Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 2.11 - Support for San Jose Heritage Tree List Update From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 2.11 - Support for San Jose Heritage Tree List Updat e [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
I am writing in support of Agenda Item 2.11, the proposed update to San Jose's Heritage Tree List.
Adding 125 trees to the Heritage Tree List is a positive step for San Jose and its urban forest. These trees are not simply aesthetic amenities. Mature trees provide shade, help reduce urban heat, intercept stormwate r, provide habitat, and contribute to the character and history of neighbo rhoods throughout the city.
I also appreciate that this update appears to be based on actual field conditions rather than simply preserving an outdated list. Removing seven trees because of health or structu ral concerns while adding qualify ing trees identified through community nominat ions and staff review is a reasonable approach to maintaining an accurate Heritage Tree List.
The proposed update would increase the number of designated Heritage Trees from 784 to 902. That is significant and deserves recognit ion.
I would encourage the Council and City staff to make sure that designation is followed by continued monitoring , appropriate maintenance, and meaningful protection during future development and permitting decisions. Placing a tree on a protected list is important , but the long term measure of the program will be how successfully San Jose keeps these trees healthy and preserves its mature urban canopy.
I would also encourage the City to continue making the Heritage Tree map and information easily accessible to residents and property owners and to encourage community nom inations when residents know of significant trees that may not yet be included.
San Jose faces substantial development and infrastructure needs, but preserving mature trees and accommodat ing responsible development do not have to be competing objectives. A healthy urban This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. forest is itself part of the city's infrastructure and contributes to the quality of life of present and future residents.
I support Item 2.11 and thank the City's Forestry staff and community members involved in identifying and protecting these trees.
Respectfully,
Brian Darby
Outlook
FW: August 18 Consent Calendar- Items 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.11 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 Consent Calendar- Items 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.11 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
I am writing regarding several items on the August 18 Consent Calendar. I generally support the staff recommendat ions, but after reviewing the materials I wanted to offer several observations for the publ ic record.
Item 2.11 - Heritage Tree List
I strongly support the proposed update to San Jose's Heritage Tree List. Adding 125 trees while removing seven because of health or structural concerns appears to be a reasonable effort to keep the list accurate and meaningful.
The resulting increase from 784 to 902 Heritage Trees is significant. Mature trees provide shade, reduce urban heat, intercept stormwater, provide habitat, and contribute to the history and character of San Jose's neighborhoods.
I encourage the City to make sure designat ion is accompanied by continued monitoring , maintenance, and meaningful consideration during future development and permitting decisions. A healthy mature tree canopy should be viewed as an important part of San Jose's infrastructure rather than simply an aesthetic amenity.
Item 2.7 -Airport Airside Lighting Replacement
I also support the airside lighting project. Replacing aging and deterio rating light ing infrastructure with modern LED equipment appears to be a sensible safety and infrastructure investment, particu larly given the age and condition of some of the existing equipment.
I appreciate the City's use of federal grant fund ing for a substantia l portion of the eligib le costs. I also note the uncertainty described in the staff report concerning possible future federal grant conditions.
If those circumstances change and additional Airport funds become necessary, I hope the Council will continue to receive clear information concerning the resulting financial exposure.
Item 2.8 – Wastewater Facility Consultant Agreements
I understand the City's rationale for maintaining continuity with consultants already familiar with complex projects underway at the Regional Wastewater Facility. Changing consultants in the middle of major capital projects can create its own costs, delays, and loss of institutional knowledge.
At the same time, these are substantial consulting agreements. I was therefore encouraged to see that City staff are being trained to assume program level scheduling responsibilities, with the goal of transitioning that work from the consultant to City staff.
I encourage the Council to make sure that this knowledge transfer actually occurs. Outside consultants can provide valuable specialized expertise, but long-running consulting relationships should not unintentionally become permanent substitutes for developing appropriate expertise within the City's own workforce.
When these projects and the transition are completed, the City should also consider whether future consulting work should return to competitive procurement so that Council can periodically determine whether the City continues to receive the best value.
Item 2.9 – Northern California Regional Intelligence Center I recognize the public safety value of regional cooperation involving narcotics, terrorism, major events, and other serious threats, and I do not object to accepting outside funding that helps San José participate in that work.
However, intelligence sharing among local, state, and federal agencies necessarily involves sensitive information. Continued participation should therefore be accompanied by appropriate oversight concerning privacy, civil liberties, information retention, and the safeguards governing the sharing and use of information.
I am not suggesting that the staff report identifies a specific problem in these areas. Rather, I believe periodic oversight is appropriate precisely because these programs involve sensitive law enforcement information and have operated for many years.
Overall, I support these Consent Calendar actions. My comments are intended primarily to encourage continued attention to long-term accountability: protecting our urban forest, maintaining critical infrastructure, developing expertise within the City workforce, exercising appropriate oversight of outside contracts, and maintaining safeguards when government agencies share sensitive information.
Consent items are described as routine, but many still involve significant policy choices, expenditures, and long term commitments. I appreciate the opportunity to place these observations in the public record.
Respectfully,
Brian Darby