Letters from the Public - 3 of 4 — San Jose City Council, March 17, 2026

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

District #2
95136

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Therefore, as you negotiate the budget, I urge you to insist that the final budget, at a minimum:

1. Maintains Climate Smart’s funding at least at current levels and avoids further reductions to climate mitigation or resilience programs.

2. Supports the staffing, partnerships, and implementation capacity needed to keep San José on track toward carbon neutrality by 2030.

If Climate Smart staff are stretched thin, they won’t be able to seek out additional funding opportunities to help us achieve our climate goals and deliver the co-benefits of reduced energy bills, improved air quality and health, and safer communities.

Thank you,
Ruth Merino
S
an Jose District 6

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Delia McVay (they/them)
"Wherever we go, we can be a beacon of well being, love, and care that not only touches but uplifts those whom we encounter. Peace comes when our hearts are open like the sky,
vast as the ocean." ~Jack Kornfield

compared to last FY's SJPD budget ($609M), which dwarfs every other budget item. The city has the revenue to spare a mere $1+M for services that have real impact on the lives and livelihood for a large number of residents.

Sincerely,
SJ resident, district 9
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. families financially when a breadwinner is abducted, and helped keep the community calm by verifying whether or not community sitings are ICE or other law enforcement agents.

Therefore, I urge the mayor and council to preserve the $1M in funding that was invested last year in the city budget and honor the mayor’s commitment to raise an additional $500,000 from philanthropy. This funding would continue to fund deportation defense legal services, Know Your Rights Outreach and Education, and the Rapid Response Network.

The RRN is our immigrant community's first line of defense for immigrants in San Jose.

We’re living in unprecedented times. Thousands of community members have stepped up to support immigrant neighbors. The City of San Jose needs to step up too and preserve the $1M in funding that was invested last year in the city budget and honor the mayor’s commitment to raise an additional $500,000 from philanthropy.

I also urge the Council to direct the City Manager to incorporate upstream prevention and racial equity infrastructure into the May budget, including: permanent supportive housing investment; eviction prevention and right-to-counsel; ongoing funding for youth employment, violence intervention, and TRUST; independent oversight of all surveillance technology with community input before deployment; racial equity impact assessments on all major budget and policy decisions; disaggregated public data reporting across all city departments; community benefit agreements for all subsidized development; and a reparative investment framework that names the history and commits to the repair.

Deborah St Julien
D2 Resident

SURJ SCC
RRN trained legal observer
Lay leader, Urban Sanctuary San Jose

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. disaggregated public data reporting across all city departments; community benefit agreements for all subsidized development; and a reparative investment framework that names the history and commits to the repair.

Imagine a San Jose where everyone thrives!

Sincerely,

Kathryn Hedges

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Compounding these concerns, a recent reported kidnapping incident involving an offender connected to the site has intensified fear and frustration among residents. When serious criminal conduct is reported in proximity to a publicly funded facility, the community expectsimmediate transparency, clear accountability, and corrective safeguards.

Instead, perceive silence.

No Meaningful Community Notice
This large scale, three story prefabricated structure was placed directly adjacent to established single-family homes in South San Jose. Our community received no standard of notice - No Proposal of Development Signage, with description, no photo or FENCED perimeter for set period before construction began - as any other project requires - an absolute betrayal of trust.

Placing a high-density interim housing project into a residential neighborhood without transparent community engagement should be against the law. Just as practices like redlining, reverse redlining, and steering are unlawful because they unfairly target communities, then repeatedly coercing interim housing in South San Jose so too should be unlawful.

Waste and Abuse of Taxpayer Dollars
Until there is:

A full independent audit
Transparent resident eligibility and safety standards
Public reporting of incidents and outcome
Equitable citywide distribution review
There is no accountability.

Taxpayers deserve better. Families deserve safety. Neighborhoods deserve respect.

Shut it down.

Sincerely,
Paul Mazzara

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

When you invest in child care, you invest in families, our workforce, and the future of San José.

Thank you for your time and for supporting the children and families of our city.

The wealthier San Jose neighborhoods have lots of trees that help keep their neighborhoods cool and help lower their cooling costs. One possible climate mitigation that also addresses equity that is cheaper, faster to implement, more efficient and lower maintenance in cooling low-income neighborhoods than trees.

Companies such as Respyre (
gorespyre.com) are developing moss growing bricks
that can help lower surface temperatures by up to over 44%, and also help us reach our climate goals faster. Moss can absorb up to 4 times more CO₂ per unit area than trees. Moss is also much more drought resilient than trees and requires significantly less water. Moss growing bricks can also be used to cool public buildings such as schools and offices lowering costs there too.

I urge you to insist that the final budget, at a minimum:

1. Maintains Climate Smart’s funding at least at current levels and avoids further reductions to climate mitigation or resilience programs.

2. Supports the staffing, partnerships, and implementation capacity needed to keep San José on track toward carbon neutrality by 2030.

We need to maintain Climate Smart staffing in order to continue cooling our cities and lowering the cost of living—particularly in our low-income neighborhoods. With climate impacts accelerating, we also need to accelerate our climate adaptation AND social equity.

Please also restore Zoom access to city meetings. Continuing to restrict Zoom access in the heart of Silicon Valley is profoundly undemocratic. Restricting Zoom access limits the voices of those who cannot afford time off work to speak on their own behalf. It limits the voices of the nonprofits that serve those in need. It limits the voices of community members who would advocate for the disenfranchised. It limits the voices of parents concerned with a livable future for their children. It limits the voices of young people busy with school and work from advocating for a livable climate to protect their own future. After all, young people will have to deal with the effects of the climate crisis for decades to come. Please restore Zoom access to city meetings.

Thank you.

Hoai-An Truong
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
D6 Resident
--
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Sent by carrier pigeon
*** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** ALL HANDS ON DECK!
Climate Action: Do it for everyone you LOVE!
Food as Climate Action: Changing how we eat, how we farm, and reducing food waste are some of the FASTEST and easiest ways to REVERSE climate change.
#WeCanSolveThis (playlist - fun & interesting videos!):

The diet that helps fight climate change and more
Now on Netflix! KISS THE GROUND - movie based on the bestseller.

A climate solution full of hope!
Support statewide and local/regional public banks that reinvest profits in the public interest. This can include pandemic relief & recovery, AND climate solutions. And it's a way to divest our public institutions from fossil fuel investments!
*** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm ***

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Susan Butler-Graham
District 9

Climate Smart staff need personnel and funding to continue to apply for funding climate mitigation and resilience. We need staff to research and apply for funding for mitigation such as balcony solar and balcony wind turbines for low-income multifamily and senior housing. This will help reduce cooling costs for our most vulnerable residents. Measures like these are not just about climate. They are also about affordability. They will help reduce the cost of living as our food and medical and now gas costs continue to rise. Lowering the cost of living will also help keep low-income or fixed-income residents in their homes, and reduce heat- related deaths. It may also be a way to help undocumented families lower their costs and provide cooling when they must stay home from work (and losing income/wages in the process) or school out of fear of ICE raids.

I urge you to insist that the final budget, at a minimum:

1. Maintains Climate Smart’s funding at least at current levels and avoids further reductions to climate mitigation or resilience programs.

2. Supports the staffing, partnerships, and implementation capacity needed to keep San José on track toward carbon neutrality by 2030.

We need to maintain Climate Smart staffing in order to continue cooling our cities and lowering the cost of living—particularly in our low-income neighborhoods.

With climate impacts accelerating, we also need to accelerate our climate adaptation AND social equity.

Please also restore Zoom access to city meetings. Continuing to restrict Zoom access in the heart of Silicon Valley is profoundly undemocratic. Restricting Zoom access limits the voices of those who cannot afford time off work to speak on their own behalf. It limits the voices of the nonprofits that serve those in need. It limits the voices of community members who would advocate for the disenfranchised. It limits the voices of parents concerned with a livable future for their children. It limits the voices of young people busy with school and work from advocating for a livable climate to protect their own future. After all, young This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. people will have to deal with the effects of the climate crisis for decades to come.

Please restore Zoom access to city meetings.

Thank you.

Hoai-An Truong
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
D6 Resident
--
Sent by carrier pigeon
*** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** ALL HANDS ON DECK!
Climate Action: Do it for everyone you LOVE!
Food as Climate Action: Changing how we eat, how we farm, and reducing food waste are some of the FASTEST and easiest ways to REVERSE climate change.
#WeCanSolveThis (playlist - fun & interesting videos!):

The diet that helps fight climate change and more
Now on Netflix! KISS THE GROUND - movie based on the bestseller.

San Jose Downtown Association
28 N. First Street, Suite 1000
San Jose, CA 95113

sjdowntown.com
408.279.1775

March 17, 2026
Mayor Mahan & Members of San Jose City Council
City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Email: [email protected]
Re: Support of Item – 3.3 Budget Message
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council:

On behalf of the San Jose Downtown Association (SJDA), I write to express strong support for key initiatives in the Mayor's March Budget Message and supplemental memos from Councilmembers Mulcahy, Candelas, Campos, Ortiz, Doan, and Casey. SJDA represents the businesses, property owners, and cultural institutions of Downtown San Jose. We are mindful of the City's projected $56 million General Fund shortfall and write because the priorities below deliver measurable returns for Downtown, for City's tax base, and the residents, visitors, and business owners who rely on a vibrant urban core.

Stitching Districts – Request to Confirm $250,000 in Base Budget The Mayor's message directs the City Manager to explore allocating one-time funding to match up to $250,000 of Downtown PBID funding for the Stitching Districts initiative. SJDA respectfully requests the City Council go further: Direct the City Manager to include the $250,000 City match as a confirmed one-time expenditure in the FY 2026-2027 base budget. SJDA and PBID are committed to providing matching funds. These strategic investments have proven to physically and programmatically connect districts within Downtown and are already helping to create a more cohesive urban experience, encourage pedestrian activity, and strengthen the sense of place that is critical for retail and hospitality success.

Coordination of Outreach
We are supportive of the Mayor's desire to align Downtown outreach effort. Our Street Intervention Team (SIT) and PBID services provide day-to-day responsiveness and outcomes to individuals and stakeholders across the district, and we believe these programs operate in a continuum and naturally complement to City outreach operations. We welcome deeper collaboration and exploration with the City to align our respective efforts around shared goals of community safety and connectivity to services throughout Downtown San Jose in ways that can reduce costs Behavioral Health Support
The recent felony vandalism at 333 W. Santa Clara Street illustrates the cost of a system that cycles justice-involved individuals with severe mental and behavioral health challenges back to the street without adequate intervention. Downtown cannot absorb these gaps indefinitely, and we urge the City to move quickly on the collaborative model being developed through the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative and provide the funding and systems necessary to reduce the occurrence of behavioral health related incidents in Downtown’s public realm.

Re: Support for Agenda Item 3.3 Budget Message
March 17, 2026

Page 2 ends

Sports and Entertainment District
SJDA enthusiastically supports the Mayor's direction to procure development partners for a Sports and Entertainment District in the greater Downtown area. The February 2026 Super Bowl results that Downtown San Jose can compete as a national entertainment destination. We urge the Council to ensure the planning and recommendations include SJDA, SJ Chamber, and existing Downtown stakeholders as core partners in the site and district planning process.

Unpermitted Vendor Enforcement in Business Districts
SJDA supports Councilmember Mulcahy's direction to expand education and enforcement related to unpermitted vending. Downtown's high-density entertainment zones, especially during major events and weekend activations, present genuine public safety risks: blocked pedestrian pathways, unregulated food handling, and fire hazards from unpermitted cooking equipment. These conditions also create unfair systems for compliant brick-and-mortar businesses already absorbing high operating costs that meet permitting regulations. We ask that Downtown entertainment corridors be a priority area and that SJDA be engaged to identify specific enforcement contexts.

Storefront Activation Grants
We appreciate the proposal to fund storefront activation grants. These grants play a critical role in reducing vacancies, supporting small business entrepreneurs, and bringing energy to underutilized spaces. Targeted activation programs help ensure that our commercial corridors remain lively and welcoming. We welcome opportunities to collaborate with the City to expedite processes and maximize funding available through external partners for use in Downtown.

Strategic Code Enforcement pilot
The Councilmembers' collective direction to establish a Strategic Code Enforcement pilot in Downtown East and key commercial corridors can address chronic blight and long-standing violations that have deterred the private investment this neighborhood deserves. A coordinated, multi-department approach with clear escalation timelines and pathways to receivership where necessary is the right tool to move non-compliant properties toward rehabilitation and unlock economic revitalization. The tools are in place to move this forward quickly.

Convention Center Capital Improvements
The proposed capital improvements for the San Jose McEnery Convention Center are similarly important. As evidenced this week with GTC, the convention center is a cornerstone of Downtown’s visitor economy, and continued investment and expansion ensures it remains competitive in attracting conferences and events that generate significant economic impact for local hotels, restaurants, and retailers and maximize TOT revenue.

Arts Grant Streamlining and Downtown Cultural Institutions The directive related to streamlining the arts grant processes from TOT revenue is another important policy discussion, as our arts and cultural organizations play a critical role in sustaining the tourism ecosystem that benefits Downtown businesses and our local economy. We ask that representatives of the Downtown arts organizations be included in the review process.

Additional Supported Initiatives
SJDA also expresses support for the following directives and asks that Downtown be explicitly included in their implementation:

March 17, 2026
Matt Mahan, Mayor, San Jose
Rosemary Kamei, Council Member, District 1
Pamela Campos, Council Member, District 2
Anthony Tordillos, Council Member, District 3
David Cohen, Council Member, District 4
Peter Ortiz, Council Member, District 5
Michael Mulcahy, Council Member, District 6
Bien Doan, Council Member, District 7
Domingo Candelas, Council Member, District 8
Pam Foley, Council Member, District 9
George Casey, Council Member, District 10
Jennifer Maguire, City Manager
Re: Item 3.3 Mayor’s Budget Message
Dear Mayor and City Council of San Jose,
We, Silicon Valley De-Bug, are writing this letter regarding the Mayor’s Budget Message, specifically relating to housing, police, and justice system involved individuals. For over two decades now, De-Bug has been active around issues of police accountability, housing, and the justice system because our communities have been directly impacted. Despite the $56 million shortfall, the Mayor is still calling for a budget that prioritizes policing as a strategy to criminalize, unhouse, and gentrify our community while lining the pockets of housing and tech developers to create a San Jose that belongs to the wealthy. It is a budget that deems those of us who have built San Jose for generations as expendable. We urge the City Council to reject this budget and create one that reflects that all our children can build their families here — not just those who have the dollars to buy it.

Housing
THE CITY’S HOUSING BUDGET IS NOT ENOUGH TO ADDRESS HOUSING INEQUALITY.

De-Bug has long supported San Jose residents who are experiencing homelessness, housing instability and are often at the intersections of the criminal or immigration systems. We have supported tenants dealing with illegal actions of landlords, supported tenants in eviction court and have helped low-income families look for housing opportunities. We have also supported many who were experiencing homelessness including looking for services, advocating for an end to the displacements by sweeps and have supported them to navigate the criminal legal

system often because they are at high risk of police interactions. This has culminated in us starting participatory defense housing meetings where people from San Jose and the broader county come to get support after they receive an eviction notice or support in looking for housing while navigating the city or non-profit developers application processes. Our entry point of assessing the current and historical budget plans of the City of San Jose will always prioritize stopping displacements in any facet and creating an actually affordable San Jose while seeing all residents as belonging with no one being an exception to displacement.

Do not allocate any City budget to be spent on sweeping houseless people and encampments.

A San Jose Mercury News article from February 6th, 2026 had a Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services spokesperson say there had been “more than 2,000 encampment clearings” from February 2025 to February 2026. This is more than 5 sweeps a day for one calendar year alone. Our conservative prediction of each sweep costing about $10,000 (police, services, trash, labor, etc) estimates that the City of San Jose spent $20,000,000 on sweeps in one year. We see no mention of the costs of sweeps labeled as “encampment management and enforcement teams” in the Mahan’s budget message. So we ask the City of San Jose to immediately stop the practice of encampment sweeps and to make public the total cost of sweeps to the City of San Jose. We, at Silicon Valley De-Bug, have submitted a CPRA request asking for the total number of sweeps within Matt Mahan’s tenure since 2023 and a cost-average per sweep. We can not take any conversation around budget cuts and the need to reduce spending seriously until one of the most inhumane practices of this City on it’s most vulnerable population stops and is accounted for.

Do not focus City resources to coddle real estate developers who are operating for-profit housing and making San Jose unaffordable.

Families we support on our weekly participatory defense housing calls join because they are looking for affordable housing, facing evictions or other challenges with their homes.

We constantly see people, who would otherwise be stable, have one thing happen in their life that creates the high risk of displacement, often because of unaffordable rents.

Folks at highest risk of displacement are low income folks who are renters, elderly, disabled, people of color and families with children - yet the mayor’s message on housing centers the builders, their profits, and their ease of navigating the city process.

We have a history in San Jose of creating incentives for for-profit housing developers to come build more housing. This has shown over and over again to not reduce housing costs or the market rate. In fact, we constantly see new developments sit empty either because of unaffordable market-rate rents or building deficiencies because these companies have cut corners, exemplified by the now repurposed, empty high rise on Market Street or the empty high rise near Julian Street in Downtown. Any efforts to make this process easier for multi-million dollar companies is wasted time and resources.

The Ellis Act in particular serves to prevent displacement for the most vulnerable renters and is already a weakened ordinance. We urge the City Manager to include recommendations that include the city playing a larger role supporting preservation through models that promote resident control and have a commitment to antidisplacement and deep affordability.

Nothing within the housing budget message addresses the root cause of homelessness and affordability: an unregulated for-profit housing system.

For San Jose to be “a city where working families can stay, where young people can build a future, and where seniors can age in place” as the mayor says on page 26 of the budget then the city needs approaches that go beyond the market. If increasing housing supply alone really stabilized home prices and increased economic opportunity, we would have housing for all income levels, but our housing system is not designed to ensure everyone is housed - it is designed to maximize profits. The market is a failure.

We do not see any good-faith effort to protect San Jose renters from unaffordable market rates. Protections we wish we would see include a more expansive rent control, funding an indigent defense for those being railroaded through eviction court, and preserving housing. Even our current supportive services for renters often means non-profit or government agencies just paying the unaffordable rent to the landlord in place of the tenant. But what about the next month? This system is designed to fail. And as we are happy to see that some people transitioned into permanent housing, this hyper focus on temporary shelters does not stop the demand for shelters. San Jose residents will continue to become houseless unless the issue of housing inequality and affordability is meaningfully addressed and prioritized.

Policing
WE OPPOSE ANY INCREASE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S BUDGET PROPOSAL.

De-Bug families whose loved ones have been killed by San Jose police oppose any increase in the San Jose Police Department’s budget. For years now, these families have been healing, supporting, and organizing with each other through Silicon Valley De-Bug, and have been pushing for accountability for the harm and death of their loved ones. It is in their names that this demand is made.

Funding from diverting calls from 911 to 988 and TRUST should go to youth serving programs, mental health resources and housing, not law enforcement.

Alternatives to 911 are increasingly being accessed by the community – more calls are being diverted from police and going to crisis intervention teams like Santa Clara County’s TRUST program. Your own data shows that monthly transfers to 988 from 911 increased from 10 to 150. That means calls are being diverted from law enforcement and thus saving lives. We ask the City to analyze the savings from these diverted calls and direct them away from the police department and towards true life-saving needs in our communities that need to be fully resourced.

Pause any continued funding on RTIC and the use of surveillance technology Over the years, the San Jose Police Department has been increasing its reliance on AI to police, while simultaneously asking for more money for the police department - for wages. These do not make sense.

San Jose Police using mass surveillance technology puts the entire community at risk - whether it’s risk of ICE accessing the database, risk of being profiled and targeted, risk of misuse by local police for their own purposes – all of which have been documented.

Trusting AI to take over body cam footage translation- in one of the most critical pieces of information in a case – is irresponsible and lends itself to even more mistakes in the justice system. ACLU has documented that this body cam footage translation has led to AI generated police reports – can only lead to more bias, less transparency, and more errors. It is not enough to just put ‘guardrails’ on this technology; we should not spend resources on it. We urge you to reject this proposed pilot program.

Audit, and then cut, the City Attorney’s resources for defending police in misconduct and excessive use of force cases
In January of this year, the City Council approved an $8 million settlement in the case of K’aun Green, who was shot by police in 2022 for deescalating a situation at La Vic’s. It was proven that Officer Mark McNamara who shot him 4 times, was also part of a racist texting scandal that revealed this officer’s state of mind as he encounters Black and people of color. Furthermore, McNamara then texted about Mr. Green and his attorneys, saying:
“N— wanted to carry a gun in the Wild West … Not on my watch” and “They should all be bowing to me and bringing me gifts since I saved a fellow n— by making him rich as f—. Otherwise, he woulda lived a life of poverty and crime.” He was placed in the decertification process in 2023.

Yet, despite City statements including Matt Mahan “denouncing” these racist statements, the City continued to defend McNamara’s actions well until 2025.

This $8 million settlement is one of the largest settlements in San Jose history – the highest one being in 2024 when the City settled with Lionel Ruvalcaba for being wrongly imprisoned for 17 years where 3 San Jose Police officers fabricated evidence and got witnesses to falsely identify Mr. Ruvalcaba as the shooter in a drive-by that left a man paralyzed.

We’ve sat in courtrooms watching the City Attorney defend these police actions, and furthermore criminalize and blame the person killed or harmed by police actions, villainize their families and diminish their pain. We’ve seen the City Attorney hire experts to justify the shootings – including John Black, the ‘use of force’ expert defending white nationalist Kyle Rittenhouse who shot and killed 2 protestors in Kenosha, WI during a protest against the shooting of unarmed Jacob Blake. We demand that the City audit the City Attorney’s office for the costs of defending officers for misconduct and cut those resources.

The Justice System and Prop 36
Direct funding to mental health resources, not the exploratory trip to San Diego to observe Prop 36.

Over the years we have seen the struggles and limitations for treatment alternatives within the justice process but as of recent due to prop 36 which essentially removed funding for the very same programs running to address this issue. Now with even less funding or should we say no funding for treatment options those same issues and some have increased. We now see people waiting for months up to a year or more to get accepted into a program within mental health court. There are not enough beds or capacity to handle all the individuals who have volunteered let alone the people who have been mandated. We will never see the false promise brought by fear mongering through prop 36. The stalling is filling our jails and keeping its population full unnecessarily. If we are serious about stopping homelessness and lowering recidivism, we must address and provide funding for our loved ones who need and request treatment. We ask that you refer funding from the police department to ensure those with mental needs do not fall through the cracks of our justice system.

Respectfully,
Silicon Valley De-Bug Families

San José Mayor Mahan and City Council,
209 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to Fully Fund San José’s Climate Response!.

Here is the petition they signed:

Dear San José Mayor Mahan and City Council,
The urgency of addressing climate change has never been more clear. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global temperatures are rising, and the window for preventing irreversible damage is closing extremely quickly. In San José, we have seen firsthand the devastating effects of climate change. Wildfires have often scorched surrounding regions, while extreme heat waves strain our infrastructure and endanger vulnerable residents, particularly those who are unhoused or who live in buildings with no cooling. Prolonged droughts threaten our water supply and the natural ecosystem that surrounds us. These changes in our climate are not just statistics; they are genuine impacts on our community, health, economy, and environment.

As we strive to combat these challenges, programs like Climate Smart San José are vital to ensuring a sustainable future. A 32% decrease in year-on-year funding for Climate Smart during the 2024-2025 fiscal year was a step backward on the long path of progress toward our 2030 carbon neutrality goals. These budget cuts were a false economy. Studies are clear that the financial cost of rapid decarbonization right now is dwarfed by the economic damages we will suffer if the climate crisis is allowed to progress. Now it is the time to invest more, not less, in initiatives that protect our city, its residents, and its future generations.

We, the students of the San José Y outh Climate Action Team and our partners throughout the City, urge the San José City Council to increase the one-time 2025-26 fiscal year funding for Climate Smart San José and to establish permanent annual funding. Further, we ask that the Council consider increasing Environmental Services Department or Energy Department staff to support the vital work of Climate Smart San José towards our city’s 2030 carbon neutrality goal. We also urge the Council to accelerate public outreach programs and collaboration with community-based organizations to effectively carry out Climate Smart’s goals and empower all residents to adopt climate-friendly technologies and practices and to take action in our communities. We acknowledge the budget shortfall that the City of San José is currently facing, but climate funding must remain a key priority in this year’s decisions.

Maintaining support and resources for Climate Smart San José is critical to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 and mitigating our city’s environmental impact. Climate change is harming our city right now, and things will continue to worsen until we take dramatic action. To protect our future and prevent further harm, the city must intensify its climate action efforts. Fully implementing the Climate Smart San José Plan will deliver significant co-benefits, including cleaner air, safer streets, more beautiful and liveable neighborhoods, and medium and long- term cost savings.

San José has made notable progress, such as founding San José Clean Energy which has increased our proportion of clean electricity, requiring EV charging access in most new apartment buildings, and starting electrification rebate programs. These measures set a strong foundation for reducing emissions and promoting sustainable development. However, without consistent funding and staffing for Climate Smart initiatives, the city risks falling short of its ambitious and necessary goals. An October 2024 City memo stated, “While the City continues to progress towards its City Council-approved climate goals, continued City investment and focus are necessary to reach those goals.” Indeed, we are not on track to reach our climate targets, and it will require significant action right now to get back on track. 2030 is less than 5 years away.

As one of the largest U.S. cities to commit to carbon neutrality by 2030, and ranked the sixth greenest city in the nation, San José is a leader in climate action. Still, we currently devote far less funding to climate action than other comparable cities like San Diego and Portland. As the capital of Silicon Valley and an epicenter of innovation, other cities look to San José’s lead.

The ripple effects of our decisions are profound and will add up to significant effects. Reducing support for Climate Smart would send the precise wrong message to other cities and hinder collective progress in tackling climate change. Instead, San José must continue to lead by example, demonstrating that bold investments in sustainability are possible, necessary, and effective.

It must be noted that this is in the context of extreme backsliding on climate efforts at a national level. It is the responsibility of our local governments to step up and take action.

By increasing funding and support for Climate Smart San José, we can put our city on a path toward achieving our climate goals while serving as a leading example for other cities to follow. San José has the potential to be a model of climate action, but that future depends on our commitment today. Let’s ensure that the necessary resources are in place to make this goal a reality.

Mayor Mahan and City Council, please remember, you are the last generation of leaders who has the power to halt the most catastrophic effects of the climate crisis on our present and our future. We are counting on you.

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

Thank you,
San José Y outh Climate Action Team

1. San José Youth Climate Action Team (ZIP code: 95112)

2. Mani Bekele (ZIP code: 95112)
I am incredibly excited to launch this petition. San Jose needs to reflect climate as a top priority and necessity in this year's budget.

3. Mila Bekele (ZIP code: 95112)

4. Lisa Charpontier (ZIP code: 95112)

5. Sangeeth Sridharan (ZIP code: 95120)

6. Calvin Sridhara (ZIP code: 95120)

7. Nishika Ivaturi (ZIP code: 95148)

8. Kanika Rawat (ZIP code: 95131)

9. Celine Sims (ZIP code: 95127)

10. Cynthia Li (ZIP code: 94087)

11. Sarah Miller (ZIP code: 95037)

12. Carolyn Kameya (ZIP code: 95126)
The federal government is doing everything it can to dig deeper in the fossil fuels hole that has been a major cause of the climate emergency. We need cities in general & San Jose in particular, to lead a path with a future.

13. Jennifer Mutch (ZIP code: 95125)

14. Poojit Hegde (ZIP code: 94301)

15. Palash H (ZIP code: 95020)

16. Will Li (ZIP code: 08844)

17. Cid Muang (ZIP code: 94305)

18. Allison Thomas (ZIP code: 94305)

19. May-Jann Wong (ZIP code: 94305)

20. Diane Koh (ZIP code: 94305)

21. Juhae Song (ZIP code: 94305)

22. Cooper Marcus (ZIP code: 94103)

23. Ian McDermod (ZIP code: 94044)

24. Destiny Henderson-Hudgins (ZIP code: 95112)

25. Elizabeth Ruder (ZIP code: 95126)
This is SO important. Let me know how I can help.

26. Ze-Kun Li (ZIP code: 95130)

27. Della Duncan (ZIP code: 94112)

28. John Lydon (ZIP code: 94114)

29. Migdalia Rodriguez C. (ZIP code: 95148)

30. Wendy Pfile (ZIP code: 95139)
I love San Jose and applaud the work our city has done around climate change. We cannot roll back the progress we’ve made so far. Please keep funding climate change work in San Jose. Our kids deserve a healthy environment.

31. Alan Fanning (ZIP code: 95112-2358)

32. Pamela Collaco (ZIP code: 95126)

33. Julia Howlett (ZIP code: 95112)

34. Hannah Haworth (ZIP code: 95125)

35. Rebecca Piscitelli (ZIP code: 95112)

36. Ted Smith (ZIP code: 95112)

37. Nabeela Aijaz (ZIP code: 95125)

38. Briam Campbell (ZIP code: 95125)

39. Raj Mahajan (ZIP code: 95112)

40. Clarabelle Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
Climate Change resiliency is not another expense that we can budget, it is the front line dense against the next major extinction event.

41. Michael Kutilek (ZIP code: 95112-2368)

42. Robin Goka Huynh (ZIP code: 95112)

43. Isabella Kim (ZIP code: 95135)

44. Atul Rawat (ZIP code: 95131)

45. Geeta Negi (ZIP code: 95131)

46. Aahaan Jain (ZIP code: 95129)
It's devastating for the community that valuable climate change funding is being slashed. Please sign this petition as a way to voice your opinion!

47. Daphne Zhu (ZIP code: 95129)

48. Ashima Sharma (ZIP code: 94086)

49. Alie Victorine (ZIP code: 95111)

50. Elizabeth DeVincenzi (ZIP code: 95135)

51. Stephanie Clark (ZIP code: 94520)

52. Patricia Blevins (ZIP code: 95118)
San Jose doesn't do anything to support climate action ie SJ Clean Energy (aggregate) has done nothing to fight AB 942 which would repeal the 20 yr NEM 1.0 and NEM2.0 contracts the State made with 2,000,000 California rooftop solar owners. I've asked for their help and they have not even replied to my emails.

53. Erh-yen To (ZIP code: 95835)

54. Nora Coyle (ZIP code: 92807)

55. Noah Haydon (ZIP code: 94015)

56. AJ cho (ZIP code: 94579)

57. Casey Cameron (ZIP code: 95125)
I am a big fan of the Climate Smart program! Do NOT cut it! We cannot afford to put the climate work aside, especially now when we are increasingly facing catastrophic climate disruption. I was so proud of San Jose’s commitment to Climate Smart program! Please do not walk it back.

58. lynn hoang (ZIP code: 92833)

59. Harry Moody (ZIP code: 94403)

60. Todd Weber (ZIP code: 95125)

61. Rita Foster (ZIP code: 95125)

62. Linda Kerr (ZIP code: 95125)

63. Dan And Lilly Kittredge (ZIP code: 91941)

64. Christine Zack (ZIP code: 95008)
We need to do all that we can to slow climate change.

65. Sarah Adkar (ZIP code: 94536)

66. Brandon Lin (ZIP code: 94010)

67. Mitchelle Pasillas (ZIP code: 95117)

68. Zoe Hanshew (ZIP code: 94062)

69. Nathan Albano (ZIP code: 95120)

70. Jon Zack (ZIP code: 95008)

71. Felicia Gershberg (ZIP code: 94087)
San José's climate action (and inaction) affects your neighbors, too, like me and my family in Sunnyvale!

72. Barbara Hamel (ZIP code: 94086)

73. Ian MacLeod (ZIP code: 95124)

74. Eve Lindsay (ZIP code: 95112)

75. Aarini Kasturi (ZIP code: 95129)

76. Stacy Brobst (ZIP code: 95035)

77. Gillian Claus (ZIP code: 95124)

78. Max Claus (ZIP code: 95124)
I recently graduated with a B.S.c in Marine Biology and am committed to conservation and to supporting the healthy functioning of our global ecosystems and feel that San Jose has the potential to be a leader in combatting climate change.

79. Julianna Silva (ZIP code: 95123)

80. William DeVincenzi (ZIP code: 95135)

81. JL Angell (ZIP code: 95672)

82. Stan Fitzgerald (ZIP code: 94618)

83. Ree Whitford (ZIP code: 91607-3052)

84. Ann Thryft (ZIP code: 95006)

85. Jeremy Spencer (ZIP code: 94044-3318)

86. Giovannina Fazio (ZIP code: 94601)

87. Shell Cleave (ZIP code: 94019)

88. David Baca (ZIP code: 94720)
Green New Deal !!

89. David Warner (ZIP code: 23235)

90. steven atneosne (ZIP code: 94306)

91. Holly Miller (ZIP code: 95037)

92. Marilynn Smith (ZIP code: 95127)

93. Brian Haberly (ZIP code: 95112)

94. Jenny Green (ZIP code: 95124)

95. Annelise Bazar (ZIP code: 95110)

96. thalia lubin (ZIP code: 94062)

97. Laura Overmann (ZIP code: 94010-5141)

98. Beth Darlington (ZIP code: 12604)

99. Avroh Shah (ZIP code: 94303)
100. Lauren Murdock (ZIP code: 93110)
101. Liana Lang (ZIP code: 18661)
102. Ann Dorsey (ZIP code: 91325)
103. Renee Klein (ZIP code: 90292)
104. Siena Watson (ZIP code: 95124)
105. Miriam Martin (ZIP code: 95127)
Climate change is an urgent issue! Please put funds into finding solutions! 106. Serena Myjer (ZIP code: 95125)
107. Jennifer Cohen (ZIP code: 95008)
108. Kolumban Boesch (ZIP code: 95126)
The city of San Jose must take actions to mitigate climate change. Fully fund San Jose’s climate response!!
109. Lisa Adolph (ZIP code: 95120)
110. Maria Aranda (ZIP code: 95148)
111. Thomas Carlino (ZIP code: 95117-4202)
112. Doug Musto (ZIP code: 95127)
113. alison carpenter (ZIP code: 95118)
Alison Carpenter
114. Alia Merla (ZIP code: 95123)
115. Shannon Loucks (ZIP code: 97498)
116. Julie Wiltshire (ZIP code: 95112)
117. Eve Moran (ZIP code: 95125)
118. Deborah St Julien (ZIP code: 95136)
119. Rev Rowan Fairgrove (ZIP code: 95112)
120. catalina tirado-gonzalez (ZIP code: 95138)
121. Ina Roy (ZIP code: 94089)
Please make sure to keep our budget for the climate (and add to it!), since the FedGov is doing its best to destroy everything in the environment we depend on. 122. Bobbi Diamond (ZIP code: 94086)
123. Nana Lehtinen (ZIP code: 95125)
124. Derek Benedict (ZIP code: 90250)
125. Yonas Bekele (ZIP code: 94550)
126. Amy T (ZIP code: 95123)
127. Bonnie Arbuckle (ZIP code: 95367)
128. Debra Reynolds (ZIP code: 95128)
129. Nicolas Catabelle (ZIP code: 95136)
130. Melissa Blum (ZIP code: 95126)
131. Jacob Kosiba (ZIP code: 94303)
132. Ihab Awad (ZIP code: 95126)
133. Em McGuiness (ZIP code: 95128)
134. Zoe Gingrich (ZIP code: 94087)
135. Stacy Braslau-Schneck (ZIP code: 95125-2925)
We need this more than ever!
136. paola bueno (ZIP code: 95126)
137. Vivek Sharma (ZIP code: 95148)
138. John Oda (ZIP code: 94115)
139. Gregory Stevens (ZIP code: 94121)
140. Lucas Filshill (ZIP code: 94086)
141. jeffer razai (ZIP code: 95121)
142. Nora Carino (ZIP code: 95148)
143. Jenna Mu (ZIP code: 95030)
144. Chelsea Lee (ZIP code: 95014)
145. Al Park (ZIP code: 95111)
146. Phil Bobel (ZIP code: 94301)
147. Dennis Murphy (ZIP code: 94062)
148. Lauren Weston (ZIP code: 94303)
149. Meghan Lynch (ZIP code: 95070)
150. Mary Helen Doherty (ZIP code: 95112)
Thank you Mani for sharing this with me.
151. Nikola Konecny (ZIP code: 95126-2815)
152. Annette McMillan (ZIP code: 95121)
153. Maya Konecna (ZIP code: 95126)
154. Nathan Lee (ZIP code: 95014)
155. Toto Vu-Duc (ZIP code: 95076)
156. Hellas Lee (ZIP code: 95054)
157. Sarah Romano (ZIP code: 94556)
158. Joanna Tang (ZIP code: 94306)
159. Lenore Delgado (ZIP code: 94306)
160. Kimberly Meade (ZIP code: 95050)
161. Hoai-An Truong (ZIP code: 95126)
162. Lisa Gherardi (ZIP code: 95032)
163. Anna Brigantino (ZIP code: 95050)
164. Howard Cohen (ZIP code: 94306)
165. Ruth Clifford (ZIP code: 95126)
166. Gretchen Daily (ZIP code: 94305)
167. Kim Messmer (ZIP code: 95051)
168. Russell Stone (ZIP code: 95148-3209)
169. Susan Hinton (ZIP code: 95050)
170. Suzanne Becket (ZIP code: 95014)
171. Lynda Heideman (ZIP code: 94025)
I don't live in San Jose, but I do work around the Bay Area. And, of course, air and water knows no borders. We must all work together to address the existential threat that is climate change. 172. Heather Guillen (ZIP code: 95112)
173. Muneerah Lalani (ZIP code: 95127)
174. Isabelle Chappuis (ZIP code: 95131)
175. alice nguyen (ZIP code: 95136)
176. Chris Loo (ZIP code: 95037)
177. Ugo Eke-Simmons (ZIP code: 95826)
178. Mary Perry (ZIP code: 95125)
179. Terry Trumbull (ZIP code: 94301)
180. Lindi Ramsden (ZIP code: 95112)
181. Debbie Mytels (ZIP code: 94303)
San Jose is the largest City in the Bay Area and throughout the area, we all look to this city for leadership ! The Climate Smart team's work is critical, with many existing programs as well as some pilots in progress to determine what are cost effective ways to engage the public in reducing their carbon emissions. We need this effort to protect the health and reduce household expenses in our region. The cost of this program is small in relation to its overall importance and the leadership that San Jose has been demonstrating. Please do not kill it off! 182. Jane Holt (ZIP code: 94024)
183. Angela Kou (ZIP code: 95120)
184. Tung Vu (ZIP code: 97230)
185. jennifer Faria (ZIP code: 94024)
186. Stephanie Lin (ZIP code: 94041)
187. Tom Kunhardt (ZIP code: 94602)
188. Kathryn Albury (ZIP code: 95436)
As a grandmother I am deeply saddened that the quality of life of my grandchildren will be much more challenging that what I have enjoyed because of Climate Change. Please think of the future your children and grandchildren are facing. Please remember that what you do will affect us all. Restore full funding to Climate Smart San Jose.
189. Sandra Hietala (ZIP code: 95130-2148)
190. Lisa Feldberg (ZIP code: 95112)
There is no planet B
191. Christina Nelson (ZIP code: 94566)
192. Catlan Tran (ZIP code: 95139)
193. Judy Foot (ZIP code: 95014)
194. Elizabeth Guimarin (ZIP code: 95008)
195. Libby Karolczak (ZIP code: 94024)

Dear Mayor Mahan,

We are writing to respectfully and urgently ask that you reaffirm San José’s leadership on climate in this year’s budget. Specifically, we request that you mention climate action in your March Budget Message and commit to maintaining Climate Smart San José funding at no less than its current level.

For many San José residents, especially young people, the climate crisis is already shaping daily life. In recent years, our community has prepared evacuation plans during wildfire seasons, experienced repeated smoke days, and watched extreme heat and poor air quality become more common. The devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires and the growing wildfire risks across California are reminders that these impacts are intensifying and will continue to affect our region.

Climate change also makes many of the City’s existing challenges harder to manage.

Extreme heat and poor air quality threaten public health and strain emergency systems.

Unhoused residents face increased risks during heat waves and smoke events. Hotter temperatures worsen smog formation and trap harmful pollutants, adding to the fossil fuel-based pollution burdens already experienced by many neighborhoods. Housing pressures are likely to increase as natural disasters damage homes, raise insurance costs, and displace residents. At the same time, extreme weather disrupts agricultural production and supply chains, increasing food prices and worsening the cost-of-living crisis. Climate impacts are closely connected to community safety, affordability, neighborhood quality of life, housing stability, and long-term economic health.

Residents recognize the urgency. Recent polling shows that 78% of Santa Clara County adults are worried about climate change, and 61% believe local governments should do more. With federal leadership absent, local action is more important than ever. San José has long been a state and national leader on climate policy. Other cities have followed our example by adopting ambitious carbon neutrality goals and electrification standards. Because of our role as the capital of Silicon Valley, our decisions influence communities across the region and beyond.

At the same time, recent reporting indicates that San José is currently not on track to meet our 2030 carbon neutrality goal (San José Spotlight, January 2026). This moment calls for renewed commitment to implementation and progress.

We are deeply concerned about requested cuts from Climate Smart’s budget compared to prior years, particularly in non-personnel resources that support community partnerships, outreach, and program implementation. Climate Smart leadership has already indicated that these constraints are forcing the program to reduce community engagement and outreach efforts. Staff capacity limitations are also expected to reduce the City’s ability to pursue external grants, making our city lose out on large, important sources of outside funding. Without adequate staffing and operational funding, Climate Smart will be forced to forgo new initiatives or the piloting of innovative climate solutions, and then to eliminate baseline programs by next year.

Climate Smart San José has also recently undergone a structural shift, moving from the Environmental Services Department into the Energy Department as part of a cost-saving measure. As a result, the program is now funded through a combination of Energy Department ratepayer funds and General Fund dollars. While this structure can create opportunities for collaboration with energy programs, it also significantly limits the scope of climate initiatives that can be funded, since ratepayer funds must meet strict criteria. Maintaining adequate General Fund support is therefore essential to ensure the City can continue implementing broader climate programs and community engagement efforts.

Even at full funding, San José’s climate staffing and resources remain modest compared to peer cities. Leading cities such as San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Oakland average approximately 24 staff and $16 million dedicated to climate work, compared to Climate Smart San José’s approximately 7 staff and less than $200,000 in non-personnel funding. Further, Climate Smart has lost funding for at least the past three years, including in 2025 when the non-personnel budget was cut in half and the source of about 60% of remaining funding was shifted from the General Fund to the Energy Department. Climate Smart has already done all it can to cut costs, and more. Further reductions will dramatically harm its ability to lead our city’s climate efforts with success.

Community support for this work is strong. Last year, a coalition of seven local organizations gathered more than 200 petition signatures calling for full Climate Smart funding. Youth, families, community-based organizations, environmental groups, and residents across the city are counting on the City Council to ensure that San José continues moving forward.

Climate Smart’s funding enables essential work, including:
● Partnerships with community-based organizations
● Community engagement and the promotion of behavior and culture change ● Coordination and implementation of emissions reduction programs ● Planning and progress tracking needed to reach the 2030 carbon neutrality goal ● Grant-seeking to leverage outside funding

Without sufficient funding, the City may struggle to sustain partnerships with community organizations that play a critical role in reaching residents and implementing programs on the ground. These investments improve public health, reduce long-term costs, support economic opportunity in the clean energy sector, and strengthen community resilience.

We respectfully ask that you:

1. Maintain Climate Smart’s funding at least at current levels and avoid further reductions to climate mitigation or resilience programs.

2. Support the staffing, partnerships, and implementation capacity needed to keep San José on track toward carbon neutrality by 2030.

3. Highlight these commitments in your March Budget Message.

San José’s leadership matters. Cities across California and the country look to our example.

Continuing to invest in Climate Smart demonstrates that strong climate action is both possible and necessary. The climate advocacy community, including youth, parents, elders, and community organizations, is united in asking the City to protect and strengthen this work. The decisions made in this budget will shape San José’s safety, affordability, health, and quality of life for decades to come.

Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your commitment to our community’s future.

Sincerely,
San José Team of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action (SVYCA) Aahaan Jain - District 1 Constituent
Anika Khanna - District 1 Constituent
Akshaj Pulijala - District 1 Constituent
Braydon Lu - District 1 Constituent
Kelly Liu - District 3 Constituent
Mani Bekele - District 3 Constituent
Kanika Rawat - District 4 Constituent
Celine Sims- District 5 Constituent
Jeffer Razai - District 6 Constituent
Sruthi Manoj - District 6 Constituent
Rosalía Bacon-Flores - District 6 Constituent
Kim Truong - District 7 Constituent
Diya Prasanth - District 8 Constituent
Alana Smiley - District 9 Constituent
Nate Albano - District 10 Constituent
Calvin Sridhara - District 10 Constituent

SURJ Santa Clara County
c/o Urban Sanctuary
80 South 5th Street
San José, CA, 95112

March 16th, 2026
Mayor Matt Mahan
Vice Mayor Pam Foley
Councilmember Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember Pamela Campos
Councilmember Anthony Tordillos
Councilmember David Cohen
Councilmember Peter Ortiz
Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
Councilmember Bien Doan
Councilmember Domingo Candelas
Councilmember George Casey
City Manager Jennifer Maguire
Re: Item 3.1 Mayor’s Budget Message & Councilmembers’ Memoranda Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
True public safety is built on people thriving, not just on enforcement. San José's declining crime rates are proof that investing in community works, and our neighbors—the families, youth, workers, and elders who make this city alive—deserve a budget that reflects that truth. We call on the Mayor and Council to follow the evidence: fund the upstream conditions that allow every San José resident to be safe, stable, and seen.

A sampling of the 2025 Silicon Valley Pain Index shows that 0.001% of Silicon Valley’s population (9 households) had 15% of the wealth1; that 0.1% households hold 71% of the wealth2; that Hispanic workers earn 33 cents on the dollar earned by non-Hispanic white workers in San José3; that San José is ranked 4th globally in an index of “Impossibly Unaffordable” cities4; 54,582 households in San José do not have access to an affordable home5; that while the minimum wage is $18.45/h6 and so-called living wage is $27.98/h7, San José residents must make $60/h in order to afford median rent without being housing burdened8; that 75% of 8 Pain Index, p. 12
7 sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/public-works/labor-compliance/living-wage 6 sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/public-works/labor-compliance/minimum-wage-ordinance 5 Pain Index, p. 18
4 Pain Index, p. 7
3 Pain Index, p. 6
2 Pain Index, p. 6
1 SJSU Human Rights Institute 2025 Silicon Valley Pain Index, p. 6 1 extremely-low income families in San José spend more than half their income on housing9; that San José spends $25 million annually to disband and clean up encampments10; that 2,200 students in San José are experiencing homelessness11; and that there’s an 8% difference in tree-canopy cover between low-income census blocks and high income ones, with Latino communities 21% more likely to suffer from risk of heat stress & heat mortality due to lack of green areas12.

It is against this backdrop that the Mayor’s FY 2026–2027 March Budget Message presents a vision of public safety and neighborhood improvement built almost entirely on enforcement, surveillance expansion, and austerity. What it does not present—what is conspicuously absent from its 32 pages and from the majority of supplemental councilmember memoranda—is any serious investment upstream to prevent conditions that produce crime and economic, racial, and social inequity in the first place. We would love to see this changed.

Racial and social inequity isn’t just the side effect of bad policy: it’s the intended function of how most American cities were designed. Redlining, urban renewal, highway placement, exclusionary zoning, policing patterns—these were deliberate. So equity isn’t about “being nice,” it’s about repairing specific, documented, ongoing harm. The city is already spending this money—the question is whether it’s being spent in ways that deepen or reduce racial and social disparities.

A substantial and growing body of evidence demonstrates that the most effective and cost-efficient strategies for reducing crime and addressing racial and social disparities are those that intervene before harm occurs: stable housing, accessible behavioral health care, living-wage employment, youth development, and community-rooted violence prevention and intervention.

These are not speculative or ideological propositions. They are policy tools with measurable outcomes that cities across the country are funding at scale. We want San José to be the top among them.

The following sections identify crucial, specific, upstream investments and equity interventions that are missing from the Mayor’s budget framework and from councilmembers’ memoranda, organized by domain, that we wish to see added. Where relevant, we note instances in which the budget’s direction actively undermines the conditions these investments would address.

Housing Stability and Homelessness Prevention
The budget message dedicates more pages to homelessness than any other topic, yet its approach is almost exclusively focused on managing people who are already unhoused rather than preventing homelessness from occurring. The entire framework is oriented toward reducing the 12 Pain Index, p. 7
11 Pain Index, p. 16
10 Pain Index, p. 19
9 Pain Index, p. 13
2 visibility of unsheltered homelessness through interim housing with escalating conditions, enforcement zones, vehicle abatement, and relocation by bus; rather than addressing the structural drivers that push people onto the streets.

Permanent supportive housing and permanent affordable housing are absent as budget priorities.

The budget’s interim housing model moves in the opposite direction: imposing fees of up to 30% of income on residents13 (which for someone on SSI means $330 per month from an already impossible budget),14 introducing “Code of Conduct compliance” with unspecified consequences,15 and framing “peer-to-peer” labor programs whose voluntariness is unclear.16 These are conditions designed to make interim housing cheaper and more punitive, not conditions designed to move people into permanent stability.

Eviction prevention and rental assistance are fundamentally underfunded in the Mayor’s framework. Where the Candelas, Campos, Ortiz, Doan, and Casey memorandum addresses homelessness inflow and prevention, proposing quantified reduction goals of 10, 20, and 30 percent,17 and acknowledges that the current Measure E allocation for prevention (10%) is too low,18 the mayor’s message lacks an outline of benchmark goals and maintains that 10% of Measure E for prevention is adequate. We call for a right-to-counsel pilot for tenants facing eviction and emergency rental assistance expansion. People are being pushed into homelessness with next to no preventive intervention available.

While the current OLIVE program may appear successful on the surface because it removes vehicles from the streets, it does not address the needs of the people forced to live in their vehicles due to the high cost of living and wealth gap in San José. OLIVE and any expanded parking enforcement erases the humanity of people in our community who deserve solutions and belonging, not the burden of debt and homelessness due to towed vehicles. Use OLIVE and NQL funds, instead, to pilot a program to assist residents in updating their vehicle registration and toward scalable models for extended RV parking.

We need community land trusts, community ownership models, and anti-displacement protections, including for the Eastside Revitalization Plan. We need the right of first refusal to be proposed for tenants or community organizations. Look into commercial rent stabilization for gentrifying corridors. Propose policies like guaranteed basic income, which multiple California 18 Candelas et al. Memorandum.
17 Memorandum from Councilmembers Candelas, Campos, Ortiz, Doan & Casey re: FY 2026–2027 Mayor’s March Budget Message, March 12, 2026 (“Candelas et al. Memorandum”). 16 Budget Message, pp. 5–6.
15 Budget Message, pp. 10–11.
14 The federal SSI benefit rate was approximately $1,100/month in 2025. Thirty percent of $1,100 is $330. Budget Message, p. 5.
13 Mayor’s March Budget Message for FY 2026–2027 (“Budget Message”), p. 5. 3 cities have piloted with demonstrated reductions in financial stress and instability.19 The San José we want and deserve should have these policies in place.

Crisis Response, Behavioral Health, and Treatment Access The single-most consequential omission in the Mayor’s budget message is the complete absence of TRUST—the county’s non-police crisis response program that the city piloted funding an additional team for—from any mention in either the Mayor’s message or in the 42 directives of the Candelas et al. memorandum.20 Non-police mental health and substance use crisis response is the most evidence-supported alternative to armed police encounters with people in behavioral health crises. It reduces cost, reduces use of force, reduces unnecessary emergency department utilization, and produces better outcomes for the people in crisis.21 TRUST is public safety.

The budget’s approach to behavioral health crises is instead routed through enforcement mechanisms. The NQOL (Neighborhood Quality of Life) unit’s own data reveals the failure of this approach: hundreds of contacts, with less than 1% of individuals entering treatment.22 This is not a treatment program. It is a police contact program with a treatment label. The budget’s Prop 36 framing compounds the problem by assuming treatment infrastructure that does not exist—San Diego’s own data shows that of over 670 cases filed, only 50 defendants had been referred for assessment, and more than a third failed to appear for hearings.23 Prop 36 came with no funding for treatment expansion.24 Mandating treatment under threat of incarceration when treatment is unavailable is not a public safety strategy, as it will result in additional backlogs for treatment–when the treatment isn’t immediately available, incarceration becomes the only option.25
Community paramedicine, the one crisis-response expansion proposed in the budget, is Fire Department-based rather than civilian-led. Prior to allocating city funds, we ask for analysis comparing paramedicine’s approach, cost, and outcomes to TRUST or similar civilian models.

The 911-to-988 diversion increase is noted in the budget at approximately 150 per month,26 but no connection is drawn to what happens after diversion—whether those calls are reaching TRUST, whether people are receiving follow-up care, or whether the diversion is producing measurable outcomes. We need analysis of post-diversion outcomes and adjust iteratively. 26 Budget Message, p. 18.
25 San José Spotlight, March 15, 2026.
24 CalMatters, October 13, 2025; San Diego Union-Tribune, October 26, 2025. 23 V oice of San Diego, May 8, 2025; CalMatters, October 13, 2025. 22 Budget Message, p. 17.
21 See Thomas Dee & Jayme Pyne, “A community response approach to mental health and substance abuse crises reduced crime,” Science Advances, V ol. 8, No. 23 (June 2022); CAHOOTS program data, Eugene, OR; Denver STAR pilot evaluation.
20 Budget Message, pp. 15–19; Candelas et al. Memorandum (42 directives reviewed). TRUST is not mentioned by name in either document.
19 See, e.g., Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED), 2019–2021; Oakland Resilient Families program; Santa Clara County guaranteed income pilot.
4 Youth Development and Community Violence Prevention & Intervention The budget message contains some of its most promising language in the youth intervention section, naming upstream prevention as a foundational public safety investment and referencing the Children and Youth Services Master Plan. The Candelas et al. memo restores $1 million to the CYS Master Plan and protects BEST and violence prevention programs.27 But the underlying funding structure reveals how limited the commitment actually is. The $500,000 allocation is one-time.28 The SJYEA programs that “showed measurable impact” are not funded on an ongoing basis.29 A portion of the CYS allocation is earmarked to “leverage private investment,” a phrase that typically signals the city intends to shift its financial responsibility rather than sustain it.

What we’d like to see, additionally, is the broader ecosystem of youth and violence prevention investments that evidence supports: summer and year-round youth employment at scale, which has a decades-long evidence base showing measurable violent crime reductions among participants.30 Community violence intervention infrastructure including hospital-based violence intervention, street outreach, and conflict mediation. None of these appear in the budget message or supplemental memos, despite the fact that San José’s own declining crime rates (which the Mayor cites repeatedly) create exactly the conditions under which prevention investments can be expanded without increased risk. We see this as an opportunity to shift resources to upstream solutions, and it would be a shame to miss it.

Surveillance Expansion Versus Community-Defined Safety
The budget message’s “community safety” section is not a community safety plan. It is a police staffing and surveillance technology plan. Every substantive proposal in pages 15–19 involves either expanding police capacity (accelerated hiring timelines, cadet-to-academy stipends), expanding surveillance infrastructure (RTIC integration of library, airport, and transportation cameras; Fusus CORE expansion to additional business corridors; AI-enabled monitoring on city-owned cameras; AI body-cam-to-report transcription),31 or expanding enforcement mechanisms (speed cameras funded by citation revenue, NQOL contacts, Prop 36 referrals).32 Participatory budgeting for public safety spending where community members directly allocate a portion of safety dollars toward the interventions they know work is absent. The $2 million Essential Services Reserve is allocated to councilmember projects with no transparency or equity 32 Budget Message, pp. 12–14 (AI-enabled monitoring on city-owned cameras for blight enforcement). 31 Budget Message, pp. 15–17 (RTIC, Fusus CORE, AI body-cam transcription, speed cameras, cadet stipends). 30 See Sara Heller, “Summer jobs reduce violence among disadvantaged youth,” Science, V ol. 346, No. 6214 (2014); Alexander Gelber, Adam Isen & Judd Kessler, “The Effects of Youth Employment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, V ol. 131, No. 1 (2016).
29 Budget Message, pp. 18–19.
28 Budget Message, pp. 18–19.
27 Candelas et al. Memorandum.
5 mechanism described.33 The budget’s entire theory of public safety is top-down enforcement backed by technology. The community’s role in this framework is to be surveilled, not consulted.

We want to see these proposals emerge from a community-defined safety process. Include participatory safety planning. Add processes by which residents—particularly those in the neighborhoods most affected by both violence and over-policing—could identify and prioritize their own safety needs. Establish an independent oversight body with investigative authority for RTIC, Fusus, the Flock Safety ALPR network (nearly 500 cameras), Raven gunshot detection,34 and the AI monitoring expansion. Require a civil liberties impact assessment. Audit algorithmic bias. The budget proposes to expand a mass surveillance ecosystem and frames it as “blight enforcement.”35
Economic Justice, Labor, and Community Wealth
The budget message’s “Growing Our Economy” section is oriented toward large-scale development of data centers, a Sports and Entertainment District, Downtown leasing incentives, PG&E’s $1.6 billion grid expansion36 without community benefit agreements, local hire requirements, or living wage standards attached to any of it. The city is proposing to subsidize commercial landlords through the Downtown Leasing Incentive while simultaneously cutting community services to close a $56 million shortfall.37 We wish to see an analysis of who benefits from these investments and who bears the costs.

Protecting Immigrant Communities
The Mayor’s budget message rightly acknowledges last year’s historic $1 million allocation for immigration services (a 20x increase in the city’s investment), and the results speak clearly: over 70 Know Your Rights presentations reaching nearly 1,100 residents and small business owners, more than 3,800 calls handled by the Rapid Response Network,38 over 300 individuals served with immigration support,39 and 50 immigration petitions filed.40 In a city where half of its 60,000 small businesses are immigrant-owned or -operated,41 and where federal enforcement has produced widespread fear among families including U.S. citizen children and seniors, these services are not optional. They are essential city infrastructure.

What is concerning is the budget message’s posture toward sustaining and expanding that investment. The language directs the City Manager to “assess funding gaps” and provide 41 Budget Message, pp. 19–25 (60,000 small businesses, approximately half immigrant-owned or -operated). 40 Budget Message, pp. 30–31.
39 Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice and Empowerment 38 Budget Message, pp. 30–31 (immigration services allocation, program outcomes). 37 Budget Message, pp. 1–4.
36 Budget Message, pp. 19–25.
35 Budget Message, p. 15 (“blight enforcement” framing for AI monitoring). 34 KQED “San José Is the Latest Bay Area City to Restrict Flock License Plate Cameras” March 11, 2026; Raven gunshot detection expansion documented in SJPD technology procurement records. 33 Budget Message (Essential Services Reserve).
6 one-time funding “if available.”42 This is hedging language that leaves the door open to reduction or elimination in a year when the administration is framing every line item through a $56 million shortfall.

We urge the Council to preserve the full $1 million investment in immigration services on an ongoing basis—not as one-time funding subject to annual re-justification, but as a durable commitment commensurate with the scale and severity of the current federal enforcement environment. We further urge the Council to hold the Mayor’s Office accountable for delivering on the promised $500,000 in philanthropic match,43 with a public reporting timeline. The political climate demands that San José meet the moment.

What the Supplemental Memoranda Do And Do Not Address
The Candelas, Campos, Ortiz, Doan, and Casey memorandum is the most substantive of the supplemental memos, and it contains several meaningful directions: the homelessness prevention and inflow reduction framework, the rejection of the San Diego Prop 36 study mission, protection of BEST funding, and the small business relief fund for ICE-impacted corridors.44 But across 42 directives spanning every focus area, the memo does not raise surveillance expansion, privacy, or civil liberties concerns regarding RTIC, Fusus, Flock Safety, or AI monitoring. We expect it to address the nearly 500 ALPRs operating across the city or the expansion of Raven gunshot detection. It could reference encampment rights or reasonable accommodation (RA)—despite the documented 92% RA denial rate.45 We urge you to broaden these positive provisions for protections for immigrants.

The Mulcahy memorandum is supportive of the Mayor’s framework and does not challenge any fundamental priorities. Its substantive asks are small—$100,000 for park staffing at two parks in a $56 million shortfall year—and its most significant operational proposal, “One Team Watch,” effectively turns every city employee into a reporter with no equity guardrails, no consideration of which neighborhoods get flagged, and no analysis of how “proactive reporting” interacts with the surveillance of unhoused populations and marginalized communities.46 The Campos memorandum on the Branham-Monterey interim housing conversion’s direction is welcome in principle—converting interim sites to permanent housing is precisely the kind of pipeline this budget should be building. But the memo raises more questions than it answers. No building code or habitability standards are referenced for the conversion. No tenant protections such as just-cause eviction, lease terms, resident rights are included or contemplated. The core test remains simple: would we accept these units at market rate as permanent rental housing? If 46 Memorandum from Councilmember Mulcahy re: FY 2026–2027 Mayor’s March Budget Message, March 12, 2026.
45 San José Housing Department data: 85 accommodation requests filed between May and September 2025, 78 (92%) were denied
44 Candelas et al. Memorandum (42 directives across all focus areas). 43 Mayor’s verbal commitment to Rapid Response Network & Community at Mexican Heritage Plaza, May 19, 2025 42 Budget Message, pp. 30–31 (“assess funding gaps,” provide one-time funding “if available”). 7 the answer is no, they are not adequate as permanent affordable housing either.47 If the answer is yes, then we support this memo.

The Budget We Need
San José’s crime rates are declining. The Mayor says so, himself… repeatedly. The city’s own data shows violent crime down 15% year over year.48 If the city is achieving these outcomes with current resources, the logical policy response is not to double down on enforcement and surveillance. It is to invest in the upstream conditions that sustain and deepen those gains:
housing stability, behavioral health access, youth employment, economic opportunity, and community-rooted safety infrastructure. Every dollar spent on permanent supportive housing, treatment on demand, and community violence prevention and intervention is a dollar that prevents the downstream costs of emergency room visits, jail bookings, shelter cycling, and police overtime.

The $56 million shortfall is real.49 But it is not an argument for austerity—it is an argument for spending what we have more accountably. The city is already spending on homelessness, on public safety, on code enforcement, on economic development. The question is whether that spending is reducing or deepening the racial and social inequities that produce the problems the budget claims to solve. Right now, the answer is clear: the budget proposes to expand surveillance, intensify enforcement, weaken tenant protections, subsidize commercial development without community benefit, and ignore the institutional mechanisms that would make any of this accountable to the communities most affected.

We urge the Council to direct the City Manager to incorporate upstream prevention and racial equity infrastructure into the May budget, including: permanent supportive housing investment; eviction prevention and right-to-counsel; ongoing funding for youth employment, violence prevention and intervention, and TRUST; independent oversight of all surveillance technology with community input before deployment; racial equity impact assessments on all major budget and policy decisions; disaggregated public data reporting across all city departments; and a reparative investment framework that names the history and commits to the repair.

The question before the Council is not whether the city can afford these investments. It is whether the city can afford to keep doing without them.

Sincerely,
Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Santa Clara County 49 Budget Message, pp. 1–4.
48 Budget Message, p. 1; San José Spotlight, January 23, 2026. 47 Memorandum from Councilmember Campos re: 1 Branham Lane conversion, March 12, 2026. 8 March 17, 2026

Re: Maintain current level of funding for Climate Smart San Jose (Agenda Item 3.3)

To Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers:

Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley is the local, volunteer-led chapter (representing 2000+ Santa Clara County residents) of a national movement of mothers and allies mobilizing for a livable climate for all children. We appreciate the efforts of the City Council over the past decade to take important steps to protect the climate. However, recent efforts have stalled, and as pointed out in this article in San Jose Spotlight, the City is no longer on track to reach its promise of carbon neutrality by 2030. In fact, our carbon pollution has stopped going down and is now going up.

Yes, we know that the City has won awards for being a leader on climate and we all should be proud of the progress made so far. But no one should conclude that awards and past progress mean that the goal has been reached. Rather than scaling back our efforts, we need to ramp them up and demonstrate what true climate leadership looks like. True climate leaders center the needs of our most vulnerable residents, understand that the climate crisis is exacerbating the affordability crisis, and recognize the necessity to invest NOW in climate mitigation measures to avoid the need for much costlier climate adaptation measures in the near future.

Therefore, we’re deeply concerned that the Climate Smart team is being asked to cut their budget for FY 2026-2027 and we ask that the final budget you approve does at least two things:

1. Maintain Climate Smart’s funding at least at current levels and avoid further reductions to climate mitigation or resilience programs.

2. Support the staffing, partnerships, and implementation capacity needed to keep San José on track toward carbon neutrality by 2030.

With the climate crisis escalating even faster than scientists predicted and the need for local action greater than ever, we should under no circumstances reduce the resources allocated to protect current and future generations from devastating climate impacts. As we fast approach irreversible climate tipping points that may lead to an uninhabitable climate, postponing action until later is TOO late.

While the City faces a challenging budget season, cutting climate funding today will result in greater costs down the road. Our residents already face climate threats today, such as extreme heat, indoor air pollution from gas appliances, and degraded air quality from gas cars and climate-fueled wildfires. As the federal government rolls back environmental protections, undermines investments in clean energy, and pushes for the increased burning of fossil fuels, we ask our City leaders to look for ways to maintain or increase our climate funding from last year, not where to cut it.

On behalf of our children and community,
Linda Hutchins-Knowles
Co-Founder and Team Coordinator
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley

Companies such as Respyre (
gorespyre.com) are developing moss growing bricks
that can help lower surface temperatures by up to over 44 degrees, and also help us reach our climate goals faster. Moss can absorb up to 4 times more CO₂ per unit area than trees. Moss is also much more drought resilient than trees and requires significantly less water. Moss growing bricks can also be used to cool public buildings such as schools and offices lowering costs there too.

I urge you to insist that the final budget, at a minimum:

1. Maintains Climate Smart’s funding at least at current levels and avoids further reductions to climate mitigation or resilience programs.

2. Supports the staffing, partnerships, and implementation capacity needed to keep San José on track toward carbon neutrality by 2030.

Thank you.

Hoai-An Truong
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
D6 Resident
--
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The diet that helps fight climate change and more
Now on Netflix! KISS THE GROUND - movie based on the bestseller.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Now on Netflix! KISS THE GROUND - movie based on the bestseller.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. residents can continue to work, contribute to our economy, and remain safely housed in San Jose.

Please continue to invest in the safety and dignity of our immigrant community.

Sincerely,

Kate Harrison
Rapid Responder for Santa Clara County
Resident of Mountain View

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Landscape Design
“We can no longer afford to carry on in a prolonged era of polite reflection and ineffective resistance...We must invent,
overnight, another kind of civilization....It is a good idea to love each other, and to love the Earth.”
― Barry Lopez
www.botanyofdesign.com

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Donna Tanaka
Council District 10

San Jose City CouncilMarch 17, 2026

San Jose City Council
March 17, 2026