Cities Index.
Agenda packet

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 29, 2024

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
October 29, 2024
Body
City Council and Authorities Concurrent
Pages
7
Original file
112.0 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on santaclara.legistar.com. That file is the official record.







 






!

#
!
!


$



 #
(




(#
 !
#
$
$

/#
 (%
   )
'
#




#

$
$
$


#
%

2 
 
$






"
(


$



(+

!(
#%+

#(

(C%
.

(
#%
. 
!






( )



#



.
! "


( /
$

7 

(%
$

*9










#(

!
$



)
3+


(
(


 .



0
(

"
(
(


 "
$

>?0'*9
(
%

>(


%
#


$$ (


(

%(
!

%$(
)
3+
!

 "




"


$



#
##
$ 


0


$

.
!
(
 


$$


#
#%
"





"

#
%
#



(


)







( %

!
(

( !%

%
$
%
  










 #%
 
 !


$
((
 ( 

!(


##
)

 

!

$

$$

"
 #














C 

(


#

(


$
(

(!

!!




  

C




+
.
 $+

 
((

( )


%
!!

$$ (!

%
#
%



!( +









(

!%
 
#


#
 

%)










!"
#
$%$$
&''

(')'


*
+ ( ,,

,
,
'-
&
). *
/',
0 )1) -

,2
+34) 5 - -
0)'55 ,
'-

,2
+3467
- 1
1
# ( ,, ,,8
#
0)')*
0 )0,
/',

0)-
5 '
0
,'
1
-.-
'(,
'-
1'( ,
90 ) 52
# ( ,, ,,

&''

(')'


*:
'
) 2
/#5#
5. ),
'00)9' (*
;:<;$
,=
')
( ,8
#
) ,
(,
1
, . )'(
50 ,
/ )
5> -

0)-
5 #
'(
,' -

> )
1
0 ),,
90 ) 52
# ( ,, ,,

'
2. 
2#8
?
- '( -
- ,5)0
1
# ,
50 ,
1((/,8

@ABCADDEF
AG
EH
IABJFF
@DFKF
L
MK
N
#
 #-(2*

, -

#
$%$$


,
,
'-
&
). *
#'-
1.
50 ,O
PQ

RSTSUVW
XYUSSY
Z[\TY]
^
_`abcbd
e`fbg
`h
fbijklgkakm
j`_klkii
cbmcncmfoli
obm
ho_clcki
`b
pkqafoar
stusvw
sxssy
zjci
`eefaakm
ha`_
o{{a`|c_ogklr
}~xx
^
g`
Px~xx
^
obm
cbelfmkm
gj`ik
ilkk{cbd
`fgm``ai
`b
gjk
igakkg€
og
qfi
obm
gaocb
igogc`bi€
cb
{oaiw
gkbgiw
obm
`gjka
_okijchg
ijklgkai€
obm
cb
nkjcelki
obm
oqobm`bkm
{a`{kagckiy
‚b
`amka
g`
eobnoii
oll
oakoi
ƒcgjcb
„obgo

loao

`fbgrw
gjk
dkbkaol
igakkg
e`fbg
ƒoi
i{akom
`nka
gƒ`
mori
ƒcgj
‚bgkaigogk
††x
ikancbd
oi
gjk
mcncmcbd
lcbk
qkgƒkkb
mor
P
obm
mor
sy
zjk
dkbkaol
igakkg
e`fbg
ƒoi
mkicdbkm
g`
gok
{loek
qkh`ak
ijklgka
`eef{obgi
ƒkak
aklkoikmy
‚b
oakoi
ƒcgj
ijklgkaiw
gjk
c__kmcogk
oako
ifaa`fbmcbd
gjk
ijklgka
ƒoi
{ac`acgc‡km
g`
klc_cbogk
{`gkbgcol
m`fqlk
e`fbgcbd
`h
cbmcncmfoliy
sQ

RSTSUVW
XˆSWYSU
Z[\TY]
^
bcdjggc_k
e`fbg
`h
cbmcncmfoli
obm
ho_clcki
k|{kackbecbd
j`_klkiibkii
igorcbd
og
{fqlcelr
obm
{acnogklru`{kaogkm
ijklgkai
`b
pkqafoar
stw
sxssy
zjci
cbelfmkm
gj`ik
ƒj`
`eef{ckm
k_kadkber
ijklgkaiw
gaobicgc`bol
j`ficbdw
obm
iohk
jonkbiy
^ll
ijklgka
mogo
ƒkak
dogjkakm
kcgjka
ha`_
„obgo

loao
‰Š‹ŒŽ
‘Š’“”“
•–Œ–—“’“Œ
˜Œ™Šš’–›ŠŒ
œŽ“’
Šš
›š“ž”Ž
™šŠ’
Ÿ“
Ÿ“”“š

tQ
¡VU¢SYS£
XYUSSY
Z[\TY
[¤
¥[\Yˆ
VT£
¥[\T¢
¦£\WY§]
^b
ohgkab``b
e`fbg
`h
fbijklgkakm
r`fgj
obm
r`fbd
omflgi
`b
pkqafoar
stw
sxssy
zjci
`eefaakm
ha`_
o{{a`|c_ogklr
s~xx
¨
g`
©~xx
¨
obm
ƒoi
lkm
qr
i{kecol
r`fgj
gko_i
ƒj`
eobnoiikm
i{kechce
oakoi
ƒjkak
r`fgj
obm
r`fbd
omflgi
ƒkak
b`ƒb
g`
e`bdakdogky
ª{`b
e`_{lkgc`bw
mogo
ha`_
gjci
goadkgkm
e`fbg
ƒoi
eoakhfllr
aknckƒkm
odocbig
gjk
akiflgi
ha`_
gjk
dkbkaol
igakkg
e`fbg
g`
kbifak
gjog
obr
{`iicqlk
mf{lceogk
e`fbgi
ƒkak
ak_`nkmy

vQ
¡VU¢SYS£
Z«¬
XYUSSY
Z[\TY
[¤
XY\£STY§
VT£
¡ˆS­U
®V¯­W­S§]
^
e`fbg
`h
{aknc`filrucmkbgchckm
fbijklgkakm
j`_klkii
igfmkbgi
obm
gjkca
ho_clcki
e`bmfegkm
qr
gjk
„obgo

loao

`fbgr
°hhcek
`h
±mfeogc`b
h`a
gjk
bcdjg
`h
pkqafoar
stw
sxss
cb
e`b²fbegc`b
ƒcgj
{oagcec{ogcbd
iej``l
mcigacegiy
³k_`dao{jce
obm
dk`dao{jce
mkgocl
ha`_
gjk

°±
e`fbg
ƒoi
gjkb
e`_{oakm
g`
ekbifi
mogo
g`
ejke
h`a
{`iicqlk
mf{lceogc`bw
j`ƒknkaw
b`
mf{lceogki
ƒkak
h`fbmy

}Q
´[¯SWS§§
X\UµS¶]
^b
cbu{kai`b
cbgkanckƒ
ƒcgj
·}·
fbc¸fk
ijklgkakm
obm
fbijklgkakm
cbmcncmfoli
k|{kackbecbd
j`_klkiibkii
e`bmfegkm
qr
{kka
ifankr`ai
qkgƒkkb
pkqafoar
s†
obm
oaej
s†w
sxssy
³ogo
ha`_
gjk
ifankr
ƒkak
fikm
g`
akhcbk
gjk
¨`cbgucbuzc_k

kbifi
kigc_ogki
obm
gjkb
fikm
g`
docb
o
_`ak
e`_{akjkbicnk
fbmkaigobmcbd
`h
gjk
mk_`dao{jcei
obm
k|{kackbeki
`h
j`_klkii
cbmcncmfoliy
















!
 "
#
$



%
 #

#
!

#
" 

&& '
 !


#



%
(&


 %
&"
 &
)& 
%
 
!&" &
! 

%
!

" #

! 
$$

*
+,-
)
(! !

 &


 
$



) 

$


)& "
)


*
+,-

(

..
#

$
/)
 
!
"

 &




!

( #




"



&$

!





 *



0
1 

$ 

!

'

)




234
)
'& %
5 6789:
;<
=<7>;8>?
@>AB:C;:D:9
E<F:C:AA
G:<HC:%

0 &&




)
2 &&



3(

#
$

 "
)
'& %
=<>97I;8>?
J
K<7;B
=<7>;L
5 M<<CN8;*

OPPQRS
TUUPR
V &

 &

!



"

(
)
(!

!
!( 

0 ( &
!
)





)& "
!
)&   
$




*
4 

WXY4Z[
!


)
'&

&


1 %



" \"
 
 !


! 
%

))
 !
'#



#

'&
2 &

$$

&
)
) 
& ( &






'#


)
'&
!
'#
)



&#
/)
 "

 &





$

WXY4Z[







*
+

&
$

"$ 
/) 

$



(

'#
]


! &
!
& &

#

" \ 
%



" \"
 
$ &


))
)
  %

$
!



"





&!
'

 ( !
'#

"



 $$



)

#







$ &!*
,
&( !
/)
 
)




&!
'
 "
 !
'#



 $$


)
(

Y


$$

%
'




0
&!
'

& (
!

'] 

)& 
0

)
'&

&

^

 
*

_`abb`
cd ef`
g b`hd id jd k l
mnR
o



)

)

$




!#%


234
! $
$



&
!

 &

)



0 !p
+
!(!
&


$ &#
0

)

#
"


! 




)
'&


)
( 
)&

!
" !
$




!
&#

!

"
&

& )"
! 
$

 
' "
%
&
!"

%
)
1%
' ! !
'
&!"%
'






 
%

)
%


)"
"

!*
qRr
TPsUPR


.t..





 
!&"#
$&&0 !


 '&

!%
234
))
( !
))


&#
&& !

'&\
 
!
$&&0 !
'#

)&

( #*
X
#

"$ &#%

"
0  !



$
u,
 '& !


)



! 
&& *
+
v,-Y
,

( #
Z.w
))& 
0 ! ( &) !
!

\ !
'#
+,-

$


234
! 
&& 

^

 

!

&

(
$#


)& 
0



WXY4Z[

$ #
)



 '&

!
'#


)& "
 *
+&
%
)
(  

0  !

)
)& "
$$



! )&#


 

(

&&#%
0 (

)

'& %


'#
(!"


 !
$


&\ !
! )&# 


0 WXY4Z[







1 0
&!
'
"

*

W



" \ 
%
)
"


 $$%

#%
!
#

 $$
&"
0

&  !

#
 '

0 '&


& 

$




$



(
uY,
)& "
 )
&


 '& !
)& "
$

)& 
(
"
$



#
0

)

\ 
$

"
! 
#

 &








 $$
!
)

 &
0

!


(
/)
  *

xQR
r
yQr
zQRPR

+

 !
'( %


0 )&  !
$$



!




'

$
)



!
&#
(&( !

$ &!
0
1 !






.t..

Y


!



WXY4Z[

$ #


*
Y
.t..%
(

.{t



0
1 %

#
(&


!

 &

"
!

)
)  !



" 
&




*

W


!
)
"


 $$
!!
& !

 
$
)



0

&( !
/)
 



"
!



!


!






.t..*
2 &

"
!

0 ) !
|.t
$

&

"

0 &&

|.t
)



0
1 !



! #

$



*









 








 


 
 


 

 





 



!

  

 





"

#
$ 

   

%

  &
  



%

 &

  
&















 




 

#
%











 &


 
 

  



  &
  

 


 








!

'()*+,
-.*/(0+1234
5 &




6
 &
6


!
7
   
  
 
  

 
 


&

 
8 !

 





 

  
 
 6 
 

9 


 
 
   

 


 !
5
 
 
 
 

9
 &
 &
 

 







  




 &
 

!

:2;14+1/4
2)
<30=*.(+123
>




 


 




 
 & 


 
  
 



&


 

!
5
 

 

&



 
9 
 
?  

 



 
?   

&

 !
5
 


 






 
 

 
 
 





 
 


 
 



  


 
  
 !
 
 

 




 

 

 

 

 ?

 




  

 
 &
 




9


 

 


 !

@
 
 

9

&



  

 
  
&


!

A




&
A
 &
B
C




 

 


 

  
 
  




 


 !
$
  

 

   


 

 


 


 



 








  


 



 
 & 
 
 !
 
 
9 

 

 &

 
 
 !






&



?  
   

   


 &
 
 
9 


&


 
 
 
 
9 



 &






&




?  
   !
D 
 &

  





 

 &
  


EFGHIEJKLM
JGKN
GHL
JGK
OPJEOF
JO

EFLEQHJK
JGHJ
EJ
RHS

EFGHIEJKL
ITJ
JGHJ
JGKN
LELFUJ
VFOR
JGK
FTWIKX
OX
JGK
 
 
Y

  Z


  !

 

  


 

  

 
 
& 
@A[

 


 &


 
\]

 QOTFJ
^P_HQK`

 &
  

 
 &
& 


 
 
& !
$ 
 




  



!

'(3+(
ab(.(
a203+,
c))1/*
2)
<d0/(+123
a203+


&


 


    

  


 

 
9


  &
?   
   

 
 
 &
& 





!



 


&




 



9




 

 


%e$
 

   

  


?  
   


YZ



!








? 


Bf
 
 


Bg

&





JGK
FTWIKX
Oh
TFSGK_JKXKL
hHWE_EKS
JGHJ
RKXK
ELKFJEhEKL
EF
JGES
NKHXUS
QOTFJi
jF
kl


f

 



>5

!
>

 
  
 &
 
 
 





 9


!
e
 

 
 
 
 
 9 




&

 

  !








 

 



 

    

!
"
#$%
&
"
'(''
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%
+

,$-

+%
*
$++
.$
. /. - $
&
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%-

* .
"
$#
&
'0

"



1
2$)
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%-
3/ . +#
" % -- --
*


-
" % --
- .4+ -5
$.

. +#6$7%

$*
%
-. 
+

4%
 .-5
$*
$)
7 

-" % . *
%+$-
"$
$.
*&&+
%

&*1
" . &. 5
.$*$%
-. 
+

&&.-
$.

$-
&& +4

. $+"#
)
"1

89:9 ;<=
>9:?@A
B-

$%%
) $.-5
/%$#
&.
"
'(''
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%
+

+%
* *
" % --
)
"
- .4+
/.4* .-
$*
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%-
,"
%4 *
3/ . +
&
" % -- --1
C+$%
- .4+
/.4* .-
* & *
%+$-
," .
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%-
3/ . +#
" % -- --
, .

D,

+#. #$
$*
. +.
 *
)
"
$*
)
#
$*
%-
+
.. %)
3/ . +#
" % -- --
,"
D,% *#
&
," .

%+$
" % --
)
"

- .4
$-
#
* -
&.
"
+
1
C$
$& .
$*
$.%)
4 #
, .
"
* $%
 -
. + * *
7)
$*4+$ -

+*
+
"
)
"
+
1

"
E%%
F%-

 .
D
"
% $*

. +.
#
GH
)
"

,.D
$-
/ .

 .$.-

$**

I
)
"
- .4+
/.4* .
-$&&
 7 .-
,"
$++/$ *
$*
.$-/. *
"
)
"
$.
*
"
+
)1

J
"
,.D .-
, .
/$*
K'(
/ .
"
.
&.
" .
 5
+%
*#

-/ 

.$#
/..

"
+
1
J
"
$*
- .4+
/.4* .
-$&&
 7 .-
, .
.$ *

," .
$*
",

* &)
" % --
)
"
$-
, %%
$-
",

. +.*
"
*$$1

> L
M!!9<L?A
N
,$-
*  . *
"$
" % --
)
"
,
%*
7 .
/. 

"
-. 
*
.#
*$)%#"
"
.-
.$" .
"$

"
$.%)
.#
*$,
 &.$
," 
"
#  .$%
+

,$-
+*
+ *1
J
"
,.D *

 $-
&
,

&
.5
,"
 $-
+.*$ *
$*
-
/ .4- *
7)
-. 

. $+"
,.D .-1

OPQ
$*
"
P *
R$ -
N .$# +)


+%

O % -- --
. +#6
"$
)
"
*

+%)
+#%
,"
" % --
$*
%-
$*
$.

$-%)
* & *
7)
)
"1
S.
"-
. $-5
" -
$# + -
$++ /
$*
. + *
"$
+
 -
+

)
"
$
 -
," 
" )
+$
7 - 
.$" .
"$
*
.#
.$*$%

 .$
 -1
TL;99L
MUAL
>9V>UW!?< L?A
Q$$
&.
"
-
//%  $%
)
"
+

$*
#  .$%
-. 
+

, .
+/$. *
$*
* *
/%+$ *
7)
$-- --#
%+$5
# * .5
$*
$# 1
N
$%5
'
/ .--

* .
"
$#
&
'0
, .
* & *
$-
*
/%+$ -
$*
. 4 *
&.
"
*$$
- 1


 

    

!

"
#$%
&
"
-" % .
+

-

#$
$
$++
.$
+

&
/ .--
 /.$.%)
"
- *

-" % .-
$+.--
R$$

%$.$


)1
" -
*$$
$.
4$%

#$#
$
$++
.$
4 .$%%
+

&
"
" % --
//
%$
$*

* .-$*#
," .
/ .--
3/ . +#
" % -- --
. + 4
-" % .1
>9X?A?L?A
S.
"
/
./- -
&
"-
-
*)5
"
OPQ
* &
&
-" % . *
" % -- --
&.



-
,$-

- *1
"-
* &
+%
* -
*4*
$%-
$*
&$% -
%4#

$
-
/ .4- *
/
7%+%)
.
/.4$ %)
/ .$ *
-" % .
* -#$ *

/.4*
 /.$.)
%4#
$..$#  1















!

" 




#$
%







%

& 



'()*+,-.
/(0121..
34*45101*+
6%
 
&$
 7

8
9:;;8:

# #


<


 $"




=
&>
!
?
!

@A#

=


BC6&

$
 




%

& 




$7
@A#

# #




" #$



=


 



"
D
"

=

#
< #



=

& %
B < 

D
"



#
$7
E 
!

# #






 

=
" =
" 
=

#


#$=
< 


 

=
#

#

 

=

!


<


#
 



#
7 

!

 =


F

%







D
#D 



BC6&

$
 7

" 




 =
&>
# #





"

! FF

$
 
%

D
"7

GHIJJKLM KN


 $
#
 "


$

 



=

D # $
!

D  


#
$


"

<

& 




$7
OP01
'()*+.
4Q1
R.*4S.T(+.U
+T4+
V)4*+PW,
+T1
.PX1
(W
+T1
T(0121..

S(S)24+P(*
4+

"< 
D

"


$
7 B # =


#

 $

F

D

 <
%
%
#



#D
 
#
"




 

DD
 

 $


<

 7

A

<
 $
%


=



 

D





!


F



 ?
##

%%



<
 #7
> "


%

!

##

%



#

%%


=



#

%


 

DD
 
!
? $

=

D # $
%


#

FDD
 

#

% 


$

7 

YZ6E[\
D  #
!



D # $
#
 ""


% #
F$


6



D "
#
%


F

%


=





%
!
#

!



Y#

<
 

"


D ?





!
! ?

%
] 

$
^_^^

!
#

 #

 

 $




%
A F

$7


 F$

F 

 "

D



!

<
`D
 #



"


!

#
 " =


"

" 
F$

#

%


#

 %%7


 


D$




<
<



 



=
!

#  # $


=

<



F




#"
7 a< 
!




 #
%
# 

 

<#
D
<

=


 
"$
# 
"


[__b
##

#$7
C $
% #

 $
#
F




DD


=
%

` D c
d
6


%%#


 %$

 

D



!

 $
F

 D"

< 
=
#

=

#
 
<
#
=
F 
F
"
=




#

%
%

 

F 7
d
B 

% 

!

#


% 

?
DD





 $

D
< 
D
D
$=






 D





=

<
#
=



 ?

%



7 a< 


"











? $

F



#

%


 

DD
 =


 
"$
D$ e#
D
!



 

< $e





#D


<
DD
 #

<  F 7









     

!

"
#$%
&$&'
' (

)
*++
,-- , *
).
/)
)
0 .1 2
+.

0 *
3.
)
4,5 26 




3

+.
7 - 00
8000+,
3 */
+99-,+
+*
+.
9.+
3.
3 
.

9./.+
* 1 -9 
+*
9-+/:
)
0 .1 2
-, *
3.+
0 ,)
+0
/ * .;
3+-2
0+
0;
-+.2
0 .1, ;
*
.+
+*
. ,
.. ,
3
) - 00 00;
/)
+,,*+0;
,+
0 0
3
) - 00 00;
+*
+,, 00

0 .1, 0
).
/)
9  * *;
,-0 * * *;
+*

-9-
. 090
<
00:
)
0 .1 2
*++
=./
/. + .
9 .09 ,1

,
.. 
00
0 3
) - 00 00
+*

)

9.10
+*
* -1 .2
3
0 .1, 0:
>
.1 20
? .
,*
, *
=2
9 .
0 .1 2
?.@ .0
?)
-1 *
) - 00
A9 . , :
.+/
0 000
? .
3+,-+ *
=2
8>B;
>++

-+.+


2
0+33;
+*
,
2
9+. .0:
 +-
 .1 ? .0
? .
- *
).
/)
+
,9. ) 01
. +
)+
,-
* *

9.C ,
=+,@/.
*
3.+
+0
? --
+0
* +- *
0.
,

. 09* 
-/=-2;
 .1 ?/

9.,-;
+*
,3* +-2:
.
0 .1 2
?.@ .0
? .
,9 0+ *
+
+
.+
3
DEF
9 .
,9-  *
0 .1 2:

G
?+0
*  . *
)+
0 .1 2
*++
?
-*
=
.
+0-2
=+ *
3
+
, 1
/3
?+0
33 . *

. 09* 0

+99. ,+
3.
) .

+*
9+.,9+:
>,@0
+*
/3
,+.*0
? .

9.1* *
+0
+
, 1
3.
9+.,9+/

)
HFHH
) - 00
0 .1 2:
)
0,@0
+*
/3
,+.*0
? .
+02

*0.=
 ;
)+*
?*
+99 +-;
+*
,
-*
=

9.1* *
?)
)

9.C ,
=
*/ :
)
, 1 0

9.1 *

=
?* -2
+,, 9 *
+/
0 .1 2
. 09* 0:

IJKL&M
I
$%
!

N+0 *

+




0+
3
EF;FHO
) - 00
9 .00;
?)
+
.+*P *
0 .1 2
0+9-/

9., 00;
)
QRQ
1+-*
0 .1 20
. 9. 0  *
+
,3* ,
 .1+-
3
STUV
?)
+
QRV
,3* ,
- 1 -
?) 
/  .+-P/
)
. 0
-0
3
)
0 .1 2

)
0+ *
99
-+
3
*1*
+-0
A9 . ,/
) - 00 00

>++

-+.+


2:
)
HFHH
0 .1 2
?+0
+*0 . *

0) - .0;
.+0+-
)
0/
3+,- 0;
+*

)
0. :

G
.* .

0
.
)
. 9. 0 +
3
.+0+-
)
0/
. 0* 0;
?)
,+
=

* .. 9. 0  *

+
0. =+0 *
0 .1 2;
0 .1 2
<
+0
? .
,. + *

. +,)
*1*
+-0
+*
) +*0
3
3+-2
)
0 )-*0
-1/

) 0

9./.+0:

>.+ /,
+ 90
? .
+-0
+*

. +,)
*1*
+-0

1+.
0 / /.+9),
-,+0
+*
3
1+.
0 0
=0 
/.
90 0
,)
+0
) - 00
2
);
.2
),
/.
90;
-+.2
1  .+0;
* 0,
1- ,
0 .11.0;
+*
3+- 0:

W
+0

0 *
3.
/ /.+9),
-,+0;
2
)
+*
2
/
+*
-0;
+0
? --
+0
0) - .
0+
0:

X.
) .
0 =99
-+0
Y1  .+0;
),
/.
90;
+*
* 0,
1- ,
0 .11.0Z
9 .9 .
0 .1 2.0

3.
)0
/.
90 ? .
. ,.
 *
+*
+0@ *

0 .1 2
) .
9 .0:
[9.,+-
*++
)+
,+
=

0 *
+0
)
=+00
3.
0+9-/
0
- *

+..?
+/
,+ /. 0;
/ /.+9)2;
+*
0) - .
29
+*
0+
0:

X
.) .
* +-0
)+
?
-*
+=-
=  .

9.3-/
3
0 =99
-+
,)+.+, .0,0;
0 ,)
+0
/ * .
* 2
+*
0 A
+-
. +;
.+,
+*
),2;
1  .+
0+
0;
+*
1+.
0 ) +-)
,*0
+.

+1+-+=-
3.
0+9-
9-+/
+*
+.
=.+*-2
3. *
=2

9. 1
0 G
,

. 0
-0:

\
./
)
0 .1 2
+*0.+.
.+/

9., 00
+*
*
./
0 .1 2.
.+/0;
1 .2
+ 9
?+0
+*

. ,.

+
*1 .0
/.
9 3
,+9+=-
0 .1 2.0
?)
. 9. 0  *
+
=.+*
.+/
3
A9 . , 0
+*
=+,@/.
*0

.* .

. *
,
9-,
=+0;
)
/)
3 --
-+
3
=+0
0
= 2*
)
0,9
3
)0
33.:

>,
HFFQ;
)
8>B
0 .1 2
 )*-/2
)+0

9..P *
+
9 .9 .
+99.+,)

*++
,-- ,
=2
,. +0/
)

= .
3
,
.. -2
) - 00
0 .1 2.0:

G
.* .

,. +0
.+*P+
3
0+9-
. 09* 0]
^_`abc
de`fb`^
db`b
g`hijbk
ge
blmnec
hj
obab`c
gpi`k
bjqe_jgb`r
^_`abc
hmm`ehqps
t_`abc
de`fb`^
db`b
ij^g`_qgbk
ge
hmm`ehqp
bab`c
gpi`k
mb`^ej
gpbc
qej^ikb`bk
ge
ub
hj
-/=-
0 .1 2
. 09* :

G3
)
9 .0
* ,- *

+@
)
0 .1 2;
)
0 .1 2
?.@ .
,
-*
+99.+,)
)
 A
-/=-
9 .0
) 2
,
 . *:
83 .
,9- /
+
0 .1 2;
)
.+*P *
+99.+,)
?+0
. 0
 *:

















    





!

"# 

$ %
&$
%
 '#%

$
!

 


! % 
%&
! 
!


&&
 #(
)
'
!
   
*

"# 

 
&
' #


&##

! 

"

#
 
$ #
!
!


"


%#

$ #


'  %
$#'
*

%#

"
&$# %*
#

%#


& 
%



'%
# #
%




" &(

+,--
./0
123405
306201708
3019:;80;71<
=;=7=>?1
>;8
8>70
:@
A=37/
1:
7/>7
829?=B>7=:;
B:2?8
A0
>4:=808
C=7/:27
B:D93:D=1=;E
7/0
3019:;80;71<
>;:;5D=75F
G9:;
B:D9?07=:;
:@
7/0
123405
0@@:37H
>;
0I70;1=40
403$&
"&



&#
& #

%
" %
829?=B>701F
./=1
93:B011
0I>D=;08
3019:;80;71<
8>70
:@
A=37/H
=;=7=>?1H
E0;803H
07/;=B=75H
?0;E7/
:@
! %



*
#
&

 &


" 

$

"


! 


J


(
K
% 



 
$
! 
L #
#
% #
$
!
 
!
'!



! &(

MNOP,
QR-
S
TU-

!
VWVV
X

%



Y %

X

##

&%
#

J
%
 "

$
%%
! %

L"  &
(
!

%% 
!

""
%

*
!
!# 

&





!

 & 

$
%%
L"


#
'
!


"&

(
Z
L"% *
$#'
$%

L"  &'
! %



"



&!%% '
#
&
% #


#  "


!




%
(
!


""%



!
#

'
#
%
*
!
'!
&








!

!

 


 % #*

& 

!

"


$

!



"# 
(
[&'
#

 '
# #
%

!
# $



' # *
!
!


L
%
 
! 
!

'!*
!

L"  &'

" &$&
! %!
&#

&!


\])X
#
^]*
#
! 

&
"

#$$&
%

#
! 
L"  &




$
%%
 "
 #

!

"&

(

! 



&

!
#
!
# #
%

L"  &'
! %



%$ " #(
Y *

'

" 
   '
 !#%'


% #

%%
!

"# 




&##
!
! 

 

#

! %"
 #
&
!

 


$
 %'
" 
%
$(
Z
! *

 &
" # 

#
&


$$
 


 & # #
# #
%

!

%#

!



 #

&#
&'
   

#
!

# #
%

 &  #
&" ! 

'



!

&#
&
   
(
X  &
" # 

#
&


$$
%

   #
!







J
%

"

(
X


!
 
&
#  #
&"% 

&'
$%


"

 

&& " #(















!
"
#


$
%&&'
&
()
'*
+,-./0
+-123244.244
5 6 & )
7$
896
*:
*

*'';* )
)<)
*=
>
# *)
&
*
&*=$
#
: #=)
?#
*
):*7=@
')
?#
#*:
# >
'

:=$
A; > ' )
# = :: ::
&>
*
$ *>
>
>
>
#*:

A; > ' )
*
= *:
&
>
;:) :
&
# = :: ::
*=@
BC
#:

#
;*:
#>
$ *>:D
E/4FG3/.H
0-.I/J/-.
5 6 & )
7$
896
*:
*
;#$:'*=K
 *=K
>
*=
;*> K
'=
)@
*
;*> 
'*
: )
7$
*='#=
>
)>
@
*7
: K
:>*
*'
:> ::
):>) >K
>
7>*
L
>$
#*
:

A; ' )

7 =@ >
*)
;*':
#
)<)
*=MN

OPQRQST
SU
RQVW
QXYWZWXYWXSRT[
O
YWVWRUZ\WXSOR
YQNOPQRQST[
U]
^_`ab_cde
!12,H2.0f
4+23J2,
5 #
;><:
&
*
:*&
*= >*<

#
:> :K
# >

*
:# = >
&*'=$
>
#>
@#
#

:
&
:*7=g*
>:D
( >@ '$
:# = >
:
:#> >K

:
*==$
&>
Bhi
)*$:
>
& ? >D
6 :'
<= '
:# = >:
*>
$;'*==$
':) > )
*
$;
&
 >@ '$
:# = >K
*:
# $
;><)
:*& K
 )*
#
:@
&>
:
><<>:
*)
# >
'#=)> D
jF1/3f
5 k
#
: #=)
?#
*
= *:

*)
=
*)

'#=)

) >
#
*@
&
BhD
l-123244
5 9) >
#

* @>$
B
) &
&
# = :: ::

#
8(km8
k'K
'=
) :
)<)
*=:
*)
&*= :
=<@

*
:
; ><: )
;
7='=$
>
;><* =$
; >* )
:# = >
) :@* )

;><)
 ;>*>$
=<@
*>>*@  :K
>
?#
*
;>*>$
@#
> :) '
#*
:
*
;
7='
>
;><*
;=*'

) :@ )
&>
>
>)*>=$

: )
*:
*
> @
=*>
:= ;@
*'')*
&>
#
*
7 @:K
'=
)@
*
'*>K
;*>nK
*7*) )
7 =)@K
7 :
>
>*
:*K
*>;>K
>
'*;@
@>
)D

loE
5 k77> <*
&>
#
9DpD
6 ;*> 
&
8
:@
*)
9>7*
6 < =; D
q+23J2,2I
+-123244
/.I/r/IsF34
5 t)<)
*=:
?#
*>
=<@

 >@ '$
:# = >:
>
>*:*=
#
:@
;>@>*:D
q/.H32
/.I/r/IsF3
5 k

*'';* )
*)
=
< >
#
*@
&
BhD
u,F.4/J/-.F3
+-s4/.H
5 8
:@

?#'#
# = ::
)<)
*=:
*$
=<

;

Cv
#:
*)
> ' <
:
;;><
: ><' :
#*
*7=
# 

=<
>
) ; ) =$D
p
;;><
: ><' :
5 ?#'#
# =;
;>
> :) *=
:*7=$K
'> *: )
:n==
= < =
>
' K
*)
@> * >
: =&)  >*
5*$
7 ;><) )
7$
#
>@*g*
**@@
#
#
:@K
>
'>)* )
7$
#*
>@*g*
*)
;><) )
7$
# >
;
7='
>
;><*
*@ ' :D
>*:*=
#
:@
'*
7 ;><) )


:>
'
>
>
: < >*=
:>
'
> :
*

: K
>


=;=
:>
'
> :
*
:'* > )
: :D
o.F00-1wF./2I
f-sJ+
5 #=)> 

) >
#
*@
&
Bh
?#
*>

*'';* )
7$
*
;*> 
>
@
*>)*
*)
*>

*
;*> 
;> : @
?#
>
:= ;@

#
:*
;=*'
*:
# >
?
'#=)x> yD

o.4+23J2,2I
+-123244
/.I/r/IsF34
5 t)<)
*=:
?#
*>
=<@

#
:> :K

*7*) )
7 =)@:K
:>*@
:>
'
> :K
< #'= :K
'*; :K
>
*$
# >
;=*'

&
&>
#
*
#*7*D
z-sJ+
F.I
z-s.H
{Is3J4
5 |
@
; ;=
7 ? 
#
*@ :
&
iB}
x$
#y
*)
BhCv
$ *>:
=)
x$
@
*)
=:y
?#
*>

*'';* )
7$
*
;*> 
>
@
*>)*
*)
*>

*
;*> 
;> : @
?#
>
:= ;@

#
:*
;=*'
*:
# >
?
'#=)x> yD














!"#$
"#
%"&'
(!)#$
*+$+,
-./
01234/
56347/
15 89:;
9<=><
?@<4<
?63=>A
B6C/@/55
?63=>
<=D
934E/A;
064
>./
A/<45
E<4A1=2
046C
FGGH
>6
FGFFI

J!&''KK
L)MN'O
P"#Q"#RKS
-./
01234/
56347/
15 89:;
9<=><
?@<4<
?63=>A
B6C/@/55
?63=>
<=D
934E/A;
064
>./
A/<45
E<4A1=2
046C
FGGH
>6
FGFFI

L)TU!U)+$"!#
*+$+S
-./
01234/
56347/
15 89:;
9<=><
?@<4<
?63=>A
B6C/@/55
?63=>
<=D
934E/A;
064
>./
A/<45
E<4A1=2
046C
FGGH
>6
FGFFI

('#K)K
*+$+S

VI9I
?/=535
W34/<3I
XY<=3<4A
FGFGZI
8C/417<=
?6CC3=1>A
934E/A
FGFG
[\]/<4
^5>1C<>/5;
-<_@/
`aGH,
8?9
`/C624<b.17
<=D
B6351=2
^5>1C<>/5I
:/>41/E/D
046C
.>>b,cc0<7>01=D/4FI7/=535I26E











 





 !
" % $ #
&










 





 !










 





 !










 





 !










 





 !"










 





 !"










 





 !"










 





 !"










 





 !" #$%&
'()*+,-./)0122)/-.3)45+.-67.3)8,.-69:/2+,.1:;479<'8=.:.:>?@ 









 





 !!
From: Mayor and Council
To: Mayor and Council
Cc: Nadine Nader; Manuel Pineda; Andrew Crabtree; Adam Marcus; Glen Googins; Nora Pimentel; Michelle Estabillo; Marisa Welling; Stephanie Davis
Subject: FW: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25 Date: Sunday, April 23, 2023 3:22:47 PM
Attachments: A Home for Every Californian.pdf
image003.png
Dear Mayor and Council,
Our office received the following correspondence 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 we are forwarding for your review and consideration.

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 1:25 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 1:24 PM Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 1:24 PM Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> wrote:

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
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'('')*+*,-./,0123.4567+4 89:;<=>?;9@AB9>CDA?C=<E=FG;?H9?I8=DDF?;CJ@AKA:=BDA?CLM9>NOPQPP ROASC9CAT;IAE=FG;?HU:9?:9JG=FC9K;G;=?C=A?GF>AAKA>J 89:;<=>?;9?O9G9G9<AVGC9W:AV9?I9<<=>I9W:AO=DAXYZ,3*+*, .3-1[\.45*1-+[/3*Z[,,1]^,_*.`,3*1+_Z.,`,*Z.3`.3.14a YZ,b7+4/,3_[.],3TOJTA?AAIC=9NC?=T*1+//[,33*Z, 3*+*,c3Z123.45+dd1[/+].7.*e_[.3.3fTO9CTAg?=T+]12* h+7.d1[4.+c3Z123.45_[.3.3f.4_72/.45Z1--,51*Z,[,+4/5[1-.45 _Z+77,45,3fTO9CCOAO=FG;?H?AAIG.4h+7.d1[4.++[,fTO9C=F> GC9CA9?I:=N9:H=KA>?DA?CG9>ANF>>A?C:JI=;?H*1+//[,33*Z, b[1]7,ifTOA>ATA9>AH=;?H;?COA<FCF>Af+4/Z1--,-.77C>9Ng =F>B>=H>AGGj  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-./01231456*5(*078.9-7*.++:;714561:-+1212 *-+1459*0<59*2757.-*0<*-2+.-51=;.9*9>0*-24.8?*57@1A=197+*- B97C14DE1*+,-./01231561B97C*0+.==:-75714<56179102194C.56 ;*45*-2;9141-5<*4/100*48:5:9131-19*57.-4D'()*04. *+,-./01231456*55610*-2/*48.:-212:;.-1F+0:47.-4*-2 19*4:914.8=*->B97C*0;1.;014<*-256.41/6./1918.9+7C0> 91=.@1289.=561796.=10*-24DB674*+,-./0123=1-5 21=.-459*514*+.==75=1-55.+.-57-:12+.00*C.9*57.-/756G-27*- (.:-59>7-56121@10.;=1-5*-27=;01=1-5*57.-.8.:96.:47-3 ;.07+714<;9.@727-3391*519*++1445..;;.95:-75714*-2419@7+14< 7-+91*47-3*-21-+.:9*37-3B97C*0;9141-+17-.:9+.==:-75714< *-2914;1+545617-6191-54.@19173-5>.8?*57@1A=197+*-B97C14D HIJKLMNOPQLRSNTUJQVWLXJYZ[VKVQJ\]^VRVQQ_LVP`LaRVQLQNLbc\NPL JYVYQLPJMQVWLWLPRVNYNTQ_LIJc]  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

  '()*+,-),(.*/-0+12)3
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*++,-.)/*0,.1.1+23413/1+3546)7,2/)482349: ;31<546)7,2/)4/.42323.)6)3/1=+3/=3=,2>1,*31+321,140>63 1+2341.24/*)/*72,9?4/839)0.1,/41-2468).4.132.:@39-.1 0,/1)/-31,=,2>1,*31+32<A-1=)1+3B3/*234132-2*3/0C<1, )9?2,B3+,-.)/*477,284A)6)1C7,2466546)7,2/)4/.4/81+330,/,9)0 +3461+,7,-2*2341.1413: 546)7,2/)4D.+,-.)/*02).).).4+46703/1-2C)/1+394>)/*:E7132 830483.,7-/832?2,8-01),/<.-??6C).742A3+)/8/3384/8+,-.)/* 4/823/1460,.1.423.,42)/*:E.423.-61<9)66),/.,7546)7,2/)4/. 9-.194>3+428830).),/.4A,-1?4C)/*7,2+,-.)/*411+33F?3/.3 ,77,,8<+3461+0423<0+)680423<4/8124/.?,2141),/<8)23016C )9?401)/*G-46)1C,76)73)/1+3.1413:H/3)/1+233+,-.3+,68.)/1+3 .14138,3./D1342/3/,-*+9,/3C1,93311+3)2A4.)0/338.:IJK L7=38,/,1?64/7,21+3+,-.)/*/338.,7466546)7,2/)4/.<1+3 ?3,?63=+,94>3,-2.1413=+41)1).<=3=)66=34>3/,-20,66301)B3 .123/*1+4/8M3,?428)N31+330,/,9)04/8.,0)46+3461+,7,-2 .1413:O+).).1+39,93/17,21+3.14131,48B4/03?,6)0)3.1+41423 12-6C124/.7,2941)B37,2,-20,99-/)1)3.P7,20-223/14/87-1-23 *3/3241),/.,7546)7,2/)4/.: Q2,9H01,A32J<RSRS<1,T3?139A32RS<RSRJ<1+34B324*3Q4)2 U42>31V3/1WQUVX7,241=,YA382,,94?42193/1)/1+3.1413=4. ZR<S[S:O,477,2823/14/8-1)6)1)3.=)1+,-1A3)/*0,.1YA-283/38<4 +,-.3+,689-.1342/Z\<]\\?329,/1+,2Z^J<J_J?32C342:O+). 124/.6413.)/1,4/+,-26C=4*3,7Z[_:S[7,247-66Y1)93=,2>32:IRK  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
'()*+,-./01(2/34(562+(7,8()912:;(/3101(2<9=>=?@)0(AB,/+CB,D(*0EFGD3(*,0C,*,D(*05C1+C9C(59C(5H1AA1+)30 1019A(**,20,*90(A12H/AA(*H/I3,C()912:E JKLMNOPQRLSNTMUNSSNVNUUWOXMQNVTQVYXZQPN[VQXOX\ZLTTMKXV MKL]X^LVLL_L_MNXPPN[_XKNSL`aKNSLKLXZMKXQ_LbNPMLV UX[QV^PN[OLNOZL]KNUXVVNMUX[LPN[MKLSTLZRLTbSXcLTKXZPMKL ]X^LVLL_L_MNXPPN[_XNVLdeL_[NNS[LVMXZWVQMQVMKLTMXML` fghijklmnopooqoqrgsttgiqsuoimnovowrmjxoiyhy suoimnolmnozw{mjztgiwzm  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-./0/1(*2/3,4,,5,50(611(*567,*/3,89:0:;<*(7:5,5=>0?,4/0:(9/@A(BC9+(D, E();:93F(/@:0:(9G;HIHJK)0(1L,/+?L,<(*0M./0/1(*D,5:/9:9+(D,=>(++)</0:(9<*(7:5,5 =>0?,N)*,/)(1A/=(*'0/0:;0:+;GO/>HIHIK++)</0:(9/@PD<@(>D,90/952/3,'0/0:;0:+;M QRSTUVUWVXYZR[T[\ZUTVWY]^_`abcdeRUfSYghiSjUTSXkUVSlVR[W RYmW[gnWmZZhiUglU]]YXlUk[h[ViTX[W[WoUglR[nRh[nRVSlVRSR[WVYX[TUh l[WUlfUgVUnSW]YXphUTqoagl[nSgYmWoUglrSYZhSY]^YhYX spar_^tuvwxyYXSjU\ZhSogSUXhiVzYcVR[XlWY]phUTqRYmWSRYhlWUXS TYWVckmXlSgSloTY\ZUXSlVYmglSXRUh]Y]zR[VSRYmWSRYhlWov{xUgl RYmWSRYhlWY]TYhYXzSXS\YXSh[qShiVY\[WWUXSgVZUi\SgVlmX[gn VRSZUglS\[Tuv|x }RShVSX[gn[gUWU]SUglWVUkhSZhUTS[WTX[V[TUhVY[\ZXYf[gnZmkh[T RSUhVRUglXSlmT[gnUglZXSfSgV[gnYfSXTXYzl[gnUgl RY\ShSWWgSWW~UZYh[Ti^Uh[]YXg[UZXY\YVSWVRXYmnRZXYnXU\Wh[qS rXYSTV€YY\qSioY\SqSioUglVRS‚\SXnSgTi€SgVUh ƒWW[WVUgTSrXYnXU\s‚€ƒrtuaggYfUV[fSolUVUc[g]YX\SlWYhmV[YgW UXSgSTSWWUXiVY\SSVVRSRYmW[gngSSlWY]Uhh^Uh[]YXg[UgWu QRS\[WW[YgY]VRS^Uh[]YXg[UbSZUXV\SgVY]YmW[gnUgl ^Y\\mg[VibSfShYZ\SgVs^bt[WVYZXY\YVSWU]SoU]]YXlUkhS RY\SWUglf[kXUgVo[gThmW[fSoWmWVU[gUkhSTY\\mg[V[SW]YXUhh ^Uh[]YXg[UgWu^bTYgV[gmSWVYlSZhYik[hh[YgWY]lYhhUXWVYZhUg]YXo lSfShYZoUglZXSWSXfSRYmW[gnUVUhhU]]YXlUk[h[VihSfShWokmVVRS  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

% 
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`UaV_\Yb]W[cW[^\_defe ghijkjjljlmnoppnqlrsntujlqnnvwjxmhyz{|mhmj  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

" 
'()*+,-./.01234(5647,86(9:,7*((;<,532=>()?45@A2@,?B*(;1234(52=C(6D5+(;,>()?45@E(2=434(5F?./.0G)3 (B<,2+H<,I(*3J KLMNOPQRNLSTUPVTNRWXQNTNTYZ[LXZQ\L]Z^\_Z[]QZ`ZTVaaM_LR^ ^Z`LR^XULMMZRWZTYULTQZTVM]Z^NR^ZXL^ZTPOTPLQNRWUPVTNRW LR^QZR]LMXPT]TbcPVTNRWaQNXZTNRKLMNOPQRNLXPR]NRVZ]PQNTZbdR eVWVT]fgfhY]UZT]L]ZiN^Z`Z^NLRTLMZTaQNXZPOLTNRWMZjOL`NM_ UP`ZQZLXUZ^LRZiQZXPQ^klmfnYopgbqnr  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,-./0*1+23)/04516007600*.830/0*1+245160451)58) 830950+85060..1)2: ;<=>?@ABCADAEFGHIG>A=@FJA?KIFHL>AMKGDF>NC?DAIIBGBAOFEA?@ PNJ?QHBNIFHJARSSTUVNI>FEFHLBCAPQBB?HIGBBCAB?=?KBCAL@G=CW N?QJGHA<GDFHAD?@AEABGF>IGP?QBGHHQG>?@D?HBC>NDAEFGH =@FJAIU  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-.(/01203*(/42035627-42.5+71-89+:2;(602+04< =>?@ABC>DEFG@H@FGID?>JG>KLEG>M?LN@HH>F@JJ>D?FGEIDG>CEOPQR S>KLIHTILN>HLI?EDE?@JJ>D?@UMEVGEH@G>KLEG>M?W@ALMELLFG@H >HEXFGID?>JFGEIDIHN>CE>H@MMG>KLIHTN>LFLOYJ@G>KLEG>M?W@AL C>DEFG@HZ[WEDNEHF>JFGEIDIHN>CE>HG>KLIHTBIFIL@N>LF UKD?EHB@H?FGEDEJ>DEN>HLI?EDE?KH@JJ>D?@UMEO \(1*6-01-64+08()0-64+76(441*-41+1-+6--]5-62-07203 *23*7(41^/68-0_ =GELIFK@FI>HILELWENI@MMA?IDEJ>DDEHFEDLBC>DEFG@HG@MJ>JVG>C @DELFDKTTMIHTF>W@ADEHFOP`R abbcdefbghijbkglbmfnokpgeqffrgjblqjjgsgjt
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*++,-./012.,23,145014-.64-78094:038;9<1=424=97 >.?>1428@1.:43A BCCDEFGCHIJKCLHMFNOCDJMLHOCPGQRLNHFMGGSHKCOMKKHTHKU +,-./012.,V3.2,=4W<,84,2=X<-241,9-43<@@-70/,//01=,9-4 >0543=.3@[email protected],84-7.5@,:830<15038X<-241,9-4 :055<2.8.43A YZ[\]^_`a`bcdYe\[fg[\h^g^__ifjak[_[Z[_hj^ffag^``a\l g][i\]ak[hmnoopq]ihhg[kh`\akra_iji[h\aag[lifhshg[kij \^jihktig]ifg][]auhifv`if^fj[hshg[k^fl_^fluh[ \[vu_^giafhwhuj]^h\[l_ififvmnoxpy]i_[ra_iji[h]^Z[j]^fv[lw g][hg\ujgu\^_r\az_[khj\[^g[lzsg]ah[ra_iji[hr[\hihg^fl jafgifu[gaif`_u[fj[]auhifv^fll[Z[_ark[fgr^gg[\fh hg^g[til[mno{p daZ[\gs\^g[h`a\g\iz^_raru_^giafh^\[ka\[g]^fgtij[g][\^g[ `a\e^_i`a\fi^wno|p_[^Zifvg\iz^_raru_^giafhtig]`[t[\\[hau\j[h gar^s`a\]auhifv^flag][\f[j[hhigi[hm }a\[g]^faf[~u^\g[\a`e^_i`a\fi^fh^\[ikkiv\^fghg][ k^€a\igsa`t]ak^\[lajuk[fg[lmnop‚[hrig[g][_^\v[fukz[\ a`ikkiv\^fght]aj^__e^_i`a\fi^g][i\]ak[waf_sx{r[\j[fga` ikkiv\^fgh^\[]ak[atf[\hjakr^\[lga^hg^g[til[^Z[\^v[ a`r[\j[fgmnoƒp Yf^Z[\^v[wsaufv]auh[]a_lhife^_i`a\fi^[^\faf_s]^_`a` g][^\[^k[li^fifjak[„ }c†w^fla`g[f]^Z[li``iju_gs ^``a\lifvg][i\]ak[hmno‡p h^\[hu_gwf[^\_s|ˆr[\j[fga`saufv ^lu_gh_iZ[tig]g][i\r^\[fghmno‰p e^_i`a\fi^fhaZ[\g][^v[a`ƒˆ^jjaufg`a\xˆr[\j[fga`g][ hg^g[Šhraru_^giafw^flg]ihv\aurihr\a€[jg[lgaliZ[\hi`s^fl v\ataZ[\g][f[‹goˆs[^\hmnoŒpi‹[lifjak[h^fl_ikig[l ^``a\l^z_[a\^jj[hhiz_[]auhifvargiafh`a\^vifvifr_^j[a\ latfhiŽifvj\[^g[hifhg^zi_igsm q][Z^hgk^€a\igs‡ˆr[\j[fga`_atifjak[`^ki_i[hj^ffag ^``a\lg][i\]ak[hmnxˆpfhu\r\ihifv_sw_atifjak[e^_i`a\fi^fh \[r\[h[fgg][_^\v[hgv\aura`r[ar_[_[^Zifvg][hg^g[hifj[ xˆˆƒmnxop  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-./(0*1(23*1(4536+*0(+*4-7*489(-./425*0*0:*+3 )-915-36:-4-9-*3916.1-;1*+,-./(0*1(23*1(453<=>>? @64-A(+.-6163(B*+C0-44-(.+*3-5*.93)-915-36:-4-9-*3D06.8(A )1(0A6/**E9+*0*/1644*.;*3A-.5-.;1(23-.;9169-3 6AA(+56:4*D6//*33-:4*D6.54(/69*5.*6+9+6.3-96.532FF(+9-B* 3*+B-/*3<=>G? HIJKLMNOPQRSTUUVMWTXVYNKZU[MX\NMV]^UTVM\L[SV]^WTJJV]^XLLKXL KNTM]WLMNT_L[XJTXXNM]SLUSN^MN^TXVL]T]`V]XN^MTXVL]a `VSJTMVXVNSV]TbbNSSXLLJJLMX[]VXVNSaT]`JLJ[KTXVL]ScVX\ `VSJMLJLMXVL]TXN\L[SV]^]NN`ST]``VSJKTbNWN]XMVSdSe f(067*0699*+3)(+3*D.(9*.(2;11(23-.;-3:2-49.*6+1-;1, g264-98h(:3D9+6.3F(+969-(.D6.53*+B-/*3<i36+*3249D91*)(245,:* +*3-5*.93(A91(3*1(23-.;2.-93j)1(6+*0(+*4-7*489(:*4(), -./(0*6.5klmn@=>o?j6+*A(+/*59(A-.51(23-.;A6+91*+6)68 A+(0)1*+*91*8)(+7D3F*.5-.;0(+*0(.*8(.9+6.3F(+969-(.6.5 A6/-.;4(.;*+/(0029*9-0*3D/(.9+-:29-.;0(+*9(/4-069*/16.;*D 6.54-B-.;-.F46/*3-0F6/9*5:8/4-069*/16.;*+*469*5.692+64 5-3639*+3<  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,,-.+,+/012+22134+5,67189)*:)9;765)::69;/1*;3)58;13;1 71<6,699*699=>?@AB*+9)*:,6*):7;)*C+*8+3-?D?D.EFE.@GH I+,)213*)+*96JK63)6*/6471<6,699*699.7):7,):7;)*:;764)36*699 12;769;+;6L97189)*:+22134+5),);-+*471<6,699*699/3)969=>?FAM9 7189)*:/19;9/1*;)*86;13)96.36*;56/1<69,699+22134+5,6213 ,1N63O)*/1<67189671,49.N71+36213/64;1,)P656-1*4;76)3 <6+*913+36K8976418;12;76)371<69+*412;6*.;76)3 /1<<8*);)69=Q76*+*)*4)P)48+,137189671,4K+-9;11<8/71* 36*;.;7636)9*19K+/6;19+P62136<63:6*/)69=(13;76<19; P8,*63+5,636*;637189671,49.+9)*:,66<63:6*/-138*6JK6/;64 6JK6*96/18,456;764)22636*/656;N66*9;+5,67189)*:+*4 71<6,699*699=>?RA STUVTWXYZ[\]V^X_[`TXV\_[`YaVbc^Y\V_VbX^deXfg[TYcY`h[T e[`iXTZVhVc`Yjhkg[[^fYVkgY`\hlcc[`fXTZVkgX^mVTmfgY[fgY` cV`YTf\bViYhVTVnY`VZY[_opq\qrsVdYV`tuhd[lkVThYY_`[b VhTVchg[f[_fgYX`b[Tfg^dkVhgTYYmhvY^[e\fgXh_VbX^dXhwlhf [TYYbY`ZYTkdVeVd_`[bYnXkfX[TVTmkVTT[fk[bbXf_lTmhf[ hVnXTZ_[`VTYbY`ZYTkdtx[lhXTZXThYkl`XfdXhVhXZTX_XkVTf k[TkY`T_[`^[ejXTk[bYVTmbVTd[fgY`]V^X_[`TXVTh\eg[bVdvY wlhf[TYYbY`ZYTkdVeVd_`[bg[bY^YhhTYhht U[l`kYyzs{|}tUt~l`YVl[_Vv[`UfVfXhfXkh][ThlbY`€acYTmXfl`YUl`nYdt€V`TXTZhVTm YacYTmXfl`YhkV^kl^VfYmVhTVfX[TV^VnY`VZY_[`g[lhYg[^mhYV`TXTZops\sssjop|\|||t [vYffY`lTmY`hfVTmfgYhVk`X_XkYhg[lhYg[^mh_VkYegYTcVdXTZ f[[blkg_[`g[lhXTZ[`[fgY`TYkYhhXfXYh\Yac^[`YfgY€k[T[bXk ‚[^XkdSThfXflfYƒh„VbX^d~lmZYf]V^kl^Vf[`t  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
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`aY_b[SaPU`Tc `d`WVaPTVU]RSTVYTXPUVS_`\^P[YTc[YUVSWYR`_`ePW`\PU]`Tc _`\UZXWV[PW^P[YTcV[PTXa^PWSZTPQXTYVUTPPcPcVSaPPV [SXUYT\cPa`Tcf  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

  
'()*+,-.)/01/234,*5/617674*(8/1,19:;2/6,1'676,<=,47*65,26(>?()</23721;*972=,8,0(45,26'676,(>6@, A/6/,<=767':<6,5<.)/01/23B,*5/6<=76797<,CB(4)076/(2,<6/576,<>*(5;C'CA,2<)<.)*,7)DEDE=,+,22/70 A,2<)<C FGHIJKGLMNOMIIPKQHJRSJTHGQU HPUKPUMIGJQMQVPWLNTHGJQX YZ[\\]^_`ab\cd^efg[hcd^^]^_d^e `]^d^i[hbc]i][gabbZ[e]^gjgZ[\]i adi]g\klmnog[_a[_dZ]b^d^e ^[]_pqbapbbe[ricfg]b^pds[pde`dat a[dip]^_]\hdiZgb^pbfg]^_d^e e[s[cbh\[^ZhdZZ[a^ggZdZ[u]e[vlmmo w]_pc[s[cgb`a[g]e[^Z]dcg[_a[_dZ]b^ da[gZ]ccha[g[^Z]^\d^jib\\f^]Z][gk x76+@',3*,376,1.:=,</32y7272/576,11(+)5,267*: 6@76,z75/2,<6@,>(*3(66,2@/<6(*:(>@({6@, 3(8,*25,26)2+(2<6/6)6/(2700:<,3*,376,1,8,*:57|(* 5,6*(4(0/6727*,7/2}5,*/+76@*()3@07{7214(0/+:C~* *,7172/21,46@4)90/+76/(2(26@,@/<6(*:(>*7+/700: ,z+0)</(27*:@()</23/2A70/>(*2/7€<'72*72+/<+(.7:  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

% 
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`aPTK`LbcWTMPUbWOUKJWd`PTPQ`eWNKTfR`TUePLMOeKVWe PONMNePaPONWOUJPTaMNNMOQJTKVPLLPLXZ2(4()4(>),<'/0)' )::4/;)'1)'/,-.2(3)<=),*.//'1.2).0/>>6,+.+(10),61(./ 1.<>+(/4*(')<2/61+,-),*0/>>6,+.<*(;('/:>(,.7g'/3= /:)56(=),**+104(.+/,)4<:4/?(0.4(;+(3:4/0(11(1+>:/1(*@< '/0)'-/;(4,>(,.10),+,04()1(.2(0/1.19/4,(3*(;('/:>(,.1 ),*1/>(.+>(1(,164(.2)..2(1(2/61+,-:4/?(0.1)4(,(;(4 0/,1.460.(*7ABhDi.2(44(-6').+/,1.2).>)<@(3(''+,.(,.+/,(* +,.2()@1.4)0.0),)'1/@(0/>(@)44+(4132(,6.+'+\(*3+.2.2( 1:(0+9+0+,.(,../@'/0j2/61+,-k:)4j+,->+,+>6>1= *+104(.+/,)4<*(1+-,4(;+(3=@6+'*+,-1(.@)0j1=(,*),-(4(* 1:(0+(1:4/.(0.+/,1=),*.2(l)'+9/4,+)m,;+4/,>(,.)'n6)'+.< o0.plmnoq)4(?61.)9(33)<1'/0)'-/;(4,>(,.10),61( (r+1.+,-4(-6').+/,1./+,2+@+.2/61+,-:4/*60.+/,7 sOL`ttMVMPONeWOUuKOPUWOUWcWMeWSePtKTRK`LMOQXv),< '/0)'-/;(4,>(,.12);(,/.:'),,(*/4\/,(*9/4,((*(* 2/61+,-+,.2(:)1.*(0)*(1=:)4.+06')4'<+,:')0(1.2).)4(.2( '()1.)99/4*)@'(7ABwDx'),,+,-),*\/,+,-)4(?61..2(1.)4.k'/0)' -/;(4,>(,.1>61.)'1/:4+/4+.+\(.2(96,*+,-),**(;('/:>(,. yz{|}z~€{‚€{zƒ„
|„†‡{ˆ~„
ƒ„
‰„Š€ƒ€‹€{Œ~~€ŠŽ |{ސ‘ˆ|{’
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

" 
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`8)39;0,-26 )3+;*2:)5.(03+15'8)`.)(('*+),-./'01234;*'a.651(23)362)--9 (.)12,-.=b3c)-2('*32)75/21)-1'*.d02*.1)66.11234(23)36234 (*'880-52;-.;0,-26)4.362.1=e/.,)6`-'4'(;*'a.6515/)5 );;-2.+('*7,05+2+3'5*.6.2:.7;0,-26(23)36234)11215)36.':.* 5/.;)15(.<9.)*11/'<1015/)5<.80156)*.(0--98)3)4. )(('*+),-./'0123423:.158.3517)3+5/)55/.*.)*.;*',-.8)526 ,)**2.*1<25/23/'01234(23)36.1915.81=e'6*.)5.)8'*. .((.652:.)3+.((262.35/'01234(23)36234+.-2:.*91915.87fcO21 28;-.8.35234_11.8,-9g2--h_giRjR5''((.*8'*. 15)3+)*+2k)52'3)3+;*.+265),2-25923)(('*+),-./'01234(23)36234 ;*'4*)81=f'<.:.*75/21-.:.-'(6''*+23)52'3<2--'3-94'1'()*= e/.15)5.)-1'3..+18'*.(.+.*)-*.1'0*6.1)3+(-.V2,2-259l 236-0+2348'*.R;.*6.35)3+m;.*6.35n'<Pb36'8.f'01234 e)Vc*.+251hnbfeci7)3+)3236*.)1.235/.,'3+6);1'3R ;.*6.355)V6*.+251l5';*'+06.5/.308,.*'(032515/)5 c)-2('*32)3..+1= oM]I[GDHD[GJHMJE?HG[GJDHABMJJ?LIGEDMJ]FAG@E[HMGJN g02-+234/'012343..+15',..6'3'826)--9:2),-.=_5528.17) 6'3(-0.36.'(()65'*1236-0+234036.*5)2359235/.;.*8255234 ;*'6.11+0.5'-'6)-*.40-)5'*9,)**2.*17QRpT/24/(..1(*'8-'6)- 4':.*38.3517QRjT/24/-)3+6'1517QRRT)524/5-),'*8)*`.57QRqT )3+/24/8)5.*2)-6'1517QRrT6)38)`.+.:.-';8.3523(.)12,-. )-5'4.5/.*=b323(2--+.:.-';8.35;*'a.6517+.:.-';.*16);50*.)--  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
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
`aSLbbcdddTYYWLRTQXSZW[SOTLSTULKOeWYVWMaSLOKWMUW [TLeSULTUSKMUZSMSIUYKaSfSTLOg hijklmlnompqqrsmtjuovrwokpxylkzrq{r|}osklr|xr~tszox ytxo|lxkj€{ri|x€  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-./0/1*(234,45607,8/93:(*;3/<()=3;>?/*0;,*=731@8<?8AB::(*4/59,<(C,=/0D3=ED,1(*0FG=03C/0,=3;+9)4, <3>7D3=E/;4H,*6I<3>7D3=E(;96F JKLMNONLPQRNSRTLMNQUOPLTRVWLPLXLRNLXORXTRSYTLQZMNOP[LM\ MTPKOMNKL]^_`abcdVORXLeSPORXP[SeONLPKORfLg hijklmnopqrstuvw JKL]^_`abcdVORXLeSPPQeVQTRXLXNKLMNONLxMKQTMSRfPWSMSM ORXeOXLQTWWLMVQRMLMNQOUUQWXOZ[LKQTMSRffQO[MeQWL PKO[[LRfSRfORXTWfLRNgJKLPQRyLWfLRPLQUNKLVTZ[SPKLO[NK LeLWfLRPzORXNKLL{SMNSRfKQTMSRfPWSMSMZWQTfKNNQ[SfKN|Kz OXXWLMMSRfKQTMSRfOUUQWXOZS[SNzORXMTVV[zSMPWSNSPO[[zSeVQWNORN UQWSRXSySXTO[ORXPQeeTRSNzKLO[NKg}~€JQQeORz]O[SUQWRSORMOWL TMNQRLKQTMSRfVOzeLRNO|OzUWQe[QMSRfNKLSWKQeLQW[SyLSR QyLWPWQ|XLXPQRXSNSQRMNQeO‚LLRXMeLLN\SRPWLOMSRfNKLSWWSM‚QU PQRNWOPNSRf]^_`abcdg}~ƒ€„eLWfLRPzWLRNWL[SLU\ULXLWO[MNSeT[TM VOzeLRNM\L{NLRXLXTRLeV[QzeLRNZLRLUSNM\ORXLySPNSQR eQWONQWSTeMVWLyLRNLXeORz]O[SUQWRSORMUWQeUOPSRf KQeL[LMMRLMM\ZTNKQTMLKQ[XMOWLMNS[[MNWTff[SRfNQPQyLWNKLSW eQRNK[zZS[[Mg}~d€  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-./(0*+*.1*+23450-6-*2)-17/7-68+*.39*+2(.2)-17 8-25:-6-1-*235.8;<=>?7(@2*7(682)*+*7-175+8*21:A17* 95.8*0-/BCDE5.85+*562(17*0(216-F*6A1(:*:*7-.8(.+*.1GBCHE I(+*J5096*317*K(@2*7(68=@62*L@+M*AN50*52@+*0*.1(4 7()17*95.8*0-/-2-095/1-.O7(@2*7(6825/+(2217*/(@.1+AN 27()*81751;65/F7(@2*7(6825+*0(+*175.1)-/*6-F*6A1(:* :*7-.8(.+*.1/(095+*81()7-1*7(@2*7(682G;65/F7(@2*7(682 5+*562(0(+*6-F*6A1(:*:*7-.8(.+*.195A0*.12175.17*1A9-/56 7(@2*7(68-.?56-4(+.-53+*O5+86*22(4*8@/51-(.565115-.0*.15.8 -./(0*G PQRSTUVWXYXZSQ[\]P]^U_`R`aRSUXRbQR`UcQdefRd`UPRSgUhijUUk`lmnlopPUqYU[rUSX_esTYQrUStutvw]xcU `cXSUQZcQR`UcQde`rUcy_eQ_SU_YqXh[U_Y`TXdTRdXYUeX`YcUXgUSXzUQZjUUk`lmnlo]{|TdReU`SU`qQ_eU_Y`y_SU_YXd cQR`y_z}yYcQRYSU_YQS}cQeye_QYSUqQSYYU_RSU] ~€‚ƒ„~ ‚†‡„ K(0*2:@-614@+17*+5)5A4+(0*J-21-.O.*-O7:(+7((825.8 -.4+521+@/1@+*5+*0(+*6-F*6A1(:*-.7-O7,+-2F5+*524(+4-+*23 21(+025.82*M*+*)*517*+38+(@O715.8.@-25./*46((8-.O35.8 *J1+*0*7*51GBCˆE‰7*.450-6-*25+*4(+/*81(0(M*4@+17*+5)5A 4+(0/-1A5.81()./*.1*+28@*1(/(21/(.21+5-.12317*A0@21 /(00@1*6(.O*+8-215./*21(Š(:232/7((6235.8(17*+/([email protected] 2*+M-/*2‹+*[email protected]-.-./+*52*821+*2237-O7*+7(@2*7(68 1+5.29(+151-(./(21235.86*221-0*29*.1)-176(M*8(.*2G Œ*2-8*.12-.17*2*/([email protected]*25+*0(+*6-F*6A1(+*6A(.9*+2(.56 M*7-/6*24(+85-6A/(00@1*25.8*++5.82317@2-./+*52-.O(M*+566  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,(-*,(./01'(,(23456718290((8):;.(91.3<=<7
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()'*+,-(./01+2,.(345'0,-.'2,60573895.6,49:36.,.(345,41;360< =0234.(4+0.3>36?.3>,619,@,-(A364(,>'0600,2'609(104.2,4 -(B05>36?5,41:-,/(4'0,-.'/23;;+4(.(093A3::36.+4(./< @,-(A364(,234.(4+09.36(90.3.'0322,9(34>(.'(443B,.(B0,41 26399C902.369.6,.0)(09<D/:63B(1(4).0;:36,6/,41:06;,404. '3+9(4)5234402.01>(.'9+::36.(B0906B(2095.'63+)'E63702. F33;?0/,41G3;0?0/5;360.',4HI5JJJ@,-(A364(,49 0K:06(042(4)'3;0-0994099>060,8-0.39'0-.0636-(B0(4,9,A0 ,419.,8-0:-,201+6(4),:+8-(2'0,-.'26(9(9<L93AM086+,6/NO5 NJNN5.'09.,.0:60B04.011(9:-,20;04.,41'0-:013B06PIO5HJJ A,;(-(099.,/(4.'0(6'3;09.'63+)'.'0Q;06)042/F04.,- L99(9.,420E63)6,;RQFLES<T'09.,.0,-932-,6(A(01.',.U<V< 2(.(W049'(:(943.,60*+(60;04..3,22099.'0900;06)042/ 906B(209X0B06/340>'340019'0-:2,4900?(.<T'63+)' :63)6,;9-(?0.'0LAA361,8-0G3+9(4),41V+9.,(4,8-0 @3;;+4(.(09RLGV@S,41Y4A(--Y4A6,9.6+2.+60Z6,4.E63)6,;RYYZS5 .'09.,.0A+419'3+9(4),41-,41+905(4A6,9.6+2.+605.6,49:36.,.(345 ,41-,41:60906B,.(34:63702.9.39+::36.(4A(--10B0-3:;04.,41 601+20)6004'3+90),90;(99(349<  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,*-./0,*1+230/*2010*2*02101+.*045+0/*6789*+54/58*2 6**:*:45+*1;/-6;58*<*)*<058**00/*/572-6.6**:2541<< =1<-45+6-162>?5;1<.5)*+68*6028720@<1645+*657.//572-6.05 8**00/10/572-6.6**:-60/*-+5A6;58876-0,>B*;1<<0/-20/* CDEFGHIJKGLMFHENDDOMPMMDMMQDHRSCKNPTU VGWDEFHRGIOOXDMMODYIODMGZLHODXML[[J\]^IJFZGXHFIQLMR [JIHZGXQGXDR_IH`UaQFJJFGH_GQDMGbDXR_DHDcRDFE_Rd\DIX Y\YJD]IHOHGJDMMR_IHGHDQFJJFGHGZR_GMD_GQDMQLMRQDDR R_DHDDOMGZJGeDXdFHYGQD_GLMD_GJOMUV_FMXD[XDMDHRMQGXD R_IHOGLWJDR_D_GLMFHE[JIHHDOZGXFHR_DJIMRDFE_Rd\DIX Y\YJDU f5+*0/16g7209*-6.1/-./6789*+5+1612@-+10-561<.51<30/* 6*A/572-6.6**:hijklm01+.*0-21<*.1<59<-.10-560/10;-0-*2 16:;5760-*2872019-:*9,>n/*2010*/*<@2;-0-*216:;5760-*2 8**00/-2.51<0/+57./1;589-610-5654476:-6.45+/572-6. @<166-6.16:-8@<*8*6010-561;0-)-0-*23*:7;10-56316:0*;/6-;1<  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
'(()(*'+,-./0)1--23,'*)4+'+2*-,0+),'1'(()(*'+,-)('15'6(*0- 7)8(*(*-9)+*0-(*'*-:(',,43+*';)1)*6-7748*(<*0-(*'*-0412( =38)(2),*)4+(',,43+*';1-748*0-)8043()+>4;1)>'*)4+('+2 ,4?91)'+,-5)*0(*'*-043()+>1'5(. @0843>0*0-)?91-?-+*'*)4+47'+3?;-847?-'+)+>731 ',,43+*';)1)*68-748?(9'((-2;6*0-A->)(1'*38-'+2()>+-2;6*0- B4C-8+48)+8-,-+*6-'8(<D'1)748+)':(E.F?)11)4+3+)**'8>-*)(+4 14+>-8'9'9-8-G-8,)(-H)*:('+-G9-,*'*)4+748*0-I4+)+>< 9-8?)**)+><'+2,4+(*83,*)4+478-'1<+-5043()+>3+)*(.

JKLMNOPMLMQRSTLUSVNWXLYNZVOWXT[X\LXN]T^N]Q[ZNWTOZZX\XQ]L MNOTX]P[OWX]PLMQKSTLMNOTX]P]QQ[\Y\KQ_MNOTX]P `WN[O\LXN][X[]NLaQQ``S\QbXLM]QQ[cdN\SKPNRQW]UQ]LT SWQWQeOXWQ[LNfNLM^N]QTOZZX\XQ]LKS][LNUQQLMNOTX]P]QQ[ S][S[N`L`KS]TS][WQPOKSLXN]TLNUSaQXLQSTXQWZNW [QRQKN`QWTLNfOXK[MNOTX]PLNTQWRQMNOTQMNK[TNZSKKX]\NUQ KQRQKTc
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

  
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`W\aVbZ^\YcV]Z^YbWXd]XZ\cXXZZ[X]X dce^Z^\V]fXZdb[^XgdehX_\dh]i`dWZ^bVhdWhfZ\cXXZZ[XYXXa] \jh\kldYagXWfh\kl^Yb\cX[\V]X[\ha]m  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

% 
'()*+,+)-*+,.-/01234,/4560)/+,7+-2/+2()3872995/-+-)* )/*56)+(,+12+(9,6.)+6,+),/4,::264,13)(29)*,6)/2+2/3; 83,//)4:26<15+,7+5,33;15-3+='(-*-/7354)*> ?,**-/03,@*+(,+*+6),93-/)4)A)3289)/+ B/76),*-/0:5/4-/0:26,::264,13)(25*-/0 ?62A-4-/072986)()/*-A)+)7(/-7,3,**-*+,/7) C/:267-/0(25*-/03,@* D,3-:26/-,(,*,/-/76)4-13)6)72642:-//2A,+-2/,/486213)9E *23A-/0<,/4@)(,A),7(,/7)6-0(+/2@+23),4+()@,;2/ (25*-/0=B+F*58+25*+215-34+():5+56)@)@,/+G2/)-/@(-7( D,3-:26/-,/*(,A)*+,13)(29)*,/4,6):6))+2856*5)+()-6 46),9*<6,-*)+()-6:,9-3-)*<,/4,0)@-+(4-0/-+;='()*+,+)(,* +,.)/1234,7+-2/*+2)/*56))A)6;D,3-:26/-,/(,*,77)**+2*,:) ,/4*+,13)(25*-/0+(,++();7,/,::264=H)@2/F+0)++()6)6-0(+ ,@,;<15+@)95*+*+,6+/2@= '()I)@*29J49-/-*+6,+-2/-/()6-+)4,(25*-/076-*-*,(,3: 7)/+56;-/+()9,.-/0<15+<,32/0@-+(+()K)0-*3,+56)<*+,+) 4)8,6+9)/+*<,/4327,302A)6/9)/+*<-*862,7+-A)3;@26.-/0+2 ,446)**+()86213)9= L2A)6/26I)@*29<*-/7)+,.-/02::-7)-/M,/5,6;NOPQ<(,*> R-0/)4PS(25*-/0E6)3,+)4D,3-:26/-,C/A-62/9)/+,3T5,3-+;J7+ UDCTJV6):2691-33*+2*+6),93-/)+()862457+-2/2:,::264,13) ,/473-9,+)E*9,6+(25*-/0 D6),+)4,2/)E*+28*(28:26,::264,13)(25*-/0:5/4-/0+2 )W8)4-+)+()4)A)3289)/+2:,::264,13)(25*-/0XYZ[\[]^_`a] bcbcd D6),+)4,/)@e25*-/0J7725/+,1-3-+;f/-++2,**-*+327,3 02A)6/9)/+*<,/4(234+()9,7725/+,13)+2+()-6(25*-/0  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

" 
'()*+,-*'./ 0,//12.,-*'.3)1,2*.+41.-14,.215*6-*'.74'-16-*'./,.2 ),8.691241.-,),//*/-,.61,.2:'416)'/84174151.-*'.74'+4,;/ -'<117=,)*:'4.*,./*.-91*49';1/
>91/-,-19,/,)/',?,4212(*))*'./':2')),4/-'/877'4--91 2151)'7;1.-':-1./':-9'8/,.2/':,::'42,()19'8/*.+8.*-/*. 4161.-@1,4/A B*.61C8)@DEFGH-91/-,-19,/IJIKLMLNOMKPQRSSRNTLNSSIKU -'/877'4--912151)'7;1.-':'514VWXYYYZN[URT\[TR]U^ >91/-,-17),./-',?,42,.,22*-*'.,)W_`QRSSRNTLNSSIKU:'4 9'8/*.+2151)'7;1.-,.2'714,-*'.'514-916'84/1':DEDD^  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+*,-./0123*40..*50)-.163-7085 76943*)*8.-:*)62.-8,407;0,*1)01436:-5*50 3*8*<*5=672.6868*6=1)*96.1>0.-78**5.=63 *:*3?@0/-=638-08A0)69*B()-.)62.-8,407;0,* 6==*3*508-8C*71-686=8*<3*,2/0163?085=-8087-0/ 3*.6237*.D085<-1)-1D0864463128-1?16-886:01*-8 1)*<0?.<*5*/-:*3)62.-8,1)362,)6211)*.101*B E0:-8F*<.69<0.*/*71*516>*@0/-=638-0G. E6:*3863BH-1))-.>07;,36285085285*3.1085-8, 6=@0/-=638-0I.:0/2*.0857694/*J-1-*.D)*0-9*5 1610;*681)*.101*G.>-,,*.1-..2*.D-87/25-8, 5*:*/64-8,*862,)8*<)62.-8,28-1.169**11)* 5-:*3.*8**5.6=0//@0/-=638-08.B K=1*3)-.-802,2301-68DE6:*3863F*<.69085 )62.-8,05:6701*.-81)*+*,-./0123*166; -99*5-01*071-6816>/2811)*<63.1-94071.6=1)* )62.-8,73-.-.085.*11)*.10,*=637-1-*.085 76281-*.16*80>/*963*)62.-8,4365271-68B()01 -87/25*50)-.163-7LMBNO>-//-68-8:*.19*816=1)* .101*I.>25,*116.2446311)*4365271-686=8*< )62.-8,0851)*762813?G..1368,*.13*81*3 4361*71-689*0.23*.BE6:*3863F*<.690/.6 .-,8*5@0/-=638-0P8:-3689*810/Q20/-1?K71 R@PQKS.13*09/-8-8,>-//.D90;-8,-1*0.-*316>2-/5 077*..63?5<*//-8,28-1.RKTU.SD)69*/*.. .)*/1*3.D4*3908*81.244631-:*)62.-8,D085 3*>2-/50=1*3<-/5=-3**:*81.D0968,61)*3 .13*09/-8-8,*==631.160//*:-01*1)*)62.-8,73-.-.B  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'())*)+,)-.)/01/-.)23-212430)53*)61-7)*3. 83,-303.1-549145)+)75()8515):8166+/1.(5/ (/;83-,6/43.9<1-7()3,(5)-)70/.;8/-5()-))7 0/++1.314)=;3593-/;+6/43.3)81-76+/,+1*8>'() ?7*3-385+153/-@;*6)73-5/1.53/-5/*))5 3**)7315)-))781+/;-75()61-7)*3.1-7 4)A)+1,)70)7)+140;-73-,0/+6)+*1-)-5 8;66/+53A)(/;83-,1-7)*)+,)-.9+)-5+)43)0< B(34)./-53-;3-,5/6+/*/5)1-76+1.53.) 1003+*153A)490;+5()+3-,013+(/;83-,>C-DEDE<5() ?7*3-385+153/-0/.;8)7/-8;66/+53-,F1430/+-31-8 01.3-,5(),+)15)85(1+78(368G3-A)853-,-)1+49HI J3443/-/05()8515):8J;7,)53-)*)+,)-.90;-73-, 5/()46177+)885()3**)7315)-))78/06)/64) )K6)+3)-.3-,(/*)4)88-)885(+/;,(L+/@).5 M//*N)9<O/*)N)9<1-7+)415)78/.3148)+A3.)8> '()8)3-A)85*)-586+/5).5)7*1-9/0/;+*/85 A;4-)+1J4)F1430/+-31-80+/*FPQCR2ISJ9 6+/A373-,T-/-2./-,+),15)U8()45)+1-76)+*1-)-5 8;66/+53A)(/;83-,>'(38596)/073+).5<0/.;8)7 3-A)85*)-5B183*64)*)-5)7=;3.N491-7 )00).53A)49<3-61+5-)+8(36B35(4/.14,/A)+-*)-58 1-7(/;83-,6+/A37)+8VJ;535B18-/5)-/;,(5/ 8/4A)17).17)824/-,.+3838>  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,+)-*.)/01-234,..-).*+05)1)607/)2+48902+-2:-23+0 7.01-5).)*0:.9)*;0.609,676,22-23);;0.+*+0,99)6).,+)(0:*-23 5)1)607/)2+,25-/76)/)2+6)3-*6,+-1)9(,23)*<'()*+,+)-*,6*0 ;09:*)502*7)25-23*/,.+).=;,*+).=,25/0.));;)9+-1)68+0 ,55.)**(0:*-232))5< >?@ABC@DEFBGHIAJ@EAFKBC@FBEB@CEFLEM@BA@L@NMHIF DAHOA@FFBCAHIOCP@OQFPEBQ?@KEMLQNQFBAEBQ?@KA@OIPEBHAJKENM RIMO@BEAJESBQHNFRJT  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*)(+,-./001(2345)617)*3-28))9,-.:)-3-;*,-;<),( 617)*=>?@ABCDEF?EGABHF?EHIDJFKFILJLM?GD?@F?EIM?D?I NCAIM@IFA?HOM?PAC@F?EGABHF?EKDQHONCMHMCRF?EIGMHIA@SAP DPPACTDJKMGABHF?ED?T?DIBCDKKLA@@BCCF?EDPPACTDJKMGABHF?E UVWXYZOPB?TF?EM[MCEM?@LCM?ICMKFMPOD?TNCARFTF?EDTTFIFA?DK KMEDKNCAIM@IFA?HIARBK?MCDJKMNANBKDIFA?H\ ]?IGMHGACI^IMC[OIGMHIDIMFHDT[F?FHIMCF?EHMRMCDKNCAECD[HIGDI SMMNNMANKMF?IGMFCM_FHIF?EGA[MH\`GMaWb]c^deND?TM[F@ TFHCBNIMTIGMGABHF?E[DCSMIF?@AB?IKMHHQDLHOJBINCF[DCFKLJL F?@CMDHF?EIGMCFHSAPMRF@IFA?ACPACM@KAHBCM\`GMHIDIMNCARFTMT CM?ICMKFMPIAKD?TKACTHD?TCM?IMCHOD?TKMEDKDFTIAIGAHMPD@F?E MRF@IFA?D?TPACM@KAHBCM\]?IGMKA?E^IMC[OIGMHIDIMFHM?HBCF?EIGDI M_FHIF?EDPPACTDJKMGABHF?EHIDLHDPPACTDJKMIGCABEGIGMPAKKAQF?E NCMHMCRDIFA?MPPACIH\ '(1;)f;,-.)g,*;,-.3001(2345)<1h*,-.NCANMCIFMHPCA[ @A?RMCHFA?IA[DCSMICDIMCM?IDKHijklmnlokpqqronsltu v-2,-.)gf)**,+)()-;,-f()3*)*D?TM?HBCF?EIGMCMFHwxh*; f3h*)y01()+,f;,1-*IGCABEGIGM`M?D?IzCAIM@IFA?X@IAP{|de ijkl}~no€‚onslƒu zCARFTF?E5).353,2PACIGAHMPD@F?EMRF@IFA?ACPACM@KAHBCMi„k ll oqrr††‡‡qˆk‚‰Š‡†‹ˆ‰ŒŽ‹p‡‡‘onslƒu zCAIM@IF?EIGM<)35;<’*30);“’3-20,-3-f,35*)fh(,;“10 714,5)<17)()*,2)-;*IGCABEGCMEFHICDIFA?D?TF?HNM@IFA? NCAECD[HOF?@KBTF?EPMMD?TID_QDFRMCHOD?TCMHFTM?@LKDQ NCAIM@IFA?NCAECD[i”q•p‡€qr‡j†‹ˆŽ‡‡ˆ†‡–— ”q•p‡€qr‡‡‰‡ˆŽ˜™‹‘š–q†‡Ž†qˆš–qŠ–‹r—‡Š†‡–›q‚– ”q•p‡€qr‡‹pœq–ˆ‹š–qŠ–‹ru zCARFTF?EECMDIKL?MMTMTM[MCEM?@L()-;353**,*;3-f)IA aDKFPAC?FD?CM?IMCHD?TKD?TKACTHQGAPD@MTPF?D?@FDKGDCTHGFNH TBMIAIGMaWb]c^deND?TM[F@OQFIGBDKFPLF?ENDCIF@FND?IH MKFEFJKMPACd||NMC@M?IAPCM?ID?TBIFKFIFMHAQMTijk~ no€‚o nsnlu žMMNF?EAQ?MCHF?IGMFCGA[MHIGCABEG71(;.3.)()5,)0O GABHF?E@AB?HMKF?EHMCRF@MHOD?TD?IF^PACM@KAHBCMNCAIM@IFA?H i‹pœq–ˆ‹Ÿq‚ˆŠŒˆ‹ˆŽ‡jЇˆŽ˜ i‹pŸŒju¡¢£¤  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,-,./.01.234(56)7819,:)798.019,3;<=>??@:A71@ B>B>C DEFGHIHJKLMNNOHPPHFJQFRSQTUPHSVQVRWFERXPFSYERZJQREGRJQHFJ [FYSHJKDERSREGTQHFJDEFKETO\TPPF]HJKXFOOYJHQ^PTJIQEYSQS\ FQVREJFJ_EF`HQS\RPHKHUPRQRJTJQUY^RES\TJI_EFS_RXQHGRF]JREa FXXY_TJQSQFbcdefghbijghkblfmfnbnhopbmmlefmjfiqonkbn bghbngforsttsghcmsoegh\uRR_HJKQVRSRYJHQSTGTHPTUPR`FE PF]aHJXFORERSHIRJQSv5<w>xy@5z199.*@B>B>3{)*.|0)87*. }9+.*~.9+1)96)7819,*.8.*~-+1)9*),*-€C FJGRJHJKTSREHRSF`nhibingseijnblmhoTXEFSSQVRSQTQR v*.88/.0.-8.‚;++)*9.ƒ„.9.*-0<)9+- -79|A.86)7819, 5+*1z.{)*|.@;99)79|.8:)9~.919,)2†.9-9+/)79‡+-ˆ0.8 ;|*)88+A.5+-+.C ‰SQTUPHSVHJKTŠseofiq‹ngfrhŒsgch\QTSuRI]HQVRJ`FEXHJK QRJTJQEHKVQS\OFEQKTKRSREGHXHJK\TJIFQVREXFJSYORE _EFQRXQHFJPT]STS]RPPTSHSSYHJKXFJSYORETPREQSTIGHSHJK QRJTJQSTJIVFORF]JRESFJQVRHE_EFQRXQHFJSYJIRESQTQRTJI `RIRETPPT]v*.88/.0.-8.‚;++)*9.ƒ„.9.*-0<)9+- -79|A.8 6)7819,5+*1z.{)*|.@;99)79|.8:)9~.919,)2†.9-9+ /)79‡+-ˆ0.8;|*)88+A.5+-+.C Ž
)7*‡.8(:-8+*)/-€*.‘@5.|*.+-*ƒ@<7819.88@:)987€.* 5.*~1|.8-9‡6)7819,;,.9|ƒ ’hjecfiq“bggfhgonsŠseofiq”cchoo•WTXHPHQTQHJKIRPHURETQR TXQHFJQFR–_PHXHQP^TIIERSS\XFOUTQ\TJIERPHRGRIHS_TEHQHRSERSYPQHJK  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
'()*+,-.+,../(0-)'-/1(/1,.2)0.)')-./(*)(/20345-26/ 3)**502.2/-7 8,42')(02,9,-4,5039/:,621)()5-/'')(..),::(/--,44.;+/-)' :2-3(2*20,.2)0209)5-2017<92-/'')(./03)*+,--/-202.2,.26/- (/=52(201/6/(;+5>423,1/03;.)3)**2..),''2(*,.26/4;'5(.9/(201 ',2(9)5-201?@AABC+)4232/-D+()92>2.201-)5(3/E)'E203)*/ :2-3(2*20,.2)0?20345:201(/0.,49)5-2016)539/(-CD/F+,0:201 ,'')(:,>4/9)5-201'50:201/4212>242.;.)<(2>/-D,0:34,(2';201 /4212>242.;')(50:)35*/0./:8,42')(02,0-7<,G/0.)1/.9/(D.9/-/ +()1(,*-(/+(/-/0.,3))(:20,./:/'')(..),::(/--9)5-201 20/=52.;7 HIJKLMLNOIPIMQRKSTLUVOINUQWXUXYYLWWXZ[[\')( 9)5-201,0::/6/4)+*/0.+()1(,*-]^_`a`bcdefgdhibjklam ^_lnkobcdefgdhibjkjlm^ppgqrdfgstuvwxqfytqgehwdgqzix{gehm zix{geh|utrtef}d~ €MXLSLWLNO‚XKMUIƒX„ƒLNUXYI L‚UMLYLNVWLXN.)+()./3. 9)5-/9)4:-.9,.9,6/./0,0.E>,-/:(/0.,4,--2-.,03/6)539/(- ,0:).9/(0)0E†,1/203)*/-)5(3/-]c_nj‡bˆgf‰ytuubjkl‡ ŠF+,0:201/4212>242.;')(V„„XM VSTIXK‚LNO„KN
LNORMXOMVY‚
„XM‹MLSI‚,0:<(2>,44;Œ/-210,./:B)5-201Š0.2.2/-?<ŒBŠCD ,0:+()62:201./39023,4,--2-.,03/.)203(/,-/,33/--]^_ lklkbdq‰gdbjkl‡m|Žt‰xfgstqtq‘’l“’l‡ ”()*).201,SMXV 
LPIM‚LWQX„XK‚LNO-/(6201,(,01/)' 203)*/-.)')-./(20345-26/3)**502.2/-]•dugpiqegdzix{geh wgede‰t^hte‰v]•duzw^ˆgŽt–e‰irt—qihqdr ˜):2';201.9/‚WVWI™‚„VMYšXM›IMXK‚LNOWVœUMI LW.) 203(/,-/5-,1/]^_“lbdq‰gdbjkl ž(20120120,„XUK‚XNMVULVTIJKLWQ.)'50:201+()1(,*- .9()519-3)(201]zirtŸtvbzirtut{{zix{gehb^{{g{fde‰tde —qtstefgie]zz^—qdef—qihqdrb|rtqhte‰vciuxfgie{ qdef{’•iqiedsgqx{]|c’•  84,(2';201ITLOLSLTLWQ„XMKN

XUKYINWI
¡VTL„XMNLVN‚20 9)5-201,--2-.,03/+()1(,*-]|rtqhte‰v¢tefdu^{{g{fde‰t —qihqdr]|¢^—  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

  
'()*+,+-./0-,+-./)(1)234-,5),6(4763+-8)569)56)2-6(: :66;+-.7)<=>?@>?<<>AAB=CDE>FFGHIJHG@AKLMNAO)-796+( P()P6(7QRSTUVWXXYZ[\T]^_\`a\Tbc d>eBfGHI=?<G?FFC=>A@=G<@Gf><Bf>H?H@A,0(+-.(6416:7476 7(4-:487+)-:RXghijjklmST\^nokpqphc rH<=>?AGHIsBB=DGH?@GBH?HDsBFF?tB=?@GBHuB=LDD=>AAGHI vBe>F>AAH>AA?HDvBJAGHIw>>Dxy))(,+-47+-.(6:)0(86:4-, 41+.-+-.:7476P().(45:48()::1)8416-7+7+6:4-,:7476,6P4(756-7: 7)z6776(:6(*6y41+/)(-+4-:{|)5616::-6::8)-7+-06:7)z6)-6)/ 7965):7*+:+z16:Q5P7)5:)/49)0:+-.:Q:7657947+:-)75667+-. 796-66,:)/411y41+/)(-+4-:{}179)0.9796894116-.6:)/ 4,,(6::+-.9)5616::-6::4(66-)(5)0:~796:7476+:+-76-71Q /)80:6,)-796-66,:)/79+:P)P0147+)-{ 6216.+:147+)-8(6476,796y41+/)(-+4€-76(4.6-8Qy)0-8+1)- |)5616::-6::y41€y|‚ƒ/)(56(1Q796|)5616::y))(,+-47+-. 4-,„+-4-8+-.y)0-8+1|y„y‚ƒ29+898))(,+-476:6//)(7:7) 4,,(6::9)5616::-6::48():::74764.6-8+6:{ 6*6(41P().(45:
8)-7+-067))//6(7689-+8414::+:74-867)8+7+6:~8)0-7+6:~4-, y)-7+-005:)/y4(6y)y:‚~961P+-.2+797964,)P7+)-)/|)0:+-. „+(:7P)1+8+6:4-,|)0:+-.†1656-7‡42~4-,41+.-+-.9)0:+-.4-, 7(4-:P)(747+)-.)41:{ˆ796(P().(45:4(6P()*+,+-./0-,+-./)( 656(.6-8Q9)5616::-6::P().(45:4-,P()5)7+-.796P(),087+)- )/:6-+)(9)0:+-.{‰)0-,+-.)077966//)(77)4,,(6:: 9)5616::-6::~796:74768(6476,796|)5616::-6::Š474 €-76.(47+)- Q:765|Š€
‚7)z6776(7(48;9)2.)*6(-56-7:94*6 (6:P)-,6,7)7969)5616::-6::8(+:+:4-,796)078)56:)/:7476 +-*6:756-7:{ y(647+-.796s?FGuB=HG?rH@>=?I>H<CsBJH<GFBH vBe>F>AAH>AAy41€y|‚~7)8))(,+-4766//)(7:7)P(6*6-74-, 6-,9)5616::-6::48():::74764.6-8+6:+-810,+-.|641794-, |054- 6(*+86:||
‚~‹0:+-6::~y)-:056(
6(*+86:4-, |)0:+-.‹y
|‚~4-,796y41+/)(-+4
7476Œ(4-:P)(747+)- }.6-8Qy41
Œ}‚RXghppqkŽTkpqphc
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

% 
'()*+,+-./0123450263780975:5;;9;65073<)=>?+@)(-+> A)B-<+CD>-,=)=DE+<FGB+?,+-.>,H+-+D<(><+*CA>I>A+<JK +HI?CHC-<+-.L)BD+-.M+(D<.B+,C?+-CDK>-,D<>G+?+N+-.CO+<D@()H F)HC?CDD-CDDPQCAF-+A>?RDD+D<>-AC<)SHI()*C<FCTC?+*C(J)@ L)HC?CDD-CDD'().(>HDU '()*+,+-..B+,>-AC<)A+<+CD>-,A)B-<+CDE+<F+HI?CHC-<+-. (CVB+(CHC-<D)@L)BD+-.W?CHC-<X>E@)(9063YZ5690Y 8/43:3;;03;;2565906/7/44[096\]:50090Y^_`abcd efghijkglmndopacq r[0290Y343ZY307\]Z/YZ54;<)DBII)(<>,,(CDD+-. +HHC,+><CF)HC?CDD-CDDAF>??C-.CD^stuvlvwwstfwgxyd _wwgwznx{vnx|}hvmvxzgtx^ss_}q~hnxz}htyhnunx|zv stuvlvww€uvhyvx{_g|}htyhnu^s€_}qq ‚Z35690Y683ƒ/43:3;;„565 063YZ569/0†\;634PLTS‡U<) GC<<C(<(>AˆF)E=>?+@)(-+>F>D(CDI)-,C,<)<FCF)HC?CDD-CDD A(+D+D^‰nlgŠthxgn‹xzvhnyvx{‰tfx{gltxstuvlvwwxvww^‰nl ‹‰sqq ‚//Z2905690YŒ968;65635Y30793;DBAF>D<FCTCI>(<HC-<D )@‡)A+>?‡C(*+ACDPT‡‡U>-,ŽC-C(>?‡C(*+ACDPTއU)- DF>(C,.)>?D<F()B.F'()CA<))HˆCJ>-,L)HCˆCJ ‘:9Y090Y;65638/[;90Y]Z/YZ54;Œ968’3;6]Z576973;KDBAF >D<FCL)BD+-.M+(D<H),C?<)>,,(CDDF)HC?CDD-CDD^‰nl‹‰s stfwgxy“ghwzyfg|vlgxvwd}ht”v{z•ttuivdstuvivq '?>--+-.>-,A)??>G)(><+-.<)907Z35;3;309/Z8/[;90Y ]Z/2[769/0<)>AA)HH),><C<FC.()E+-.DC-+)(I)IB?><+)-K EF+?C>?D)C-A)B(>.+-.,)E-D+N+-.+-DC-+)(F)BDCF)?,D?+*+-.+- F)HCD?>(.C(<F>-<FC+(-CC,DK@(CC+-.BI>,,+<+)->?F)BD+-.@)( ?>(.C(F)BDCF)?,D^€–v{fzgmv—h|vh˜ja™jacš›nwzvh}lnxŠth _ygxyq ‘:9Y090Y8/[;90Y5026Z50;]/Z6569/0Y/5:;<F()B.F +-AC-<+*CD^‰nlzhnxwkfwzngxnœlv‰tuufxgzgvw~hnxz}htyhnud t{nl}nhzxvhwgž}htyhnu^}}qdŸhnxwgznx|‹xzvh{gz•ngl ‰nžgznl}htyhnu^Ÿ‹•‰}qdŸhn|v‰thhg|th€xnx{vuvxz}ht”v{z ^Ÿ‰€}qdnx|ktlfzgtxwŠth‰txyvwzv|‰thhg|thw^k‰‰}q  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

" 
'()*+,,-./01234356+*7*68,599*7,+7,9:564;<
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
'()*+,-).-)'/,0'1.*'1)+023(,0/+45-26+70*+(3-28-3-26/(101-2 2041090/+:702)3; <=>?@ABCDCDEF?G?BHIA?D=-2',0'32+)J(-/1-2802+(8* *+(3-28K)*,+(8*:+/-6.)++/33(6*'37-2-3)0,-'/'::,+9'/3'21 LMNO0P07:)-+23QRSTUVWXYZY[V\]^_`aS_TVbcXdV\]^_` RSUe]VfghcV\]^_`aS\^i\VbcXdV\]^j`aS^Ui]Vk[XYlmnZV \]^o`RS\jjVWXYZY[V\]\]S`RS_VahpXZqV\]\^`RS^]V WXYZY[V\]\^r s,+9-1-28t-2'26-'/,03+(,603K3(6*'38,'2)t(21-28K'21 CDu?D=CG?v=HBHu@BEHG?>DA?D=v)+3(::+,):+/-6.+,:,+6033 -7:,+90702)3)*')'660/0,')0:,+1(6)-+2+t*+(3-28t+,'// -26+70/090/3QwY[mnZYZhxgynz{gdqXZ|azzgynhXgZw[g|[nm} RS\VahpXZqVSdXzlXZ|{gmYqnZl~gqayhV\]^_r €tt0,-28-2602)-903)+6-)-03'216+(2)-03)*,+(8*)*0 >H‚HƒvCDE„?vCED@=CHD>HE>@A-2)*036+,-28+t 6+7:0)-)-903)')0*+(3-28K6+77(2-).1090/+:702)K'21 -2t,'3),(6)(,0:,+8,'73QSdl|Yhayhg \]^o}aS_eV†XZ|V \]^o`aS^]^VbgmmXhhYYgZSdl|YhV\]^or ‡0ˆ(-,-28/+6'/8+90,2702)3)+@FF>?vv‰@>>C?>vŠv=>?@ABCD? @II>HG@BvŠ@DF?‹I@DFIH=?D=C@Bu@I@uC=ŒH>Ž„v'21 (2-+,'66033+,.140//-28(2-)3‘’O“”3•QaSijV†XZ|V\]^o`aS jj^VSzggmV\]^o`aSUj_Vk[XYlmnZV\]^o`aSi_]Vk[XYlmnZV \]^o`RS^TVWXYypg–qpXV\]^o`aSi_^Vk[XYlmnZV\]^o`aS T^j\V†XZ|V\]\]r ‡0503)'J/-3*-28'()*+,-).)+,0ˆ(-,0'60,)'-2'7+(2)+t/+40,5 -26+70*+(3-28'3'6+21-)-+2+t1090/+:702)+t204,02)'/ (2-)3—-;0;KCDuBƒvCHD@>Œ˜HDCDEQaS^U]UVSzggmV\]^_r O//+4-28t+,ACvvCDEACFFB?‚HƒvCDE:,+1(6)-+2-2t+,70,/. 3-28/05t'7-/.™+2-281-3),-6)3)*,+(8*3)')05/090/(:™+2-28 /08-3/')-+2QayyYqqg[š›–YzzXZ|œZXhxn–q`RSoVahpXZqV\]\^r M26+(,'8-28/+6'/8+90,2702)3)+6+21(6)>H‰ƒv=Iƒ‰BCu ?DE@E?A?D=@DF?DGC>HDA?D=@B>?GC?@vuHAAƒDC=C?v@>? IB@DD?F)+,01(60)*0)-70'216+3)3:02)+2)*030'6)-9-)-03') )*0:,+06)/090/QRSTT]VRpXZZY[V\]^or ž7:,+9-28uHH>FCD@=CHDCD=‚?v=@=?Ÿv‚HƒvCDECD@DuCDE F?BCG?>ŒvŒv=?A') L“QaSeTeV›nzšV\]\]r  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-./01+23045671(50/89/15/(:/;(/014.0<=>674; 5(:1/0+/5(9/1?5,,/;@AB+ CDEFGHIJKKELMNFDOFHPPFHNDFQRLQLPESTUQQHRSVGUQUHPLKRGDEKQUHPW '(:/(,5X5Y5(Z[7*+5(Z\17;*:,57(]^_`abcb`_cabcd`ec fghbijck`b`lcmmnock_bogehokdiepcllibioech_ogaiepmob`ebichq ^_`r`piahcbgn`kn`cb`lca`ni`aojiek`ebis`abo`ekogncp` _ogaiepl`s`homf`ebq^_`a`mohiki`aiekhgl`ltugbv`n`eobhifib`l botmnopncfab_cbmnosil`iejncabngkbgn`celmcndajgeliepjonkibi`a b_cbmnolgk`cjjonlcuh`_ogaieptfcbk_iepjgelajonkibi`acel kogebi`ab_cbkoebniugb`hokchjgeliepbocjjonlcuh`_ogaieptcel iekonmoncbiep_ogaieppochaiebobnceamonbcbioemhceaqwbb_`acf` bif`tb_`abcb`boodcscni`bxojab`mabogbihiy`mguhikhceljonb_` mgnmoa`aojcjjonlcuh`_ogaiepmnolgkbioeqzob_b_`{gnmhgarcel wkb|{rw}celb_`~k`aa{ib`amnopncffcd`mguhikhcel cscihcuh`bocjjonlcuh`_ogaiepl`s`hom`naq^_`a`bvoieibicbis`a _cs`chn`clxmnolgk`laipeijikceblisil`elatn`aghbiepieos`n€t geibaojcjjonlcuh`_ogaiep`m`kb`loekgnn`ebaib`acaoj ‚`ungcnxƒƒƒqzxhiediep_ogaiepmnolgkbioeboiek`ebis`acel ies`abf`ebacbhokchtn`pioechtcelabcb`h`s`hatcelmnosiliep  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

% 
'()*+,*-./012345/565*1'75.310-0012/-)*541(8+.9:34583-35+8 *5-/+.9345;-<315='-./41(8+.9,1.832(,3+1.> ?216+/+.9@ABCDBE@FGDB@GHIJGAKJAGLMNHGOIMHBCFJPLGBFBQ PFAIDBEKFRRABDJSTLBL@DJI-8-25;-2/31,+3+58-./ ,1(.3+5834-3'21/(,5-./'2585265-0012/-)*541(8+.9 UVWXYZ[\W]X^_`abc_]X^ab\]]dY_^_aZef[[\WgXhcai\dZ_YjXYg kdZ^X_YXhcab\]]dY_^_aZeklm_YnaY^_`aoW\jWX]Zp q0052+.9RHJKPDBE@ABCI@FGKDJDLIHBCKFABJDLI34-3(3+*+r5 5=+83+.92581(2,5834-30-,+*+3-3541(8+.9+.658375.3Us\nXc i\dZ_YjVWdZ^tdYgp u.,12'12-3+.941(8+.991-*8+.315=+83+.9-./.5; JGHBINFGJHJDFBNGFEGHRIUbXc^WXYZkdZ^X_YXhcab\]]dY_^_aZ vWXY^ZwW\jWX]xbXc_[\WY_XVWXYZo\W^X^_\Yb\]]_ZZ_\YUbVbp s\nXcwXW^YaWZy_owW\jWX]UswwpebXckVfzZVWXYZ_^{|Y^aWn_^} ~X_cbXo_^XcwW\jWX]UV|~bwpebVbzZfn^_`aVWXYZo\W^X^_\Y wW\jWX]UfVwpxbVbzZk\cd^_\YZ[\Wb\YjaZ^agb\WW_g\WZ UkbbwpebXc_[\WY_Xf_W~aZ\dWnaZl\XWgzZkdZ^X_YXhca VWXYZo\W^X^_\Y€d_^}wW\an^UkVwpp ‚-ƒ+.992-.38-6-+*-)*5012+.,175„(-*+0+5/41751;.52831 DBKLBJD D†L‡ˆ‰KFBIJGAKJDFBUbXcitffŠ‹vWXY^wW\jWX]p Œ25-3+.9-'527-.5.381(2,5100(./+.931IATIDCD†LRDLCQ DBKFRLPFAIDBENGFŽLKJ8UbXcitf_ag|Yn\]awW\jWX] aZ^Xhc_Zyagh}klmp ‘='-./+.9DB@D’’CL L’FNRLBJHBCCLBIDJSDBKLBJD
LI:8(,4 -8345“5.8+3<”1.(8•-;:31'217135('r1.+.9012+.0+**-./ ,17'-,3/565*1'75.3Ufl–—˜™xbyd_xmš–›ekl›xf^œ_YZx mšm–ekl–šx_aYaWxmšm–efnnaZZ\W}Šžacc_Yj‹Y_^sXžZp Ÿ.*1,ƒ+.9LKLIIIJHJL’HBC-6-+*-)*5012-0012/-)*541(8+.9 Uand^_`a WgaW¡¢š˜¢–›p £FBBLKJDBEH@@FGCHT’LPFAIDBECL L’FNLGIJF’FKH’IAGN’AI ’HBC-./8325.9345.+.95.012,575.310345¤(2'*(8•-./¥,3 ¦¤•¥§Ufl–¨©˜xV_Yjxmš–›ekl—›–xb\W^aZaxmšm–p ª5„(+2+.9,+3+58-./,1(.3+5831DB LBJFGSHBCGLNFGJIAGN’AI HBCLKLII’FKH’NAT’DK’HBCI31+.,*(/5+.-83-35;+/5 +.65.312<Ufl–m««x~\haW^~_`XZxmš–›p  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

" 
'()*+,-).-/00)(1)23(453063(1()7/++*86/40)-*9)232 /.:5383(10/(6253,/40)+*8-*523(1;<(=>?@AB*C)8(*8 D)72*9,**E2)C)8/0/.,3*(2,*9/E)2,/,)/(60*./0F5403. 0/(62/C/30/40)+*8/++*86/40)-*523(16)C)0*F9)(,A3(.0563(1 .*(().,3(1/++*86/40)-*523(16)C)0*F)82,*0*./0258F052 F5403.0/(6; GHIJKLMHNOPQJRQSJRJITNHUVHKQRWXUYRXMVQZ[STWIQIXM \,8)(1,-)(3(1]..*5(,/4303,^/(6_(+*8.)9)(,`abcddefegbfg higjgfebkblmcbdebbgncfenloficflkelofgpcqerefcflsgtoebk higdtqfegbufslofcfleocrogilcppeijebkcbdofilbkfslbebkrcmofscf cilcrilcdvmgiwebkx yslofcfluebhcifbliosehmefsrgqcrkgnlibjlbfoucrilcdvscoc qgjhilslboenlovofljfglbpgiqlsgtoebkkgcroxygofilbkfslb fscfovofljufslofcflcdghfldolnlicrrcmofscfejhignlgtizg zlf{goo|gpcppgidc}rlsgtoebk~ilktrcfegboupgifepvgtihigkicjofg hilnlbflqrtoegbcivhgreqelouejhignlilhgifebkil€teiljlbfopgi sgtoebklrljlbfocbdlkegbcr‚gtoebkzlldoƒrrgqcfegb|‚zƒ~ kgcroucbdficqwqgjhrecbqlgpleofebksgtoebkrcmoxyslofcfl fggwfslcddefegbcroflhfgqilcflcblm‚gtoebkƒqqgtbfc}erefv „befcf‚ †mseqsmerrcrrgmfsl†lhcifjlbffg}lfflilbpgiql
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

'( 
)*+,-+./012,+./341-)5-+1.,60+7)+837)8).-+./.)6012,+./796, ,2509,:;<4+/0-93341=97,9.>4)?2+4+./012,+./)7)8).-,-1 +.572>)+.@1489-+1.1.01671597/1=)4.8).-,94)8))-+./-0)+4 1:7+/9-+1.-19@@+489-+=)7;@24-0)4@9+4012,+./AB0)C97+@14.+9 D)394-8).-1@E2,-+5)97,1>)=)713)>9F12,+./G-4+H)I145) 60+506+77@152,1.017>+./5+-+),9.>512.-+),95512.-9:7)@14@9+4 012,+./J)?2+-;J9.>012,+./341>25-+1.A G-4)./-0).+./K1K)-L1,,341=+,+1.,-1MNOPQNOPRSTTOUOVPQ ROQVRTWXNTTWXYNZ[V\WSROP]>)=)7138).-+.-0)012,+./ )7)8).-,,+-),+.=).-14;^G_`aaJGH+..)4Jbc`de fWRQVXOP]YVgV[WhMVPQhWQVPQON[1@,+-),:;4)?2+4+./ 9>>+-+1.9714:;<4+/0-93341=97,^i_`jkdJL16Jbc`de l.@145+./)*+,-+./012,+./796,:;QXNUmOP]UWMh[ONPUV9.> 341=+>+./-)50.+5979,,+,-9.5)^i_dbJG9.-+9/1Jbc`de n)?2+4+./23>9-),-1012,+./)7)8).-,9.>9..297341/4),, 4)314-,-1hXWgOYVYNQNWPN[[PVoYVgV[WhMVPQ^i_pdkJ q49;,1.Jbc`de G-4)./-0).+./)*+,-+./341=+,+1.,1@-0)F12,+./i5512.-9:+7+-; i5-J89H+./+-).@145)9:7)-1RQWhVrU[SROWPNXsZV\NgOWXR^G_ `adJGH+..)4Jbc`dti_adpJ_159.)/49Jbc`dti_`u`uJD97;J bc`dti_b`kvJbc`ptG_jjcJbc`ke w:7+/9-+./715975+-+),9.>512.-+),-1h[NPTWX\WSROP]9.> )*39.>+./,-9-)1=)4,+/0-1@-0)nFKi3415),,^G_pbpJ x+).)4Jbc`pti_`dd`J_7118Jbc`pe y[OMOPNQOP]XVRQXOUQOgVMWXNQWXOSMR9.>>)=)7138).-/416-0 593,^G_jjcJGH+..)4Jbc`ke z4181-+./+8341=)>4)314-+./9.>9.97;,+,-1MVNRSXV \WSROP]hXWYSUQOWPWSQUWMVR^i_`vpjJq49;,1.Jbc`ke C4)9-+./9PVo{WSROP]|UUWSPQNZO[OQs}POQ9-FCD^~9; n)=+,+1.-1bcb`_2>/)-ti_b`uJC0+2Jbcb`e n)?2+4+./012,+./)7)8).-,-1+.572>)9@@+489-+=)7;@24-0)4+./ @9+4012,+./9.97;,+,9.>95-+1.,^i_apaJG9.-+9/1Jbc`ptG_ vdpJx+).)4Jbcb`e  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,-.)/0*1-2032042,5/67829/1.:*7;6</0=*>.?@;9/3206/; )*+;0-A*6-2342,5/67;6B@2AA,6/-.)*C*92+A*6- DEFFGHIJKLMGNNEKJIOPQRQSGFNQKITDEUIVJKVWJSJIOTVKX MSJNVIQYQUJSJQKZO[\]^_`abcd]ceb]f`ghi_ed^dhgb]f d]jhgklh]kgkmbkg`ii_ak^_ll`]dknb]fd]oabgka`^k`ah fhjhe_ilh]kpbgqheebg^edlbkhahgdedh]^hgkabkhcdhgr s_atd]cd]fhih]fh]kenpb]fd]^_]u`]^kd_]qdkmkmhohfhabe c_jha]lh]kpkmhgkbkhlb]bchgbghadhg_oia_cablgkmbkmheig ^_ll`]dkdhgahgi_]fk_]bk`abefdgbgkhagb]fbfbikk_^_]kd]`d]c ^edlbkh^mb]chrvmhgkbkhbiiedhgo_ab]ffdgkadw`khgx_ll`]dkn yhjhe_ilh]kze_^t{ab]kg|xyz{}bokhafdgbgkhaggkadthb]fk_ mhei^_ll`]dkdhgbfbikk_^edlbkh^mb]chr~]bffdkd_]pxy ibak]hagqdkmkmh{_jha]_a€good^h_o\lhach]^n‚hajd^hg|xbe \‚}pkmh{_jha]_a€good^h_oƒeb]]d]cb]f„hghba^m|ƒ„}pb]f kmhxbedo_a]db bk`abe„hg_`a^hg†ch]^n|x
„†}k_mhei`ifbkh ghjhabegkbkhqdfhieb]gg`^mbgkmh‚kbkhxedlbkh†fbikbkd_]ƒeb]p kmh‚kbkhb‡bafˆdkdcbkd_]ƒeb]pb]fkmhxbedo_a]db†fbikbkd_] ƒeb]]d]c{`dfhrxybeg_mbgkmhahgi_]gdwdedkno_ah]o_a^d]ckmh gkbkh€gcahh]w`defd]c^_fh|x†‰{ahh]}qmd^mia_l_khg g`gkbd]bweh^_]gka`^kd_]iab^kd^hgr x_]^`aah]kenpkmhgkbkhbfld]dgkhagghjhabeia_cablgkmbk h]^_`abchkmhfhjhe_ilh]k_om_`gd]cd]bahbg_o_ii_ak`]dkn|u_wŠ b]fkab]gdkŠad^mbahbg}pd]jhgkd]h^_]_ld^fhjhe_ilh]kd]e_qhaŠ _ii_ak`]dknbahbgpb]fwad]c^_llha^dbe`ghgk_hgkbwedgmhf ahgdfh]kdbe]hdcmw_am__fgk_ia_l_khqbetbwdedknb]fe_qhajhmd^eh ldehgkabjhehfrvmh†oo_afbweh_`gd]cb]f‚`gkbd]bweh  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()**+,-.-/012)324*56,7-886,7240.2+9.+2/:24,.12)324*5 ;/3-),48<428=>9.-),184,,-,3:24,.0)7?@?AB;<>1?C@D54,E .F/G24,0-.HI2-/,./EJ/K/8)L*/,.M)+0-,312)324*42/0)*/)7 .F/0.4./L2)324*0.F4.*4N/.24,07)2*4.-K/-,K/0.*/,.0-, -,7240.2+9.+2/5.24,0L)2.4.-),54,EF)+0-,3C (),.-,+-,3.)OPQRSTUQRVQTUQRSORVQWXYOZ[\WTR]W\RVOP UTRUVW^W__WTQYPOQ`ab)cH4,E.24,0-.H2-9F42/40d-.FF-3FH L/27)2*-,309F))804,E).F/24*/,-.-/0adF-8/L2)*).-,3 9)**+,-.=E/K/8)L*/,.4,E-,7240.2+9.+2/-,K/0.*/,.0-, 9)**+,-.-/0d-.FF-3F/29),9/,.24.-),0)7L)K/2.=4,E7/d/2 0/2K-9/0efgghijklmnohpqrstksjupqvkrsklmnwhxxpsrvrnq yihtikxz{sgrmm{sgikqvip|vpin}iksvyihtikxz~fy€‚zƒiksqrv„ irnsvnj†n‡nmhˆxnsvyihtikx‰ <,0+2-,3.F4.(48-7)2,-4,094,c)+,9/c49N47./2E-040./20 0.2-N/c=U[\OPOVQRTOPS^R[RTUZ^YP[VŠ40d/88404LL8=-,37)2 *)2/7/E/2487+,E-,3ewhxxpsrv‹†n‡nmhˆxnsvŒmh|}iksv„ †rqkqvni~n|h‡ni‹ew†Œ}„†~‰zwhxxpsrv‹†n‡nmhˆxnsvŒmh| }iksvŽrvrtkvrhsew†Œ}„{ƒ‰zkvrhskm†rqkqvni~nqrmrns|n whxˆnvrvrhse†~w‰‰ 12)*).-,3‘W\\YPOQ`TRVOZORP‘`UP[U[U_QUQOWPQW‘ZO\UQR ‘]UPSRUP[PUQYTUZ[OVUVQRTVd-.F-,0.4./4,E8)9480.24./3-/0 e’njnikmw†Œ}“†rqkqvni’psjrstzŒihkjlksjghifmm”n|pvr‡n ijni„•–„€‚‰ —+LL)2.-,3R‘WPW\O‘UP[VW‘OUZTRVOZORP‘`U\WPS ˜YZPRTUXZR‘W\\YPOQORVc=4EE-,32/™+-2/*/,.04,E -,9/,.-K/0.)F)+0-,37+,E-,3L2)324*0.)/šL4,EF-3FH0L//E -,./2,/.499/00-,477)2E4c8/F)*/0ewkmrghisrkŒihkjlksj f|vrhsymksz „•–„€‚‰ 142.,/2-,3d-.F(48I<—5(›;>4,EI1;.)+LE4./.F/ (48-7)2,-4>E4L.4.-),184,,-,3:+-E/5—.4./(8-*4./>E4L.4.-), —.24./3=54,E—.4./M4œ42E-.-34.-),184,54*),3).F/2L84,05 L)8-9-/054,E3+-E/0.)VQTRPSQ]RPVQUQRUP[ZW‘UZTRVOZORP‘R QW‘ZO\UQRTOVžV (),.-,+-,3.)Y_[UQRUP[RP^WT‘RŸ ¡¢TRRP5.F/0.4./£0 32//,c+-8E-,39)E/5.)2/E+9/,/34.-K/-*L49.04,EL2)*)./ .F)0/L2-,9-L8/0dF-9FF4K/4L)0-.-K//,K-2),*/,.48-*L49.4,E  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,-./(0,01.2).34(*+)01-,*12+)5-.*12*(06789:;<=>?@@A ;BC@D E>BF@?AB?>GFHAI@JKBL MNOPQRSTUPQVWSRXYNZXZ[\]()12^_2)/*+01]-2`(-0.)]-(0(.-*a2)/ +55+-1,)212(01+-(],*(1a(bc d+,02)/*+010*+)12),(1+3(.02/)2^2*.)13.--2(-1+^.b242(01-_2)/ 1+3,_.a+b(2)e.42^+-)2.cf41a+,/a1a(b.-g(1h244*+)12),(1+ ]-2`(b.)_+^1a+0(*+0101a.12)]2`2],.40^.*(i1a(01.1(201.g2)/ ),b(-+,001(501+,)](-01.)]1a(0(*+010.)]5+1()12.44_.44(`2.1( 1a(bcj(`(-.4)(h4.h0h2445-+`2]()((](]]2-(*12+).)] -(0+,-*(01+01,]_*+010cf0.-(0,41+^-(*()14(/204.12+)i1a(01.1( 2001,]_2)/1a(*+010+^5(-b2112)/.)]2b5.*1^((0.)]](`(4+52)/ .^.-k-(.*a2)/].1.01-.1(/_^+-*++-]2).12)/a+,02)/].1..*-+00 1a(01.1(cf11a(0.b(12b(i1a(01.1(205,-0,2)/b+-(1.)/234( 2)212.12`(00,*a.0^,)]2)/5-+/-.b01a.1](`(4+51a(4.3+-^+-*(^+- 1a(a+,02)/2)],01-_i5-+b+12)/.].512`(-(,0(*+)01-,*12+) ld+b(g(_mi.41(-).12`(a+,02)/b+](40l0,*a.0fno0mi.)] 0,01.2).34(a+,02)/5-.*12*(0c e+)],*12)/.ZXpqrNSXsPQPtZNStuvPSPZZNwxPQyRXXRSTtSq RyxtzXwPPZ6<{|}:~>?GKBA~789:€<{87~>?GKBA~7879D  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
()*+,-./0)/123456137849:;<76=>5:?;@37:6A439:?<B 0)*C,D0)/.D.EF0GH-H,IH+J./0)/.)D,)DH-,F0C0KHDL,0CD0)/I .)DM+D,C.-+-M.),J.*F,-HD*+)IF-,*F0+)NOPQRSRTUVWXRYY Z[\RY]^P_^`Qa b-+M+F0)/<;<31761c24c;72?76=>51@37@4<.)DFdH*+)IF-,*F0+) +JH)G0-+)MH)F.CCeJ-0H)DCed+,I0)/Nfghijklm^RRnjPoRa p4?;@76=c155745<16?q;6?76=123456137849:;<76=A:?42< r0FdC+rH-E-+D,*F0+)*+IFINZ\^R`Qs[n[n_ktuY`novktuY \w^Px_wkyz{U|[n_Ufghi}ky{{hUysPPQUfghi}ky~{U €^[RoQ`nUfghi}kyzgU€^[RoQ`nUfghi}ZyhU‚[RXSPƒYS[U fghi}kyh{fU|[n_Ufgfg}kyzhU€^[RoQ`nUfghia b-+M+F0)/7A>5:84??131@:224@37:6BF-.)IE.-H)*eB.)D .).CeI0I-HC.FHDF+-HD,*0)/d+,I0)/*+IFINkyh„{Um^`TYPnU fghia ,)D0)/†:5‡q:5@4?4842:>A463>5:=51A<F+HˆE.)DFdH C.L+-J+-*HJ+-d+,I0)/DHGHC+EMH)FN‰`TŠR‹[Y[Pn\Pfgfh yxo_R\a  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

'' 
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`a* b234-+0H=;?=@FHC>FEG>EF<]F<JH><;?=T<C>U<=>Ccdefghijklmg fnopq VEBU<=>?=BD=BD?=BKDEC?=B@E=;?=BL?>KH2+*r,-s*0*+*7_a 2`a-0_,-2+`2+)cdetgeuvwwgfnoxyiz{|kw}vl}~ulzviu ~ulivw€zumgizz‚‚u~€zuwzvlvmmkmivlƒuiz„uiu~vlmgiz ƒzlmi~|ƒiv}}kikzlvw€z|mkl kl}ulmu|~{vlv~uvmvl}luv~ †|{wkƒi~vlmkig‡ˆ‰nkwwkzlizvk}wzŠ‹vl}z}u~viu‹klƒzu €zu{|Œu~mgvl}‡tnnkwwkzliz†~zk}uwzvlmvl}
~vlim‚z~ }uuwz†uliz‚‚v~Šz~ju~€z|mkl
q 7*_,-+0Ž2a-8/_+)Ž7207_s2+4-4,*+8/9SF<H>?=BUDF< GD=C?C><=GA?=BE?;<J?=<CQF<MDF>?=BF<E?F<U<=>CQH=;MDJ?GABDHJC I<>L<<=C>H><HB<=G?<C?=TDJT<;?=KDEC?=BQ>FH=CMDF>H>?D=QH?F EHJ?>AQH=;GD=C<FTH>?D=R WK<F<HF<UH=AC>H><HB<=G?<CHJJLDF?=B>DB<>K<F>DGDUIH> KDEC?=BCKDF>HB<CH=;GDC>CHCL<JJHCGJ?UH><H=;>FH=CMDF>H>?D=  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

'$ 
())*+),-.+/0123(45637+3*2834+)()23+.)*6+2902+7+613.+() /36:(.;<63429+)04+)+23<;30=)>;*(?+=(.+)0.?6+5362(.; (.)26*4+.2),@329()+.?>29+)202+90)(.(2(02+?563;604)23 <08(=(202++<<(8(+.293*)(.;<(.0.8+?+=(7+61>0=(;.ABC93*)(.; 563;604)/(29@0DB6+?(20.?E3.?F==3802(3.563;604)>0.? 8336?(.02+29+4*=2(5=+0;+.8(+)/36:(.;3.93*)(.;.++?)> 8=(402+6+)(=(+.8+>0.?83.)+6702(3.23/06?)083443.;30=, G*629+6(.;)202+53=(813HI+82(7+)3<+J*(212963*;90436+ KLLKMNOPKQRSKLLOMOKRNTUVWORXLORQRMORXSKYOPKZ[W[WNK\02 ABC]^_`a`bcdefbghghi j637(?(.;MURWOWNKRNSKLORONOURWkNTZKWTUYSWkQRSWMUZORX<36 )+7+.3<ABCl)6+.20=93*)(.;563;604)]^_`a`bcdefbghghi mYOXRORXnopqZUXZQ\WrONTNTKWNQNKsQtoZKSONQRSuURS mYYUMQNOURqZUXZQ\W]^_`a`bcdefbghghi oUUZSORQNORXTUVWORXRKKSkMYO\QNKZKWOYOKRM[kXZKKRTUVWK XQWZKSVMNOURkqVvYOMTKQYNTvKRKLONWkQRSSKPKYUq\KRNQRS MURWKZPQNOURXUQYW2963*;93*2706(3*))202+?+50624+.2) ]wdxyz{|}zx~xz{€|}y‚‚ƒ_{|y„ƒ||b z„|{†ƒx‡ƒxwyˆƒ| d„‰Šz{|y„^ƒ„ˆf]_
‡Šib
dey‹zx„yd^yxŒƒ|z{xˆƒ|_zdx‰ ]
^Œ_ib‹‹yˆƒz‹Žed„„y„d„‰Œƒ|ƒdxˆ‚]ŽŒib
dey‹zx„yd cƒ€dx†ƒ„z‹xd„|€zxdyz„]
dexd„|ib
dey‹zx„yd xd„|€zxdyz„
z††y||yz„]

ib‚ƒ
dey‹zx„yd‡dƒ xd„|€zxdyz„^ƒ„ˆf]
de‡^ib‚ƒ‡xdƒyˆxz}‚
z{„ˆye ]‡
ib‚ƒcƒ€dx†ƒ„z‹
z„|ƒxwdyz„]c
ib‚ƒ
dey‹zx„yd Šy‚‘‡€ƒƒ‰Œdye^{‚zxyf]
ЇŒ^ib
dey‹zx„yd’„ƒxf
z††y||yz„bd„‰z‚ƒx|i
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

'  
()*+,-./+012.34/5,63271,89:36*;/+<*3),=3+.>,<./;?/12*<@ 3<A:/>>1<*.B),4,6/=>,<. CDEFGHIJFDJKLFMNDLFOPIDJQPHGRNDIDRMPIFKMFRKSPTUPIFPJRPKS UPIKHJDEKMHIFPKSQHDEKSDJODKUFIDMFHJKEHKPHVMLNPJJHMPJHVQN NHVKFJQFKWVFEMXYNFKFJREVOPKLHIZFJQGD[FEFPKSDQFJQKPJFHIKS UPIKHJKLFMNOFKDWFEFMFPKSKRNHHE\DQPORNFEOIPJS]HVMNDQFJQHVMHG GHKMPIRDIPSRHEEPQPKMVOPJMKS]HVJQDOVEMKPJMPIFJQMNPLHIZGHIRPS YIFWPKSGHI[PIE]FJRDIRPIDMPOFJOF^FOVDEKSF[[FQIDJMRH[[VJFMFPKS DJOUPIKHJKPTFMFJQNH[PEPKKJPKK_HGMPJIPGEPRMFJQMNPVJF`VP PTUPIFPJRPKDJOOP[HQIDUNFRKHGMNPFIRH[[VJFMFPKXabcdeH[P UHUVEDMFHJKGDRPQIPDMPIWDIIFPIKMNDMUIP^PJMMNP[GIH[DRRPKKFJQ CDEFGHIJFDfKEF[FMPONHVKFJQKVUUE]X YNPKMDMPNDK[DOPIPRHIOFJ^PKM[PJMKFJDGGHIODWEPNHVKFJQDJO MDZPJWHEODJOVIQPJMDRMFHJMHKMIPD[EFJPNHVKFJQUIHOVRMFHJSWVM LPRDJJHMVJLFJODRIFKFKMNFKEHJQFJMNP[DZFJQH^PIJFQNMXgJMNP [HKMPGGFRFPJMDIPDKSFMM]UFRDEE]MDZPK]PDIKGHINHVKFJQMHQHGIH[ UEDJJFJQDJOhHJFJQMH[H^P\FJIPDO]X ijklmnopqmorsjtuovqwukovlmppojouxsmljsqmyCNPRZHVM CDEFGHIJFDfKz{z{|H[PZP]UIHQID[DKD[HOPEMNDMKNHLRDKPK VIQPJR]SDRMFHJSUDIMJPIKNFUSDJOPGGFRFPJR]MHQPMIPKVEMKX }VIFJQMNPNPFQNMHGMNPUDJOP[FRSMNPKMDMPUPIGHI[PODLFOP IDJQPHGDRMF^FMFPKMHQPMUPHUEPNHVKPODKGDKMDKUHKKFWEPSDK P^FOPJRPOW]MNPMF[PEFJPWPEHLXYNPPGGHIMSHVMUVMSDJOEP^PEHG UDIMJPIKNFUWPMLPPJMNPKMDMPDJOEHRDEUDIMJPIKLDK VJUIPRPOPJMPOX  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

'% 
()*+,*-.,/012,3*4567.4-,18.9:,*;<=24>?*44<71?429*, )*,@>+*4.?3A124>?BCB*?+/ DEFGHIJKLHMNGOIPHINQFHRSMEIRHIFNRELHGNHITOUHVELIHOWXYNLRZN KOGRVEFLSNOLG[\NZOYN]OPNHIMLNPH^UNKLEJLNGG^SME]HIJ REJNRZNLREROM_UNRZNZEFGHIJMLHGHG[^FRRZNLNHG]ELN\EL_RE^N PEINW `EPOS[\NZOYNOFIHQFNEKKELRFIHRSREFGN^EUPGZELRaOIPUEIJa RNL]GRLORNJHNGREOPPLNGGRZNGNKLE^UN]GW XYNLRZNINbRcdSNOLG[RZNGRORNHG\EL_HIJRE\OLPGRZLNN E^eNMRHYNGRENIGFLNNYNLSTOUHVELIHOIZOGOGOVN[GRO^UN[OIP OVVELPO^UNZE]Nf  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

'" 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$' 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
'()*+,- ./0123456536476389:63;97<1=>12;9/57<?6;9/4@@ /695>A13>118; ./0123456/6B>12;9/586:6@1?C6/79/6D9;79/501CC2/9796;71 368206:6>90@6C9@6;734:6@68EFGHI4/8C97954760@9C476 0>4/56B>9@6;9C2@74/612;@<48836;;9/5>12;9/5/668 JC?@6C6/70@9C47636;9@96/0<4/8;2;749/4A@6A29@89/5;73476596; K2??137@104@4/836591/4@51:63/C6/7;716/0123456C136 >12;9/547434/561=?3906;L9/0@289/5986/79=<9/59/763:6/791/; 71@1B6386:6@1?C6/701;7;4/879C6@9/6;=13>12;9/5474@@ 9/01C6@6:6@; M6;6430>4@763/479:6>12;9/5C186@;B97>@1B63?31820791/ 01;7;L;20>4;C4/2=40723684/8=40713<NA29@7>12;9/5L9/0@289/5 @4A13;74/8438; O1/79/2671>1@8@104@01CC2/9796;40012/74A@6=1301C?@94/06 B97>;7476>12;9/5@4B;  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
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`UUIU_UZaHJIaTL^HKbLIacSUZU ISUaTZUdIK^KISUJZYTZIIKJ`YZK_UISUebTXJIaKWXJWUWKZTXX fTXJWKZLJTLMTL^ISUUHKLK`JHSUTXISKWKbZgZUTIMITIU[ P+).,01.05,*(6,(/..,,-.+.(2h.5,*B.+@,-.+,0,./8+,2.023. ,(,7051(87+-07.4A7(97.++,()074+0447.++*69,-.-(8+*6957*+*+<  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
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`FDBa.61:41(2=(/*4(/1;=<>'5.<4*4.8.3*2 *))/.<<123451<2..)45/(;3545.b.24b.71.9@/(3/*=> '5.<4*4.:*24/*:045.@/(3/.<<=*).12 K*719(/21*A<K^_`FDBab.24b.71.9 @/(3/*=,-51:5@/(61).<3/.*47+2..).) /.24/.71.94(K*719(/21*7*2)7(/)<*2) /.24./<-5(5*6.9*:.)912*2:1*7 5*/)<51@<);.4(45.K^_`FDBa @*2).=1:> cdefghijkflmghnlkopjqrstuvwxinyxiflimzhg{hk|tkp}~gkhyg €li‚eygkyilnmgh|kylgngn}g‚pi}gfppih€i~ƒy}iehg{hk|„ G12:.45.b.24b.71.9@/(3/*=7*;2:5.)(2 */:5B†,‡C‡B, K*719(/21*5*<7.)45.2*41(212).716./123*<<1<4*2:.4(45(<.=(<4 122..)*2)*4/1<0(97(<12345.1/5(;<123>ˆ<(9‰.8/;*/+‡Š,‡C‡‡,  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$ 
'()*+,-.*(()),/(012,31-45678*))*,.*.191-:1./;-1.0() (<<*<0(./10,=11>,31-7?@ABCC+(9*)*1<*.0D1*-D,91<6 ED1<0(019F<0(//F-(01);(<<1<<>-,:-1<<(),.:0D1D,F<*.: >-,2F/0*,.>*>1)*.10,F.21-<0(.2GD1-1*08-1(=<2,G.(.2GD(0 0;>1<,+D,91<(-181*.:8F*)0*.GD*/D>(-0<,+0D1<0(016 HIJKILMMNJOPIQMRJSMTUKVLLQWJPXM ED1<0(01/(.0-(/=YF-*<2*/0*,.<Z>-,:-1<<0,G(-2<D,F<*.:.112 :,()<[\1:*,.()],F<*.:^112<_)),/(0*,.`A+-,9D,G9F/D/*0*1< (.2/,F.0*1<(-1-1aF*-120,>)(.+,-A0,D,G9F/DD,F<*.:0D1; 1.(8)10D-,F:Db,.*.:A0,D,G9F/D0D1;>1-9*0A0,D,G9F/D:10< 8F*)06 ED1<0(01D(<>(<<12)1:*<)(0*,.(.2()),/(012+F.2*.:0, *./1.0*3*b12131),>91.0(.2<0-1(9)*.10D1/,.<0-F/0*,.>-,/1<<6 E-(/=*.:0D1D,F<*.:2131),>91.0>*>1)*.1G*))()),G0D1<0(010, 91(<F-10D11++1/0*31.1<<,+0D1<1>,)*/*1<6 cdTXLedLILPILfTeTLMPUQfJSUeTLMQJTUKedLITKdeedTUKghJMe fJUeTUSLeJiLIhTeeJJjLOSUTeMk lmnompqqrnstmuqvnwqxyozppu{nt|q}~poxnyt|vnwqxyo zppuq||n€txny‚ƒ„ wmxqux€xny
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$' 
()*+,-./00*123+)4+-55+-3)+6716168+)*489:9:)0*0;653-+<;66-77*+;0468-=68>-4;)012?)*5;04@--75 /55-55<-06A>?@/B,C,2-D EFGHIJFKFLMNOPFQRJKSTNUNVFWXNKI YZ[\]^][_`aa[_]\b^]^`c]Z[a`_^]d`c^cb\]^]e\`fc[g b[h[a`ij[c]ik`l[_]\mfk`j]Z[dcd]d^a^iiad_^]d`c]Zk`enZ `__ei^c_opYZ[\]^][_^ce\[]Zd\b^]^]`j`cd]`kgZ[]Z[k`kc`] lekd\bd_]d`c\^k[ikd`kd]dqdcn^cb^iik`hdcndcfdaab[h[a`ij[c]dc `kb[k]`^bh^c_[_adj^][n`^a\p rs32)+-?tuv5?)*5;04r2-<-06w<32-<-0616;)0107/00*12 x+)4+-55>-3)+6u161u158y)1+7Dz+1,{68-4-)4+138;, 7;56+;y*6;)0)|8)*5;047-}-2)3<-06~;0,2*7;048)*5;04 1332;,16;)05~y*;27;043-+<;65~107,)056+*,6;)01,6;};6CyC2),12;6C~ 56+*,6*+-6C3-1071||)+71y;2;6CD  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$$ 
'()*+,-.*/(+0 12345634789:;4<:3=>66<6534:9 ?@*A0B0*CBD0+BCE)@*+*)*/+(FGH*/IBDDGDJJ+BD0ABDH 0*C@DGCBIBAAGA0BDC*0(*DC(K+BJ*I(CBICG0G*ABDHC(KD0G*A0(/IBD L(+M(+*@(KAGDJBDHN*00*+KDH*+A0BDH@()0@*A*+*A(K+C*A AK//(+0(K+A@B+*H@(KAGDJJ(BIAO PQRSTUVWXYZ[\S]^^_^`aU]^b[]^cdTe]SWTf[_^`gbU]bV`_V[ h]Rij_VkklVUVWXYZ[bVel^_e]S][[_[b]^eVbV]m[]UV eT^cfeb_^`TfbUV]el]^c[fRRTUb]^c[VVkl_elnfU_[c_eb_T^[l]oV ]RRS_VcpTURS]^^_^``U]^b[i  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$  
'()*)+,-./'0(1-2-301-).0.456-/.78.19-1*:1018;)06, <=>?@A@>BACD>A?EF>@=>GFH=HE?ICJK>?IJCA@IHCGFHJFADL? IDMAB@HCNHBANJHO>FCD>C@?LMHNIBI>?ACPICB>C@IO>?QR@FABSICJT UHBANJHO>FCD>C@AMMNIBA@IHC?VHF@=>GFH=HE?ICJK>?IJCA@IHCW ICBNEPICJ@=>IFFA@>HV?EBB>??X Y@A@>VECPICJMFHJFAD?@=A@APHM@ICB>C@IO>?VHF@=>GFH=HE?ICJ K>?IJCA@IHCWICBNEPICJMFHJFAD?VECPICJ@FAC?MHF@A@IHC IDMFHO>D>C@?ACPH@=>FICVFA?@FEB@EF>X <=>CEDQ>FHVGFH=HE?ICJK>?IJCA@>PZEFI?PIB@IHC?@=A@ ?EBB>??VENNRF>B>IO>?@A@>VECPICJOIAABHDM>@I@IO>AMMNIBA@IHC MFHB>??X <=>?@A@>BACN>O>FAJ>PA@A@HD>A?EF>@=>IDMAB@HVMHNIBI>?@=A@ ?@F>ADNIC>>[I?@ICJAVVHFPAQN>=HE?ICJMFHJFAD?ACPVECPC>\W ICCHOA@IO>MFHJFAD?@HAPPF>??=HD>N>??C>??ACP=HE?ICJC>>PX ].18(-70.4'8(70.8.1^)+,-./_.-1`).a8(,-).,  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$% 
'()*+,+)-,.+/,-01()/)-2.3)/*42.*4.+24.+)/45,.67)/5,.).+ *8772/+43)(28*4.92--8//)6+(/289(:25)0);<'()*)(25)*14== *)/3)(28*)(2=6*1(2,/)(25)=)**2/,+>/4*02?(25)=)**.)**< @ABCDEFGHFIDJFKFLMNOEPQROQHSDOEPGDCFOETOSDUGOVVDEPOSCF HDJFQWTLDUEXDJJUTWGLQUBBDEGFPSLGHFQFXDTPEDUTPDV IDJFKFLVUTPWTYZRFXFJSFE[\[]GD^FSEUOEL[\[[_` a21)/bcd)72/+ efghifjklmlnopgqfifrrnfrr '()*+,+)-,.8.6)/*+,.6+()6;.,54- .,+8/)2?+()7)27=)+(,+*))0 (25)=)**.)***)/34-)*23)/+45),.6 6)+)/54.)+().85s)/2?7)27=))t4+4.9 (25)=)**.)**4.+27)/5,.).+*8772/+43) (28*4.9< @ABCDEFGHFIDJFCFQQROGOuTGFYEOGWDT vLQGFJZIRuv_GDCFOETJDEFOSDUGwOCWVDETWOxQHDJFCFQQTFQQ EFQBDTQFQLQGFJ  









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

$" 
'()*+,-.*(/(00*1.*+*2(.3)4*.2-5(056/,75)500.500 8-595.3*,.05-9*250:;.<=<=><?@>A?<85,8)5-525*956 /,75)500.5008-595.3*,.(00*03(.25>?=85-25.37,-53/(. 3/5.B7C5-,+85,8)505-956*.<=AD: EF2500G3(35H(.6+,-I++,-6(C)5J,B0*.1 KLMNOPOMQPROSPQTULMSMMVQMNNNOPOMWSXWMSOYMNPSMPZPY[P\[M PR]N^YOP\[M_XSLX^NYR`]MZM[XWaMRObPNUM[[PNULMSMOLMNOPOM LPNaP]MWSX`SMNNYR`SX^R][MPNYR`NOPOMWSXWMSOcOX]MZM[XW P__XS]P\[MPR]aYVM]dYRQXaMLX^NYR`eKLYNUY[[LM[W^NOSPQT WSX`SMNNXRSMQMRO[cWPNNM]MVMQ^OYZMPQOYXROXNW^S]MZM[XWaMRO XRW^\[YQ[PR]e fghijklmnlompmlqorphjsfgtlooumpmlvkjhlkmwloxnwtnpkl tykklzmi{w|lzmwswl|sjkpssjk|p}ilnjyowz~|llijh€lzm‚nl zy€}lkjshkjhlkmwloxwiitjzmwzylmj~kjxpop||wmwjzpiowmlo pz|ƒjk}ywi|wz~opklw|lzmwswl|pojhhjkmyzwmwlo G3(35„*65I++,-6(C)5J,B0*.1 88,-3B.*3*50G*350
 









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

' 
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









 !



" "#$%&#% $"% % $

 
'()*+,-)./01234)10,()356+,7+4+/8.9+,)(:;6+40(:)(:<(-.).=.+ '()*+,-)./01234)10,()356+,7+4+/>+,(+,2+(.+, '()*+,-)./01234)10,()356+,7+4+/',?3(@)-A43B+C+(.D,0E+B. '()*+,-)./01234)10,()35@3*)-FB900401G3H '()*+,-)./01234)10,()35@3*)-2+(.+,10,I+:)0(34293(:+ '()*+,-)./01234)10,()35J+,B+KD04).)B34FB)+(B+ '()*+,-)./01234)10,()35G0-L(:+4+-G=-7)(FB900401D=?4)B L113),- >9)-)-3B,)-)-.93.234)10,()3B3(3(KC=-.-04*+ML(KH+(++K /0=,9+4A.0K0).M <1/0=3,+A=,-=)(:3()((0*3.)*+H3/.03KK,+--.9+90=-)(:B,)-)-5 4+.=-7(0HMN+H)44B0(.)(=+.0=-+.9+F.3.+H)K+O0=-)(:D43()( 3().+,3.)*+13-9)0(.0.,3B7A,0:,+--5)K+(.)1/0?-.3B4+-3(K 9):94):9.-=BB+--+-M N+H+4B0C+/0=,)(A=.3(KB0CC+(.-*)3+C3)43. FODP9BKMB3M:0*M QRSTUVTWX From: Mayor and Council
To: Mayor and Council
Cc: Nadine Nader; Manuel Pineda; Andrew Crabtree; Adam Marcus; Glen Googins; Nora Pimentel; Michelle Estabillo; Marisa Welling; Stephanie Davis
Subject: FW: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25 Date: Sunday, April 23, 2023 3:22:07 PM
Attachments: 4d651b00-fdeb-442c-b178-439a198a2144.pdf
image003.png
Dear Mayor and Council,
Our office received the following correspondence 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 we are forwarding for your review and consideration.

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 1:24 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
















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
!
!'
()*+,-./-0102/3)4,05,67 89:;<;=>?@ABCD:>EE>9F?G@G;HE;I;EJK9LK@:GM@G?NJJ9KG;OGM;@PQN>?>G>9F@FO9PPNJ@FP= 9RM9G;E?S:9G;E?S@FO9GM;KJK9J;KG>;?G9M9N?;J;9JE;;TJ;K>;FP>FLM9:;E;??F;??GMK9NLM9NG U@E>R9KF>@ONK>FLGM;UVWXYHZ[J@FO;:>P\]M;E9FLHG;K:>FG;FG>9F>?GM@GGM;:@^9K>G=9RGM; JK9J;KG>;?_>EE`;P9:;J;K:@F;FGM9N?>FL\XF@?>TH:9FGMJ;K>9ORK9:aNE=GMK9NLMY;P;:`;K bcbcS89:;<;=JK9I>O;OGM;K;?9NKP;?G9@PQN>K;@FOPK;@G;:9K;GM@FDScccM9N?>FLNF>G?>F[C ?;J@K@G;JK9J;KG>;?SdSccc9R_M>PM@K;O;?G>F;OG9`;P9:;J;K:@F;FGM9N?>FLNF>G?\ 89:;<;=`;L@F?M9KGE=@RG;KGM;?G@KG9RGM;J@FO;:>P>FeJK>EbcbcSR9EE9_>FLf9I;KF9K g;_?9:h?@FF9NFP;:;FG9RiK9^;PGj99:<;=\iK9^;PGj99:<;=_@?GM;kK?GJK9LK@:>FGM; P9NFGK=G9K;P;>I;@NGM9K>l@G>9FG9N?;m;O;K@EmnoeO9EE@K?G9?;PNK;M9G;EK99:?R9K;:;KL;FP=S F9FHP9FLK;L@G;?M;EG;KG9JK;I;FGGM;?JK;@O9RUVWXYHZ[@:9FLJ;9JE;E>I>FL9FGM;?GK;;G?@FO >FPK9_O;OSGK@O>G>9F@EM9:;E;???M;EG;K?\]M;K@J>OE@NFPM9RiK9^;PGj99:<;=9FeJK>Ep`=GM; ?G@G;Y;J@KG:;FG9Rq9P>@Eq;KI>P;?_@?J9??>`E;`;P@N?;SJK>9KG9GM;J@FO;:>PS?G@G;E;@O;K? M@O`;;FP9FI;F>FL>FPK9??H@L;FP=G@?<R9KP;?G9O;I;E9JJE@F?G9@OOK;??GM;F;;O?9RGM; LK9_>FLFN:`;K9RM9:;E;??>FO>I>ON@E?>FU@E>R9KF>@S;?J;P>@EE=GM9?;E>I>FL9NGO99K?\]M;bcZ[ 89:;E;??F;??i9>FGH>FH]>:;P9NFGM@OK;I;@E;OGM@GGM;K;_;K;:9K;GM@FZdcScccM9:;E;?? >FO>I>ON@E?>FU@E>R9KF>@S9R_M>PMZcBSccc_;K;NF?M;EG;K;O\]M;G@?<R9KP;?M@OK@>?;OGM; J9G;FG>@E9RP9FI;KG>FLM9G;E?@FO:9G;E?>FG9M9N?>FLS@FOP9FI;K?@G>9F?M@O@EK;@O=`;LNF_>GM K;JK;?;FG@G>I;?9RGM;M9?J>G@E>G=>FON?GK=\ rstuvuwx yz{|}~€|z‚ƒ„z„ †|‡
 ˆ~„
{‚‰„~‰ˆ~Š‚|€‹Œ€|„|z„|
ŽjX]]ngoej]Xgfnj]8e‘mVj]8nge]XVge‘e‘‘XegUn]VngY8Von‘nqqgnqq 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &

!'
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` 4*O=+4*8*,--).--)*D41D*4-+*<C*.6O=+4*BC: J*6*8C*4WAWAMI,+-+./2=,B+,0+,6/=B*BZ??A 8+//+1,+,^*B*4./2=,B<.,BZ?A8+//+1,+,<-.-* 2=,B<Ma,.BB+-+1,./ZWAA8+//+1,+,^*B*4./ B1//.4<.,BZbV8+//+1,+,D)+/.,-)41D+6B1//.4< ;*4*/.-*4.BB*B-1C4+,0-)*-1-./<-.-*K/*E*/ D4104.82=,B+,0-1ZcbV8+//+1,M defghijhklmknop qrstruvwxryz{xurxuu|}~s~€uzs| S18*9*:+<.<-.-*;+B*D4104.8@.,B-)* D1D=/.-+1,12-)*‚-.-*12F./+214,+.+,WAW> +<ƒLM„8+//+1,D*1D/*MS18*9*:2=,B<;*4* +,+-+.//:.//16.-*B.81,0*+0)-*<-.C/+<)*B 4*0+1,./D/.,,+,0.4*.<.6614B+,0-1-)* ,=8C*412)18*/*<<+,B+E+B=./<+,*.6).4*. _C.<*B1,-)*31+,-K+,K(+8*61=,-`.,B-)* ,=8C*412 P-4*8*/:]1;KI,618*)1=<*)1/B< -).-.4*<*E*4*/:4*,-KC=4B*,*BM()+<4*<=/-*B+, -)*21//1;+,0+,+-+././/16.-+1,<† ‡xtzs|ˆx}xru€ ‰€€s{uzs| Ёux‰€€s{uzs| F*,-4./F1.<-ZWA@AW?@LW„Z>@cWA@?ƒL ]1<a,0*/*< F1=,-: Z>V>@?„W@W>„Z>b@Vcc@ƒcƒ ‚.64.8*,-1a4*.ZW?@>W?@A„„ZW@Wcb@ALc ‚.,J+*01 F1=,-: ZW„@VLA@WcƒZW@?>„@WLc ‚.,^4.,6+<61 ‹.:a4*. ZL>@>ƒb@b„AZc@Wcb@L?W ‚.,U1.O=+, H.//*: ZƒW@Lc„@b?AZW@LLc@c?L ‚1=-)*4,Fa _;Œ1]aF1=,-:` Z??@?„„@?bAZ?@A?W@?Ab ‹./.,6*12‚-.-*Z>„@Ac„@AƒVZ>@??ƒ@ƒV„ ()*^*B*4./2=,B<;*4*.E.+/.C/*214.6O=+<+-+1, .,B.,:*<<*,-+./D41D*4-:4*D.+4<M()*<-.-* 2=,B<;*4*.E.+/.C/*-1D41E+B*.,1D*4.-+,0 <=C<+B:214-)*D41D*4-:214.8.P+8=812 -;1:*.4<M3)+/.,-)41D+62=,B<;*4*.//16.-*B -1-)1<*D415*6-<-).-,**B*B.)+0)*4/*E*/12 1D*4.-+,0<=C<+B:.,B<*4E+6*<B1//.4<214-)* )+0),**BD1D=/.-+1,M 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!'
()*+,-./)01234-.5)6,5 789:;:<=:>?@A?B?BACDEFGH>8FDD88HI8;:J KLDKMH<:N:OLDJP>HJI;:JQAB?@I8FKRHG LHIRF8SF8@TR:PD>DK:P>HU:;KRVFKLWXR:PD>DK: EH;DEDPPEF;D8KRYZL:RKDK:>:PH>K:JKLDKKL: D[:>DS:RKDK:\E:[:E:]P:8JFKI>:P:>MH<:N:O I8FKVDR^X?_A@`aARIPPE:<:8K:J=OD8D[:>DS: EH;DE<DK;LHG^?_A@`aP:>I8FKAGH>D8D[:>DS: KHKDE;HRKP:>I8FKHG^XTaA@aTY78:DJJFKFH8DE P>HU:;KVDRRI=R:bI:8KEODJJ:JA=>F8SF8SKL: KHKDE8I<=:>HGI8FKRKHQABQQF8@WR:PD>DK: P>HU:;KRYc::PDS:R@\X_GH>D;H<PE:K:EFRKHG P>HU:;KRD8JGI8JF8SD<HI8KRY d*.)023e053.)-6,3.//)0510f MH<:N:OVDRGI8J:JDKKL:RKDK:E:[:EVFKL ^aBB<FEEFH8F8g:J:>DEChgKL>HISLKL:Cihjc i;KA^WB<FEEFH8F8RKDK:DPP>HP>FDK:JJHEED>RA D8J^TQ<FEEFH8F8PLFED8KL>HPF;JHEED>RAGH>D KHKDEHG^`TQ<FEEFH8Y ZL:P>HS>D<DEEHV:JD<D]F<I<HG^?BBABBB P:>I8FKF8RKDK:GI8JF8SAD8J>:bIF>:JDEH;DE <DK;LGH>KLHR:P>HP:>KF:RKLDK;D<:F8DKD LFSL:>D<HI8KYMH<:N:OP>H[FJ:JKL:k>RK ^XBBABBBP:>I8FK<DK;L\G>::l>:bIF>:JDXmX <DK;LH8GI8JR=:KV::8^XBBABBX\^XWBABBBl D8JD?mX<DK;LG>H<^XWBABBX\^?BBABBB DI8FKYiRD>:RIEKAF8H>J:>KH>:;:F[:KL: <D]F<I<P:>I8FK;H8K>F=IKFH8AKL:I8FKLDJ KH;HRKDKE:DRK^_WBABBBYnLFE:KL:P:>I8FK ;H8K>F=IKFH8GH>MH<:N:OVDR;DPP:JAKL:P:> I8FKD;bIFRFKFH8H>;HRKVDR8HKAD8JEH;DEFKF:R V:>:8HKP>H[FJ:JDJJFKFH8DEGI8JF8S=:OH8J KL:^?BBABBBP:>I8FKRKDK:E:[:E;H8K>F=IKFH8Y d5*10132-e21o,p.4,-e21.0eqe44-.e6r ZL:MH<:N:OP>HS>D<FRDJ<F8FRK:>:J=O KL:CDEFGH>8FD9:PD>K<:8KHGMHIRF8SD8J CH<<I8FKO9:[:EHP<:8KsMC9tYZL:P>HS>D< >:bIF>:JKLDKP>HU:;KDPPEF;D8KR=:EH;DEPI=EF; :8KFKF:RAF8;EIJF8S;FKF:RA;HI8KF:RAD8JHKL:> PI=EF;:8KFKF:RRI;LDRLHIRF8SDIKLH>FKF:R D8JG:J:>DEEO\>:;HS8Fu:JK>F=DESH[:>8<:8KRY iPPEF;D8KRV:>:>:bIF>:JKHDRR:<=E:D J:[:EHP<:8KK:D<VFKLP>H[:8D=FEFKOKH D;bIF>:D8JHP:>DK:DvH>JD=E:>:8KDELHIRF8SY wI=EF;:8KFKF:RV:>::8;HI>DS:JKHPD>K8:>VFKL :RKD=EFRL:JDvH>JD=E:LHIRF8SJ:[:EHP:>RD8J R:>[F;:P>H[FJ:>RKLDK;HIEJJ:<H8RK>DK:KL: D=FEFKOKHRI;;:RRGIEEOJ:[:EHPD8J<D8DS:KL: P>HP:>KF:RGH>KL:KD>S:KPHPIEDKFH8H[:>KL: EH8SK:><Y x-.y,62z1*,q10, {IJS:KRFS8:JsMH<:N:Oi88HI8;:Jt|I8:?@A?B?B }HKF;:HGgI8JF8Si[DFED=FEFKO|IEOXQA?B?B w>:\DPPEF;DKFH8;H8RIEKDKFH8R~P>FH>FKODPPEF;DKFH8 P:>FHJ |IEOXQiISIRKX_A?B?B gF8DEDPPEF;DKFH8RJI:c:PK:<=:>?@A?B?B iVD>JD88HI8;:<:8KRhHEEF8SsRKD>KF8Sc:PK:<=:>?B?Bt gF8DEDVD>JRFRRI:J 7;KH=:>?B?B cKD8JD>JDS>::<:8KR<DFE:JKHDPPEF;D8KR€PH8RI=<FKKDEHG>:bIF>:JF8GH><DKFH8D8J JH;I<:8KDKFH8 h:J:PEHO<:8KHGI8IKFEFu:JGI8JR}H[:<=:>?B?B j]P:8JFKI>:J:DJEF8:GH>G:J:>DEGI8JR9:;:<=:>_BA?B?B >D8K:::]P:8JFKI>:D8JP>HS>D<>:PH>KJI:g:=>ID>OXA?B?X iEERFK:RRI=RKD8KFDEEOH;;IPF:J‚D>;L?B?X j]P:8JFKI>:J:DJEF8:GH>RKDK:GI8JR|I8:_BA?B?? 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!(
)*+,-.+*/0.1234*5/67-*0 89:;<=>?;9@AB9>CDA?C=<E=FG;?H9?I 8=DDF?;CJ@AKA:=BDA?CLE8@M NOPQRSTURVWXYQZ[U[UX\]XVR^^ RY_Z`ZS[VR[Z\`\aN\_XbXcde\VbZ`WQZ[U SX]XVR^\[UXVS[R[XYXfRV[_X`[SgNOPYXSZW`XY [UXRY_Z`ZS[VR[Z\`\aN\_XbXc[\fV\]ZYXRUZWU ^X]X^\a[XTU`ZTR^RSSZS[R`TXR`YhXiZjZ^Z[c[\[UX ^\TR^fkj^ZTX`[Z[ZXS[UR[QXVX[UXRff^ZTR`[Sd NOPk`YXVS[\\Y[UR[[UX[ZWU[[Z_X^Z`XSR`Y [UXQZYX^c]RVcZ`WVR`WX\aXifXV[ZSXRTV\SS _R`cT\__k`Z[ZXSQ\k^YVXlkZVXRhXiZj^X RffV\RTU[\[UXfV\WVR_dmUXVX^R[Z]X^chXiZj^X VXlkZVX_X`[S\a[UXS[R[XnRY_Z`ZS[XVXYOop R^^\QXY[UXS[R[X[\X_f^\cRY_Z`ZS[VR[Z]X hXiZjZ^Z[c[UR[ZS`\[R^QRcSR]RZ^Rj^XQZ[U XS[Rj^ZSUXYaXYXVR^ak`YZ`WfV\WVR_SdN\QX]XVg [UX[ZWU[SfX`YZ`WYXRY^Z`XSa\V[UXOop VXS\kVTXSR^S\RYYXYTXV[RZ`jkVYX`S[\[UX RY_Z`ZS[VR[Z\`\a[UXfV\WVR_R[j\[U[UXS[R[X R`Y^\TR^^X]X^Sd NOPZ`Z[ZR^^cXS[Rj^ZSUXYR`R^^\TR[Z\`\aak`YS QZ[UZ`VXWZ\`SS\[UR[^\TR^fkj^ZTX`[Z[ZXS Q\k^YjXRSSkVXY[UXcQ\k^YjXT\_fX[Z`W a\Vak`YS\`^cQZ[UZ`[UXZVVXWZ\`gR[^XRS[ k`[Z^qkWkS[rsrsdmUXWX\WVRfUZTR^^\TR[Z\` QRSXS[Rj^ZSUXYjcVXT\W`ZtZ`WU\kSZ`WRSR VXWZ\`R^RSSX[gR`Y[UR[RVXWZ\`R^RffV\RTU Q\k^YR^^\Qa\VWX\WVRfUZTXlkZ[cQZ[UZ`[UX fV\WVR_dmUZSVXSk^[XYZ`RQZYX]RVZX[c\a X`[Z[ZXSfRV[ZTZfR[Z`WZ`[UXfV\WVR_gZ`T^kYZ`W fkj^ZTRWX`TZXS[UR[[UXS[R[XURY`\[jXX` fVX]Z\kS^cfRV[`XVXYQZ[U\`[UX fV\YkT[Z\`\aU\kSZ`Wd u=v9:wFx:;vy?C;C;AG z\TR^fkj^ZTX`[Z[ZXSQZ[UZ`[UXR^^\TR[Z\` VXWZ\`SQXVXTURVWXYQZ[UX`WRWZ`WZ` RfV\TXSS[UR[Q\k^YVXSk^[Z`SkTTXSSak^ Rff^ZTR[Z\`S[\N\_XbXcR`Y[UXSkTTXSSak^ RTlkZSZ[Z\`\afV\fXV[ZXSd{V\|XT[SVR`WXYZ`SZtX aV\_}k`Z[SZ`~ZW~XRVzRbXf\fk^R[Z\`€gr€‚ [\rƒrk`Z[SZ`„R`pVR`TZST\f\fk^R[Z\`ƒdƒ _Z^^Z\`‚d z\TR^fkj^ZTX`[Z[ZXS[XR_XYkfQZ[U^\TR^ O\`[Z`kk_S\aORVXU\_X^XSSScS[X_S‚RSQX^^ RSU\kSZ`WYX]X^\fXVSR`YSXV]ZTXfV\]ZYXVS[\ a\V_XifXVZX`TXY[XR_S[\RTlkZVXR`Y_R`RWX [UXfV\fXV[ZXSdz\TR^[XR_SR^S\`XXYXY[\ T\^^Rj\VR[X[\SXTkVX[UXak`YZ`W`XTXSSRVca\V [UXfV\|XT[S[\YX_\`S[VR[XaXRSZjZ^Z[cgZ`T^kYZ`W ak`YSa\VSXV]ZTXSg\fXVR[Z`WSkff\V[gR`Y _R[TUa\V_\VXXifX`SZ]XfV\|XT[Sd y?CA>B>;GA8=DDF?;CJw9>C?A>G NOPT\`[VRT[XYQZ[U `[XVfVZSXO\__k`Z[c {RV[`XVS[\RQRVYak`YSa\VSXV]ZTXSfV\]ZYXY jcfUZ^R`[UV\fcgZ`T^kYZ`W~^kXOV\SS~^kX„UZX^Y OR^Za\V`ZRR`Y[UX†RZSXVpR_Z^cp\k`YR[Z\`d mUXSXak`YSQXVXRQRVYXY[\WVR`[XXSfV\f\SZ`W fV\|XT[Sa\V[RVWX[XYf\fk^R[Z\`S[UR[Q\k^Y VXlkZVXRUZWUXV^X]X^\aSXV]ZTXSd {N‡m‡O‡ˆom
„‰‡pŠqm‹‡ŠqzO‡ŒŒˆŠ‹m‰o
Šq‹„„qŠO

















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!(
)*+,-./0-1-./2+3435 6-7-1+89-3/)*+.-:: ;<=>?@ABCDEFGFEHGBAEFIJHBKEJLM?NFBNO PQGBAG@BABHRJNS?ARTUVWXWXVCEHHBNOLJYHDGAA EABOB@BABHRKYBHEYBGLJY;JZE[ERVGNFECHG@ABCDBNO O?BFEABNECLJY>YJ\EKHCEAEKHBJN] ^BEY_NE>YBJYBHR`GCECHG@ABCDEFLJYHDJCE >YJ>EYHBECHDGHKJ?AF@EJKK?>BEF`BHDBNaX FGRCJLGKb?BCBHBJNVYEKJONBcBNOHDENEEFLJY >EYZGNENHNJNdKJNOYEOGHECDEAHEYGC`EAA GC>EYZGNENHDJ?CBNO]^BEY^`J>YBJYBHR`GC ECHG@ABCDEFLJYHDJCE>YJ>EYHBECHDGHDGFHDE CGZE?CECV@?HKJ?AFNJH@EJKK?>BEF`BHDBNaX FGRC]PAAL?NFC`EYEG`GYFEFHJG>>ABKGNHCLJY ^BEY_NE>YJ>EYHBEC]P`GYFCF?YBNOHDEYEOBJNGA L?NFBNOYJ?NF`EYEZGFEHJ>?@ABKENHBHBEC`DJ ZEHGAAJLHDEG>>ABKGHBJNGNFFJK?ZENHGHBJN YEb?BYEZENHCJNGYJAABNOeYCHdKJZEVeYCHdCEYQEF @GCBCV?>HJGYEOBJNfCL?AAGAAJKGHBJN]gYJ>EYHBEC HDGHZEHGAAYEb?BYEZENHCV@?H`EYEYEQBE`EF GLHEYHDEYEOBJNGAGAAJKGHBJNC`EYEZEHV`EYE `GBHdABCHEF?NHBAGLHEYHDEENFJLHDE>YBJYBHR G>>ABKGHBJN>EYBJFBNZBFdP?O?CH]hGBHdABCHEF >YJ\EKHCKJZ>EHEFCHGHE`BFEV`BHDCKJYBNOHDGH EZ>DGCBcEFEb?BHRKJZ>JNENHC] P>>ABKGHBJNC`EYEEQGA?GHEFGNFCKJYEFLJY EABOB@BABHRJNLJ?YCEHCJLKYBHEYBGijTk>YJ\EKH LEGCB@BABHRGNFG@BABHRHJEl>ENFHDEL?NFC `BHDBNHDEHBZEGAAJ`EFmjWkb?GABeKGHBJNCJL HDEFEQEAJ>ZENHHEGZmjnkFEZJNCHYGHBJN JLHDE>YJ\EKHfCG@BABHRHJGFFYECCEb?BHRGNF ZEEHNEEFCJLHGYOEH>J>?AGHBJNCmGNFjok FEZJNCHYGHBJNJLKJZZ?NBHRBZ>GKHGNF CHYJNOCBHECEAEKHBJN]PHJHGAJLTUX>JBNHC `EYEGQGBAG@AELJYHDECELJ?YKGHEOJYBECVGNF >YJ\EKHC`EYEYEb?BYEFHJCKJYEGZBNBZ?ZJL TTX>JBNHCHJb?GABLR]P>>ABKGNHCHDGHFBFNJH BNBHBGAARYEGKDHDEZBNBZ?ZCKJYE`EYEOBQEN HEKDNBKGAGCCBCHGNKEGNF`EYEGAAJ`EFHJC?@ZBH C?@CEb?ENHBNLJYZGHBJNHJBZ>YJQEHDEBYCKJYE] ^DE=E>GYHZENHECHG@ABCDEFG>YJKECCJLYJAABNO G`GYFGNNJ?NKEZENHC]^DBCGAAJ`EFAJKGA>?@ABK ENHBHBECHDGH`EYEG@AEHJZJQEZJYEb?BK[AR HJC?@ZBHGb?GABLRBNOG>>ABKGHBJNGNF>YJKEEF `BHDHDEGKb?BCBHBJNJL>YJ\EKHC`BHDJ?H`GBHBNO LJYGNJQEYGAAG`GYFGNNJ?NKEZENH]^DEeYCHJL CEQENG`GYFGNNJ?NKEZENHCHJJ[>AGKEBNZBFd P?O?CHV`BHDHDEeNGAG`GYFCGNNJ?NKEFBNAGHE _KHJ@EY] 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!(
)*+,-..*//01.234/ 56789:;:7:<=:>?@AB@CDE8F:B>C77AG8EHA@C G:E8@C>B8AHIADDJ>:<:8F<AD88<<K8BAC7 AH?@AL:E:>BKAJF:>BHA@?8A?7889?8@:8>I:>B KAD878FF>8FF<KC<;8F<@8M8I<8E<K8:@7AIC7 >88EFN 5OAIC7?J;7:I8><:<:8FF<8??8EJ?G:<K F:B>:PIC><P>C>I:C7C>E<8IK>:IC7@8FAJ@I8F <ADC<IK<K8@8FAJ@I8F?@AL:E8E;=<K8F<C<8 :>A@E8@<ADCQ8?@AR8I<FGA@QN 5SK8FKC@8EF8>F8AHJ@B8>I=I@8C<8E;=<K8 ?C>E8D:IC>E<K8E8CE7:>8FHA@<K8JF8AH 68E8@C7HJ>EF?@AL8E<A;8L8@=8T8I<:L8C< AL8@IAD:>B<=?:IC7;C@@:8@FC>E:>I@8C<:>B <KAJFC>EFAHJ>:<FAHKAJF:>B:>CFKA@< ?8@:AEAH<:D8N 5SK8CLC:7C;:7:<=AH<8IK>:IC7CFF:F<C>I8<A C??7:IC><FGCFI@:<:IC77=:D?A@<C><NU>A@E8@ <A;887:B:;78<AC??7=VC77?C@<:I:?C<:>B7AIC7 ?J;7:I8><:<:8FKCE<AKCL8C?@8WC??7:IC<:A> IA>FJ7<C<:A>G:<KXYZF<CT<AK87?I7C@:H= ?@A?AF8E?@AR8I<C??7:IC;:7:<=C>E:<8DF <A;8C??@A?@:C<87=EAIJD8><8EG:<K:><K8 C??7:IC<:A>NXYZK87EDA@8<KC>[\\?@8W C??7:IC<:A>IA>FJ7<C<:A>FG:<K?A<8><:C7 C??7:IC><FN 5]??7:IC><FG8@8C77AG8E<A?@A?AF8 A?8@C<:>B<K8?@AR8I<FCF^:><8@:DKAJF:>B_ G:<KCE8DA>F<@C<:A>AHC77AIC<:>BA?8@C<:>B HJ>EFG:<K:>7AIC7IA><@A7HA@PL8=8C@FVC>E G:<K8:<K8@C?7C><AIA><:>J8A?8@C<:A>F HA@C>A<K8@PL8=8C@FA@C?7C><AIA>L8@< <A?8@DC>8><KAJF:>BG:<K:><K8:>:<:C7PL8 =8C@FAHA?8@C<:A>FNSACFF:F<V<K8F<C<8 CGC@E8E<GAW=8C@A?8@C<:A>C7FJ;F:E:8F <AC77`[?J;7:I8><:<:8FV:>I7JE:>BabAH <K8cd?@AR8I<FNSK8I@:<:IC7IAD?A>8>< AHeJC7:H=:>BCFCS:8@f>8?@AR8I<GCF <K8C;:7:<=AH<K8?@A?AFC7<AE8DA>F<@C<8 CH8CF:;78?7C><AIA>L8@<<A?8@DC>8>< KAJF:>BVA@<KC<<K87AIC7:<=IAJ7EA?8@C<8 <K8F:<8HA@CD:>:DJDAH[\=8C@FCFC>A>W IA>B@8BC<8FK87<8@N 5SK8F<C<8F<C<J<88F<C;7:FK:>BXAD8Q8= IA><C:>FCF?8I:PI?@AL:F:A>GK:IK?@AL:E8F <KC<C>=?@AR8I<@8I8:L:>BCP>C>I:C7CGC@E H@AD<K8Yg6HA@JF8FJ>E8@XAD8Q8=GCF E88D8E<A;8IA>F:F<8><C>E:>IA>HA@D:<= G:<KC>=C??7:IC;787AIC7?7C>VF<C>EC@EVA@ @8eJ:@8D8><VC>EC77AG8ECFC?8@D:<<8E JF8VG:<K:><K8hA>8:>GK:IK<K8F<@JI<J@8 :F7AIC<8EVC>EFKC77>A<;8FJ;R8I<<AC IA>E:<:A>C7JF8?8@D:<VE:FI@8<:A>C@=?8@D:<V A@<AC>=A<K8@E:FI@8<:A>C@=@8L:8GFA@ C??@ALC7FNSK:F?@AL:F:A>C77AG8E?@AR8I<F HJ>E8EJ>E8@XAD8Q8=<A?@AI88E^CFAH @:BK<_G:<KAJ<HJ@<K8@7AIC7@8L:8GN 5SK8F<C<8F<C<J<8C7FA898D?<8EI8@<C:> XAD8Q8=?@A?8@<:8FH@AD<K8@8eJ:@8D8>< <A;8@8L:8G8EJ>E8@<K8YC7:HA@>:C i>L:@A>D8><C7jJC7:<=]I<kYij]lVCF 7A>BCF<K8?@AR8I<FD8<C77:<8DFA>C 7:F<AH@8eJ:@8D8><FNSK:F?@AL:F:A>GCF CEA?<8E;8ICJF8<K8F8?@AR8I<FVCF89:F<:>B ;J:7E:>BFVG8@8C<7AG@:FQAHHC:7:>B<A D88<<K8@8eJ:@8D8><FAHYij]NU<C77AG8E <K8?@AR8I<F<AD88<<K8L8@=<:BK<<:D:>B @8eJ:@8D8><FAH<K868E8@C7Yg6N 5XYZGCFC;78<A8>7:F<<K8K87?AHF<CT H@ADA<K8@F<C<8E8?C@<D8><FVFJIKCF<K8 YC7:HA@>:CZ8?C@<D8><AHm8>8@C7n8@L:I8F kZmnlV<ACFF:F<7AIC7?J;7:I8><:<:8FG:<K FJIK<CFQFCF:E8><:H=:>B?A<8><:C7?@A?8@<:8F HA@CIeJ:F:<:A>C>EIA>EJI<:>B?@A?8@<= C??@C:FC7FN 5o?A>:>:<:C7IA><CI<G:<KXYZV<K8C??7:IC>< GCFCFF:B>8ECF<CT^CD;CFFCEA@_GKA GAJ7EF8@L8CF<K8:@?@:DC@=?A:><AH IA><CI<<K@AJBKAJ<<K8C??7:IC<:A>?@AI8FFN U>:<:C7C??7:IC<:A>FG8@8FI@88>8EVC>E C??7:IC><F<KC<>88E8E:<G8@8?@AL:E8E G:<KF:B>:PIC><<8IK>:IC7CFF:F<C>I8<AK87? IAD?78<8<K8F<8?F>8I8FFC@=<ACIK:8L8C 78<8C>ECII8?<C;78C??7:IC<:A>N 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!(
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`abcad`e_fgbah_`b`ijklmhaknh`om pqrstuvwsqxyzqv{|yw{ut}u~sw€qwpu||~ws{‚xyƒyruz|yw{„vu y†{}u|y‡y‚ˆy‰s{yŠˆ‹s†‹ †uw{qswy{qsryzvu€vq|swtuv|q{suwŠsw†r~sw€{‹yy{qsryŒu{s†yut~wsw€Žƒqsrq‰srs{‚qw qzzrs†q{suwtuv|qwvy~svy|yw{}u|y‡y‚‘†q€uƒ’ “|qsrtuvqzzrs†q{suwŠ€ywyvqrzvu€vq|Šqw{qwqvq€vyy|yw{~y{suw}u|y‡y‚”‹††q€uƒ •uƒyvwuv•qƒswŒyˆu|–ˆy‰s{yzvuƒsyq††y{uzvyvyryqyq‰u~{„vu y†{}u|y‡y‚ —yqv†‹˜y~r{tuv™}u|y‡y‚š›pqrstuvwsq•uƒyvwuv }u|y‡y‚q†{—‹yy{qwœsyu‹{{zžž‰†‹†q€uƒž‹u|y‡y‚ž }u|y‡y‚Ÿy€srq{sƒy˜yzuv{‹{{zžžˆˆˆ‹††q€uƒžzurs†‚ vyyqv†‹žzrqw vyzuv{žu†ž‹†¡¢¢£ ‹u|y‡y‚vyzuv{£ƒ¡¤zt 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!(
)*+,-.-/,01.234 56789: 5;<=>?@ABC> DEEFG?BH@:<IDEEFG?BH@:JKDLB;MNKDLB;M5OGFBH@O;<EG? DLB;M P<@BFDLB;M Q;<CR:S S<<;T D?UVG;>M WXYZ[\Y
]^_`abc d^Z[e[bf WXYZ[\Y ]^_`ab gffhiijhkll gmhnnohkll gfnhnnphlll fln WXYZ[\Y ]^_`abc d^Z[e[bq WXYZ[\Y ]^_`ab gfkhfllhlll gfkhfllhlll fnl ]YX[rst^ d^Z[e[b
uv^w[ta ]YX[rst^ xsveYy`\_zavs[zgkhqllhlll gfhqkjhmppgphpkjhmppki {Y`|vY`tszt^c d^Z[e[bf ]sabY`\]^_`ab ^}{Y`|vY`tszt^ ~szt^YX ]^ZZ_`sab {[v€st[z gnmhqqnhlmlgkhkmlhlll gnjhoknhlmlmqm {Y`|vY`tszt^c d^Z[e[bm ]sabY`\]^_`ab ^}{Y`|vY`tszt^ gmphlllhlll gqhlllhlll gmihlllhlll fql s€s`‚ƒsz[ W„^€[ƒ[zsXs[`a ]^ZZ_`sab ]sab^}~X][`av^gmhpllhlll gkmnhffngmhpllhlll mp ]sab^}Ye[ ~Xzs`^v[
†‡[ W`t‡^v ]sab^}Ye[ ~Xzs`^v[ gmhoqohikqgqqphlll gmhoqohikqfi d^Z[e[b
x^_`aYs`ˆs[‰ ]sab^}x^_`aYs` ˆs[‰ s}[x^€[zgffhiklhlll gmhnllhlll gffhiklhlll fll uv^w[ta ƒ[tXYZYas^` ]sab^}ŠYeXY`\ ‹YbWv[Y ]^ZZ_`sab {[v€st[z gohplmhkjjgfophlll gohplmhkjjol ŠYeXY`\c
d^Z[e[bf ]sab^}ŠYeXY`\gihkoqhqqqgkqohinogflhfmmhmofpq ŠYeXY`\c
d^Z[e[bn ]sab^}ŠYeXY`\ ŒY`t^ ]^ZZ_`sas[z Y`\Š[vYas^` Œs‚`sab gqhfklhlll gqnlhlmlgqhfklhlll mm {YtvYZ[`a^ d^Z[e[bf ]sab^} {YtvYZ[`a^ d^_zs`‚ W_a‡^vsab x[vtbd^_zs`‚ ]YXs}^v`sY gfqhmnqhjqfgfhqflhiqngfqhmnqhjqffmn {YtvYZ[`a^c d^Z[e[bm ]sab^} {YtvYZ[`a^ ~Wˆ~yŽ] gfhqklhlll gmfphlll gfhqklhlll i {YtvYZ[`a^c d^Z[e[bq ]sab^} {YtvYZ[`a^ {Ys`a^‡`‘z uv^‚vYZ}^v ƒ[YX]‡Y`‚[ gmhkklhlll gmhkklhlll ml {YXs`Yz d^Z[e[b ]sab^}{YXs`Yz’{‡Y`‚vs
Y y`\_zavs[zh] {a[“^` {[t^`\’ gphipkhlll gmhnllhlll gphipkhlll flq ‹[za[za[v`  {_v[{aYb ]sab^}{Y`^z[gflhopohlll gfhlokhnjngflhopohlll jj ~Yza]^_`ab ]Wƒ~][`a[v Y`\y`a[vsZ d^_zs`‚ uv^‚vYZ ]^`avY]^zaY _`ab gfjhnllhlll gnhfjphlll gmfhkjphlll fjn ]v^zzv^Y\z ˆsXXY‚[ ]^_`ab^} |v[z`^ ’ƒd]^ZZ_`sab ‹_sX\[vz “ud^X\s`‚z ]YXs}^v`sYh]’ gfnhofohjlfgkflhjlfgfnhofohjlfmln 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
'
!(
)*+,-. )/012345672 899:;36<4.0=899:;36<4.>?8@6/AB?8@6/A)C;:6<4C/09;3 8@6/A D046:8@6/A E/07F.GG00/H 83IJ;/2A KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VP\ KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]\^_`ab_\cb]a_`bd_^^^ ]\a_b^`_\cbee KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPa KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]b_\^^_^^^ ]\_f^^_^^^ ]f_e^^_^^^ bg KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VP` KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]g_d\g_^^^ ]\_^`a_^^^ ]d_dcb_^^^ c` KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPc KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]d_g^b_edb]\_`df_^^^ ]b_fbg_edbgb KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPg KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]\a_cg^_^^^ ]`_bcc_^^^ ]\d_\ec_^^^ \gd KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPd KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]g_bc^_^^^ ]\_`cc_^^^ ]b_^fc_^^^ gd KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPb KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]d_c`f_gad]a_ced_^^^ ]f_e`c_gad\^c KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPf KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]d_gf^_^^^ ]efc_^^^ ]d_gf^_^^^ c\ KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VPe KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]\\_bg^_^^^ ]\\_bg^_^^^ f\ KLMNOPLQ RLSTNUVWVSX YLZV[VP\^ KLMNOPLQRLS TNUVWVS ]\b_gg^_^^^ ]`_ac^_^^^ ]a^_be^_^^^ \`g hijkNKLMNOPX YLZV[VP\ KLMNOPLQhijkN]`_ac^_^^^ ]c`a_^^^ ]`_ac^_^^^ \e KLMNOPLQliNOi KWijiXhkWmkOiS KLMNOPLQliNOi KWiji niZoLjVV YLMSkNU KLjmLjiOkLN ]ae_a^^_^^^ ]ae_a^^_^^^ \cd lLNLZiKLMNOPX YLZV[VP KLMNOPLQ lLNLZi ]f_f^^_^^^ ]\_^gd_^^^ ]f_f^^_^^^ cc pVNOMjiKLMNOPX YLZV[VP KLMNOPLQ pVNOMji qKLZZMNkOP rVsVWLmZVNO tijONVjS hVjuPYLMSV KYrv_wNux hVjuPYLMSV RkskNUKVNOVjSq ]\^_fef_```]\_df^_^^^ ]\^_fef_```b^ YLZV[VPrVW yLjOV rVWyLjOV KLMNOP zMjiW KLZZMNkOkVS YLMSkNU rVsVWLmZVNO KLjmLjiOkLN ]\_ec^_daf]\ff_eaa]dgc_`gc]a_\ae_gg^`^ {WhLNOV
YLZV[VP\ {WhLNOV]c_^^^_ea^]\b^_^^^ ]ed^_^^^ ]c_\b^_ea^c\ {WhLNOV
YLZV[VPa {WhLNOV]\^_`g^_ae`]a_a`a_^^^ ]\^_`g^_ae`e`
|LWSLZ YLZV[VP |LWSLZ YkjiNk|iZkWP |LMN}iOkLN ]a_g^^_^^^ ]\af_a\a]a_c^^_^^^ ag |jVSNLYTX
YLZV[VP\ |jVSNLYLMSkNU TMO~LjkOP ]g_fgf_bbe]ef^_c\g]g_fgf_bbeeb 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
! 
!'
()*+,- (./01234561 7889:25;3-/<7889:25;3-=>7?5.@A>7?5.@(B:95;3B./8:2 7?5.@ C/3597?5.@ D./6E-FF//.G 72HI:.1@ JKLMNOPQR POSLTLUV JKLMNOPOWMXNY QWZ[OKXZU \]^_`a^bVc\]^_`a^bVcc_ JKLMNOPQR
POSLTLU] JKLMNOPOWMXNY QWZ[OKXZU \`^]de^be]\`^]de^be]_a fOWNZgXNhXLi jMZgZLMk[gMLlll PQOmnXoLKMXpL qOWNZU nXoLKMXpL qOSSWNXZU POWMXNYqOKrs \_^V`d^ddd \_^V`d^ddd bd_ nXoLKMXpL qOWNZURkKOtLuZ vLYguU PQOmnXoLKMXpL qOWNZU wKWjoOxWZXON^ lNus \c^d`V^c`_\y]c^ycd\c^d`V^c`_V` jxkOKZgx PQOmzgN {WLNgoLNZWKg \b^Vdd^ddd \b^Vdd^ddd bV qXZUOmJKLMNOR POSLTLUb POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOmZ[L qXZUOmJKLMNO \`^V`a^bV`\V^]_e^ddd \`^V`a^bV`aa qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUb POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM kQwPhLNZWKLM\y^ddd^ddd \a]e^ddd \y^a]e^ddd cd qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUV POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM \V^Vdd^ddd \V^Vdd^ddd bb qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLU] POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\b]^_eb^bye\b^e`b^e`d\b`^cbV^y]eab qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUc POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\bb^ae_^VV]\b^]eb^V`d\b]^]Vy^c_]_` qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLU` POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\c^]bb^]e`\`eV^e`d\c^y_c^db`]b qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUe POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vQJgSXxU POWMXNY \y^V`_^]`d\]de^ddd \y^`e]^]`d`V qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLU_ POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\y^cyc^aay\b^d_d^y`d\a^```^ycy`a qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUy POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\e^yy`^e`e\yya^]`d\_^__`^dde ca qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUa POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\]^b``^dc]\cb_^c`d\]^`_V^ca]V] qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUbd POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\e^`by^cVe\_Ve^ddd \_^Vcc^cVecd qXZUOmvOM QNYLxLMR
POSLTLUbb POWMXNY QWZ[OKXZUOm Z[LqXZUOmvOM QNYLxLM vOMQNYLxLM\`^_ec^Vb_\_cc^b`d\`^_ec^Vb_cb 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
!!
!'
()*+,- (./01234561 7889:25;3-/<7889:25;3-=>7?5.@A>7?5.@(B:95;3B./8:2 7?5.@ C/3597?5.@ D./6E-FF//.G 72HI:.1@ JKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQW XNYUZUM[\ XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNO L^UJKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQ `[abcd[be[d`f[fbccc `[abfghbe[dgc JKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQW
XNYUZUM[a XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNO L^UJKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQ `eb\ccbccc `eb\ccbccc f[ JKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQW
XNYUZUM[f XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNO L^UJKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQ JKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQ `gbdgfbfi\`gbdgfbfi\h[ XJRPRW
XNYUZUM[h XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNO L^UJKLMNOPNQ RSTUVUQ `[\b\[fbi\h`[\b\[fbi\hgd jkQNlNmVUQ XNYUZUM XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNOL^U JKLMNOnkSP]KQ omKQpN jUNpVUQqnUVOr XUVpXN]QKST JN_pN_kLKNS `[\biccbccc `\b[fcb[[a`[\biccbccc [\\ sKVUQLNSU XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNOL^U JN]SLMNOtU_S `[abaccbiaf`[bfagbecd `[abaccbiaf[h[ nkSuU_Sk_vKSN JN]SLMW XNYUZUMa XN]QKST R]L^N_KLMNOL^U JN]SLMNOnkS uU_Sk_vKSN sN]SLkKS XNYUVUQQ JNkVKLKNS `icibdge`[i\bccc `[b[c[bdgee j_NwKvUSxU y]_UZkXN]QU X]YmNVvL JN]SLM j_NwKvUSxU XUkVL^z nU_wKxUQr {kQ^KSTLNS `abgihbfhh`hgdbccc `abgihbfhhfe tkQ^KkXNYUZUM j_N|UxL tkQ^KkukSvNO jNYN}SvKkSQ NOL^UnLU~k_LQ jNKSLlkSx^U_Kk u]_mkSZ XN]QKST UwUVNpYUSL JN_pN_kLKNS `\bhhcbccc `[afbe\f`\bhhcbccc \c tKSTQJN]SLMW XNYUZUM[ tKSTQJN]SLM€jXNVvKSTQ JkVKON_SKkbPPJ lXJNYY]SKLM u]KVvU_QPj€ `\b\ccbccc `hcfbccc `\bgcfbccc \\ ‚_KkSTVU JN]_LMk_vtKSTQJN]SLM JN_SU_QLNSU JNYY]SKLM RVxN^NVkSv oL^U__]T lUxNwU_M nMLUYQb}Sxƒ `abiafbd[f`hccbccc `fbfafbd[fad XNpUJUSLU_ON_ ‚_kSQON_YkLKNS j_N|UxL PkZUJN]SLM RvwUSLKQLXUkVL^ JVUk_PkZU XNQpKLkVb}Sxƒ `[bih\bghi`fecbccc `[bih\bghi\c XNYUZUM
j_N|UxLPNST uUkx^ PNSTuUkx^`[hb[hhbccc `\bffebccc `[gbdcabccc [c\ sk_KSJN]SLMW XNYUZUM\ sk_KSJN]SLM`hbidhbife`hbidhbifeff sUSvNxKSN JN]SLM ‚_kSQKLKNSkV XN]QKST„kxKVKLM sUSvNxKSN JN]SLM `eba\hbhcc `[baffbccc `eba\hbhcc hd 















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
!
!'
()*+,- (./01234561 7889:25;3-/<7889:25;3-=>7?5.@A>7?5.@(B:95;3B./8:2 7?5.@ C/3597?5.@ D./6E-FF//.G 72HI:.1@ JKLKMNOPQR SNTUVUR JKLKMNOPQR WOXYKPV SNOZ[P\ ]U^U_NLTUPQ MNXLNXKQ[NP `abcddbddd `eefbddd `abcddbddd cg JU^KhKMNOPQRi SNTUVURa JU^KhKMNOPQR`abafjbkld`lambddd `abafjbkldae nXKP\UMNOPQRi SNTUVURc nXKP\UMNOPQRoKTYNXUU SNOZ[P\ MNXLNXKQ[NP `jbfddbddd `cbejabddd `jbfddbddd fd nXKP\UMNOPQRi SNTUVURa nXKP\UMNOPQRoKTYNXUU SNOZ[P\ MNXLNXKQ[NP `kbjadbddd `cbfmdbddd `kbjadbddd ka p_KqUXMNOPQR pXNrUqQ SNTUVUR p_KqUXMNOPQR sh^NqKQUZtNX uUPQK__Rv__ SNOZ[P\bvPqw `cbckkbmlf`aaabcgg`cbgddbddd cg xKPWUXPKXh[PN MNOPQRi SNTUVURc xKPWUXPKXh[PN MNOPQR yxzKP\X[{|K vPhOZQX[UZb||M xQUL}LNP xUqNPhy `mbemdbgda`cbmagbddd `mbemdbgdakf xKPWUXPKXh[PN MNOPQRi SNTUVURa xKPWUXPKXh[PN MNOPQR |KWKX\U vPhOZQX[UZbvPq `ebgldbddd `fkabddd `ebgldbddd am x]SMi~UKXPR uUZK xKP][U\N SNOZ[P\ MNTT[ZZ[NP `cdbdddbddd `cdbdddbddd cgg x]SMiu[ZZ[NP K__UR xKP][U\N SNOZ[P\ MNTT[ZZ[NP `akbfjdbame`akbfjdbamecja xKPuKQUN MNOPQRi SNTUVURc xKPuKQUN MNOPQR `clbdddbddd `melbddd `jflbddd `clbmelbddd kl xKPuKQUN MNOPQRi SNTUVURa xKPuKQUN MNOPQR `cmbdgmbddd `cmbdgmbddd jl SNTUVURxWMxKPQKWKXYKXK MNOPQRSs xOXt ]U^U_NLTUPQ MNTLKPR `abmcgbffc`eajbeme`abmcgbffccl xKPQKM_KXK MNOPQRi SNTUVURa xKPQKM_KXK MNOPQR s__[UhSNOZ[P\`mbjeebeee`fagbddd `jbllkbeeelg uO_Q[tKT[_R sq€O[Z[Q[NP pXNrUqQ xqNQQZK__UR WKPhNtpNTN vPh[KPZ `cbdddbddd `ckdbddd `cbdddbddd cd
x€OKXUnPU SNTUZxzKZQKMNOPQRys]~pXNLUXQ[UZ ||M S[__MNOPQXR MNTTOP[QR M_[P[qy `cbjldbddd `ecabddd `cbjldbddd ce xNPNTKMNOPQRi SNTUVURa xNPNTKMNOPQR`fbaddbddd `fbaddbddd ec N‚PMUPQUX xQOh[NZ xQNqVQNPyMUPQXK_K__UR |N‚vPqNTU SNOZ[P\MNXLw ƒM|vSM„
xQNqVQNP[KPZ KV[P\sqQ[NP QNJOUQXK_[
U ]XO\ZƒxsJ]„y
`abgdjbdjc`cbaddbddd `fmdbddg`ebfdjbdjcej
















 !"#
$%"
"
 &
!'
!'
()*+,- (./01234561 7889:25;3-/<7889:25;3-=>7?5.@A>7?5.@(B:95;3B./8:2 7?5.@ C/3597?5.@ D./6E-FF//.G 72HI:.1@ JKLLMNOPKQLR SMNTUQMQLV WPKXYQZSNP[M\L JKLLMNOPKQLR WU]YLUL^PN WKTUQYLR_K]U` JKLLMN abcdefcgghafhicjdkabcdefcgghbl mMUNnXoMQpUqPMrMZYPQUs SsUQQYQZ tZMQ\R pUqPMOPUsYLYPQ ^PNLqM WPTMsMXX alcbhhchhh aglkchhh alcbhhchhh lb rMuvPuZMpUqPMrMZYPQUs SsUQQYQZ tZMQ\R pUqPMOPUsYLYPQ ^PNLqM WPTMsMXX alcfhhchhh aglkchhh alcfhhchhh lg pUqPMwWPTMxMR ipUqPMrMZYPQUs SsUQQYQZ tZMQ\R pUqPMOPUsYLYPQ ^PNLqM WPTMsMXX alcighchhh alcighchhh lf JUsMWPKXMpMqUTUOPKQLRSPPNUQuLqM WPTMsMXX pMqUTUOPKQLR OPUsYLYPQ alclhhchhh aeflchhh alclhhchhh ll pKsUNMWPTMxMR SNP[M\L pKsUNMOPKQLRyzSWPsuYQZX OUsY^PNQYUcvvO rWOPTTKQYLR mKYsuMNvSy afcdhhchhh aghhchhh afcdhhchhh fg {MXL JU\NUTMQLPw WPTMxMRe {MXL JU\NUTMQLP aicgejclelajbhchhh aicgejclelfi tWS`_|Wt }KNMxU WPTMsMXX KXYQZSNP[M\L _KNPxpNY]M tN\ULUWPKXM SUNLQMNXqY~ aeckhhchhh afhkchhh aeckhhchhh ek tuTYQYXLNULYM JMLVUXYuMXaichhhchhh afcfgkckhl €‚ƒ„ƒƒƒ„ƒƒƒ€‚ƒ„ƒƒƒ„ƒƒƒ€

„†‡ˆ„ˆƒ
€†‡„‚‚†„†‰ƒ‡ƒ‡‡
From: Mayor and Council
To: Mayor and Council
Cc: Nadine Nader; Manuel Pineda; Andrew Crabtree; Adam Marcus; Glen Googins; Nora Pimentel; Michelle Estabillo; Marisa Welling; Stephanie Davis
Subject: FW: Materials for City Council Meeting April 25 Date: Sunday, April 23, 2023 3:22:06 PM
Attachments: 2020.10.21_Racial Justice Response to Homelessness Factsheet- UPDATED.pdf image003.png
Dear Mayor and Council,
Our office received the following correspondence 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 we are forwarding for your review and consideration.

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 1:25 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 1:24 PM Santa Clara Housing Advocates <[email protected]> wrote:

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
 





















 













 























 



 !" #

$%

&'&((( 



'(












 &"
 

























 )"
*+,-./+0123/454..04..
6789:;:<=:>?@ABCDEFG=GDH:I8DJK78LM:7D:>K7 NK<:L:CC7:CCOPKQ:>DGRKSATU;JDG;KF:CKSE>=8787F>E>8L ;JDJ:C8>KE7FDH:V7JD:FWD8D:CXVYWYZ[ \]^_`ab`cdb`ecfgbd`hibecijkcjglk`mnjgljgnopdjkR qq^_`ab`cdb`ecfgbd`hnif_jpjcjglejccjgl`grdsjgljgnopdjkR87F qt nif_jpjcjgledbbnjgljgnopdjkYuvw WJ7;:?@@xRAy7:zL8zC8;>KCCFJSS:>:7D;JDJ:C8>KE7FDH:VYWY z:>::78;D:FDH8D{>KHJ=JDCL::{J7|J7{E=LJ;;JDG}zJF:RzHJ;HJC 8q~^jgkib`ebYuxw M>J<J78LJJ7|LJS:}CECD8J7J7|8;DJQJDJ:C87F€7EJC87;:;>J<:CH8C FJC{>K{K>DJK78D:J<{8;DC=8C:FK7>8;:87F:‚8;:>=8D:C>8;J8L FJC{8>JDJ:CYuUw ƒ7:CDEFGJ7„ECDJ7R †CHKzCDH8D„S>J;87„<:>J;87C :‚{:>J:7;J7|HK<:L:CC7:CCz:>:`dmfect~cjmbemfib dj‡bdsDH87zHJD:CDK>:;:JQ:8;8<{J7|;JD8DJK7YuTw 67ˆJ8<J}98F:MKE7DGXˆ9MZR{>KHJ=JD:F;K7FE;DJ7;LEF:C[ WL::{J7|J7{E=LJ;R;8<{J7|J7{E=LJ;R;8<{J7|J7{8>DJ;EL8> {E=LJ;{L8;:CRCJDDJ7|‰LGJ7|J7{8>DJ;EL8>{E=LJ;{L8;:CRLKF|J7|R LJQJ7|K>CL::{J7|J7Q:HJ;L:CRLKJD:>J7|‰Q8|>87;GR=:||J7|J7 {E=LJ;{L8;:C87F=:||J7|J7{8>DJ;EL8>{E=LJ;{L8;:CYuBw 67?@AURDH:MJDGKSˆJ8<JŠ:8;HHJ>:F8C{:;J8L{>KC:;EDK>DK D8>|:D€7EJC87;:;>J<:CRCE;H8C;K7CE<J7|8L;KHKLK> E>J78DJ7|J7{E=LJ;R‹8Gz8LŒJ7|R87FLKJD:>J7|RJ7zHJ;H]Žfc_b k`ebeJ7QKLQ:FF:S:7F87DC:‚{:>J:7;J7|HK<:L:CC7:CCYuA@w ‘’“”•–—˜’“”•–™•””š›–œ˜‘š’žŸ  š‘•¡¡¢˜š¢¡˜˜£¢˜’“˜–”“–¤ ¥š—˜¡˜™™–˜™™“–¦§¨©ª«˜œœ¥˜«š–¡« —•˜›¢¬­ š‘œ¥˜®¯°¯¢š¢›¡•œ“š–¯ ±¦²³ ‘’“”•–—˜’“”•–™•””š›–œ‘š’´µ š‘ •¡¡¢˜š¢¡˜˜£¢˜’“˜–”“–¤¥š—˜¡˜™™–˜™™ “–¶“•—“·¸•˜¹š›–œ«ª«˜œš–¡«—•º˜ ›¢¬» š‘”š›–œ«¼™¤˜–˜’•¡¢š¢›¡•œ“š–¯ ±¦½³ ¾ijk`g¾mbijk`g ¿fmbdbeegbee ÀÁÂÃÄÅÅÆÇÈÂÆÉÊÇËÂÅÂÌÌÆÂÌÌÃÄÈÊÇÍÈÎÉÉÏÂÌÌÄÆÐÏÎÑÄÎÅÂÒÍÎÅÄÈÓÔÎÌÕÈÊÂÓÎÏÂÈÃÇ ÌÄÉÂÌÇÖÈÊÂÌÎËÂÑÇÄÆ×ÔÊÕÇËÂÅÂÌÌÆÂÌÌÄÌÑÎÍÌÂÉØÓÏÎÑÄÌËÙÚÍÅÅÛÈÇÜÙÝÔÞÕ ßà˜™™“”•á•â“–šã“œäªå𔕔«¹•—¢•“¤–¶•–•¤˜’•œ¶“’“•—¼™擜”¥˜– ç_bèijmjg`djé`cjfgf¿fmbdbeegbee 67ê:=>E8>G?@ABRDH:VYWY9JCD>J;DMKE>DSK>DH:WKEDH:>79JCD>J;DKS êLK>JF8D:><J78D:FDH:ABBTëìííîïðñòMK7C:7D9:;>::RzHJ;H{>KD:;D:F {:K{L::‚{:>J:7;J7|HK<:L:CC7:CCS>K<{KLJ;:H8>8CC<:7D87F8>>:CDR 8Cz:LL8CDH:J>{>K{:>DGFE>J7|Cz::{CY H:MK7C:7D9:;>:::78=L:F <K7JDK>J7|KS;JDG;K7FE;D87F8;;KE7D8=JLJDGSK>QJKL8DJK7CYuAAw 67óE7:?@?@RDH:MJDGKSˆJ8<J8FK{D:Fƒ>FJ787;:AyB@UK7€ô8>|: õ>KE{ê::FJ7|CRzHJ;H;>J<J78LJ:CSKKFCH8>J7|RK>DH:S::FJ7|KS {:K{L::‚{:>J:7;J7|HK<:L:CC7:CCJ7L8>|:|>KE{CX?vK><K>:ZJ7 {E=LJ;{L8;:CzJDHKED8{:><JD87F8D7K7}F:CJ|78D:FS::FJ7| LK;8DJK7CYuA?w M>J<J78LJ8DJK7KSHK<:L:CC7:CCJC;KE7D:>{>KFE;DJQ:8CJD{:>{:DE8D:C HK<:L:CC7:CCY6D<:>:LGCHESSL:C{:K{L:DKFJSS:>:7D{8>DCKSDH:;JDG 87F>:CELDCJ7SJ7:CDH8D{:K{L:;877KD{8GK>S:LK7G>:;K>FCDH8D<8Œ: JDJ<{KCCJ=L:DKC:;E>::<{LKG<:7D87FHKECJ7|YuAyw 9JQ:>DJ7|{E=LJ;SJ787;J8L>:CKE>;:CDKL8z:7SK>;:<:7D:SSK>DC;87 ;KCD|KQ:>7<:7DCchfcfc_ibbcjmbemfibDH87JDzKELFDK{>KQJF: 8SSK>F8=L:HKECJ7|YuAöwˆK>:KQ:>R{:>{:DE8DJ7|HK<:L:CC7:CCJCJDC:LS ;KCDLG8CHK<:L:CC7:CC:‚8;:>=8D:C:‚JCDJ7|H:8DH;K7FJDJK7C87F ;8EC:C7:zK7:CYuAvw6LL7:CC:C8CCK;J8D:FzJDHHK<:L:CC7:CC;KCD ÷ATRv@@{:>{:>CK7J7G:8>LG:<:>|:7;G>KK<QJCJDCYuAxw M>J<J78LJ8DJK7KSHK<:L:CC7:CCQJKL8D:CDH:HE<87>J|HDCDKLJS:øuAUw {>KD:;DJK7S>K<;>E:LRJ7HE<87K>F:|>8FJ7|D>:8D<:7DøuATwLJ=:>DG 87FC:;E>JDGøuABw87FS>::FK<KS<KQ:<:7DYu?@w ù8;JC<:<=:FF:FJ7;>J<J78LJ8DJK7KSHK<:L:CC7:CCSE>DH:>QJKL8D:C DH:>J|HDDK:úE8LJDG87FS>::FK<S>K<7K7}FJC;>J<J78DJK7Yu?Aw ûÏÄËÄÆÎÅÄÎÈÄÇÆÑÏÂÎÈÂÌÎÑÇÌÈÅÓÏÂÇÅÄÆÐÉÇÇÏÈÊÎÈÑÄÏÑÍÅÎÈÂÌÄÆÉÄÄÉÍÎÅÌÂÜÂÏÄÂÆÑÄÆÐ ÊÇËÂÅÂÌÌÆÂÌÌÖÏÇËÈÊÂÌÈÏÂÂÈÈÇÈÊÂÑÏÄËÄÆÎÅÍÌÈÄÑÂÌÓÌÈÂËØÎÑÙݱ¦¦³ ®° ¹ ª®¯°¯ –œ˜’·¤˜–”«¹š›–”“¡š–
š—˜¡˜™™–˜™™
 



 


 
 !
""#$"
%
"& "%%
% '
%%

%
'%%%

 

%


%"(%
'
% '
%"&%)(%
*+,- ./0/
1
/
2%%3 %)""%"&%"
(

%&%
%%%


4%#%
%%

%
"
%%
$%% %%5"%
%
"% 
%

%(
*+6-
789:;<=9>?:@9AB;>C><=8>D=9>A<
EFGHIHJKLHMHNOOPQFLRGQMNGKIMQSNGTQSINOMKMFMNOJSQPHUHMHGVLHTNWOFOMKHGHGVKIMHXHMHNOHGJFULHIYPNG MPNSNHOGQKLMNSGKMHXNOPNLMNSQSPQFOHGVZ E[\KGRHMOXKSHQFO]FGHIHJKLHMHNOOPQFLRQUONSXNMPNJSQMNIMHQGOIQGMKHGNRYHMPHGMPN^_``abcde\QGONGM [NISNNZfPHONGMKHLO]QGHMQSHGVMPNIQ]JLHKGINQTQTTHINSOKGRNOMKULHOPHGV]NIPKGHO]OTQSKIIQFGMKUHLHMgZ EFGHIHJKLHMHNOOPQFLRHGXNOMHGPQ]NLNOOOPNLMNSOKOMN]JQSKSgSNOHRNGINOhKH]HGVKMSNPQFOHGVKOMPN FLMH]KMNVQKLhKGROPQFLRIQ]]HMSNOQFSINOMQVFKSKGMNNKLLSNOHRNGMOKRNiFKMNPQFOHGVZ fPN\HMgQTEHK]HOPQFLRSNOMSFIMFSNKGRSNMSKHGMPNjSNNGkPHSMOJSQVSK]MQHGIQSJQSKMNNXHRNGINWUKONR KGRMSKF]KWHGTQS]NRJSKIMHINOhOFIPKO]QMHXKMHQGKLHGMNSXHNYHGVKGRJNNSSNIQXNSghMQUSHGVJNQJLN NlJNSHNGIHGVPQ]NLNOOGNOOHGMQMPNmIQGMHGFF]QTIKSNZnfPN\HMgOPQFLRTFSMPNSISNKMNKMSKHGHGVKGR IQ]JLHKGINJQOHMHQGYHMPHGMPNEHK]H\HMgoQ]NLNOOpOOHOMKGINqSQVSK]MQNGOFSNVQQRJSKIMHINOKGR KIIQFGMKUHLHMgK]QGVOMQFMSNKIPYQSrNSOZ pLLLNXNLOQTVQXNSG]NGMOPQFLRRHXNSMTFGRHGVTSQ]ISH]HGKLsFOMHINSNOJQGONOMQPQFOHGVTHSOMJSQVSK]O KGRISHOHOSNOJQGONMNK]OYHMP]NGMKLPNKLMPhPKS]SNRFIMHQGhKGRQMPNSJOgIPQOQIHKLONSXHINNlJNSMHONh KRRSNOOHGVMPNSQQMIKFONOQTPQ]NLNOOGNOOZ pLLLNXNLOQTVQXNSG]NGMOPQFLRSNIQVGHtNMPNSHVPMMQKRNiFKMNPQFOHGVZfPHONGMKHLOJSQMNIMHQGKVKHGOM TQSINRNXHIMHQGKGRMPNKXKHLKUHLHMgQTPQFOHGVMPKMHOKTTQSRKULNhPKUHMKULNhKIINOOHULNhYNLLWLQIKMNRhKGR IFLMFSKLLgKRNiFKMNZ fPNuNRNSKLVQXNSG]NGMOPQFLRHGISNKONNTTQSMOMQNGTQSINTKHSPQFOHGVMPSQFVPMPNuKHSoQFOHGVpIMKGR IHXHLSHVPMOLKYOMPKMSQQMQFMSKIHKLRHOISH]HGKMHQGMPKMLNKROMQPQ]NLNOOGNOOZ EFGHIHJKLHMHNOOPQFLRIQGOFLMYHMPSNOHRNGMOYPQKSNNlJNSHNGIHGVPQ]NLNOOGNOOMQKRQJMHGTQS]NR JQLHIHNOMPKMUNOMONSXNIQ]]FGHMgGNNROZ
fYQWJNSOQG]QUHLNMNK]OIQGOHOMHGVQTK]NRHI KGRKISHOHOYQSrNSYPQPKOOFUOMKGMHKLMSKHGHGV KGRNlJNSHNGINHGMPN]NGMKLPNKLMPTHNLRZ fPNMNK]HOKULNMQRNKLYHMPKYHRNSKGVNQT ]NGMKLWPNKLMPSNLKMNRISHONOhOFIPKOIQGTLHIM SNOQLFMHQGhYNLTKSNIPNIrOhOFUOMKGINKUFONhKGR OFHIHRNMPSNKMOMPSQFVPMSKF]KWHGTQS]NRRNW NOIKLKMHQGKGRPKS]SNRFIMHQGMNIPGHiFNOZ vGwFVNGNhxyhHGz{|}KLQGNhQFMQTMPNz~h{{{ IKLLOMPKM\poxxfkSNOJQGRNRMQhJQLHINUKIrFJ YKOQGLgIKLLNRMQMPNOINGN|{MH]NOZ€z ‚ƒ„„
†‡ˆ‰Š‹‰ŒŽŒ‰‡‹‹ˆ‘‹’‹“ ”„Œ‘Œ••Œ••Š–‡„—“–‚‘ŠŒ‡ˆŠ‹˜Œ †„‘‹‰‹“ ™š›œ›œœœ›œžŸ ¡¢£¢¤¥› ¦§¨ž › ž©¢ªžš¢¢žœ«™£§§¬ª­ ®¯°±²²¯³´µ¶·±³¸






  


!"#
$%#&
'

("#) "*#'
$
+
,-.#/
0%#)

1 
-2-3-


34 --
.35
678
9 :;9 <=
<><>?


@AABBBC97CDA97E B A

DEFFE 



E9DE
FDE
EBDE9
DE
E
 D
E E7  EBC ;D
4'3$/G
H

I3--
J#K
3 I#H
&
-."
'
13$
L
K!"3''

M N BOM
:P9D9
<Q
<><>?


@AABBBC
CFA<><>A>QA<QA9
A7FER
E E

CS T
ED D E U DTMVWPNNXURTYWBU7FT  W 9W FFUFTFFU
D
TPF U


W TZ[ZF[\Y>E \ZEYY EQ>ZE==\<F=]]\ FC +0^
_

`(K#2


#a("
23&
!#
`b

("
G
/4
-K

c3$

&%#&
'

NX:P9D9
]
<><>?


@AABBBC
CDAFA[>ZA<><>A>QA>]A=>><>\=\\ABE

EE E
 EFE

DE EE7 B E F
EE 



C NdB^  e 



R 
%#)

L#-%3$)aa
fghibj
-"
!
&
3'
k3-
##a %#&
'

l020!
-

m
D
CY<EY[:<>Y=?C +0n<C dB 
^ ^RXD
 oF
FP 
!
-
a#4

*'3
2 "-%#K!3'
a#
3*#'
$

4 4'3$/m4#Km3l"#)


*)p'
$
Y
Z:<><>?Cq2

3'
#; o F

(

#a)

3$
$
&

#
)r)

"
s I
3&
4 3$"

3p#)--#$3$/#K
te 
:;C[
<>YQ?


@AABBBC CFA B
AFAF9AE AE7 FAF Y=<Q<\<\=CC NdB^  e 



R 
XF

e 



 ^;9R  d D 
 

Y

D [:<><>?C NdB^  e 



R 

)r3 ZY>=C o F

)r3 ]C *#--

H0!
-5#aI
3&

[Z=oC9

C[YY]]
YYQ>:CuCoC<>Y=?C I
3&
m1'30
VF Y[=>]FC<Z
C<:<><>?C NF v 

Utu9
1 H
*#p'
&
K
-"!
&
3'43$/ #)!"
$/

678
9 :tFY[
<>>]?


@AABBBC97CDA97EB AR E
7 
EFE7FD9EF F
q2r
$
3'c3rr#-
)#jw-
&
*#H
-5 3%)&3c
"-
#%

I

#-#-"
l
-
2-3-

#a&

$3
xnZ
6CNCuFCPAeX^A[QA[[APCYC ^ o^

e 



("
!#
-#aG# y(
&%#&
'

!
-3'1'#
3b("
!)
-!

3-"
j$##&
$+&r3$-#a*#H

2)
-3
3p'
%#)

2#')-
#

D C[n:<>Yn?C Nze ^ oM e 

^9F
%#&
'

{%
3'-"b."3-,
-"
!#
$-
#s


@AAFFCDAB
E
F A9

A<>Y=A>QA 



EE C
Cq^  P FD

G3$/#a%#)

3I
-3' %
3'-"|

3p
'
-

jw3$
p3-
}
#-"



@AABBBC F
D

CDA

9 A
R A B
A<>YQAYYA<>An\Y<=nAFE9
DE E E
7
E ~F 7 E E AC ("
!#
-#a%#&
'

13$-

 u



@AAD 
CDAF
AF
C

C 6R 
u Fe9XD
:6ueX€?C[
CPCX
C<Y]:888?P
6CNCuFCPAQY>:u FCY>
Y=nQ?q 8 ^R ^RFXD
:8^^X€?C\:Y?

 u FCY\
Y=\\
===6CNCMCCY]Y:  7 6CC;9 Q
Y==<?C ^R PD
M9 V ^9 
89u DDM  9
 :^PM€?CY\
Yn\Z 6CNCMCCQZ

 u FCY>
Y=Qn: 7 6CCP
YQ
Y=QQ?q6ueX

)r3 Y]
CZq8^^X

)r3 Y]
C]C 8^^X

)r3 Y]
C=q6ueX

)r3 Y]
C[q8 ^R Po
XF u
F:8^Xu€?CZ:7?
u FC<Y
Y=\Z
\\>6CNCMCCY=Z: 7 6CC;9 Q
Y==<?C 6ueX

)r3 Y]
CY[q8^^X

)r3 Y]
CY<:Y?q8^Xu

)r3 Y=
Z:?:?q^  XFu
F
!#$')
#p

H3-
#
#-"
$#&p



H
-"-#
-"r

#
$
r#-
#a-"
l
-
2-3-

#a&

$3
^XuA^A6PA^VA]=
xY<:<>Yn?qe9XD
^
!#$')
#p

H3-
#
#-"
a#)-"r

#
$
r#-#a-"
l
-
2-3-

#a&

$3m^^XA^A6PA^VAn
xY=:<>Yn?C 8^Xu

)r3 Y=
ZCq8^^X

)r3 Y]
C<
<\C 6 
8 D F^9Fe 



:68^e?
 FDV99
@^
9FR P R
 ^‚e 



:<>Y<?


@AABBBC9
FCDRA
9F
A9

A

W7AXMWWtF<>Y<C
C %#)

1 
-
NPF e 



:P
<>
<>Y\?


@AA  



CDA
9F A9
DE 
AC  Dv 

("

!
-

c
r'3$
!#r
.
-"2#$
3'.#/

mI

$
m3*
#r'
.
-"#)-J)
ƒ+-.#/
*
--5.
''
„F N B
:;9 Y
<><>?


@AABBBCRF CFA W9
AF A[‚

A
EF
E
F EF

EBE
FEB 
E  F
EE

 EB9ED9
C ."3-

!3"##-
s
v ^F:;9 <=
<><>?


@AAB 7FFCDABE
EF
AC 6CCuzMVoeV6PNu6XCu„C:e6u€?
Me<>Y=PNN6PdeVtdPtNMXVXMMV^VNX
Y
Y :<>Y=?


@AA
C9 ~FD CA
9F
AF9 
A<>Y=EPePXEEYC
C tEu ^99^
<>Y=P9tEu ^^XFu

P

 

D CY:<>Y=?C
YC<C[CnCZC\C]CQC=CY>CYYCY<CY[CYnCYZCY\CY]CYQCY=C<>C<YC<<C<[C<nC<ZC<\C<]C Endnotes
From: Enhao Gong
To: Clerk
Subject: strongly against Benton shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:53:13 AM
Waste of money, cause safety and environmental hazard, at the cost of the local neighbourhood, and is not a good choice for the homeless either! Sincerely,
Enhao
Enhao Gong, PhD
From: Joyce Huang
To: Clerk
Subject: strongly oppose Benton shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:37:19 AM
Dear staff,
I am Joyce Huang, living in Santa Clara with my family. I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.
--
Best regards,
Joyce Huang
From: Joyce Huang
To: Clerk
Subject: strongly oppose Benton Shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:38:39 AM
Dear staff,
I am Yulin Huang, living in Santa Clara with my family for more than 5 years. I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.

Best regards,
Yulin Huang
From: Mayor and Council
To: Mayor and Council
Cc: Nadine Nader; Manuel Pineda; Andrew Crabtree; Adam Marcus; Glen Googins; Nora Pimentel; Michelle Estabillo; Marisa Welling; Stephanie Davis
Subject: FW: For the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Date: Sunday, April 23, 2023 3:21:16 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Dear Mayor and Council,
Our office received the following correspondence 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 we are forwarding for your review and consideration.

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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 11:14 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council <[email protected]> Subject: For the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.The Benton
Street and Lawrence Expressway location is absolutely
wrong for any homeless housing.

We urge you to immediately vote NO on the proposed
homeless shelters at Benton Street and Lawrence
Expressway.

There is another shelter with a full capacity of 500+ people per year in the City of Santa Clara approximately 0.5 miles from this location. The existing shelter is far from full yet.

Why is there a need to build another bigger shelter in this area?
Why does the City of Santa Clara and it's residents have to shoulder so many of the homeless shelters?
We the residents of the City of Santa Clara have done more than our shares in helping the homeless people. Let's spread the love all across the State of California; Stop the proposed shelter at Benton and Lawrence.

The success rate of LifeMoves’ shelters is only 26%, this is absolutely a waste of our tax funding.

Even with full funding, LifeMoves does not provide qualified service and enough staffing for their existing shelters, so how can they operate more, new shelters?
Without solving the problems with the existing shelters but rushing to construct another new bigger shelter will only make the problems worse.

We can not just build another shelter at Benton and
Lawrence and just hope that LifeMoves will do better this time. Repeating a failed model will always results in
FAILURE! The residents of the City of Santa Clara will
suffer for many years to come as a result.

Where can the City of Santa Clara find funding for the
operation of many shelters and mitigating negative impacts to our communities?
Who will take responsibility for over budgets, increase of crime rate, and shortage of public resources if the project was approved?
Does the City of Santa Clara have budgets to enhance the manpower of first responders, law enforcement, first aids, street sanitation, etc...?
We encourage that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the proposed homeless shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence
Expressway.

NO SHELTER AT BENTON and LAWRENCE!!!
Best Regards,
Won Household
City of Santa Clara Residents
From: [email protected]
To: Clerk; Mayor and Council
Subject: Add to the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:59:03 PM
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

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

I urge you to vote NO on this proposed homeless shelter. 1) Why does City of Santa Clara have to build so many
shelters in our city? Our city is a small town; we can not house all the homeless in northern California.

There are at lease 5 already. There is Bella Vista shelter just 1/2 mile away.

Yes in my backyard; but my backyard have too too many homeless shelters already! The State of California needs to build shelter all across the state, instead of making City of Santa Clara the city of homeless shelters!
2)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 time
goes by! There will be more and more homeless in our
neighborhood. This is not solving the homeless
problem. It is just dumping the homeless, and issues
that come with being homeless in our neighborhood. We
must stop this from happening. What is the County's
plan to mitigate this problem?
3) What is the successful rate of the homeless people
who entered the shelter and later found permanent
housing? According to statistics from the two nearby
locations, MTV and Milpitas, the homeless who entered
these facilities and later found permanent homes is less than 20%! That is less than 1 out 5 successful rate.

Where do the other 4 homeless go? This is clearly a
waste of tax dollars! Creating so many problems for the surrounding neighborhood for such meager results. I
would rather give each homeless person the full amount
of funds per head count that is needed to operate such a shelter. 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. Let's work on improving the existing shelters first. Are there any plans to improve the outcome of the two existing
shelters, before we build more?
4) If the "interim homeless shelter" is a drug free
environment as stated, what kind of medical help is
provided for the 200+ persons homeless at the shelter?
We can't expect a drug addict to become clean on the
day he/she moved into the shelter. If he/she can not find immediate help at the shelter, he/she will be doing drugs on the street near the shelter, in nearby parks, at the school yards, in our neighborhood! With the shelter's
plan to admit the "most challenged homeless", there got to be a high number of doctors and nurses on site to
meet the challenges. Many homeless people also have
mental issues, that is just a fact of life. Will the County provide enough specialists on site to help these
homeless people with mental issues? How many
doctors and nurses does the County plan to assign to
this shelter full time?
5) A homeless shelter is not a jail. Thus the homeless
are free to go in and out of the shelter, as I understand it. And keep in mind these are the "most challenging
homeless". 200+ “interim homeless shelter” residents
will be out doing their “business” and wandering around the immediate neighborhood. 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 people 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?
6) What does Santa Clara County plan to do at the end
of a homeless "interim" stay, when a homeless person
does not find permanent housing? Does the county
have any plan to bus them back to where they were
found? Or the county just let them out and hope for the best? Where does the county think the homeless will
go? The answer is very obvious. They will just walk into the immediate neighborhood, OUR neighborhood, and
be homeless again! Does the County have any busing
plan to move the homeless to where they want to go?
Does the County have the funding dedicated to deal with such a large army of homeless people concentrating in
our neighborhood?
7) This proposed location has been used for community
activities for many many years, such as pumpkin
patches, Christmas tree sales, and more. It is Not just an empty lot. Where will the three hundred thousands of
local families go for these kind of activities if the County takes away this lot by inserting a homeless shelters here.

What will the County provide as an alternative for the
local families?
In summary, the Benton Street and Lawrence
Expressway location is absolutely wrong for any
homeless housing.

In light of the the above concerns, we encourage that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the proposed homeless
shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

Best Regards,
Ross
Resident of the City of Santa Clara
From: Enhao Gong
To: Clerk
Subject: Against benton shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:28:37 PM
Hi
I am writing this letter as concerned local residents, and parents of twin boys, to express my strong opposition to the proposed construction of the Benton Homeless Shelter. While I understand the need to address the issue of homelessness in our community, I believe this project will be a waste of resources, pose safety and environmental hazards, negatively impact the local neighborhood, and ultimately fail to provide a suitable long-term solution for the homeless population it aims to serve.

Waste of Money: The proposed shelter costs taxpayers a significant sum, and it's important to consider whether this expenditure is the most effective use of funds. Alternative solutions, such as investing in affordable housing, job training programs, and mental health support services, may provide a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to addressing the homelessness crisis.

Safety and Environmental Hazards: The location chosen for the Benton Shelter is right at the intersection of multiple busy roads. This poses potential safety risks to the shelter's residents.

Impact on Local Neighborhood: The construction of the Benton Shelter will inevitably lead to increased foot traffic and a potential rise in crime rates, impacting the safety and security of the local residents.

With the design of crowded spacing and without any screening, the shelter will not resolve any local homeless issues but will attract more homeless and people with mental and drug issues to the neighborhood creating many more issues.

Because of these concerns, I would strongly urge you to reconsider the Benton Shelter construction project and vote NO. Elected representation should be aligned with the will of almost all local residents, and proactively explore alternative, more comprehensive solutions to address homelessness in our community. By doing so, we can ensure a more sustainable and effective approach to this pressing issue while preserving the well-being of our local neighborhood.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing back from you and a thorough evaluation of the potential consequences of this project.

Sincerely,
Enhao & Xiaolin
From: carole baldwin
To: Clerk
Subject: Council agenda # 23-272
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:59:26 PM
I"m opposed to this homeless shelter being placed at Benton/Lawrence for the following reasons.

1. Santa Clara County and Lifemoves HAVE NOT provided the city of Santa Clara a clear proposed budget that will be required to run this interim housing shelter. Homekey 3.0 requires that funded facilities be operated for 30 yrs. Its my understanding after meeting with city council members and county that it will cost 4 million a year to run this shelter…
WHAT IS SANTA CLARA's PLAN TO SUPPORT THIS AMOUNT (which is unknown) WHICH REQUIRE THE COST OF STAFFING AND SERVICES? Not to mention additional police officers being hired to cover the calls for service that might be generated at this location and/or surrounding locations.

2. After talking with Consuelo Hernandez, I have another question that should be answered.

WHY DID SANTA CLARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECT HER TO LOOK ONLY AT THE CITIES OF SUNNYVALE AND SANTA CLARA FOR ADDITIONAL HOMEKEY SHELTERS? As of 4/24/23, Mayor of San Jose said San Jose has a lot of vacant land & property owners are willing to give up their land for 5-15 years.

San Jose has 7,000 homeless. They would be close to services, job opportunities, and health care services.

3. Currently Santa Clara has four homeless shelters.. It’s been reported that we have 400 homeless currently with our city limits.

WILL SANTA CLARA HOMELESS HAVE FIRST PRIORITY TO GET HOUSED IN THIS SHELTER IF PLACED AT BENTON/LAWRENCE?
IF NOT, DO YOU REALIZE THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL HOMELESS WITHIN SANTA CLARA?

4. SAFTEY….. Lifemoves and Consuelo Hernandez said this would be a ‘LOW BARRIER SHELTER” which was explained that no “arsonist, sex offenders, or murders would be allowed to stay there. Well after several meetings with Council Members Kevin Parks and Karen Hardy, it was made clear to us that there will be no criminal history checks or mental health checks done on anyone that applies and is approved. And the homeless are not be required to present any identification.

Per Santa Clara Police staff, 35-40% sheltered unhoused population has addiction issues and 95% of unsheltered population THIS INCLUDES FAMILIES have addiction issues.

SO IS THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA IN VIOLATION OF MEGAN’S LAW?

IS THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA UNDERSTANDING THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE ALLOWED TO STAY AT THIS SHELTER?

5. Lack of trust and follow through by Lifemoves. There have been numerous shelters started by Lifemoves that have been less than successful. Mountain View shelter increased in crime data most likely because of lack of background checks and lack of professional staffing filling the positions Lifemoves ensure will be on site. Many staff members have resigned or they don’t stay their entire shift.

HAS SANTA CLARA GOTTEN A DETAILED PLAN FROM LIFEMOVES ON HOW THEY WILL OPERATE THIS SHELTER?
Also Lifemoves continues to change what this shelter will look like, how many unites it will provide, and how many stories it will be. This has been very frustrating to citizens.

HAS SANTA CLARA RECIEVED A DETAILED PLAN ON WHAT THIS SHELTER WILL LOOK LIKE AND HOW MANY UNITS IT WILL BE?
WILL IT BE FAMILIES OR SINGLE HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING THERE? It’s been my experience, after 28 years in law enforcement and dealing with the homeless specifically for five years.

It’s a vey difficult problem. There has to be a very detailed plan in place and people have to be held accountable for working with the homeless. Placing a roof over their heads with no follow up with services can and will create additional problems for the city and the citizens living within the city.

Submitted by,
CJ. Baldwin
From: maggie Lu
To: Clerk
Subject: for 4/25 council meeting on Benton Project (item#1) Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:31:12 PM
Hi Dear Santa Clara city representatives,
This is Maggie Lu, a resident in Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the Benton Shelter Project that proposed to be built at Lawrence & Benton.

As a family that loves our beautiful and friendly community and neighbors, we hope it's a safe and happy place for the residents. We hope the city will become better and attract families with an encouraging and inspiring mindset. The reasons that I and my whole family oppose the Benton Shelter Project are because:

1. The Benton site has been the dedicated place for families and friends to celebrate holidays.

Every year, schools from the neighborhood (more than 10 schools in the neighborhood) organize walking field trips from school to Benton site for halloween activities, christmas activities. Families in the surrounding communities always support the community business like this. We have lots of good memories and we want to keep this tradition for our community.

2. The Santa Clara city doesn't have the resources (staff and funding) to manage such a large shelter for the public services. Santa Clara city libraries are the only libraries that have limited operating hours compared to libraries in San Jose/Cupertino/Sunnyvale etc cities due to lack of resources already. If there's any funding/staff, families in Santa Clara deserve better public services first. City should prioritize the interest of Santa Clara city residents who support our city.

3. The Benton site is not suitable for shelter. It's an intersection of main roads, with lots of traffic, that brings lots of noise for people living there. There's no public services (library, grocery etc) within walking distance around that site. It's surrounded by professional companies, schools, and households. We strongly suggest setting up shelter in a place that is more suitable rather than the Benton site.

4. We also have concerns about the safety of the neighborhood. We don't know about the background of the people to be accepted in the shelter. There will be people with a criminal background and mental health problems. Who will protect our kids and families? The criminal instances are much higher in the cities with shelters. Our kids also learn from neighbors that they see or meet every day. We hope to influence them in a positive way - see how people are working hard and providing values to society, see how people are protecting each other and love each other.

Please please represent us and oppose the Benton Shelter Project as our community leaders.

We very much appreciate your support and understanding.

Maggie Lu
Family of Santa Clara resident
From: Catherine McGowan
To: Clerk
Subject: Fw: agenda 23-272
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:19:55 PM
Attachments: New - Homekey Round 3 Notice of Funding Availability.pdf Legislation Text - 23-272.pdf
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Catherine McGowan" <[email protected]>
To: "Tom MacDevitt" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Fw: agenda 23-272
fyi
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Catherine McGowan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM PDT
Subject: agenda 23-272
I request you to add this email and documentation to the agenda for the meeting on 4/25 regarding Lawrence/Benton Homeless Shelter*
Since this proposal has changed to 30 [3-bedroom] units, there appears to be a massive shortfall in funding and the project funding does not balance.

According to the Homekey documentation, Notice of Funding Availability, Round 3, APPENDIX A:

Capital Contributions to Projects* , the maximum amount of money they will provide per door for a 3 bedroom project is $300,000 per unit. 30 units x $300,000 = $9 million dollars.

The city staff prepared agenda shows that an estimated contribution from Homekey of $22.5 million dollars.

If the maximum received from HomeKey Funding is 9 million, the project plan has a $13.5 million shortfall in funding! Where is this additional $13.5 million deficit going to be coming from? Attached are the referenced material pages which show this discrepency This project as presented to us does not balance. It also does not make economic sense for the city of Santa Clara to assume 3.75 million dollars in annual operating cost once that funding has ended.

I urge you to vote no on this project as the funding does not balance as presented. It is not in the best economic interest for the residents of the City of Santa Clara. And it does not have the majority support of the cummunity members which you were elected to represent. 23-272 Agenda Date: 4/25/2023
One of the key challenges for this type of development is the financing to pay for both initial capital costs and ongoing operating costs since EIH projects do not generate much rental income. In addition, providing a robust level of support services is staff intensive and costly. For these reasons, EIH communities rely on State, County, City and philanthropic funding to cover the cost of construction and ongoing operations. Below is a summary of the estimated cost ranges for construction and for operations. A cost range is provided because actual costs depend on variables which are yet to be determined, including labor costs, material costs, and site conditions that are not fully known at this time.

In recent local media reports, concerns were raised about Palo Alto Homekey (approved September 2021) construction costs and issues surrounding Mountain View Homekey (approved September 2020) operations. After consulting with City of Palo Alto staff, City of Santa Clara staff learned that construction costs for this particular project rose due to economic uncertainty, inflation and supply chain issues as well as significant changes to the project design. LifeMoves switched contractors and made changes to the site layout including a bigger set back from the street to avoid impacting an existing gas line. Additionally, Palo Alto Homekey incorporates lessons learned from the earlier Mountain View project by including en-suite bathrooms (instead of shared bathrooms), more family units, and partnering closely with the County to effectively manage operations.

LifeMoves and the Sobrato Organization have worked with their general contractor on adjustments for the proposed project at Benton/Lawrence to reduce construction costs. Below are estimates on the construction cost and the annual operating cost averaged over the first seven years.

The City, County, and LifeMoves would need to enter into an agreement before accepting Homekey funds to clarify how cost overruns would be shared and to establish a possible operating reserve.

Estimated Construction Cost Estimated Average Annual
Operating Cost (Years 1-7)
Updated Proposal
(30 family Units)
$34,000,000 $3,750,000
Funding Sources
The following tables summarize potential funding sources and include estimated amounts. Estimates were included because the Homekey program workbook, which includes allocation formulas, will not be posted until April 24, 2023, several days after this staff report was published. This assumes a maximum Homekey award which would allow for additional County funds to go towards operations. If the Homekey award is smaller, there would be an operations gap as County funds would need to cover the capital gap.

Source for Construction Amount
Estimated Total Development Costs $34,000,000
Homekey Round 3 Capital Funds (Estimated) ($22,500,000) Private Funding ($5,000,000)
County Capital Grants ($6,500,000)
Estimated Gap $ 0
City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 16 Printed on 4/21/2023
powered by Legistar™
California Department of Housing and Community Development 2023 Homekey NOFA 60
APPENDIX A: Capital Contributions to Projects*
Assisted Unit,
1:1 Match
Homekey Capital Contributions
Total Cost
Per Door *
Maximum
Homekey
Contribution
Applicant
Contribution
Up to 1 Bedroom
$140,000 $140,000 $0
$150,000 $150,000 $0
$160,000 $155,000 $5,000
$180,000 $165,000 $15,000
$200,000 $175,000 $25,000
$220,000 $185,000 $35,000
$240,000 $195,000 $45,000
$260,000 $205,000 $55,000
$280,000 $215,000 $65,000
$300,000 $225,000 $75,000
$320,000 $235,000 $85,000
$340,000 $245,000 $95,000
$350,000+ $250,000 $100,000+
Two Bedrooms
$155,000 $155,000 $0
$175,000 $175,000 $0
$195,000 $185,000 $10,000
$215,000 $195,000 $20,000
$235,000 $205,000 $30,000
$255,000 $215,000 $40,000
$275,000 $225,000 $50,000
$295,000 $235,000 $60,000
$315,000 $245,000 $70,000
$335,000 $255,000 $80,000
$355,000 $265,000 $90,000
$375,000+ $275,000 $100,000+
Three or More Bedrooms
$180,000 $180,000 $0
$190,000 $190,000 $0
$200,000 $200,000 $0
$220,000 $210,000 $10,000
$240,000 $220,000 $20,000
$260,000 $230,000 $30,000
$280,000 $240,000 $40,000
$300,000 $250,000 $50,000
$320,000 $260,000 $60,000
$340,000 $270,000 $70,000
$360,000 $280,000 $80,000
$380,000 $290,000 $90,000
$400,000+ $300,000 $100,000+
California Department of Housing and Community Development 2023 Homekey NOFA 61
Assisted Unit,
1:1 Match
Homekey Capital Contributions
Total Cost
Per Door *
Maximum
Homekey
Contribution
Applicant
Contribution
Experiencing Chronic
Homelessness
$180,000 $180,000 $0
$190,000 $190,000 $0
$200,000 $200,000 $0
$220,000 $210,000 $10,000
$240,000 $220,000 $20,000
$260,000 $230,000 $30,000
$280,000 $240,000 $40,000
$300,000 $250,000 $50,000
$320,000 $260,000 $60,000
$340,000 $270,000 $70,000
$360,000 $280,000 $80,000
$380,000 $290,000 $90,000
$400,000+ $300,000 $100,000+
Homeless Youth or Youth At
Risk of Homelessness
$155,000 $155,000 $0
$175,000 $175,000 $0
$195,000 $185,000 $10,000
$215,000 $195,000 $20,000
$235,000 $205,000 $30,000
$255,000 $215,000 $40,000
$275,000 $225,000 $50,000
$295,000 $235,000 $60,000
$315,000 $245,000 $70,000
$335,000 $255,000 $80,000
$355,000 $265,000 $90,000
$375,000+ $275,000 $100,000+
* The total cost per door referenced in the table above includes all eligible capital expenses, including acquisition, Rehabilitation, and new construction costs.

From: Huan Li
To: Clerk
Subject: I OPPOSE building a homeless facility at Benton St.

Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:48:49 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in our community. I believe that this particular shelter poses a tremendous safety threat to the 11,000 students and families in the area.

As you are aware, the proposed shelter would gather criminals, drug addicts, and individuals with mental disorders without treatment together in one place. This creates an environment that is inherently dangerous, and one that has already been seen in Milpitas and Mountain View with similar sites experiencing striking crime statistics increasing.

Furthermore, I am troubled by the fact that more than 300 questions from members of the community remain unanswered to date. It is imperative that those responsible for making decisions regarding the proposed shelter take the time to listen to and address the concerns of the community. We have a right to know how this shelter will be operated and managed, and what measures will be taken to ensure the safety of our community.

Lastly, it is concerning that there appears to be no plan for operation fund and cost even after three community hearings. The lack of transparency and accountability in this matter is simply unacceptable, and I urge you to reconsider this proposal.

Please listen to the concerns of the community. Our safety and well-being depend on it.

Sincerely,
Huan Li
From: Huan Li
To: Clerk
Subject: I oppose the construction of the shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:46:31 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal of a homeless shelter at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. While I understand the importance of helping homeless people, I believe that there are better ways to achieve this goal than by building this shelter in our neighborhood.

Firstly, the proposed location is entirely wrong. The shelter is designed with low barriers that admit people with prior criminal records and ongoing drug abuse. This is a major safety concern for our community, especially since there are several elementary schools and parks in the vicinity. I fear that the safety of young children in the area will be compromised.

Secondly, there is already a homeless care facility under construction half a mile away. Why do we need another one so close to an already vulnerable area? Instead of building another shelter, this location would be better suited for permanent housing.

Please hear our voice!
Sincerely,
Huan Li
From: Yao Wang
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:52:48 PM
Hi there,
I’m living in Santa Clara and oppose building a homeless facility at Benton! Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Steven Chou
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose Benton & Lawrence interim housing program Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:57:59 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my deep concern and opposition about the Benton project, a low barrier homeless housing initiative on Benton & Lawrence. The safety of our children is at stake here and I feel compelled to bring this to your attention.

As you may be aware, this shelter facility is slated to house individuals who have a criminal history, struggle with drug addiction, and/or have been convicted of sexual offenses. All three community hearings held so far have confirmed this fact, raising serious concerns about the safety of our community.

I cannot stress enough the gravity of the situation. The Benton project poses a very real and ongoing safety risk to over 11,000 students and teachers in our neighborhood. Despite assurances from the county that there are no safety concerns for children, data from a similar facility in Milpitas paints a different picture. Policeinvolved incidents increased 300% after the project was executed, indicating a clear and present danger to the community.

We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this issue. Our community must not become a hotbed for crime. Therefore, I urge you to take immediate action to address this matter.

Sincerely,
Steven Chou
From: Lu Taoran
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose Benton homelessness shelter
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 5:21:11 PM
To whom it may concern,
Our family has been living in Santa Clara for ten years. We strongly oppose the location selection for the homeless facility at Benton/Lawrence.

It is a wrong location for many reasons. Too close to express way put people live there at risk.

It is also not so close to bus stops and grocery store. 1 mile away is not a convenient distance.

Taoran, Yu, Yancey Sun family
From: Ying Lu
To: Clerk; Mayor and Council
Subject: Oppose Benton Project
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 3:03:36 PM
Hi Dear Santa Clara city representatives,
This is Ying Lu, a resident in Santa Clara. I strongly oppose the Benton Shelter Project that proposed to be built at Lawrence & Benton. Please support your residents and families as our leader and representative!
As a family that loves our beautiful and friendly community and neighbors, we hope it's a safe and happy place for the residents. We hope the city will become better and attract families with an encouraging and inspiring mindset. The reasons that I and my whole family oppose the Benton Shelter Project are because:

1. The Benton site has been the dedicated place for families and friends to celebrate holidays.

Every year, schools from the neighborhood (more than 10 schools in the neighborhood) organize walking field trips from school to Benton site for halloween activities, christmas activities. Families in the surrounding communities always support the community business like this. We have lots of good memories and we want to keep this tradition for our community.

2. The Santa Clara city doesn't have the resources (staff and funding) to manage such a large shelter for the public services. Santa Clara city libraries are the only libraries that have limited operating hours compared to libraries in San Jose/Cupertino/Sunnyvale etc cities due to lack of resources already. If there's any funding/staff, families in Santa Clara deserve better public services first. City should prioritize the interest of Santa Clara city residents who support our city.

3. The Benton site is not suitable for shelter. It's an intersection of main roads, with lots of traffic, that brings lots of noise for people living there. There's no public services (library, grocery etc) within walking distance around that site. It's surrounded by professional companies, schools, and households. We strongly suggest setting up shelter in a place that is more suitable rather than the Benton site.

4. We also have concerns about the safety of the neighborhood. We don't know about the background of the people to be accepted in the shelter. There will be people with a criminal background and mental health problems. Who will protect our kids and families? The criminal instances are much higher in the cities with shelters. Our kids also learn from neighbors that they see or meet every day. We hope to influence them in a positive way - see how people are working hard and providing values to society, see how people are protecting each other and love each other.

Please please represent us and oppose the Benton Shelter Project as our community leaders.

We very much appreciate your support and understanding.

Ying Lu
Family of Santa Clara resident
From: Xiaoling Wang
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose building a homeless facility at Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 4:39:54 PM
Hi, I am xiaoling, living in Santa Clara city with my family. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton Sent from my iPhone
From: olivia ma
To: Clerk
Subject: oppose building a homeless facility at Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 4:57:46 PM
Hi,
My name is Olivia Ma.

I lived in Santa Clara for 24 years.

I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton! Sent from my iPhone
From: Tong Zheng
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose building a homeless facility at Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 5:45:54 PM
Hi,
I am Tong Zheng, living in Santa Clara with my family for more than 15 years. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.This project has high operation cost and critical shortage of qualified staff.

Best Regards,
Tong
From: Xiaolan Yang
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose building homeless facility at Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:13:36 PM
Hi,
My name is Xiaolan Yang, living in Santa Clara with my family. I strongly oppose building a homeless facility at Benton. It will creates significant safety concerns to our community and schools. Please withdraw this proposal.

Thanks,
Xiaolan
From: youky-gmail
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose for shelter at Lawrence and Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:14:18 PM
Hi, officer:

I am a resident in the Santa Clara city, and I oppose the shelter at lawrence and Benton Because:

County was the first one to use the 1.5 mile radius and claimed only 4 schools within. Yet even within 0.75 miles, there are still 10 schools, serving over 11 thousands students and families. No other communities in Santa Clara have such a dense concentration of schools.

Allowing individuals with a variety of criminal backgrounds and drug issues to reside near schools can pose a significant threat, as children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of living near those people, and may be more susceptible to the negative influence, potentially leading to early exposure to drug use or criminal activities.

Sent from my iPhone
From: alchencjt
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose Homekey at Benton and Lawrence
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:50:46 PM
Hi,
I am Jiatong Chen. I lived in Santa Clara with my family. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton and Lawrence.

The lifemove project propose to build 30 modules with 90 rooms on such a small lot, which will cause significant environmental impact. Limited parking will cause parking overflow issues for nearby neighborhoods .

What concerns me the most is the safety issues. The low barrier bar will bring drug addicts, people with criminal records on the street, that post a great threat to children from nearby schools.

I strongly oppose the plan.

Best,
Jiatong Chen
1388 Spoonbill Way
From: Erin Yan
To: Clerk
Subject: Oppose Lawrence Expressway & Benton Street housing project Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:25:41 PM
Hi,
I'm Erin, living in Santa Clara with my family. My house is on Thrush Way and it's only 0.4 miles away from the Lawrence Expressway & Benton Street site.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this project!
It will harm the neighborhood's safety
It would be a low barrier interim housing project with minimum screening for occupants. So the occupants could be sex offenders or people with drug problems. I joined the previous hearings and was told they would only try to restrict the occupants behavior in the facility and occupants will be free to walk out of the facility to join the neighborhood, which means occupants will be free to abuse drugs or alcohol in the neighborhood.

This site is in a residential area with over 15 schools and over 10 thousands of students in close proximity. This a wrong location for a low barrier interim housing project.

It will not be financially feasible
According to the Q&A on the project website. The operation cost would be $110 to $245 per bed per night. The original plan was to have 124 2-bed units. That means it might cost $10 million to 22 million to operate this project.

The revised plan with fewer units and beds still cost at least 4 million to operate.

The site is not safe for occupants
This site is just next to a busy expressway with a liquor shop and gas station across the street.

The closest bus stop requires a 20 minutes walk.

A similar project proposed at a similar site has been rejected The Lawrence Expressway & White Oak Lane Home Key project was rejected for "not financially feasible and too close to the expressway". It's just 1 mile away from the Lawrence Expressway & Benton Street site.

I don't see any reason approving Lawrence Expressway & Benton Street project since the White Oak Lane one was rejected.

This project should be stopped.

Please save our community and re-select an appropriate site for homeless people.

Best Regards,
Erin Yan
From: Davy Wang
To: Clerk
Subject: OPPOSE Shelter at Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:07:11 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I live in Santa Clara near Lawrence Square, where there's already a shelter that was decided without noticing us at all. I feel cheated. Now Lifemove is proposing another Shelter at Benton, 0.5 miles away from this shelter, and luckily, they can't make the proposal just pass without public knowledge like last time.

I strongly oppose this Shelter proposal. First, there are a dozen of schools close to this location, which brings a huge threat to the children. (within 0.75 miles there are 10 schools) Second, it is a low barrier Shelter and will bring drug dealers, sex offenders, and many other serious offenders to the community. Even the homeless people don't want to stay there. Third, Lifemove keeps cheating the public and really doubts their legitimacy: their data is biased; their directors changed four times within two years; there were sexual assaults between their director and client; their proposed funding and budget already have a 5.5 million gap for the first few years.

Again, I strongly oppose this proposal. The people who drafted this proposal have no idea of the catastrophic effect it will bring to the community. Besides them, many of the supporters don't live here, in Santa Clara, at all. If there are increasing shelters near my neighbor, I will seriously consider moving to another neighborhood, because I don't want my family and me to live under the threat and fear. I was once scared by the drug dealers and addicts in San Francisco, and I will never move to SF. Same reasoning here.

Davy Wang
3534 Flora Vista Ave, Santa Clara
Best Regards
From: Alex Wang
To: Clerk
Subject: Opposing Benton Shelter Program
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:49:07 PM
Hi,
My name is Alex Wang and I am a resident and homeowner living 0.5 miles away from the proposed site of the Benton Shelter. As my subject indicates, I am not in favor of this proposal.

It is obvious to see that the approval of this project will not only jeopardize the safety of our neighborhood but also demonize the council and the impression of Santa Clara. Putting a group of people who are statistically unstable among so many schools, daycares, and elderly residences is not a reasonable action.

Please also notice that people who support this program are mostly not residents nearby. They have no reasons to consider the safety or the appearance of the vicinity of this site. They are exploiting it to claim their "Samaritan" intentions, which is hypocritical.

Also, there is no transparency of the financial status and uses of this project.

I hope the city can listen to what the people of the neighborhood think.

Sincerely,
--
Alex Wang
From: Yichun Wei
To: Clerk
Subject: Opposing building a homeless facility at Benten Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 7:21:54 PM
Hi,
I am Ethan, living in Santa Clara with my family. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.

Thanks,
-Ethan
From: Chenpeng Huang
To: Clerk
Subject: Opposition to building shelter at Benton
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:37:55 PM
Hi,
I am Chenpeng Huang. I live at 3197 Forbes Avenue Santa Clara with my family. I oppose building a homeless facility at Benton.

Thanks
--
Chenpeng Huang
From: Mayor and Council
To: Benny Fong; Clerk
Subject: RE: For the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:43:29 PM
Attachments: image001.png
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).

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: Benny Fong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council <[email protected]> Subject: For the City Hall April 25, 2023, Meeting Agenda. RE: Proposed Interim Housing at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway
Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

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

The county and LifeMoves have utterly
failed to study the project's impact on
the neighborhood, as evidenced by their
inaccurate school counts. In reality,
there are 15 schools and at least 31
daycares, serving more than 11,000
students and families within a 1.5-mile
radius of the Benton site. With Santa
Clara currently facing a police staffing
shortage, how can we possibly ensure the
safety of our community?
A homeless shelter is not a jail. Thus
the homeless are free to go in and out of
the shelter. And keep in mind these are
the "most challenging homeless". 200+
“interim homeless shelter” residents will
be out doing their “business” and
wandering around the immediate
neighborhood. 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 people 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?
We urge you to immediately vote NO on this
proposal.

Kat & Alex household
Concerned Residents of Santa Clara
From: Cam Coulter via ActionNetwork.org
To: Clerk
Subject: Santa Clara City Council, Create Interim Housing in Santa Clara Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 5:43:36 PM
Attachments: create-interim-housing-in-santa-clara_signatures_202304261242.pdf Santa Clara City Council,
158 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to Create Interim Housing in Santa Clara.

Here is the petition they signed:

We are excited to see the proposal for interim housing with on-site supportive services at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway put forth by the County of Santa Clara and LifeMoves, and we encourage the City of Santa Clara to cosponsor a Homekey Application with LifeMoves and make this proposal a reality.

This is a significant, serious, and promising proposal that will be of vital service to our unhoused and unsheltered neighbors. Please support and co-sponsor this project to help make this important proposal a reality as soon as possible.

You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you in the attached PDF.

Thank you,
South Bay YIMBY
Action Network Sent via Action Network, a free online toolset anyone can use to organize. Click here to sign up and get started building an email list and creating online actions today.

Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes. We encourage responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper action. We do not control or endorse the conduct of users and make no representations of any kind about them.

You can unsubscribe or update your email address or change your name and address by changing your subscription preferences here.

Santa Clara City Council,
158 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to Create Interim Housing in Santa Clara.

Here is the petition they signed:

We are excited to see the proposal for interim housing with on-site supportive services at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway put forth by the County of Santa Clara and LifeMoves, and we encourage the City of Santa Clara to co-sponsor a Homekey Application with LifeMoves and make this proposal a reality. This is a significant, serious, and promising proposal that will be of vital service to our unhoused and unsheltered neighbors. Please support and co-sponsor this project to help make this important proposal a reality as soon as possible.

You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.

Thank you,
South Bay YIMBY

1. Aaron Bloom (ZIP code: 94041)

2. Agnes Veith (ZIP code: 94086)
We need to help our community by building this much-needed housing.

3. ADAM BUCHBINDER (ZIP code: 95008)

4. Adam Schwartz (ZIP code: 94301)
Please create this interim housing program!

5. Adam Sweeney (ZIP code: 95129)
This is a great location for supportive housing. My family lived in the neighborhood next door (Birdland) for several years. Building more housing for our homeless population is so important.

Please support this project and help it to move forward.

6. Adriana Robles (ZIP code: 95020)

7. Alejandra Bellavance (ZIP code: 95037)

8. Alex Melendrez (ZIP code: 94066)

9. Alex Shoor (ZIP code: 95126)

10. Ali Sapirman (ZIP code: 95130)

11. Allysson McDonald (ZIP code: 95035)
Supportive housing is the only solution to our homeless crisis. The community queue is heavy with folks who are at high risk and no place to go. Please do the right thing and welcome people home to safety and comfort.

Thank you for your courage!

12. Angus Liu (ZIP code: 94086)

13. Anne Paulson (ZIP code: 94024)
Dear City Council, You know that allowing this housing is the right thing. Be strong. Do the right thing.

14. Rachel Gilbert (ZIP code: 94043)

15. Arely Trujillo (ZIP code: 95037)

16. Ayushi S (ZIP code: 95051)

17. Magdalena (Beth) Locquiao (ZIP code: 95148)

18. Kathryn Hedges (ZIP code: 95112)

19. Brad LeVeck (ZIP code: 94301)
We need more housing like this all over the Bay Area, as well as more market rate housing.

20. Bob Kenyon (ZIP code: 95112)
One more small step toward the elimination of homelessness.

21. Steven Vanphavong (ZIP code: 95127)

22. Bradley Gardner (ZIP code: 95051)
Excited to see that this space will be put to good use. We desperately need supportive housing in Santa Clara to help get people off the street.

23. Bud Enayati (ZIP code: 94043)
Please take the action to create Interim Housing in Santa Clara.

Thank you!

24. Brian Wheatley (ZIP code: 95118)
When we provide unhoused folks a place to live, they are no longer homeless!

25. Gayle Boesch (ZIP code: 95126)

26. Cam Coulter (ZIP code: 95136)

27. Carole Gonsalves (ZIP code: 95120)

28. Carolyn Wang (ZIP code: 94306)

29. Chris Chelberg (ZIP code: 94043)

30. Cameron Cheung (ZIP code: 95148)

31. Charity Silkebakken (ZIP code: 95051)
We need housing! Let’s show Santa Clara is a place of hospitality and kindness.

32. Christopher Perry (ZIP code: 95050)

33. Christiann Savage (ZIP code: 95054)
I volunteer to clean the Guadalupe, which is filled with trash from unhoused folks with nowhere else to stay. Housing like this is good for people, AND it is good for the environment! This interim housing will help keep the river clean - please support it.

34. Christie Thomas (ZIP code: 95037)
Please consider providing these much needed units for this very vulnerable population.

35. Mary Wisenwski (ZIP code: 95051)
I support making housing to support our community members returning to stable dignified lives.

36. Cooper Veit (ZIP code: 02139)
I support the interim housing project after careful study.

37. Cheryl Shyba (ZIP code: 95033)

38. Carolyn Campbell (ZIP code: 95051)
Please don't give up on using this site for desperately needed housing for our unhoused population.

39. Connie Cunningham (ZIP code: 95014)
Housing for unsheltered people is a critical need! I am excited to see this proposal. Please approve this project now!

40. Daniel Hulse (ZIP code: 94040)

41. Daphne Ross (ZIP code: 94024)
People should not be living on the streets and this is an ideal site. Let's work together as a community to make this work.

42. Diana Le (ZIP code: 95122)
I support this property!

43. Diane Guinta (ZIP code: 94024)
Please support as much interim housing as possible. It protects people’s health, supports their dignity and is a first step to recovery from whatever landed them in an unhoused situation.

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 "Yes!" 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
WATCH 50° LOG IN
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…
01:11 01:12
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 strongly oppose the proposal, with 5,293 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 to reject 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

3.8 Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing 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

5.2 Operation Cost Concerns 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

7.1 False and misleading information 30

7.2 LifeMoves' Lack of Transparency on Site Plans and Impact Data 31

7.3 Response to Meeting Requests 32

7.4 Discriminatory Site Selection Concern 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 residents1 would 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.
3 https://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 According to county data5, over half of Santa Clara's homeless population have criminal backgrounds, spent time in jail, and suffer from serious mental illness. Testimony from police, council members in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale showed 80%-90% of the homeless population in Santa Clara have drug addictions. The low barrier design of the Benton project would allow individuals with criminal backgrounds, drug addicts, and those with serious mental illnesses to reside in the facility and stay in the neighborhood. These individuals will increase the likelihood of criminal activity and disturbances, disrupting the lives of nearby residents and students. This assumption is fully evidenced by the spike in crime at and around Mountain View Leghorn, Milpitas Hillview, and the Kifer Calabazas Community supportive housing sites, including violence, burglary, stolen vehicles, rape, and drug-related crimes.

The city of Santa Clara has not shown any signs of being prepared to handle an increase in crime rates associated with the project. Santa Clara's police force is already understaffed, and current California laws make it difficult to control or remove problematic or dangerous occupants. The increased demand on police resources from the Benton site could take away resources from the rest of residents, lead to slower response times and an overall increase in crime throughout the city.
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 4 https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public-works/environmental-programs/stormwater pollution-prevention/stormwater-resources-for-development-construction The Benton project will negatively impact surrounding businesses as well, as evidenced by the recent closures of Whole Foods' flagship store in San Francisco, closure of a CVS near a Homekey site in San Jose due to employee and public safety concerns, and the sale of the business park next to Milpitas' site by its owner6. In addition, businesses surrounding the Mountain View Leghorn site have had to add security. We do not want Santa Clara to become another city that loses its businesses.

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 statistics8 show 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/2019 SCC Homeless Census and Survey Report.pdf 7 https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/Housing First Guidance Checklist.pdf 6 https://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
The comparable Milpitas project provides solid evidence on crime spikes. The supportive housing at 1000 Hillview Ct opened at the end of 2020. The city is seeing striking crime statistics, with total police calls increasing by 300% and total fire calls by 400% in 2022. The average police service time is close to 50 hours per month, and crimes include assault, drug-related offenses, burglary, rape, sex offender incidents, stolen vehicles, and other suspicious circumstances. Mayor Carmen and Councilmember Chua challenged the county's admission criteria, claiming that the screening process was not working and that problematic tenants and drug addictions were not being removed.

Additionally, the county had promised that they will prioritize Milpitas homeless in this facility.

Yet, only 10 Milpitas homeless individuals live within the 132 unit apartment in 2022. There is no staff onsite to repair elevators, fire alarms, smoke detectors. Finally, tenants from the business park next door are leaving due to the negative impacts from 1000 Hillview Court Apartment.

Please note that this facility is a permanent housing with a screening process. The interim housing at Benton with minimal screening will surely be much worse.

2.2.2 Public Safety data on LifeMoves Mountain View
The LifeMoves Mountain View site opened mid 2021. Since its opening, the number of police calls has increased significantly, rising from 3 calls in 2020 to 94 in 2021 (7 months) and 141 in 2022. We are currently requesting more data from the Mountain View Police Department to further analyze the situation in the nearby neighborhood, based on complaints from that site’s neighbors.

Number of police calls over the years
Police call by type

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 KQED9that 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) patrons will regularly 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).
10 https://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.

The management and operation of Milpitas HomeKey project is also poor and problematic. ● In Hillview Ct, people with severe criminal backgrounds were admitted ● Ziploc bags of meth were found onsite
● Problematic tenants and drug addictions were not likely to be removed from the site due to State law.
● Only 10 Milpitas homeless live 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.” ● 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 addressed immediately.
11 ”
● As of February 2023:
○ Milpitas requested additional police officers 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.

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.

Since its opening in mid 2021, the number of police calls has increased significantly, rising from 3 calls in 2020 to 94 in 2021 and 141 in 2022. We are currently requesting more data from the Mountain View Police Department to further analyze the situation. 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
The Benton location is not a vacant or abandoned land as claimed by the county. In fact, it is one of the last few places in the area where regular community and family events take place during traditional holidays such as Christmas and Halloween. According to ABC Tree Farms, the Benton land sees approximately 2,500-3,000 local families visiting each year for community and family events during the holiday seasons. This is an irreplaceable community and family tradition for local families. There are many vacant lots in the business area of Santa Clara that could be used for shelter at similar or cheaper cost. It is inhumane, reckless, and against the spirit of democracy for the city and county to force the community lot to be taken away from local residents when they have many other options available and face 90% opposition from local residents if placed at Benton.

3.2 Distance to schools
There are 15 schools and at least 31 daycares within 1.5 miles of Benton location, serving over 11 thousands students and families. No other communities in Santa Clara have such a dense concentration of schools.

Allowing individuals with a variety of criminal backgrounds, including assault, robbery, drugs, attempted homicide, and sex offenses, as well as many with severe mental instability and drug addiction to reside near schools, families with young children, and senior citizens can pose a significant threat to the health, safety and well-being of the community. People with criminal backgrounds may have a history of violence or other criminal activities, putting children and families at risk of harm. Sex offenders, in particular, may have a high risk of reoffending, and living in close proximity to potential victims could increase that risk. Drug addicts, meanwhile, may engage in behavior that is disruptive or dangerous, potentially leading to violence or other criminal activity. Drug addicts and alcoholics cannot be expected to kick the habit within a couple of months. They would be better served at an inpatient facility dedicated to such illnesses.

Furthermore, children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of living near individuals with criminal backgrounds, sex offenders, and drug addicts. Exposure to such individuals can lead to emotional trauma, anxiety, and fear, and negatively impact children's mental health and overall well-being. Additionally, children may be more susceptible to the influence of these individuals, potentially leading to early exposure to drug use or 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
The county and councilmember Suds Jain claimed that building near El Camino Real will help homeless individuals find jobs.

However, currently neither the county nor LifeMoves have provided any data to show that:
1) Living near El Camino Real is crucial for the homeless to find jobs; 2) El Camino Real offers more job opportunities for individuals with criminal records, drug addiction, and mental health issues than other locations in Santa Clara city; 3) Homeless individuals can only find work near their place of residence.

In fact, the majority of the homeless population in Santa Clara lacks the desire and ability to find employment, with many individuals not wanting to work or needing to overcome drug addiction or mental health issues first.

Those who are willing and able to find work would not be limited to only one street. Many of these individuals also have cars, and for those who do not, it is more important for the site to be near a bus stop. However, the Benton project is nearly 1 mile away from the closest bus stop.

In reality, jobs such as cleaning and floor maintenance are more abundant in industrial and commercial areas than in residential 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
There is a liquor store across from the site, and the 7-Eleven also sells alcohol. They pose a potential safety hazard for over 60% of the residents with addiction, alcoholism, and mental health issues.

3.8 Proximity to Bella Vista Interim Housing
The Benton location is only half a mile away from Bella Vista Interim Housing. Having two interim housing projects with the "more challenging population" in one neighborhood is not only reckless but also irresponsible for the well-being of the residents and enjoyment of the community. The police have already experienced a higher than normal volume of calls from the Bella Vista site, which has only been open for less than two months. Adding another site in such close proximity will only exhaust police resources and take away resources from other residents in the neighborhood. Two sites in the same neighborhood will significantly consume public safety resources from other residents, slow down police response times, and eventually put the entire area in danger. There is no clear reason given why this neighborhood has to accept two HomeKey and interim housing projects, and why the homeless population has to be put in this neighborhood, other than ‘the property, an equipment lot, is owned by the county.’

3.9. Similar Project Locations & Facilities
Existing homeless shelters in Santa Clara County are primarily located in industrial or commercial areas, or separated from residential neighborhoods. This minimizes the impact of criminal activity and disturbances on nearby residents. However, the Benton project deviates from this pattern.

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, immediately adjacent 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
LifeMoves and the county have not provided complete design plans and management policies.

The only site plan13 the community was informed is the one at the second community meeting, which missed a lot of important aspects. There are more options with few units were shared in the last community meeting, but those are the site plans of LifeMoves’ Mountain View site and Palo Alto sites without any changes to adjust to the Benton site. So it’s not clear how those options are going to be useful 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.

Those aspects include but not limited to:
● Fence Design: The deck presented in the second community meeting only indicated that there would be 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. The existence and design of the fence can make a difference in how the shelter could impact the neighborhood. For example, 1000 Hillview Ct, the supportive housing in Milpitas, doesn’t have a fence, then it resulted in very negative impact to the nextdoor business park, leading to many businesses leaving and the owner putting the park on sale14. ● Entrance: There is no clear information regarding the number of entrances to the site and whether they will be controlled. Whether or not the entrance is fully controlled is critical for the safety of the site and neighborhood. Police testimonies have stated that crimes and damages can be a bit easier to mitigate if there is only one entrance in and out of the site, and the entrance is fully 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 (details please see section 1.4).
● 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 3 stories.

4.2 Onsite Policy
LifeMoves briefly mentioned during the third community meeting a few policies it planned to implement. However, these policies did not include any details on how they would be enforced.

Rules that lack enforcement or penalties are meaningless. Evidence from LifeMoves’ Mountain 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0sffdNLg&t=9458s, starts 2:58:00 View site showed that tenants who have conducted sextual harassment several times still stayed on the site, and site manager was not able to remove him15.

What County has briefly mentioned on site policy during the third community meeting It is also unclear how LifeMoves plans to conduct drug tests for its clients, as well as how the curfew policy and penalties will be implemented. Without drug tests, screening, curfews, and enforcement of its policies, it is reasonable to assume that problematic tenants on Benton will have a negative impact on the neighboring community.

Even if we assume LifeMoves could eventually carry out execution and enforcement plans, there are still concerns about how they can guarantee that they will not repeat the failures seen in other supportive housing sites, such as Leghorn in Mountain View and Hillview in Milpitas.

The Hillview site in Milpitas is a clear example of how poor management of supportive housing can have negative consequences, even though there are well documented policies. which caused alarm in the neighborhood. Furthermore, as more people were housed in the site, the reported cases of criminal behavior increased16. These issues have understandably made the 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 community skeptical about the potential success of the interim housing project.

Evidence on poor management for HomeKey Supportive Housing. From the presentation SafeSCC representative did in the public comment section on April 4 council meeting The operation of LifeMoves' Mountain View site demonstrates that their policies are not being enforced. We believe the city should not consider the project until LifeMoves and the county can guarantee a reduction in the number of units, stricter screening criteria, effective security measures, appropriate doctor/nurse over patient radio, and mandatory participation in on-site services and treatments.

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 Lifemoves and the county need to provide reassurance to the community by outlining clear plans for ensuring that those with severe criminal backgrounds are not admitted and that the number of residents does not lead to increased crime in the neighborhood. Without addressing these concerns, Lifemoves and the country cannot gain the trust of the community and the City should not consider the interim housing project.

4.3 Behavior outside the Site
In the third community meeting, Consuelo Hernandez and LifeMoves presented the policy at LifeMoves site. However, there has never been a discussion on how to manage individuals who do not follow regulations in the interim housing, or a protocol for removing individuals who do not follow regulations and where they will be placed.

If individuals who violate regulations in the interim housing are not properly managed, and are allowed to remain in the surrounding neighborhood, it could pose a significant risk to the safety of the community.

According to Milpitas Chief Police, many unhoused in the area prefer their space and freedom to use illegal drugs. They do not want to be in close quarters with other potentially dangerous people or have to follow rules. Tenants will spend their days away from the facility in the local parks where they can meet with their friends who are not allowed into the facility. But, Lifemoves and the county have not shared any plan to mitigate the potential safety impact on the nearby community from the proposed interim housing. The examples from other housing sites, such as Hillview in Milpitas, where ziploc bags of meth were found in the surrounding neighborhood17 ,
and incidents of trespassing and spitting have been reported, highlight the need for a clear and effective plan to manage client behavior in the surrounding areas. Similarly, at Leghorn in Mountain View, the owner of an adjacent auto body shop had to clean up litter regularly. Given the proposed location of the Benton project, which is closer to residential areas than other sites, it is crucial for Lifemoves and the county to address these concerns carefully. They must have a clear and effective plan in place to regulate and manage the behavior of interim housing clients in the surrounding area to minimize any negative impact on the neighborhood's safety and well-being. Without a comprehensive plan, community trust in the project will be undermined, and the City should vote no for this project given its current stage.

Section 5: Fiscal & Developer Concerns

5.1 City Finance Implications & LifeMoves Financial Reliability This is a new and experimental project and there is concern about LifeMoves’ ability to deliver without significant impact to city finances. To date, LifeMoves has successfully delivered only one similar facility - a single story, 100 person development at Leghorn Street in Mountain view. The Benton project will be radically different - 3-4 stories high, on a smaller lot but occupying 200% of occupants, in a high-density residential neighborhood, as opposed to commercial or brownfield area.

Even under the best-case scenario, the Benton project would impose a substantial financial burden on the City. During the last public meeting, Consuelo Hernandez disclosed that the project would require an estimated annual operating cost of $3.3 million to $4.3 million, translating to around $55,000 per person ($150 per person per night). This calls into question the credibility of LifeMoves' and the county's budgeting and planning.

LifeMoves cannot be trusted as a responsible financial partner for the City. A similar LifeMoves project still under development in Palo Alto has seen costs spiral from its original estimates of $17m by 202% or $17.4m, to $34.4m18, in just one year, leaving the city of Palo Alto with a $6 million funding gap. 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-project and 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
To save cost on construction for its Palo Alto site, LifeMoves is considering removing the 4/7 security it once promised the city of Palo Alto, removing spaces for supportive offices, and reducing the cost of its fence19.

5.2 Operation Cost Concerns
There are concerns among the public that the information provided about a certain project is not clear enough. Despite several rounds of public meetings, there are still unanswered questions that remain.
● One of the primary concerns is about who will cover the operation cost of the Benton project. It is unclear how much the Santa Clara city will be responsible for paying for the operation cost after the Homekey funding runs out.
● Additionally, if the construction cost exceeds the budget, it is not clear if the city will have to fill the funding gaps.
● Moreover, the public is curious to know if the county has made any commitment to financially support the shelter operation for the next 15 years.

These unanswered questions are causing anxiety among the community and need to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure transparency and accountability in the project. If the fiscal questions regarding the project are not properly answered, it could make people more concerned about the service quality and staffing in the housing project.

5.3 Concerns over LifeMoves

5.3.1 Insufficient licensed nurse
A psychiatric unit requires a minimum 1:6 licensed nurse/patient radio, 24 hours a day by California law. Yet LifeMoves recommends only ONE vocational nurse for 200 unscreened homeless tenants20. With 57% of occupants having serious mental issues, the nurse/patient ratio is far behind the law requirement.

5.3.2 Failed management in LifeMoves’ sites
According to the latest news report, LifeMoves Mountain View site has failed to fulfill its commitment to help the homeless too. 281 clients exited the program between its opening May 2021 and September 2022, only 73 individuals, or 26%, were placed in permanent housing, the 2nd lowest rate of successful exit in the county.
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 The lack of services in a community can have detrimental effects on its residents and surrounding businesses21. In one particular area, multiple clients have reported not receiving specialized support in searching for housing. This issue is compounded by the shortage of case managers and housing specialists, and the absence of licensed nurses, leaving only interns to provide medical assistance.

In addition, testimonies from nearby businesses indicate a rise in crime, such as burglaries and littering issues. These crimes have led to businesses taking matters into their own hands and hiring a 24/7 security guard at their own expense. To address this issue, the local government has stepped in, and MTV has added a dedicated police force to patrol the site. However, without adequate services and support, the community may continue to struggle with these challenges.

5.3.3 Staffing shortage and disqualification
LifeMoves’s projects have faced serious issues with management and staffing, leading to a lack of adequate services for clients and crimes that impact the surrounding community. In 2021, the first program director physically assaulted a former client, and an outstanding arrest warrant for the director still exists.

Furthermore, a former client reported multiple cases of sexual harassment, but the second site director could not remove the harassers due to LifeMoves' policy against relocating drug addicts until they overcome their addiction, which is nearly impossible in the 90-120 day timeframe.

In just 1.5 years of operation, the project has already shuffled at least three directors. In terms of services, multiple clients have not received specialized support in searching for housing, and there is a shortage of case managers, housing specialists, and licensed nurses.

The crimes reported by nearby businesses include burglaries and littering issues, leading them to hire a 24/7 security guard at their own expense. The MTV site has added a dedicated police force to patrol the area, highlighting the severity of the safety concerns in the community.

Although Covid-19 may be a contributing factor to the labor shortage, the trend existed before the pandemic. Given the ongoing struggle to provide sufficient and competent staff at their current locations, it may be more prudent for LifeMoves to focus on improving these sites rather than opening new ones, which could worsen the staffing crisis. 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
Bella Vista has just opened. It would make more sense to wait and see how it works out with the burden it adds to the police and the neighborhood before deciding whether or not the same neighborhood can bear another HomeKey project.

Similarly, the Braham project, the radical experiment in San Jose that is often cited by the County, just started construction a few days ago. It would be rational and wise to wait until it starts operating and see how the site affects the nearby neighborhood. Only if everything goes as the county and LifeMoves have promised, then it could be the time to re-propose another similar shelter at Benton. Otherwise, the county and LifeMoves would be repeating the same mistakes.

At the same time, neighboring cities such as Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Cupertino seem to be making no progress on projects under HomeKey. It is evident that the taxpayers of the City of Santa Clara are effectively being asked to make significant expenditures to support solutions for other nearby cities.

Section 7: Credibility and Accountability of the
County and LifeMoves

7.1 False and misleading information
County and LifeMoves have consistently provided false or misleading information (see the tables below), such as incorrect school numbers, and have confused the community with shelter terminologies. Furthermore, housing advocates who don't live in the neighborhood were invited to speak in support at all four community meetings. This has greatly eroded the trust and confidence of local residents in both County and LifeMoves. It is imperative that County and LifeMoves take steps to demonstrate their reliability and accountability before proceeding with any further actions. Residents of the neighborhood need to see evidence that these organizations are trustworthy and can be held responsible for their actions.

7.2 LifeMoves' Lack of Transparency on Site Plans and Impact Data
LifeMoves has failed to provide an updated plan to date. The only site plan we can refer to is the one presented in the first community meeting in February. Additionally, LifeMoves has not provided updates on site design, including but not limited to fence design, entrance design, and security design. They have also not provided details regarding how they can enforce the site policy.

Similarly, LifeMoves has not been able to provide any data showing how many of its residents have located permanent housing, found a job, or found a job near the site. They have also not provided data showing that the site does not have any negative impact on the nearby residents or neighborhood. In contrast, we have data from the local police department and news reporters, showing an obvious crime spike and negative impact to the nearby neighborhood.

7.3 Response to Meeting Requests
Ms. Counsuelo Hernandez emailed a few members of SafeSCC that she wanted to meet with the community and address their concerns. However, some community members emailed her back several times to set up a meeting but have received no confirmation to date. According to a community member, Consuelo Hernandez replied back saying she is available, but when the member replied back to confirm the exact date and time, she disappeared again. Her inconsistency with community concerns is consistent: it seems she doesn’t care about the community, contrary to what she claimed in the community meetings, and is not interested in their concerns nor listening. Furthermore, she is not respectful of community members' time and input, which is consistent in her performance, leaving hundreds of community questions unanswered to date (even questions from the first community meeting on Feb 13 haven't been fully answered after more than 2 months) in all four community meetings' invites to meet.

7.4 Discriminatory Site Selection Concern
Additionally, the neighborhood has raised concerns that the city and county chose this location due to the fact that the local residents are largely from minority populations or new immigrants.

This is perceived as a discriminatory act, targeting racial minority taxpayers and voters to sacrifice their safety and interests, and may have legal implications.

Section 8: Alternative Land
Opposite to what we have been stereotyped and misunderstood as “selfish house owners”, our empathetic community cares a lot about homeless people and truly want to help. We will never surrender to sacrifice community safety, yet there are alternative plans we will consider.

Alternative plans that will end in a win-win situation.

We have so far identified several lands that are not in use and are convenient to job opportunities, facilities and transportation.

The City and County should continue their search for suitable lands if pursuing interim housing remains a goal.

1. De La Cruz Blvd & El Camino Real
The site is next to Santa Clara Police Station. An expansion to the existing supportive housing facility can be built to accommodate the unhoused population.

2. South Bay Fwy & Lafayette St.

There are several unused lands near the intersection of South Bay Fwy and Lafayette St.

3. Lincoln St & Civic Center Dr.

There is a piece of unused land next to Santa Clara City Hall.

4. Parking Lots at Levi's Stadium
There are several parking lots near Levi’s Stadium. An interim housing can be built at the corner of one of the lots.

5. Central Expy & San Tomas Expy
There is a piece of unused land near the intersection of Central Expy and San Tomas Expy.

Section 9: Best use for Benton land
Proximity to schools makes the Benton site a potential good fit for “rent-to-own” affordable housing for teachers who have a livelihood in or around Santa Clara.

This “rent-to-own” affordable 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.

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 approval 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 STRONGLY 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 costeffective 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
STRONGLY 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 STRONLY 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. You 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. You 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-datashows/ 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 STRONGLY 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
STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONLY 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 STRONGLY 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 acceptablethis 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. You 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. You 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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. You CAN do better. You 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 Yes 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 nonresidential 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%). You 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 STRONGLY 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 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 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 STRONGLY 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. Yet our government keeps letting this proposal move forward with changing content, despite this is a proposal receiving historical number of opposition from nearby residents. Listen to them (instead of housing advocate supporters) and vote no!
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. STRONGLY!!!
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
Yesterday, while walking my dog on Homestead Road, I encountered a homeless individual smoking drugs.

Additionally, my neighbor's front yard was once used as a sleeping spot for a homeless individual until the police had to intervene. Our community is not an appropriate location for a homeless shelter. The proposed shelter would be located near residential areas, posing a significant threat to the safety of our families and children.

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
STRONGLY 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 zerotransparency 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 Yes 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 Yes 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 Yes 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
STRONGLY 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
STRONGLY 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
STRONGLY 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 zerotransparency 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. Yes 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
Yes, 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.
...

← All documents from this meeting