
Ryan Komand
Location:

Submitted At: 10:35pm 05-01-23
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!
Bess Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 10:32pm 05-01-23
Majority (~90%) of residents, we strongly OPPOSE!
1) Funding and lack of accountability: huge burden on Santa Clara residents at the cost of our safety. 2) No background checks which is a safety concern residents and homeless clients. 3) County imposing redlining of cities like Santa Clara 4) Misinformation from County and LifeMoves officials. They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan. 5) Misinformation from County and LifeMoves officials. They sneakily are keeping 90 units plan. ....
....
....

Zhihao Ji
Location:

Submitted At: 10:26pm 05-01-23
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.

Submitted At: 9:13pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose the building of the Homeless Shelter!

1. We already have vandalism and destruction of propery - dumpster diving and illegal dumping of trash in our bins. Home owners can't throw their trash because its full. Breaking into vehicles and storage.

2. Unauthorized parking - strangers parking in homeowners stall doing drugs. Condo is hidden in the back where police does not patrol.

3. Gated condominium - strangers still come into the property and use the pool and loiter.

Haiying Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 8:40pm 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal
Tammy Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 6:49pm 05-01-23
Our family strongly oppose this proposal. It’s ridiculous to build a low barrier shelter so close to residential area and schools. Definitely will bring safety issues.

Please vote NO!
Lily Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 6:33pm 05-01-23
I oppose because Santa Clara has high ratio of shelters. Please don’t make city of Santa Clara a homeless headquarter! This proposal @ Lawrence / Benton is not suitable for homeless because the high speed of Lawrence expressway and no bus on this section of Benton! Not to mention that this location is too close to nearby school. Homeless kids have free transportation to school but regular kids have to walk to schools. With such close shelter nearby, it is a treat to children in the neiborhood! keesun Kwan
Location:

Submitted At: 6:22pm 05-01-23
Please don’t make my home area become homeless concentrated area.

I oppose because drugs and crime are root of homelessness. And, increase drug related activities due to Bella vista shelter.

Unreasonable cost of building this interim housing. 34 million builds 30 units of less than 300 square per unit.

That is outrageous. Please vote “ NO” on this proposal! Thank you Helen Kwan
Location:

Submitted At: 5:49pm 05-01-23
Oppose because within 300 ft of residential neighborhood with kids and increased drug related activity due to Bella vista shelter
Please it’s “ NO” thank you
Michael Loomis
Location:

Submitted At: 5:31pm 05-01-23
Any Council person who votes yes does not care about the community and clearly has their own agenda. When the community declines, police calls increase, and we have the first assaults, rapes or murders, it will be a result of their vote of yes. They should be held accountable.

Phyllis OSullivan
Location:

Submitted At: 5:21pm 05-01-23
The City cannot afford this fiscally or the liabilty. LifeMove's has a horrendous record for actually getting people housed considering MV. The homeowners and community have spoken, 5200 wet signatures and 1600 change.org signatures in opposition.

Vote No!
Jaccard Pan
Location:

Submitted At: 4:57pm 05-01-23
Our community's safety is non-negotiable. Kids and everyone will only be safe with law-abiding people. Kids will never be fine in close proximity with criminals, drug addicts and sex offenders. There are tons of data showing kids are more likely to be the victim of criminals, sex offenders and drug addicts. The supporter group keeps stereotyping us and kids to be lack of empathy or diversity. That is unacceptable! Alex Wu
Location:

Submitted At: 2:15pm 05-01-23
Our family strongly OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposal. It is a huge huge threat to the safety of our children!
Abby Ma
Location:

Submitted At: 1:58pm 05-01-23
STRONGL Y OPPOSE TO building a shelter facility on Benton!!! PLEASE do the right thing and vote for what majority wants (vote NO) Bob Gao
Location:

Submitted At: 12:04pm 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO! NO! NO!
Xiaoqing Jin
Location:

Submitted At: 12:03pm 05-01-23
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

All these good wills turn into disasters, drug smell in the community, uneasy feeling when talking alone or with kids, or even criminal instances in Milpitas, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. Hope the city council considers residents' voice (most people in my community heard about it were shocked and oppose it) and learn from the history.

Brenda Earl
Location:

Submitted At: 11:44am 05-01-23
Highly oppose this! Our Forbes avenue neighborhood do not welcome the low barrier shelter in our community.

Our neighborhood has a very low unsheltered rate, we do not want to sacrifice our safety. We believe the shelter should build in some place people welcome them. We will try our best to help as long as it is not built in our community.

Lynn Luckie
Location:

Submitted At: 11:33am 05-01-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Please consider other alternative solutions that won't bring big safety concerns to the neighborhood.

SE Birdland
Location:

Submitted At: 11:31am 05-01-23
Police are concerned about neighbors. Shouldn't you be too? Add'l SCPD recommendations:
- Background checks. Anyone with a history of violence, sex offenses, or drug manufacturing in the last 3 years not allowed.
- Weekly room inspections
- Guests must produce and relinquish an ID to staff before being allowed entry. - Secured perimeter; single point of entry/exit onto the property grounds. security presence to screen visitors at that point of entry.
- Regular meetings with PD and Fire
Melanie Qiu
Location:

Submitted At: 11:25am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please do more investigations to understand how many kids are living in this area.

Please vote no!
Sean Wang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:16am 05-01-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO!
Yan Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 05-01-23
I'm a parent of two kids. I'm seriously concerned about Children's safety considering the high dense schools in this neighborhood, even if it's potential threats. Family obligations only allow me to say “No” to the homeless shelter at Benton & Lawrence.

Angel Wong
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 05-01-23
Definitely strongly oppose! City needs to do more investigation, it’s too close to school and kids, plus the low barrier is an absolutely uncertain threat
Jing Zhang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 05-01-23
Just Vote NO!
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

There will be lots of homeless wandering in the area in the future and making residence here in danger! Please vote No!
Qingyi Liu
Location:

Submitted At: 11:08am 05-01-23
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Joyce Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:55am 05-01-23
80-95% local residents strongly oppose this Bento no screening homeless shelter. The supporters are making money of this project. Please listen to the local residents who vote for the government officials. Otherwise this place will become a shithole full of drug addicts and criminals.

Beth Ross
Location:

Submitted At: 9:43pm 04-30-23
n light of the many issues raised during the public hearings, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway proposal Just Vote NO!
Taimei Yeh
Location:

Submitted At: 9:35pm 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council
Members:

Please vote “No” to this interim homeless shelter @Lawrence / Benton project. With both Bella Vista and Western Motel another future homeless shelter site along El Camino Real plus this Benton / Lawrence site on the south, city of Santa Clara is making a homeless headquarter in the south of el Camino Real between Lawrence and Scott! There will be lots of homeless wandering in the area in the future and making residence here in danger! Please vote No!
Betty Wiseman
Location:

Submitted At: 12:16pm 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO!
BJ Huang
Location:

Submitted At: 10:38am 04-30-23
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Council Members:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Please Vote NO! NO! NO!
Ashish Verma
Location:

Submitted At: 10:02am 04-30-23
1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns 3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga 4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place 5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples 6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.

Need more?

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentMay 2, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
May 2, 2023