44. Diane Harrison (ZIP code: 95051)
x
45. Dong Ngo (ZIP code: 95119)
46. Dotti King (ZIP code: 96128)
47. Daisy Panuco (ZIP code: 95134)
48. Deborah St Julien (ZIP code: 95136)
49. Elisabeth Meyer (ZIP code: 94402)
50. Eileen Conner (ZIP code: 94041)
51. Elizabeth Agramont-Justiniano (ZIP code: 95112)
52. Elizabeth Barcelos (ZIP code: 95125)
53. Elizabeth Conlan (ZIP code: 95139)
We cannot wish or complain away homelessness. We need pragmatic solutions to address the myriad ways in which people experience homelessness. This project is an excellent opportunity to take advantage of state funding and really help a high needs population. Please choose pragmatism and compassion over anger and approve this interim housing project.
54. Eugene Toh (ZIP code: 95050)
55. Cathy Ettenger (ZIP code: 94087)
56. Frank Bush (ZIP code: 95035)
We should be ashamed that we have so many of our fellow citizens dying on the streets, when so many of us just standby and do nothing to help. If you could help, (even if it’s in a small way) that would make a big difference in those people’s lives.
57. Diana Bush (ZIP code: 95035)
58. Gregory Kepferle (ZIP code: 95134)
Together we can end homelessness. We need to help unhoused people get interim housing now and connect to permanent housing as it gets developed. Please support interim housing by Life Moves and the County of Santa Clara as one step on the path home.
59. Rajat Mehndiratta (ZIP code: 95014)
60. Humbert joseph Montiel (ZIP code: 94040)
Humbert joseph montiel
61. Ilya Gurin (ZIP code: 94043)
62. Jake Wilde (ZIP code: 95124-3504)
63. James Ford (ZIP code: 94087)
64. Jamie Keith (ZIP code: 95126)
65. Jeanine Crider (ZIP code: 94040)
66. Jeanney Keo (ZIP code: 95051)
67. Jes McBride (ZIP code: 90042)
Hell yes
68. Isaac Stone (ZIP code: 94041)
I used to live literally next door to a shelter and it was fine. It’s fine. No noise, no crime, I would not even had known if the landlord didn’t complain about it. They are just people. All this opposition is fear and misinformation.
69. Jason Uhlenkott (ZIP code: 95126)
70. Jun-Xiong Hughes (ZIP code: 98107)
71. Kailey Wyatt (ZIP code: 95051)
I am in support of this facility. Our economy that devalues its most vulnerable citizens and we need many more of these built.
72. Kalisha Webster (ZIP code: 94303)
73. Karen Schlesser (ZIP code: 95126 )
74. Kate Conley (ZIP code: 80528)
75. Katie Windham (ZIP code: 94301)
76. Karen Andersen-Lattin (ZIP code: 95139)
We need affordable housing in all communities. Providing solutions to our housing problems needs be shared by all communities in the Bay Area. Each city needs to do their part.
77. Kerry Crawford (ZIP code: 95125)
78. Kendra Hershey (ZIP code: 95032)
79. Kirk Hinton (ZIP code: 95051)
80. Kelly Wong (ZIP code: 95051)
More housing!
81. Charlie Kronengold (ZIP code: 94305)
82. Lawrence M Rosenberg (ZIP code: 94041-2247)
83. Lee Mei (ZIP code: 94041)
housing and helping the homeless is a prerequisite for tackling the drug use epidemic.
84. LINDA Bruce (ZIP code: 95576)
I live outside the area but whatever works for Milpitas could work somewhere else.
85. Liz Gallegos Glynn (ZIP code: 95129)
I support this project for our region.
86. Loreto Dimaandal (ZIP code: 95035)
A strong "Y es!" to this much-needed interim housing project for our SCC Unhoused Neighbors! Thank you very much for the County of Santa Clara and other co-advocates for this very important humanitarian project!...Loreto Quevedo Dimaandal and LoretoQD's Brigade - Silicon Valley
87. Geoffrey Wong (ZIP code: 11354)
88. Manuel Espinosa (ZIP code: 95050-6123)
89. Marcus Ismael (ZIP code: 95113)
90. Maria A Hernandez quiroz (ZIP code: 95127)
Nos ayudaría mucho más viviendas para nosostros muchas gracias
91. Marilyn Russell (ZIP code: 95125)
92. Matt Gustafson (ZIP code: 95110)
Housing is a human right. Everyone deserves to have a safe, secure roof over their head where they can rest with dignity.
93. Megan Swift (ZIP code: 95128)
94. Melinda Berlant (ZIP code: 95051)
95. Savita Nataraj (ZIP code: 95118)
96. Matt Savage (ZIP code: 95125)
We need more housing ASAP . This includes interim, transitional, and permanent housing. Families across our County are struggling. Please support housing in Santa Clara!
97. Dennis Murphy (ZIP code: 94062)
"This is a significant, serious, and promising proposal"
98. Kim Parker (ZIP code: 95035)
99. Nathan Foster (ZIP code: 94089)
100. Natalie Barnett (ZIP code: 95030)
101. Ngoc Dang (ZIP code: 95127)
102. Neil park-mcclintick (ZIP code: 95014)
103. Natalie Holbert (ZIP code: 95928)
104. Noelle Boesenberg (ZIP code: 95125)
This development is critical to enable people of all professions to continue to live and work in Santa Clara. As elected officials representing all of your constituents, it is in your line of work to ensure that they all are able to enjoy the quality of life they deserve. That means supporting development, with an emphasis on more affordable housing.
105. Pamela Campos (ZIP code: 95136)
106. Pamela Campos (ZIP code: 95136)
107. Anthony Perry (ZIP code: 95776)
108. Jacqueline Ramos (ZIP code: 94063)
109. Richard Silkebakken (ZIP code: 95051)
Santa Clara needs to build this kind of interim housing. It’s much more humane then having the homeless live on the street! I don’t understand the opposition to a common sense solution like this. 110. Auros Harman (ZIP code: 94066)
111. Robinson Kuo (ZIP code: 95133)
112. Nicole Phan (ZIP code: 95015)
113. Ryan Globus (ZIP code: 95126)
114. Stephen Glassner (ZIP code: 95112)
115. Sam Mortazavi (ZIP code: 95125)
116. Saraswati Rathod (ZIP code: 94305)
117. Sasaneh Graham (ZIP code: 95125)
I support how using for the unsheltered of Santa Clara County. 118. Suzanne Burns (ZIP code: 95112)
Please support this project. The City needs to provide housing for its homeless population 119. Sebastiano (ZIP code: 95126)
120. Seth Barberee (ZIP code: 95117)
121. Shalini Venkatesh (ZIP code: 95051)
I live within half a mile of the proposed housing facility and I strongly support the proposal as an important step towards addressing the needs of the unhoused in the community while keeping the welfare of the surrounding neighborhood in mind
122. Shannon Edwards (ZIP code: 95033-8177)
As a resident in the unincorporated Santa Clara county we are seeing more people living in tents since there is no transitional housing for those needing work. 123. Steven Vanphavong (ZIP code: 95127)
124. Siddharth Kotapati (ZIP code: 95126)
125. Barbara Smith-Thomas (ZIP code: 94043)
126. Sonia Barnes (ZIP code: 95133)
127. Spandan Chakraborty (ZIP code: 95035)
128. Steven Van (ZIP code: 95112)
129. Jessica Beeli (ZIP code: 94301)
130. Suyash Ganu (ZIP code: 95129)
131. Cassie Kifer (ZIP code: 95112)
132. Tasha Jefferson (ZIP code: 95118)
133. Ameen Radwan (ZIP code: 94040)
134. tina broyles (ZIP code: 95127)
135. Philip Nguyen (ZIP code: 94089)
how do we solve homelessness if we people are against giving people homes?? _?? “im not a nimby but…” = NIMBY
136. William Tseng (ZIP code: 95051)
Housing First approach to dealing with homelessness akin to Finland 137. Dan Kletter (ZIP code: 94043)
From: Haiying Wu
To: Clerk
Subject: Strongly OPPOSE Benton Shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:30:27 PM
Hi
My name is Haiying. I’m Santa Clara resident, and I’ve been living here for 16 years. I Strongly oppose this location. It is the wrong location! It is not safe for our community. County and city council members put our safety at risk. You only care about the money. You ignored our 5000+ residence voices.
Please make your right choice! You are at this position because we chose you. You should hear our voice.
Even you
don’t care about us, you should care about your SEAT!!!!!!!!!!! Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: Clerk
Subject: Strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:02:31 PM
Hi,
My name is Fan Yang. I live in Santa Clara on Benton street.
I Strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton.
The low barrier and non-screening site will post significant safety concern to the neighborhood.
Not to mention all the budgeting concerns and the many problems with the builder itself.
From: Co Liu
To: Clerk
Subject: Strongly opposed to the Benton Street shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:14:39 PM
Hi, this is Shuai lived in Santa Clara near Benton Street neighborhood with my family. I strongly oppose to this project.
Moreover, LifeMoves cannot manage its existing sites. Directors changed four times within two years, sexual assaults happened from the director and clients, services are missing, and nearby businesses are complaining.
All of those prove one fact: 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.
According to statistics from the two nearby locations, MTV and Milpitas, the homeless who entered these facilities and later finding permanent home is less than 20%! This is clearly a
waste of tax dollars! We need to work on improving the failing existing homeless shelters before building more of them. Repeating a failed model will only result in failure. Are there any plans to improve the outcome of the two existing shelters before we build more? These are my concerns. I really hate this building shelter idea.
Please consider
Shuai
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 1/8 New details, video in brutal attack of
former SF fire commissioner in Marina
District
By Lyanne Melendez
Friday, April 7, 2023
ABC7 Bay Area 24/7 live stream
EMBED <> MORE VIDEOS
New details are emerging from the brutal attack of former San Francisco Fire Commissioner Don Carmignani in the city's Marina District
LOG INWATCH 50°
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 2/8 SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A brutal attack on a former fire department commissioner is putting in question, again, the safety on San Francisco's streets. It happened Wednesday night in the Marina District. Don Carmignani remains in the hospital.
Cell phone video shows the man San Francisco police say brutally assaulted former fire department Commissioner Don Carmignani, with some type of metal object.
"Right here, here, around the corner, in front of the gas station. He almost beat the man into the street with all these cars passing by," said one witness.
INTERACTIVE:
Take a look at the ABC7 Neighborhood Safety
Tracker
Several other people witnessed the attack which took place on Magnolia and Laguna streets in the Marina District, within a few paces from where Carmignani lives.
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 3/8 The man arrested is homeless and neighbors here say he befriended these two other homeless people who have made this area their home.
We spoke to one of them Nate Roye who gave us more details about the weapon that was said to be used by the alleged attacker.
"It wasn't a crow bar. It was two round pieces of metal that had been broken," said Roye who is from North Carolina but has lived on the streets of San Francisco for the past three years.
MORE:
Is SF's violent crime as 'horrific' as tech execs claim? Here's what data shows
Roye, who says he was with the attacker, claims they were sprayed with bear mace because Carmignani didn't like that they were hanging out near his home.
Bay Area animal rescue and zoo
needs help as they recover from severe storm da…
01:1101:11 01:1201:12
Top Stories
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 4/8 We asked him why hit someone over the head like that and attack him. "Because he was being disrespectful?" Roye said. We asked him who was being disrespectful. He responded, "The fat guy. There was a big old bald guy. Yeah, Don."
We asked him if that was reason enough to beat him up. "Yeah, sometimes," Roye responded.
"These types of brutal attack and these types of brazen attacks, these are the types of things that have been anxious about what's happening," explained Police Chief Bill Scott.
While other crime statistics remained steady or have gone down, the police chief is right.
MORE:
A look at homicides in SF this year, in light of Cash App founder Bob Lee's stabbing death
4/19/23, 9:26 AM SF fire commissioner attack: New details, video in brutal beating of Don Carmignani in Marina District - ABC7 San Francisco https://abc7news.com/sf-fire-commissioner-attack-don-carmignani-san-francisco-crime-metal-pipe/13100484/ 5/8 EMBED <> MORE VIDEOS
The death of Cash App's Bob Lee is a high profile case, with police giving it a lot of attention. But what about the other homicides in SF this year? According to the ABC7 News neighborhood Safety Tacker, so far this year the number of robberies has gone up by 14% compared to the same time last year and assaults are also on the rise by 2.2%.
Carmignani remains at San Francisco General Hospital with injuries to his head and face.
Civil rights attorney, Joe Alioto visited him and as we interviewed him, we were interrupted by someone incoherent.
"In San Francisco, we do not have a mechanism to take care of people who have mental health issues and so here we have a good example of this," said Alioto.
April 19, 2023
Mayor, Councilmembers,
On April 25th, you will vote on the Homekey project in partnership with Santa Clara County and LifeMoves at Benton & Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara. SafeSCC, a grassroots association of residents in Santa Clara, presented in City Hall today and submitted a petition on April 14 2023, on behalf of local residents who stronglyoppose the proposal, with5,293 signatures collected since the proposal became public knowledge. In the 4th community public hearing, a live poll conducted by the county showed that over 80% of the community opposes the Benton project. In the other three meetings, the opposition is even higher.
We urge you to listen to the majority of residents and vote "No" on the Benton project, as numerous concerns must be addressed, including neighborhood impact and safety, location justification, fiscal concerns, design and policy concerns, environmental issues, project justification, and the credibility and accountability of the county and LifeMoves.
In this letter, we have explained each concern in details, with data and evidence.
We believe these concerns - especially the environmental, neighborhood, and site-specific issues - warrant proper consideration by the city toreject the Benton project. In fact, should the City insist on moving forward with this project, we will demand an environmental and social impact study. Our association is currently in the process of retaining counsel to ensure that both the City and Developer adhere to all applicable local and state ordinances for this project.
Sincerely,
SafeSCC
Content
Content 2
Section 1: Environmental Concerns 4
1.1 Density 4
1.2 Intersection 4
1.3 Traffic 5
1.4 Parking 5
1.5 Waste Management 6
1.6 Bioretention Compliance 6
Section II: Neighborhood Impact 6
2.1 Increased Burden and Fiscal Strain on Emergency Services 6
2.2 Crime 7
2.2.1 Public Safety Data on Milpitas 8
2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View 9
2.2.3 Public Safety Data at five San Jose sites 10
2.2.4 “There are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” 11
2.3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Local Area 12
2.4 Site Security 12
2.5 General Loitering, Solicitation and Other Impacts 13
2.6 Issues At Existing HomeKey Sites 13
2.7 Post Development Operating Restrictions 16
Section III: Location Concerns 17
3.1 Land Purpose 17
3.2 Distance to schools 17
3.3 Distance to Job Opportunities 18
3.4 Distance to Transport 19
3.5 Distance from Support Services 19
3.6 Air & Noise Quality 19
3.7 Liquor Store 20
3.8ProximitytoBellaVistaInterimHousing 20
3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities 20
Section 4: Site Specific Concerns 22
4.1 Site Design 22
4.2 Onsite Policy 23
4.3 Behavior outside the Site 26
Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns 27
5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability 27
5.2OperationCostConcerns 28
5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves 28
5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse 28
5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites 28
5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification 29
Section 6: Concerns over the Need for a New Homekey Project in Santa Clara 30 Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the County and LifeMoves 30
7.1False and misleadinginformation 30
7.2LifeMoves' LackofTransparencyonSitePlansandImpactData 31
7.3ResponsetoMeetingRequests 32
7.4DiscriminatorySiteSelectionConcern 32
Section 8: Alternative Land 32
Section 9: Best use for Benton land 35
Section 1: Environmental Concerns
The location near busy Lawrence Expressway poses safety hazards for individuals with mental health issues and disabilities. Moreover, the small, densely packed rooms can create a prison-like environment for those with mental and physical disabilities. The addition of 124 - 248 residents1would also put tremendous pressure on traffic, parking, waste management, internet speed, power supply, water supply, and Bioretention Compliance. While a Homekey project may be exempt from CEQA, it needs documentation proving that it meets all exemption requirements. We hope the city is aware of this and submits a CEQA evaluation request for the site.
1.1 Density
LifeMoves proposes the Benton location to house up to max of 248 people at any given time, in a prefabricated module. Given that interim housing would allow occupants to stay 3-4 months, for a proposed total of 600-800 residents per year. These will be stacked 3-4 units high, on a
1.27 acre lot (a significant portion of which will be reserved for parking). We are concerned about the environmental impact of housing so many people on such a small site, in a facility built using novel construction methods.
1.2 Intersection
3590 Benton Street is located at the intersection of 3 roads: Benton street, Flora Vista AVe, and Lawrence Expressway. Thousands of vehicles per day pass through even the smaller Benton / Flora Vista intersection, not to mention the busy Lawrence Expressway.
During the second community meeting, City Councilmember Suds Jain made an incorrect statement by claiming that there would be no students or pedestrians walking past the LifeMoves Benton site. However, this is not true, as there are pedestrian crossings in all four directions. It is expected that a significant number of LifeMoves Benton residents, many of whom have serious physical or mental illnesses and criminal records or are re-entering society from jails, will navigate these intersections on foot each day, including sex offenders who are permitted to reside on site.
Given the vulnerable condition of the residents, this increased foot traffic poses a significant danger to both pedestrians and vehicle drivers. Additionally, a significant portion of the pedestrians using these crossings are K-12 school-aged children, some accompanied by parents, and young children in strollers with guardians, who are even more susceptible to harm.
According to the county and LifeMoves, 57% of LifeMoves Benton residents will have serious physical or mental illnesses2. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the safety of all 2 https://youtu.be/3Q31bUIdBFU
1 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2023-03/Benton_Community_Mtg_No2_Presentation_030123_incl_map.pdf, slide 27. pedestrians, including vulnerable populations, when evaluating the potential risks associated with the increased foot traffic.
1.3 Traffic
It can also be expected that such a major development (approx. max of 248 people at any given time) will drive a significant increase in vehicle traffic - by staff, volunteers, delivery, police, fire, EMT, and some residents. Consistent with other HomeKey and Lifemoves developments, it is reasonable to expect that some residents will own vehicles (see section 1.4 for more information). We believe this traffic will have a significantly detrimental effect on the surrounding area’s environment, negatively impacting local residents - including noise, pollution, and congestion.
1.4 Parking
Benton and Flora Vista Ave already experienced significant parking issues as a result of the existing medium and high density housing developments on those streets, particularly during non-working hours. The church behind the site is short of parking space and has been using the site lot for overflow parking. Now as the site is no longer available for overflow parking, we can only expect parking to get worse with 248 new residents plus staff adding to the already packed neighborhood.
The proposed development allows for 80 parking spaces, some of which will likely be used by staff. The county’s most recent statistics show that over 18% of unhoused residents currently live in a vehicle (both cars and RVs). Therefore we can expect a significant number of Benton patrons to have a vehicle. Additionally, one would expect a significant number of patrons to acquire vehicles as they reintegrate into housing and the job market. Taken together, we expect this will cause significant parking overflow issues onto already congested neighborhood streets in both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
We believe our concerns here are justified. The similar but smaller LifeMoves development in Mountain View shows significant vehicle overflow, including both cars and RVs, onto nearby streets, with local business owners confirming that vehicles are often parked for months.
There is also significant vehicle overflow onto the streets surrounding the Milpitas Homekey site, including RV dwellers who park nearby in the hope of obtaining residency at the facility.
The RVs are a safety hazard to local residents as there have been reports of several RV fires on nearby streets. The City of Mountain View has prohibited RV parking within city limits in 2022, resulting in more homeless individuals with RVs moving to nearby cities like Santa Clara3. This change is also reflected in the reduction of the unhoused population numbers in Mountain View while seeing an increase in neighboring cities such as Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Redwood City.
3https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/03/30/five-key-takeaways-from-an-investigation-into-lifemoves-mountain-view
1.5 Waste Management
A site of this density, with such a large population, will be expected to generate a significant amount of waste. It is not clear that there will be sufficient facilities or space available for adequate waste management at this site.
1.6 Bioretention Compliance
Stormwater treatment measures (bioretention areas)are required4for all construction projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. We have not seen a plan that sets out areas of the development in compliance with the bioretention requirement. We have also not seen budget proposals and funding on maintenance and upkeep of bioretention areas, which from our personal experience as homeowners can be extremely expensive and difficult to maintain. This will likely result in increased budget requirements for the City to maintain.
Section II: Neighborhood Impact
2.1 Increased Burden and Fiscal Strain on Emergency Services Accordingtocountydata 5,over halfofSantaClara'shomelesspopulationhavecriminal backgrounds,spenttime injail,andsuffer fromseriousmental illness.Testimonyfrompolice, council membersinSantaClara and Sunnyvaleshowed80%-90%ofthehomelesspopulation inSantaClarahavedrugaddictions.Thelowbarrier designoftheBenton projectwouldallow individualswithcriminal backgrounds,drugaddicts,andthosewithseriousmental illnessesto resideinthefacilityandstayintheneighborhood.Theseindividualswill increasethe likelihood ofcriminal activityanddisturbances,disruptingthelivesofnearbyresidentsandstudents.This assumptionisfullyevidencedbythe spikeincrimeatandaroundMountainViewLeghorn, MilpitasHillview,andtheKifer CalabazasCommunitysupportive housingsites,including violence,burglary,stolen vehicles,rape,anddrug-relatedcrimes.
ThecityofSantaClarahasnotshownanysignsofbeingpreparedtohandleanincreasein crimeratesassociatedwiththeproject.SantaClara'spoliceforceisalreadyunderstaffed,and currentCalifornialawsmakeitdifficulttocontrol or remove problematicor dangerous occupants.TheincreaseddemandonpoliceresourcesfromtheBentonsitecould takeaway resourcesfromtherestofresidents,leadtoslower responsetimesandan overall increasein crimethroughoutthecity.
5chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/ BentonLawrence_Community-Meeting-1-Deck.pdf, or https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton 4https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public-works/environmental-programs/stormwater pollution-prevention/stormwater-resources-for-development-construction TheBentonprojectwill negativelyimpactsurroundingbusinessesaswell,asevidencedbythe recentclosuresofWholeFoods' flagship storein SanFrancisco,closureofaCVSnear a HomekeysiteinSanJoseduetoemployeeandpublicsafetyconcerns,and thesaleofthe businessparknexttoMilpitas' sitebyitsowner 6.Inaddition,businessessurrounding the MountainViewLeghornsitehavehadtoaddsecurity.WedonotwantSantaClaratobecome another citythatlosesitsbusinesses.
2.2 Crime
In order to appease concerns related to increase in crime related to this proposed site, LiveMoves claims the site will have strict policy. Project Homekey 2.0, per“housing first” criteria7, does not allow any vetting of residents.Santa Clara County’s own statistics8show that over 25% of the homeless population has spent at least one night in jail - in the past twelve months. 42% have Psychiatric/Emotional Conditions; 35% are experiencing issues with Drug or Alcohol use; 33% suffer from PTSD. These issues are vastly overrepresented in the unhoused vs. the general population.
Concentrating this population - without any vetting, in a radically experimental, ultra high density development in the middle of a residential neighborhood is likely to lead to significant issues in the local area, including serious crime, harm to property, petty crime and drug dealing.
LifeMoves themselves have talked about “curfew” and “building relationships with local law enforcement”. Neither of these provisions lend credence to the fact that the facility will not have a negative impact on the area. Clearly, crime and anti-social behavior IS a concern, otherwise, why the mitigations?
8https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2019SCCHomelessCensusandSurveyReport.pdf 7https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/HousingFirstGuidanceChecklist.pdf 6https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, Mayor comment - tenants in the business park next door who have been there for 22 years are leaving. And the business park is listed for sale by the owner. 2:58:35
2.2.1 Public Safety Data on Milpitas
Thecomparable Milpitasprojectprovidessolid evidenceoncrime spikes.Thesupportive housingat1000HillviewCtopenedatthe endof2020.Thecityisseeingstrikingcrime statistics,withtotal policecallsincreasingby300%andtotal firecallsby400%in 2022.The averagepoliceservicetimeiscloseto50hoursper month,andcrimesincludeassault, drug-related offenses,burglary,rape,sexoffender incidents,stolenvehicles,andother suspiciouscircumstances.Mayor CarmenandCouncilmember Chuachallengedthecounty's admissioncriteria,claimingthatthescreeningprocesswasnotworkingandthatproblematic tenantsanddrugaddictionswerenotbeingremoved.
Additionally,thecountyhadpromised thattheywill prioritizeMilpitashomelessinthisfacility.
Yet,only10Milpitashomelessindividualslivewithinthe132unitapartmentin2022.Thereisno staffonsitetorepair elevators,firealarms,smokedetectors.Finally,tenantsfromthebusiness parknextdoor areleavingduetothenegativeimpactsfrom1000HillviewCourtApartment.
Please notethatthisfacilityisapermanenthousingwithascreeningprocess.The interim housingatBenton withminimal screeningwill surelybemuchworse.
2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View
TheLifeMovesMountain Viewsiteopenedmid2021.Sinceitsopening,thenumber ofpolice callshasincreasedsignificantly,risingfrom3callsin2020to94in2021(7months) and141in 2022.WearecurrentlyrequestingmoredatafromtheMountainViewPoliceDepartmentto further analyzethesituationinthe nearbyneighborhood,basedoncomplaintsfromthatsite’s neighbors.
Numberofpolicecallsovertheyears
Policecall bytype
2.2.3 Public Safety Data at five San Jose sites
During the third community meeting, Consuelo Hernandez, Director, OSH County of Santa Clara, cited a news report by KQED9 that complaints are down after interim housing sites opened. However, her statement is highly misleading for several reasons. Firstly, none of the five San Jose sites mentioned in the news report are in residential areas, but instead are located in industrial or commercial areas.
Secondly, the bar chart presented during the meeting shows the total number of incidents for all five sites combined. One site is significantly larger than the other four, which skews the average. If you filter the data by individual sites, it becomes evident that four out of the five sites have experienced an increase in crime in one of the categories since they opened. Thirdly, the data shows that the longer a site has been open, the more crimes it generates, contradicting the notion that complaints are decreasing. Fourthly, the data presented during the meeting did not account for various types of crime, including violence, drug-related offenses, mental disorder-related incidents, theft, and felonies. 9 https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-city-expects-increase-in-homeless-residents-unhoused/
2.2.4 “There are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” To date, none of the safety concerns raised by the community have been addressed directly and seriously. Councilmember Suds Jains claimed several times that “there are crimes everywhere, not only at the interim housing” and “your next door neighbor could be a murderer or criminal”, which he stated in an attempt to justify that interim housing or supportive housing facilities are no more dangerous than anywhere else.
Councilmember Suds’ argument is a typical example of the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. The logic of this fallacy is to shift the responsibility of proving a point from the person making the claim to the person opposing it. In this case, the community makes a claim about the crime rate or safety risk the Benton site would bring to the neighborhood, and councilmember Suds attempted to refute it without providing any evidence to support his rebuttal. This response does not address the community’s concerns and does not provide any useful information. Therefore, this type of rebuttal is a logical fallacy and there are several more examples that we will be happy to share.
2.3 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Local Area
LifeMoves has stated that “Clients will not be permitted to use Drugs or Alcohol on site.” The Benton site is immediately adjacent to a 7-Eleven convenience store (open 24 hours), which sells alcohol. There is another liquor store in the same plaza. It is a reasonable expectation that some LifeMoves patrons will purchase alcohol there, and then move to the nearby Earl R Carmichael Park to consume it. Experience from other locations shows that clients will also use nearby parks and parking lots to purchase and use drugs - so as to technically be in compliance with not using substances on site.
LifeMoves has stated that “participants may be asked to leave for substance abuse that is disruptive to site services, residents or staff”. Given the high incidence of substance abuse in this population, it can be assumed that (1) patronswillregularly be asked to leave and that (2) being unhoused, those patrons will remain in the nearby neighborhood, specifically the Earl R Carmichael Park or the 7-Eleven plaza, a few steps away, and will continue to experience addiction issues there, with a commensurate negative impact on that park and the locality.
These are particular concerns to the surrounding neighborhood which mostly consists of senior citizens and families with small children who are looking forward to safely visiting our parks and playground. It is also highly concerning for women who wish to go for walks with their pets and children.
2.4 Site Security
In order to mitigate potential crime, LifeMoves has stated that the Benton project will have 24 hour security. However, other similar sites such as the Milpitas HomeKey also have 24 hour security and experienced on-site issues within months, including violent assault, rape, and even a murder (see 2.6 and Section 4 for more details).
Moreover, on-site security at the Milpitas site was deficient at times, as residents could not locate on-site security, and there was no one available to check in guests10. SafeSCC members also visited the MTV site at night and found that residents were still able to enter and exit the site after curfew.
On-site security also cannot take law enforcement action against problematic residents, as demonstrated by the Milpitas and MTV sites where residents who violated site rules were not removed and still reside on the site (refer to section 2.6 for more details).
Additionally, on-site security cannot address spill-over issues from this development to the broader neighborhood. We are concerned that LifeMoves may disregard actual security issues in the neighborhood by referencing proposed on-site security (refer to section 2.5 for more details).
10https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sqJldTlpmU&t=2570s, start 1:31:25, Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) visited the site one day prior to city’s scheduled check, and commented angrily: There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors…no eviction for crimes. “These need to be addressed immediately.”
2.5 General Loitering, Solicitation and Other Impacts
A development of 120-240 people can be expected to generate significant additional human traffic in the vicinity (friends, partners, acquaintances, business associates, etc). This LifeMoves facility has so little space (see appendix 3) that it seems clear there will not be sufficient, if any, room for guests and socialization within the facility. Further, it is unknown whether acquaintances who have a criminal background would be permitted on site or not. Therefore it is reasonable to assume we will see significant loitering in the neighborhood outside of the facility. Given the density of the area, it is likely loitering would occur either in the 7-Eleven parking lot or at the local park, which will be 600 meters away from the site.
Additionally, given the well documented addiction and social issues in this population, and the fact that drug and prostitution activity was well known at other sites currently frequented by the unhoused (such as nearby Bella Vista site), we expect to see a drastic increase in drug dealers, gangsters, pimps, and sex workers loitering in the surrounding neighborhoods. The surrounding neighborhoods currently consist of established suburbs largely consisting of families with small children.
It has been observed that LifeMoves' Mountain View site accepts families and has installed a fence and locked gate between the family units and other units. The argument being presented suggests that the presence of this fence and gate is strong evidence that LifeMoves is aware of the safety threat that single clients would pose to families and children, and that these clients are not law-abiding residents. However, in four community meetings, LifeMoves claimed that their clients can be part of the community without posing a safety threat.
The nearest grocery store to Benton will be Super Kyo-Po Plaza on Homestead and Lawrence.
Given the lack of transport, we expect to see carts from the store regularly brought to the Benton Site and abandoned. This would be consistent with what has been observed at the Mountain View site.
2.6 Issues At Existing HomeKey Sites
2.6.1 Homekey Milpitas
Similar concerns (crime, loitering) were raised about a recent HomeKey development in Milpitas, and those concerns, dismissed by officials at the time, have proven true. After two years of operation, police calls skyrocketed from 121 in 2020 to 393 in 2022 . Jared Hernandez, Milpitas Police Chief, said during the council meeting: “When comparing the crime statistics, Hillview Ct will outpace any apartment complex in the city of Milpitas.” The details of the crimes reported are listed below in the police report in Milpitas council meeting.
ThemanagementandoperationofMilpitasHomeKeyprojectisalso poor andproblematic. ● InHillviewCt,peoplewithseverecriminal backgroundswereadmitted ● Ziplocbagsofmethwerefoundonsite
● Problematictenantsand drugaddictionswerenotlikelytobe removedfromthe sitedue toStatelaw.
● Only10Milpitashomelesslivewithinthe132unitsapartment. ● Nostaffonsitetorepair elevator,fire alarm,smokedetector,etc. ● Tenantsfromthebusinessparknextdoor “wereleaving,andthebusinessowner putthe propertyonsalebecauseofthenegativeimpactsfromHillviewCt.” ● AsofNovember 2022:
○ Strikingcrimerateremained
○ Councilmember Karina R.Dominguez(whoistheinitial supporter for thisproject)
visited thesite onedayprior tocity’sscheduled check,andcommentedangrily:
There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors…no eviction for crimes.“These need to be addressed immediately. 11”
● AsofFebruary2023:
○ Milpitasrequestedadditional policeofficerstobe fundedbyCountysinceAugust 2022,buthasyettoreceivearesponsefromtheCounty.
○ Disabled occupantsarestuckdue tobroken elevator for atleast8months.“It goesdownatleastonceaweek”,saidReeve,oneoftheresidents.
Benton, similar to Milpitas, would be a supportive housing facility. However, Benton is intended to be used as interim housing, a stepping stone to permanent housing. Despite all of the issues that the Milpitas project has experienced, they screen residents. Since the proposed Benton site would be intended to house low-barrier tenants as soon as possible, LifeMoves will not do background checks or impose restrictions on potential tenant selection. Their only goal is to get them off the street, at any cost to the local residents. It is therefore fair to anticipate increased crime rates and disruption at or near Benton than experienced at Milpitas Hillview.
2.6.2 LifeMoves Mountain View
The LifeMoves facility at Leghorn St in Mountain View has had a significant detrimental effect on the local neighborhood. A local business owner confirmed that there has been a significant exit of business owners from the vicinity since the LifeMoves site opened. It can be seen that three commercial properties directly opposite the LifeMoves site in Mountain View are now empty.
We have also been informed that there has also been significant police activity at the site.
Sinceitsopeninginmid2021,the number ofpolicecallshasincreasedsignificantly,rising from3callsin2020to94in2021and141in2022.Wearecurrentlyrequestingmoredata fromtheMountainViewPolice Departmenttofurther analyzethesituation. 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sqJldTlpmU&t=2570s, starts 2:07:35 A visit to the Mountain View site confirmed the presence of alcohol containers on public and neighboring properties; abandoned cars; abandoned shopping carts. Further, our representative witnessed public urination outside of the facility and was accosted by an individual on the street outside of the facility.
2.7 Post Development Operating Restrictions
We are concerned that once this development is approved, any pre-development restrictions agreed to by LifeMoves which are not legally binding and enforceable will not be adhered to.
This includes (but is not limited to) capacity, tenant selection, security arrangements, curfews, maintenance obligations, neighborhood engagement.
This concern is evidenced by what has happened at LifeMoves’ Palo Alto site. Because construction costs doubled resulting in a funding shortage of $8 million, LifeMoves broke commitments made and have removed 24/7 onsite security, supportive offices, and fencing.
This happened within just one year of site approval.
Section III: Location Concerns
3.1 Land Purpose
TheBentonlocationisnotavacantor abandonedlandasclaimed bythecounty.Infact,itis oneofthelastfewplacesintheareawhereregular communityandfamilyeventstakeplace duringtraditional holidayssuchasChristmasandHalloween.AccordingtoABCTreeFarms,the Bentonlandseesapproximately2,500-3,000local familiesvisitingeachyear for communityand familyeventsduringtheholidayseasons.Thisisan irreplaceablecommunityandfamily traditionfor local families.TherearemanyvacantlotsinthebusinessareaofSantaClarathat couldbeused for shelter atsimilar or cheaper cost.Itisinhumane,reckless,andagainstthe spiritofdemocracyfor thecityandcountytoforcethecommunitylottobetakenawayfrom local residentswhentheyhavemanyother optionsavailableandface90%opposition fromlocal residentsifplacedatBenton.
3.2 Distance to schools
Thereare15 schoolsandatleast31daycareswithin1.5 milesofBenton location,servingover 11thousandsstudentsandfamilies.Noother communitiesinSantaClara havesucha dense concentrationofschools.
Allowingindividualswithavarietyofcriminal backgrounds,includingassault,robbery,drugs, attemptedhomicide,andsexoffenses,aswell asmanywithseveremental instabilityanddrug addictiontoresidenear schools,familieswithyoungchildren,andsenior citizenscan pose a significantthreattothehealth,safetyand well-being ofthecommunity.Peoplewith criminal backgroundsmayhaveahistoryofviolenceor other criminal activities,puttingchildrenand familiesatriskofharm.Sexoffenders,inparticular,mayhaveahigh riskofreoffending,and livingin closeproximitytopotential victimscouldincreasethatrisk.Drug addicts,meanwhile, mayengageinbehavior thatisdisruptiveor dangerous,potentiallyleadingtoviolence or other criminal activity.Drug addictsandalcoholicscannotbeexpectedtokickthehabitwithina couple ofmonths.Theywouldbebetter servedataninpatientfacilitydedicated tosuch illnesses.
Furthermore,children are especiallyvulnerabletothe negativeeffectsofliving near individuals withcriminal backgrounds,sexoffenders,anddrugaddicts.Exposure tosuchindividualscan leadtoemotional trauma,anxiety,andfear,and negativelyimpactchildren'smental healthand overall well-being.Additionally,childrenmaybemore susceptibletotheinfluenceofthese individuals,potentiallyleadingtoearlyexposureto druguseor criminal activities.
It has been observed that LifeMoves' Mountain View site accepts families and has installed a fence and locked gate between the family units and other units. The argument being presented suggests that the presence of this fence and gate is strong evidence that LifeMoves is aware of the safety threat that single clients would pose to families and children, and that these clients are not normal and law-abiding residents. However, in four community meetings, LifeMoves claimed that their clients can be part of the community without posing a safety threat.
Schools and daycares within 1.5 miles radius of the Benton site LifeMoves MTV site has a secured gate restricting other tenants from accessing families. LifeMoves is fully aware of the potential safety threat to families and children.
3.3 Distance to Job Opportunities
Thecountyandcouncilmember SudsJainclaimedthatbuildingnear El CaminoReal will help homelessindividualsfind jobs.
However,currentlyneither thecountynor LifeMoveshaveprovided anydatato showthat:
1) Livingnear El CaminoReal iscrucial for thehomelesstofindjobs; 2) El CaminoReal offersmorejobopportunitiesfor individualswithcriminal records, drugaddiction,and mental healthissuesthanother locationsinSantaClaracity; 3) Homelessindividualscanonlyfindworknear their placeofresidence.
Infact,themajorityofthehomelesspopulationinSanta Claralacksthedesire andabilitytofind employment,withmanyindividualsnotwantingtoworkor needingtoovercomedrug addiction or mental healthissuesfirst.
Thosewhoarewillingandable tofind workwouldnotbe limitedtoonlyonestreet.Manyof theseindividualsalso havecars,andfor thosewhodo not,itismoreimportantfor thesiteto be near abusstop.However,theBentonprojectisnearly1mile awayfromtheclosestbusstop.
Inreality,jobssuchascleaning andfloor maintenance are moreabundantin industrial and commercial areasthaninresidential neighborhoods.
3.4 Distance to Transport
This proposed location is located at a significant distance from public transport. The nearest public transport option is the El Camino bus corridor, located 0.9 miles from the site (~18min walk for healthy adults without bags etc.). This is a significant distance if one is expected to travel with children, shopping / groceries, etc, or for persons who may have other health issues.
3.5 Distance from Support Services
The Benton Project site is located in the middle of a residential community and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on all sides (including on the opposite side of Lawrence Expressway). The site is far from the expected services and facilities that the unhoused population would be expected to rely on, including lack of easy access to locations for transportation, healthcare, food distribution, government benefits, and support services (e.g. centers for employment, rehabilitation, mental health, and multilingual services). Nearby Kaiser Hospital only serves Kaiser members except in the event of a life threatening emergency, which in most cases would be taken to a Level 1 trauma center such as Stanford or Valley.
The proposed site would isolate people in need and require them to walk to public transportation (0.9 miles away, as mentioned in 3.4) for virtually any of the above needs -- again, this would be particularly challenging for those with health issues. Their only conveniences would be access to a 7/11 and a liquor store.
3.6 Air & Noise Quality
As mentioned above, this site is located between three major roads, including an expressway, and between two major intersections. The minor intersection is used by thousands of vehicles per day, the major intersection by up to one quarter of a million vehicles per day. Per the LiveMoves proposals, the container units would be located just feet from these roads.
We are concerned that air quality at this location may not be safe for human habitation and specifically may be particularly dangerous for adults and children with chronic lung conditions such as asthma or COPD. Effects and exposure may be exacerbated by the non-standard construction methods proposed for the development.
We are also concerned that the noise quality at this location is above a level that is suitable for human habitation, especially for a population likely suffering from trauma and PTSD, in units which will likely have far less sound insulation that might be expected from conventional dwellings.
3.7 Liquor Store
Thereisaliquor storeacrossfromthesite,andthe7-Elevenalsosellsalcohol. Theyposea potential safetyhazardfor over 60%oftheresidentswithaddiction,alcoholism,andmental healthissues.
3.8 Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing
TheBentonlocationisonlyhalfamileawayfromBella VistaInterimHousing.Havingtwo interimhousingprojectswiththe"more challengingpopulation"inoneneighborhood isnotonly recklessbutalsoirresponsiblefor thewell-beingoftheresidentsand enjoymentofthe community.The policehavealreadyexperiencedahigher thannormal volumeofcallsfromthe BellaVistasite,whichhasonlybeen openfor lessthantwo months.Adding another sitein such closeproximitywill onlyexhaustpoliceresourcesandtake awayresourcesfromother residents inthe neighborhood.Twositesinthesame neighborhoodwill significantlyconsumepublic safetyresourcesfromother residents,slowdownpoliceresponsetimes,andeventuallyputthe entirearea indanger.Thereisno clear reasongivenwhythisneighborhoodhastoaccepttwo HomeKeyandinterimhousingprojects,and whythehomelesspopulationhasto beputinthis neighborhood,other than‘theproperty,anequipmentlot,isownedbythe county.’
3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities
Existinghomelesssheltersin SantaClaraCountyareprimarilylocatedinindustrial or commercial areas,or separatedfromresidential neighborhoods.Thisminimizesthe impactof criminal activityanddisturbancesonnearbyresidents.However,theBentonprojectdeviates fromthispattern.
The LifeMoves Benton development is a radically experimental development without any precedent.
● It would be the first LifeMoves “low barrier shelter” interim housing in an exclusively residential neighborhood location at the center of 15 schools over 11,000 school children and families.
● It would be the first Homekey 3.0 interim housing with operation duration required to be at least 30 years12. Previous Homekey interim housing operation duration is only 15 years. ● It would have the highest density of residents of any LifeMoves container development, given the large number of units and the small lot.
We do not believe that the Benton neighborhood is a suitable location for a novel housing experiment of this magnitude. Other nearby cities have chosen not to take a similar risk.
The aforementioned LifeMoves facility under development in Palo Alto will be located at 1237 San Antonio Road, on the edge of the Bay, in an industrial / commercial zone. The development is removed from residential neighborhoods by over one mile (on the other side of the 101 freeway).
LifeMoves Palo Alto
The LifeMoves facility at 2566 Leghorn St in Mountain View is also located in the middle of a commercial / industrial zone.
LifeMoves MountainView
In contrast to the above facilities, LifeMoves Benton would be in a very low density residential neighborhood, immediatelyadjacent to existing low density residential developments with 12 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/homekey/Homekey-Round-3-Notice-of-Funding-Availability.pdf
thousands of homes. The Benton Shopping Center (gas station, 7-11, liquor store, etc) across the street is the only ‘neighborhood commercial’ zoned property in an otherwise exclusively residential neighborhood.
LifeMoves Benton
Otto Lee, a Santa Clara County Supervisor and one of the County's strongest supporters of HomeKey, has expressed concern about the current site design and low-barrier admission criteria. He has stated that such a site should not be located in a residential area.
This ultra high density interim housing model proposed for Benton is unproven and LifeMoves has no experience in operating or securing such a facility. This is effectively a radical social experiment in a residential neighborhood.
Section 4: Site Specific Concerns
4.1 Site Design
LifeMovesandthecountyhavenotprovided completedesignplansandmanagementpolicies.
Theonlysiteplan 13thecommunitywasinformedistheone atthesecondcommunitymeeting, whichmissedalotofimportantaspects.Therearemoreoptionswithfewunitsweresharedin thelastcommunitymeeting,butthosearethesiteplansofLifeMoves’ MountainViewsiteand PaloAltositeswithoutanychangestoadjusttotheBentonsite.So it’snotclear howthose optionsaregoingtobeuseful for Benton site.
13 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/2023-03/Benton_Community_Mtg_No2_Presentation_030123_incl_map.pdf, slide 27.
Thoseaspectsincludebutnotlimitedto:
● Fence Design: Thedeckpresentedinthesecondcommunitymeetingonlyindicated thattherewouldbeafenceonthecreekside,butitisunclear iffenceswill alsobe installedon theother threesidesofthe site,and whattypeoffencewill beused.The existenceanddesign ofthefencecanmakea differencein howtheshelter couldimpact theneighborhood.For example,1000HillviewCt,the supportivehousing inMilpitas, doesn’thaveafence,thenitresultedinverynegativeimpacttothe nextdoor business park,leadingtomanybusinessesleavingandtheowner puttingtheparkon sale 14. ● Entrance:Thereisnoclear informationregardingthenumber ofentrancestothesite andwhether theywill becontrolled.Whether or nottheentranceisfullycontrolledis critical for thesafetyofthesiteand neighborhood.Policetestimonieshavestatedthat crimesanddamagescanbeabiteasier tomitigateifthereisonlyone entranceinand outofthesite,andthe entranceisfullycontrolled.
● Parking:Itisunclear whether the80parkingspotsprovided,whichincludetheparking lotfor LifeMovesstaff,will besufficientfor amaximumof248residents(detailsplease seesection1.4).
● Building Height:Thereisconfusionregardingthenumber ofstoriesthebuildingwill have.Inthe firstandsecondcommunitymeetings,LifeMovesstatedthebuildingwould be4 stories,butinthefourthmeeting,theyclaimeditcouldbe2stories.Meanwhile,the Notice letter sentbytheCityofSantaClarastatedthatthe building would be3stories.
4.2 Onsite Policy
LifeMovesbrieflymentionedduringthethirdcommunitymeeting afewpoliciesitplannedto implement.However,thesepoliciesdidnotincludeanydetailsonhowtheywouldbeenforced.
Rulesthatlackenforcementor penaltiesaremeaningless.Evidence fromLifeMoves’ Mountain 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:58:00
Viewsite showedthattenantswhohaveconducted sextual harassmentseveral timesstill stayedon thesite,andsitemanager wasnotabletoremovehim 15.
What County has briefly mentioned on site policy during the third community meeting Itisalso unclear howLifeMovesplanstoconductdrug testsfor itsclients,aswell ashowthe curfewpolicyandpenaltieswill beimplemented.Withoutdrugtests,screening,curfews,and enforcementofitspolicies,itisreasonabletoassumethatproblematictenantsonBenton will haveanegativeimpacton the neighboringcommunity.
EvenifweassumeLifeMovescould eventuallycarryoutexecutionandenforcementplans, therearestill concernsabouthowtheycan guaranteethattheywill notrepeatthe failuresseen inother supportivehousingsites,suchasLeghorninMountainViewandHillviewinMilpitas.
TheHillviewsitein Milpitasisaclear exampleofhowpoor managementofsupportivehousing canhavenegative consequences,eventhoughtherearewell documented policies.which causedalarmintheneighborhood.Furthermore,asmore peoplewerehousedinthesite,the reportedcasesofcriminal behavior increased 16.Theseissueshaveunderstandablymadethe 16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=14650s 15 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont
communityskeptical aboutthepotential successofthe interimhousingproject.
Evidence on poor management for HomeKey Supportive Housing. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting TheoperationofLifeMoves' Mountain Viewsitedemonstratesthattheir policiesarenotbeing enforced.Webelievethecityshouldnotconsider the projectuntil LifeMovesandthe countycan guaranteeareductioninthenumber ofunits,stricter screening criteria,effectivesecurity measures,appropriate doctor/nurseover patientradio,and mandatoryparticipationinon-site servicesandtreatments.
Evidence on LifeMoves MTV site failed to fulfill commitment to help homeless. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting Lifemovesandthecountyneed toprovidereassurancetothecommunitybyoutliningclear plansfor ensuringthatthosewithseverecriminal backgroundsarenotadmitted and thatthe number ofresidentsdoesnotleadtoincreasedcrimeintheneighborhood.Withoutaddressing theseconcerns,Lifemovesandthecountrycannotgainthe trustofthecommunityandtheCity should notconsider theinterimhousingproject.
4.3 Behavior outside the Site
Inthethirdcommunitymeeting,ConsueloHernandezand LifeMovespresentedthe policyat LifeMovessite.However,therehasnever beenadiscussiononhowtomanageindividualswho donotfollowregulationsintheinterimhousing,or aprotocol for removingindividualswhodo notfollowregulationsandwhere theywill beplaced.
Ifindividualswhoviolateregulationsintheinterimhousingarenotproperlymanaged,andare allowedtoremaininthesurroundingneighborhood,itcould poseasignificantrisktothe safety ofthecommunity.
AccordingtoMilpitasChiefPolice,manyunhousedintheareaprefer their spaceandfreedom touseillegal drugs.Theydonotwanttobe inclosequarterswithother potentiallydangerous peopleor have tofollowrules.Tenantswill spendtheir daysawayfromthefacilityinthelocal parkswheretheycanmeetwiththeir friendswhoarenotallowedintothefacility.But, Lifemoves andthecountyhavenotsharedanyplantomitigatethepotential safetyimpactonthenearby communityfromtheproposedinterimhousing.Theexamplesfromother housing sites,suchas
HillviewinMilpitas,whereziplocbagsofmethwerefoundinthe surroundingneighborhood 17, andincidentsoftrespassingand spittinghavebeenreported,highlighttheneedfor aclear and effectiveplantomanage clientbehavior inthesurroundingareas.Similarly,atLeghornin MountainView,theowner ofanadjacentautobodyshophad tocleanuplitter regularly.Given theproposedlocationoftheBentonproject,whichiscloser toresidential areasthanother sites, itiscrucial for Lifemovesandthe countytoaddresstheseconcernscarefully.Theymusthavea clear andeffectiveplaninplacetoregulateand managethebehavior ofinterimhousingclients inthe surroundingareatominimizeanynegative impacton the neighborhood'ssafetyand well-being.Withoutacomprehensiveplan,communitytrustintheprojectwill be undermined, andtheCityshouldvotenofor thisprojectgivenitscurrentstage.
Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns
5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability Thisisa newandexperimental projectandthereisconcernaboutLifeMoves’ abilitytodeliver withoutsignificantimpacttocityfinances.Todate,LifeMoveshassuccessfullydelivered only onesimilar facility- asinglestory,100person developmentatLeghornStreetinMountain view.TheBentonprojectwill be radicallydifferent- 3-4storieshigh,onasmaller lotbut occupying200%ofoccupants,inahigh-densityresidential neighborhood,asopposedto commercial or brownfieldarea.
Evenunder thebest-casescenario,the Bentonprojectwouldimposeasubstantial financial burdenontheCity.Duringthelastpublicmeeting,Consuelo Hernandezdisclosed thatthe projectwouldrequireanestimatedannual operatingcostof$3.3 millionto$4.3million, translatingtoaround$55,000per person($150per person per night).Thiscallsintoquestion thecredibilityofLifeMoves' andthecounty'sbudgetingand planning.
LifeMovescannotbetrustedasaresponsiblefinancial partner for theCity.Asimilar LifeMoves projectstill under developmentin PaloAltohasseen costs spiralfrom its original estimates of $17m by 202% or $17.4m, to $34.4m18,injustoneyear,leavingthecityofPaloAltowitha $6millionfundinggap. It is therefore unclear who will burden the additional cost if the same occurs to the Benton project.
Source of Funds for Capital cost Amount
Homekey $21,732,228
Sobrato $5,000,000
18 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/11/02/rising-costs-dont-deter-palo-alto-from-pursuing-interim-housing-projectand https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities 17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=10680s Total received $26,732,228
Estimated construction cost as for March 2023 $34,400,000 Construction cost gap $8 millon
Tosavecostonconstructionfor itsPaloAltosite,LifeMovesisconsideringremovingthe4/7 securityitoncepromisedthecityofPaloAlto,removing spacesfor supportiveoffices,and reducingthecostofitsfence 19.
5.2 Operation Cost Concerns
Thereareconcernsamongthepublicthattheinformation providedaboutacertainprojectisnot clear enough.Despiteseveral roundsofpublicmeetings,therearestill unanswered questions thatremain.
● Oneofthe primaryconcernsisaboutwhowill cover theoperation costoftheBenton project.Itisunclear howmuchtheSanta Claracitywill beresponsiblefor payingfor the operationcostafter theHomekeyfundingrunsout.
● Additionally,iftheconstructioncostexceedsthebudget,itisnotclear ifthecitywill have tofill thefunding gaps.
● Moreover,the publiciscurioustoknowifthecountyhasmadeanycommitmentto financiallysupporttheshelter operationfor thenext15years.
Theseunansweredquestionsarecausinganxietyamongthecommunityandneedtobe addressedassoonaspossibletoensuretransparencyandaccountabilityinthe project.Ifthe fiscal questionsregardingtheprojectarenotproperlyanswered,itcouldmakepeoplemore concernedabouttheservicequalityandstaffinginthehousing project.
5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves
5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse
Apsychiatricunitrequiresaminimum1:6licensednurse/patientradio,24hoursa dayby Californialaw.YetLifeMovesrecommendsonlyONEvocational nursefor 200unscreened homelesstenants 20.With57%ofoccupantshavingseriousmental issues,thenurse/patient ratioisfar behindthelawrequirement.
5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites
Accordingtothelatest newsreport,LifeMovesMountainViewsitehasfailedtofulfill its commitmentto helpthehomelesstoo.281clientsexitedtheprogrambetween itsopening May 2021andSeptember 2022,only73individuals,or 26%,wereplacedinpermanenthousing,the 2ndlowestrateofsuccessful exitinthecounty.
20 From Brian Greenberg, on the first community meeting. 19 https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities Thelackofservicesinacommunitycanhave detrimental effectsonitsresidentsand surroundingbusinesses 21.Inoneparticular area,multipleclientshavereported notreceiving specializedsupportinsearchingfor housing.Thisissueiscompounded bythe shortageofcase managersandhousingspecialists,andtheabsenceoflicensednurses,leaving onlyinternsto providemedical assistance.
Inaddition,testimoniesfromnearbybusinessesindicate ariseincrime,suchasburglariesand litteringissues.Thesecrimeshaveledtobusinessestakingmattersinto their own handsand hiringa 24/7securityguardattheir ownexpense.Toaddressthisissue,thelocal government hassteppedin,andMTVhasaddedadedicatedpoliceforce topatrol the site.However,without adequateservicesandsupport,thecommunitymaycontinuetostrugglewiththesechallenges.
5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification
LifeMoves’sprojectshavefacedseriousissueswithmanagementandstaffing,leadingto alack ofadequateservicesfor clientsandcrimesthatimpactthesurroundingcommunity.In2021,the firstprogramdirector physicallyassaultedaformer client,andanoutstandingarrestwarrantfor thedirector still exists.
Furthermore,aformer clientreportedmultiplecasesofsexual harassment,butthesecondsite director couldnotremovetheharassersduetoLifeMoves' policyagainstrelocating drugaddicts until theyovercome their addiction,whichisnearlyimpossiblein the90-120daytimeframe.
Injust1.5yearsofoperation,theprojecthasalreadyshuffledatleastthreedirectors.Intermsof services,multipleclientshavenotreceivedspecialized supportinsearching for housing,and thereisashortageofcasemanagers,housingspecialists,andlicensednurses.
Thecrimesreported bynearbybusinessesincludeburglariesandlitteringissues,leading them tohirea24/7securityguardattheir ownexpense.TheMTVsite hasaddeda dedicatedpolice forcetopatrol thearea,highlighting the severityofthesafetyconcernsin the community.
AlthoughCovid-19maybeacontributingfactor tothe labor shortage,thetrendexisted before thepandemic.Giventheongoingstruggleto providesufficientand competentstaffattheir currentlocations,itmaybemoreprudentfor LifeMovestofocusonimprovingthesesitesrather thanopeningnewones,whichcould worsenthestaffingcrisis.
21 data from this section came from
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont Section 6: Concerns over the Need for a New
Homekey Project in Santa Clara
BellaVistahasjustopened.Itwould makemore sensetowaitandseehowitworksoutwiththe burdenitaddstothepoliceandthe neighborhoodbeforedecidingwhether or notthesame neighborhoodcanbear another HomeKeyproject.
Similarly,theBrahamproject,theradical experimentinSanJosethatisoftencitedbythe County,juststartedconstructiona fewdaysago.Itwould berational andwisetowaituntil it startsoperatingandseehowthesiteaffectsthenearbyneighborhood.Onlyifeverythinggoes asthecountyandLifeMoveshavepromised,thenitcouldbethetimetore-proposeanother similar shelter atBenton.Otherwise,the countyandLifeMoveswouldberepeatingthesame mistakes.
Atthesametime,neighboringcitiessuchasSaratoga,LosAltos,LosAltosHills,and Cupertino seemtobemakingnoprogressonprojectsunder HomeKey.Itisevidentthatthetaxpayersof theCityofSantaClaraareeffectivelybeing askedtomakesignificantexpenditurestosupport solutionsfor other nearbycities.
Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the
County and LifeMoves
7.1 False and misleading information
CountyandLifeMoveshaveconsistentlyprovidedfalseor misleadinginformation(seethe tablesbelow),such asincorrectschool numbers,and haveconfusedthecommunitywithshelter terminologies.Furthermore,housingadvocateswhodon'tlivein the neighborhoodwereinvited tospeakinsupportatall four communitymeetings.Thishasgreatlyerodedthetrustand confidenceoflocal residentsinbothCountyand LifeMoves.ItisimperativethatCountyand LifeMovestakestepstodemonstratetheir reliabilityandaccountabilitybefore proceedingwith anyfurther actions.Residentsoftheneighborhoodneedtosee evidence thatthese organizationsaretrustworthyandcanbeheldresponsible for their actions.
7.2 LifeMoves' Lack of Transparency on Site Plans and Impact Data
LifeMoveshasfailedtoprovideanupdatedplanto date.Theonlysite planwecanrefer toisthe onepresentedinthefirstcommunitymeetinginFebruary.Additionally,LifeMoveshasnot providedupdatesonsitedesign,includingbutnotlimitedtofencedesign,entrancedesign,and
securitydesign.Theyhavealsonotprovideddetailsregardinghowtheycanenforce thesite policy.
Similarly,LifeMoveshasnotbeenabletoprovideanydatashowing howmanyofitsresidents havelocatedpermanenthousing,foundajob,or foundajobnear thesite.Theyhavealsonot provideddatashowingthatthesitedoesnothaveanynegative impacton the nearbyresidents or neighborhood.Incontrast,wehavedatafromthelocal policedepartmentandnews reporters,showinganobviouscrimespike andnegativeimpacttothenearbyneighborhood.
7.3 Response to Meeting Requests
Ms.CounsueloHernandezemailed afewmembersofSafeSCCthatshewantedto meetwith thecommunityandaddresstheir concerns.However,somecommunitymembersemailedher backseveral timestosetup ameetingbuthavereceivedno confirmationtodate.Accordingto acommunitymember,ConsueloHernandezrepliedbacksaying sheisavailable,butwhenthe member replied backto confirmtheexactdate andtime,she disappearedagain.Her inconsistencywithcommunityconcernsisconsistent:itseemsshedoesn’tcareaboutthe community,contrarytowhatshe claimedinthecommunitymeetings,andisnotinterestedin their concernsnor listening.Furthermore,sheisnotrespectful ofcommunitymembers' timeand input,whichisconsistentin her performance,leavinghundredsofcommunityquestions unansweredto date(evenquestionsfromthefirstcommunitymeetingonFeb13haven'tbeen fullyansweredafter morethan2months) inall four communitymeetings' invitesto meet.
7.4 Discriminatory Site Selection Concern
Additionally,theneighborhoodhasraisedconcernsthatthe cityandcountychose thislocation duetothefactthatthe local residentsarelargelyfromminoritypopulationsor newimmigrants.
Thisisperceivedasadiscriminatoryact,targetingracial minoritytaxpayersandvotersto sacrificetheir safetyandinterests,andmayhavelegal implications.
Section 8: Alternative Land
Oppositetowhatwehave beenstereotypedandmisunderstood as“selfishhouseowners”,our empatheticcommunitycaresalotabouthomelesspeopleandtrulywanttohelp. Wewill never surrender tosacrificecommunitysafety,yettherearealternativeplanswewill consider.
Alternativeplansthatwill endina win-winsituation.
Wehave sofar identifiedseveral landsthatare notinuse andare convenienttojob opportunities,facilitiesandtransportation.
TheCityandCountyshouldcontinuetheir searchfor suitablelandsifpursuinginterimhousing remainsagoal.
1. De La Cruz Blvd & El Camino Real
ThesiteisnexttoSanta ClaraPoliceStation.Anexpansiontotheexistingsupportivehousing facilitycan bebuiltto accommodatetheunhousedpopulation.
2. South Bay Fwy & Lafayette St.
Thereareseveral unusedlandsnear theintersectionofSouthBayFwyandLafayetteSt.
3. Lincoln St & Civic Center Dr.
ThereisapieceofunusedlandnexttoSantaClaraCityHall.
4. Parking Lots at Levi's Stadium
Thereareseveral parkinglotsnear Levi’sStadium.Aninterimhousingcanbebuiltatthecorner ofoneofthelots.
5. Central Expy & San Tomas Expy
Thereisapieceofunusedlandnear the intersectionofCentral Expyand SanTomasExpy.
Section 9: Best use for Benton land
Proximitytoschoolsmakesthe Benton sitea potential goodfit for “rent-to-own” affordable housing for teachers whohave alivelihoodinor aroundSantaClara.
This“rent-to-own” affordable housingcouldalsoconsider law-abidingfamilies,whosemembers donothaveanysubstanceabuse or criminal records,havegoodcreditscoresandjobsto afford rent.
Office of Supportive Housing Page 1 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
SERVICE ENRICHED SHELTER PROJECT REVIEW
Application Review: Homekey Palo Alto
Applicant: LifeMoves
Address: 1237 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Census Tract: 5046.01 San Jose Council District: N/A Supervisorial District: 5
Co-Applicant: City of Palo Alto
Residential sq. ft.: 22,800 Community Room: 8,540
Construction Type: Modular Construction
Homekey Palo Alto
1237 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Project Summary: Homekey Palo Alto is a new emergency interim shelter consisting of 108 units/doors on a 2.3- acre City owned site and is being co-developed by LifeMoves and the City of Palo Alto. The project is located along the west side of San Antonio Road, east of Highway 101, in Palo Alto. The proposed development will consist of 64 units for individuals and couples and 44 units for families. The family units include four 3-bedroom, twenty 2- bedroom and twenty 1-bedroom units. The shelter units incorporate a purpose -built design with modular units stacked 2-3 stories to improve site efficiency. The 1-bedroom units include 220 square feet, the 2-bedroom units consist of 220 square feet, and the 3 -bedroom units are 440 square feet. Design features include ensuite bathrooms and private meetings spaces that promote privacy and security while working closely with clients to secure and return to stable housing. Common area amenities include shared cooking area, laundry facilities as well as pet accommodations.
Existing Conditions: The site is vacant and currently used as a contractor yard . The site needs to be raised by at least 3.5 feet above the current grade to support the development.
Land Use and Environmental Review: The proposed site is located within the Baylands Master Plan area, has a City of Palo Alto Land Use designation of Major Institutions/Special Facility (MISP), and is zoned Public Facilities (PF).
The project has received Homekey Program funds which makes the project eligible for streamlining approv al under Assembly Bill 83 (“AB 83”). Specifically, CA Health and Safety Code § 50675.1.1, subd. (g), states that all Homekey projects are eligible for such streamlining and are “deemed consistent and in conformity with any applicable local plan, standard, or requirement, and allowed as a permitted use, within the zone in which the structure is located, and shall not be subject to a conditional use permit, discretionary permit, or to any other discretionary reviews or approvals”. Such projects are not requi red to undergo any discretionary local permit review or approval process before being able to proceed with the project. In addition, a project funded with Homekey Program funds that satisfies certain requirements would qualify for a CEQA exemption under the Health and Safety Code section 50675.1.4.
Office of Supportive Housing Page 2 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
Project Schedule:
Milestone Estimated Date of Completion
1. Site Control December 2022
2. Community Engagement (continuous and ongoing) Ongoing; City Council Approval on 10/5/2021
3. Entitlements/Land Use Approval 7/21/2022 (Homekey award date)
4. Environmental Review 7/21/2022 (Homekey award date)
5. Funding Commitments October 2022
6. Submit plans and application(s) for plan check and building permit 10/07/2022
7. Building permit issuance 12/05/2022
8. Begin Construction 12/21/2022
9. Start of referral activities May 2023
10. Complete Construction July 2023
Draft Staffing Plan: The primary goal of LifeMoves’ programs is to end the cycle of homelessness by providing interim housing and supportive services that have proven to transform lives and build lasting solutions to homelessness. Aligning with Housing First principles, LifeMoves first provides each client, regardless of background, presenting issues, and/or program progress/participation, with a safe, clean, and dignified living environment to help them regain stability as they work towards their return to stable housing and self-sufficiency. LifeMoves anticipates providing a total of 31 FTEs to support the project as further summarized below.
Proposed Staff Positions FTE Summary of Services
On-Site Supportive Service Staff
Children’s Services Coordinator 2.0 Coordinate with school liaison to ensure school-aged children are enrolled in their school of choice
Case Manager 5.0 Conduct intake, perform screening assessments, and provide intensive case management
Case Manager Veterans 1.0 May be included if Veterans are targeted at the site Licensed Vocational Nurse Case Manager 2.0 Support the health of medically fragile clients Employment Specialist Case Manager 1.50 Increase employment opportunities Housing Specialist 1.50 Increase housing opportunities
Case Manager Connect 0.50 Follow-up services to clients who exit to stable housing
Off-Site Support
Housing and Employment Supervisor 0.20 Supervises housing and employment specialist Masters of Social Work Manager 0.20 Supervisory services to support the student practicum program with services being provided by
students in Ph.D. and Master’s level programs.
Behavioral Health Manager 0.20
Sr. Director Wellness & Education 0.20
Director of Education 0.20 Oversees educational initiatives On-Site Property Management
Program Director 1.0 Responsible for the strategic and operational management of the site.
Assistant Program Director 1.0 Day-to-day operation and management of the shelter Facility/Safety Manager 1.0 On-site security employee
Residential Services Coordinator 12.6 4.2 FTE Day, 4.2 FTE Swing, and 4.2 FTE Grave Driver 1.0 Provide transportation needs for clients
Total 31.1
Office of Supportive Housing Page 3 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
Development Sources and Uses:
Source of Funds Amount
Homekey Capital Award $21,732,228
Private Funding $5,000,000
Total Construction Sources $ 26,732,228
Use of Funds Homekey Private Funding Total
New Construction $18,484,360 $4,045688 $22,530,048
Architectural $1,286,387 $295,963 $1,582,350
Attorney Fees $124,389 $5,611 $130,000
Contingency (Hard Cost and Soft Cost) $1,016,002 $463,828 $1,479,830 Other Costs $821,090 $188,910 $1,010,000
Total: Use of Funds $21,732,228 $5,000,000 $26,732,228
Operating Subsidies:
Source of Funds Amount Term
Homekey Operating Subsidy $4,827,305 3 years
City of Palo Alto Match Commitment $7,000,000 7 years
County of Santa Clara Challenge Grant $4,000,000 3 years LifeMoves Match Commitment $7,000,000 7 years
Potential State Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Program $2,400,000 TBD Total Operating Subsidies $25,227,305
Year-1 Operating Budget:
County Staff are in discussions with LifeMoves about different opportunities to reduce cost. For instance, we are exploring the ability to leverage the County’s subsidized employment initiatives.
Expense Amount
Program Expense
Program Salary & Benefits $1,523,786
Site Operating Costs $1,214,687
Operations Labor and Fringe $768,502
Total Program Expense $3,506,975
Administration Expense
Administration Expenses $350,698
Total Administration Expense $350,698
Capital Costs
Capital Costs - Van $55,000
Total Capital Costs $55,000
Anticipated Operating Costs (Year 1) $3,912,673
Office of Supportive Housing Page 4 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
Homekey Housing Program Outcomes:
Category Outcomes Outcome Objectives
Housing: Households exit to
stable housing
The goal of the project is to
assist households in exiting
homelessness
45% of single adults and couples and
80% of families will exit to stable
housing within 6 months of
admission.
Office of Supportive Housing Page 1 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
SERVICE ENRICHED SHELTER PROJECT REVIEW
Application Review: Homekey Branham Lane
Applicant: LifeMoves
Address: Southwest corner of the intersection of Branham Lane and Monterey Road, San José
Census Tract: 5120.21 San José Council District: 2 Supervisorial District: 2
Co-Applicant: City of San José
Residential sq. ft.: 43,200 Community Room: 8,859
Construction Type: Modular Construction
Homekey Branham Lane
Southwest corner of the intersection of Branham Lane and Monterey Road, San José
Project Summary: Homekey Branham Lane is a new emergency interim shelter consisting of 204 units/doors on a 2-acre City owned site and is being co-developed by LifeMoves and the City of San José. The project is located on the northwest side of Branham Lane, between Monterey Road and Lost Trail Court, in south-central San José.
The proposed development will consist of 204 units for individuals and couples experiencing homelessness in and around the City of San José, with a focus on chronically homeless single adults . The shelter units incorporate a purpose-built design with modular units stacked 2 -3 stories to improve site efficiency. The 1-bedroom units are 200 square feet in size . Design features include ensuite bathrooms and private meetings spaces that promote privacy and security while working closely with clients to secure and return to stable housing. Common area amenities include shared cooking area, laundry facilities as well as pet accommodations.
Existing Conditions: The site is vacant.
Land Use and Environmental Review: The proposed site is unzoned and has no general plan land use designation.
However, the City has determined that given the surrounding properties to treat this site’s General Plan Land Use Designation as Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN). The project has received Homekey Program funds which makes the project eligible for streamlining approval under Assembly Bill 83 (“AB 83”). Specifically, CA Health and Safety Code § 50675.1.1, subd. (g), states that all Homekey projects are eligibl e for such streamlining and are “deemed consistent and in conformity with any applicable local plan, standard, or requirement, and allowed as a permitted use, within the zone in which the structure is located, and shall not be subject to a conditional use permit, discretionary permit, or to any other discretionary reviews or approvals”. Such projects are not required to undergo any discretionary local permit review or approval process before being able to proceed with the project.
In addition, a project funded with Homekey Program funds that satisfies certain requirements would qualify for a CEQA exemption under the Health and Safety Code section 50675.1.4.
Project Schedule:
Office of Supportive Housing Page 2 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
Milestone Estimated Date of Completion
1. Site Control December 2022
2. Community Engagement (continuous and ongoing) Ongoing; City Council Approval on 10/5/2021
3. Entitlements/Land Use Approval 7/21/2022 (Homekey award date)
4. Environmental Review 7/21/2022 (Homekey award date)
5. Funding Commitments October 2022
6. Submit plans and application(s) for plan check and building permit 10/07/2022
7. Building permit issuance 12/05/2022
8. Begin Construction 12/21/2022
9. Start of referral activities May 2023
10. Complete Construction July 2023
Draft Staffing Plan: The primary goal of LifeMoves’ programs is to end the cycle of homelessness by providing interim housing and supportive services that have proven to transform lives and build lasting solutions to homelessness. Aligning with Housing First principles, LifeMoves first provides each client, regardless of background, presenting issues, and/or program progress/participation, with a safe, clean, and dignified living environment to help them regain stability as they work towards their return to stable housing and self-sufficiency. LifeMoves anticipates providing a total of 42.1 FTEs to support the project as further summarized below.
Proposed Staff Positions FTE Summary of Services
On-Site Supportive Service Staff
Case Manager 13.0 Conduct intake, perform screening assessments, and provide intensive case management
Program Aides 3.0
Case Manager Veterans 1.0 May be included if Veterans are targeted at the site Licensed Vocational Nurse Case Manager 2.0 Support the health of medically fragile clients Employment Specialist Case Manager 2.0 Increase employment opportunities Housing Specialist 2.0 Increase housing opportunities
Off-Site Support
Housing and Employment Supervisor 0.40 Supervises housing and employment specialist Programs VP 0.10 Supervises the Programs & Services Management team
Masters of Social Work Manager 0.20 Supervisory services to support the student practicum program with services being provided by
students in Ph.D. and Master’s level programs.
Behavioral Health Manager 0.20
Sr. Director Clinical Services & Training 0.20
Director of Education 0.20 Oversees educational initiatives Education Program Coordinator 0.20
On-Site Property Management
Program Director 1.0 Responsible for the strategic and operational management of the site.
Assistant Program Director 2.0 Day-to-day operation and management of the shelter Facility/Safety Manager 1.0 On-site security employee
Residential Services Coordinator 12.6 4.2 FTE Day, 4.2 FTE Swing, and 4.2 FTE Grave Driver 1.0 Provide transportation needs for clients
Total 42.1
Development Sources and Uses:
Office of Supportive Housing Page 3 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
Source of Funds Amount
Homekey Capital Award $40,700,000
Private Funding $5,000,000
Total Construction Sources $45,700,000*
*Note: On October 25, 2022, the City of San José will consider an additional capital funding recommendation of $10,000,000 to add kitchens to each unit. This would allow the site to meet Housing Quality Standards which would allow the site to be converted into permanent housing in the future.
Use of Funds Homekey Private Funding Total
New Construction $33,082,370 $4,061,041 $37,143,411
Architectural $1,588,793 $218,857 $1,807,650
Attorney Fees $226,368 $3,632 $230,000
Contingency (Hard Cost and Soft Cost) $2,174,035 $533,650 $2,707,685 Other Costs $2,928,434 $182,820 $3,111,254
Developer Costs (Project Administration) $700,000 $0 $700,000 Total: Use of Funds $40,700,000 $5,000,000 $45,700,000
Operating Subsidies:
Source of Funds Amount Term
Homekey Operating Subsidy $10,852,800 3 years
City of San José Match Commitment (Operating Subsidy) $27,000,000 7 years County of Santa Clara Challenge Grant $4,000,000 3 years Total Operating Subsidies $41,852,800
Year-1 Operating Budget:
County Staff are in discussions with LifeMoves about different opportunities to reduce cost. The City of San José, in partnership with the San Francisco Foundation, is conducting a study to develop an operating plan for all emergency interim housing sites and one of the goals is to reduce the costs.
Expense Amount
Program Expense
Program Salary & Benefits $2,331,987
Site Operating Costs $1,836,320
Operations Labor and Fringe $748,113
Total Program Expense $4,916,420
Administration Expense
Administration Expenses $491,642
Total Administration Expense $491,642
Total Expenses $5,408,062
Capital Costs
Capital Costs - Van $55,000
Total Capital Costs $55,000
Anticipated Operating Costs (Year 1) $5,463,062
Office of Supportive Housing Page 4 of 4 September 27, 2022 Housing and Community Development Homekey Palo Alto
Homekey Housing Program Outcomes:
Category Outcomes Outcome Objectives
Housing: Households exit to
stable housing
The goal of the project is to
assist households in exiting
homelessness
45% of single adults and couples and
80% of families will exit to stable
housing within 6 months of
admission.
Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting on 2023-04-25 5:00 PM Meeting Time: 04-25-23 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Council and Authorities Concurrent
Meeting on 2023-04-25 5:00 PM
04-25-23
17:00
14 327 11 294 1
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 2023-04-25 5:00 PM 04-25-23 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]..
19 1 15 0
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code §54956 ("The Brown Act") and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City Charter, the majority of the City Council calls for a Special City Council Meeting, to commence and convene on April 25, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. for a Special Meeting to be held virtually and in the City Hall Council Chambers located in the East Wing of City Hall at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, to consider the following matter(s) and to potentially take action with respect to them. 3 0 3 0
5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 5 0 5 0
Call to Order 2 0 2 0
Pledge of Allegiance and Statement of Values 3 0 3 0
Roll Call 5 0 5 0
PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL BUSINESS 7 1 6 0
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
23-272 Consideration and Possible Actions on a Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Including City Sponsorship and Partial Funding of Project Operations (CEQA: Statutory Exemption under Government Code Section 65913.4, SB 35 Affordable Housing Projects)
259 8 234 1
REPORTS OF MEMBERS AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 2 0 2 0
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 2 0 2 0
ADJOURNMENT 2 0 2 0
The next regular scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chambers.
1 0 1 0
MEETING DISCLOSURES 3 0 3 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.
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.
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 14 1 11 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:
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]..
Overall Sentiment
Ying Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:56pm 04-25-23
Our family strongly oppose the Benton shelter project at Lawrence and Benton. It's a place dedicated for families in the neighborhood to celebrate holidays as our tradition. It's also not a suitable venue for shelter. It's not closed to public services and groceries.
Huan Li
Location:
Submitted At: 2:34pm 04-25-23
Oppose! We can't sacrifice our community's well-being by blindly building a homeless shelter. A lot of info in previous meetings was misleading. We must empathize with the children and prioritize their healthy growth. How can they have a healthy development in an environment filled with mentally ill and drug-abusing individuals? Deborah Dempsey
Location:
Submitted At: 2:17pm 04-25-23
I oppose the proposed interim housing site at Benton and Lawrence. "Special needs" individuals that have not received the training and support during the early years of development will require HUGE sums of money and supportive services to assimilate into society. The development in 3155 Stars and Stripes Drive is a better venue for interim housing.
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:06pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Milena Brozyna
Location:
Submitted At: 11:34am 04-25-23
We believe a location further from schools, parks and residential areas will be better suited for the project Megan Katz
Location:
Submitted At: 8:27pm 04-24-23
The new proposal is horrible. It keeps no-screening procedures but plans to put innocent kids next to sex offenders and people with drug addiction, just in order to get a high score for funding. LufeMoves put kids in danger on purpose and ruin their entire life! Shame on LifeMoves! Yiming Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 8:10pm 04-24-23
I am a resident here in Santa Clara County. I STRONGL Y OPPOSED to this action as it will pose tremendous risk to the kids here.
Sarah Foad
Location:
Submitted At: 7:50pm 04-24-23
I'm a healthcare worker at Stanford and resident of Santa Clara. I've witnessed the impact of homelessness on the health of our community. Research shows that access to housing is one of the most powerful social determinants of health. The combination of housing with comprehensive health support services is the most cost- effective intervention, maximizing taxpayer dollars by reducing the number of emergency room visits, hospital stays, and ambulance rides. Vote yes on this proposal.
Aashi Verma
Location:
Submitted At: 7:33pm 04-24-23
I am in strong opposition of this homeless shelter because of the many safety issues it comes with.
Greg Dacosta
Location:
Submitted At: 5:07pm 04-24-23
Please allow all residents speak and have dialogue. Not in a manner that all questions are taken in one minute speech from each speaker and few answers are given. It has not be like Q&A session where people are allowed ask counter questions in response answer.
Please do not limit meeting time to 3 hours only
Sharanagoud Devaraddi
Location:
Submitted At: 4:57pm 04-24-23
I strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton! Mingmin Zhu
Location:
Submitted At: 4:10pm 04-24-23
Strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton!!! There are many daycares, schools in this area. Even the kids always play around this area. The non screen shelter can pose high risks to the children and families. Please protect the children!
PENG JIANG
Location:
Submitted At: 10:22am 04-24-23
Low barriar and non-screen shelter is not acceptable at all.
Ashish Verma
Location:
Submitted At: 4:24pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose a low barrier entry shelter close to any residential neighborhood. At a minimum, the city should enforce background checks and screening so that anytime such an initiative is planned close to residences, the security of residents does not become an afterthought. It is heartbreaking to see our city and county officials ignore and criticize their own residents for being concerned around safety and security. No to this proposal.
Fei Luo
Location:
Submitted At: 3:06pm 04-23-23
I strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton! Low barrier, non-screening homeless poses serious safety risk to the communities and schools around Benton. As a resident and parent of my kids who is studying in the near by school, I oppose the Benton project that deeply concerns my family! Benny Fong
Location:
Submitted At: 11:10am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose any shelter at Benton. This is absolutely the WRONG location for homeless shelter of any kind.
There are 11,000 school aged children attending the fifteen plus K-12 schools. It is absolutely irresponsible to place a homeless shelter in this location. Don't sacrifice our kids for your political agenda! There is Bella Vista shelter 1/2 mile away already. Why does the City of Santa Clara, with a population of only one hundred thousand, have to build so many homeless shelter?
Melissa Lee
Location:
Submitted At: 10:49am 04-23-23
Strong oppose! Low barrier, no screening, allowing occupants with drug addiction, criminal records, sex offenders Benton is a bustling community hub attracting 3,000+ families yearly Over 11k families are at risk; similar sites experienced a rise in police calls A second shelter opened 0.5 miles away
LifeMoves is poorly staffed, low success rate in permanent housing, and location far from public transit, grocery, and jobs
False data was presented, no integrity!
Politically motivated supporters.
Jaccard Pan
Location:
Submitted At: 10:47am 04-23-23
I strongly opposes the Benton Shelter Plan because LifeMoves has a very bad record of running homeless shelters in nearby cities. Do you know 74% of their clients are still homeless after existing LifeMoves' shelter, because they cannot get quality service from there? They don't even feel safe there. Do you know LifeMoves doubled the cost estimate of their existing shelter within a year of approval? The unreasonable cost overrun indicates LifeMoves are losing control of their project.
Jennifer Qiang
Location:
Submitted At: 8:39am 04-23-23
I'm Jennifer residing in Santa Clara with my family, I hold a firm stance against the construction of a homeless facility at Benton, primarily due to concerns for the safety of my children.
Agenda Item: eComments for NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code §54956 ("The Brown Act") and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City Charter, the majority of the City Council calls for a Special City Council Meeting, to commence and convene on April 25, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. for a Special Meeting to be held virtually and in the City Hall Council Chambers located in the East Wing of City Hall at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, to consider the following matter(s) and to potentially take action with respect to them.
Overall Sentiment
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:07pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Beth Ross
Location:
Submitted At: 12:43pm 04-25-23
We Strongly oppose the proposed shelter at Benton.
Quote from the Packet: "Certain registered sex offenders would not be placed at the site WHILE children are living there".
Does that mean "registered sex offenders" would be placed in this proposed shelter if no more homeless family living there?
What about children living next door to this proposed shelter? Does that mean only homeless children matter for Homekey?
Since when "registered sex offenders" have higher priority than our children? Nisha Mehta
Location:
Submitted At: 11:42am 04-25-23
We Strongly oppose this for the safety of our children & Neghibourhood. We are very much concerned about this & surprised on city making such proposals. This is UNACCEPTABLE & we Stronly OPPOSE! _ Agenda Item: eComments for 5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Overall Sentiment
Betty Wiseman
Location:
Submitted At: 3:51pm 04-25-23
Can someone clarify if the proposed site is Benton and Lawrence? The City Council Notice of Public Hearing states it is located at 2350 Benton Street, about two miles east of Benton/Lawrence.
Strong Oppose to any shelter in residential communities. .
Phil Zhao
Location:
Submitted At: 3:46pm 04-25-23
STRONGL Y Oppose! Please vote "no".
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:07pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Beth Ross
Location:
Submitted At: 12:56pm 04-25-23
We STRONL Y OPPOSE this proposal.
There is no design detail in the Packet.
How many rooms in one unit? Is one unit only for one family? Can multi families live in one unit? How did you come up with total 120 people?
Please vote No to this proposal. We don't want to write a blank check to LifeMoves; their operating records are bad enough already.
Ashish Verma
Location:
Submitted At: 11:42am 04-23-23
Please vote "No" and listen to the vast majority of your tax paying residents. We are willing to work with you in finding solutions that are acceptable and help solve the homelessness issue. This location is a good fit for families with livelihood nearby who may be on the verge of being homeless and do not pose a risk. Please do not play with our lives by imposing folks with criminal background due to lack of screening. Y ou actions would show whether you really care about our lives.
Agenda Item: eComments for Call to Order
Overall Sentiment
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:09pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Brian West
Location:
Submitted At: 11:01pm 04-23-23
We strongly oppose to this proposed low barrier homeless shelter at Benton & Lawrence. Vote it down! Go find some other more suitable site. Benton at Lawrence is the WRONG location.
The Benton/Lawrence lot is our community land. Thousands of families utilize this lot for community activities every year.
Don't Take Away Our Land!
Agenda Item: eComments for Pledge of Allegiance and Statement of Values Overall Sentiment
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:10pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Beth Ross
Location:
Submitted At: 1:12pm 04-25-23
Again quote from the Packet: "If at some point there were no unhoused households with children to place, the building would place single clients in dorm style "flex" units. What IS a "flex" unit? So all these housing for homeless family with children is just a façade to get approval. LifeMoves can do anything once it get to build the shelter; the operators have the power do any changes. We as citizens of this neighborhood has NONE. How sad would that be?
We Strongly OPPOSE this proposal.
Benny Fong
Location:
Submitted At: 10:10am 04-25-23
We OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton St Misinformation everywhere in LifeMove Packet doc.
7-11 is NOT a grocery store; it's a convivence store. Folks go to 7-11 to buy liquors and condoms.
So there is no easy access to grocery store. This is a desperate attempt to make the proposal look qualified.
This is just one example of misinformation. Please read pages 12 to 16 of the Packet doc.
Agenda Item: eComments for Roll Call
Overall Sentiment
BJ Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:14pm 04-25-23
We OPPOSE this proposal.
The homeless people who don't find permanent housing and who are at the end of their “interim” stay are going to be forced out of the shelter. They are going to congregate near the shelter site, thereby impacting the immediate neighborhood. It will only get worse as days goes by! This is not solving the homeless problem. It is just dumping the homeless, and issues that come with being homeless in our neighborhood. What is the County's plan to mitigate this problem?
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:10pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Seth Steingraph
Location:
Submitted At: 11:59am 04-25-23
Please ask the people who support this proposal HOW CLOSE they live to this location. If they live very close and still support the project, then hats off to them. If, like me, they live a mile or more away, then take their comments with a grain of salt. It's very easy to claim the moral high ground when one is only minimally affected themselves; it's much harder when one has to actually deal with the consequences.
Bess Henderson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:54am 04-25-23
We OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton & Lawrence.
The City needs to do more community outreach before voting. The surrounding community needs to get notified correctly about this hearing. City Council Meeting Notice of Public Hearing put out confusing information.
Benton at Lawrence actual address is 3590 Benton Street, Not 2350 Benton as printed on the Notice.
Residents near Benton and Lawrence might not pay attention because they will think it's about 2350 Benton.
Benny Fong
Location:
Submitted At: 11:48am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose any shelter at Benton. This is absolutely the WRONG location for homeless shelter of any kind.
Agenda Item: eComments for PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL BUSINESS Overall Sentiment
Niranjan Manjunath
Location:
Submitted At: 3:25pm 04-25-23
Strongly Oppose shelter project at Lawrence and Benton. The proposed development lacks adequate security measures, which could lead to an uptick in criminal activity and drug abuse in our area. Additionally, the development's proximity to nearby schools raises concerns about the safety of our children. We also believe that the proposed development would require a significant investment of taxpayer funds for infrastructure improvements, which we believe could be better utilized elsewhere.
Diane Harrison
Location:
Submitted At: 3:21pm 04-25-23
Forgot to add that the opposition ignored USPS regulations and put an unstamped & unaddressed flier in our mailbox, and probably a lot of others. The support side took care not to do that.
Ying Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:58pm 04-25-23
Our family strongly oppose the Benton shelter project at Lawrence and Benton. It's a place dedicated for families in the neighborhood to celebrate holidays as our tradition. It's also not a suitable venue for shelter. It's not closed to public services and groceries.
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:10pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! sergey gorbunov
Location:
Submitted At: 9:20am 04-25-23
I am writing to express my strong opposition about Benton proposal for a low barrier homeless shelter. The homeless shelter will bring to our neighborhood drugs, related crimes and vandalism Greg Dacosta
Location:
Submitted At: 5:10pm 04-24-23
Please allow 3 minutes to each attendee provide immediate answers to question and have dialogue. Please do not restrict people from asking counter questions in response to answers. Please make sure that zoom, Santa Clara/Sunnyvale residents who are close to this location are given priority and county does not bring a flock of supporters from outside
Benny Fong
Location:
Submitted At: 11:48am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose any shelter at Benton. This is absolutely the WRONG location for homeless shelter of any kind.
Agenda Item: eComments for 23-272 Consideration and Possible Actions on a Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Including City Sponsorship and Partial Funding of Project Operations (CEQA: Statutory Exemption under Government Code Section 65913.4, SB 35 Affordable Housing Projects)
Overall Sentiment
Kevin Chen
Location:
Submitted At: 4:43pm 04-25-23
I strongly disagree with the proposal as there are numerous daycare centers and schools located within a mile radius. Additionally, the transportation options are not convenient for the homeless population, and their potential presence in the area would create a safety concern for the children.
Daniel Ruan
Location:
Submitted At: 4:40pm 04-25-23
My family and I strongly oppose the proposal. The low barrier shelter will bring severe safety problems to nearby residents. There is no convenient public transportation nearby in this area. Overall, it's a very bad choice to build shelter in this location
Serge Filatov
Location:
Submitted At: 4:37pm 04-25-23
The community has voiced a large number of reasons for why the shelter should not be located in such a dense residential neighborhood, some of which are concerning. The City needs to find a different location.
Andy Pluemer
Location:
Submitted At: 4:33pm 04-25-23
I oppose the Benton/Lawrence project.
Vanessa Chen
Location:
Submitted At: 4:30pm 04-25-23
My husband and I live 10 mins walk from the proposed site. We strongly opposed building the shelter in the proposed location. Our concerns are safety of neighborhood and its financial burden on tax payer, not only in construction but also in maintaince.
Bharath Pandravada
Location:
Submitted At: 4:28pm 04-25-23
We live very close to the proposed site and I strongly oppose the Benton shelter project in Santa Clara. There are definitely better alternatives to help the homeless than building a shelter in this location. With so many schools around, it could have negative effects on safety for children and neighborhood as a whole.
Please take our concerns into account and reconsider this proposal.
Kautul Mehta
Location:
Submitted At: 4:26pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose due to the following reasons -
- safety concerns due to a low barrier to entry
- short term shelter instead of a longer term shelter catering to families - no committed funding putting burden on city of santa clara - close to 10+ parks and schools
- busy/unsafe intersection for homeless folks who are mentally ill K Rajesh Jagannath
Location:
Submitted At: 4:24pm 04-25-23
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I oppose the Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street.
This project reduces the sense of security if the neighborhood - this project is in close proximity to schools, apartments and homes.
I oppose this project in the best interest of the community that will be impacted.
Bests,
K Rajesh Jagannath
Luyao Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 4:22pm 04-25-23
Our family live only one block away and we oppose this low barrier shelter. It's unacceptable to build another shelter within walking distance to primary school. It's hard to be a safety and nice community with two shelters so close.
CH Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 4:17pm 04-25-23
We live 3 blocks away & strongly oppose the proposed Benton location.
1. Safety for our children and seniors. This is a dense residential area with many schools and high foot traffic.
This project shouldn't be placed so close to the vulnerable.
2. With a 26% success for 3m placement, where are the homeless going to go after? Our streets &park.
3. Already witnessing an increase in property crime.
4. We want to help the homeless but NOT at the expense of safety of our family &community.
Bhargava krishnamurthy
Location:
Submitted At: 4:17pm 04-25-23
People who don't want Sunnyvale to be safe have proposed this project. So far, Sunnyvale was rated as the safest city in US.
Lisa C
Location:
Submitted At: 4:15pm 04-25-23
While I support the City's goal to build more housing for the homeless, I am opposed to the Benton-Lawrence site due to the location's inability to successfully serve the homeless. The Benton-Lawrence site is off a busy expressway designed more for people with cars making a quick stop. The proposed site is right across the street from a discount liquor store and the nearest public bus stop is 0.7 miles away (not a short walk) - increasing risk to safety-health for all. Find a better location.
Jamie Lin
Location:
Submitted At: 4:13pm 04-25-23
My family strongly oppose the proposal. The low barrier shelter will bring severe safety concerns to the closely located schools, houses, apartments, and parks. Also there is no good public transportation to support the commute for the people live in. It they walk around the streets without a good manner, it impacts the peace of the whole community. There is a shelter just 10 min walk away. No reason to built another one next to it. Please reconsider and put the efforts on the things worth it.
Jianmin Yue
Location:
Submitted At: 4:11pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose the shelter.
The shelter is not helping the homeless people who really want to change their life via finding jobs. Because there is no job opportunities nearby. There are high percentage homeless people with mental issues, they won't be back to job at all.
The shelter harm the community a lot. There are lots of schools within one mile. The homeless people with criminal history and drug issues will wandering around and put in danger of our kids.
Ashish Patel
Location:
Submitted At: 4:09pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose the proposal due to the following reasons:
1) Safety Concerns: There is no background check to screen out criminals and drug addicts 2) No committed/ear marked funding for policing
3) Financial burden on Santa Clara: The city lacks funding to sustain the huge burden after the homekey funding runs out (we the people would need to bear the brunt)
Aihua Lei
Location:
Submitted At: 4:07pm 04-25-23
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.
ruc kh
Location:
Submitted At: 4:06pm 04-25-23
A project like this one should not be in a residential neighborhood with so many schools surrounding it. This housing is not necessary as we already have one on Bella Vista. Drug abuse and crime are #1 concern and there has been no mention of how these will be addressed or controlled. If the city refuses to heed to tax payer's requests, we will be forced to move to safer neighborhoods where our voices are heard and expected.
Yang Jiao
Location:
Submitted At: 4:06pm 04-25-23
Our family strongly oppose to this proposal. We live very nearby and this site location is not suitable for building such temporary housing.
The density LifeMoves proposed is too high, with >90 rooms on a 1 acre lot. It raises concerns about the environmental impact and safety of housing so many people on such a small site.
Also it's located at a very busy intersection with lots of car traffics. It would be dangerous for homeless, especially with physical/mental issues, to walk around
Jessica Hu
Location:
Submitted At: 4:05pm 04-25-23
As a resident of Santa Clara city, I strongly opposed this project. First, it’s not an good position for people to live in. The proposed location is right beside the Lawrence expressway which is dangerous and full of noise.
Secondly, I worried about the safety of our children and seniors. The company Life Movers has never earned the trust from the community. I hope my voice is heard! Thanks! Elia Nino
Location:
Submitted At: 4:02pm 04-25-23
I've attended two of the sessions regarding this project and have questions I don't think have been addressed fully:
What is the enforcement of illegal activity prevention? How is "low barrier" entry defined? What are the guidelines? Are rehabiliation services included?
Why was there such a discrepancy between the # of schools presented? What's the plan for funding runs out in 3 years?
Lowered property values? There was an attempt to discredit the report by citing criticism of the analysis.
Yueming Sun
Location:
Submitted At: 4:01pm 04-25-23
We strongly oppose the shelter! The shelter accept homeless people with criminal history, such as sex offenders, mental issue. This put in danger of the kids and elderly in the community. It is a terrible location. There are many schools within one mile. And there is no public transportation nearby for the homeless to find a job. Y ou should consider alternative locations such as industrial area. Wrong location. Please do not only care the homeless people, care our residents as well.
Ashlyn Ju
Location:
Submitted At: 4:01pm 04-25-23
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.
Deepa Vaidhyanathan
Location:
Submitted At: 3:43pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose the proposal for this shelter as it is so close to so many schools and homes and safety is a big concern.
Betty Wiseman
Location:
Submitted At: 3:41pm 04-25-23
We live very close to the proposed site. We have daily walk in our neighborhood. With the hundreds of homeless expected to congregate near our home, we can't imagine to walk without a police escort. There is Bella Vista shelter already on El Camino Real 1/2 mile away. Why our city needs to build so many shelter? Strong NO to the proposed shelter
.
Mehrdad Aghvami
Location:
Submitted At: 3:36pm 04-25-23
Our family strongly oppose this project in this location. As we have previously raised many concerns such as safety, increased crime and drug use activities. Also, the "shelter" will not be able to deal with the people that need mental care of its residence that will spill over into the neighborhood. This will have a huge negative impact on all local businesses as well.
Vin Warerkar
Location:
Submitted At: 3:16pm 04-25-23
I oppose this proposal for reasons that include
1. Child Safety: increased risk due to close proximity to multiple toddler day care facilities and elementary schools_2. Public Safety: further deterioration of public safety in neighborhood as there is already an increase in theft and vandalism on the neighborhood
3 Low Entry Barrier Housing: lacks evidence that this helps the homeless overcome poverty, drug abuse, mental health and other causes of homelessness
Ying Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:59pm 04-25-23
We are resident of Santa Clara city. Our family strongly oppose the Benton shelter project at Lawrence and Benton. It's a place dedicated for families in the neighborhood to celebrate holidays as our tradition. It's also not a suitable venue for shelter. It's not closed to public services and groceries.
Aditi Chandra
Location:
Submitted At: 2:58pm 04-25-23
I live 2 blocks from the proposed shelter and I strongly oppose the project. My kids and in-laws regularly walk that route and I feel unsafe having drug addicts, sex offenders, and felony criminals in and around my kids and family.
Nitin Bahadur
Location:
Submitted At: 2:55pm 04-25-23
I oppose a low-barrier homeless shelter in a residential district surrounded by 10+ schools. By trying to do a righteous thing, the city is creating more problems for the society at large.
Amith Deshpande
Location:
Submitted At: 2:55pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose to this proposal. Wrong location for this purpose.
Tina Lao
Location:
Submitted At: 2:41pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose the homeless shelter in residential area. Please don’t attract more homeless close to school.
We must have better solutions than this. Please hear Santa Clara residents’ voice.
Steven Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:30pm 04-25-23
I am writing to express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposal of building a shelter place in our community.
This would have a negative impact on the safety and well-being of our community, especially for vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. It could also have adverse effects on property values, local businesses, and tourism, which are crucial to our community's economic well-being.
Huan Li
Location:
Submitted At: 2:23pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this proposal! There are better approaches to help homeless individuals than constructing a low barrier shelter in an inappropriate location. Please hear our voices and take our concerns into account! Bin Xue
Location:
Submitted At: 2:20pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building the shelter at Benton, it’s too close to schools Brenda Earl
Location:
Submitted At: 2:18pm 04-25-23
As a resident of this community, I strongly oppose the construction of a low barrier homeless shelter in our community.
We do not welcome a low barrier (no background check) homeless shelter exist in our community with more than 10,000 children attending pre-school and elementary schools in our community. We need to make sure our community is safe.
We believe there are better locations other than our community to build the shelter.
Shilpa Bhat
Location:
Submitted At: 2:17pm 04-25-23
We strongly oppose to the Benton development. Pls cease project. It 1) Impacts Safety of residents
2) Safety of kids. Proximity to 10+schools & 7k+ school children (in 1.5 miles) 2022 Project HomeKey Report shared in Milpitas council meeting showed 3x crime increase Vs when the facility was a hotel.
Move shelter to a less residential area provide amenities/support to rehabilitate individuals. With our taxes tackle the root causes of homelessness through rehabilitation & address root cause Nis Naik
Location:
Submitted At: 2:11pm 04-25-23
Strongly oppose this project as a parent concerned about the safety of her young kids! Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:10pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton!! Alex Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:08pm 04-25-23
As a resident of this community, I oppose the construction of a homeless shelter in our area. While I empathize with those experiencing homelessness and understand the need to provide support and assistance, I believe that building a shelter in our neighborhood would not be an effective solution. I worry about the potential negative consequences that a homeless shelter could bring, such as increased crime rates and decreased property values.
Vins Mittal
Location:
Submitted At: 2:08pm 04-25-23
Strongly Oppose.
People from all walks of life should be integrated in the mainstream to have access to basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, etc. But, there has to be a process to do the same. To achieve such an objective, we can't have people with criminal background, substance abuse, etc. in a residential neighborhood with large number of schools in the vicinity!
Either the project's location should be changed or residents should be free of any criminal record / substance abuse.
Arun Sriraman
Location:
Submitted At: 2:08pm 04-25-23
I live in Sunnyvale less than half a mile from the proposed project location. I strongly oppose this proposal. A neighborhood with high density of residences, school and school age children is the worst possible choice for a low barrier housing project. Please consider a different non residential location.
Rui Diao
Location:
Submitted At: 2:05pm 04-25-23
Please read this report: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/25/tiny-homes-and-homelessness-what-the-data- shows/
I don't see any reason why this project would do better.
WW Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:53pm 04-25-23
Strongly oppose this project. This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood.
Carrie Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:52pm 04-25-23
I live in Santa Clara with my family. And I strongly oppose building a homeless facility near Benton. It is extremely unsafe for families nearby.
Hongtao Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 1:52pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose. As a concerned citizen, I am troubled by the lack of safe, affordable housing options for the homeless population in our community. Having spoken with some of the individuals who use our local homeless shelters, I have heard firsthand accounts of overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and limited access to basic necessities like food, clothing, and medical care. It is clear that the current situation is unacceptable and demands urgent attention.
Lucy Yin
Location:
Submitted At: 1:51pm 04-25-23
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE to this proposal!!! This location is too close to lots of schools with young kids. Building a sheltering house here definitely increases the safety concern to the neighborhood! Shruti Sharma
Location:
Submitted At: 1:51pm 04-25-23
We cannot support the low-income housing proposal in our neighborhood due to concerns about increased crime rates and the waste of taxpayer money. The proposed development lacks adequate security measures, which could result in a higher crime rate in our area. Additionally, the development would require significant investment of taxpayer funds for infrastructure improvements, which we believe could be better utilized elsewhere.
Sess Ken
Location:
Submitted At: 1:47pm 04-25-23
STRONGL Y oppose.
Danny Mass
Location:
Submitted At: 1:46pm 04-25-23
I'm strongly against the proposal as I have big concern about the potential safety impact to the community and the financial suspensibility of program. Please stop the project immediately from moving forward! Abby Ma
Location:
Submitted At: 1:40pm 04-25-23
I stronlgy oppose to setting up a shelter at Benson Street for a lot of reasons i can't even list out (mostly safety concerns, and potential very bad influence on the neighbourhood Please don't make decisions against the majority's will Chen Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 1:37pm 04-25-23
Strongly opposite to building this shelter. A lot of schools near by. Very bad for those schools and kids.
Peggy Bu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:37pm 04-25-23
We OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. There are many schools near location. We want a safe environment for our children!!! Kieky Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 1:30pm 04-25-23
Without strict background check, this leads to a lot of safety concerns.
Ishani Bhatt
Location:
Submitted At: 1:20pm 04-25-23
Strongly oppose this project. This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood.
Why can't we help homeless without ruining hardworking middle class people's neighborhood and lives.
Move it some other place,
Tom TH
Location:
Submitted At: 1:19pm 04-25-23
Strongly oppose it because
1 It’s Too close to multiple elementary schools
2 The serious lessons of deterioration of public safety surrounding the neighborhood after such shelter established in other locations
3 It won’t solve the homeless issues.
Solving homeless issues shouldn’t be done by sacrificing the stability and security of the existing neighborhood.
Boaz Ben-Zvi
Location:
Submitted At: 1:13pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Building a homeless shelter at the busy intersection of Benton and Lawrence Expy would endanger those residing there and the local traffic. This shelter would only serve as a political cover up ("we fight homelessness") but not solve the related issues of drug abuse, poverty, and mental illness.
Amy Zh
Location:
Submitted At: 1:12pm 04-25-23
Please stop building homeless shelter and stop ruining our living environment Chenpeng Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 1:10pm 04-25-23
I oppose to building this shelter
Siddharth Sodhani
Location:
Submitted At: 1:06pm 04-25-23
I am opposed to the idea of low entry barrier for this housing. Can we please increase the background checks that needs to be performed?
Angel Wong
Location:
Submitted At: 1:05pm 04-25-23
Strongly Oppose! Kids are no safe, too close to schools and residential areas! Ross leoson
Location:
Submitted At: 1:00pm 04-25-23
Please don't build homeless shelter in City of Santa Clara.
Zhihao Ji
Location:
Submitted At: 12:56pm 04-25-23
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!!!
Richard Wen
Location:
Submitted At: 12:44pm 04-25-23
I STRONGL Y oppose this decision. As a resident of this area, I have seen firsthand the struggles that individuals experiencing homelessness face, and I believe that more needs to be done to address this urgent issue.
Research has shown that homeless shelters can lead to increased crime rates, decreased property values, and other issues that could harm our community. Therefore, I urge you to consider alternative solutions Bonnie Wishon
Location:
Submitted At: 12:38pm 04-25-23
I STRONL Y OPPOSE this proposal! As evidenced by the recent articles in the Mountain View Voice, LifeMoves' model has been shown to be ineffective and a waste of money. Most of their clients have not been able to find stable housing and many end up returning to homelessness.Our community has already taken on a fair share of the burden, and we cannot sustain anymore. City council members have a responsibility to represent the majority and make decisions that benefit the community as a whole.
Biao Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 12:29pm 04-25-23
Strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton!!! There are many daycares, schools in this area. The non screen shelter can pose high risks to the children.
Please protect the children!
Joyce Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 12:25pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this Bento shelter. It is wasting tax payer’s money and attract more homeless here.
Ankit Thakral
Location:
Submitted At: 12:23pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this proposal as it will increase crime in the neighbourhood. I'm living in this neighbourhood for quite some time & crime has already been on rise. This will increase vandalism, drug problem in this area.
Maayan Segal
Location:
Submitted At: 12:21pm 04-25-23
I understand the good intention of this initiative, with that being said, I’m concerned that our kid’s safety is being compromised. I want my kids to feel comfortable and confident going to school or friends by themselves and this facility will definitely make me not allow them to do that.
As a neighborhood who is interested in attracting new young families, this act will do the opposite and harm our community.
Chuyao Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 12:20pm 04-25-23
strongly oppose this shelter location! Bringing so many homeless to our neighborhood is just too much unknown and too many safe issues. Please listen to public voice on this! Santosh Singh
Location:
Submitted At: 12:15pm 04-25-23
I strongly OPPOSE 30-Unit Homekey Housing development proposal for a low barrier homeless shelter because of safety risk for the individuals living in neighborhood! Melody Rao
Location:
Submitted At: 12:09pm 04-25-23
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 in its funding plan.
Seth Steingraph
Location:
Submitted At: 12:01pm 04-25-23
Please ask the people who support this proposal HOW CLOSE they live to this location. If they live very close and still support the project, then hats off to them. If, like me, they live a mile or more away, then take their comments with a grain of salt. It's very easy to claim the moral high ground when one is only minimally affected themselves; it's much harder when one has to actually deal with the consequences.
David Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 12:00pm 04-25-23
I'm living close to the Benton street. Santa Clara already has multiple similar facilities, there is already one just half a mile away. Enough is enough.
Eric Tong
Location:
Submitted At: 11:44am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. As a resident living near the proposed site, I don’t feel safe for my kid and family considering the project is low barrier. The city should and could find a better place for this project Shraddha Desai
Location:
Submitted At: 11:42am 04-25-23
Two similar projects (Bella Vista and Benton) within a half mile of each other is not conducive to having a healthy environment.
Increase the percentage of low income units in all new developments to help improve housing conditions. That way those with limited means can be part of whole community and not live in projects that are seen as “less than”. Projects like these don’t help- they label people. We should help people assimilate.
Steven Chou
Location:
Submitted At: 11:38am 04-25-23
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 in its funding plan.
Zoey Todorov
Location:
Submitted At: 11:34am 04-25-23
Both the old and new proposal failed to provide details for site design. No mention of fence, whether a controlled entrance or not, justification on parking and building hight. Also how do the 30 units look like? How many rooms? How do they come up the number of 120 people? How many kitchens? A proposal without details should only get an no for voting.
Nanxi Li
Location:
Submitted At: 11:31am 04-25-23
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE this proposal. The location is wrong, and 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.The comparable Milpitas project provides solid evidence on crime spike. The city is seeing striking crime statistics, with total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022.
We want a safe neighborhood!!!!!!!
Iris Chen
Location:
Submitted At: 11:30am 04-25-23
I oppose the Benton proposal for a low barrier housing project. It's really disappointing that the proposal has chosen this location, one of the last places that had community family events. Losing this valuable community gathering place would be a loss to our community.
Victoria Mallon
Location:
Submitted At: 11:29am 04-25-23
I oppose this proposal.The LifeMoves facility in Mt. View is an industrial area. The proposed facility for Santa Clara is surrounded by neighborhood and a number of schools which poses a significant public safety risk.
Additionally the idea that there will be no required screening or background checks of residents is not acceptable- this increases risk.It is a great hope of mine that the Council will listen to the neighbors and not just show the "hypocritical respect" and insincerity seen before.
Shalini Venkatesh
Location:
Submitted At: 11:23am 04-25-23
The number of unhoused people here is high and growing, with negative impacts for all of us. The current proposal would make a small but significant impact, as one piece of a larger regional and statewide approach to addressing the complex issues of the unhoused. The moral imperative for the City Council is clear. This is your chance to choose to do the right thing for the ENTIRE community. Y ou have a responsibility to all people living in this city, not just the ones currently in homes.
Kumar PK
Location:
Submitted At: 11:16am 04-25-23
I strongly OPPOSE this project! A low-barrier shelter is not acceptable in a thick residential area with lots of schools around. It would pose significant safety concerns to our community and children. Recommend finding a different site which will not pose safety concerns to the community.
Tianshan Cui
Location:
Submitted At: 11:13am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose for the Benton shelter project for the following reason: 1) the place is very important for the community. we love the place and we could like to continue celebrating different festivals with our neighbors. 2) there are so many schools/day cares nearby. the low barrier shelter will introduce lots of safety issues, especially for our kids. 3) I highly doubt the approach is a good way to solve the issue just by looking at the data & analysis in other sites managed by lifemoves
Anu TD
Location:
Submitted At: 11:10am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this project due to safety concerns. The site chosen for this project is (1) Close to many schools and (2) near a dense residential area. Recommend choosing a different site which does not raise these sort of safety concerns to the community.
Jenny Shalev
Location:
Submitted At: 10:55am 04-25-23
I oppose Benton proposal because of safety risk for the kids in the neighborhood. My kids and their friends walk and bike in this area on a regular basis, please keep it safe. Not all parents can drive their kids and it's important to keep the area walkable and safe.
Mamatha K
Location:
Submitted At: 10:52am 04-25-23
Strongly oppose this proposal, Unsafe for neighborhood kids and seniors. Many schools are in close vicinity.
Potential risks in increased illegal activities and crime rates.
Rakhee Narsude
Location:
Submitted At: 10:31am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this Benton proposal for homeless shelter. I am a Realtor and I already see my buyers are reluctant to buy a house in this neighborhood. I personally know about the proposal and I have to disclose it to my clients, and as soon as they hear about it, their decision changes.
Anshul Nigham
Location:
Submitted At: 10:18am 04-25-23
- Kids will lose the ability to walk to a neighborhood pumpkin patch, Christmas tree farm and other things during festival time; a treasured activity for our family and many others we know. - Admittance to the proposed shelter will not require any minimum bar, decreasing both perceived and perhaps actual general safety, leading to fewer residents, children and families being able to walk around the neighborhood
Larry Tsai
Location:
Submitted At: 10:11am 04-25-23
I am opposed to this proposal due to the impact it will have on the local neighborhood and safety concerns for children who live and attend school in the area.
ZHENG ZHAO
Location:
Submitted At: 9:50am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose Benton proposal for a low barrier homeless shelter because of safety risk for the kids in neighborhood!
Arun Kumar
Location:
Submitted At: 9:48am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this Benton proposal for homeless shelter. This is a densely populated residential neighborhood with lots of kids and elder folks whose safety will at risk with this proposal. Please take a look at San Francisco and how bad it has become due to this.The home property values will drop rapidly and no one will buy houses in this locality. Homeless shelters belong at commercial real estate or Santa Clara fair grounds. Requesting the city council to vote against this Benton proposal
Hiya Le
Location:
Submitted At: 9:24am 04-25-23
County and LifeMoves are not acting in good faith. County tried to give vague details of compromised proposal in last meeting tried to take quick vote from public. County is provided misguided information to get more HomeKey points. Distance of nearest bus stop is shown form end of the lot not from entry door. Grocery shop mentioned in report is 7-11 which is not a grocery store as per HomeKey guidelines. Number of schools shown I county reports are less. They are making sure that Sobrato wins
sergey gorbunov
Location:
Submitted At: 9:13am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose Benton proposal for a low barrier homeless shelter. The homeless shelter will bring to our neighborhood drugs and related crimes, vandalism. It is deeply disappointing the city council has chosen to ignore and misunderstand our community concerns.
faina kantor
Location:
Submitted At: 8:53am 04-25-23
I am writing to express my strong opposition about the Benton proposal for a low barrier homeless shelter. The homeless shelter will bring to our neighborhood drugs and related crimes, vandalism.
It is deeply disappointing that the city council has chosen to ignore and misunderstand our community's concerns.
Megan Katz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:41am 04-25-23
I am curious did the people who support this plan really understand the proposal? There is so much misleading information in it. With simple logic you can see LifeMoves plan to move families from shelter A to B and pretend B is a family shelter. They will move families from B to C and turn B into a low barrier shelter for singles. They are playing a game to fool our government and public.
Susan Spade
Location:
Submitted At: 6:01am 04-25-23
After attending all community meetings and doing research into the proposed interim housing project I’m overwhelmingly OPPOSED to this project. I cannot understand why stacking containers on a highly populated/trafficked expressway is a solution to creating a safe and secure environment for the people who are experiencing being unhoused. Y ou can do better with finding a more suitable location for this project and not one that I will be looking out and seeing a 3 story monstrosity every day.
Duane Spade
Location:
Submitted At: 5:51am 04-25-23
Santa Clara resident for 59 years and I strongly OPPOSE this project. I live within 1000 feet of the project. This is a very congested traffic corridor. Directly across the street is a liquor store and 7-11? Lifemoves has already stated they want low-barrier, most challenging cases even though they don’t have the staffing to actively and effectively manage these sites.
I don’t trust you to have this cities best interests and either does the Grand Jury! Vote to OPPOSE this project! Ken Kratz
Location:
Submitted At: 12:58am 04-25-23
I live in a housing complex within ½ mile from the proposed project and I am a member of the Santa Clara Housing Advocates (SCHA) who support this project. The SCHA website lists the benefits of this project:
https://schousingadvocates.wixsite.com/benton.
I have lived in the neighborhood for 45 years and worked for the City as a Public Works Inspector for 30 years after attending U.C. Berkeley; my childhood family received government aid that prevented us from becoming homeless.
Siyu Hou
Location:
Submitted At: 12:50am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose the benton shelter project! I live in the Central Park neighborhood. It's unacceptable that our tax money would be spent in such a project that's is making our community worse and a lot more dangerous. There are lots of families with children living in this neighborhood. If this low-barrier shelter was built and a resident, could be kid, got hurt by people living in the shelter, would the initiator / manager / leader of this project be held responsible? Our lives matter too!
Allen Chin
Location:
Submitted At: 12:32am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose the proposal. Just look at the rising criminal rates near other homeless sites (e.g. MTV). I can't believe the high tax I've been paying is used for such a thing! The new proposal still doesn't add any screening and many safety concerns are still ignored. I'd recommend you stop wasting our time and withdraw the proposal completely. Go look at other sites further away from the residential area. Think more from our perspectives.
Everyone's life matters, not just those homeless
Feng Chen
Location:
Submitted At: 12:06am 04-25-23
I live in the santa clara area with my family (within 2-mile of the proposed shelter location). We strongly oppose the proposal!
William Yan
Location:
Submitted At: 12:02am 04-25-23
I strongly oppose this project. The safety concerns are huge. There are many schools and preschools in short distances from the proposed site. The shelter will attract more people with criminal history and people with addictions to the area. The potential risks to the children and residents nearby are unacceptable.
Sizhuo Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:43pm 04-24-23
I strongly OPPOSE to this project! A low-barrier shelter is not acceptable in a residential area with schools around. It would pose significant safety concerns to our community.
The revisions of the proposal fail to address the fundamental concerns of the community. It's a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money.
Qing Sun
Location:
Submitted At: 11:30pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this project. The proposal with all the revisions is shortsighted without long term plan to address safety concerns raised by people who actually live in this community. Given the site is so close to many schools of young kids, this is unacceptable!
Subir Bhatt
Location:
Submitted At: 11:24pm 04-24-23
I oppose the project due to safety concerns that come with low barrier shelter with no background check for criminal or substance abuse. This site is in a well established residential area and close to 15 schools and many day cares. Statistics from similar sites in Milpitas and Mountain View show increase in crime rate and public service calls supported by police and fire department.
Geetha Rama
Location:
Submitted At: 10:59pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this. The one reason being my very young kids safety. They go to a schools and park nearby, a shelter without screening will be a big threat to them. We bought a home here keeping our kids safety and well being in mind, bringing this shelter here defies the purpose.
With this shelter here, we will lose our mental peace and our kids safety will our biggest worry.
Please have the shelter built in a commercial/downtown area which will be better for the homeless well being.
Ksenia Markina
Location:
Submitted At: 10:47pm 04-24-23
I can't believe they're even considering putting a homeless shelter right near the school in this nice neighborhood! This is a terrible idea! Think about the safety of the kids and the potential for increased crime rates. There's no way we should allow this to happen. People have worked hard to maintain a safe and prosperous community, and a homeless shelter here would only ruin it. There must be other places to build this shelter that won't destroy the quality of life which is hard to create
Pushpanjali Rao
Location:
Submitted At: 10:41pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this project. With majority of your citizens consistently opposing , I am not sure what else can be done to make city and county officials understand how this project impacts your tax paying residents safety & property prices. We already have examples how badly these projects have been failing( Milpitas being the latest example). Please do not make our kids the Guinea pigs in this social experiment in Santa Clara that is proven to Fail miserably in SF and other places.
Maxim Kukushkin
Location:
Submitted At: 10:40pm 04-24-23
Building a homeless shelter in our neighborhood may not be the most effective or beneficial solution. Alternative strategies, such as focusing on affordable housing options or tackling the root causes of homelessness, should be explored instead
Tatiana Lovetskaya
Location:
Submitted At: 10:35pm 04-24-23
There are valid concerns about safety and crime rates. While not all homeless individuals pose a risk, it is possible that the shelter could inadvertently attract individuals with criminal histories or drug addictions. This could lead to an increase in crime and negatively affect the sense of security in our neighborhood.
Linling He
Location:
Submitted At: 10:29pm 04-24-23
I oppose the project for the following reasons: 1. Unacceptable increase in crime rate and public service calls as supported by police and fire department data from other newly developed shelter sites; 2. Increase in drug use around facility and its negative influence on kids near by; 3. Environmental impact from the new construction and the operation of high density living units with no study done; 4. Questionable ability from Homekey to operate; 5.
Unclear funding for sustainability
Kirti Gokhale
Location:
Submitted At: 10:10pm 04-24-23
I strongly OPPOSE this proposal! I am a long time resident here and was leaving peacefully until now! This is so shocking to see the city is thinking to give a golden piece of land in the heart of the city to a homeless shelter!! This is a well established residential area no where close to any industrial area. How it can be a source of jobs? In fact, with the future existence of drug addicts or mentally ill leaving in the close proximity, we’re risking many lives of kids and adults! Realize !!!
George Kannathumadam
Location:
Submitted At: 10:07pm 04-24-23
Strongly disagree with the proposal. This proposal will not meet stated objectives because it fails to even nominally address causes of the problem at hand. This is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money Shyno George
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52pm 04-24-23
Poor use of taxes resulting in lower property values due to increased crime Connie Chou
Location:
Submitted At: 9:39pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. This is not a sensible location especially given proximity to dozens of schools and daycares. There has got to be better commercial locations for this type of housing where they are not in the middle of residences and can have better access to public transport and job opportunities! Zhanwei Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 8:42pm 04-24-23
strongly oppose! Residents need to be heard.
Kim Tanaka
Location:
Submitted At: 8:30pm 04-24-23
I Strongly Oppose this proposal. There are many children and schools in this area. The homeless cause the community environment to be messy, and even some homeless have drug issue or mental illness. Based on safety considerations, I T STRONGL Y OPPOSE!
Zongqiu Ai
Location:
Submitted At: 8:22pm 04-24-23
Strongly oppose. Strongly oppose. Strongly oppose.
Zheyu Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 8:13pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this project. This project itself doesn't make any sense as it didn't ask for residents' opinion to start with.
Yiming Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 8:12pm 04-24-23
I am a resident here in Santa Clara County. I STRONGL Y OPPOSED to this action as it will pose tremendous risk to the kids here.
Sumi Kamiya
Location:
Submitted At: 8:09pm 04-24-23
I wholeheartedly support this project. This will enrich our community and provide greatly needed support to the unhoused and help them get stable affordable housing.
I am shocked by the hurtful and discriminatory comments shared by many in opposition as seen by the misleading flyer found at my door.
Build this on an underutilized piece of property.
Aashi Verma
Location:
Submitted At: 7:39pm 04-24-23
I am in strong opposition of the homeless shelter because of the many safety concerns that come with it.
Naveen Yerneni
Location:
Submitted At: 6:45pm 04-24-23
I Strongly Oppose this proposal. The proposed location is in a residential area and next to bella vista shelter just 1500 mts away. The concentration of shelters in one area is concerning.The homeless folks do not live in the shelter all the time and instead roam around nearby neighborhoods creating nuisance. There are a lot of kids and schools in this area and this shelter would create safety issues as criminals might be housed in it. Please find a commercial location for this shelter
Mengyao Fu
Location:
Submitted At: 6:19pm 04-24-23
No low barrier shelter near my house!
Strongly NONONO!!!!
PLEASE LISTEN TO PEOPLE’S VOICE!!!
AMIT JAIN
Location:
Submitted At: 6:10pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this, this site is very near to two schools and Earl R. Carmichael Park on benton Street and this will impact the safety of residents which also include kids and elderly in the nearby areas on both sides of Lawrence.
Sathyashankar Nalka
Location:
Submitted At: 5:53pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose the location Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway chosen for this project of low-barrier interim housing. There is overwhelming opposition to this location from community for valid reasons. There are enough vacant land in less populated nearby places. Why not county/city can find another location? Kuldeep Lonkar
Location:
Submitted At: 5:46pm 04-24-23
Strongly oppose!
Randy Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 5:34pm 04-24-23
Strongly opposed
Diane Harrison
Location:
Submitted At: 5:32pm 04-24-23
Please support this interim housing project; it is highly needed. Better yet, please restore the original proposal for up to 120 units; the need is far greater than only 30.
I am a senior who lives a few blocks away and does not fear poor people. I'd far rather give them a chance for hope and a better life.
Elsa Ken
Location:
Submitted At: 5:31pm 04-24-23
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.
Liang Zou
Location:
Submitted At: 5:15pm 04-24-23
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE the plan to build the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway. The location is WRONG for this project. Other similar projects have already shown negative safety effects on nearby neighborhoods, so I don't think we should repeat the same error again. The location needs to be re-chosen.
Please listen to the voice of the public and reject the proposal. The community needs the exact same land for holiday events.
Jimmy Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 5:14pm 04-24-23
Strong OPPOSE! The city only informed the residents nearby this shelter. But I think the parents of the kids in nearby schools have the right to know this as well. They have the right to know what is the potential safety risks for their kids. And they have the right to say 'No!'
For example, the nearby Stratford school has open playground for kids (no gate at all). I can’t imagine what will happen if there are several homeless with mental health issues come to interrupt those kids! Greg Dacosta
Location:
Submitted At: 5:05pm 04-24-23
Strict "NO".
Pre-fabricated units are not acceptable. It may be acceptable of non-residential area - building must match character of residential neighborhood
No more than 2 stories - 3 stories will evade privacy of SF homes behind the creek Each unit much have full Kitchen and Bathroom - No shared Kitchenette so that facility can be converted to permanent or affordable housing when needed in future
It must be strictly and exclusively for families with children under 10 years of age
ADITYA BANSAL
Location:
Submitted At: 5:04pm 04-24-23
Strongly Oppose this proposal!!
I have been a resident of this neighborhood for more than 5 years. There are a lot of kids and schools in this area and it isn't the correct location for a homeless shelter. There is sufficient data that correlates such shelters to increased alcohol and drug usage in the area they are opened. Such an influence is not good for kids. Moreover, >300K visitors visit the activities that are hosted here every year so it would be a great loss for the community.
Bess Henderson
Location:
Submitted At: 4:29pm 04-24-23
We OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.
This is the WRONG location, with such close proximity to 16 schools near by.
LifeMoves has very bad operating records for their existing shelters. Why build more failure? This proposed Benton/Lawrence land already has very important community function, visited by 300,000 local Santa Clara residents every year.
John Sontag
Location:
Submitted At: 4:12pm 04-24-23
As a 40+ year resident of Santa Clara, living in a home within sight of the proposed Interim Housing development, I applaud the city and county for working to actively support the unsheltered members of our community. We have seen the growth of the unhoused population in our area over the past decades, and wishing for a solution from somebody, somewhere else has not helped. I would much rather we reach out and help our neighbors in need than have them living at margin on our streets,
Mingmin Zhu
Location:
Submitted At: 4:11pm 04-24-23
Strongly opposed to build a homeless facility at Benton!!! There are many daycares, schools in this area. Even the kids always play around this area. The non screen shelter can pose high risks to the children and families. Please protect the children! Vinod Yadav
Location:
Submitted At: 4:09pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose the proposed low barrier homeless shelter. Cause
1. Because of such a low barrier to entry the shelter, it will very difficult to avoid actual junkie and drug addicts in this facility and this area will become next SF . With 7 eleven so close to this facility, it is going to be hub for all the addicts and junkies making it super difficult and un safe of families around the area.
2.It's too close to a densely populated residential area
3. Too close to many schools, our next gen
Tianqi Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 3:38pm 04-24-23
Strongly oppose!!
Lakshmi Yarlagadda
Location:
Submitted At: 3:22pm 04-24-23
I strongly OPPOSE low barrier entry interim housing at Lawrence and Benton.
This site is:
1. Too close to multiple schools
2. Located in residential area
In addition, data shows that criminal rate increases near shelters. This project raises safety risks to children and seniors live in the community and children attend school here.
We strongly urge the city to decline this proposal and find another non-residential site like the way other cities did (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City...)
Chandra Maddipatla
Location:
Submitted At: 3:16pm 04-24-23
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
Jitesh Jain
Location:
Submitted At: 3:15pm 04-24-23
This location is too close to so many schools. I
Jingni Zhong
Location:
Submitted At: 3:05pm 04-24-23
This poses so much risk to the kid s going to school and neighbors. The low/no barrier housing at such a dense residential community is such a terrible idea.
Do you what your kid be harassed while playing on lawn or commuting to and from school? Do you want to find needles and used syringe on street or in your front yard? Do you want your packages be taken again and again? Whoever making these proposals are clearly irresponsible.
Niranjan Manjunath
Location:
Submitted At: 2:41pm 04-24-23
There're 13 schools within a 1 mile radius. This proposal isn't safe for any kids in the community. Low entry housing barrier like this will only lead to increase in crime rate and make Santa Clara unsafe Piyush Tiwari
Location:
Submitted At: 2:39pm 04-24-23
This will lead to high increase in crime rate and it becomes very unsafe for kids Serena Young
Location:
Submitted At: 2:24pm 04-24-23
I live close by and I, as well as 5000 more other neighbors, strongly oppose this! We collected over 5000 opposed wet signatures and submitted them to the city clerk. Why is it not included in the report?? Megan Miller
Location:
Submitted At: 2:16pm 04-24-23
The location is not a good choice. As a low barrier emergency interim housing, we should choose a location like other sites which are surrounded by commercial/industrial buildings.
Jane Mark
Location:
Submitted At: 2:05pm 04-24-23
This brings safety concerns to the neighborhood
Mary S.
Location:
Submitted At: 1:50pm 04-24-23
I support housing for families at the Benton site. I do NOT like the idea of seeing a storage pod building from my condo.
Howard Yan
Location:
Submitted At: 1:28pm 04-24-23
This project does not consider the interests of local residents.
Qi Ren
Location:
Submitted At: 12:59pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose to the Benton project. This site is:
1. Too close to multiple schools.
2. Located in residential area.
In addition, data shows that criminal rate increases near shelters.
This project raises safety risks to children and seniors live in the community and children attend school here.
We strongly urge the city to decline this proposal and find another non-residential site.
Dhruv Singh
Location:
Submitted At: 12:12pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this development which will have immediate negative impact on the qualify of the following
1. Kaiser hospital - expect unsafe and unfriendly conditions in a prime healthcare facility
2. Laurelwood and Dunford schools
3. Multiple residential apartment complexes that house children and families that attend the community public school
We strongly urge the city to find another location
Ada Yeung
Location:
Submitted At: 11:31am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose the proposed Benton development. The location of this shelter is a major safety threat to the community, particularly the children in the area. With over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity, the potential risks are too high to ignore. I urge the City Council to reconsider and find an alternative non-residential location and do not put our children at risk.
Taoran Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 11:15am 04-24-23
We have been living in Santa Clara for ten years. We strongly oppose this plan. It is not the right location for the homeless people we are trying to help with. The site is too close to Lawrence express way. There are barely no sidewalks and traffic speed usually can reach 60MPH. It puts their lives at risk considering they may have problem with alcohol and drugs so they may not control themselves as good as ordinary people when they walk on streets.
Xiao Yu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:59am 04-24-23
Strongly oppose this proposal. The county is trying to polish and rush the project. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Residents are deeply worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Yao Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 10:54am 04-24-23
Oppose !!!
Wei Zhou
Location:
Submitted At: 10:37am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this proposal, as it puts residents in the area in the risk without consideration This is such a misleading proposal without even enough homework being done. It includes tons of idealistic but unrealistic assumptions for the cost based on best case budget with super precise spending which we never see they made that before.
With all the data disclosed, it includes full of conditional statements which indicate that they plan to change it anytime
Jain Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:35am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this project. As a Santa Clara resident living here for years and having multiple kids attending schools nearby, I am deeply worried about the safety of our next generation because of this project.
Hongliang Fei
Location:
Submitted At: 10:28am 04-24-23
Strongly oppose to build the shelter in a high density residential area. I believe that it is important to address the issue of homelessness, but I also believe that it is important to do so in a way that does not put the safety of our community at risk. I am not sure that a no-barrier shelter is the best solution for our community. I would like to see more research done on the effects of no-barrier shelters on crime rates and public safety.
Kim Jin
Location:
Submitted At: 10:26am 04-24-23
As a local resident and father of 2 young kids, I strong oppose this low entry barrier shelter in the neighborhood.
Kate Cao
Location:
Submitted At: 9:57am 04-24-23
As a local resident, I strongly oppose this project!!! Lifemove has no good track record to keep their promises such as 7/24 staff, case managers etc, they are really understaff , the local newspaper has 4 articles about Lifemove that they are understaffed, poor success rate to meet their promises and spent more much more money than planning!! How can you trust this kind of company? They have high turnover rate for their employees and the cost will be even more!!
Nataraj Batchu
Location:
Submitted At: 9:28am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose the proposed Homekey project. Its in middle of thick residential area with many schools around.
We are worried about the risk of increased crime, drugs which impacts children severely. Please find a place away from Schools.
Shaunak Chatterjee
Location:
Submitted At: 9:03am 04-24-23
I am strongly opposed to the current proposal as there are no adequate counter-measures to help the existing community feel safe. None of their valid concerns (as extensively voiced already in other comments) are addressed in the current proposal.
Pilar Furlong
Location:
Submitted At: 8:57am 04-24-23
Bill Wilson Center strongly supports the proposed Homekey project at Lawrence Exp. & Benton. For 50 years we have offered safe housing to homeless youth in Santa Clara. By providing 80 – 120 interim housing units that are near public transit and provide on-site supportive services (including case management to help with linkages to employment resources, education, and health care), the City is offering homeless individuals and families a safe place to stay while they rebuild their lives.
Vidushi Gupta
Location:
Submitted At: 8:47am 04-24-23
Unsafe for neighborhood kids, schools are in close vicinity. Potentially risks increase in illegal activities.
Neang Ly
Location:
Submitted At: 8:40am 04-24-23
We already have many Homekeys in the area and limited resources for police & security, as the policies do not respond even if we feel unsafe for individuals trespassing on our properties. My questions are:
1. Would you, as councilmembers be responsible for our community safety?
2. If safety issues arrive due to this, and with limited resources, who will be responsible? Would the council members be accountable for our financial loss or emotional damage due to this? Abhishek Gupta
Location:
Submitted At: 8:09am 04-24-23
Screening is a must for letting someone in.
Harini Va
Location:
Submitted At: 7:10am 04-24-23
Strongly oppose! The proposed plan and the few meetings I attended fail to convince me on the long term advantage of such a shelter in this neighborhood. With no proper screening and long term security measures in place, I’m hugely concerned about the safety of the vulnerable residents of such a low-barrier shelter along with the rest of the neighborhood. I urge my reps to strongly oppose this initiative and look at other ways to resolve homelessness.
Daniel Lin
Location:
Submitted At: 7:03am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Parents of kids are worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Jiatong Chen
Location:
Submitted At: 2:22am 04-24-23
The low barrier entry bar will bring drug addicts, mentally unstable homeless people to the scene, which will harm the safety of nearby neighborhoods, especially to children. It’s so close to so many schools, day cares. Such high density building will create traffic and parking problems as well. The noise from Lawrence will not be good for people with mental illness to live inside. Putting people with crime history in a high density building will make it a crime scene in the end.
Jack Auff
Location:
Submitted At: 1:29am 04-24-23
Oppose! Community concerns are being ignored despite schools and parks within 2000 ft. of the proposed housing site and the lack of background checks for residents. "Family only" doesn't guarantee safety. Feedback cards are selectively considered, excluding emails after March 21st. A new proposal has been presented and put to vote, disregarding previous engagement meetings. Council members deny involvement in the county project and officials coach students to speak in support of it.
Neil Arsul
Location:
Submitted At: 1:23am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose the proposed shelter in Benton. It's too close to residential areas, schools, and community hubs, and could increase crime rates and harm children. The lack of screening for occupants is a safety risk, and the unclear funding and inability to ensure building standards are met are concerning. This proposal is not a solution to homelessness and would sacrifice the safety of the community.
Swapnil Harsule
Location:
Submitted At: 1:10am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. The county is trying to rush the project. Low entry barrier beings serious risks to children and seniors in the neighborhood. Parents of kids are worried about the risk increased of increased crime and exposure to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Neelima Yenigalla
Location:
Submitted At: 12:31am 04-24-23
Strongly oppose the location for the proposed project. Idea to help homeless persons is welcome but the place is not right. In my work I see lot of homeless people that say there is rampant drug use in these kind of places. With so many schools close by, not safe. Please find a place away from schools and thickly populated residential units.
Reena Gupta
Location:
Submitted At: 12:04am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this project due to to its location close to residential community and many schools in the near vicinity. I’d be highly concerned about safety and security of our children and families. If city would like to provide a shelter for homeless, keep it outside of the city and give them appropriate rehabilitation and work opportunities.
Puxiao Han
Location:
Submitted At: 11:58pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose to this proposal as it will make our neighborhoods not safe anymore.
Mengqi Ren
Location:
Submitted At: 11:52pm 04-23-23
Strong NO to this proposal. It is too close to residential area which will raise crime rate and damage the community. Sacrifice other people’s safety is not the way to solve homelessness problem! Enlin Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:14pm 04-23-23
Oppose this proposal. There are many schools around this area. Without screening the shelter residents, it’s irresponsible for the kids. If anything happen to the kids because of this, will city take full responsibility? Pedro Ta
Location:
Submitted At: 11:07pm 04-23-23
I oppose this proposal. Allowing occupants who have not been screened, particularly those with criminal records, could create safety concerns for the area.
Hui Zhuo
Location:
Submitted At: 10:38pm 04-23-23
Strong oppose! Low barrier, no screening; occupants with drug addiction, criminal records, sex offenders Benton location is a bustling community hub attracting 3,000+ families yearly Over 11k families are at risk; similar sites experienced a rise in police calls A second shelter opened 0.5 miles away
Shen Yu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:34pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. It poses risks to the community's safety as a low barrier shelter, is based on unrealistic assumptions for funding and construction, and would take away an irreplaceable community hub.
Alick Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 10:25pm 04-23-23
Strong No from my side! The City keeps on calling the Benton location a "vacant land," but it is one of the last few community hubs that local families use to celebrate holiday traditions. In addition, there're thousands of households nearby, plus quite a few schools or kindergartens that students or kids go to every day. Has the city considered the safety of our next generations?
Joe Fincutter
Location:
Submitted At: 10:22pm 04-23-23
As of today 4/23/2023, I am opposed to the project as proposed. My primary concerns are:
1. Candidates for the interim housing are wide open exposing the community to high repeat offenders:
a. Child abuse
b. Violent actors (drug and mental health issues, jailed for violence)
2. Funding is vague and open ended.
3. Homekey funding eliminates ability to assure normal building standards are met (i.e. earthquake standards).
Haomin Guo
Location:
Submitted At: 10:21pm 04-23-23
If the city continues with the project at this location, it is putting the church children next door in danger by placing them among psychologically disturbed adults. I am opposed! Ying Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:15pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Building a homeless shelter so close to a busy traffic street, schools, and residential areas is not safe at all for everyone.
Brian West
Location:
Submitted At: 10:01pm 04-23-23
We, as residents of the neighborhood near Benton & Lawrence, are strongly opposed to the proposed Benton/Lawrence homeless shelter. This radical idea of placing homeless shelter in middle our residential communities is SICK, to say the lease. We urge you to Vote NO! Stop this insane proposal.
Taimei Yeh
Location:
Submitted At: 9:55pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the projected site at Benton and Lawrence. Simply because children safety and sever short of parking for the next door.
Ezra Yeung
Location:
Submitted At: 9:38pm 04-23-23
Where do city plan to find an open lot at the site to accommodate 50 plus more cars for next door church lease parking?
Therefore, I strongly oppose building this homeless shelter at this location between Benton and Lawrence.
Shu Ch
Location:
Submitted At: 9:29pm 04-23-23
As Santa Clara residents, our family strongly oppose this proposal.
1. LifeMoves' approach of sheltering has a low success rate of helping homeless and achieving their promises.
2. There was no actionable plan for this construction that was properly communicated with the neighborhood community. Throughout past 4 meetings, the details of this site kept changing.
3. There is strong opposition to this from residents nearby (in the last zoom, 80% of attendees vote no).
Please hear us and vote no!
Hanting Yeh
Location:
Submitted At: 9:24pm 04-23-23
City is putting the next door church children in danger by immerse church children among psychologic problematic people if city insists with the project at this site. I oppose! Qingyi Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 8:42pm 04-23-23
Strong NO. This project must be stopped.
1. There are ~10 schools within 1 mile. A low barrier shelter put so many children's safety at risk. Parents are concerned.
2. Even school teachers cannot afford to live in this area. Why get a low barrier homeless shelter first?
3. Listen to the people. If a public hearing does not listen to the public, what is the sense of doing this? Remember the power is given by the people. The money is given by the tax payers. Don't spend our money against us!
Leon Liang
Location:
Submitted At: 8:29pm 04-23-23
Strong NO. This project must be stopped.
1. There are ~10 schools within 1 mile. A low barrier shelter put so many children's safety at risk. Parents are concerned.
2. Even school teachers cannot afford to live in this area. Why get a low barrier homeless shelter first?
3. Listen to the people. If a public hearing does not listen to the public, what is the sense of doing this? Remember the power is given by the people. The money is given by the tax payers. Don't spend our money against us!
Dave Huoang
Location:
Submitted At: 8:27pm 04-23-23
The proposed shelter is a sham and a waste of our tax funding, I stead of finding a solution to homelessness, the career bureaucrats have resorted to just trying to win tax funding without considering the long term funding requirements and wether LifeMoves is qualified to even run these shelters. Recent study have found LifeMoves is squandering our hard earned tax dollars by failing the homeless shelter residents. Not only that they pay excessive CEO bonus. This is an absolute no.
Yiran Yan
Location:
Submitted At: 7:45pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this project.
A low barrier intrim housing project should not be located the a residential area and so close to so many schools.
And there was a very similar project proposed at White Oak Lane. It didn’t pass because it’s not financially feasible and would be too close to a high-speed intersection.
The Lawrence & Benton site is similarly close to the high-speed intersection. And it would cost more than 10 million dollars annually on operation.
This project should be stopped.
Connie Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 7:36pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose Benton shelter, it causes a serious risk to local residents and schools! In previous poll during hearing, there’s clearly 80%+ oppose this shelter proposal, it’s a wrong location! Please listen to your people and your voters and vote NO to this shelter!
Frey Zhou
Location:
Submitted At: 7:21pm 04-23-23
80-95% local residents opposed this proposal in the most recent zoom meeting. These shelters should never be built in the residential area.
Rachel Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 7:13pm 04-23-23
The location has a serious safety risk to the neighborhood. We shouldn’t put our children at risk. A big NO to this project!
Narayan Chalasani
Location:
Submitted At: 6:31pm 04-23-23
A strong NO to this project. It poses a major safety and security concern for the area.
Youyou Tan Tan
Location:
Submitted At: 5:59pm 04-23-23
This location is a joke. Mountain View site is under staff because they can not afford live nearby. We should spend our money more wisely.
Gajra Sinha
Location:
Submitted At: 4:57pm 04-23-23
A strong NO to this project. It poses a major safety and security concern for the area. It is close to major expressway, schools, single family homes and above all next to the gas station and liquor store.
Piyush Agarwal
Location:
Submitted At: 4:51pm 04-23-23
As a local resident, I vehemently oppose this project, and urge city council members to please consider the safety of all us residents and their families including children of all ages. Do the council members not desire safety of us residents? It is shocking that this is still being considered.
I urge that we all collectively vote "NO" on this project to save this neighborhood and community. None of us will forget the callous attitude on display should this project go ahead.
Hardik Darji
Location:
Submitted At: 4:49pm 04-23-23
Homeless shelter near my home is harmful for my family. I strongly oppose it Saurabh Sinha
Location:
Submitted At: 4:46pm 04-23-23
As a resident of Santa Clara for last 15+ years, I strongly oppose the project because it will increase safety and security of the neighborhood. I rather do a project for affordable housing for school teachers and other govt. officials.
The Project site is so close to major traffic cross roads and near schools poses enhanced security and safety issues for the community. Please say NO to this project.
Ryan Komand
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 04-23-23
As a local resident, I strongly oppose this project, and urge city council members to vote NO on this project. My points are below:
1. From 4 community meetings, we didn't get any concrete plan about this shelter, which really disappointed me.
2. According to recent news about LifeMoves Palo Alto and LifeMoves Mountain View, I don't think LifeMoves is a trustworthy partner to build or operate ANY shelter.
Please vote "NO" on this project. Or it will definitely be a disaster to the community Lakshmi Vaidyanathan
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose to the proposal. It is going to make the neighborhood extremely unsafe with several schools in the vicinity.
Lu Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 4:03pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the proposal due to the concern for safety of my children who attend Monticello Academy nearby.
Yangyang Sun
Location:
Submitted At: 3:59pm 04-23-23
I am deeply concerned about the interim housing at Benton. I have two kids in the school within 1 mile. My concerns are:
1. Lack of adequate security measures for the safety of the children attending elementary school. This includes security cameras, trained security personnel, and strict policies/vetting on the resident in the shelter.
2. The children may not fully understand the concept of homelessness and could be frightened or disturbed by seeing homeless individuals on a regular basis.
Rose Joseph
Location:
Submitted At: 3:35pm 04-23-23
Oppose Benton shelter
1. Our kids need a safe neighborhood, not one where they have to look over their shoulders while walking to school or playing at the park. Without adequate background checks in place, the shelter is inviting addicts and criminals into the neighborhood.
2.I fail to understand how the shelter can help addicts when there is a liquor store at the doorstep of the proposed site. What they need is rehabilitation.
3.Please find a location outside of residential neighborhood.
Amrutha kollipara
Location:
Submitted At: 3:20pm 04-23-23
As an eighth grade student with a younger brother, I strongly oppose this idea. The neighbors living in the neighborhood are parents of young kids, putting their safety at risk. I sympathize with the ones living with poverty, however, putting others’ life at risk is not okay. My school is next to the proposed site as well as many others including preschools and daycares. This is why I am in strong opposition of this idea. Thank you.
Chaitanya Banda
Location:
Submitted At: 3:18pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the construction at this location. I am concerned about the safety. My kids go to school near by and now I don’t feel safe for them to walk home or play around the neighborhood. When my parents visit, the only excitement here for them apart from spending time with us is to walk around as they can’t drive. With this, i fear safety for them too. Don’t make this neighborhood desolated. Please keep it cheerful as it is now. Thank you.
Sonia Singhal
Location:
Submitted At: 3:01pm 04-23-23
I have voted yes on every tax increase, welfare program & wage increase. But this proposal has so many issues.
First bucketing mentally disable, substance abuse, criminals into same bucket as homeless is wrong. All need help but in different ways. Whats more disturbing is the data coming from existing sites on failed programs & increase in crime. If I have tell my kids that their beloved pumpkin patch is closed & also that you cant go out on streets anymore, there is something seriously wrong.
Chao Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:56pm 04-23-23
It is deeply disappointing that the city council has chosen to ignore and misunderstand our community's concerns.
Even more disheartening is the fact that the council has put forth a totally new proposal right before the voting date, which after a mere glance, is full of misleading information, inconsistent wordings, and ambiguous descriptions. This is totally unacceptable.
We want to make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate any attempt to mislead or deceive us.
Selvi Ponniah
Location:
Submitted At: 2:53pm 04-23-23
Wrong location for the propose of low barrier entry facility. Safety and security implications are huge given the neighborhood with lots of schools and kids .
Daniel Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:46pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this proposal for three reasons. Firstly, there are already many schools located within one mile of this site. Secondly, there is already a homeless shelter located within half a mile of the proposed site, and it is not appropriate to build two shelters in such close proximity in a single neighborhood. Finally, the background check protocol for this shelter is not clear to all, which raises concerns about the safety of the community.
Therefore, I strongly oppose this proposal.
Yanhong Zhao
Location:
Submitted At: 2:42pm 04-23-23
Strong oppose. Please find a non-residential neighborhood for this project. There are so many schools, day care in this neighborhood.
Madhu Sridhar
Location:
Submitted At: 2:42pm 04-23-23
I oppose this because of the location. This is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood and in the vicinity of schools.
Ann Jo
Location:
Submitted At: 2:30pm 04-23-23
I oppose this project due to its location. Please find an alternative nonresidential neighborhood for this project.
Mudita singhal
Location:
Submitted At: 2:24pm 04-23-23
Incompetent decision and choice to think that a heavily residential working class neighborhood with kids walking alone from several schools in the area is the best choice for a low barrier to entry shelter. Strongly oppose. Y ou CAN do better. Y ou SHOULD do better!!
Fred Deng
Location:
Submitted At: 2:17pm 04-23-23
Strongly oppose to Benton shelter. This residential neighborhood is surrounded by so many schools, daycares and is also next to a high-speed intersection. There're so many reasons to show that this is obviously a WRONG location for a shelter. Please vote NO and find non-residential parcels to go ahead with this proposal.
Shuyang Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 2:11pm 04-23-23
Wrong location. I strongly oppose to this proposal and have concerns about the safety of the students or the residents in the surrounding area if the project gets passed. Any politicians who vote Y es should step down and they will.
Yuanzhe Han
Location:
Submitted At: 2:01pm 04-23-23
I oppose for the safety of our children.
Tianqi Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 1:28pm 04-23-23
Strongly oppose to Benton shelter. Very concerned about the public safety with an unvetted shelter inside neighborhood and close to schools.
Amy Ho
Location:
Submitted At: 1:08pm 04-23-23
_________________________Oppose Benton Shelter
My name is Amy, resident of Santa Clara. I strongly oppose Benton shelter. This is the wrong location. I urge you to cease consideration of this location, and vote no as our representative. City and county need to find a non- residential land for the facility like this.
I’m counting on you.
Weiyi Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:07pm 04-23-23
Too close to schools and homes. 5000+ petitions with wet signatures to veto this proposal were collected, but county just blatantly ignored them. The game is rigged.
Birdland JM
Location:
Submitted At: 12:58pm 04-23-23
Without strict vetting and background screening, the uncontrolled accommodation of the homeless will cause safety issues for nearby residents. Therefore I strongly oppose this project L. H.
Location:
Submitted At: 12:16pm 04-23-23
As a local resident, I strongly oppose the Benton project. Homekey's two fundamental principles, "Housing First" and "Low Barrier," are flawed and ineffective in solving homelessness while posing serious safety risks to nearby neighborhood. Without background check, is it even going to be safe for the children in the shelter?! There are many false statements in the proposal, e.g. 63% found permanent housing, immediate eviction, no shortage of police force, etc.
Citycouncil, please vote NO!
SE Birdland
Location:
Submitted At: 12:05pm 04-23-23
‘We can’t put the shelter on other county land because THEY ARE PARKS’, according to Ms Hernandez. It won’t serve Santa Clara’s ’250 unsheltered’. It’ll serve the developers & nonprofits. They’ll place anyone the county chooses to place there. San Jose has 7000 (65%) of the homeless; Santa Clara has less than 250 (3%). Y ou are pushing out your very diverse, middle income constituents. No other city puts shelters in a neighborhood, except San Jose or LA. And more Brown act violations, again!
Anjali Surapaneni
Location:
Submitted At: 12:03pm 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this shelter at this this location. We cannot have a low barrier shelter so close to families and schools. No background checks are not acceptable when it comes to safety of our families. The solution today looks more of a “ bait and switch” tactic to coerce a yes out of residents. Please consider voting NO. County cannot push us to accept something unsafe for our families on our tax paying $. Don’t lead Santa Clara to path of destruction like San Francisco.Please vote NO!
Rui Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 12:01pm 04-23-23
City council just ignore majority neighbors strong opposition, Neelu Kumawat
Location:
Submitted At: 11:57am 04-23-23
All the council members who have the power to vote, please know the whole community is depending on you and that your decision will impact the daily lives of all of us. God forbid, if there happens a single incident because of your decision, you’ll have to live with it forever. Please cast your vote responsibly.
Gautam Kulkarni
Location:
Submitted At: 11:55am 04-23-23
Strongly oppose. It is appalling that the city/county would consider putting a low-barrier homeless shelter in a family neighborhood with so many children and schools in close proximity. The planners/representatives have displayed a cavalier attitude towards safety concerns raised by hardworking, tax-paying citizens. Moreover, the financial aspects have not been shared. We will hold you accountable for the inevitable crime wave. We will recall officials if needed - we have the numbers.
Alex Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:48am 04-23-23
Strongly oppose. This is not a right location where it’s close to many schools, daycares and next to a high speed intersection. No transparency in financial status. The attempt to attract more homelessness to our neighborhoods is intolerable. No proper arrangements for those who got released or kicked out from the site. They can and will continue to stay nearby.
Notice people who support are mostly not living nearby. They are exploiting our safety to reach their “honorable” intends.
Yuan Yao
Location:
Submitted At: 11:44am 04-23-23
Strong oppose this bill, I am a father of two. My kid live and go schools in here. This development will definitely make this area unsafe
Yi Du
Location:
Submitted At: 11:39am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Overwhelmingly majority residents have said repeatedly no homeless shelter in residential area ever. If city members ignore residents interests and harm children’s safety, be prepared to face electoral and legal consequences.
Mahendra Chaudhari
Location:
Submitted At: 11:38am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this.I understand we all needs to do something to address homelessness, and willing to discuss/brainstorm for alternative solutions. This site isn’t ideal for homeless shelter for many reasons. Please consider to vote NO on this. Instead build low income housing, facilitate classes for kids in low income families.
Some of us, who lives in this neighborhood can probably volunteer to teach kids robotics, programming, etc. It can prepare kids for better employment opportunities
vivian zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:36am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the proposed homeless shelter. This is a horrible plan and the city is trying to bypass the residents to sneak through. shame on you!
Jie Han
Location:
Submitted At: 11:29am 04-23-23
No low barrier shelter near our kids!
BJ Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:28am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the proposed homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.
It is WRONG to place a homeless shelter in a residential community with so many K to 12 schools so close to the proposed location.
raymond chang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:28am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the location. this was a family activity location for holidays. My kids goes to school around this area. The city does not listen. Next election we will vote them out.
David Tran
Location:
Submitted At: 11:17am 04-23-23
I live in the neighborhood and I strongly oppose the proposed location of this shelter. It’s so close to residential communities and many schools. I empathize with helping those in need but there are better locations. Trying to fulfill a state mandate against the will of the residents is appalling (80% opposition in community meetings) and brings to question the legality if this passes.
Shame on the city.
We responsible citizens who the city claims to represent deserve better.
Harsha Vashisht
Location:
Submitted At: 11:07am 04-23-23
Strongly oppose the location. Residential neighborhood surrounded by so many schools is not a good location for low barrier housing. Safety is a very big concern. The concerns of the community have been downplayed and feels like the stakeholders want to go ahead in spite of the strong push back. Please find non residential parcels to go ahead with this proposal. Use this site to build longterm housing for our first responders, teachers and retail workers.
Deepak Rama
Location:
Submitted At: 11:06am 04-23-23
Horrible planning. No financial viability. Huge security risks for neighborhood. No respect for taxpayers and voters. Proximity to schools, liquor stores and disruption to peaceful neighborhood. Expressway close by poses risk to ppl living in proposed site. Low barrier entry and lack of proper planning. Collusion with life works! Yuan Tian
Location:
Submitted At: 10:59am 04-23-23
I live in walking distance to this location and know how many schools and kids are nearby. Strongly oppose this location! There needs to be a more careful assessment on the location and screening policy.
Melissa Lee
Location:
Submitted At: 10:52am 04-23-23
Strong oppose! Low barrier, no screening; occupants with drug addiction, criminal records, sex offenders Benton location is a bustling community hub attracting 3,000+ families yearly Over 11k families are at risk; similar sites experienced a rise in police calls A second shelter opened 0.5 miles away
LifeMoves is poorly staffed, low success rate in permanent housing, and location far from public transit, grocery, jobs
False data was presented, no integrity!
Politically motivated supporters.
Darshana Parmar
Location:
Submitted At: 10:50am 04-23-23
- We demand full CEQA evaluation before city provides HomeKey support letter for application - Financing details are still not exposed. Homekey 3.0 requires city to operate for 30 years. How city will support once funding runs out without creating burden on tax payers - We must preserve this last community resort
- Facility is NOT exclusive for families with children. Last minute slipping in provision to house adults only - Without BC check, sec offenders can’t be identified. Megan’s law violat Tammy Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 10:47am 04-23-23
I live in the neighborhood and I strongly oppose the proposed location of this shelter. It’s inappropriate to build a shelter so close to residential communities and many schools Anwesa Chatterjee
Location:
Submitted At: 10:43am 04-23-23
As a concerned resident, I cannot support the implementation of a low barrier homeless shelter in our neighborhood. The shelter will attract drug users and criminals, increase crime rates, and decrease property values. I fear that this decision was made without considering the impact on our community. Let's work together to find a solution that benefits everyone and keeps our community safe and thriving.
Anunay Bhatt
Location:
Submitted At: 10:41am 04-23-23
I and my family strongly oppose this proposed shelter location. We support homelessness and agree that they need housing. But this location has many families and children which makes it a poor choice for the low-barrier shelter. Instead of further developing the area, this is a retrograde step for the hard-working, tax paying residents of Santa Clara city. County should instead consider other non-residential parcels with good public transit access for this cause.
SCC Safe
Location:
Submitted At: 10:32am 04-23-23
SafeSCC promotes safe neighborhoods and has sent 7 documents to the city clerk for public agenda inclusion, but they were not added:
1-3. Three open letters to city council oppose Benton project - 3/9, 3/13, 4/11
4. 5293 Petition Submission Cover Letter - 4/14
5. 10 Essential Facts to Know Before 4/25 vote
6. 10 Reasons Why Everyone Should Oppose Benton Shelter
7. "LifeMoves MTV promises to help homeless clients find stable housing in three months. The majority of them don't" Palo Alto Online
Sharon Shaon
Location:
Submitted At: 10:24am 04-23-23
As a Santa Clara resident, I oppose the proposed location for a low-barrier, no screen check homeless shelter.
Over 80% of residents opposed it, but the government ignores us. The Bella Vista location is only 0.5 miles away and too close to residential areas and a nearby school. Find a more appropriate location.
Dhvani Desai
Location:
Submitted At: 10:14am 04-23-23
This is not a appropriate place as it's in middle of residential and school area and the occupants in this temporary dwelling are ex felony and mental health concern individuals which can endanger kids walking to schools Stephen Yang
Location:
Submitted At: 10:06am 04-23-23
I live within 3 miles of the site and my kids go to the laurelwood elementary school, which is within 2 miles of the place. Given the data showing the crime rates and 911 calls go up once a no screening interim housing shows up and common sense, I strongly appose the plan. It is not the right place to build the facility and right way to solve the homeless issue. I really doubt the motivations of the supporters and city council members who proposed the plan.
Vishal Tanna
Location:
Submitted At: 9:58am 04-23-23
Strongly oppose. LifeMoves is a horrible choice.
- Tricked Palo Alto city council by doubling construction budget after approval. Now reducing services promised to homeless clients
- MV site, previous to directors had criminal history and stole - Benton site, slipped in last minute change to make provision to house single adults as well - Previous MV site residents told stories about mismanagement, ill treatment in MV voice articles - Qualification for case manager is highschool diploma
Ashish Verma
Location:
Submitted At: 9:31am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose this proposal. Housing folks wothout even a background check where data suggests presence of convicts, felons, sex offenders in such proximity to residential neighborhoods is beyond comprehension to tax paying residents who foot the bill eventually. Please listen to your residents. If you impose this on us, you are severly impacting safety and pursuit of happiness for more than 5000+ of your residents directly. Who is accountable? The folks who vote yes to this?
Xufei Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 9:27am 04-23-23
I strongly oppose the Benton Shelter Proposal. I have been a Santa Clara for over 10 years. Over the years, I observed, reported, and in person experienced more and more crimes: my neigbors’s cars were broken into, my bikes got stolen, even my home was attempted to break in march. We paid tons of tax each year, the government should at least make sure we live in a safe place called home.
We are equally important as those who need a home. why should we live in fear? Jenny Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 9:23am 04-23-23
I live in Santa Clara, and I strongly oppose this project. The low barrier shelter with no-screening will collect lots of drug addicts and criminals. The shelters in Milpitas and Palo Alto have proved this point. The wrong location in a neighborhood with so many schools and daycares will result in serious safety concern. In last city council meeting, some opposers offered a few alternative spots for this housing project. Please carefully consider these proposals.
Jaccard Pan
Location:
Submitted At: 9:15am 04-23-23
I strongly opposes the Benton Shelter Plan because LifeMoves has a very bad record of running homeless shelters in nearby cities. Do you know 74% of their clients are still homeless after existing LifeMoves' shelter, because they cannot get quality service from there? They don't even feel safe there. Do you know LifeMoves doubled the cost estimate of their existing shelter within a year of approval? The unreasonable cost overrun indicates LifeMoves are losing control of their project.
Joe Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 8:52am 04-23-23
I live in Santa Clara and my family and I strongly oppose this shelter proposal because it is not safe! Lisa Eckstein
Location:
Submitted At: 7:33pm 04-22-23
I strongly support the interim housing to be built at Benton and Lawrence. I've been a Santa Clara homeowner for over 20 years. I live near Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Tomas, a part of our city where many people live on the street. I applaud Santa Clara for addressing our local homelessness crisis by providing more safe housing and much needed resources. If you can find an additional spot for a similar housing project in my neighborhood, I'd support that as well.
Agenda Item: eComments for REPORTS OF MEMBERS AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Overall Sentiment
BJ Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:19pm 04-25-23
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE.
The homeless are free to go in and out of the shelter. With the concentration of 200 plus "most challenging homeless", many no doubt with drug additions at this location, drug dealers will be attracted to come; it is well documented a concentration of homeless will attract drug dealers, as in Tenderloin, San Francisco. How many additional police officers are assigned to this precinct, dedicated to the “low barrier interim homeless shelter? Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:14pm 04-25-23
This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood!
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton!! Agenda Item: eComments for CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overall Sentiment
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 04-25-23
This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood!
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton!! SE Birdland
Location:
Submitted At: 5:35pm 04-23-23
"The proposed site is vacant land located at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street near the Santa/Clara Sunnyvale border." The county sat on this land for the benefit of certain developers (and to leverage fed/state funds) rather than making it available years ago for housing tech workers, public employees, and service workers who sit in traffic for 4 hours a day. Or to provide a county parkland for local residents like the many county parks in other cities.
Agenda Item: eComments for ADJOURNMENT
Overall Sentiment
BJ Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:28pm 04-25-23
We OPPOSE the proposed low barrier interim homeless shelter at Benton and Lawrence.
Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers: Just say NO.
Vote NO on this proposal, as the Representatives of this Great City.
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 04-25-23
This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood!
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton!! Agenda Item: eComments for The next regular scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Overall Sentiment
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 04-25-23
This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood!
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton!! Agenda Item: eComments for MEETING DISCLOSURES
Overall Sentiment
Brian West
Location:
Submitted At: 2:57pm 04-25-23
Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers: We OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton St. & Lawrence Expressway.
Is LifeMoves transferring homeless families from old shelter to new shelter just to satisfy the opening of a new shelter? After all, they can pretty much do any changes they want once the shelter was built. Who regulate the homeless shelter? Who has the authority to shut down the shelter if laws were not followed? Example: MTV site failed to evict sexual assault client
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 04-25-23
This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood!
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton!! Bess Henderson
Location:
Submitted At: 4:52pm 04-24-23
We OPPOSE the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton St. & Lawrence Expressway.
This is the WRONG location, with such close proximity to 20 schools near by.
LifeMoves has very bad operating records for their existing shelters. Why build more failure? This proposed Benton/Lawrence land already has very important community function, visited by 500,000 local Santa Clara residents every year. It has been a tradition for our extended family to visit this place during Christmas and Halloween.
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.
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 YouTube 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.
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.
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 materials.
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
Bharath Pandravada
Location:
Submitted At: 4:29pm 04-25-23
We live very close to the proposed site and I strongly oppose the Benton shelter project in Santa Clara. There are definitely better alternatives to help the homeless than building a shelter in this location. With so many schools around, it could have negative effects on safety for children and neighborhood as a whole.
Please take our concerns into account and reconsider this proposal.
Ying Xu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:16pm 04-25-23
This is a huge safety issue for our neighborhood!
I STRONGL Y OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton!! shiqi deng
Location:
Submitted At: 2:07pm 04-25-23
I am a resident of Santa Clara city, and I am strongly against the Benton&Lawrence shelter. This will pose a high risk for our community and especially to the children's safety as the shelter is close to several schools near that area.
Tina Tian
Location:
Submitted At: 1:57pm 04-25-23
I live on Benton, one block from the proposed shelter site. I strongly oppose this proposal as it will make our neighborhoods not safe anymore.
Thomas Posey
Location:
Submitted At: 12:25pm 04-25-23
I strongly oppose
Xiaolan Yang
Location:
Submitted At: 12:20pm 04-25-23
I am a resident of Santa Clara. I STRONGL Y OPPOSE
faina kantor
Location:
Submitted At: 8:54am 04-25-23
I am writing to express my strong opposition about the Benton proposal for a low barrier homeless shelter. The homeless shelter will bring to our neighborhood drugs and related crimes, vandalism.
It is deeply disappointing that the city council has chosen to ignore and misunderstand our community's concerns.
Sandrine Basin
Location:
Submitted At: 9:57pm 04-24-23
Hello, I'm living in Santa Clara with my family. I oppose the Benton Low Barrier shelter. We need more mental health facilities and treatment to support the homeless, not more housing.
Haiying Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 9:12pm 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this Benton Low Barrier shelter. LifeMoves and the city only care about the money. They don’t care about our community. They put us in danger.
Megan Katz
Location:
Submitted At: 8:29pm 04-24-23
The new proposal is horrible. It keeps no-screening procedures but plans to put innocent kids next to sex offenders and people with drug addiction, just in order to get a high score for funding. LufeMoves put kids in danger on purpose and ruin their entire life! Shame on LifeMoves! Sarah Foad
Location:
Submitted At: 7:51pm 04-24-23
I'm in strong support of building interim housing at this site.
Greg Dacosta
Location:
Submitted At: 5:08pm 04-24-23
Strongly oppose this project
Puxiao Han
Location:
Submitted At: 12:00am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose this proposal as it will make our neighborhoods not safe anymore.
Sheng Liu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:27am 04-23-23
Hi, I am Sheng Liu, living in Santa Clara with my family. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.
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.
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.
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:
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]..
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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 $6M financial gap for 7 years. That's totally a waste of tax money.
Also LifeMoves cannot show it can really help homeless people move to their next step. In MTV LifeMoves, success rate is only 26%!
So I believe, LifeMoves & County are not trustworthy partners to work with. Please reconsider this project and vote NO!!!
Ashish Patel
Location:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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:
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?
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:
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?
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.
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 YouTube 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.
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.
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 materials.
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.
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!!!
Julie Camaganacan
Location:
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.
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! 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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! 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?
From: C L
To: Clerk; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Adam Marcus; Glen Googins; Lisa Gillmor; Nora Pimentel
Subject: ABC News at 6pm regarding the Benton Shelter Proposal Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:11:46 PM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my concern about the recent report on ABC News at 6pm regarding the Benton Shelter Proposal. As a resident of Santa Clara and someone who attended the public hearing on April 25th, I was surprised and upset to hear that the proposal had been approved, since we were clearly told at the hearing that the decision would be made on May 2nd.
I would like to know how ABC News obtained this information and who their sources were.
As a resident who has spent a lot of time opposing this proposal, I feel that it is important to have accurate and timely information about the decision-making process.
While I understand the news organizations strive to report accurately, it is possible that the report was based on incomplete or incorrect information. I urge you to provide accurate information to the public.
In addition, I would like to reiterate my opposition to Benton Shelter Proposal and to ask you to vote NO on May 2nd, 2023. As a resident of Santa Clara, we have entrusted you with the responsibility
of making decisions that will make our city a better place to live. Please consider our voices and concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Chen
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
From: J Pan
To: Clerk; Lisa Gillmor; Kevin Park; Karen Hardy; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Adam Marcus
Subject: How can City approve the Benton Shelter proposal before Voting? Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 9:46:31 AM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
When I watched ABC News at 6 pm on April 26, 2023, I was surprised, upset, and felt cheated to see that without the discussion and vote by Council members, the City of Santa Clara had approved, or delayed the approval of the Benton Shelter Proposal.
We were at the hearing on April 25
th, 2023. And we all heard Mayor Gillmor said the hearing will be continued on next Tuesday evening, May 2nd, 2023. City Councilmembers will discuss the proposal and vote on May 2nd. However, before all these happened, ABC news already got inside information and aired the result of approval, or delayed approval. How could ABC news already know the result is an approval not a rejection? Who told them? Please investigate who the information source is.
Have you already made your decision? If so, why pretend to continue the discussion next week? We, Santa Clara residents, feel being fooled and are deeply disappointed.
If you haven’t made your decision, please vote NO to the Benton & Lawrence interim housing project. There are so many uncertainties about its fundings. A bipartisan group already called for an audit to the HomeKey program. LifeMoves cut their expenses by removing security and onsite services, but still get their profits. The City of Santa Clara will be the only one who is hurt. When the housing market and local business were impacted by the Shelter, the tax income of the City will be impacted for sure. Not to mention the increase of cost and manpower to maintain the safety of shelter and its surrounding community. This project will worsen the fiscal deficit of the City of Santa Clara.
If you haven’t made your decision, please vote NO on May 2 nd, 2023! Let's work together to
make Santa Clara a better place to live.
Best Regards,
Pan Family
Residents of Santa Clara
From: Jiayi Pan
To: Clerk; Lisa Gillmor; Kevin Park; Karen Hardy; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Nora Pimentel; Adam Marcus
Subject: Please Vote No to the Interim Housing at Benton St. & Lawrence Expy Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:25:47 PM
Good afternoon Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
Please vote NO to the Homekey Benton street Interim Housing proposal! Don’t ignore 5293 petitions from local residents who strongly oppose this proposal.
LifeMoves' proposal, presented at the April 25th hearing meeting, 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!
Best Regards,
Megan Katz
Residents of Santa Clara
From: Mayor and Council
To: Santa Clara Housing Advocates
Cc: Clerk
Subject: RE: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25 Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 8:57:22 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello,
Our office confirms receipt of your email. Included in this reply is the Clerk’s Offce who can address your request.
Thank You,
Melissa Lee | Executive Assistant
Mayor & Council Offices | City of Santa Clara
(408) 615-2252 |
www.santaclaraca.gov
From: Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:48 PM
To:
Mayor and Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25
PLEASE REDACT MY ADDRESS DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 2:52 PM Mayor and Council <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Our office confirms receipt of your email regarding the Public Hearing/General Business item:
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), which has been forwarded to the full City Council for their review.
Please note this correspondence will form part of the public record for the April 25, 2023, Special City Council meeting.
Thank You,
Melissa Lee | Executive Assistant
Mayor & Council Offices
(408) 615-2252 |
www.santaclaraca.gov
From: Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 4:51 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Santa Clara Housing Advocates <
[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Attached are materials that we would like to be delivered to City Council PRIOR to the meeting on April 25, if possible.
Thank you,
Elysa Gurman
Santa Clara Housing Advocates
869 Bing Dr
From: [email protected]
To: Clerk; Mayor and Council
Subject: RE: Proposed Temporary Housing at Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway. How can city approve the Benton shelter proposal before voting?
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:51:34 AM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Council
Members,
When I watched ABC News at 6 pm on April
26, 2023, I was shocked, angrily, and felt
betrayed to see that without the
discussion and vote by Council members,
the City of Santa Clara had approved the
proposal already, and later ABC News
modified it to "delayed the approval" of
the Benton Shelter Proposal. Why is ABC
News so sure of the approval? Did they get
insider information?
We were at the hearing on April 25th,
2023. And we all heard Mayor Gillmor said
the hearing will be continued on next
Tuesday evening, May 2nd, 2023. City
Councilmembers will discuss the proposal
and vote on May 2nd. However, before all
these happened, ABC news already got
inside information and aired the result of
approval, or "delayed approval". How could
ABC news already know the result is an
approval not a rejection? Who told them?
We demand an investigation on the leaked
information source.
Have you already made your decision? If
so, why pretend to continue the discussion
next week? We, Santa Clara residents, feel
being fooled and are deeply disappointed.
Please vote NO to the Benton & Lawrence
interim housing project. There are so many
uncertainties about its fundings. A
bipartisan group already called for an
audit to the HomeKey program. LifeMoves
cut their expenses by removing security
and onsite services, but still get their
profits. The City of Santa Clara will be
the only one who is hurt. When the housing
market and local business were impacted by
the Shelter, the tax income of the City
will be impacted for sure. Not to mention
the increase of cost and manpower to
maintain the safety of shelter and its
surrounding community. This project will
worsen the fiscal deficit of the City of
Santa Clara.
Please vote NO on May 2nd, 2023! Please
don’t ignore 5293 petitions from local
residents who strongly oppose this
proposal. Let's work together to make
Santa Clara a better place to live.
Sincerely,
BP Huang Family
Residents of Santa Cara
PS: Attached a news clip for you to
consider. Homelessness and Drugs come hand
in hand. Our family is certainly not ready
for the National Guards to come in.
Putting 250 Most Challenging homeless in
our residential community, are you ready
for our City going down that route?
Gavin Newsom is sending California’s National Guard to
help San Francisco fight fentanyl
Gavin Newsom is sending California’s National
Guard to help San Francisc...
San Francisco has seen a more than 40% increase in overdose deaths between January and March 2023. What is fenta...
From: Benny Fong
To: Mayor and Council; Clerk
Subject: RE: Proposed Temporary Housing at Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:16:38 AM
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 Benton Street & Lawrence
Expressway.
Sincerely,
Kat & Alex
Residents of Santa Clara
From: B W
To: Mayor and Council; Clerk
Subject: RE: Proposed Temporary Housing Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway.
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:40:04 PM
Dear Mayor Gilmore, Council Members:
We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing
proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.
# Topic Context
1 Voice of the
Residents
A vast majority (80-95%) of residents voted in opposition in all 4 public hearings
>95% of comments on the 4/25 agenda were in
opposition
Residents living in the immediate neighborhood have
submitted ~5200+ wet signatures with their names, real
address and contact information.
2 Safety There is no background check or screening to exclude folks with criminal records or active drug addiction or Sex offense history
No ID verification to validate family or age of minor
So making it family priority facility does not make any difference, it just creates illusion of safety
Just 300 ft away we have a condominium community
where 76 families and many include kids and elderly.
Since we do not have any operational shelter in Santa
Clara county which is so close to schools and residential neighborhoods and schools
- Which public safety
experts were consulted? What were the raw inputs from
them? We want full, unfiltered information.
In first public meeting county official did not know how many schools are nearby which created huge concern
majority of
residents
Santa Clara city staff shared their grave concerns
regarding safety and being able to manage such a large
site in our private meetings between residents and police staff. Police staff also pointed us to Milpitas data. They mentioned that they have shared their concerns with
council and county staff through private communication.
Nobody published that data to public
2 Funding City would need to fund [XYZ] for next [X] years and after that there is no clarity on operational cost coverage Drawing funds from FLHA implies the city would have
lesser funds to build affordable housing and other
programs for the housing crisis
It was mentioned that the construction overrun budget
will be covered from the operational budget that
HomeKey provides which will create more gap budget to
run this facility. Eventually it will result reduced amount of services offered and staffing or will increase burden on city to fill the gap - Palo Alto Deja Vu
4 CEQA
The proposed site is in Flood Zone and hence can not
be assumed to be CEQA exempt
We strictly recommend city to not provide HomeKey
application support letter till full CEQA evaluation is done and environmental impact is known to city council and
public
5 Falsified data? Bus stops are
>0.5 miles away. This measured from end
of the lot not from entrance
7/11 can not be classified as a grocery store. In the
report it is shown as Market place which is misguided.
Number of schools nearby is deliberately reduced not
counting preschools and daycares as it will reduce
HomeKey points
6 Lack of Trust FAQs are still not fully answered and for quite a few, the text is cut out so we don’t see the entire answer
County produced a highly biased community
engagement report - feedback cards are deliberately
cherry picked and all the cards showing opposition are
not included. Any emails sent after 3/21 to demonstrate opposition of this project are not included in report
In the presentation it was presented as a family only
facility but in the proposal it has clear provision to house single adults. Also it is being constructed as flex style configurable units which can be all separate 90 rooms - so it being constructed with full intent to either converting it to adult only facility, just like original proposal or mixing adults and families together and leave city to manage it
It was also presented based on community feedback
county
& LifeMoves reduced the scope of the project to
1/4th - 30 units from 80-120 units. Technically this facility is being constructed as 90 configurable rooms across 30 modular units. Each room can host 2 adults or maybe 3
people if there is a mother with small kids. So there is no scope change at all - 90 rooms and the total population can be anywhere from 160 to 270 people.
Susan Ellenberg is a big proponent and a face behind
this project. There were numerous attempts made by
many many residents to contact or meet her over the
period of nearly 2.5 months. Never received a single
response
7 Huge burden
on Santa Clara
County is gifting an elephant to our city
Board of supervisors asked the search for land to be
done exclusively in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale (and not
other cities like Los Gatos, Saratoga etc.)
Santa Clara already has a very high ratio of shelters or beds per homeless at a city level as compared to most
of the other cities of the county
8 Police Staffing Bella Vista is already going down the Hillcrest (Milpitas) route with respect to crime and service calls. Once it
converts into permanent housing it would be even more
comparable to the Milpitas site and having an interim
housing in close proximity to it without increase in Police staffing doesn’t seem appropriate. Milpitas PD had to
make reactive measures. SCPD should be proactive.
9 Drugs We are already seeing increased activity in our neighborhood due to Bella Vista
In light of the many issues raised during the public
hearing on 5/25/23, and the overwhelming opposition
from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.
Sincerely,
West Household
Residents of the City of Santa Clara
From: Xinxin Jin
Subject: Say No to the Benton Shelter Proposal
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:53:05 PM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and City Councilmembers,
I'm a resident living in Santa Clara near the Benton site. I'm utterly shocked and disappointed when I heard ABC News at 6 pm on April 26, 2023 announcing Santa Clara approved the temporary housing project, without the discussion and vote by Council members. We, our whole family, feel being fooled. At the hearing on April 25th, we all heard Mayor Gillmor said the hearing will be continued on next Tuesday evening, May 2nd and city Councilmembers will discuss the proposal and vote on the same day. How come it has already been approved before that? Where is justice and transparency? Please investigate the source of the fake news.
Please vote NO to the Benton street Interim Housing proposal. Please listen to 5293 local residents who strongly oppose this proposal.
Best Regards,
Xinxin Jin
Resident of Santa Clara
From: [email protected]
To: Mayor and Council; Clerk
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Approval of Benton Shelter Project Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 10:17:40 AM
Dear Mayor Gillmor and Council Members,
I am writing to express my grave concern about the recent approval of the Benton Shelter. The decision raises serious questions about the City Council's decision-making process and the trustworthiness of our elected officials.
Despite months of community outreach meetings
and public comments, the county and LifeMoves
have consistently ignored our valid and critical
questions, provided false and misleading
information, and given vague proposals. During
the recent hearing,
the City's representatives
were unable to provide any solid
explanations to the community's concerns,
including critical flaws in the funding
calculation, price per unit, unit design,
family unit size, site design, occupancy
composition and numbers, location
selection, and more. They even failed to
answer the simplest question such as how
many people will live onsite, and if the site
will be “family-only”.
As a law-abiding resident, I find it shocking that
supporters of the Benton Shelter, majority of
whom are students and professional housing
advocates,
have resorted to politically
motivated speeches and baseless accusations
against the community. Their lies and distortions
of facts have no place in our community and have
only served to further damage our trust in the
City's decision-making process.
Furthermore, the recent news from ABC7 has only added to our suspicions that the decision may have already been made and that the City Council's discussion and voting next Tuesday are merely a formality. If this is the case, the community will not hesitate to take legal action to protect our rights and interests.
We must confirm with the city whether the
approval of the Benton project has already been
decided, and if the discussion and voting next
Tuesday are just a formality. If so, the
community will immediately prepare for legal
action. If not, the city needs to
explain who the
source of ABC's information is and why they
insisted on approval even after being
reminded by the community, only to delay
it.
Some neighbors in the community have
already started the process of requesting public
records of the city council members' behavior and
communication regarding the Benton proposal.
We will not let go of any possible evidence of
violations of regulations and laws.
If the city council still has not yet voted, please vote “NO” to this proposal and project to save the city and its law-abiding, hard-working residents.
Sincerely,
Ross
Resident of the City of Santa Clara
From: Phil Zhao
To: Clerk
Subject: Vote NO to Temporary Housing at Benton in Santa Clara Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:03:31 PM
Hello,
This is Phil, a father with two elementary school kids living in this neighborhood with my family. I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton, to jeopardize the safety of so many kids living nearby.
Only the people who LIVE in this neighborhood have the right to make the decision, NOT
those who live miles away. Please vote NO to this temporary housing at Benton in Santa Clara.
Thanks,
Phil
1 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
Mountain View Community Guidelines
LifeMoves programs are designed to meet the specific needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and to assist them with increasing self-sufficiency and moving to more stable housing. To help our clients set and meet these goals, LifeMoves programs include shelter, case management, workshops, community activities, and individual chores. In these guidelines, the term “program” encompasses all these services, “program facility” or "facility" refers to the LifeMoves Mountain View facility, and "client" refers to residents at this facility and participants in this facility's programs.
Non-Discrimination Policy: It is LifeMoves policy to treat our clients without regard or consideration for the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, veteran or marital status, medical condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or any other basis protected by federal, state or local law. To comply with applicable laws ensuring equal opportunities to clients with a disability, LifeMoves will make a reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental limitations of a client with a disability unless undue hardship would result.
1. Clients Bill of Rights
a. Clients' rights will be exercised in ways that also respect the rights of others. No individual's rights are absolute.
b. Clients are entitled to enjoy a safe and healthful living environment in the program facility. c. Clients are entitled to be treated in a manner that respects their dignity and individuality. d. Clients with disabilities, personal, and cultural differences are entitled to reasonable accommodations under fair housing laws when such accommodations are necessary because of their disability, personal, and cultural identity. LifeMoves will accommodate clients’ needs (expressed, implicit, or implied) as long as such accommodation will not result in an essential change to the program or residential structure.
e. Clients are entitled to remain in the program and not be involuntarily removed without reasonable cause and just procedures.
f. Clients are entitled to just and standardized procedures for determining eligibility, admissions, sanctions, discharges, and resolving grievances.
g. Clients are entitled to reasonable privacy and confidential treatment of personal, social, financial, medical, mental and behavioral health records, except as necessary to further treatment, information and referral services and in compliance with the client’s written consent to release information.
h. Clients are entitled to the full exercise of their civil, constitutional, and legal rights.
2. Reasonable Accommodation Notice
Those wanting to make a reasonable accommodation request to aid a physical and/or mental health disability should speak with their case manager and/or program director as soon as possible to alert staff to the request. Some reasonable accommodation requests will be asked to be placed in writing and may require follow up paperwork before such requests can be considered for accommodation.
3. Eligibility
The program is available to adults, couples, and families experiencing homelessness. Individuals who have recently stayed in a LifeMoves residential program are not eligible for this program unless the time since discharge is at least 90 days.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 2 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
4. Required TB Testing
New clients must show a record of a negative TB test (PPD Skin Test, chest x-ray, or blood work) within the past 12 months. If no record is available, LifeMoves staff will refer clients to a TB testing provider.
Clients have one week to provide the new record of a negative TB test.
5. Sobriety and Clean Environment
Our facility strictly supports an environment that is free of the use of alcohol/ETOH and drugs (non- prescription/medication). New clients will be asked to provide proof of sobriety to enter the program.
Unannounced alcohol and drug testing may be conducted when there is probable cause that may raise a clinical or safety issue. Results of any drug test or breath alcohol test ("breathalyzer" or BAC test) will be used to establish appropriate treatment plans. Clients are expected to adhere to treatment plans as a show of good faith in respecting other clients’ sobriety and clean living.
6. Length of Stay
The program length of stay is up to 90 days. Extensions may be granted by LifeMoves management on a case-by-case basis, based on the client's:
• Focus and progress in meeting case plan goals (for example, stable housing, employment, mainstream benefits, and increased self-sufficiency).
• Compliance with program policies and procedures.
• Consistently contributing to their housing fund.
7. Daily Wellness Checks
Staff will complete daily wellness checks, which will include visual unit inspections and client health screens. There will always be at least two staff going into units. If a client refuses, entry staff will contact the Program Director, who will instruct staff next steps. Program Director will assess the situation if needed the police may be called for further assistance.
Each unit is one adult, unless approved by management.
Clients who do not return to shelter site within 24 hours will be given an Ask To Leave Letter (ATL) and will have the opportunity to appeal. If clients do not return to shelter within 72 hours all belongings will be discarded.
8. Case Management
Clients meet with their Case Manager on a weekly basis to ensure that measurable goals are being met and to discuss any barriers to self-sufficiency. Successful case management means TOGETHER, the client and Case Manager will review goals and accomplishments. The Case Manager will assist with referrals to outside agencies and provide information about community resources as appropriate. Case management will cover the following:
• Housing search, to include regular housing search logs, viewing and applying for housing, creating a tenant portfolio and acquiring a credit report. • Financial planning, to include referral to financial benefits (as appropriate), referral to financial counseling, assistance in budgeting.
• Improving self-sufficiency and skills, to include working on/learning self-care, coping skills, vocational skills, general life skills, etc.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 3 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
• Special attention will be made to any client who expresses intent to harm themselves or others.
A client identified as high risk must develop a Safety Plan within the first week. During weekly case management meetings, the safety plan is reviewed and updated as needed.
Clients will promptly contact their Case Manager when any of the following occur:
• Require reasonable accommodation to meet program policies and requirements. • Source of income changes.
• Loss of job, or change of employment, training or educational programs. • Having problems achieving personal and program goals. • Having problems with other clients or staff.
• Unable to consistently contribute to their housing fund. • Unable to attend mandatory case management meetings, classes, or workshops.
9. Medication Management
Clients must store their prescribed and over-the-counter medications safely in their assigned rooms. It is prohibited for anyone in the program to sell or share any prescription or over-the-counter medications.
Medication management is an essential part of maintaining the safety of everyone in the facility and stabilizing the client’s health when indicated by their case plan. For these reasons, clients must agree to adhere to medication and treatment therapy as ordered by appropriate physicians, and for the proper storage, control, and documentation of all medications (prescription and non-prescription). LifeMoves staff is not responsible for administering or dispensing medications, however, staff may observe you taking your medications, as prescribed.
10. Housing Fund
LifeMoves has designed a Housing Fund program to support clients in their search for permanent living arrangements. Clients have the option to participate in LifeMoves’ Housing Fund Plan or to save money in their own fund. In either case, clients are strongly encouraged to contribute 50% of their income each pay period into their housing fund.
Clients choosing to participate in the LifeMoves Housing Fund Plan, will discuss with their Case Manager how to contribute money to the fund and how to keep receipts for deposited funds. When a client is discharged, they will be provided a check for the amount they saved during the program. Clients who leave the program before their discharge date must give their Case Manager 48 hours' notice to provide time to prepare a check for their savings contributions.
11. Facility Hours
• The facility is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• Mealtimes: (Meal times may be subject to change with little or no notice) − Breakfast: 7:00 AM – 8:00 AM
− Lunch: 12:00 AM - 12:30 AM
− Dinner: 5:30 PM – 6:00 PM
• Family Laundry hours: Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM • Singles/couples laundry hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM
• Chores: Morning chores must be done by 10:00 AM; evening chores must be done by 8:00 PM • Curfew: Mon-Fri 8:00 PM/ Weekends: 10:00 PM
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 4 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
• Quiet hours: ("lights out") begin every night at 10:00 PM • Required bed checks: 11pm everyday
12. Client Mail
Clients may receive mail at the following address:
LifeMoves Mountain View
2566 Leghorn St
Mountain View, CA 94043
Att: CLIENT NAME
Clients may receive mail at this address while the client is in active case management. Beginning 14 days after the client discharges from the program or terminates case management services, all mail will be returned to sender. For clients who are discharged from the program under ‘Grounds for Immediate Discharge,’ mail will be returned to sender beginning the day of discharge.
13. Telephones
This facility does not have telephones for resident use, except in an emergency.
14. Computers and Office Equipment
This facility provides Chrome Books and other office equipment to support housing and employment goals (e.g., job searches, housing research, interview preparation). LifeMoves staff will provide clients with additional instructions about using the Chrome Books.
15. Visitors
No visitors allowed in units without management approval. If a visitor refuses to leave staff may contact the police as the person is trespassing.
Personal Visitors - Personal visitors, including family and friends, are not allowed on the facility site. This is to protect the confidentiality of other clients. Confidentiality rules also require that the staff will not confirm nor deny if an individual is a resident. It is the client's responsibility to make arrangements to meet off-site with people they wish to visit with.
Official Visitors - Clients must notify their Case Manager when they expect visits from social workers, probation officers, and other service providers. When requested, facility staff will try to provide a private space to meet. All official visitors (service providers) must sign in at the front desk and provide their ID and a badge or business card.
16. Service and Assistance Animals
Clients who have a service animal and/or emotional support animal should refer to the reasonable accommodation request.
17. Pets at the Facility
Pets are not permitted on the facility grounds or in the facilities unless approved by LifeMoves management. Animals that are approved, must be accompanied by the client at all times. Pets may be allowed on the property with proper documentation. Clients are responsible for cleaning up after their pets. Cleanliness of the unit will be expected.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 5 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
18. Chores
Clients are expected to maintain a safe and clean environment by picking up/cleaning up after themselves. Clients must complete daily chores as assigned by LifeMoves staff. It is the client’s responsibility to ensure that their assigned chores are completed, and to locate a substitute if necessary.
It is never acceptable to pay another client to complete a chore on your behalf.
Clients who are unable to complete chores due to physical limitations should request a reasonable accommodation with their Case Manager. A physician’s written statement may be required.
19. Workshops
Workshops are offered to support client goals toward self-sufficiency and stable housing. Clients should attend workshops that are listed in or relevant to their case management plan.
20. Attendance, Curfew, and Passes
Attendance: Clients are responsible to be on time for all appointments with their Case Manager, group meetings, and outside appointments.
Overnight Stay: Clients must spend every night in the facility to remain eligible in the program, except for specific approvals by LifeMoves management (e.g., the Overnight Pass program). If a client is absent for two nights without an overnight pass or other management approval, they may be discharged from the program.
Curfew: Clients with children must return to the facility by 8:00 PM every evening. Clients without children must return to facility by 8:00 PM every evening.
Passes: The facility staff will inform clients about the following Pass programs: Late Night Pass; Overnight Pass; Work Pass; Lay-In Pass.
21. Personal Living Space
• Clients will be assigned a room for the duration of their stay. • Clients may not be in each other’s assigned rooms. Non-compliance may result in discharge. • Clients are responsible to keep their personal living spaces neat, clean, and sanitized according to requirements explained by the facility staff. Beds must be made each morning. All personal items must be properly stored. This will be ensured through weekly facility inspections. • For safety reasons, candles, incense, hot plates, open flames, heating elements, and certain types of lights are prohibited. These must be turned over to facility staff for storage and will be returned upon discharge.
• Absolutely NO FOOD OR BEVERAGE, except for water, is allowed in rooms. Facility cleanliness, including personal living spaces, will be monitored by regular inspections. Failure to keep personal and common spaces clean may result in warnings and even discharge from the program.
• All electronic devices must be silenced or on vibrate mode at all times. When using any electronic devices, headphones must be used instead of speakers. • Proper hygiene and grooming must be maintained at all times. For example, urinating is only permitted in the bathroom toilets/urinals.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 6 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
22. Personal Belongings
• Clients may not bring more than the equivalent of 2 large bags (60-gallon) of personal belongings into the facility.
• LifeMoves is not responsible for lost, misplaced, or stolen belongings during the client’s stay.
Clients are encouraged to safeguard their valuables.
• Clients will be held responsible for any destruction or theft of LifeMoves or other client’s property and will be discharged and subject to legal action. • Clients will be held responsible for any destruction or theft of LifeMoves or other client’s property and will be discharged and subject to legal action. • Clients are required to take ALL belongings (including medication & medical equipment) with them upon discharge.
• Belongings will NOT be stored for anyone who is no longer a client for longer than 72 hours after a client is discharged. Personal belongings that are left in the program facility after 72 hours from when a client discharges will be disposed of by program staff unless arrangements are made with the Case Manager or by contractual obligation. Any belongings that are left longer than the agreed upon period will be disposed of.
• No glass or silverware is allowed in the possession of clients. Items such as mugs must be plastic to be allowed in the facility. Any glass or silverware that does not fit these criteria will be confiscated immediately or the client can remove the item from the property. • Clients are prohibited from stealing, gambling, trading, selling or buying personal belongings or services including but not limited to cigarettes, food, clothing, and services such as errand running.
23. Items Not Allowed Onsite
Due to fire hazards and safety reasons, the following items are Not Allowed onsite:
• Floor/space heaters
• Heated blankets
• Candles
• Hot Plates and/or Double Burners
• Bleach
• Cooking/Frying Oil
• Cutting knives
• Personal monitors or TV’s
• Personal appliances
• Oxygen tanks needs to have management approval
• Limit of two bags of clothing items per client
24. Signing In and Out
For the safety of everyone, clients must sign out when leaving the premises and sign in on return. Staff will use the sign-out/in sheet for roll call in case of an emergency.
25. Dress Code
Clients should dress professionally for their case management meetings and outside appointments.
Shoes, slippers and appropriate clothing must be worn at all times. Clients must wear clothing to sleep and when going to and from bathrooms. Pajamas may not be worn in common areas or outside. Clients
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 7 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
will be asked to change clothes if LifeMoves staff deems any clothing to be inappropriate. Failure to comply with the dress code may result in discharge from the program.
26. Bicycles
Bikes are not allowed in units
And are to be properly stored in designated locations
Management will provide bikes locks when needed
27. Alterations and Furniture
No alterations or additions may be made in the rooms or building. For example: No hanging objects on the walls, no drawing on the walls, no hanging pictures on walls, no installing wires/ phones, do not pin Curtains, etc. Only the furniture we provide may be used. Furniture is not to be moved unless participants obtain prior approval from staff.
28. Storage
LifeMoves does not store belongings for anyone other than current clients. Clients must take all personal belongings with them at the time of their discharge. Personal belongings that are left in the facility after discharge will be disposed of appropriately by program staff within 72 hours.
29. Linens and Laundry
Upon arrival, clients will be given bed linens and towels. Clients are responsible to keep these linens clean and return the linens to staff upon discharge. Laundry facilities are provided on site. Laundry hours are from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The last load of laundry should be started no later than 7:00 PM and must be removed by 8:00 PM.
30. Food and Kitchen
Meals are provided as a service to all clients; however, clients may buy their own food to eat in the facility dining areas. Client’s personal food or drink may not be stored in the facility's refrigerators.
Clients are only allowed in kitchen areas with staff escort to complete assigned chores.
Clients may request reasonable accommodations for dining exceptions to their Case Manager.
31. Smoking
Smoking is permitted ONLY in designated smoking areas. Smoking is prohibited anywhere within 50 feet of the main entrance of the facility.
32. Cars/Parking
• Please be mindful: All clients with cars must submit vehicle information to the front desk upon intake. Provide make, model, color, and license plate of the car(s). If we do not have this and you park your car in any of the lots, it could be towed at owner’s expense. • Only certified placard holders can access handicap spaces. • Car repairs and car washing are not permitted on the property (this includes our parking lots). • All transportation, like Lyft, Uber, Taxi Cabs, etc. are required to pick you up on the street as they cannot drive into the parking lot.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 8 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
33. Facilities Maintenance
Facility maintenance issues should be reported immediately to LifeMoves staff, who will contact the appropriate maintenance personnel or service provider.
34. Confidentiality
LifeMoves is required by law to protect client confidentiality. For this reason, LifeMoves staff cannot confirm nor deny that a client resides at this facility or participates in its programs unless the client provides a written, signed consent. Case Managers can provide more information on LifeMoves' privacy policies and practices.
35. Emergency Procedures
In the event of an emergency at the facility, all occupants must calmly and quietly follow the direction of LifeMoves facility staff (or emergency services personnel, if present). Staff will call "911" as necessary.
Clients should call "911" only if instructed to do so by the staff, or if the staff is unavailable or unable to make a necessary "911" call.
If the facility must be evacuated, occupants will follow posted evacuation route signs or follow LifeMoves staff (or emergency services personnel, if present) to a meet-up location. At the meet-up location(s), staff will take roll call to support evacuation efforts by emergency services.
36. Illness / Contagious Disease
To protect the safety of everyone in the community, anyone with a contagious illness or condition such as active TB, chicken pox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, pink eye, lice, scabies etc., will be immediately discharged from the facility to prevent the spread of the communicable condition. Clients, or their family members, discharged in this manner will be placed on "automatic return" status. The individual may return as a resident after the facility Program Director receives medical documentation (signed by a physician) that the individual is no longer contagious, and as soon as accommodations are available.
Clients with latent Tuberculosis must be under the LifeMoves TB Regimen to stay in the program.
Clients with symptoms of or a positive test for COVID-19 will be handled according to current LifeMoves COVID-19 policies. These policies change periodically, based on local conditions and county/ state/ federal guidance.
37. COVID-19 Safety Protocols:
• Wear a mask that covers your nose and mouth at all times you are outside of your room. If you need replacement masks, please contact any staff.
• Follow social distancing guidelines by having at least 6 feet of space between you and another person. • Complete the daily temperature check: Staff will conduct a temperature check daily with each program participant. If staff can’t find you for the daily temperature check, a wellness check will be done.
38. Good Neighbor Policy
The LifeMoves Good Neighbor Policy is comprehensive and tailored to each facility. All residents, businesses, agencies, and property owners within the neighborhood (neighbors); LifeMoves staff; and clients have a right to personal safety, to safe and quiet enjoyment of their properties and public spaces, to access services, and to meet their basic needs.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 9 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
The quality of life and the overall character of the neighborhood can be greatly influenced by the behavior of staff and clients. Displaying a respectful and courteous attitude makes the neighborhood a more pleasant place to work and live. Staff and clients are expected to exercise good judgment and be sensitive to the needs of their neighbors. Clients should not loiter at nearby locations.
39. Written Warnings
Written warnings may be given to clients for the following:
• Violations of program policies, rules, or community guidelines • Behaviors or actions that are disruptive, maladaptive, or abusive to other individuals or to the community
• Knowingly providing false or untrue information to a Case Manager • Failing to actively follow a case management plan to which the client has agreed to The Case Manager will be informed when a client receives a written warning. Clients who receive a warning for a serious offense, or more than one warning for lesser infractions, may be discharged and terminated from the program.
40. Program Termination
Federal, state, and local laws are strictly enforced. Should clients, friends or associates be suspected of illegal activity or disturbing the staff or other clients, the client may be terminated from the program.
If for some reason you are terminated from the program (e.g., use of alcohol, drugs, violent conduct, not following the program guidelines, etc.) you will agree to leave by the time designated by staff. LifeMoves staff will give you notice in writing whenever possible which will outline the reason and time of your departure.
Right to appeal decisions: Clients who do not agree with a decision made by staff regarding denial into the program, termination, or consequences related to program violations may appeal. In order to do so, you must submit your appeal in writing before your termination deadline or within one day of the incident in question. Your Case Manager is available to assist you in writing your appeal. Your appeal will be decided by the Program Director and Case Manager. Whenever possible the Program Director will meet with you and your Case Manager as a part of the appeal decision. You should receive a written response from the Program Director to your appeal as soon as possible.
If you wish to continue with the appeal process you may request that the Program Director Committee review your situation. This request must be made in writing immediately after receiving the decision from the Program Director. The Program Director Committee will review your written appeal, consult with staff and when possible review your case file and/or meet with you. The Program Director Committee will provide a final decision in writing as soon as possible.
During the appeal process you may remain on the premises even if it goes beyond your termination date unless your remaining represents a threat to anyone’s safety (i.e., violent conduct, disorderly conduct).
If the appeal decision is that the termination is upheld you are expected to comply with that decision and the termination date given on the written response.
41. Ground for Immediate Discharge
Clients will be subject to immediate discharge for violating any of the rules listed below. Discharged clients are ineligible for re-entry for 30 days, then LifeMoves management may re-assess eligibility back into the program.
Mountain View
Community Guidelines
Mountain View Community Guidelines 10 of 10 Ver 5/4/21
a. ABSOLUTELY NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL ARE ALLOWED ON LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.
LifeMoves programs are clean and sober living environments. Any client suspected of using, selling, or storing drugs or alcohol will be asked to leave the program immediately; suspicion may include, but is not limited to, bizarre behaviors, acting out, slurred speech, dilated pupils, and staggering gait. Drug and alcohol testing may be done without prior notifications. Any client who does not agree to a request for drug/alcohol testing will be subject to immediate discharge from the program.
b. ABSOLUTELY NO WEAPONS ARE ALLOWED ON LIFEMOVES PROPERTY.
LifeMoves operates a safe living environment. Any clients suspected of concealing or using weapons will be asked to leave the program immediately and the appropriate authorities will be notified. Weapons include guns, knives, tasers, mace and pepper spray, and all other devices whose primary purpose is to injure or kill. In addition, any object or substance used to attack or threaten another person will be considered a weapon.
c. ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL ASSAULT, GESTURES, OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge.
d. ABSOLUTELY NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge. e. ABSOLUTELY NO VERBAL ABUSE INCLUDING OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, HARRASSMENT, AND RACIAL SLURS. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge.
f. ABSOLUTELY NO ENGAGING IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES ON OR OFF PREMISES. This includes, but is not limited to, panhandling and buying or selling any medication or substance. Staff will contact the police if necessary.
g. ABSOLUTELY NO DESTRUCTION, VANDALISM, OR THEFT OF LIFEMOVES OR ANOTHER CLIENT’S PROPERTY. Any behavior deemed by staff to warrant intervention by police or other emergency personnel is cause for immediate discharge.
I have read, understand, and agree to comply with the program policies, community guidelines, and client expectations described above.
Client Name ______________________________________________ Client Signature ___________________________________________Date ________________
I have reviewed these Community Guidelines and client expectations with this client.
Staff Name _____________________________________________ Staff Signature ____________________________________________Date ________________
Please sign, date wUh your address then return to :Y.Lu:J.0111ef:c1-·.C:.,'w1h1CluraS111111n'l't!euikmui/.co111. Please note that signing 011 electronic devices (e.g. tablet. PC) is not considered a wet signalure. {{you do nor have access lo a printe,; simply write "I strongly oppose the shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway'' on a piece l?
(
paper then sign, date with address in the same way
To Representatives of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County:
As a local resident, I understand that people experiencing homelessness is a big issue that our community must solve. However, I am very concerned about the HomeKey project "Benton Street at Lawrence Expressway Shelter".
I oppose building another homeless shelter at Lawrence & Benton location because Ef Bella Vista, only 0.5 miles away, is already being converted into a facility for the homeless. 0 The characteristics of the Benton location & the method of modular construction (stacked-up container-style tiny houses) are identical to White Oak Lane project, reiected in 2021 by the City of Santa Clara based on safety and other serious concerns. � Forfeit of a playground, a seasonal pumpkin patch & Christmas tree shop for kids of all ages.
ISJ!No screening for shelter residents, admitting people released fi:om jail, with criminal background, with history of or ongoing drug abuse. In all practicalities, they may pose risks to the high-density residential areas, to visitors of parks, to kids in many daycares, schools, playgrounds in this area. ef The project lacks transparency and outreach efforts.
D Additional conunents:
1 urge you to engage with us, hear out our genuine concerns and discuss/explore alternative locations. It is with that said that I request that you vote NO on this project: Benton Street at Lawrence Expresswav Service Enriched Shelter
Name (Print): ___ , :::..,:_> \,,.:_,'--"C=, -�::....,\u:,'\·ti,..:,.. ✓ _ _:{_:�\:::...c�l.s.:.d,t.:..1i ___ _- .,__ i (
,,,-Address:----------�--
i I Date: .:.:.; / C
I / /
� I fl � 1 1;._ Name (P1·1·nt).· 0 · � 0 Y 11 '
__ ___,,\S:
,;..:,.
,_.,_l_('-'\1\-"-.\'------'{N"-, _,._)
.:c..."':...::• 6'--"A,1J4..i. ____ _
/ ;�Address: ___________ <...:..! ________________________ _ I Du� S ,_<_��
I
I
\ Name (Print): _____ \ .. ...1-h_,_,u"'-L"'-:-'-,(-=<4'-._,,___,,_2_,_e_,J}=:'l.-/�_''.,1_,, __ _ Signature: _---1�•/_--_·-_ •.. _ ..... _· _______ _ -�ddress: ___________ .....:::.'--.:...\ ________________________ _ Date:
Excerpt from petition submitted (2 form letters)- See Below
Complete Petition Submitted on April 14, 2023
4/28/2023
1 Community Comments to
City Proposal on the Benton Project
SafeSCC
04/25/2023
2 Vast majority of the residents oppose the project.
SafeSCC strongly urge the City Council vote NO.
1 2
4/28/2023
2 3
This is an extremely short notice to the community
City proposal:
● Was released to the public on Friday 04/21/2023 at 5 PM! Community comments:
● This is a new proposal which is totally different from the proposals the community has been engaged with.
● Community needs more time to read and think about it. ● Sufficient time should also be given to the city council before they can vote on it.
4 Site design and operation details are missing
City proposal:
● Details are not included
Community comments:
● Site internal and external design details are missing ○ E.g. size of each room, arrangement of buildings, site plans, fence, etc ● Operation details are missing
○ Program guidelines are vague and lacking details
● No mention of how LifeMoves’ operation will be supervised ○ What if LifeMoves failed to accomplish their commitment like that in Mountain View? 3 4
4/28/2023
3 5
The “Low Barrier” nature remains unchanged
City proposal:
● Page 5: “Housing First principles and a low barrier placement process limit what screening criteria can be applied.”
Community comments:
● No matter if it’s families with children or singles, 30 units or 100 units,if the low barrier nature doesn’t change, meaning no/little background check will be done, the site remains a serious safety risk to the neighborhood as well as the tenants of the shelter.
● This is a major concern from the community.
6 Site selection neglects neighborhood safety
City proposal:
● Page 7: “the Homekey program is highly competitive andpoints are awarded to projects that are in proximity to essential services such as grocery stories, health facilities, libraries, pharmacies, and public parks.” Community comments:
● The site is selected because of how the Homekey points are awarded. ● Neighborhood safety is completely ignored in site selection. ● San Jose Branham just started construction last week. No data is available yet and can’t used to justify Benton site selection.
5 6
4/28/2023
4 7
Program rules don’t consider community safety
City proposal
● Page 9: “Community Guidelines: specific rules around warnings, grounds for program termination, and grounds for immediate discharge including drugs or alcohol on premises, weapons, physical assault or threats of violence, sexual harassment, illegal activities, destruction, vandalism, or theft.” Community comments:
● The guidelines are for the Benton site. There is no guarantee that such behaviors will NOT occur in the neighborhood. How can the city prevent crime from happening outside the site?
● If tenants are evicted due to violation of the guidelines, they may stay in the neighborhood and become safety threat to the community. 8 Tenant placement is questionable
City proposal:
● Page 8: “to place these families with children (999 Hamlin Court, Sunnyvale) at the Benton/Lawrence site and set aside space at 999 Hamlin Court for singles and couples from Santa Clara”
● Page 9: “If at some point there were no unhoused households with children to place, the building would place single clients in dorm style “flex” units.” Community comments:
● This demonstrates rules for tenant placement can be easily changed during operation.
● The site even though proposed as family only can place single clients in the future.
7 8
4/28/2023
5 Interim Housing is not effective
City proposal:
● Page 5: “63% of people served by interim housing programs found permanent housing”
Community comments:
For the eight programs in Santa Clara County,
● an average of 44% of people found permanent
housing,
For LifeMoves Mountain View:
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain -view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three -months-the-vast-majority-dont
● only 26% people at LifeMoves Mountain View
found permanent housing
● Many didn’t receive any supportive service and
chose to go back to streets
9 Unit cost is TOO HIGH
City proposal:
● Pages 10: $34 Millions to construct 30
family units.
Community comments:
● More than $1 million per family unit without land.
● For LifeMoves Mountain View site, it’s< $95k/door with land. ● Please breakdown cost estimate to justify.
● What if Palo Alto case happens again here?
10 9
10 4/28/2023
6 Financial gap is unresolved
City proposal:
● Pages 10 and 11: $5.5M Operating
Gap for the first 7 years.
Community comments:
● If LifeMoves doesn’t fill the gap, city will face$9M operation cost in 7 years. ● Homekey requires operation duration for 30 years.
● How is the project going to be operated after year 7? If operation remains the same, there is a significant operating gap for the next 23 years: $4M-$5M/year. ● All these fundings assumed best scenario. Who will fill the gap if best scenario didn’t happen? 11
12 Benton site is similar to White Oak Lane (rejected)
City proposal:
● Page 2: “City Council members expressed concern about the financing gap for the White Oak Lane project which could end up needing a City contribution of approximately $14MM over seven years. Councilmembers were also concerned with the shape and orientation of the site in relation to the nearby expressway, and the location which directly faces residential uses on White Oak Lane and Poinciana Drive.”
Community comments:
● City council rejected White Oak Lane in 2021
● If White Oak Lane shouldn’t pass, why should Benton?
11 12
4/28/2023
7 13
Report is full of false and misleading information
● Page 2: City of Mountain View attributes its 43% decline from 2019 to 2022 to a variety of City investments into homelessness services including the LifeMoves interim housing site.-> True reason is MTV started to ban RV parking on streets from 2019 and fully forbidden in 2022.
● Page 8:The County evaluated sites based on several factors, including lot size, accessibility for construction equipment, proximity to transit, and access to utilities, medical services, and grocery stores. -> The site is not close to these facilities.
● Page 6: The proposed site is vacant land located at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street near the Santa/Clara Sunnyvale border -> Not vacant, more than 3000 families visited each year for holiday celebrations and used as church parking every weekend
● Page 6: In addition, a project that receives funding under Project Homekey is exempted from local land use authority as well as CEQA (California EnvironmentalQuality Act) environmental review. -> Could not be exempted 30 modules, 90 families at most, could stay more than 120● 30 units -> ● Program participants typically stay in interim housing for three to twelve months depending on their needs while they stabilize their lives and look for permanent housing. -> Could potentially stay longer. ● Page 9: “The City’s Police Department has confirmed there is not a shortage of uniformed police officers and that the Police Department will be ready to respond if there is an increase in calls for service.”-> PD is understaffed 14 Conclusion
The proposal is rushed, flawed and poses safety and financial risks:
● Short notice to the public
● Ignorance of community concerns
● False and misleading statements
● Missing design and operation details
● Financial risks
SafeSCC strongly urge the City Council to vote NO.
13 14
4/28/2023
1 Evaluation of
the Benton LifeMoves Project
by Safe Santa Clara
April 25, 2023
Agenda
Part I: Community Sentiment
Part II: Project Evaluation
1. : Environmental Impacts
2. : Neighborhood Safety
3.: Location Concerns 2.4:
Site SpecificC o n c e r n s
5. : Fiscal and Developer Concerns
6. : Credibility and Accountability of the County and LifeMoves Part VIII: Alternative Plan and Benton Proposal
Part IV: Conclusion
1 2
4/28/2023
2 Part I: Community Sentiment
5293 wet signatures from local residents strongly opposing Benton project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWdCFJ8DDHg
Part I: Community Sentiment
Participants in Community Meetings
● 80%+ strongly oppose Benton
project
● Project supporters include
professionals from housing advocacy
organizations who donot live in the
neighborhood
3 4
4/28/2023
3 Part I: Community Sentiment
Hundreds of local residents protests against Benton project at Earl R Carmichael Park, Mission City Church, and Santa Clara City Hall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gY8mUCrEO0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEhXev9F0Ms Part II
Project Evaluation
5 6
4/28/2023
4 Part 2.1
Environmental Impacts
Environmental Impacts
● High Density - up to 248 people on 1 acre land
● Increase in foot traffic at this busy intersection (Lawrence, Benton, Floral Vista)
● Increase in vehicle traffic
● Increase in parking
● Waste Management
● Bioretention Compliance
7 8
4/28/2023
5 Part 2.2
Neighborhood Safety
Neighborhood Safety
Low Barrier Entry
● Criminal background
● Serious mental problems
● Drug addictions
Understaffed police force
“Low barrier entry…we prefer to take, to be honest, the more challenging elements of the population ”
- Brian Greenberg, LifeMoves
9 10
4/28/2023
6 Public Safety Data on Milpitas Homekey Project
● Total police calls increased by300% in 2022
● Councilmember Chua and Vice Mayor Carmen Montano challenged Consuelo that the county had changed the admission criteria without informing the city, and their screening process is not working.
● Ziploc bags of methwere found on site.
● Problematic tenants and drug addictions were not likely to be removedfrom the site due to State law.
● Only 10 Milpitas homelesslive within the 132 units apartment. ○ No staff onsite to repair elevator, fire alarm, smoke detector, etc.
○ Tenants from the business park next door “were leaving, and the business owner put the property on sale because of the negative impacts from Hillview Ct.”
“When compare the crime statistics,
Hillview Ct will outpace any apartment
complex in the city of Milpitas.”
- Jared Hernandez, Milpitas Police Chief
“Screening process needs to improve.
Because obviously the residents you
are selecting are committing crimes.”
- Carmen Montano, Mayor of Milpitas
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:37:00 https://www.youtube.com/live/1sqJldTlpmU?feature=share&t=2570, starts 43:00 Neighborhood Safety
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/live/1sqJldTlpmU?feature=share&t=2570, starts 43:00 https://abc7news.com/hillview-court-apartments-milpitas-supportive-housing-broken-elevator-disabled-residents-elderly/12856383/ Neighborhood Safety
– Reeve, resident of 1000 HIllview Ct
Public Safety Data on Milpitas Homekey Project
● As of November 2022:
○ Striking crime rate remained
○ Councilmember Karina R. Dominguez (who is the initial supporter for this project) visited the site one day prior to city’s scheduled check, and commented angrily: There was no 24/7 security, no one there checking-in visitors…carpets and restrooms are so dirty in the 2nd and 3rd floors… no eviction for crimes. “These need to be addressedimmediately.”
● As of February 2023:
○ Milpitas requested additional police of ficers to be funded by County since August 2022, but has yet to receive a response from the County.
○ Disabled occupants are stuck due to broken elevator for at least 8 months. “It goes down at least once a week”, said Reeve, one of the residents.
“Tenants are afraid for their lives.”– Karina, councilmember "People are afraid to come out of their rooms. I don't
leave my room without an open knife."
11 12
4/28/2023
7 Neighborhood Safety
Public Safety Data on LifeMoves Mountain View
Significant increase
Public Safety Data on Bella Vista
29 incidents at or next to Bella Vista since
Jan 21. Majority are drugs/narcotics,
vandalism, assault, car break‐ins.
Note that the Bella Vista interim housing
was opened in February 2023.
Neighborhood Safety
13 14
4/28/2023
8 Neighborhood Safety
Public Safety Data at Five San Jose sites
Ms. Consuelo Hernandez cited a news report by
KQED that complaints are down after interim
housing sites opened (ref: third community
meeting)
It was misleading because
● None of the 5s i t e sa r ei n residential areas
● Data was skewed by only one site
○ Number of calls increased for 4 sites
● Data showed the longer a site has been open,
the more crimes it generates
● Changes in types of crimes
Part 2.3
Location Concerns
15 16
4/28/2023
9 Location Concerns - Land Purpose
2,500-3,000 local families visiting
each year for community and family
events during the holiday seasons
Location Concerns - Schools
● The county failed to show any research on impacts
to this neighborhood. Using schools as an example:
○ 02/14/2023: c ounty and Lifemoves knew
nothing about how many sc hools are in the
vicinity
○ 03/02/2023: the c ounty said there were only
4 schools within in 1.5 miles. This is wrong.
○ 03/09/2023: the c ounty showed only 6
schools and 8 daycares within 1.5 miles. Still
wrong.
● 15 schools (10,483 students) and at least 31
daycares within 1.5 miles of Benton location; no
other Santa Clara communities have such a dense
concentration of schools.
17 18
4/28/2023
10 Location Concerns - additional
● Distance to Job Opportunities: no proof this location has more job opportunities ● Distance to Transport: El Camino bus corridor, located 0.9 miles from the site (~18min walk for healthy adults without bags etc.)
● Distance to Supportive Services: lack of easy access to locations for transportation, healthcare, food distribution, government benefits, and support services ● Liquor Store: across Benton
● Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing: less than 0.5 mile ● Similar Project Location: commercial/light industrial Part 2.4
Site SpecificC o n c e r n s
19 20
4/28/2023
11 Site SpecificC o n c e r n s-S i t eD e s i g n
● Fence Design: a fence on the creek side, but it is unclear if fences will also be installed on the other three sides of the site, and what type of fence will be used.
● Entrance: There is no clear information regarding the number of entrances to the site and whether they will be controlled. ● Parking: It is unclear whether the 80 parking spots provided, which include the parking lot for LifeMoves staff, will be sufficient for a maximum of 248 residents.
● Building Height: There is confusion regarding the number of stories the building will have. In the first and second community meetings, LifeMoves stated the building would be 4 stories, but in the fourth meeting, they claimed it could be 2 stories. Meanwhile, the Notice letter sent by the City of Santa Clara stated that the building would be 3s t o r i e s .
Site SpecificC o n c e r n s-O n s i t eP o l i c y
Detailed policy is not provided:
● Screening process is unclear
● Eviction policy is unclear
● Curfew policy is unclear
● Guest policy is unclear
● Drug policy is unclear and drug
test will be performed
● etc
Slide from the third community meeting
Multiple sex harassessment incidents happened
at LifeMoves MTV, but the sex harassers were
not evicted.
21 22
4/28/2023
12 Part 2.5
Fiscal and Developer Concerns
Fiscal & Developer Concerns - Funding and
Operation
● $3.3M - $4.3M estimated annual operating cost
($55k per person); unclear funding sourcefrom
year 1 to year 15+.
● A psychiatric unit requires a minimum 1:6
licensed nurse/patients radio, 24 hours a day
by California law. Yet LifeMoves recommends
only ONE vocational nurse for 200 unscreened
homeless tenants, where 57% have serious
mental issues.
Source:https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton 23 24
4/28/2023
13 Fiscal & Developer Concerns: Evidence from
LifeMoves Palo Alto
● LifeMoves’ Palo Alto project cost estimate
increased from $17.6 million to $26 million, just
two months after its approval, and then
skyrocketed to $34.4 million within a year of
approval.
● LifeMoves is removing 24/7 security and onsite
supportive servicesin order to cut $2 million cost
● LifeMoves is also planning to shrink spaces for
families, dining and common area, r educe common
bathrooms, and fence.
● The City of Palo Alto confronts a $6 million
funding de ficit, covering only construction costs
and not accounting for the annual recurring
operational costs that will persist year after year .
Source of Funds for
Capital cost Amount
Homekey $21,732,228
Sobrato $5,000,000
Total received $26,732,228
Estimated construction
cost as for March 2023
$34,400,000
Construction cost gap $8 millon
Source: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/as-costs-rise-palo-altos-transitional-housing-project-seeks-to-reduce-amenities https://osh.sccgov.org/project-homekey-scc/benton
Part 2.6
Credibility and Accountability of the County and
LifeMoves
25 26
4/28/2023
14 Credibility and accountability
● Though the county and LifeMoves had multiple opportunities, they consistently provided false or misleading information.A fact-check list is provided in the next slide.
● County also invited housing advocacies who don’t live in the neighbourhood to s peak in support at all four community meetings.
● Also 300+ questions from the community are still not fully answered.
Topic Question/Concern County/LifeMoves said… Fact Check Terminology County and LifeMoves
provided false and
misinformation and intend to
mislead the city and the
community
“Shelter” is an old model, which is totally different from “interim/supportive housing” that Benton is proposed
for.
“Shelter”and “interim/supportive housing” are used interchangeably in past community meetings by Consuelo.They are the same thing, meaning the target population is homeless and onsite supportive service will be provided.
1000 Hillview Ct, Milpitas is a permanent supportive housing.
Safety Impact on crime rates or
service calls on the site or
neighborhood
Consuelo said no data have showed crime would
increase in and near the shelter
> 300% increase in police calls at and around Milpitas' 1000 Hillview Ct Apartments; Consuelo attended the meeting and acknowledged the significant crime surge.
Safety Number of Schools Nearby First time knew nothing about number of schools Second time counted only 4 within 1.5 miles
Third time missed all the schools west of Lawrence
15 schools with 10,483 students;
At least 31 daycares within 1.5 miles
Safety Pedestrian safety concern No one will walk passing by the location, as there is no path available for walking past it.
Pedestrian paths in every direction. Regular foot traffic from families, seniors, couples with strollers, and students on weekdays and weekends.
Students frequently visit the 711 across Benton for snacks.
Location Proximity to Grocery Walking distance to necessities 0.9 miles or minimum 18 minutes walk to nearest grocery Location Proximity to Health Services Kaiser is close by Kaiser requires insurance; Only emergency services without insurance Location Local Homeless Folks Homeless individuals are already present in the area.
We should provide them with shelter here.
Allocation based on queue, no guarantee of housing Santa Clara's homeless in this shelter; Milpitas facility data shows only 10 Milpitas homeless in 132-unit apartment; as of 2022, two years since its launch, only 25 out of 274 homeless in Milpitas have been housed Location Proximity to bus stop Public transportations is very close by The closest bus stop is on El Carmino & Henderson, 1 miles away from the Benton location, and 21 min walk.
Location Proximity to liquor store Ignored Across the street. Research shows that people with mental illnesses who frequently consume alcohol experience worsened symptoms, leading to an increased propensity for violence and criminal behavior.
Credibility and accountability - County and LifeMoves consistently provide false and misleading information 27 28
4/28/2023
15 Topic Question/Concern County/LifeMoves said… Fact Check Data on
homeless
number
County and LifeMoves
provided false and
misinformation and intend
to mislead the city and the
community
MTV’s homeless number dropped because of the
shelter built
Mountain view city’s homeless number dropped: is because of the new RV parking restriction!
After Mountain View banned oversized vehicles from parking on the majority of city streets in 2019 and began enforcing those rules in 2022, Lieber speculated, some of Mountain View's homeless population may have relocated to areas that are more lax about RV street parking.
Data on
crime rate
Impact on crime rates or
service calls on the site or
neighborhood
Consuelo sited KQED’s newsthat complaints are
down after interim housing sites opened.
That statement is very misleading. First, none of the five San Jose sites in that news are in the residential area. They all in industrial area. Second, the bar chart in the presentation shows the total number for all the five sites, because one site is much larger than the other four so it skews the average. If you filter by sites, you will find 3 out of 5 sites have increased crime numbers compared with before they were open. This data also didn’t take into account many types of crime, such as violence, drug-related, mental disordered, theft and felon crime. So to sum up, the data supporters provided in fact is exactly consistent with the milpitas interim housing data we found, which is the crime rate tripled after the site opened. The crime rate is unacceptable.
Credibility and accountability - County and LifeMoves consistently provide false and misleading info (con’t) Credibility and accountability
Failure to Fulfill Commitment: Evidence from LifeMoves MTV ● 2nd lowest successful rate
○ 281 clients exited the program between its opening May 2021 a nd September 2022, only 73 individuals, or 26%, were placed in permanent housing, the 2nd lowest rate of successful exitin the county.
● Disqualified management and staffing:
○ Former client physically assaulted by the first program directorin 2021, there is still an outstanding arrest warrant for the director
○ A former client reported multiple sexual harassment cases;however, the second site director cannot remove the harassersdue to LifeMoves' policy against relocating drug addicts from the site until they conquer their addiction—a feat that is nearly impossible in 90-120 days.
○ Shuffled at least 3 directors within only 1.5 years of operation ● Services are missing:
○ Multiple clients never received specializedsupport in searching forhousing ○ Shortage of case managers,housing specialists; no licensed nurses (only interns). ● Crimes to the nearby business:
○ Testimony from nearby business has reported burglaries and littering issues.
Consequently, they hired a 24/7 security guardat their own expense. ○ MTV has added dedicated police forceto patrol at the site.
Lifemoves MTV has the
second lowest rate of
successful exit, 26%.
The other shelters ahead of
Lifemoves range from 41% to
70% of clients moving into
permanent housing. Many
returned to street and
chose not to extend the
contract with Lifemoves.
Source: https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/03/30/lifemoves-mountain-view-promises-to-help-homeless-clients-find-stable-housing-in-three-months-the-vast-majority-dont 29 30
4/28/2023
16 Part VIII
Alternative Plans and Benton Proposal
Opposite to what we have been stereotyped and
misunderstood as “sel fish house owners”, our
empathetic community cares a lot about homeless
people and truly want to help. We will never
surrender to sacri fice community safety, yet there are
alternative plans we will consider . Alternative plans
that will end in a win-win situation.
31 32
4/28/2023
17 Appropriate locations
● We have so far identified several
lands that is convenient to job
opportunities, facilities and
transportation.
● The City and County should
continue their search for suitable
land if pursuing interim housing
remains a goal.
Lincoln st & Civic Center Dr.
De La Cruz Blvd & El Camino Real,
next to Santa Clara Police Station,
as an expansion to the existing
supportive housing facility
Seven lands at intersection of
South Bay Fwy, Gold St, &
Lafayette St.
Parking Lots at Levi's Stadium Central Expy & San Tomas Expy What could be considered for Benton land?
● Proximity to schools makes this site a potential good fit for “rent-to-own” affordable housing for teacherswho have
a livelihood in or around Santa Clara.
● This “rent-to-own” affordabl e housing could also consider law-abiding families, whose members do not have any
substance abuse or criminal records, have good credit
scores and jobs to afford rent.
33 34
4/28/2023
18 Part IV
Conclusion
Conclusion
● The city should vote NO to this project
● Neighborhood stronglyoppose this project
● Site evaluation shows serious concerns from multiple
perspectives including environmental, safety,fiscal, etc ● Alternative sites should be identified and evaluated by the County and LifeMoves
● SafeSCC proposes rent-to-own affordable housing for
teachers and law-abiding families
35 36
Resolution/Homekey Benton Site Page 1 of 2
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING JOINT APPLICATION TO AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE HOMEKEY PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has i
ssued a Notice of Funding Availability, dated March 29, 2023 (“NOFA”), for the Homekey Program (“Homekey” or “Program”). The Department has issued the NOF A for Homekey grant funds pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50675.1.3 (Assem. Bill No. 140 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), § 20.);
WHEREAS, CITY OF SANTA CLARA (“City”) desires to jointly apply for Homekey grant funds with LIFEMOVES (“Co-Applicant”). Therefore, City is joining Co-Applicant in the submittal of an application for Homekey funds (“Application”) to the Department for review and consideration; and,
WHEREAS, The Department is authorized to administer Homekey pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code). Homekey funding allocations are subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, the Application, the Department-approved STD 213, Standard Agreement (“Standard Agreement”), and all other legal requirements of the Homekey Program.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That City of Santa Clara is hereby authorized and directed to submit a Joint Application to the Department in response to the NOFA, and to jointly apply with LifeMoves for Homekey grant funds in a total amount not to exceed $70,000,000.
2. That City of Santa Clara acknowledges and agrees that if the City is awarded and the City
Council accepts the Homekey grant funds, it shall be subject to the terms and conditions s
pecified in the Standard Agreement, and that the NOFA and Application will be incorporated in Resolution/Homekey Benton Site Page 2 of 2
Rev: 11/22/17
the Standard Agreement by reference and made a part thereof. Any and all activities, expenditures, information, and timelines represented in the Application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for the allowable expenditures and activities identified
in the Standard Agreement.
3. That the City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to ex ecute the Joint Applic
ation and the Homekey Documents associated with the Application on behalf of City for participation
in the Homekey Program.
4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERT
IFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCI
LORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST
: ______________________________
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference: None