Thank you,
Thanh-Nhan Nguyen
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Christian Wruck
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
news regarding the 1 Branham resident that sexually assaulted a teenage girl. There are other residents residing at the facility that are also on Megan’s Law.
1 Branham has turned this neighborhood into an unsafe area. This area is home to many families with small children, including mine. Many families around here have moved or considered moving due to 1 Branham.
Please convert 1 Branham to permanent housing for individuals with disabilities and for individuals 55 and older.
Regards,
Kathy Nguyen
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I truly believe that turning this facility into permanent housing would benefit everyone in this area.
It is so close to a public library, park and school and in my opinion should have never been built for this type of housing to begin with. When we were told this facility was going to be built, it was sold to us that it would be housing for the "working" homeless. When the question was asked during the last CAC meeting, we were told that a very low percentage of the residents are actually employed.
I am looking forward to hopefully seeing this proposal come to fruition to benefit everyone that has been impacted since the opening of this facility over a year ago.
Thanks for taking the time to read this email.
Denise Murray
Concerned Homeowner
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fiscal Responsibility: By transitioning to a permanent housing model, the City can significantly reduce or even eliminate the heavy ongoing operational costs associated with maintaining interim shelter facilities.
Neighborhood Compatibility: Permanent housing is a much more compatible land use for this specific residential area, fostering a sense of stability and community integration for both residents and neighbors.
I also appreciate the thoughtful approach to the transition period. It is vital that we continue to protect our most vulnerable residents. I fully support the plan to maintain emergency shelter availability for individuals with disabilities and those aged 55 or older through a preference program managed by the County and the shelter operator.
This proposal offers a sustainable path forward that balances immediate needs with long-term community goals. I urge you to move forward with Pamela Campos's recommendation.
Sincerely,
Madhur Khadabadi
Resident of District 2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Children in the immediate area are regularly exposed to public drug use on Lost Trail Court, public urination, erratic behavior, and other disturbing and inappropriate activity believed to be associated with individuals from the EIH facility. This environment is completely unacceptable for families and young children.
Unfortunately, these concerns have involved not only some clients, but also employees of LifeMoves, which has further eroded trust and confidence that the facility is being operated in a manner that protects the surrounding neighborhood.
In addition, several townhomes in the area have been extremely difficult to sell due to the EIH facility towering over nearby homes and becoming the primary view from many residents’ bedroom windows.
This has had a serious negative impact on both quality of life and property values, creating significant financial hardship for homeowners who invested in this community in good faith.
I firmly believe the only way to restore safety, stability, and livability to the surrounding neighborhoods is to change the population the facility serves. Converting the site to low-income permanent housing for residents age 55 and older would address many of the current safety concerns while still providing housing for those in need, and would be far more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Sue Buckley
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Councilmember Campos is correct: we have more than done our part in Council District 2 with some of the largest interim housing communities in the city. However, interim housing is meant to be a bridge, not a permanent destination. The lack of transition options means these sites can unfortunately become dead ends rather than true stepping stones to stability.
Converting 1 Branham Lane into permanent, supportive, low-income housing for seniors an excellent solution to the challenges that have plagued this EIH location as it provides the security, stability, and dignity that our senior community members need to thrive, rather than managing a revolving door of emergency crises in a family neighborhood.
I urge the City Council to support this transition, invest in long-term solutions, and stabilize our neighborhood by converting this site to permanent housing.
Best regards,
Brandi Muniz
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Shaoqian Wang
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. of 1 Branham EIH from homeless apartment to permanent housing for people with disabilities and those aged 55 or older.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alison Guo
I'm not sure who would be responsible for those expenditures, but I doubt that the park owners would be willing to take on those costs. RV owners would then need to meet the requirements set by the parks for proof of financial solvency unless the City plans to cover all expenses incurred.
Even if those issues could be resolved this would mean bringing an unknown element into an established community that would change its identity, culture and possibly the safety of its residents. Would park owners and residents have a choice in this or would it be forced on them in some way?
This should have been thought through more carefully by the Mayor's staff. It seems like it is just a proposal on paper that will go nowhere but will make the Mayor look like he's addressing the problem while he is campaigning to run for the Governor's office. I am strongly opposed to this proposal and hope that the Council will reject it and come up with a less expensive and divisive way to find places for these RVs.
Sincerely,
Daniel Finn
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Martha O'Connell <
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 5:00:31 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Agendadesk <[email protected]>; Taber, Toni <[email protected]>; martha O'Connell >; Quevedo, Matthew <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Fleming, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Kolander, Grace <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Lucas <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; d4.sj. David Cohen <[email protected]>; Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: CC 3-17-26 Item 3.3
Please put in the Council packet
03/17/2026 ITEM: 3.3
I support the letter from Candelas, Campos, Ortiz, Doan, and Casey on item 3.3 - the introduction of long-term RV parking within established mobile home communities.
First of all, such a move mandates permitting from the State of California, HCD (Housing and Community Development). You can’t “just do it.”
I have been asked these questions by numerous residents and I ask them now again in this letter:
I have been asked if outreach was made to GSMOL on this issue I said no.
I have been asked if the City intends to buy RVs for the homeless and move them into Mobilehome Parks.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I said I have no idea.
I have been asked if such folks will be required to meet the 3 X space rent net monthly income threshold.
I said I have no idea.
I have been asked by residents what, if any, case management is going to be provided since the demographics of RV folks now in MH Parks may be dif ferent from RV folks on the streets.
I said I have no idea.
I have been asked if the City intends to ask Park owners to eliminate open spaces, ponds, community facilities to provide more spaces for RVs.
I said I have no idea.
Again, I support the Doan et al memo.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you!
Eli
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you!
John
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, Councilmembers, and Staff, Please find attached a letter from the REAL Coalition regarding Item 3.3, Approval of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Mayor’s March Budget Message.
We look forward to your discussion on this topic.
Best,
Shannon Zhang | Nonprofit Policy + Advocacy Associate
Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
| Web: svcn.org| LinkedIn | Instagram
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Save the date! SVCN's inaugural Nonprofit Convergence conference:
May 6, 2026, at the San Jose Marriott.
March 16, 2026
Mayor & City Council, et. al
City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San José, CA 95113
Sent via electronic mail
REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum
Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Race Equity Action Leadership (REAL) Coalition, we submit this letter in response to the Mayor’s March Budget Message and the March 13 memorandum from Councilmembers Campos, Ortiz, Doan, Candelas, and Casey, responding to the Message. We thank the Councilmembers who authored the March memorandum (Council memorandum) for elevating affordability as a key priority and emphasizing several priorities that align with community concerns, including homelessness prevention and support for families and young children, youth, and older adults.
As the City begins difficult budget deliberations, REAL urges the Council to center decisions on affordability, racial equity, and household stability, consistent with the principles outlined in our recently submitted framework, STAY in San José: A Racial Equity Affordability Framework for FY 2026-27.
Affordability is not a peripheral issue—it is the defining challenge facing San José residents. Budget decisions that determine whether people can remain housed, access childcare, avoid eviction, or maintain economic stability must therefore be evaluated through an affordability and racial equity lens.
These affordability pressures are not evenly distributed. Rising housing costs, displacement, and economic instability disproportionately affect Black residents, Latino residents, immigrant communities, and other historically marginalized groups who have faced decades of housing discrimination, exclusionary zoning, and unequal access to wealth-building opportunities. In San José, Black households in particular continue to experience some of the highest rates of rent burden, displacement risk, and housing instability. As the City evaluates difficult
REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
budget choices, it must do so consistent with the Racial and Social Equity Ordinance and Equity Values and Standards Policy, which require the City to identify and address policies that exacerbate disparities and to center the needs of communities most impacted by inequity.
REAL Coalition Priority Recommendations
In particular, we urge the Council to prioritize the following actions in the FY 2026–27 budget:
1. Expand Homelessness Prevention Investments
Increase funding for the Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) and related stabilization programs, including flexible financial assistance and eviction prevention services that keep families, older adults, and vulnerable residents housed.
2. Pilot a Code Enforcement–Linked Right to Counsel Program Establish a modest pilot program providing legal representation to tenants facing displacement as a result of code enforcement actions, ensuring that efforts to improve housing conditions do not inadvertently push vulnerable residents into homelessness.
3. Sustain and Strengthen Violence Prevention and Youth Programs Maintain and expand investments in community-based violence prevention initiatives, including youth-serving programs like BEST, recognizing that prevention-focused approaches improve community safety while supporting young people and families.
4. Maintain and Expand Immigrant Protection and Support Services Ensure sustained funding for immigrant protection efforts—including Rapid Response Network services, legal assistance, and Know-Your-Rights programs—so that immigrant families can live, work, and participate in civic life without fear.
These priorities are embedded in the broader framework outlined in STAY in San José, which centers affordability, tenant protections, and household stability as essential components of the City’s racial equity commitments.
REAL Comments Organized by STAY in San José Framework
1. Prioritize Permanent Housing and Prevention Over Costly Temporary Systems REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
REAL appreciates the Council memorandum’s emphasis on reducing inflow into homelessness and expanding prevention efforts, including:
● directing the City Manager to evaluate strategies to reduce homelessness inflow
● exploring increasing the share of Measure E funds for homelessness prevention
● reinvesting savings from interim housing operations into Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) programming
These proposals reflect a growing consensus that preventing homelessness is both more humane and far more cost-effective than responding after people lose housing.
At the same time, we remain concerned that the Mayor’s March Budget Message continues to center San José’s homelessness strategy on the Emergency Interim Housing (EIH) system, which has required hundreds of millions in capital and operating costs while permanent housing production has not kept pace. The prioritization of EIH creates an ongoing budget burden that cannot solve the housing crisis or the unhoused crisis on its own.
The Mayor’s budget message calls for the City to “optimize” its current homelessness response strategies. However, optimizing approaches that are not producing durable housing outcomes will not resolve the crisis. Recent discussions in the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee highlighted that while hundreds of enforcement actions have been taken against unhoused residents under the City’s current “code of conduct” approach, this strategy has produced exactly zero documented placements into shelter or housing (“throughputs”) as a result of police “outreach.” At the same time, the City continues to face a severe shortage of deeply affordable housing and limited capacity in prevention programs that keep residents from becoming homeless in the first place.
San José should focus its efforts on strategies that demonstrably stabilize households—such as prevention, deeply affordable housing, and tenant protections.
We are particularly concerned about proposals to reduce interim housing costs through resident fees or other “shared responsibility” models. Requiring REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
extremely low-income residents to contribute financially to interim shelter raises serious concerns about whether such policies could undermine residents’ ability to stabilize financially and transition to permanent housing (by, for example, saving for a security deposit for a rental unit).
It is also deeply concerning to charge residents fees for living in shelters when many individuals enter the system through police-led outreach and enforcement actions. In an environment where people reasonably fear citation or arrest if they remain outside, requiring extremely low-income residents to pay for shelter raises serious ethical concerns and may undermine their ability to stabilize.
San José should instead focus on strategies that address the root drivers of homelessness, including:
● expanding homelessness prevention and eviction stabilization programs ● increasing the supply of deeply affordable permanent housing ● preserving existing affordable housing stock
2. Protect and Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
San José cannot solve its affordability crisis solely through new construction and most certainly not anytime soon. The City must also protect the housing that residents already rely on.
REAL remains concerned that the Mayor’s budget message focuses heavily on streamlining development and reducing regulatory barriers without identifying new resources for deeply affordable housing.
In particular, proposals encouraging reinvestment or redevelopment of older multifamily housing raise concerns about the potential loss of naturally occurring and rent-controlled affordable housing—often the most accessible housing for low-income residents, older adults, and immigrant families (without public subsidy).
Specifically, proposals to weaken tenant protections through changes to the Ellis Act are a policy idea that refuses to stay buried, despite longstanding evidence that such changes accelerate displacement. Redevelopment and redevelopment incentives that do not include strong tenant protections and replacement requirements risk worsening affordability rather than improving it.
REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
REAL also supports the direction in the Council memorandum to explore the Working Families Housing proposal in partnership with regional jurisdictions, labor unions, and institutional investors. Developing new financing models that leverage pension funds and public-private partnerships could help produce permanently affordable housing for working families while reducing reliance on scarce public subsidy.
Again, we encourage the Council to strengthen strategies that:
● preserve rent-stabilized housing
● protect tenants from displacement
● invest in deeply affordable housing production
3. Stabilize Tenants and Prevent Displacement
REAL appreciates the Council memorandum’s direction to explore proactive code enforcement in Project Hope neighborhoods and partnerships with legal organizations and community-based organizations to support tenant protections.
These approaches recognize that housing stability requires not only building housing, but also ensuring that existing housing is safe and tenants can exercise their rights.
At the same time, code enforcement strategies must be implemented carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Enforcement programs that focus solely on buildings without supporting tenants may inadvertently trigger displacement if repairs or redevelopment lead to eviction.
We encourage the City to ensure that proactive code enforcement strategies include:
● tenant legal support; we respectfully ask for a MBA that evaluates the costs (and benefits) of an eviction representation pilot that prioritizes those in Tier 2 or Tier 3 buildings who are high risk of displacement and retaliation from landlords
● displacement prevention strategies
● partnerships with community-based organizations that protect tenants
4. Invest in Youth, Families, and Community-Based Prevention REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
REAL appreciates several elements of the Council memorandum that prioritize investments in youth and families, including:
● increasing funding for implementation of the Children and Youth Services Master Plan to $1 million
● protecting programs such as BEST and other youth violence prevention and intervention initiatives
● recognizing the importance of affordable childcare
We appreciate the Mayor’s inclusion of $500,000 in one-time funding to support the Children and Youth Services Master Plan priorities.
However, the scale of these investments does not yet match the urgency of the challenges facing young people and families. Community-based nonprofit organizations are already delivering culturally responsive youth programming and violence prevention services that are critical to neighborhood stability. Sustaining and expanding these programs should remain a priority.
REAL also supports the memorandum’s recognition that affordable childcare is a major economic issue for families, and we encourage the City to continue working with Santa Clara County and community providers to strengthen childcare access.
We support recommendation 29 of the Council memorandum to provide alternative funding options to sustain the Family, Friends, and Neighbors (FFN) Caregiver Support Network. We also recommend evaluating a community benefit strategy that potentially takes advantage of incoming data centers to fund childcare and other affordability and economic empowerment strategies.
5. Advance Community Safety Through Community-Based Solutions REAL appreciates the Council memorandum’s emphasis on prevention and community investment, including protecting programs such as Project Hope and strengthening youth programming.
However, we remain concerned that the Mayor’s budget message continues to prioritize enforcement-based strategies and expanded surveillance technologies while investing comparatively less in community-based responses.
San José and Santa Clara County have already made important progress in developing alternative response programs such as TRUST, which connect residents REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
experiencing mental health crises with appropriate care rather than relying solely on police response. Protecting and even expanding this successful model would improve outcomes while reducing reliance on more expensive emergency, policing, and carceral systems.
Last year’s budget missed an opportunity to invest in—at very low cost—a community-designed, community-based strategy to prevent and intervene in interpersonal violence. This strategy should be revisited; communities should be given the support and tools to design their own solutions, drawing on the lived experience, trust, and knowledge that already exist within their neighborhoods.
We encourage the City to continue strengthening community-based safety strategies that prevent harm and stabilize neighborhoods.
6. Support Immigrant Communities and Small Businesses
REAL appreciates the Council memorandum’s direction to continue to protect those impacted by immigration enforcement concerns.
Immigrant families and immigrant-owned businesses are essential to San José’s economic vitality. Policies that create fear or economic instability within immigrant communities have ripple effects across neighborhoods and local economies.
We also appreciate the Mayor’s acknowledgement of the importance of immigrant support services, including legal assistance and rapid response programs. However, the current proposal identifies no dedicated funding allocation for the coming fiscal year, raising major concerns about the sustainability of these services during a period of uniquely heightened need. REAL stands in solidarity with our immigrant-serving partners in requesting that the City sustain the $1 million in funding for immigrant protection and support and honor the Mayor’s previously stated goal of raising $500,000 from philanthropic organizations.
7. Ensure Budget Decisions Advance Affordability and Equity Over Non-Essential or Ineffective Initiatives
REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
At a time when San José faces a profound affordability crisis, the City must be clear-eyed about the consequences of its budget choices. While community-based services that stabilize households are being eliminated, reduced, or not renewed—including immigrant protection services, older adult nutrition and legal programs that prevent eviction, childcare provider training, family stabilization supports in East San José, and community-based crisis response—the Mayor’s proposal includes investments and directives that do not address root causes.
These include one-time expenditures related to major event preparation, expanded surveillance and artificial intelligence tools, additional enforcement pilots for blight and dumping, a staff study mission to San Diego, and the creation of an additional Strategic Partnerships position in the Mayor’s Office, despite the existence of a similar role already within that office. The message also calls for yet another analysis of City-owned housing sites, despite years of previous reports that have already identified opportunities to use public land for affordable housing.
These choices are not race-neutral. Reductions to community-supporting services disproportionately affect communities already experiencing the greatest housing instability—particularly Black households, immigrant families, and low-income residents in historically underinvested neighborhoods such as East San José.
REAL does not oppose innovation or economic development, but these initiatives must not come at the expense of the services that allow residents to remain housed, healthy, and economically stable. As the STAY framework emphasizes, San José must prioritize stability over symbolic initiatives and permanent solutions over temporary or peripheral investments.
Conclusion
San José residents consistently identify affordability and housing stability as the most urgent challenges facing the City. The choices made in this year’s budget will determine whether San José moves closer to addressing these challenges—or allows them to deepen.
The REAL Coalition urges the Council to prioritize policies that allow residents to stay in San José, including:
● expanding homelessness prevention
● protecting tenants and preserving affordable housing
REAL Coalition Response to FY 2026-27 Budget Proposals and Council Memorandum, March 16, 2026
● investing in youth, families, and community-based safety ● ensuring budget decisions advance racial equity and household stability We appreciate your leadership during this challenging fiscal period and look forward to continued collaboration.
Sincerely,
Vaughn Villaverde
AACI
Co-Chair, REAL Coalition
Kathy Cordova
Co-Chair, REAL Coalition
Kyra Kazantzis
Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
Co-Convenor, REAL Coalition
Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community Service
Co-Convenor, REAL Coalition
On behalf of the REAL Coalition
About the REAL Coalition
The Race Equity Action Leadership (REAL) Coalition is an alliance of more than 50 nonprofit organizational members, along with many additional nonprofit partners, community advocates, and grassroots leaders. REAL is committed to dismantling white supremacy culture and systemic racism, using our positional power to advance movement goals, and facilitating the voice of community in government decision-making. We are also committed to learning, advocacy, and organizing while building power in authentic community solidarity.
March 16, 2026
Re: SV@Home Response to the Mayor’s March Budget Message
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • [email protected] code enforcement is especially important in older rental housing, where unsafe conditions and deferred maintenance can threaten tenants and contribute to displacement. Eviction prevention, including legal services, emergency assistance, and outreach, remains essential to keeping vulnerable households housed.
San José cannot meet its housing goals by focusing only on production while underinvesting in the stability of current renters.
The directive to the City Manager to “bring recommendations to update the Ellis Act in a way that incentivizes investment in older housing stock, while protecting against displacement” should clearly state that tenant protections must not be weakened. The Ellis Act is an important tool to help prevent the displacement of lower-income households. While the City should absolutely explore ways to support reinvestment in older housing stock, that cannot come at the expense of tenants. The Council should make clear that any recommendations brought forward must preserve and strengthen anti-displacement protections—not dilute them.
Finally, the March Budget Message identifies no funding to support the existing pipeline of new affordable housing developments currently advancing toward construction, nor for the preservation of existing affordable housing. Given our shortfall of existing resources, staff needs direction and funding to support exploration of the next generation of affordable housing funding.
Regulatory reform, fee waivers, and process improvements are all valuable—but they are not substitutes for actual subsidy. Affordable housing, especially homes serving extremely low-income households and people exiting homelessness, does not pencil without public investment. Likewise, preserving affordable homes and naturally occurring affordable housing often requires capital to acquire, rehabilitate, and stabilize properties before they are lost to speculation or deterioration.
If San José is serious about being bold on housing, that boldness must include funding for affordable housing production and preservation—not just reforms to make development easier. We urge the Council to identify any available one-time or ongoing resources that can be directed toward local gap financing, acquisition- rehabilitation opportunities, and permanent supportive housing pipeline needs.
We appreciate the Mayor’s effort to advance meaningful housing reforms in a difficult budget year. To truly meet this moment, however, San José must pair production-focused reforms with investments in housing stability, tenant protections, anti-displacement strategies, and affordable housing investment.
We urge the Council to:
1. Support construction tax waivers while recognizing their limits, especially for permanent supportive housing and acquisition-rehabilitation projects;
2. Preserve the 10% Measure E commitment to homelessness prevention and direct any identified surplus or additional funds toward prevention;
3. Fund tenant protection Housing Element programs beyond homelessness prevention, including proactive code enforcement and eviction prevention;
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Jacqueline Griffin
Sunnyvale
200 E. Santa Clara Street,
San José CA 95113
March 16, 2026
Re: Item 3.3, Approval of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Mayor’s March Budget Message
Dear Mayor Mahan and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California, I submit public comments on agenda item 3.3, “Approval of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Mayor’s March Budget Message” of the City Council meeting on March 17, 2026.
Reducing Homelessness
We understand the city is facing a critical situation with homelessness, and that there are challenging decisions to be made to support the wellbeing of the city’s residents. We are staunchly opposed to any proposals or procedures to arrest, jail, and criminalize unhoused people. People who are unsheltered cannot avoid living outdoors when there is insufficient access to dignified interim or long-term housing.
Any such procedures only criminalize unhoused San José residents, traumatize poor people in our community, and do not make the city safer. While we applaud the City’s efforts to reduce homelessness, the City must make further investments into long-term, sustainable housing options instead of short- term, interim stop-gap measures.
This is both a racial justice and disability justice issue. Black people in Santa Clara County represent 2% of the population, but 12% of those who are unhoused1. A significant portion of San José's unhoused population reports having disabilities. According to data from the 2025 Santa Clara County Point-In-Time County Community Report, 26% of respondents reported having a physical disability, 27% reported chronic health issues, and 25% reported serious mental illness.
We appeal to City Council to reject proposals or procedures to jail unhoused people in San José. The city should not be conducting encampment sweeps, including sweeps of dispersed encampments, without safe, clean, and welcoming alternatives. We urge the City to invest in affordable housing and basic survival needs for our unhoused community members. We continue to be deeply concerned about reallocation of Measure E funding towards interim makeshift measures instead of funding new housing development. Resources should not be used to expand the homeless shelter system—a strategy that only further segregates unhoused people away from their communities and services. We agree that the City and County should improve collaboration and together deepen investment, in a coordinated fashion, in
1 Santa Clara County Point-In-Time Count Community Report 2025, available at https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-09/santa-clara-county-point-in-time-count-2025-final- report.pdf?.
the solutions that actually work and don’t further harm traumatized people. We also hope that City Council will elicit perspectives and feedback from unhoused San José residents—they are your constituents and our fellow community members.
We remain concerned that the Mayor’s March Budget Message continues to center San José’s homelessness strategy on the Emergency Interim Housing (EIH) system, which has required hundreds of millions in capital and operating costs while permanent housing production has not kept pace. The prioritization of EIH creates an ongoing budget burden that cannot solve the housing crisis or the unhoused crisis on its own.
We question proposals to reduce interim housing costs through resident fees or other “shared responsibility” models. Requiring extremely low-income residents to contribute financially to interim shelter raises serious concerns about whether such policies could undermine residents’ ability to stabilize financially and transition to permanent housing (by, for example, saving for a security deposit for a rental unit).
It is also deeply concerning to charge residents fees for living in shelters when many individuals enter the system through police-led outreach and enforcement actions. In an environment where people reasonably fear citation or arrest if they remain outside, requiring extremely low-income residents to pay for shelter raises serious ethical concerns and may undermine their ability to stabilize.
Technology and Privacy
The March Budget Message notes the function of the SJPD Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC). The RTIC already aggregates data including footage from cameras, creating a vast surveillance network able to monitor the everyday movements of law-abiding community members.
This surveillance is particularly dangerous to immigrant communities. There is clear evidence that local law enforcement agencies are sharing surveillance data with federal immigration enforcement2. Across the United States, federal immigration agencies have eagerly exploited local databases rich with information collected by private data brokers, municipal agencies, and police departments. This information is fed into a deportation machine that tears apart immigrant communities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has further expanded its reach into communities by exploiting local surveillance systems and databases to track, identify, and target immigrant community members for detention and deportation. No local surveillance system is safe from ICE’s demands.
As abortion and gender-affirming care is being criminalized in some states, there is a real threat that surveillance information collected in communities will be exploited to identify, track, and criminalize people who travel for care and the Californians who are helping those people obtain care. Deploying surveillance systems in our community fills databases with information that place people at risk. Even if there are limits to sharing information, once this information is collected, there is no foolproof way to immunize it from legal demands brought by out-of-state governments.
We are deeply concerned about the evaluation of integrating “additional City-owned camera networks, including Airport, Library, and Department of Transportation systems” into the RTIC. San José residents should not be subjected to their information becoming part of a vast surveillance network for simply accessing city library services.
2 SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE, available at https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/08/sfpd-flock-alpr-ice-data-sharing/.
We encourage you, as policy-makers, to look into and invest in alternatives to surveillance that are proven to increase public safety. Investing in the physical lighting of a neighborhood, rather than installing more cameras, can reap community-wide benefits. City Council must deliberate about the very real harms of surveillance and whether these invasive tools have been demonstrated to make a meaningful impact on public safety.
We are concerned about the proposal to allocate funding to an AI transcription service for body-worn camera footage. Police technology company Axon is pushing its “Draft One” product, which uses body camera recordings to generate a first draft of a police report for officers after an incident. Police reports play a crucial role in our justice system. They are central to the criminal proceedings that determine people’s innocence, guilt, and punishment, and are often the only official account of what took place during a particular incident. There are several problems with AI being used with body-worn camera footage. Using body camera transcripts for creating AI police reports raises significant issues around evidence and memory and raises serious questions about transparency. Requirements for police to write down the reasons for use of discretionary power reminds them of the legal limits of their authority3.
Immigration Services
We applaud the City for allocating $1 million in one-time funding to support immigrant communities last year. This funding went to critical needs in our community, including Know-Your-Rights information and legal services. The depth of need in our immigrant community still far outpaces supportive programs. We implore the City to again consider allocating funding for immigration services.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to these important issues.
Respectfully,
Victor Sin
Santa Clara County Volunteer Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California
3 ACLU White Paper on Police Departments' Use of AI to Draft Police Reports, available at https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-on-police-departments-use-of-ai-to-draft-police-reports.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Center for Employment Training
701 Vine Street, suite 102
San Jose, CA 95110
Fax: (408) 294-5749
www.cetweb.edu
Project New Citizen
E immigrate
Notice This e mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U S C 2510 2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient If you have received this e mail communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system
101 W. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113 | sjchamber.com | 408-291-5250 | [email protected]
March 16, 2026
City of San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Support for Item 3.3 - Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Mayor’s March Budget Message Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers,
San Jose’s ability to accelerate housing delivery, business openings, and economic activity will define our competitiveness in the years ahead.
On behalf of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce, we support key priorities outlined in the Mayor’s Budget Message and offer our partnership in advancing a focused, outcomes-driven approach to economic growth.
We highlight the following priorities as critical to San Jose’s competitiveness:
Fiscal responsibility paired with economic growth
We support the Mayor’s focus on fiscal discipline and maintaining core services, alongside strategies that generate new revenue through economic growth and long-term competitiveness.
Safe, clean, and functional city
Progress on public safety and homelessness is essential to a strong economy. A well-managed city supports residents, businesses, and visitors—and underpins a vibrant downtown and business districts.
Strengthening PBCE and “one team” permitting
We support minimizing impacts to Planning, Building Code, and Enforcement and advancing a “one team” approach across departments. Speed and predictability in permitting are critical factors in whether projects move forward in San Jose.
Streamlined permitting to accelerate activation
Reducing timelines for approvals will enable faster housing delivery, quicker business openings, and more active commercial corridors. Time to delivery is one of the most important drivers of economic feasibility.
Housing production through cost and process reform
We support deferring impact fees and taxes until certificate of occupancy and moving toward a per square foot fee structure. Continued focus on reducing costs and delays will be essential to meeting housing goals and supporting the workforce.
Advancing the Sports & Entertainment District
We encourage continued progress on a coordinated sports and entertainment strategy, including activation of public spaces and streamlined permitting for events. With global events ahead, this is a
101 W. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113 | sjchamber.com | 408-291-5250 | [email protected] key opportunity to drive visitation, jobs, and revenue, while positioning San Jose as a premier destination for major events and year-round activity. The Chamber stands ready to partner in shaping and implementing this vision.
Supporting small businesses and corridors
We support continued investment in programs like the Storefront Activation Grant, alongside reducing permitting and regulatory barriers so small businesses can open and grow more quickly.
The San Jose Chamber of Commerce is committed to serving as a strategic partner—convening business, sports, entertainment, and civic leaders to help deliver a cohesive economic development strategy. With alignment and focus, San Jose can fully realize this moment of opportunity.
Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
Sincerely,
Leah Toeniskoetter
President & CEO, San Jose Chamber of Commerce
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. without addressing the issue. Let's make sure that we look at the big picture if we, the city, is responsible for management of these sites. I understand that the city alone can't complete resolve the issue and am happy to see collaboration finally take place with the county to help, but please help the neighboring communities surrounding the EIH sites. Being a good neighbor goes both ways and better oversight and accountability is definitely needed.
As a native San Josean, I can only hope for better outcomes in my district and city when it comes to the unhoused and EIH facilities.
Wanda Wong
District 2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
We also ask that Council remember that prior reductions to library funding have already strained access to collections, with 75,458 holds on eBooks and audiobooks and more than 7,400 items carrying months-long wait times. The Library and Education Commission has made the case for protecting library operations, staffing, collections, digital equity programs, and continued implementation of the Facilities and Customer Experience Master Plan. The latter is especially important given that 11 of the City’s 25 branches are more than 20 years old, and the current facilities roadmap identifies approximately 497,000 residents as underserved. While the need clearly points to greater investment, we recognize the City’s fiscal constraints, which is why our ask is simply to keep Library funding at current levels.
Libraries also advance the very goals the City says it values: educational attainment, workforce development, digital inclusion, neighborhood vitality, and economic mobility. They are safe and welcoming public spaces where residents learn, apply for jobs, build digital skills, access technology, and connect with community. Philanthropy can help strengthen that work, but it cannot and should not be expected to replace sustained public investment in core library operations.
Finally, public support for library funding is woven into the fabric of daily life across San José. Many letters have already been submitted in support of libraries through this budget process, and I see reminders every day, both personally and professionally, of how deeply residents value these spaces. At SJPLF, we believe it is our responsibility to help represent the more than 755,000 cardholders who may not be able to voice their support or advocacy for a variety of reasons. All of this points to a simple truth that our team sees and hears every day:
residents use, need, and value their libraries.
For all of these reasons, SJPLF respectfully asks the City Council to preserve San José Public Library in the FY 2026- 27 budget, keep funding flat from the current year, and avoid any further reduction of staffing, collections, safety, or facility investment.
Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
Dawn Coppin, PhD (she/her)
Chief Executive Officer
San José Public Library Foundation
Tax ID: 77-0142379
P.O. Box 611540, San Jose, CA 95161-1540
| www.sjplf.org