Attachment A: Increasing Community Safety Focus Area
Long-Term Goal: San José residents live in a community with responsive emergency services and safe streets and roads.
Problem Area 1: Emergency Response Annual Status
1.1 Increase Police Academy class size to 40 police officers enrolled per academy class in FY 2025-2026 (SJ54, SJ55, SJ56), including lateral police officers hired.
C
hange Initiative: The Police Department has invested in attracting new talent through marketing, recruitment, and backgrounding efforts, as well as implementing lateral hiring bonuses and cadet stipends.
H
ypothesis: If successful, the City expected to see increased enrollment in police academy classes and additional lateral hires.
R
esults and Lessons Learned: During FY 2025-2026, the Police Department expanded recruiting efforts through targeted marketing, community outreach, streamlined background investigations, lateral hiring incentives, cadet stipends, and new military recruiting partnerships. Recruiting staff participated in career fairs, community events, recruit ride-alongs, oral board workshops, physical agility testing, regional recruiting events, and military outreach, including participation in the Department of War SkillBridge program. These efforts continued throughout the year, including recruitment activities associated with the FIFA World Cup, which concluded during the reporting period.
Thes
e efforts produced measurable progress toward the City's recruiting objectives. The Department hired a total of 116 sworn recruits during the year, averaging 39 sworn recruits per three academies (including academy recruits and customer transport officers, as well as lateral officers) compared to the 40- recruit goal. Over the Police Academies launched in FY 2025-2026, there were a total of 105 academy recruits (SJ-54: 31 recruits, SJ-55: 38 recruits, SJ-56:
32 recruits, Custody Transport Officers: four recruits). Of this total, 19 of the academy recruits identified as women, showing progress toward the Department’s goal of hiring more women. Additional academy classes continue to advance applicants through the hiring process, with SJ-57 and SJ-58 maintaining active background investigations as the Department prepares future academies. Lateral recruitment also remained active, with candidates from several California law enforcement agencies progressing through the selection process. In FY 2025-2026, the Department hired 11 lateral officers, which sustained higher levels of lateral hiring over the past two fiscal years.
Overall, the Department held stable staffing compared to the past year, with 892 street-ready sworn officers working as of May 1, 2026, compared to 900 as of May 2, 2025.
While the Department did not consistently achieve the goal of 40 recruits per academy class, with a combined average of 39 recruits per academy, the year demonstrated that sustained recruiting investments are improving applicant flow and strengthening the hiring pipeline. Continued recruitment efforts, together with retention initiatives, are expected to increase academy enrollment, expand sworn staffing over time, reduce vacancies, and improve the Department's ability to meet the City's long-term public safety goals.
Partially
Completed
Next Step for Change Initiative: The Police Department will continue refining and expanding its recruitment strategy as part of the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. Building on the initiatives implemented during FY 2025-2026, the Department will continue targeted marketing, military recruiting partnerships, community outreach, lateral recruitment efforts, and process improvements designed to attract qualified applicants and move them efficiently through the hiring process. These efforts will be coordinated with ongoing retention initiatives to improve overall staffing levels and strengthen the Department's long-term workforce.
1.2 Implement a report transcription technology pilot and assess the impact on police officer report-writing time by December 2025.
C
hange Initiative: The City has tested an artificial intelligence-based police report transcription technology to help officers spend less time on paperwork.
H
ypothesis: Less time on writing police reports would mean that officers could spend more time in the beat structure responding to calls for service.
R
esults and Lessons Learned: The Department completed an internal evaluation of an artificial intelligence (AI) police report writing solution. Systems personnel tested the software using department body-worn camera recordings and simulated patrol workflows before any deployment to patrol officers. The evaluation determined that the product did not meet the Department's operational requirements. While the system integrated well with existing technology, it produced transcription errors, incorporated unrelated conversations into reports, generated inaccurate information ("hallucinations"), could not be configured to Police Department report-writing standards, and lacked the reliability necessary for official police reports. Based on those findings, the Department concluded the technology was not ready for operational deployment and ended the evaluation before expanding the pilot to Patrol personnel.
A
lthough the initial product was not adopted, the evaluation successfully identified the operational, legal, and technical requirements necessary for future AI report-writing solutions. Since that evaluation, the market has advanced significantly, with newer products demonstrating substantial improvements in transcription accuracy, report quality, officer review tools, and workflow integration. The evaluation provided the Department with valuable lessons that are now informing a competitive procurement process for a next- generation solution capable of reducing report-writing time while maintaining officer accountability, report quality, and compliance with legal requirements.
Given that the tool was not scaled for implementation, there is no expected impact on officer time saved or improvements to response times.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being refined and continued in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. The Department has received funding to pursue a competitive procurement process for an AI- assisted report writing solution. During FY 2026-2027, the Department will complete community engagement, finalize a Request for Proposals, evaluate vendor submissions against established operational and legal requirements, and conduct a formal field pilot of the selected product before considering Completed
department-wide implementation. Any future solution must demonstrate substantial time savings, high transcription accuracy, officer-controlled verification tools, and compliance with all applicable privacy, audit, and AI transparency requirements before being deployed operationally.
1.3 Evaluate the impact of improving police response times by completing three patrol deployment projects by June 2026.
C
hange Initiative: The Police Department has implemented three patrol capacity deployment projects to understand opportunities to improve response times: 1) Custody Officer Unit (new program), 2) District-Based Deployment (pilot), and 3) Two-Officer Patrol Car Deployment (pilot).
H
ypothesis: 1) Implementing a Custody Officer Unit would free up officers in patrol from having to spend time booking offenders at the jail, allowing them to respond to more calls. 2) Eliminating beats as the lowest level of geography would improve response times by allowing all officers to respond to any call in a district. 3) Two-person units would improve officer safety and response times by eliminating the delay waiting for a second arriving unit.
R
esults and Lessons Learned: The Police Department completed the three patrol deployment initiatives identified in this goal and used them to evaluate different approaches for improving patrol capacity and response times. The District-Based Deployment and Two-Officer Patrol Car pilots provided valuable operational experience that informed future patrol deployment decisions.
Du
ring the individual pilot phase, Central Division’s District-Based Deployment pilot saw response times improvement by 7%. Western Division’s Two-Officer Patrol Car pilot saw response times improvement by 7%. The pilots show promising results and have given confidence to scale these strategies. The experience gained through the District-Based Deployment pilot is directly informing the Department-wide patrol redistricting project, where district-wide dispatching will become a core component of the new deployment model. The Department has permanently authorized mandatory two-officer patrol cars for newly graduated officers during field training.
The C
ustody Transport Officer (CTO) Program has also transitioned from planning to implementation. Approximately half of the authorized positions have been filled, the initial CTOs are nearing completion of field training, and policies are being finalized before independent deployment. While the CTO Program has not yet operated long enough to produce measurable operational impacts, the Department has completed the planning, hiring, training, and policy development necessary to begin evaluating its effectiveness once personnel are deployed.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being operationalized through the Police Department's normal operations in the next Focus Area cycle. Even so, a related change initiative was approved for the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan for police redistricting. The CTO Program will transition to full operational deployment as the first group of CTOs completes field training and begins independently transporting prisoners and completing jail bookings. The Department will continue hiring until all authorized positions are Completed
filled and will begin measuring operational outcomes such as completed prisoner transport, officer time returned to patrol, and booking efficiencies.
The lessons learned from the District-Based Deployment pilot are being incorporated into the Department's patrol redistricting project, which is scheduled for Department-wide implementation during the November 2026 shift change. District-wide dispatching will become the standard deployment model under the new district boundaries. The Department will also continue using mandatory two-officer patrol cars for newly graduated officers during field training while monitoring the operational impacts of that deployment model.
1.4 Open Fire Station 32 with a single company by June 2026.
Change Initiative: Through Measure T funds, the City has expanded the number of fire stations in the community, especially in the areas of most critical need based on call demand.
Hypothesis: Opening a new fire station would increase capacity to meet service demands and reduce response times in the surrounding area.
Results and Lessons Learned: The service area planned for Station 32 continues to be a strategic location for a new fire station, with some of the busiest Engine Companies in the city (E26, E2, E3, and E16). In calendar year 2025, these four companies collectively handled well over 17,000 emergency incidents, representing more than 22% of San José’s total call volume, and spent approximately 6,000 hours actively committed to emergency calls, based on documented unit-time ranges for each company.
While construction has continued as planned during the year, the 2026-2027 Proposed Operating Budget contained a proposal to defer the opening of Station 32 for two years for budgetary reasons. Due to the importance of opening Station 32, the Fire Department and the City Manager’s Budget Office continued evaluating alternatives to activate Station 32 without worsening the General Fund shortfall. As such, the Administration brought forward an alternative described in Manager’s Budget Addendum #5 that would temporarily eliminate two of the City’s three rescue medics (currently deployed from Station 3 and Station 26) from October 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028, and activate Station 32 staffed on overtime from October 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028. This alternative was not approved by the City Council. Instead, the City Council directed the Administration to apply for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant funding to support the hiring of new firefighter positions necessary to open Station 32.
Next Step for Change Initiative: The Administration submitted a proposal for the SAFER grant and is awaiting a decision. Should the grant be awarded to the City, staff estimate that Station 32 would open in July 2027.
On Hold
1.5 Implement Closest Unit Dispatch for medical-only calls for service by June 2026 to dispatch resources based upon apparatus proximity to the incident rather than to station location.
Change Initiative: The Fire Department has tested whether proximity-based dispatch leads to faster response times for medical only calls for service.
Partially
Completed
Hypothesis: Allowing dispatch of the closest apparatus, versus a given fire station territory, would improve fire response times.
Results and Lessons Learned: Approximately 150 Fire Department vehicles and apparatus have network routers installed, which provide cellular connectivity from two cellular networks. This redundant connectivity is intended to ensure vehicle location can be reliably communicated to the Octave computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. Response plans must be configured within CAD so that CAD recommends the appropriate unit to respond to emergency incidents based on unit location. Testing of that configuration resulted in unexpected behavior. The Fire Department is further evaluating the technology issue and is evaluating the best path forward.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being refined and continued in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. Specifically, the Fire Department will evaluate support needs for implementation of the closest unit dispatch model and report to the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee as part of the Fire Operations Annual Report and the Focus Area status reports.
Problem Area 2: Crisis Response Annual Status
2.1 Increase call transfer volume from fewer than 10 calls per month to 75 calls per month by June 2026 to better integrate the emergency response system (911) and crisis response system (988).
Change Initiative: The Police Department implemented 911-988 transfer protocols to more clearly identify to 911 call takers the types of calls that should be triaged as crisis calls to 988. The City also partnered with the County to create a curriculum to improve staffing training.
Hypothesis: If successful, 911 Communications would increase call transfer volume to 988, freeing up officers to respond to other calls for service and improving response times.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Department successfully implemented standardized 911-988 transfer protocols in coordination with the County and established ongoing collaboration to improve call triage. The goal exceeded its success measure, increasing from fewer than 10 transfers per month at the start of the initiative to approximately 100 transfers per month by June 2026, with 296 calls transferred during the third quarter (99 per month) and 308 calls transferred during the fourth quarter (103 per month). This increase followed a significant staff training in fall 2025. The standardized criteria provided Communications personnel with greater confidence in identifying appropriate behavioral health calls while maintaining clear exclusions for incidents requiring a police response. The transfer criteria also continue to be refined as operational experience is gained.
The initiative demonstrated that increasing transfer volume depended on more than simply creating transfer criteria. Regular coordination with County partners, improvements to the Trusted Response Urgent Support Team (TRUST) response practices, clearer eligibility standards, and continued Completed
dispatcher training all contributed to increased confidence in using the system.
Early challenges involving caller handoffs and inconsistent acceptance criteria have largely been addressed through recurring operational meetings between the Police Department and County partners. The result is a more integrated emergency and behavioral health response system that directs appropriate calls to behavioral health resources while allowing police officers to remain available for calls requiring a law enforcement response. It is important to note that this increase in call transfers did not result in a detectable improvement in response times.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being operationalized through the Police Department’s normal operations in the next Focus Area cycle. The Department will continue operating the 911-988 transfer program as part of normal Communications operations while monitoring transfer volume and refining transfer criteria and operational processes as needed. The Department will continue working with County partners to improve coordination and implement future changes as appropriate.
2.2 Increase community awareness of 988 from 25% to 30% by June 2026.
Change Initiative: The City has supported County efforts to increase community awareness of 988, so that residents better understand available services and are more likely to self-identify when to call 988 instead of 911.
Hypothesis: Greater community awareness of behavioral health services offered through 988 would lead to a better resource match and a decrease in the number of behavioral health calls that go to 911.
Results and Lessons Learned: Community awareness of 988 increased to 34% during the year, exceeding the goal of 30%. Awareness also increased across all major service categories, including support for mental health crises, suicidal thoughts, and substance use. Self-reported household use of 988 increased from 1.4% to 2.3%, suggesting that greater awareness is contributing to increased utilization of the service. At the same time, crisis- related calls continue to be routed through 911 in significant numbers, which is expected given the substantial difference in public awareness and familiarity between the two systems. While 34% of residents reported awareness of 988, 98% reported awareness of 911, and 26% of households reported contacting 911 in the past year. These results suggest that continued public education, combined with ongoing improvements to call triage and coordination between 911 and 988, will be necessary over time to improve resource matching for behavioral health crises and to preserve emergency response system capacity.
Staff identified opportunities to improve future outreach efforts. Survey results indicate that Vietnamese residents are less likely to be aware of 988 than the overall population. Furthermore, residents report awareness of 988 services for substance use at lower rates compared to higher rates for suicidal thoughts or mental health crises. During the year, City staff coordinated with the County to identify targeted communications strategies to address these gaps. Looking ahead, the County reduced funding and staffing for the Behavioral Health Services Department's Suicide Prevention Division during the FY 2026-2027 budget process. Staff are working with County partners to understand how these reductions may affect future 988 outreach efforts and to identify Completed
opportunities for continued collaboration. For example, the County-led Suicide Prevention Oversight Committee, for which the City is an active partner, is being transitioned in oversight to the County’s Public Health Department.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being operationalized through normal operations in the next Focus Area cycle. The County continues to lead efforts related to 988 community awareness, with state efforts also contributing. The City will continue to support through digital communication to employees and to residents via social media and other channels.
2.3 Implement the First Responder Fee program by January 2026 to help recover costs related to emergency medical care.
Change Initiative: The Fire Department implemented a First Responder Fee program starting January 2026. The fee is applied to medical 911 calls and is primarily billed to a patient’s insurance rather than directly to the resident.
Compassionate billing and forgiveness policies may cover uninsured individuals and those with hardships.
Hypothesis: Shifting funding models would help the City recover a portion of the rising costs associated with providing emergency medical services.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Fire Department successfully implemented the First Responder Fee program on January 1, 2026. As part of implementation, the Department conducted public outreach, community information sessions, and provided a webpage including Frequently Asked Questions to explain the purpose of the fee and how the insurance billing process works.
From January 1 through June 30, 2026, the Department responded to approximately 31,500 eligible medical incidents, resulting in 31,496 patient accounts submitted for billing. The program generated approximately $11.4 million in gross charges. As of June 30, 2026, approximately $450,215 had been realized as revenue, representing an overall collection rate of approximately 4%. Approximately $2.63 million had been classified as unrealized revenue due to insurer nonpayment, unavailable insurance information, or unpaid balances remaining after partial payments. The remaining charges were still in process or pending billing. Because the program does not balance bill patients, unpaid balances remaining after partial payments are not pursued. Payer categories included 8.6% commercial insurance, 31.9% Medicare, 24.8% Medi-Cal, and 34.0% private pay.
Collection rates by payer were 43.4% for commercial insurance, 0.5% for Medicare, 0.04% for Medi-Cal, and 0.5% for private pay.
These initial results provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that the City can recover a portion of the increasing cost of providing emergency medical services while limiting direct financial impacts on residents. Implementation also demonstrated that reimbursement performance varies significantly by payer and depends on complete and accurate patient and insurance information, timely transmission of records, payer reimbursement policies, and continued coordination with the billing contractor. Because the program operated for only half of FY 2025-2026 and claims may take several months to Completed
resolve, these initial results do not yet represent the program’s full annual revenue potential.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being operationalized through the Fire Department's normal operations in the next Focus Area cycle.
The Department will monitor billing volume, collection rates, payer mix, denials, documentation quality, and pending claims. Staff will work with the third-party billing contractor to improve insurance-information collection, address rejected or incomplete claims, and establish regular financial and operational reporting.
The Department will continue reinforcing documentation and insurance- collection expectations with field personnel.
Problem Area 3: Crime Reduction Annual Status
3.1 Operationalize 1,020 public safety cameras, 1,000 private network cameras, and 490 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) in the Real Time Intelligence Center by June 2026 to increase the City’s ability to hold offenders accountable.
Change Initiative: The Police Department has expanded its Real Time Intelligence Center network to better support patrol and investigations with insights and evidence.
Hypothesis: Centralizing the collection of live data could help achieve better on-scene situational awareness and reduce the amount of time it takes to conduct investigations that lead to successful outcomes.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Department successfully completed integration of its 490-camera ALPR network and substantially expanded City- owned camera integration into the Real Time Intelligence Center, including all of the identified 1,020 new public safety cameras and those funded through the Organized Retail Theft grant. These camera systems are now routinely supporting patrol operations, criminal investigations, suspect identification, and stolen vehicle recovery. The technology itself has proven reliable, and the addition of higher-quality cameras has improved image quality and investigative value.
Progress in integrating private camera networks has been slower than originally anticipated. Very few private camera owners have converted to integration and operationalization under this goal. While technical integration through the Fusus platform has been successful, expanding the private network requires extensive outreach, trust-building, legal agreements, and coordination with each participating business or organization. During FY 2025- 2026, the Department established the infrastructure, partnership agreements, and outreach strategy necessary to support future expansion. Major partnerships with private organizations are expected to bring several hundred additional cameras online as implementation continues. The primary lesson learned is that building trusted public-private partnerships requires considerably more time than deploying the technology itself.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being refined and continued in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. The Police Department set a goal to operationalize up to 1,500 City-owned public safety cameras and Partially
Completed
integrate 300 private network cameras into the Real Time Intelligence Center to enhance the City’s ability to support investigations. Next steps include completing camera integrations already in progress, continuing outreach through the Fusus Core rebate program, and expanding participation from private businesses.
3.2 Increase efforts to combat organized retail theft by increasing the number of retail theft cases submitted to the District Attorney’s Office from around 1,000 in FY 2022-2023 (prior to establishing the Organized Retail Theft Detail) to 2,000 in FY 2025-2026.1
Change Initiative: The Police Department has implemented an Organized Retail Theft Detail to combat a significant rise in retail theft seen across cities in California. The initiative is supported by an $8.5 million state grant and involves specialized overtime patrols, dedicated investigator capacity, and technology.
Hypothesis: Adding investigation and proactive capacity will deter and decrease retail theft crimes over time.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Detail continued expanding its investigative capacity throughout FY 2025-2026 by using dedicated investigators, forensic analytical support, technology, and targeted enforcement operations funded through the State ORT grant. Through the fiscal year, ORT investigators submitted 859 cases to the District Attorney's Office, which fell short of the 1,000-case goal for those cases submitted by the Detail. The number of cases filed was lower than anticipated in part because ORT investigations have more often involved multiple related incidents that are consolidated into a single case submission, and because cases submitted to the District Attorney’s Office remain subject to prosecutorial review, result in a natural lag between case submission and filing. Furthermore, ORT investigators tended to choose quality over quantity, where investigators are primarily focused on repeat, prolific offenders.
Additionally, the ORT Detail conducted 45 blitz operations, resulting in 109 arrests or citations. The ORT Detail also strengthened partnerships with retailers, expanded the use of technology such as ALPR and Real Time Intelligence Center resources to identify suspects, and developed investigations targeting prolific repeat offenders responsible for multiple thefts across numerous businesses.
As the grant progressed, the Department found that the greatest long-term value came from sustained investigative work rather than resource-intensive enforcement operations alone. While blitz operations produced arrests and strengthened relationships with retailers, long-term accountability depended on building complex investigations involving repeat offenders, multiple incidents, forensic analysis, and coordination with the District Attorney's Office. The extension of the state grant through the end of 2027 provided the opportunity to shift resources away from large-scale enforcement operations and to preserve the specialized investigators and analytical staff who perform this Partially
Completed
1 For clarity, the 2,000-case goal is based on two components: 1,000 retail theft cases submitted by patrol, consistent with historical data, plus a goal of 1,000 additional cases generated by the Organized Retail Theft Detail through expanded enforcement efforts.
work. The Department also found that retailers highly value dedicated investigative support, which reinforces confidence that organized retail theft is being addressed and helps maintain a healthy retail environment in San José.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being operationalized through the Police Department’s normal operations in the next Focus Area cycle. Specifically, the Police Department’s ORT state grant funding has been extended through the end of calendar year 2027 with the same funding levels.
As a result, the Department has prioritized sustaining core investigative and analytical functions supported by the grant while reducing some supplemental activities, including large-scale blitz operations. Next steps include continuing to develop complex investigations of prolific offenders, expanding direct reporting partnerships with retailers, and strategically using remaining grant resources to maximize long-term investigative capacity through the end of the grant period.
3.3 Expand the types of referrals made to the Mission Street Recovery Station by June 2026 and evaluate effectiveness.
Change Initiative: The Police Department is expanding the types of referrals made to the County’s Mission Street Recovery Station (MSRS) to include all non-violent misdemeanors. Currently, officers have the discretion, with some specific exclusions, to divert individuals to sobering and other services. The Department is updating its agreements with the County to expand the types of referrals that officers can make for recovery services.
Hypothesis: Expanding the types of diversions referred to include non-violent misdemeanors would minimize incarceration while allowing officers to return to the beat structure more quickly to respond to more calls.
Results and Lessons Learned: City staff worked closely with County partners to identify ways to expand referrals to the MSRS. Unfortunately, County budget deficits necessitated restrictions to referrals to only Medi-Cal reimbursable services, interfering with this goal. Although the initiative was not fully implemented during the reporting period, the Police Department and County made substantial progress toward expanding diversion opportunities beyond the MSRS. During FY 2025-2026, the County confirmed stable funding for the Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) as a better referral pathway. Staff mutually clarified referral eligibility, expanded coordination with law enforcement agencies, and developed guidance describing how officers may use both MSRS and RRC programs. The Department also worked with the County to identify additional referral pathways for justice-involved individuals beyond those requiring sobering services. Initial data show Police Department officers referred 188 individuals to the MSRS during the first six months of 2026. Of the Department-initiated referrals to the MSRS, 31% were for driving under the influence, 31% were for alcohol public intoxication, 14% were for drug public intoxication, and 24% were for mental health/drug triage. County data show law enforcement drop-offs average approximately six minutes, allowing officers to return to service more quickly than the slower booking process at the County jail.
The initiative demonstrated that expanding diversion requires close coordination with County partners, clear eligibility criteria, and officer education On Hold
before new referral options can be fully implemented. The work completed during this reporting period established the foundation for broader use of the RRC as an alternative referral option for eligible justice-involved individuals and as a way to allow officers to more quickly get back into patrol structure to respond to calls for service.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being refined and continued in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. The Police Department has set a goal to develop and implement a structured utilization plan for the County’s RRC, including police officer education and referral pathways, to expand diversion and service linkage options for eligible individuals. Next steps include providing officer education on the expanded diversion options and monitoring utilization of both the MSRS and RRC as the program is implemented.
3.4 Monitor implementation of Proposition 36 during the fiscal year and identify areas of advocacy.
Change Initiative: In November 2024, California voters passed Proposition 36, allowing felony charges and increased sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. While the Police Department has implemented the new law, it is necessary to monitor across partners to increase coordination, understand the impact, and overcome early hurdles.
Hypothesis: Monitoring the implementation of Proposition 36 at the City, County, and state levels will increase coordination between partners and help address challenges.
Results and Lessons Learned: City staff continue to monitor implementation impacts associated with Proposition 36 and maintain coordination with County partners regarding data collection and policy implications. Given the lack of felony treatment referrals and completions under Proposition 36, the County has not run data reports in recent months. Staff understand from County partners that one defendant had been referred to the treatment-mandated felony process established by Proposition 36 since it went into effect, though staff were not able to independently validate this data. Earlier data were reported related to misdemeanor and felony charges for total and standalone drug cases and for total and standalone theft cases.
City staff are convening a joint study mission with County partners to further examine implementation practices, system impacts, and potential policy considerations related to Proposition 36. Staff anticipate that this forthcoming analysis will provide additional insight into charging trends, treatment-related impacts, and operational effects associated with the new law. Further, the City Manager’s Office of Administration, Policy, and Intergovernmental Relations continues to identify advocacy opportunities as implementation evolves.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being refined and continued in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. The City Manager’s Office and Police Department set a goal to complete a Proposition 36 study mission to San Diego County with partners and present findings and recommendations to the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Completed
Committee to increase treatment use and reduce repeat contacts with law enforcement.
3.5 Implement one new school site with intervention programs and launch two new demonstration sites for system of care neighborhood programs by June 2026 as part of the City’s strategic plan to prevent youth violence.
Change Initiative: The Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services (PRNS) Department is launching one new school site to better understand the program impact on chronic absenteeism among justice-involved youth. The Department has also launched two system of care demonstration sites in Poco Way/Mayfair and Seven Trees/Santee communities. The programs will allow the City to support increased access for youth and families to prevention and intervention services.
Hypothesis: System of care strategies would increase referrals for youth and families to prevention and intervention services, thereby reducing youth involvement in the justice system.
Results and Lessons Learned: During FY 2025-2026, plans to launch an intervention program at Leyva Middle School did not proceed following discussions with school administrators and consideration of recent budget reductions affecting the District Attorney’s Office. For FY 2026-2027, the Bringing Everyone’s Strengths Together (BEST) Grant Program will fund nonprofit partners to provide school engagement and re-engagement services at two middle schools experiencing high rates of chronic absenteeism. During the 2024–2025 school year, the schools reported chronic absenteeism rates of 38% and 24%, respectively.
These programs will identify students who may benefit from re-engagement services, assess their individual needs, and implement early-intervention strategies intended to improve school attendance. PRNS also intends to establish data-sharing agreements with the participating school districts to obtain quarterly attendance data. These agreements will allow PRNS to provide more timely progress reports rather than relying solely on California Department of Education data, which is generally published in October following the school year.
Relying on external partner agencies leaves key initiatives vulnerable to unforeseen fiscal constraints, such as budget reductions experienced by the District Attorney’s Office that halted planned intervention services. Moving forward, leading efforts internally ensures oversight, dedicated staff capacity, and coordination to drive meaningful progress.
PRNS achieved a key implementation milestone by launching the No Wrong Door System of Care approach in two demonstration sites serving the Mayfair/Poco Way and Santee/Seven Trees communities. Through this approach, schools, community-based organizations, City and County agencies, and other partners work together to connect youth and families to services, regardless of where they first seek assistance. Leading the effort in the community are the Si Se Puede Collective, comprising Somos Mayfair and Grail Family Services, which serves as the backbone organization for Mayfair and Poco Way. The Franklin-McKinley Children’s Initiative, administered by New School
Site: Not
Completed
Demo Sites:
Completed
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, serves as the backbone organization for Santee and Seven Trees.
To sustain this work, the City Council approved $400,000 in funding for the demonstration-site anchor partners to continue implementing the Children and Youth Services Master Plan priorities within these communities. The new funding will support implementation from January through September 2027.
Additional implementation accomplishments include:
• Reconvening cross-sector workgroups to align the goals of the Children and Youth Services Master Plan with activities underway in the demonstration-site communities.
• Engaging City departments, County agencies, school districts, community-based organizations, residents, and youth in coordinated planning and implementation.
• Leveraging PRNS’s partnership with FIRST 5 Santa Clara County to support use of the FindHelp referral platform, strengthen connections to available services, and improve referral and follow-up coordination for youth and families.
• Partnering with the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits to establish and host a shared calendar featuring major events, programs, and activities within the Children and Youth Services Master Plan demonstration site communities. The calendar will help partners coordinate outreach, reduce scheduling conflicts, and increase awareness of opportunities available to youth and families.
• Leveraging a $500,000 work2future grant to help families in the demonstration-site communities access positive after-school programming and childcare. Eligible families may receive up to $4,000 in one-time assistance.
• Providing more than $100,000 in recreation scholarships to families in the demonstration site communities, increasing access to recreational programs and activities for children and youth.
• Aligning recruitment and outreach for the San José Public Library’s Resilience Corps program with the demonstration site communities to help ensure eligible residents were aware of and able to apply. • Connecting residents of Mayfair, Poco Way, and Seven Trees with additional investments and resources through a Goodwill Silicon Valley reinvestment grant that provides free job training and career- development opportunities for residents ages 18 and older. Training pathways include electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, construction pre-apprenticeship, facilities maintenance, automotive repair, electric-vehicle skills, digital skills through the Grow with Google Digital Accelerator, and AI Essentials, including a Spanish-language option.
• Early implementation has reinforced the critical role of backbone organizations in coordinating partners, maintaining trusted community relationships, identifying service gaps, and connecting youth and families with available resources. It has also demonstrated that an effective No Wrong Door System of Care requires more than simply making services available. Partners need shared referral and follow-up procedures, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, regular
communication, and consistent methods for determining whether referrals result in successful connections to services.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being operationalized through the Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services Department’s normal operations in the next Focus Area cycle. For FY 2026-2027, the initiative will focus on improving outcomes across key stages of youth development, including early childhood and kindergarten readiness, third- grade literacy and attendance, and college and career preparedness. PRNS will collaborate with educational, County, workforce, and community partners to identify and track relevant indicators while adhering to data-sharing and privacy requirements. Outcome data and feedback from youth, families, and partner organizations will be used to continuously refine the No Wrong Door System of Care in demonstration-site communities.
Furthermore, PRNS and its partners will:
• Support the Si Se Puede Collective in leading quarterly convenings of current and new workgroup partners to strengthen coordination among backbone organizations, schools, City and County departments, community-based organizations, residents, youth, and other participating organizations.
• Continue working with FIRST 5 Santa Clara County and participating organizations to support implementation of the FindHelp referral platform and develop consistent referral and follow-up procedures. • Track the number and types of referrals, completed service connections, and barriers that prevent youth and families from accessing services.
• Continue coordinating with the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits to maintain the shared demonstration site events calendar and increase awareness of programs and resources available to youth and families.
Problem Area 4: Traffic Safety Annual Status
4.1 Build safer streets by completing 100% of planned traffic safety projects (capital safety improvement, quick build, and pedestrian safety and traffic calming) by June 2026.
Change Initiative: Under the Vision Zero Action Plan, the Transportation Department is furthering its commitment to eliminating traffic collisions that result in roadway users being killed or severely injured through data-driven strategies. Part of this plan involves engineering for safety through infrastructure improvements. These engineering improvements are essential to creating safer, more accessible streets for all users.
Hypothesis: Quick implementation, continuous evaluation, and strategic investments in engineering solutions would help protect all road users, from pedestrians to drivers.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Department successfully implemented the planned 58 traffic safety improvements, including three capital improvement projects, 20 Quick Build projects, 20 pedestrian safety enhancements, and 15 neighborhood traffic calming measures. While engineering improvements Completed
remain a critical component of Vision Zero, the Safe System Approach recognizes that lasting safety outcomes require a coordinated, prevention- focused strategy that integrates engineering with education, outreach, enforcement, and data-driven evaluation. Together, these complementary strategies create multiple layers of protection, improve project effectiveness, and help reduce the risk of fatal and severe injuries.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being continued in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan. The Department will continue delivering prioritized safety projects while further integrating the Safe System Approach into planning, design, implementation, and evaluation. By strengthening coordination across engineering, education, outreach, enforcement, and data- driven decision-making, the Department will continue advancing Vision Zero's goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries.
4.2 Improve safe driving behaviors through technology by operationalizing four red light running camera intersections and 33 automated speed enforcement cameras along key corridors by June 2026.
Change Initiative: The Transportation Department is targeting the most dangerous driving behaviors, like speeding and running red lights, that are linked to serious and fatal crashes. San José launched a Speed Safety System Pilot that includes cameras at four high-risk intersections and is launching 33 automated speed enforcement cameras along priority corridors.
Hypothesis: By using technology to deter unsafe driving, the City aims to reduce the severity of crashes and improve compliance with traffic laws.
Results and Lessons Learned: During the first six months of the Red Light Running program, the four red light camera locations generated over 6,200 citations. The intersection of Bascom Ave. and Camden Ave. had the highest number with almost 2,500 citations, followed by Leigh Ave. and Parkmoor Ave. with 1,700 citations, Keyes St. and 3
rd St. with 1,450 citations, and
Monterey Rd. and Branham Ave. with 580 citations. Comparing the first and sixth reporting periods, monthly citations decreased 55%, from 1,396 to 632, with reductions at all four intersections. Keyes St. and 3 rd St. showed the
greatest reduction at 69%. Approximately 99% of individuals received only one citation. These trends suggest that the program is contributing to safer driver behavior. As the program continues, staff will conduct a crash and fatality analysis to evaluate the longer-term safety impacts of the red light camera program.
The automated speed enforcement program's goal was not met due to challenges with federal grant funding changes. Instead, the program has shifted to a local funding strategy following the loss of anticipated federal grant support. Staff are currently engaged in contract negotiations with the selected vendor and continue coordinating implementation planning for the 33 approved camera locations. Implementation is strengthened by complementary strategies such as engineering, public education and outreach, equitable implementation, and data-driven evaluation.
Next Step for Change Initiative: The red light running camera change initiative is being operationalized through the Transportation Department, while the Red Light
Running
Program:
Completed
Automated
Speed
Enforcement:
Partially
Completed
Police Department is reviewing and issuing violations. The Transportation Department will conduct a program evaluation and present findings and a recommendation to the City Council on the continuation of the program in early 2027.
The automated speed enforcement program will continue in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area work plan, focusing on completing camera installation, public education and outreach, operational readiness, and performance evaluation to support the City's Vision Zero goals.
Attachment B: Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness Focus Area
Long-Term Goal: Move toward functional zero in unsheltered homelessness by proactively and effectively managing the shelter system, increasing throughput into permanent housing, and improving data systems to guide investment.
Problem Area 1: Shelter System Capacity and Operations Annual Status
1.1 Bring all planned 705 shelter units online by the end of Calendar Year 2025.
Change Initiative: Complete the planned shelter and safe parking expansion.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that expanding shelter and safe parking capacity would reduce unsheltered homelessness and relieve pressure on public spaces.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City completed the planned expansion during FY 2025-2026, with Cerone opening in March 2026. Final construction counts resulted in 707 units against the original 705-unit target. Following portfolio refinements, the active shelter portfolio included approximately 1,820 units, 2,202 beds, and 22 sites. A separate two-calendar-year investment lookback reports 1,049 shelter units and spaces added between August 2024 and December 2025.
1 A key closeout lesson is that expanded shelter capacity is one of several tools needed to reduce unsheltered homelessness and move toward functional zero.
Staff continue to observe movement across jurisdictions and within San José, including downtown concentration associated with service locations, custody release and behavioral-health evaluation or discharge pathways, and movement following abatements and No Encampment Zone (NEZ) activity.
Regional inflow remains an area the City is working to quantify. Major abatement efforts at Columbus Park
2 and Coyote Meadows further reinforced
the need to coordinate shelter capacity, outreach, public-space operations, and cross-system partners.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff anticipate that this goal should be sunset for the planned site-opening initiative as a standalone change initiative.
Closeout lessons will inform future strategies focused on system flow, throughput, service fit, and shared accountability. Any next-cycle Focus Area goals remain subject to City Council approval.
Completed
1 City of San Jose Homelessness Investments: Shelter Production, Homelessness Service Delivery, and City - wide Homelessness Response Activities, May 29, 2026.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/132245/639156680630000000 2 Columbus Park Activation: Operational Summary, October 27, 2025 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/125619/638971570673030000
1.2 Standardize shelter system operations, budgets, and performance metrics across all 24 sites to decrease costs by up to 20% by June 2026.
Change Initiative: Standardize shelter operations, service expectations, contracts, and major operating costs.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that consistent operating standards would reduce costs, improve accountability, and strengthen sustainability.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City was not able to establish a comparable portfolio-wide methodology to measure systemwide progress against the goal of up-to-20% cost-reduction target by June 2026. However, measurable progress was documented through the City’s May 2026 system optimization update. Comparing estimated FY 2026-2027 site operating costs between the 2025 Forecast and the 2026 Forecast, costs for emergency interim housing sites were 15% lower and converted motels were 12% lower.
These reductions reflected improved forecasting based on additional site operating experience, adjustments to service levels to optimize operations, and continued efforts to centralize services.
3 The annual closeout is therefore
partially complete. The Housing Department advanced standardization through the Admission and Continued Occupancy Plan (ACOP), provider and contract negotiations, staffing-model adjustments, and procurement or consolidation work for food services, property management and maintenance, and security in efforts to reduce costs. The original scorecard referenced 24 sites; the current active portfolio includes 22 sites after portfolio refinements.4
A key closeout lesson is that these workstreams can advance in parallel, but effective synchronization is necessary. Consistent operating expectations and service templates are needed before bids, vendor comparisons, and negotiations can produce reliable cost comparisons. Procurement and negotiations also require time to confirm provider capacity, service continuity, and pricing across a large and changing portfolio; prior reporting in June 2026 to the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee noted cycles of six to twelve months.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This work will transition into ongoing shelter system operations. The Housing Department will continue implementing and refining the ACOP, standardizing service expectations and contracts, completing procurements and negotiations, and improving cost measurement across the portfolio. While this work will continue in FY 2026-2027, it is not proposed as a standalone Focus Area goal. Instead, it will be incorporated into ongoing operations to create capacity for a new problem area anticipated to be presented to the City Council in September 2026.
Partially
Completed
1.3 Improve outreach and engagement tracking to increase placements into shelter, housing, and services.
Change Initiative: Redesign the outreach model with standardized engagement tracking, field deployment, and reporting tools.
Completed
3 Emergency Interim Housing CalAIM Implementation and System Optimization Update, May 10, 2026. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/131454/639140882791000000 4 The FY 2025-2026 scorecard anticipated a 24-site portfolio. Subsequent refinements resulted in a 22-site active portfolio; First Street Hotel and Pavilion Hotel are no longer counted in the active portfolio.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that standardized engagement tracking would improve accountability and increase placements into programs, services, shelter, and housing.
Results and Lessons Learned: By the end of FY 2025-2026, Housing had established a quadrant-based outreach model with the support of the Public Works Geographic Information Systems team, finalized development of the Enhanced Engagement Program and standard operating procedures, and advanced dashboard, visualization, and standardized field-data collection tools. Staff also added quarterly field counts to strengthen visibility where existing data are limited, with additional reporting tools planned for fall 2026. 5 A key closeout lesson is that a hybrid staffing model provides needed flexibility.
In-house City outreach staff can more readily support sensitive, proactive, and time-sensitive work where priorities or operating conditions may change quickly, while external providers can continue supporting more stable and standardized outreach functions. This approach also gives the City clearer control over standardized data collection and allows operational changes to be implemented without repeatedly modifying contractor scopes.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will operationalize that goal by transitioning the outreach model into ongoing operations and completing the remaining reporting and visualization tools. In FY 2026-2027, staff will refine the outreach approach to place greater focus on individuals with high-acuity and complex needs, including improving coordination and referral pathways with County partners.
Problem Area 2: Unsustainable Funding Annual Status
2.1 Sustain and stabilize diversified funding sources to reduce reliance on one- time or annual allocations.
Change Initiative: Diversify funding while reducing the ongoing cost exposure of shelter and interim housing operations.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that stabilizing diversified funding sources and gaining operating efficiencies would reduce dependence on General Fund resources and support a more sustainable shelter system.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City continued to pair external funding strategies with operating-cost work, including State Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention funds, Real Property Transfer Tax resources, external funding advocacy, contract standardization, and procurement or consolidation of major shelter services. Long-term sustainability depends on both revenue diversification and a more predictable operating cost base.
A key closeout lesson is that external funding commitments can be difficult to rely on for multi-year planning. The City, therefore, needs to preserve operating flexibility and recognize the risk that more costs may need to be Completed
5 New Homelessness Response Outreach Zones (Interactive Map):
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/f63650033b9a42aa95095e5288a7661d
carried through the General Fund or other flexible local resources when outside funding cannot be committed with certainty.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will operationalize this goal and transition “funding diversification” into ongoing operations, including continued advocacy for federal, state, and other external resources to support homelessness programs. In FY 2026-2027, staff will continue this work with a more targeted focus on implementing the CalAIM pilot as an additional funding source to help supplement City resources.
2.2 Implement CalAIM billing for eligible services to sustain operations and reduce reliance on General Fund.
Change Initiative: Build the service-delivery, credentialing, documentation, and billing infrastructure needed to test CalAIM reimbursement.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that CalAIM billing for eligible services would create a more durable reimbursement pathway and reduce reliance on General Fund resources.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City made substantial implementation- readiness progress, including revenue and budget modeling, coordination with Full Circle Health Network, provider-readiness work, and credentialing for an initial three-site pilot at Cherry Avenue, Cerone, and Evans Lane.6 The City also advanced work through the PATH CITED grant,7 billing eligible planning and implementation-readiness expenses to the grant and updating the grant budget to reflect the evolving scope and sequencing of CalAIM implementation. Billing was not operational by fiscal year-end, so the goal remained partially complete.
The closeout confirms the central lesson identified in prior updates: CalAIM implementation is a multi-party operating change, not only a billing-system change. Progress depends on agreements, credentialing, documentation, provider capacity, managed care plan onboarding, and County coordination.
Federal Medicaid uncertainty affecting Enhanced Care Management and Community Supports also slowed managed care plan decisions. The original fiscal year target did not allow enough time for this level of system alignment.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will refine and continue this work as a FY 2026-2027 Focus Area goal through a limited CalAIM pilot focused on Evans Lane. The pilot will be used to test implementation requirements, provider readiness, billing workflows, and potential reimbursement before considering broader expansion.
Partially
Completed
6 Emergency Interim Housing CalAIM Implementation and System Optimization Update, May 10, 2026. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/131454/639140882791000000 7 Providing Access and Transforming Health Capacity and Infrastructure Transition, Expansion, and Development Intergovernmental Transfer Grant Funding for California Advancing and Innovating Medi -Cal Readiness and Implementation, March 30, 2026.
https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15377380&GUID=75DFF03F-64B9-4DFA-A58E- 3A73A451A88E
Problem Area 3: Environmental Compliance and Public Spaces Annual Status
3.1 Maintain environmental compliance in 26 miles of priority waterways and corridors by maintaining No-Encampment Zones, limiting re-encampment and displacement impacts.8
Change Initiative: Maintain priority waterway No-Encampment Zones (NEZs) and monitor re-encampment across the waterways and corridors.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that sustained maintenance of waterway NEZs would prevent re-encampments, reduce displacement impacts, and protect environmental quality.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City continued maintaining NEZs across 26 miles of priority waterways. The annual indicator was 65 or fewer re- encampments per quarter within the waterway NEZ. Updated closeout data show that the target was met in the first quarter but not in the remaining quarters.
FY 2025-2026 quarterly re-encampment activity:
Quarter Waterway NEZ
Re-Encampments
EIH/Other NEZ
Re-Encampments
Total NEZ
Re-Encampments
Target
Met?
Q1 45 11 56 Yes
Q2 121 13 134 No
Q3 206 30 236 No
Q4 161 20 181 No
The annual data confirms the prior lesson that NEZ maintenance requires sustained monitoring and adequate staffing. Re-encampment pressure remained high after the first quarter, and the original staffing model was developed for a smaller waterway footprint. Clearing one location also does not prevent movement to another NEZ location when shelter, service, or other placement pathways are constrained.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will operationalize this goal by transitioning NEZ maintenance into ongoing operations. In FY 2026-2027, staff will refine the approach to reflect the implementation of the BeautifySJ optimization plan, which will shift additional resources to the NEZ team. These additional resources will allow for an enhanced maintenance strategy to address the 30 miles of established NEZs.
Partially
Completed
8 Scorecard targets: 65 or fewer waterway NEZ re-encampments per quarter and 80% or more of all NEZ re- encampments resolved within two business days.
3.2 Maintain NEZs in public spaces around Emergency Interim Housing sites to limit re-encampment and ensure site accessibility.
Change Initiative: Maintain EIH and other NEZs and respond to reported re- encampments within the established service standard.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that maintaining EIH and other NEZs would reduce re-encampment, preserve site accessibility, and limit displacement impacts.
Results and Lessons Learned: The second annual indicator under this problem area called for 80% or more of re-encampments across all NEZs to be resolved within two business days. Updated data show that the response target was not sustained.
Two-business-day response performance:
Quarter Reported Cleared in Two
Business Days Percent 80% Target Met?
Q1 56 35 62.5% No
Q2 134 104 77.6% No
Q3 236 132 55.9% No
Q4 181 64 35.4% No
The results show the difficulty of maintaining a two-business-day response standard as activity increased and reinforce the need for recurring monitoring and a response model sized to the geographic footprint and workload.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will transition NEZ maintenance into ongoing operations. In FY 2026-2027, staff will refine the approach to reflect the implementation of the BeautifySJ optimization plan, which will shift additional resources to the NEZ team. These additional resources will allow for an enhanced maintenance strategy to address the 30 miles of established NEZs.
Partially
Completed
Problem Area 4: Data and Forecasting Infrastructure Annual Status
4.1 Improve homelessness forecasting and reporting tools.
Change Initiative: Develop the Dynamic Homelessness Insights Model and supporting reporting infrastructure to provide more frequent estimates of unsheltered homelessness between biennial Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that integrating multiple City datasets with field observations could provide a more timely understanding of changes in the unsheltered population and improve planning and resource decisions between biennial PIT Counts.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City developed the initial Dynamic Homelessness Insights Model, evolving the work from a forecasting concept into a tool designed to provide more frequent estimates of the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The model does not replace or forecast the biennial PIT Count. Instead, it uses multiple City datasets, field observations, and periodic counts to provide a more current estimate of conditions between PIT Counts.
A key lesson was that the available data is better suited to assessing changes in the unsheltered population than predicting future population levels. The work also reinforced that results must be interpreted with operational context and validated with staff who understand how the underlying data are collected.
Development of the model and related reporting tools also reinforced the importance of identifying the intended audience before determining how information is analyzed and presented. The City developed a reporting framework distinguishing public-facing, strategic/executive, analytical, and tactical/departmental uses. Because homelessness data can include information about vulnerable populations, development of these tools also requires appropriate aggregation, de-identification, access controls, and data- governance protocols.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will operationalize the Dynamic Homelessness Insights Model and related data infrastructure as part of ongoing reporting and standard operations. Staff will continue periodic data updates, field validation, and refinement of reporting and visualization tools.
Because this work is transitioning into routine operations, it is not proposed as a standalone FY 2026-2027 Focus Area goal.
Completed
4.2 Strengthen HMIS (Homelessness Management Information System) data exchange with County and deploy new reporting tools.
Change Initiative: Strengthen HMIS data exchange, secure lakehouse integration, shelter inventory management, and cross-system reporting.
Hypothesis: The City hypothesized that stronger HMIS data exchange and reporting infrastructure would improve planning, coordination, and investment decisions.
Results and Lessons Learned: By June 2026, the City received County approval to use HMIS data within the Citywide data lakehouse and successfully migrated HMIS data into the approved environment with required safeguards. Salesforce data were also brought into the lakehouse, joint Tableau visualizations are in development, and the City received County approval to advance the HMIS Inventory Module and custom reporting.
The closeout lesson is that data access alone does not create an effective reporting system. Governance, permitted uses, security, and system fit determine which tool should be used. HMIS remains important for structured person-level homelessness-system information and shelter inventory. When teams primarily need location, movement, or concentration without unnecessary personal information, City GIS tools can provide a more flexible spatial view with lower privacy exposure.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will transition “HMIS data exchange,” the Inventory Module, and related reporting tools into ongoing reporting and standard operations. Staff will continue implementing custom reporting and approved Tableau and GIS-based tools while maintaining appropriate governance and de-identification protocols. Because this work is becoming part of routine operations, it is not proposed as a standalone FY 2026-2027 Focus Area goal.
Completed
Attachment C: Cleaning Up Our Neighborhoods Focus Area
Long-Term Goal: San José Residents can enjoy a city with clean public spaces and well-maintained private property.
Problem Area 1: Blight on Private Property Annual Status
1.1 Implement Chronic Offender Resolution and Enforcement (CORE) Pilot Program beginning in October 2025, and evaluate efficacy and report to the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee in April 2026.
Change Initiative: This effort is intended to provide enhanced enforcement in cases where a particular property or property owner has repeated violations.
Hypothesis: The CORE Pilot Program will expedite enforcement against properties with a history of chronic or significant repeated violations, ensuring properties come into compliance more rapidly and are maintained in compliance.
Results and Lessons Learned: This pilot program began implementation in spring 2026. Its purpose is to identify properties or property owners with repeat violations and pursue enforcement on an expedited timeline. Staff has been trained on the program procedures and existing cases have been evaluated to identify candidates for the program. To date, 15 cases have been identified as potential candidates and one property has been enrolled in the program.
Progress in adding properties to the program and initiating the process has been slower than anticipated. This is largely due to concurrent implementation efforts and staff capacity constraints associated with other priorities, including the Escalating Enforcement Policy and Enhanced Vacant Buildings.
Additionally, the established criteria has not captured the full spectrum of chronic problem properties and noncompliance scenarios as intended. Staff believe that refinements to pilot criteria may be needed, such as revising the qualification criteria to account for qualitative factors instead of just the number of repeat violations. Lastly, the newly established Community Justice Program, which also focuses on problem properties, has prompted consideration of whether the Core Pilot Program should be refined to better align with the Community Justice Program goals.
Given that the pilot is not yet complete, it has been included as a Focus Area goal for FY 2026-2027 (and is thus marked as “partially complete” on this report). Staff anticipates completing the pilot and performing an evaluation by December 2026. This additional time will allow staff to measure the impact and effectiveness of the program as additional properties are enrolled and develop refinements to the program criteria if warranted.
Staff provided a status report on this initiative at the April 9, 2026, Neighborhood Services and Education Committee (NSE) meeting as part of the Code Enforcement Annual Report.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will refine and continue this pilot in FY 2026-2027. Given that it is included as a Focus Area goal in the current year, staff will report on progress at the December 2026 NSE Committee meeting as part of the City Council Focus Area Status Report.
Partially
Completed
1.2 Implement Escalated Enforcement Policy beginning in September 2025.
Evaluate efficacy and report on progress to the NSE Committee in April 2026.
Change Initiative: Cases can be processed more rapidly and efficiently if Code Enforcement staff has a clear and consistent understanding of the standard timeline for moving cases from one step in the enforcement process to the next. This initiative involves drafting a revised Escalated Enforcement Policy to ensure guidance on case timelines is clear.
Hypothesis: Policy will standardize compliance timelines and set clear expectations for escalating enforcement, resulting in more consistency, efficiency, and timely resolution of cases.
Results and Lessons Learned: Escalated Enforcement Policy revisions were completed in September 2025. The policy was updated to provide clearer procedures and a more structured, step-by-step framework to ensure consistent and timely enforcement when compliance is not achieved. The updated policy establishes defined timelines, a formal escalation process, and expanded criteria for City Attorney referrals, supported by tools designed to improve consistency and decision-making.
Since implementation in September 2025, staff has observed measurable improvements in case progression, with cases moving more efficiently through the enforcement process from investigation to enforcement actions, such as citations and compliance orders. Further operationalization is needed to reinforce the expectations of the policy and ensure consistent case management. Staff will continue to monitor staff performance and adherence to the policy through the fiscal year, as well as the impact of the policy on case closure timelines and case progression to compliance.
Staff will be tracking metrics such as Case Closure Standards, which measures the percent of cases closed within standard timelines, and the Division’s pipeline report, included in the table below, which shows the change in the number and percent of cases at each step in the enforcement process over time. Take, as an example, the “Distribution Variance” column, which shows the change in the proportion of cases at each enforcement step between Q4 of FY 2024-2025 and Q4 of FY 2025-2026. There is a small decrease in the proportion of cases in the investigation and notice stage and an increase in the proportion of cases in the citations and compliance order stages. A shift in cases from investigation to enforcement can indicate that cases are moving through the process more efficiently.
Completed
Pipeline Report: Percentage of Code Enforcement Cases at Each Stage of the Enforcement Process, FY 2024-2025 to FY 2025-2026 Phase 24-25
Q4
24-25
(%)
25-26
Q4
25-26
(%)
Distribution
Variance
Caseload
Variance
Pre-
Investigation 235 5% 433 9% 4% 84%
(38%)
Investigation 1313 30% 1342 28% -2% 2%
Notices 1680 39% 1744 37% -2% 4%
Citations 207 5% 271 6% 1% 30%
Compliance
Order 501 12% 792 17% 5% 58%
Appeals
Hearing Board 215 5% 24 1% -4% -88%
Compliance 195 4% 159 3% -1% -18%
4,346 4,765
An update on progress was provided at the April 9, 2026, meeting of the NSE Committee as part of the Code Enforcement Annual Update.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Implementation of the Escalated Enforcement Policy is being operationalized in FY 2026-2027. To measure progress in improving the timeliness of case handling, a case time to closure target is included as a Focus Area goal in FY 2026-2027.
1.3 Implement Phase 1 of CodeX, the updated Code Enforcement case management system, by June 2026 and report out on progress at the NSE Committee in June 2026.
Change Initiative: The technology system Code Enforcement uses to manage its cases is antiquated. CodeX is a new, modernized case management system that will support better service delivery.
Hypothesis: CodeX system will make management of code enforcement cases more efficient and effective, resulting in more effective prioritization of cases and more rapid case resolution, and substantially increase Code Enforcement’s ability to use data analytics to improve service delivery.
Results and Lessons Learned: The timeline for this project has been impacted by technical challenges and greater-than-anticipated project complexity.
Inconsistencies within legacy data required more extensive data cleanup and migration preparation than anticipated, while limited staff and partner department capacity affected project progress. The project also demonstrated the need to more fully account for evolving business needs and operational requirements when establishing scope and timelines. Staff subsequently engaged the vendor to address challenges, align on solutions, and establish a path forward. Staff is in the process of amending the contract with the vendor to update project scope, revise the timeline, and align deliverables and reset expectations to ensure successful completion of Phase I without further impact to the timeline.
Partially
Completed
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will refine and continue this project in FY 2026-2027. Major milestones include finalizing a new contract with the vendor and completing the project requirements.
1.4 Raise the maximum administrative fine by August 2025 and complete a Fine Study and bring forward for City Council consideration by February 2026.
Change Initiative: This initiative is to increase fines for Code Enforcement violations as a means to achieve more rapid compliance.
Hypothesis: Recommendations from the consultant study will provide options for the City to more effectively achieve compliance.
Results and Lessons Learned: As part of the approval of the Code Enforcement Operational Assessment Report, staff was directed to return to City Council with an ordinance increasing administrative remedy per day and total maximum penalties. Staff was also directed to complete an administrative fine study as proposed in the staff’s report. Staff returned to City Council in August 2025 with a proposed ordinance amendment that was approved by City Council, increasing the per-day maximum administrative penalty amount from $2,500 to $20,000 per violation and total maximum administrative penalty amount from $100,000 to $500,000, effective in October 2025. Staff secured funding through the FY 2024–2025 Annual Report to contract services with Guidehouse Consulting to complete a high-level fee study and analysis. The study has been completed, but additional staff work is needed to develop specific recommendations for fine amounts. Staff initially targeted bringing revised fines to City Council in FY 2025-2026, but due to the need for additional staff work, the Focus Area goals for FY 2026-2027 carry this goal over into the next fiscal year, with a goal of bringing revised fines to the City Council in fall 2026.
While increased administrative fines of up to $20,000 per day, with a maximum of $500,000, have created greater urgency among impacted property owners to achieve compliance, they have also generated some concern from property owners and other stakeholders that fine amounts may be too high. Additional staff time has been needed to help educate property owners on their options for relief, which is limited and generally requires settlement after compliance is achieved or an appeal to the Superior Court.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will operationalize additional increases to fine amounts in FY 2026-2027. Staff will be bringing citation fine amendments to City Council in September 2026 that will include changes to existing citation fine amounts and the creation of new citation fines for violations such as vacant buildings, tobacco retail licenses, and illegal tree removals.
Partially
Completed
1.5 Continue to implement monthly meetings of the Downtown Enhanced Vacant Building and Storefront Working Group to coordinate enforcement against blighted properties in the Downtown and report to the NSE Committee in April 2026 on progress bringing vacant buildings into compliance.
Change Initiative: Chronic problem properties in the Downtown often require sustained focus and interdepartmental coordination to effectively address.
Completed
Hypothesis: Enhanced inter-departmental coordination will result in more effective enforcement against problem properties in the Downtown.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff has found significant value in early and ongoing coordination with the City Manager’s Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs (OEDCA), Police Department, Fire Department, City Attorney’s Office, and other key departments to identify issues early and take coordinated steps to prevent, intervene, and resolve problems involving Downtown properties. This enhanced approach accelerated enforcement on high-risk properties that had impacted the community for many years, including the former Lawrence Hotel, Greyhound Station, and Bo Town Restaurant.
These efforts resulted in more ongoing compliance, increased use of administrative remedy fines and penalties, and greater utilization of legal enforcement tools, such as public nuisance lawsuits, receiverships, and collections cases.
This approach has streamlined enforcement efforts, increased capacity to expand proactive blight and vacant building enforcement into neighboring areas, and strengthened partnerships with key stakeholders, including Groundwerx and the Downtown Association. It has also enabled Code Enforcement to participate more efficiently and effectively in broader initiatives, including Destination 2026 and the Mayor’s Downtown Safety Committee, and supported development of the upcoming Vacant to Vibrant Program in partnership with departments such as OEDCA.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This initiative will be operationalized in FY 2026-2027. Next steps are to launch the Vacant to Vibrant Program, which connects owners of chronically vacant buildings and storefronts with a network of support and resources, fosters compliance, enhances enforcement, and promotes economic vitality.
Problem Area 2: Graffiti Annual Status
2.1 Refine and continue to implement a graffiti enforcement program. Evaluate effectiveness and report to NSE Committee in August 2027.
Change Initiative: This initiative seeks to deter graffiti and reduce the amount of graffiti that the City needs to eradicate by dedicating police staffing to enforcing against prolific taggers.
Hypothesis: Enforcement against prolific taggers will reduce graffiti from prolific taggers and generally deter graffiti.
Results and Lessons Learned: In September 2025, the Police Department reestablished temporary duty assignments within the Gang Investigations Unit, dedicating two detectives full-time to graffiti-related investigations. Between September 2025 and March 2026, the unit investigated approximately 153 documented graffiti vandalism cases, prepared 191 judicially approved search warrants (including residential, Ramey, social media, cell phone, and ping warrants), identified 70 suspects, and made approximately 15 arrests, compared to three arrests made in FY 2024-2025. These efforts demonstrate that dedicated staffing can increase the effectiveness of graffiti enforcement.
Completed
The goal of enforcement is to reduce the incidence of graffiti across the City and consequently reduce the amount of graffiti that the City and its vendor, Graffiti Protective Coatings, needs to remove. Despite increased enforcement, the overall amount of graffiti eradicated increased in FY 2025-2026. The City removed 2,846,855 total square feet of graffiti, an 11% increase over FY 2024- 2025. This increase may have a number of causes, including efforts to prepare for SJ2026 events such as the Super Bowl LX, March Madness, and FIFA World Cup, pilot efforts to increase proactive graffiti eradication and restoration within parks in Council District 5, increased proactive gang graffiti eradication in targeted neighborhoods, and collaboration with Union Pacific Railroad to abate graffiti along railway soundwalls. Despite the overall increase, it is important to note that gang-related, hate, and offensive graffiti declined from 442,125 square feet in FY 2024-2025 to 429,283 square feet in FY 2025-2026, a 2.9% decrease.
Staff reported on the results of this initiative at the August 13, 2026, NSE Committee meeting as part of the BeautifySJ Neighborhood Blight Reduction Status Report.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Due to reductions in Police Department overtime spending, the temporary detectives were reassigned to patrol duties in early May 2026. While this effort has been sunset, the City has established a number of new change initiatives in FY 2026-2027 intended to combat graffiti, including a graffiti fee for service pilot program and efforts to detect graffiti using cameras supported by artificial intelligence.
Problem Area 3: Illegal Dumping Annual Status
3.1 Implement a coordinated illegal dumping enforcement strategy, including (1) use of BeautifySJ cameras, (2) use of Police Department cameras, and (3) vehicle seizures. Evaluate effectiveness and report to the NSE Committee in August 2026.
Change Initiative: This initiative seeks to reduce the amount of illegal dumping in the city and thus the amount of dumping that the City needs to collect by using cameras to enforce against illegal dumpers.
Hypothesis: Enforcing against illegal dumpers will deter future illegal dumping and reduce illegal dumping tonnage collected over time.
Results and Lessons Learned: To implement this initiative, staff convened the Blight Enforcement Working Group, which brings together the Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services Department, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department, Police Department, City Attorney's Office, the California Highway Patrol, and the District Attorney's Office to improve coordination and implement more strategic enforcement of persistent blight issues throughout the city.
During FY 2025-2026, the BeautifySJ Removing and Preventing Illegal Dumping (RAPID) Program operated 12 surveillance cameras at high-volume illegal dumping hotspots throughout the city. The camera program remained an effective deterrent, contributing to an average 34% reduction in illegal dumping at monitored locations. Staff noted that illegal dumping locations had the most Completed
impact when cameras were left in place for six months or more and when combined with targeted outreach and education efforts in the neighborhood that included tri-lingual informational flyers delivered door to door and posting tri-lingual notices on A-frames in hot spot locations.
In addition to the 12 cameras operated by RAPID, BeautifySJ also partnered closely with the Police Department's Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) to expand the City's camera infrastructure and strengthen enforcement capabilities. BeautifySJ identified and submitted proposed locations for 12 License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras at illegal dumping hotspots and four LPR cameras at prolific graffiti locations. In collaboration with RTIC, proposed camera locations, pole placements, and camera orientations were developed to maximize enforcement effectiveness.
In FY 2025-2026, BeautifySJ referred 568 illegal dumping cases to Code Enforcement, the Police Department, and the City Attorney’s Office, resulting in 104 citations and 148 warning letters, a 580% increase in enforcement referrals over the previous year. To date, one case involving an illegal dumping situation has resulted in a warrant for seizure of a vehicle, with staff pursuing warrants in several other cases.
The goal of these enforcement efforts is to reduce the amount of illegal dumping that the City needs to eradicate. BeautifySJ removed 14 million pounds of trash and litter through illegal dumping response and neighborhood litter removal efforts, a 1.8% decrease from FY 2024-2025, when 14.3 million pounds were removed. While many factors contribute to the amount of illegal dumping eradicated and it is difficult to isolate the overall effect of enforcement, staff can draw lessons from experience with enforcement efforts this year. First, enforcement efforts can succeed at yielding warnings and citations when they are targeted and based on clear evidence. Improved coordination between BeautifySJ and the Police Department increased the number of cases referred for enforcement in FY 2025-2026. Second, as noted above in the discussion of cameras operated by BeautifySJ, proactive interventions can interrupt recurring dumping at hotspot locations, and can be especially effective when paired with opportunities for residents to dispose of waste legally, such as the fixed dumpster day pilot program that has been established as a Focus Area change initiative for FY 2026-2027.
Staff reported on the results of this initiative at the August 13, 2026, NSE Committee meeting as part of the BeautifySJ Neighborhood Blight Reduction Status Report.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This work will be operationalized for FY 2026- 2027. BeautifySJ will continue to lead and coordinate enforcement efforts with partner departments and interjurisdictional partners.
3.2 Implement an illegal dumping education strategy aimed at deterring illegal dumping, including (1) engagement with neighborhood associations, (2) school presentations and (3) a marketing campaign. Evaluate effectiveness and report to the NSE Committee in August 2026.
Change Initiative: This initiative seeks to reduce the amount of illegal dumping in the city and thus the amount of dumping that the City needs to collect by Completed
educating the public on the consequences of illegal dumping and on legal means of disposing of waste.
Hypothesis: By educating the public about the impact of illegal dumping and options for legal disposal of trash, illegal dumping will be reduced, and trash disposal will be diverted to legal means.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff implemented an illegal dumping education strategy that included outreach to neighborhoods, outreach to schools, and marketing efforts.
First, BeautifySJ focused neighborhood outreach efforts in neighborhoods experiencing high levels of illegal dumping by identifying areas through hot spot mapping and examining illegal dumping work orders. BeautifySJ increased education through targeted canvassing, door hangers, educational materials, promotion of the City's Junk Pickup Program, and direct resident engagement. Prior to deploying surveillance cameras, staff conducted neighborhood canvassing and "knock-and-talk" outreach to educate residents on legal disposal options, available City services, and how to report illegal dumping and graffiti. Staff also connected residents to City, County, and community resources, providing guidance on services such as mattress collection, bulky item disposal, household hazardous waste disposal, and other programs that help residents maintain clean neighborhoods.
Through the Neighborhood Engagement Program, staff also educated neighborhood leaders and residents on how to build sustainable and effective neighborhood associations. This included coaching on organizational structure, leadership development, volunteer recruitment, meeting facilitation, community organizing, accessing City resources, and building partnerships. By strengthening neighborhood organizations, BeautifySJ helps communities develop the capacity to address local concerns, including illegal dumping.
Second, BeautifySJ expanded its Environmental Stewardship Program to six elementary schools across five Council Districts, engaging 2,222 students in litter prevention, environmental stewardship, and neighborhood beautification.
The program is designed to plant the seeds of community pride, action, and environmental stewardship at an early age by encouraging students to become ambassadors for cleaner neighborhoods both at school and at home.
Participating schools included Samuel E. Stipe Elementary (D2), Northwood Elementary (D4), Robert Sanders Elementary (D5), George Shirakawa Elementary (D7), Voices Academy (D7), and Ida Jew Academy (D8). Youth and school leaders committed to being Environmental Stewards.
Third, BeautifySJ prioritized low-cost and no-cost marketing and outreach efforts to maximize available funding for operations while continuing to raise awareness and encourage community engagement. Free outreach included promotion through the City Manager's e-blasts, the City's public events calendar, division webpage updates, social media campaigns, and existing community networks such as City Council district and neighborhood association mailing lists. Updates to the BeautifySJ webpages helped drive 10,281 visits from 8,497 unique visitors. Low-cost outreach included printed outdoor banners, four retractable banners, 100-yard signs, flyers, and A-frame signage to increase visibility and promote community participation.
As noted above, BeautifySJ removed 14 million pounds of trash and litter through illegal dumping response and neighborhood litter removal efforts, a
1.8% decrease from FY 2024-2025. Even as the amount of material collected decreased, volunteer participation and neighborhood association engagement in cleanup efforts reached a five-year high, suggesting that residents are helping maintain cleaner spaces rather than repeatedly removing large accumulations of illegal dumping.
Staff reported on the results of this initiative at the August 13, 2026, NSE Committee meeting as part of the BeautifySJ Neighborhood Blight Reduction Status Report.
Next Step for Change Initiative: BeautifySJ will operationalize and continue to implement the illegal dumping education strategy by engaging with neighborhood association and residents; leading the Environmental Stewardship at elementary schools; and expanding and the marketing and outreach strategy.
3.3 Implement strategies to improve Junk Pickup usage, including (1) 311 process improvements, (2) hauler outreach and coordination with multifamily complexes, and (3) identification of potential service model improvements for the next solid waste contract. Evaluate effectiveness and report to NSE Committee in June 2026.
Change Initiative: Usage of the City’s Junk Pickup program by multifamily residents lags behind usage by single-family residents. This initiative seeks to increase usage of the program in multifamily dwellings and make the service more user friendly for everyone by implementing process improvements.
Hypothesis: Strategies will improve utilization of Free Junk Pickup, thus diverting illegal dumping into a legal trash disposal method.
Results and Lessons Learned: As part of this initiative, staff pursued improvements to the SJ311 process, outreach to multifamily complexes, and initial information gathering on potential service model improvements for the next solid waste contract.
In FY 2025-2026, staff has implemented two process improvements for the SJ311 Junk Pickup process. First, staff updated the email templates sent to residents as part of setting a junk pickup appointment to improve the clarity of instructions. Second, staff has updated instructions for setting out items for pickup to increase clarity and avoid potential confusion that could result in a missed appointment. In addition to these process improvements, staff has also established an internal dashboard with program data to monitor performance and assess opportunities for further improvement. As part of the development of the City’s new customer relationship management system, staff is working in the current fiscal year to identify and implement additional process improvements.
Staff also worked with the City’s contractor, GreenTeam, to conduct outreach to multifamily complexes in 21 identified hot spots in an attempt to increase multifamily usage of the Junk Pickup program. As part of the effort, Partially
Completed
GreenTeam arranged with multifamily complexes to conduct targeted cleanups, allowing all residents to set out items for collection on a specific day instead of making multiple individual appointments. GreenTeam was able to conduct one or more of these cleanups in eight of the 21 hot spots. Five of the hotspots were very successful, with multiple cleanups occurring during the year. The table below shows the year-over-year change in Junk Pickup tonnage for both single-family and multifamily dwellings. Program usage increased for both housing types, with multifamily usage showing very strong growth of 30% year-over-year.
Tons Collected by the Junk Pickup Program by Housing Type Housing Type FY 2024-2025 FY 2025-2026 Percentage
Change
Single-Family 6,692 7,325 9.5%
Multifamily 2,099 2,730 30.1%
Total 8,791 10,055 14.4%
To build on these efforts, starting in late May, a City staff person was assigned to conduct direct outreach to multifamily complexes, in addition to the outreach conducted by the contractor. To date, site visits have been completed at 15% of targeted multifamily properties. Among the 105 properties contacted, 69% resulted in direct communication with a property manager, and educational outreach resources were provided to 50% of contacted properties. While 80% of property managers were familiar with scheduling an appointment, only 65% reported sharing information with residents, highlighting an opportunity to expand resident education and increase awareness of available City resources. In addition to collecting data, site visits have resulted in direct on- site improvements through educational outreach, distribution of enclosure signs and tote bags, and installation of replacement container labels.
Finally, staff is using outreach to learn what service model improvements may be most beneficial in the next solid waste contract. Given that the current contract expires in 2036 and that, through outreach efforts, staff is still learning about potential areas where the service model could improve, staff determined that fully developing proposed service model improvements was premature.
Instead, staff identified that learning about challenges and potential improvements through City staff site visits to multifamily complexes will help inform potential service model improvements in the next solid waste contract cycle. Because of this change in approach, this initiative has been marked as “partially complete,” but the learning accomplished through outreach will prove valuable when the time comes to determine the new service model.
Staff reported on the results of this initiative at the June 11, 2026, NSE Committee meeting as part of the City Council Focus Area Status Report.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This effort will be refined and continued. In FY 2026-2027, the City has established two Focus Area initiatives to continue this work: it will pursue further process improvements through implementation of the new customer relationship module and will continue direct outreach with City staff.
3.4 Develop budget proposals for revised trash disposal procedures and service efficiency improvements that will prevent the City’s service yards from reaching capacity. Develop and submit proposals by March 2026.
Change Initiative: This initiative seeks to analyze BeautifySJ operations and identify opportunities to increase efficiency.
Hypothesis: By implementing process improvements, the City will be able to process high volumes of illegal dumping, encampment trash, and neighborhood volunteer events more efficiently within existing facility constraints.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff developed a BeautifySJ program optimization proposal that was approved as part of the FY 2026-2027 Adopted Operating Budget. In developing this proposal, staff conducted analysis of BeautifySJ operations, including service yard capacity, and determined that while sufficient capacity remained at the service yards to accommodate anticipated waste volume, there was still significant opportunity for efficiency improvements to the service. In particular, staff identified opportunities to realign non-personal/equipment spending and staff assignments to account for changes in the encampment abatement workload. Due to significant progress in clearing large encampments, staff determined that it was possible to scale back abatement costs beginning in FY 2026-2027 and fully realized by FY 2027-2028, as the City relies less on services that are necessary for large abatements, such as external vendors and Police Officer secondary employment. To account for this shift, the optimization proposal included a reduction in the BeautifySJ non-personal/equipment allocation, resulting in budget savings, as well as reallocation of staffing resources. The BeautifySJ team began implementation of the optimization strategy in July 2026, with full implementation expected in fall 2026.
Next Step for Change Initiative: BeautifySJ staff is operationalizing the optimization proposal approved by the City Council as part of the FY 2026- 2027 Adopted Budget.
Completed
3.5 Conduct a pilot program for a dedicated service to collect shopping carts, evaluate the pilot and recommend a permanent service model to the City Council by November 2025.
Change Initiative: This initiative seeks to pilot a program to collect abandoned shopping carts using a contractor and return them to retailers.
Hypothesis: The shopping cart collection pilot will aid the City in developing a permanent shopping cart collection model, which will make the City more effective at retrieving shopping carts.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff contracted with a cart retrieval firm, carTrac, to conduct a three-month cart retrieval pilot program in two pilot areas.
Pilot Area 1 ran from Highway 880 to the north to Tully Road to the south and from The Alameda and Highway 87 to the west to Highway 101 to the east.
Pilot Area 2 encompassed the area on either side of Almaden Expressway from Branham Lane to Coleman Road. The pilot program ran from August 14, 2025, to November 14, 2025.
Completed
During the pilot program, the contractor collected a total of 734 carts, with 202 coming from Pilot Area 1 and 532 from Pilot Area 2. Staff from the Code Enforcement Division of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department participated in ride-alongs to observe the contractor’s efforts and work with the contractor to improve the effectiveness of the service over the course of the pilot.
Staff regards the pilot program as a success. Lessons learned from the pilot include:
• The contractor collected a significant number of carts during the pilot period. Code Enforcement’s staff used ride-alongs to help the contractor improve effectiveness.
• Pilot Area 2 saw more carts retrieved than Pilot Area 1, potentially because of the focus on a smaller geographic area with a high density of carts.
• Collection of data on which retailers have the most abandoned carts could be useful in targeting and evaluating Code Enforcement’s regulation of retailers through Cart Management Plans.
• A relatively small number of carts could not initially be collected due to personal belongings or trash, highlighting the importance of coordination between departments to address these instances. • The data suggests there are multiple reasons why carts are abandoned. Carts found with personal belongings were likely in use by unhoused individuals, while carts collected from apartment complexes along Almaden Expressway may have been used to transport purchases back to an individual’s residence on foot.
In parallel to work on the pilot program, staff worked with the Mayor’s Office and State Senator Cortese to introduce Senate Bill 753, which proposed amendments to state law that would allow cities and counties in California to return abandoned carts directly to the retail locations of their owners instead of operating an impound lot, as previously required, and also provided that after the carts are returned, cities and counties would be able to assess a cost recovery fee on retailers. This bill was signed into law in October 2025.
Staff reported on the pilot at the December 16, 2025, City Council meeting and recommended a service model for a cost recovery cart retrieval service, as allowed by the recently passed legislation.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Implementation of the cost-recovery service model recommended by staff in December 2025 was dependent on the allocation of start-up funding through the budget process. Given that no funding for this purpose was allocated in FY 2026-2027, work on a cart retrieval program has been sunset, but the City retains the ability to pursue one in the future under the amended state law. The Code Enforcement Division continues to implement its existing regulatory program, which requires retailers to establish shopping cart management plans to prevent carts from leaving their premises.
Attachment D: Growing Our Economy Focus Area
Long-Term Goal: Cultivate an ecosystem for thriving businesses and resident prosperity.
Problem Area 1: Business Development and Workforce Preparedness Annual Status
1.1 Engage employers and connect them to resources that attract and retain 5,000 jobs by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Business Intelligence Capture
• Workforce program for unstably housed residents
• work2future AI tools
• WIOA Reauthorization advocacy
Hypothesis: By strategically targeting key sector companies, San José can grow jobs.
Results and Lessons Learned: During the last fiscal year, the team assisted with the retention, expansion or attraction of 6,559 jobs based on interactions with notable companies such as the Del Grande Dealership Group (San Jose’s largest auto dealer), Westfield Valley Fair, Federal Realty (owner and operator of Santana Row and Westgate Center), and several notable companies in the semiconductor industry, including Advantest, Astera Labs, Cisco, Nokia, and SK Hynix.
The Business Development team nurtured and developed partnerships with leading organizations that can serve as business development and workforce preparedness foundations for years to come. This included partnerships and growing relationships with organizations like SEMI (the world’s leading semiconductor industry association), the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), Team California (an alliance of statewide economic development organizations), CoreNet (a leading corporate real estate industry association), multiple developers and real estate brokers, and the Bay Area Robotics Association.
The team also integrated a new prospecting tool into its outreach strategy to more effectively target and engage companies primed for attraction and expansion opportunities. The prospecting tool has also enabled the team to more effectively customize engagement based on company needs and desired outcomes.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This focus area goal is being refined and will continue for FY 2026-2027 under Goal 1.2: Drive Priority Sector Investment:
Add (retain, expand, or attract) a total of 5,000 jobs by June 2027.
Completed
1.2 Identify priority growth sectors (such as manufacturing and AI). Customize business outreach activities engaging priority sectors and bringing visibility to the City's competitive assets.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Business Intelligence Capture
• Workforce program for unstably housed residents
Completed
• work2future AI tools
• WIOA Reauthorization advocacy
Hypothesis: By strategically targeting key sector companies, San José can grow jobs.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City has advanced a targeted business development strategy that leverages San José's advantages in innovative technology, a highly skilled workforce, and infrastructure readiness. Through sector-based research and outreach informed by industry insights, the City has proactively generated and supported aligned business leads, identifying three priority approaches:
· Nurturing the Base Economy: Retaining and supporting San José's top employers and revenue generators.
· Growing the Innovation Economy: Focusing on computer hardware and processing infrastructure (semiconductors, microelectronics, data centers, photonics, and quantum), robotics, and clean energy, with research development and artificial intelligence running throughout.
Advanced manufacturing remains important to San José's economy, though a smaller share than in the past, as research and development and digital solutions have become more deeply embedded in the region. These focus areas also intentionally align with California's Jobs First Economic Blueprint.
· Building Back the Office Economy: Fortifying relationships with commercial office brokers and more proactively pursuing tenants in the market.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This work will continue as a part of the FY 2026-2027 OEDCA Economic Strategy Workplan and be refined as appropriate to align with the new Focus Area Goal 1.1: Advance Business Development Strategy and Retain and Optimize Employment Land Development.
1.3 Analyze job attraction, retention, and expansion performance measure methodology and data sources and report to the December Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Business Intelligence Capture
• Workforce program for unstably housed residents
• work2future AI tools
• WIOA Reauthorization advocacy
Hypothesis: Through consistent measurement and benchmarking against regional and national trends, the City can better understand job trends and identify where to target impact.
Results and Lessons Learned: This focus area goal was completed and presented at the December 15, 2025, CED Committee meeting. Staff tracked jobs data using three categories: attraction (new companies without a prior San José location), retention (existing companies maintaining their location), Completed
and expansion (existing companies adding jobs), drawn from the City's self- reported business certificate database.
Analysis shows this measure is best focused on two groups: existing large employers and tax revenue generators (retention/expansion), and key industries (attraction). Within attraction, opportunities include smaller companies that are willing to pay a premium for proximity to a desired ecosystem or skilled talent.
The team is responding to City Auditor recommendations and developing performance measure methodologies to reflect long-term goals and targets.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This initiative will be operationalized through the implementation of the City Auditor's recommendations for OEDCA performance measures and will be incorporated into the second year of OEDCA's Strategic Economic Workplan.
1.4 Implement two program improvements from FY 2024-2025 workforce pilot for 125 unstably housed residents.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Business Intelligence Capture
• Workforce program for unstably housed residents
• work2future AI tools
• WIOA Reauthorization advocacy
Hypothesis: Through program improvements, the City can increase the percentage of employed clients who transition into high-wage, high-growth careers.
Results and Lessons Learned: Two program improvements were implemented:
intensive case management/individualized support and ongoing staff training.
The program enrolled and provided workforce services to 125 participants, achieving 100% of the enrollment goal. This was supported by an expansion of intensive case management and coordinated supportive services designed to address employment barriers and improve participant retention. Sixty-five percent of participants who obtained employment were placed into high-wage, high-growth occupations, exceeding prior program performance.
Program improvements, particularly intensive case management, individualized participant support, and ongoing staff training, were key drivers of improved employment outcomes. Staff were better equipped to address barriers quickly, connect participants with appropriate resources, and support successful transitions into high-growth industries.
Next Step for Change Initiative: The successful practices, including intensive case management, enhanced staff training, and integrated supportive services, will be operationalized within standard workforce programming.
Completed
1.5 By March 2026, work2future will launch a pilot selection paid work experience trainings related to AI, with 80 clients enrolling by June 2026.
Completed
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Business Intelligence Capture
• Workforce program for unstably housed residents
• work2future AI tools
• WIOA Reauthorization advocacy
Hypothesis: Through AI training, staff can transition more workforce clients into high-wage, high-growth jobs.
Results and Lessons Learned: The San José Works AI Training Work Experience Pilot provided 95 young adults (versus a goal of 80) with paid, hands-on summer work experience designed to introduce students to artificial intelligence, and related software engineering, application development, cybersecurity, virtual design and construction, and other emerging technologies. The pilot connected students directly with industry employers and technology professionals, giving them the opportunity to apply technical skills to real-world projects while gaining firsthand exposure to how AI and emerging technologies are used in today’s workplace
Through partnerships with Roku, Intrepid Electronics, and CyberTrust America, San José Works provided 110 paid work experience opportunities, with all 110 opportunities completed.
Overall, the San José Works AI Training Work Experience Pilot demonstrates an employer-driven model for preparing students for an AI-enabled workforce.
By combining paid summer employment, industry mentorship, technical projects, and exposure to real-world applications of AI, the pilot gives students an opportunity to move beyond learning about AI to experiencing how AI is developed, applied, and used to solve real-world problems. The model strengthens the connection between school, work, and emerging career opportunities while equipping students with skills and experiences they can carry forward into their continued education and future careers.
The team also expanded introductory AI workshops through training providers, Metrix Learning, and hybrid formats, reaching about 502 participants in generative AI, machine learning, Amazon Web Services workplace productivity tools, and data analytics.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Building on early success, work2future will continue expanding AI training, strengthen employer partnerships to meet evolving workforce needs while increasing participant access to high-growth career pathways.
1.6 Implement AI tool for skills assessment and job matching and bring results and recommendations to CED Committee meeting in June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Business Intelligence Capture
• Workforce program for unstably housed residents
• work2future AI tools
• WIOA Reauthorization advocacy
Completed
Hypothesis: Through AI tools, we can reduce costs and provide more efficient services.
Results and Lessons Learned: In March 2026, the team implemented an AI tool to support workforce service delivery, with a focus on skills assessment and job matching. Since then, staff have grown more confident and adept at incorporating AI into their daily work, a shift driven largely by ongoing training and close collaboration with service providers on how to use the technology effectively.
In practice, the tool has streamlined case management. Where case managers once spent roughly 50% of an initial meeting on skills analysis, that time has dropped to about 30% now that AI handles much of the initial matching and coaching. The time has now been redirected towards more intensive one-on- one case management and career counseling, letting staff focus on the human side of the work rather than administrative legwork.
Next Step for Change Initiative: work2future will continue to research and explore an enhanced AI tool for skills assessment and job matching and expand AI applications to further enhance customer service and workforce outcomes.
Problem Area 2: Infrastructure Readiness Annual Status
2.1 Three data centers/large energy projects receive permanent power from PG&E by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Fast-track development pathway
• Concierge model for major investors
• Targeted marketing and engagement with large energy customers • Regional Wastewater Facility Economic Development Lands • Partnerships with regional utilities and state agencies
Hypothesis: Through a newly funded team dedicated to data center/large energy projects, staff will move more projects through the development process this fiscal year.
Results and Lessons Learned: PG&E successfully energized two out of the three projects, Equinix SV 12 and Equinix SV18, with the third project, Stack, energized in July 2026 (one month delay). Although one of the three projects was not energized on time, customers reported feeling a stronger sense of confidence in PG&E’s ability to deliver and expressed appreciation for the City’s involvement in motivating PG&E to meet its in-service deadlines.
On the final project to be energized, the delay was due to multiple unmarked underground utilities, which resulted in having to redesign the transmission pole footing each time. However, staff’s key takeaway is that the City’s Implementation Agreement and subsequent performance tracking of PG&E milestones are very effective at ensuring PG&E’s attention to resolving issues in a timely manner and trying to energize projects as close to on schedule as possible.
Partially
Completed
Next Step for Change Initiative: This change initiative is being redesigned in the next work plan. Rather than focusing on energization for large-load customers (20MW+), staff is shifting focus to assist medium-sized loads (5- 19MW) in advancing through PG&E’s energization pipeline. Staff will use the same format and process that worked well for the large load customers to accelerate the interconnection timeline for high-growth industries in San José.
The new Focus Area Goal is Goal 2.4: Prioritize Electrical Infrastructure to Support Innovation Economy: By June 2027, establish and implement a coordinated City-PG&E approach to support prospective and expanding businesses requiring 5–19 megawatts of power.
2.2 Two new data center/large energy projects in the Building Plan Review phase by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Fast-track development pathway
• Concierge model for major investors
• Targeted marketing and engagement with large energy customers • Regional Wastewater Facility Economic Development Lands • Partnerships with regional utilities and state agencies
Hypothesis: Through a newly funded team dedicated to data center/large energy projects, staff will move more projects through the development process this fiscal year.
Results and Lessons Learned: The team exceeded this goal, with three large- energy projects - Equinix SV 12, Equinix SV 18, and Stack - submitting building permit applications over the course of the fiscal year. Having a dedicated team, monthly coordination meetings, and a project-tracking tool helped the team stay focused on moving projects through the pipeline and addressing potential issues early. The team also learned that broader community concerns surrounding data centers require a proactive and adaptable approach, including pivoting to better inform residents through community engagement activities and addressing emerging concerns through ongoing policy development.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This goal will remain for the next fiscal year and is now Goal 2.3, which combines the performance measures for both planning and building application submittals with the overall goal of successfully receiving either planning or building permits for two projects.
Completed
2.3 Five new data center/large energy projects in the Planning Entitlement phase by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Fast-track development pathway
• Concierge model for major investors
• Targeted marketing and engagement with large energy customers • Regional Wastewater Facility Economic Development Lands • Partnerships with regional utilities and state agencies
Completed
Hypothesis: Through a newly funded team dedicated to data center/large energy projects, staff will move more projects through the development process this fiscal year.
Results and Lessons Learned: The team met this goal by successfully facilitating five new Planning application submittals during the fiscal year.
Having a dedicated team and monthly coordination meeting, plus a project tracking tool, helped the team stay focused on moving projects through the pipeline and address any potential issues early on. The team also learned that broader community concerns surrounding data centers require a proactive and adaptable approach, including pivoting to better inform residents through community engagement activities and addressing emerging concerns through ongoing policy development.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This goal will remain for the next fiscal year and is now Goal 2.3, which combines the performance measures for both planning and building application submittals with the overall goal of successfully receiving either planning or building permits for two projects.
2.4 Define and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for development of the Economic Development Lands near the Regional Wastewater Facility by March 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Fast-track development pathway
• Concierge model for major investors
• Targeted marketing and engagement with large energy customers • Regional Wastewater Facility Economic Development Lands • Partnerships with regional utilities and state agencies
Hypothesis: Through the execution of an Exclusive Negotiation agreement, staff will learn more about a feasible land use plan to generate revenue at the Regional Wastewater Facility property.
Results and Lessons Learned: The City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Prologis for the development of these lands in November 2025. Staff initially paused contract negotiation with Prologis to allow the City of Santa Clara time to determine its desired form of participation with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, as it is a minority owner of the Regional Wastewater Facility. Staff have fully negotiated a cost reimbursement agreement, a right of entry agreement, and an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement directly with Prologis, and the documents are in the signature gathering process.
Consultant support for the RFP process proved valuable in facilitating an equitable, market-informed, and competitive approach.
Next Step for Change Initiative: After signing the agreements, Prologis will have two years to design a project. Staff will continue to engage and negotiate as necessary with Prologis and will continue a collaborative approach with the City of Santa Clara as minority owner of the Regional Wastewater Facility.
Completed
2.5 Issue first LS Power utility construction permit by June 2026. Completed
Change Initiative:
• Fast-track development pathway
• Concierge model for major investors
• Targeted marketing and engagement with large energy customers • Regional Wastewater Facility Economic Development Lands • Partnerships with regional utilities and state agencies
Hypothesis: Staff will lay the foundation to understand revenue opportunities from the LS Power project and interest from large energy load customers.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Franchise Agreement was executed and became effective May 8, 2026, at 2.3% of net revenue, and the first permits were issued before the May 11, 2026, construction start, ahead of the June 2026 target. The California Public Utilities Commission's final CEQA decision was a prerequisite for franchise agreement adoption, so staff adjusted the process and timeline accordingly, shifting the City Council item to March 2026 while still remaining on track to meet the June 2026 permit-issuance goal; construction was also scheduled to avoid impacts to 2026 Downtown sporting event activations.
Together, the franchise agreement establishes an ongoing revenue stream and permits have begun issuing, laying the groundwork to assess further revenue opportunities and interest from large energy load customers. Aligning the franchise agreement timeline with the CPUC's CEQA review process required staff to adapt the schedule proactively rather than treat it as a fixed sequence, and maintaining close, ongoing coordination with the CPUC Energy Division was key to keeping permitting on track.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This goal will continue as staff will maintain close coordination with the California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division, as construction recently began in Q4 of FY 2025-2026.
Problem Area 3: Downtown and Neighborhood Business Districts Investment Annual Status
3.1 Generate five commercial lease renewal commitments in Downtown of 5,000 square feet or more by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Business Outreach and Retention Strategy
• Stitching Districts
• Improved Downtown Quality of Life Measures
Hypothesis: By implementing a strategic outreach and retention plan that addresses workforce, infrastructure, regulatory, and quality-of-life needs while gathering employer feedback, the City can strengthen Downtown’s business ecosystem and improve its ability to retain major employers.
Results and Lessons Learned: The team completed 31 retention visits and secured six lease renewal commitments of at least 5,000 square feet. These successes, notably Berliner Cohen’s highly visible renewal and expansion to 43,400 square feet, underscores Downtown as a desirable place to continue conducting business. Additionally, retention-based incentives could help the Completed
City support and retain major corporate employers downtown. Although several downtown employers are committed to staying downtown, they are not necessarily committed to remaining in the same location.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Continue the strategic initiative through prioritized employer outreach, documented follow-up, and early-warning tracking. Staff are also exploring a tenant-retention tool inspired by the Downtown Office Leasing Incentive Program to provide more direct support to major employers considering lease renewal.
3.2 Facilitate five new ground-floor business attractions to Downtown by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Downtown Office Incentive Program
• Stitching Districts
• Business grant programs – Storefronts, Neighborhood and Start-up • Small Business Ally Program
• Coordinated Ribbon Cutting Programming
Hypothesis: A coordinated business attraction approach that combines thoughtful outreach, site-specific problem solving, financial tools, and hands-on staff support will improve Downtown’s competitiveness and translate into new ground-floor openings. Progress with owners of properties containing multiple long-vacant storefronts could unlock substantial downtown activation.
Results and Lessons Learned: The team exceeded its target by facilitating 13 new ground-floor business attractions through outreach, permitting support, incentives, grants, and connections to available spaces and partner resources.
These businesses included: Lucid Motors, Playback Coffee, Bay Padel, Poppy & Claro, VTA Security Office, West Coast Community Bank, Toastique, Guitar Wars, Must Be Thai, Pretty Good Advice, Strata, Phin & Bowl, and Sakura Marketplace.
The openings expanded the City’s mix of businesses Downtown and helped activate previously vacant or underused storefronts. The results showed that hands-on support can move projects forward, while permitting timelines, startup costs, and the limited supply of move-in-ready spaces to remain challenges.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Continue strengthening the initiative by deepening coordination with brokers, property owners, and other stakeholders to identify opportunities early, address barriers, and expand the ongoing use of incentives and grants. Staff will also continue to engage owners of long-vacant ground-floor spaces to encourage activation and further downtown revitalization.
Completed
3.3 Implementation of four Downtown placemaking initiatives by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Stitching Districts
• San Jose Downtown Association Partnership
Completed
• Downtown Management Development Facilitation
Hypothesis: By implementing targeted placemaking initiatives, the City can strengthen connections between downtown districts, improve the public realm, and create a more welcoming and cohesive Downtown experience.
Results and Lessons Learned: The team, in coordination with various community partners and downtown stakeholders, completed 12 placemaking initiatives, including: Stitching Districts, Post Street Asphalt Mural, San Jose Museum of Art Signage, Fountain Alley Landscaping, VTA/City of San José Convention Center Median, Arena Green East and West, Park Habitat Fence Beautification, Fire Hydrant and Curb Repainting, San Pedro and Fountain Alley Fence Mural, Greyhound Station Beautification, San Pedro St. Asphalt Mural Repainting, and Downtown West Wayfinding.
Downtown foot traffic increased overall by 8.6% compared to the previous FY (daytime traffic increased by 8.1% and nighttime by 13.7%). These projects improved visibility, activation, and connections between key downtown destinations, while demonstrating the value of coordinated support from the San José Downtown Association, property owners, and City departments. The work also showed that successful placemaking requires sustained maintenance, clear ownership, and stronger performance measures to evaluate long-term impact.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will continue advancing the Stitching Districts framework with the intention of making Downtown more connected and a unified destination. The next phase will further support investments, funding, upkeep, and evaluation of downtown placemaking projects while supporting projects that make the Downtown experience feel more intentional.
Stitching Districts was again funded in the FY 2026-2027 budget.
3.4 Formation of one new business improvement district by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Downtown Office Incentive Program
• Stitching Districts
• Business Improvement District formation
• Business grant programs – Storefronts, Neighborhood and Start-up • Small Business Ally
Hypothesis: The formation of business improvement districts will drive sustainable long-term investment in commercial corridors.
Results and Lessons Learned: Four new Business Improvement Districts were approved by City Council in FY 2025-2026, exceeding the target. This includes the following Business Improvement Districts (BID):
1. Story Road BID
2. Alum Rock BID
3. The Alameda BID
4. The East Village
The experience of the OEDCA team and deployment of consultants in Completed
partnership with business association leadership has driven this success. The key output in the formation of these Business Improvement Districts will be an increase in assessment income sourced by assessment fees to be invested in the improvement districts. This is estimated to reach $1.49 million in FY 2026- 2027 across all BIDs.
The key takeaway was the need for a regular meeting cadence with the Finance Department to identify key processes and milestones required to establish multiple business improvement districts within the fiscal year.
Next Step for Change Initiative: An updated three-year plan to support business associations and BIDs will be presented to the Small Business Advisory Committee in September 2026. Key themes addressed in the plan will include clean and safe, economic development and placemaking focus areas, as well as the potential formation of new BIDs. This goal will be re- imagined in the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area Scorecard as Goal 3.2, Strengthening Small Business Ecosystem.
3.5 Implement two new small business grant programs and assess need and interest by business and project type.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Downtown Office Incentive Program
• Stitching Districts
• Business Improvement District formation
• Business grant programs – Storefronts, Neighborhood and Start-up • Small Business Ally
Hypothesis: New grant programs will provide new pathways to support commercial corridors and provide small businesses with startup cost support.
Results and Lessons Learned: Two new small business grant programs were launched, the Business Startup Grant and the Neighborhood Economic Grant, with combined funding of about $300,000. The Business Startup Grant focused on entrepreneurship support at an individual level, while the Neighborhood Economic Grant targeted investments in key commercial corridors. Both grants are in high demand via the number of applications reflecting high entrepreneurship activity and the desire to improve neighborhoods (e.g., night market, local digital infrastructure, environmental improvements).
Business Startup Grant Program
The Business Startup Grant program attracted over 800 applications. To ensure an equal weighting across all 10 Council Districts, a lottery took place to shortlist 30 applications for an in-person interview. The shortlisted candidates were interviewed by representatives of the Small Business Advisory Committee and OEDCA staff. An initial allocation of $155,000 was designated to 21 small businesses in June 2026.
The new grant program was an important proof of concept for supporting entrepreneurship across the city. Unfortunately, there were far more qualified program applicants than available funding.
Partially
Completed
Neighborhood Economic Grant
The Neighborhood Economic Grant program was designed in FY 2025-2026 to support investment attraction, business expansion and place making in key commercial corridors across the city. Consultation with business associations informed the design and extended timeline for generating new ideas and ongoing collaboration with OEDCA staff.
The program launched in July 2026. Staff anticipate bringing recommendations for at least three grant awards, totaling $150,000, to the Small Business Advisory Committee in December 2026.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Additional competitive grant awards totaling $145,000 will be available to existing program applicants through the second phase of the Business Startup Grant program. OEDCA staff will continue to monitor the impact of the program awards over the next fiscal year to assess the overall impact of the program. The Neighborhood Economic Grant program will proceed to the proposal review and award stages and implementation of the program will be carried through in Goal 3.2 of the FY 2026-2027, Strengthening Small Business Ecosystem.
3.6 Accelerate small businesses by streamlining one City process.
Change Initiative:
• Business Attraction Strategy
• Downtown Office Incentive Program
• Stitching Districts
• Business Improvement District formation
• Business grant programs – Storefronts, Neighborhood and Start-up • Small Business Ally
Hypothesis: Making it easier for small businesses to do business helps San José’s economy grow.
Results and Lessons Learned: Since March 2026, staff improved the sidewalk seating and parklet permit processes by introducing a revised single-page application form along with simplified guideline documents (a 10-page parklet guide and a 7-page sidewalk seating guide) to make requirements clearer for applicants. The Public Works Department also aligned its inspection process with the Fire Department's plan check directive, reducing the number of separate inspections applicants need. Looking ahead, staff developed a phased work plan: Phase 1 (by August 31, 2026) includes simplifying guideline graphics, revisiting insurance requirements, and studying San Francisco's Shared Spaces program as a model; Phase 2 (by December 31, 2026) will explore a similar by-right pilot program for San José, evaluate outdoor seating along Paseo de San Antonio, and propose staffing and renewal process improvements.
The focus is specifically on reducing applicant-side processing time (which averages 86 days for sidewalk seating and 146 days for parklets, versus just 22-31 days on the City's side), since the Public Works Department is already meeting its internal review-time targets about 90% of the time.
Partially
Completed
Next Step for Change Initiative: Staff will roll out a two-phase improvement plan for the Citywide Outdoor Seating Program, focused on cutting applicant- side processing time. By December 2026, staff will have simplified guideline materials, reviewed insurance requirements, and studied San Francisco's Shared Spaces model as a potential template. Staff will then propose a local pilot program, evaluate outdoor seating along Paseo de San Antonio, and recommend staffing and renewal process updates. Any changes beyond this initial plan will require further analysis and stakeholder engagement, with continued attention to ADA accessibility, fire access, and maintenance/liability responsibilities.
Problem Area 4: Sports and Entertainment District Development Annual Status
4.1 Develop conceptual plan for a Sports and Entertainment District and present to City Council by December 2025.
Change Initiative:
• Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan
• Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel Study
• Entertainment Zone implementation
• 2026 major sporting events activations
• Outdoor special events
Hypothesis: Analyzing City costs and projected revenue from a Sports and Entertainment District empowers the City with policy alternatives to support long-term economic growth.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff completed this goal by issuing an information memorandum in March 2026, "Update on the Downtown Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan and the San Jose McEnery Convention Center Expansion Assessment," summarizing consultant analyses on peer-city benchmarking and investment implications for the Convention Center and HQ Hotel.
Findings support the hypothesis that analyzing City costs and projected revenue generates concrete policy alternatives. Deloitte's benchmarking of peer cities (Sacramento's Downtown Commons, Columbus's Nationwide Arena District, and Indianapolis's Wholesale District) identified specific policy and investment levers used to unlock private development, including tax increment financing, streamlined permitting, and active City participation as a development facilitator. This benchmarking reinforced that team investment and a dedicated venue are necessary components of a successful downtown Sports and Entertainment District.
These findings give the City options to consider as it defines its own approach, building on the framework established through the August 2025 Third Amended Arena Management Agreement with Sharks Sports & Entertainment.
Next Step for Change Initiative: Continued into the FY 2026-2027 Focus Area under Growing Our Economy, Problem Area 4 (Experience Economy), Goal
4.1: Model Partnerships and Financing Tools to Realize Investment in Experience Economy Assets. By June 2027, staff will complete market-based feasibility analyses for at least three priority experience economy scenarios, Completed
identifying the combinations of public investment, private participation, revenue assumptions, and financing tools required for each project to pencil in the current environment.
4.2 Facilitate an updated study of a Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel and present to City Council by December 2025.
Change Initiative:
• Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan
• Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel Study
• Entertainment Zone implementation
• 2026 major sporting events activations
• Outdoor special events
Hypothesis: Analyzing City costs and projected revenue from a Convention Center/HQ Hotel Expansion empowers the City with policy alternatives to support long-term economic growth.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff completed this goal by issuing an information memorandum in March 2026, summarizing consultant analyses on peer-city sports and entertainment district benchmarks and investment implications for the Convention Center and HQ Hotel.
The Convention Center cost/revenue analysis produced three tiered development options, each paired with a headquarters hotel, projecting jobs growth from approximately 789 to between 864 and 1,024 annually and economic impact rising from $113 million to between $153.8 million and $182 million. However, operating expenses would rise faster than revenues under all options, leaving net operating income only slightly positive, a key finding that favorable jobs and economic impact figures don't guarantee favorable operating economics.
As a result, staff determined that additional cost-versus-impact analysis is needed before bringing forward a prioritized recommendation, consistent with using this analysis to inform rather than predetermine the City's policy choice.
Next Step for Change Initiative: The City will publish a Request for Information to gather feedback on services, including the convention bureau, destination marketing organization, and Cultural Assets Management. Findings will inform the Request for Proposal in FY 2028-2029, ahead of the Team San José contract expiration.
Completed
4.3 Develop administrative guidelines for Entertainment Zone implementation by December 2025.
Change Initiative:
• Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan
• Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel Study
• Entertainment Zone implementation
• 2026 major sporting events activations
• Outdoor special events
Hypothesis: Analyzing Entertainment Zone activations provides information on what works well and what attracts attendees to drive future economic growth.
Completed
Results and Lessons Learned: Administrative guidelines for Entertainment Zone implementation were completed and presented to the CED Committee in December 2025.
Staff transitioned the Entertainment Zone program from policy development to implementation,
delivering 52 activations supporting Super Bowl LX, March Madness, FIFA World Cup programming, the CityDance World Stage Series, and additional SoFA watch party events. The program demonstrated strong collaboration among City depart ments, event organizers, business districts, and public safety partners, with stakeholders highlighting increased opportunities for surrounding businesses to participate in major events and contribute to the visitor experience.
Initial implementation supports the hypothesis that Entertainment Zones are an effective economic development tool, giving local businesses a way to participate in major events while enhancing the visitor experience. Extending hospitality offerings, including outdoor dining and food and beverage service, into the public realm helped create a more vibrant, welcoming environment that encouraged attendees to stay in the district longer and engage with surrounding businesses. Success depended on strong coordination among City departments, event organizers, business districts, and public safety partners to balance customer experience, business participation, and operational needs. Significant business education, marketing, and outreach were also required to drive participation. These lessons pr ovide a foundation for refining Entertainment Zone operations and supporting continued economic activity in Downtown San José.
Next Step for Change Initiative: The Administration will continue and evaluate the Entertainment Zone program, assessing operational procedures, security models, business participation, customer experience, and economic outcomes from the first year of implementation. Staff will use these findings to strengthen standardized operating practices and evolve the program into a sustainable, scalable tool supporting major regional events and ongoing district activations that engage local businesses, attract visitors, and strengthen commercial corridors citywide.
4.4 Produce or facilitate at least eight cultural outdoor special events specific to 2026 activities and deliver six public artworks.
Change I
nitiative:
• Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan
• Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel Study
• Entertainment Zone implementation
• 2026 major sporting events activations
• Outdoor special events
Hy
pothesis: Analyzing 2026 activations provides information on what works well and what attracts attendees to drive future economic growth.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff exceeded both 2026 sporting events targets, producing or facilitating eight special events and eight public artworks tied to Super Bowl LX, March Madness, and the FIFA World Cup.
Completed
Special events included "Invisible Skies" (2,000+ participants), two City Hall Plaza concerts, a projection and drone show series, the Super Bowl LX Super Fest at San Pedro Square, and six CityDance World Stage events tied to FIFA World Cup matches. High-attendance FIFA World Cup activations underscored the need for adaptable public safety plans, scalable operations, and real-time interdepartmental coordination.
A
rtworks included the "Hometown Heroes" exhibition, "Invisible Skies" flash art and airport installation, an SJSU-produced projection mapping activation at SAP Center, illuminated sculptures across multiple event sites, The Gaiascope at Circle of Palms, and the "Hearts Delight" marquee pilot with Chopsticks Alley. Partnerships with SJSU art faculty, Visit San José, and community cultural producers were central, with a deliberate focus on showcasing local artists and vendors and deepening engagement with entrepreneurs on the San José landscape. Recent Private Property Ordinance updates are already spurring activations beyond initial projections.
Hig
h-profile events and art programming, paired with academic and community partnerships, expanded opportunities for local artists, strengthened San José's cultural identity, and built operational knowledge for future activations, including the upcoming 250th anniversary.
N
ext Step for Change Initiative: While the SJ26-specific public art program concludes in FY 2026-2027, OEDCA will continue building on the partnerships, operational practices, and programming models established through the SJ26 activations.
S
taff will iterate to improve future outdoor special events by expanding collaborations with cultural organizations, supporting district-based programming, and integrating arts, entertainment, and public space activation to strengthen San José's experience economy and create vibrant destinations throughout the year.
4.5 Facilitate at least 485 city-wide outdoor special event days that cumulatively drive over two million attendees.
C
hange Initiative:
• Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan
• Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel Study
• Entertainment Zone implementation
• 2026 major sporting events activations
• Outdoor special events
H
ypothesis: Analyzing outdoor special events provides information on what works well and what attracts attendees to drive future economic growth.
R
esults and Lessons Learned: Staff significantly exceeded the annual performance target, facilitating 210 permitted outdoor special events spanning 732 event days and attracting more than 2.34 million attendees citywide.
Results include FIFA World Cup activations completed in July 2026, reflecting the full impact of SJ26 and related outdoor programming.
Completed
The portfolio included community festivals, cultural celebrations, major sporting event activations, neighborhood events, and destination programming, extending success beyond downtown into commercial districts across multiple council districts. Supporting this volume required coordination across City departments on scheduling, public safety, transportation, construction activity, and business operations.
D
emand for outdoor events was high, and events grew longer and more operationally complex, establishing a new baseline for City services. OEDCA is assessing staffing levels needed to sustain this momentum. The hypothesis was supported: a diverse, year-round calendar of outdoor events strengthens the public realm, supports local businesses, and grows San José's experience economy, with additional events expected to yield further economic impact.
B
uilding on lessons from SJ26 and the FIFA World Cup, staff will expand data collection, strengthen partnerships with business districts and cultural organizations, and standardize operating practices to sustain a balanced portfolio of destination events, cultural programming, and community activations.
N
ext Step for Change Initiative: Staff will continue advancing the City's outdoor special events program by implementing recommendations from the City Auditor's Cost of Special Events Audit, modernizing permitting processes, strengthening cross-department coordination, and enhancing performance measures that better capture economic, operational, and community outcomes.
4.6 Work with external partners to measure economic impact of 2026 major sporting events with the goal of capturing 20% of all direct spending within the Bay Area.
C
hange Initiative:
• Sports and Entertainment District Conceptual Plan
• Convention Center Expansion/HQ Hotel Study
• Entertainment Zone implementation
• 2026 major sporting events activations
• Outdoor special events
H
ypothesis: A performance methodology provides more information on the economic impact of major events and allows staff to track revenue over time.
Results and Lessons Learned: San José’s 2026 major sporting events produced strong gains in visitation and hotel performance. Super Bowl week drew approximately 459,200 unique Downtown visitors, up nearly 25% year- over-year, while hotel revenue increased 107%; March Madness attracted more than 46,000 spectators; and preliminary FIFA World Cup results showed 1 million cumulative visits to San Pedro Square over 39 days, with hotel RevPAR up 28% during the tournament period. The San Jose Sports Authority has commissioned an economic impact study of the 2026 major sporting events to provide a fuller picture of their overall impact. A key lesson is that Bay Area organizations use different geographies, assumptions, and methodologies, so comparisons with other studies should focus on comparable data points and methods rather than headline totals alone.
Partially
completed
Next Step for Change Initiative: The San José Sports Authority has contracted with a consultant to provide a final report on economic impact in November 2026. Staff plans to share the report including findings and information through a City Information Memo.
Attachment E: Building More Housing Focus Area
Long-Term Goal: Meet residents’ housing needs across income levels by making San José a great place to build housing.
Problem Area 1: Land Use, Policy, and Regulation Annual Status
1.1 Complete task force process for General Plan 4-Year Review by June 2026.
C
hange Initiative:
• General Plan 4-Year review
• Downtown Ministerial
• Housing Catalyst Work Plan
H
ypothesis: Guiding questions: What housing and land use opportunities exist that have not yet been explored? How much housing capacity would these new opportunity areas be able to create?
R
esults and Lessons Learned: In accordance with City Council direction and approval of the General Plan 4-Year Review scope, the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (PBCE) Department worked with the Task Force to develop recommendations aimed at increasing residential capacity across the city.
P
reviously, major updates to the General Plan relied on a Task Force of more than 40 members, however, this review used a more focused and iterative structure: the Planning Commission served as the Task Force, supplemented by subject matter experts and representation from each City Council District.
This approach allowed for sustained, iterative conversation over a series of study sessions, culminating in a Commission vote at the process's conclusion.
A joint study session between City Council and the Planning Commission in fall 2025 further supported this more robust and iterative process.
The Tas
k Force process ran for nine months, holding eight meetings between October 2025 and June 2026, and resulted in a policy framework to guide this effort. Staff's policy framework was generally supported by the Planning Commission at its June 24, 2026, meeting. In August 2026, City Council approved the General Plan 4-Year Review scope with direction for modifications (see next step). Staff will move into drafting the actual General Plan amendments and zoning ordinances, with detailed implementation coming back before the Planning Commission and City Council by December 2027.
Four
main topic areas:
1. Residential Capacity: Raise density limits for several land use designations (e.g., Mixed Use Neighborhood, Urban Residential), target specific corridors (Winchester Blvd, The Alameda) and certain c
ommercial parcels for potential redesignation to housing/mixed-use, and create a new framework for allowing housing on some P
ublic/Quasi-Public land (schools, faith institutions, etc.) while pr
otecting community facility space.
2. Missing Middle / Small Multifamily Housing: Raise density in single- family "Residential Neighborhood" areas from 8 to 32 units/acre, allow triplexes/fourplexes/small apartment buildings citywide (not just vi a
state ADU/Senate Bill 9/Senate Bill 1123 laws), with new design Completed
standards, exclusions (fire zones, flood zones, historic landmarks, rent- controlled sites), and a streamlined ministerial approval path.
3. Urban Village Strategy: Simplify and consolidate San José's 62 des
ignated Urban Villages (46 still unplanned) into fewer, defer planning of Urban Villages within Senate Bill 79 zones, streamline out
reach and plan documents, and implement single planning process for neighborhood urban village areas.
4. Jobs-to-Employed-Residents Ratio: Keep the existing target ratio (
1.1) unchanged.
N
ext Step for Change Initiative: City Council approved the General Plan 4-Year Review scope in August 2026 with direction to modify the following:
• Create minimum parking standards for Missing Middle housing • In addition to 32 units/acre, environmentally review alternatives of 16 units/acre and, 24 units/acre.
• Evaluate a Local density bonus program for Missing Middle Housing • Pilot expanded for Missing Middle housing program in Downtown ar
eas.
• Explore allowing neighborhood serving commercial, beyond home- based occupations, in residential neighborhoods.
• Ordinance changes to facilitate 100% affordable housing PQP lands and other community serving uses (including fee reductions for SUP uses)
• GP Amendment of the Southside Community Center
• Add another cycle for Privately Initiated General Plan amendments.
Staff will draft the General Plan/Zoning amendments and conduct CEQA review, with the amendments coming back to Planning Commission and City Council for final adoption in December 2027.
1.2 Develop Downtown Ministerial permit process and include analysis in the October Community and Economic Development (CED) Citywide Planning Activities Status Report.
C
hange Initiative:
• General Plan 4-Year review
• Downtown Ministerial
• Housing Catalyst Work Plan
H
ypothesis: Expanding ministerial processes will facilitate additional housing units.
R
esults and Lessons Learned: The PBCE Department is currently reviewing the environmental review process and changes in CEQA as a result of Assembly Bill 130. This goal was delayed due to prioritizing the implementation of Senate Bill 79 and the General Plan 4-Year Review.
Additionally, the scope of work for this item was expanded through the direction approved by the City Council in the Mayor's March Budget Message for FY 2026-2027 to include a 90-day guaranteed approval for ministerial projects and to include multi-family housing outside the downtown area.
Development of the Downtown ministerial permit process is included as a FY Partially
Completed
2026-2027 Building More Housing Focus Area work plan goal with targeted completion by December 2026.
N
ext Step for Change Initiative: This work has been incorporated into the Focus Area goal for the next fiscal year. Staff is assessing utilizing a new CEQA exemption for this work enabled through Senate Bill 131.
Problem Area 2: Development Services Process Annual Status
2.1 Analyze options to report on development services timeliness across the pipeline and report findings to the CED Committee in December 2025.
C
hange Initiative:
• CEQA permit standards
• Development fee estimator
• AI Streamlining tool
H
ypothesis: Creating development services measures facilitates communication with developers and the City Council on overall performance and areas for improvement.
R
esults and Lessons Learned: This analysis was presented twice to City Council, once through the Focus Area update to the Community and Economic Development Committee in December 2025, and again to the entire City Council at the Development Services Permitting Study Session in April 2026.
W
hile there was recognition of the effort to create new measures that evaluate the City’s performance in the permit process, it appeared the desire to distill performance to a single metric came at the expense of specificity. In particular, the “number of days added/removed” from the process was a valuable data point in helping staff evaluate the process. The feedback provided useful insights into how the final, formalized report should be formatted, giving the reader the ability to drill down to an individual team, permit type, and specific project.
N
ext Step for Change Initiative: This goal is complete and is being operationalized. The initial version of the report is being formalized by the Information Technology Department staff so the metric can be replicated across a broader set of permits beyond the Building Permit Review. This process will automate report production, allowing Development Services partners to review results more frequently and identify future process improvements. The finalized report will be reviewed quarterly by staff.
Completed
2.2 Bring standard conditions of approval and CEQA process guidelines to City Council by Q3 FY 2025-2026.
C
hange Initiative:
• CEQA permit standards
• Development fee estimator
• AI Streamlining tool
Completed
Hypothesis: Further standardizing permit conditions and CEQA procedures via technical guidelines creates a more predictable experience for developers and facilitates faster development.
Results and Lessons Learned: The Environmental Review Handbook and Environmental Standard Permit Conditions were adopted by City Council on May 19, 2026. The PBCE Department has incorporated Environmental Standard Permit Conditions and guidance from the Environmental Review Handbook into reviews for new projects. This will create a more predictable timeline for developers. Three projects have utilized the new processes, with the first projects scheduled for the Director’s hearing in July 2026.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This goal is complete. Staff will continue to assess how these changes impact review times.
2.3 Conduct initial analysis of projects affected by state CEQA streamlining statutes by June 2026.
Change Initiative:
• CEQA permit standards
• Development fee estimator
• AI Streamlining tool
Hypothesis: New state legislation will facilitate faster housing development timelines through CEQA streamlining.
Results and Lessons Learned: In the last fiscal year, three projects were approved using an Assembly Bill 130 statutory exemption and two were approved using a Senate Bill 131 statutory exemption. Six more projects using Assembly Bill 130 are scheduled or will soon be scheduled for public hearing.
PBCE encountered challenges with meeting the Assembly Bill 130 timelines for approval after the conclusion of tribal consultation (30 days from the end of tribal consultation) because: 1) projects may be complete but do not comply with the City and/or state standards when tribal consultation is complete (i.e. stormwater), 2) public hearing noticing timelines in the Council Public Outreach Policy exceed the 30 day timeline to approval, and 3) the conclusion of tribal consultation varies based on tribe responsiveness and the number of consultation tribes. Some applicants elected to pursue another CEQA path due to the timeline for tribal consultation noticing requirements and uncertainty about the new law.
Next Step for Change Initiative: PBCE continues to track projects utilizing the new streamlining laws and will report on how review times changed for subject projects through the Housing Catalyst Annual Report in the next fiscal year.
Completed
2.4 Complete development fee estimator work by adding multi-family new construction by December 2025.
Change Initiative:
• CEQA permit standards
• Development fee estimator
• AI Streamlining tool
Completed
Hypothesis: Creating a more predictable fee structure helps developers plan for costs and increases our customer service perception.
Results and Lessons Learned: The fee estimator for multi-family new construction was launched in December 2025, completing the original goal.
The tool supports new construction residential homes and ADUs, new construction apartments/condos/townhomes, and new commercial/industrial project types. The fee estimator tool provides more transparency into real project permitting costs for applicants to utilize as they plan their upcoming developments and projects. Since the launch of the multi-family fee estimator, 301 fee estimations for multi-family housing have been completed by users.
Including all project types available in the application, 3,033 fee estimations have been completed.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This goal is complete. Staff will continue to evaluate the fee estimator tool’s usage and plan to enhance functionality in the future by adding residential additions/alterations and commercial/industrial tenant improvement project types.
Problem Area 3: Linking Land and Capital Annual Status
3.1 Cost of Development City Council Study Session on affordable and market rate development data analysis in December 2025.
Change Initiative:
• Multifamily Housing Incentive and Downtown Incentive market rate housing programs
• Affordable unit financing
• Cost of Development Study Session
• Public-Private Partnerships
Hypothesis: The data analysis provided during this Study Session will help inform future policy tradeoffs and decisions.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff completed and published the updated Cost of Residential Development report and presented the findings to City Council at a Study Session on December 8, 2025. The study quantified the feasibility gap by building type and analyzed the impact of City incentive programs on overall development costs, providing a data-driven basis for evaluating fee and waiver reductions as tools to improve project feasibility without direct subsidy.
The report found:
1. Construction costs represent about 69% of total project costs and thus are the main barrier to feasibility, not City development taxes and impact fees.
2. Although rents in San José are 10–15% are currently lower than on the Peninsula, construction costs are comparable, leaving many projects infeasible.
3. Mid-rise projects need to lower costs 5–15% to be financially feasible, while tower projects are 30–35% away from feasibility.
4. Only 25–30% of existing office space is physically suitable for Completed
conversion.
5. Fees and waivers/reductions could improve project economics by approximately $4–16 million per development.
Overall, the study provided a stronger understanding of the factors driving development feasibility and will help inform future policy and incentive decisions. The findings provide valuable context for future City Council discussions regarding housing production, development incentives, and strategies to improve project feasibility.
Next Step for Change Initiative: The report was completed and reported at a City Council Study Session in December 2025. Staff will return in FY 2027- 2028 with an updated Cost of Development report.
3.2 Review a portfolio of entitled housing projects with various requirements that present financial feasibility challenges in today’s market. Present analysis to CED Committee in February 2026.
Change Initiative:
• Multifamily Housing Incentive and Downtown Incentive market rate housing programs
• Affordable unit financing
• Cost of Development Study Session
• Public-Private Partnerships
Hypothesis: Data analysis on where and how projects are/are not moving forward helps to inform policy decisions.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff completed an initial analysis of the City’s entitled housing portfolio, covering approximately 31,375 entitled units, and presented the findings to the CED Committee on February 23, 2026.
The analysis established a shared baseline for City Council and City Council Committee discussions about how to convert the City's substantial entitled housing capacity into actual housing. Many projects are stalled for over three years after City approval. The data shows 28 such projects comprising approximately 13,000 units, including several approved as far back as 2019 that have yet to break ground. It demonstrated that the primary barrier to housing production is often post-entitlement financial feasibility rather than a lack of entitled capacity.
The analysis also found that most projects expected to begin construction within the next year are eligible for the Multifamily Housing and Downtown Residential Incentive Programs, reinforcing the importance of City incentive tools in helping move projects from entitlements toward building permits and certificates of occupancy.
Overall, the hypothesis was supported: analyzing where and why entitled projects are stalled provides actionable information for policy development and resource allocation. The analysis also reinforced the need to evaluate entitlements, available financing tools, and targeted AMI levels together to identify opportunities to catalyze stalled projects and advance them toward construction.
Completed
Next Step for Change Initiative: This initiative was completed. Going forward, staff will incorporate similar, more refined analysis into ongoing housing development and policy processes, including evaluating entitlements, available financing tools, and AMI levels to better identify financial feasibility challenges and opportunities to catalyze stalled projects into construction.
3.3 Provide data analysis on the effectiveness of the market-rate incentive and affordable financing housing programs and bring resulting program adjustments to City Council in Q3 FY 2025-2026.
Change Initiative:
• Multifamily Housing Incentive and Downtown Incentive market rate housing programs
• Affordable unit financing
• Cost of Development Study Session
• Public-Private Partnerships
Hypothesis: Through analysis of the current incentive program, recommendations will be provided to improve the program and facilitate more housing.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff completed an analysis of the effectiveness of the City's market-rate housing incentive and affordable financing programs and presented resulting program adjustments to the City Council on January 27, 2026.
Based on the analysis, City Council extended and expanded the Multifamily Housing Incentive Program and launched a new Downtown Conversion Program to support the adaptive reuse of commercial space for residential housing. For FY 2025-2026, the Multifamily Housing Incentive Program has supported 2,724 units across eight projects currently under construction, including 421 deed-restricted affordable units, serving households earning up to 110% area median income (AMI).
On March 24, 2026, the City Council approved two development projects under the Downtown Residential Incentive Program: Bank of Italy (Office-to- Residential Conversion) and Gateway Tower (New Construction), with 109 and 220 residential units, respectively. The Bank of Italy development is currently under construction, while Gateway Tower's construction is anticipated to begin by October 2026.
The results supported the original hypothesis that data-driven analysis of existing incentive programs could identify concrete adjustments to improve program effectiveness and facilitate additional housing production. The analysis also demonstrated that the feasibility of office-to-residential conversion is highly dependent on building-specific characteristics, including floorplate configuration, windows, and ceiling height.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This initiative was completed and presented to the City Council on January 27, 2026. Staff will continue to evaluate the Multifamily Housing Incentive Program and Downtown Conversion Program through the current sunset date of February 2027, monitoring program Completed
participation, project feasibility, and construction starts and refining program administration as needed based on market conditions and individual project circumstances. This ongoing evaluation will help ensure the programs remain flexible and effective in supporting housing production and advancing projects toward construction.
3.4 Provide alternative financing programs to preserve housing at all income levels.
Change Initiative:
• Multifamily Housing Incentive and Downtown Incentive market rate housing programs
• Affordable unit financing
• Cost of Development Study Session
• Public-Private Partnerships
Hypothesis: Being nimble in providing financial support to housing development helps ensure the City preserves existing units.
Results and Lessons Learned: Staff developed and implemented innovative preservation tools and Public-Private Partnerships to preserve housing in distressed residential assets and create opportunities to stabilize Extremely Low-Income and Middle-Income households. This work included assets formerly owned by a defunct nonprofit organization serving extremely low- income households, as well as distressed market-rate assets where there is an opportunity to restrict units to affordable rents consistent with the City Council's adopted moderate-income housing strategy. By June 30, 2026, one project located at 10 E. Reed Street was approved by City Council (February 2026) in conjunction with the Lower Income Voucher and Equity Program (LIVE San José), a public-private partnership between the City and property management groups to create middle-income workforce housing opportunities. The City has master leased 197 apartments in the residential building with preference to public employees. Two other projects are anticipated for City Council consideration in Q1 FY 2026-2027.
The initiative demonstrated that alternative financing structures can preserve existing housing and create affordability more quickly and at significantly lower cost to the City than traditional new affordable housing construction. The use of Public-Private Partnerships and innovative structures such as master leases also provides a potential pathway to stabilize distressed assets while advancing broader housing and economic development goals.
The Housing Department has also developed a Soft Story Pilot Program with three pilot participants to gather data, identify implementation needs, and inform the development of program resources, including frequently asked questions and guidance materials. The Department is working closely with a consultant team and several other City departments to design and refine a well-coordinated program ahead of the ordinance’s April 2027 effective date.
Next Step for Change Initiative: This initiative is being refined and continued.
Staff anticipate returning to the City Council by end of calendar year with a proposed strategy to preserve housing for extremely low-income households within distressed residential assets, building on the City's initial experience Partially
Completed
using alternative financing and Public-Private-Partnership structures to preserve existing housing and create affordability. The next phase will focus on identifying opportunities to leverage distressed assets to achieve deeper affordability at a lower public cost than traditional new construction, while continuing to evaluate and refine financing structures that can be replicated across additional properties.
Attachment F
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
iCity of San José True North Research, Inc. © 2026
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Geographic Subareas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Year-to-Year Comparisons & Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Increasing Community Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Cleaning Up Neighborhoods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Notable Changes from FY 2025 to FY 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Increasing Community Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 How Safe is San José as a Place to Live? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Reasons for Feeling Unsafe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Safety in Specific Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Victim of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Involved in Traffic Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 911 Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 988 Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 311 Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Cleaning Up Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appearance of San José . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Reasons for Rating San José as Unclean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Rating Aspects of City Cleanliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Awareness & Use of Free Junk Pickup Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table of Contents
iiCity of San José True North Research, Inc. © 2026
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Has the Amount of Homeless People Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Rating Aspects of Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Changes to Improve Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Frequency of Visiting Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Question 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Overall satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Question 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Neighborhood Park Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Question 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Desired Park Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iii
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Top 5 Changes to Improve City by Fiscal Quarte r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2 Top 5 Reasons for Feeling Unsafe by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3 Public Safety Ratings by Setting by Fiscal Quarter (% Very + Somewhat Safe) . . . . . 17 Table 4 Aware of 988 & Household Contact in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 5 Top 5 Reasons Feel City is Unclean by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 6 Rating City Cleanliness by Fiscal Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 7 Rating City Cleanliness by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 8 Opinions of Downtown San José by Fiscal Quarter (Showing % Agreement) . . . . . . 55 Table 9 Opinions of Downtown San José by Study Year (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . 55 Table 10 Opinions of Downtown San José by Downtown Visitation Frequency (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 11 Opinions of Downtown San José by Years in San José & Child in Hsld (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 12 Opinions of Downtown San José by Age (S howing % Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 13 Opinions of Downtown San José by Ethnic ity (Showing % Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 14 Opinions of Downtown San José by Survey Language & Gender (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 15 Opinions of Downtown San José by Area of City & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Agreement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 16 Opinions of Downtown San José by Hsld Income (Showing % Agreement) . . . . . . . 56 Table 17 Opinions of Downtown San José by Council District (Showing % Agreement) . . . . . 56 Table 18 Top 5 Changes to Make Downtown San José a Better, More Vibrant Place by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 19 Improvements to Local Parks by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table 20 Demographics of 2026 Sample by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Table 21 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iv
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Map of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City by Safety Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 5 Opinion of Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 6 Opinion of Public Safety by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 7 Opinion of Public Safety by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 8 Opinion of Public Safety by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 9 Opinion of Public Safety by Ethnicity, Gen der & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 10 Opinion of Public Safety by Survey Langua ge & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 11 Opinion of Public Safety by Home Ownership Status, Hsld Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months, Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Months & Area of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 12 Opinion of Public Safety by Council District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 13 Reasons for Feeling Unsafe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 14 Reasons for Feeling Unsafe by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 15 Public Safety Ratings by Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 16 Public Safety Ratings by Setting by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 17 Public Safety Ratings by Setting by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 18 Public Safety Ratings by Setting by Ethnicity & Hsld Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 19 Public Safety Ratings by Setting by Area of City & Downtown Visitation Frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 20 Public Safety Ratings by Setting by Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 21 Household Victim of Crime in San José & Wh ether Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 22 Reported Crime by Fiscal Qu arter (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 23 Reported Crime by Study Year (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 24 Reported Crime by Years in San José & Age (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 25 Reported Crime by Ethnicity & Gender (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 26 Reported Crime by Survey Language & Educ ation Level (% Among Victims) . . . . . . 21 Figure 27 Reported Crime by Hsld Income & Area of City (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 28 Reported Crime by Employment Status, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 29 Reported Crime by Council Di strict (% Among Victims) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 30 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 31 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Months by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 32 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 33 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Mo nths by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . 24 Figure 34 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Mont hs by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 35 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Months by Survey Language & Education Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 36 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Months by Hsld Income & Area of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 37 Involved in Traffic Accident in Past 12 Mont hs by Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 38 Aware of 911 Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 39 Aware of 911 Services & Household Contact in Past 12 Months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 40 Aware of 911 Services & Household Contact in Past 12 Months by Fiscal Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 41 Household Contact with 911 in Past 12 Months by Years in San José & Age. . . . . . 28 Figure 42 Household Contact with 911 in Past 12 Months by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 43 Household Contact with 911 in Past 12 Months by Child in Hsld, Survey Language & Area of City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 vCity of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 44 Household Contact with 911 in Past 12 Months by Home Ownership Status & Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 45 Aware of 988 Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 46 Aware of 988 Services by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 47 Aware of 988 & Household Contact in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 48 Aware of 988 & Household Contact in Past 12 Months by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 49 Aware of 988 by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 50 Aware of 988 by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 51 Aware of 988 by Child in Hsld, Survey Lang uage & Area of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 52 Aware of 988 by Home Ownership Status & Co uncil District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 53 Aware of 311 & Household Contact in Past 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 54 Aware of 311 & Household Contact in Past 12 Months by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 55 Aware of 311 by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 56 Aware of 311 by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 57 Aware of 311 by Child in Hsld, Survey Lang uage & Area of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 58 Aware of 311 by Home Ownership Status & Co uncil District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 59 Overall Appearance of San José . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 60 Overall Appearance of San José by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 61 Overall Appearance of San José by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 62 Overall Appearance of San José by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 63 Overall Appearance of San Jo sé by Ethnicity & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 64 Overall Appearance of San José by Child in Hsld, Survey Language & Area of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 65 Overall Appearance of San José by Home Ownership Status & Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 66 Reasons Feel City is Unclean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 67 Reasons Feel City is Unclean by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 68 Rating City Cleanliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 69 Aware of Free Junk Pickup Program & Hsld Used Program in Past 12 Months. . . . . 43 Figure 70 Aware of Free Junk Pickup Program & Hsld Used Program in Past 12 Months by Fiscal Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 71 Aware of Free Junk Pickup Program by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 72 Aware of Free Junk Pickup Program by Ethnic ity & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 73 Aware of Free Junk Pickup Program by Child in Hsld, Survey Language & Area of City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 74 Aware of Free Junk Pickup Program by Home Ownership Status & Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 75 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neig hborhood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 76 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Ne ighborhood by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . 47 Figure 77 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Ne ighborhood by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 78 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neighborhood by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 79 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neighborhood by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 80 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neighborhood by Survey Language & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 81 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neighborhood by Area of City, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Homeless in Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 82 Frequency of Encountering Homeless in Neighborhood by Council District . . . . . . 49 Figure 83 Opinion of Number of Homeless in Neighborho od . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 84 Opinion of Number of Homeless in Neighbor hood by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 85 Opinion of Number of Homeless in Neighbor hood by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 86 Increase in Number of Homeless in Neighborhood by Years in San José & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 viCity of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 87 Increase in Number of Homeless in Neig hborhood by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . 52 Figure 88 Increase in Number of Homeless in Neighborhood by Frequency of Encounters With Homeless & Hsld Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 89 Increase in Number of Homeless in Neighborhood by Area of City, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Your Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 90 Increase in Number of Homeless in Neig hborhood by Council District. . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 91 Opinions of Downtown San José . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 92 Changes to Make Downtown San José a Better, More Vibrant Place . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 93 Changes to Make Down town San José a Better, More Vibrant Place by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 94 Changes to Make Downtown a Be tter, More Vibrant Place by Downtown Safety Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 95 Changes to Make Downtown a Be tter, More Vibrant Place by Downtown Cleanliness Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 96 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 97 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 98 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 99 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Years in San José & Age. . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 100 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 101 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Survey Language & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 102 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Commute Type, Area of City, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 103 Frequency of Visits to Downtown San José by Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 104 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 105 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 106 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces by Years in San José & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 107 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces by Ethnicity & Gender. . . . . . 65 Figure 108 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces by Survey Language & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 109 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces by Commute Type, Area of City, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 110 Satisfaction With Parks, Trails & Recreational Spaces by Council District . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 111 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 112 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José by Fiscal Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 113 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José by Years in San José & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 114 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José by Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 115 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José by Survey Language & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 116 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José by Commute Type, Area of City, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld. . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 117 Comparison of Neighborhood Parks with Parks Elsewhere in San José by Council DIstrict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 118 Improvements to Local Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 119 Map of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 120 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 1
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCTION
Encompassing 178 square miles in the heart of Silicon Valley and currently home to an estimated 980,434 residents,1 the City of San José is the nation’s 13th largest city and one of the most diverse demographically. The City’s mission is to provide quality public services, facilities, and opportunities that create, sust ain, and enhance a safe, livable , and vibrant community for its diverse residents, businesses, and visitors. Each fiscal year, the City Council identifies Focus Areas that greatly impact the community and for which it seeks to drive positive outcomes and performance. During fiscal year 2025-2026, the City Council’s five Focus Areas were:
• Increasing Community Safety. Enhance public safety throug h responsive services, preven- tative measures, and community engagement to safeguard life, property, and the environ- ment. Key programs include field patrol, crime prevention, youth intervention services, and Vision Zero traffic safety.
• Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness . Implement comprehensive strategies and support- ive services to decrease the number of in dividuals experiencing homelessness and improve quality of life. Key programs include homelessness prevention, outreach, case management, interim housing construction and operations, and responses to homelessness-related con- cerns.
• Cleaning Up Our Neighborhoods . Clean and maintain the City’s shared spaces and resources through proactive and community-driven blight reduction, beautification, and code enforcement services. Key programs include illegal dumping, anti-graffiti, encamp- ment trash services, community code enforcement, and SJ311. • Growing our Economy. Increase jobs, investment, tax re venue, and economic opportunity by making San José more competitive for business expansion and investment, while strengthening downtown and the small-busine ss environment. Key pr ograms include new business development strategies for specific industries and industry clusters, attracting 5,000 new jobs by June 2027, addressing infrastructure, land-use, and development obsta- cles to reduce difficulty of de veloping employment sites, and increasing visitation to down- town San José.
• Building More Housing . Increase housing production at all income levels by making San José easier, faster, more predictable, and le ss expensive for housing development. Key pro- grams include faster ministerial approvals, re ducing regulatory barriers, simplifying devel- opment fees, and providing incentive programs.
In addition to measuring residents’ perceptions and experiences related to the City Council’s five Focus Areas, the survey addressed other topics of interest to the City, including changes resi- dents would like to see to improve quality of life and perceptions of public parks, trails, and rec- reation spaces.
PURPOSE OF STUDY To help measure its progress in achieving positive outcomes, in Sep- tember 2023 the City began conducting resident surveys on a quarterly basis to gather statisti- cally reliable data on residents’ opinions, perspectives, and experiences within the priority focus areas. By using the same survey instrument with independent, randomly selected samples on a quarterly basis, the study allows the City to re liably measure its performance in a given quarter, as well as track its performance over time. Althou gh this report primarily focuses on fiscal year 2026 findings (i.e., study year 2026), comparisons to prior years are included where appropriate.
1. Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Popu lation Estimates for Cities, Counties & the State, January 2026.
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 2City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREAS To accommodate the City's interest in evaluating how survey responses may vary among residen ts living in different areas of San José, respondents were grouped by Council District and in to one of the five areas displa yed in Figure 1 (North, Central, East, West, South) based on the City’s 12 inclusionary housing ordinance areas. • North: Alviso, North, and Berryessa
• Central: Central and South
• East: Alum Rock and Evergreen
• West: West Valley and Willow Glen
• South: Cambrian/Pioneer, Edenvale, and Almaden.
FIGURE 1 MAP OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AREAS
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 7 4 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a stratified random sample of 3, 695 adults who reside within the City of San José, with approximately 800 to 1,060 interviews conducted during the last two weeks 2 of each quarter throughout the 2026 fiscal year (July 2025 to June 2026).3 The survey followed a mixed- method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and mul-
2. In Q2 (December) of each year, interviews are conducted earlier due to the holiday season.
3. To balance the data over time an d ensure that each quarterly survey contributed its proportionate amount (25%) to its annual total, each quarterly sample was weighted evenly to 800 (3,200 total). /g3066
/g57
/g82/g88/g69
/g54/g68/g81
/g41
/g72/g78
/g75
/g38
/g48/g87
/g81/g53
/g53/g71
/g68
/g47
/g55/g94 /g89 /g80
/g80
/g49/g83/g89/g82
/g87
/g73/g87
/g39
/g85/g87/g82
/g76/g87/g75/g38
/g54/g68
/g82/g57
/g39/g83/g91 /g44/g77/g80/g80
/g55
/g93
/g43/g72 /g72
/g54
/g3066
/g3066
/g3066
/g3066
/g57/g57
/g82/g82
/g88/g88
/g69/g69
/g54/g54/g54
/g68/g68
/g81
/g81/g81
/g41/g41
/g75/g75
/g38/g38
/g81/g81/g81/g81/g53/g53
/g47
/g47/g47
/g55/g55
/g94/g94
/g89/g89
/g80/g80
/g49
/g49
/g49/g49
/g83/g83
/g89/g89
/g82
/g82
/g82/g82
/g87/g87/g87
/g73/g73/g73
/g87/g87/g73/g73/g73
/g39/g39
/g85
/g85/g85/g85/g85/g87
/g87/g87
/g87/g87/g87/g87
/g82/g82
/g76/g76/g76/g87
/g87/g87/g87/g87
/g75/g75/g75
/g87/g87/g87/g87/g87
/g38/g38/g38
/g54/g54
/g54/g54
/g68/g68
/g82
/g57/g57/g57
/g57/g57
/g39/g39
/g83
/g83/g83
/g91
/g91/g91
/g44
/g44/g44
/g77/g77/g77
/g80/g80
/g80/g80
/g55/g55
/g93
/g93/g93
/g43/g43/g72 /g72
/g54/g54
/g53/g53/g53/g71/g71/g71
/g53/g71
/g48/g48
/g48/g48
/g87/g87
/g48/g48/g87
/g78/g78
/g68
/g72/g72
/g78/g78/g78
/g40/g71/g72/g81/g89/g68/g79/g72
/g58/g76/g79/g79/g82/g90/g3/g42/g79/g72/g81
/g58/g72/g86/g87/g3/g57/g68/g79/g79/g72/g92
/g49/g82/g85/g87/g75
/g40/g89/g72/g85/g74/g85/g72/g72/g81
/g38/g72/g81/g87/g85/g68/g79
/g38/g68/g80/g69/g85/g76/g68/g81/g18/g51/g76/g82/g81/g72/g72/g85 /g37/g72/g85/g85/g92/g72/g86/g86/g68
/g36/g79/g89/g76/g86/g82
/g36/g79/g88/g80/g3/g53/g82/g70/g78
/g36/g79/g80/g68/g71/g72/g81
(VUL 1$6$ 1*$ 86*6 &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD &DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH3DUNV (VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJH PHQW (3$13686'$
,QFOXVLRQDU\+RXVLQJ2UGLQDQFH$UHDV
$OPDGHQ
$OXP5RFN
$OYLVR
%HUU\HVVD
&DPEULDQ3LRQHHU
&HQWUDO
(GHQYDOH
(YHUJUHHQ
1RUWK
6RXWK
:HVW9DOOH\
:LOORZ*OHQ
&LW\RI6DQ-RVH%RXQGDU\
30 P L
N P
2IILFHRI(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW
&LW\RI6DQ-RVH2IILFHRI(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW
South
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 3City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tiple data collection methods (telephone and online) . Administered in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese, the average interview lasted 15 minutes.
YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISONS & STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE Many figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in fiscal year 2026 alongside the results found in prior fiscal years for identical questions. In such case s, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statisti cal significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2025) and the current (2026)—as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Dif- ferences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confi- dent that the differences reflect an actual ch ange in public opinion between the two studies.
Statistically significant differences within respon se categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2026.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a bulleted format. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discus- sion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire on page 78).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of San José for the opportunity to con- duct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The col- lective experience, insight, and local knowledg e provided by city st aff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at Tr ue North Research and not necessarily those of the City of San José. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.
During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts.
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 4
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K EY F INDINGS
The following is an outline of the main findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in th e body of this report.
Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section. The last section of the Key Findings also includes a summary of the most notable changes from fiscal year 2025 to 2026.
QUALITY OF LIFE
• When asked to indicate the one thing city government could change to make San José a bet- ter place to live, addressing homeless issues was the most commonly mentioned (24%), fol- lowed by providing more affordable housing (16%) and improving public safety/reducing crime (11%).
• Beautifying the City/landscaping (8%), improv ing public transportation (6%), and improving infrastructure/roads (5%) were the only other specific changes mentioned by at least 5% of respondents. One-in-ten respondents could not think of a desired change (8%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (2%).
INCREASING COMMUNITY SAFETY
• Approximately seven-in-ten residents (72%) rated San José as either very safe (16%) or some- what safe (56%) as a place to live, with the remainder viewin g the City as somewhat unsafe (20%), very unsafe (8%), or preferring not to answer the question (<1%). • Among those who felt the City is unsafe, th e top reasons given were homeless people (32%), crime and violence (30%), and theft and robberies (18%). • Respondents were more likely to report fee ling safe in their neighborhood (80% very or somewhat safe) when compared to the City overall (72%) or downtown San José (43%). • Approximately 23% of residents live in a ho usehold where someone had been the victim of a crime in San José in the 12 months prior to the interview. • Overall, 15% of all households indicated that they had reported a crime to the San José Police Department over the past year. The percentage is 63% when focusing only on households that had been a victim of a crime in San José in the 12 months prior to the interview. • Approximately 11% of respondents self-report ed being involved in a traffic accident with another vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or pedestrian in San José during the past 12 months. • When asked if they were aware that they can contact 911 for po lice emergencies, fire emer- gencies, and emergency medical services, 96% of respondents were aware of each of the three services. In total, 98% of residents were aware of at least one of the three services, and 26% of households had contacted 911 in the 12 months prior to the survey. • When asked if they were aware that they can confidentially contact 988 to connect to trained counselors for mental health and substance abuse support, 32% of respondents were aware that they could contact 988 for help with suicidal thoughts, 32% knew they could utilize it for a mental health crisis, and 25% were aware that 988 counselors provide confidential sup- port for substance abuse. In total, 34% of all respondents were aware of at least one of the three 988 services, and 2% of all households had contacted 988 in the past 12 months. • When asked if they were aware that they can contact 311 to request non-emergency city ser- vices for issues such as illegal dumping, graffiti removal, and streetlight outages, 68% were aware of 311, and 30% of all households had contacted 311 in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 5City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CLEANING UP NEIGHBORHOODS
• Half (50%) of residents assigned a positive rating of either very clean (5%) or somewhat clean (45%) when asked to rate the appearance of San José, wher eas 49% said somewhat unclean (33%) or very unclean (16%) and 1% chose not to answer the question. • Among those who rated the City as unclean, trash and litter around the City (64%) and homelessness (44%) were the top reasons for their rating. Vandalism/graffiti was the next most frequently cited response at 12%.
• Ratings were most favorable for the cleanline ss of private residential properties in San José (77% very or somewhat clean) and residents’ neighborhoods (74%). • Approximately two-thirds gave a similar rati ng to private commercial and business proper- ties (66%) and six-in-ten rated streets and si dewalks in residential areas (63%) and public parks in San José (59%) as very or somewhat clean.
• The majority of respondents gave a favorable rating to the appearance of major streets with at least four lanes (55% very or somewhat clean), while nearly half said the same about pub- lic trails (50%).
• Ratings were less positive for the cleanline ss of properties along fr eeways and highways in San José (28%), creeks and waterways (29%), and downtown (34%). • When asked if they were aware of the City’s Free Junk Pickup Program, which allows resi- dents to schedule cost-free collection of large junk items such as mattresses, furniture, and tires, 72% of respondents were aware of the program prior to taking the survey. Overall, 40% reported that their household had used the program over the past year.
REDUCING UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS
• When asked how frequently they encounter homeless people in their neighborhood, 30% of respondents said every day and an addition al 23% said a few times per week. Taken together, 53% of residents reported encountering homeless people in their neighborhood at least weekly.
• Approximately one-third reported encounte ring homeless people a few times per month (16%) or less often than a few times per month (17%). Eleven percent (11%) stated that they never encounter homeless people in their neighborhood, and 2% were unsure or declined to state.
• Two-in-ten respondents (20%) indicated that the level of homelessness in their neighbor- hood had increased during the past year, wh ereas 53% perceived it to be about the same.
Seventeen percent (17%) felt that the homeless population in their neighborhood had decreased during this period, while an additional 10% were unsure or declined to state.
ATTRACTING INVESTMENT IN JOBS & HOUSING
• When presented with a series of statements about downtown San José, six-in-ten respon- dents agreed that downtown San José is a good place for dining (63% strongly + somewhat agree) and entertainment (61%), while half also agreed with the statement I enjoy visiting downtown San José (53%).
• Four-in-ten (40%) agreed that downtown San José is a good place for job opportunities and work, although this item also had the high est percentage who were unsure or did not answer (27%). There was less agreement that downtown San José is a good place to live (29%) or go shopping (21%).
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 6City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• When asked to indicate the on e thing they would change to make downtown San José a bet- ter, more vibrant place, approximately one-in -five respondents could not think of a desired change (19%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (3%). • Among the specific changes desired to impro ve downtown San José, addressing homeless- ness (18%) and beautifying the City/landscaping (14%) were the most commonly mentioned, followed by improving public safety/reducing crime (11%), addressing parking issues (11%), providing community events/entertainment for all ages (7%), and providing more shopping opportunities (7%).
• Overall, 22% of respondents indi cated that they visit downtown at least once a week, while a nearly equal percentage (23%) visit monthly. Nineteen percent (19%) of residents frequent downtown once every few months, 28% visit a few times per year, 5% indicated that they never visit downtown, and 2% were unsure.
PARKS
• Approximately two-thirds (66%) of respondents indicated that they were very (14%) or some- what (52%) satisfied with the public parks, tr ails, and recreation spaces in San José, 29% were dissatisfied and 5% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. • In comparing the quality and opportunities av ailable at parks in their neighborhood with those at parks in other parts of San José, equal percentages rated their neighborhood parks as at least somewhat better (35%, including 11% who said much better) or about the same (35%). Just over one-in-five (22%) rated them as worse, while 8% were unsure or declined to state.
• When asked what improvements, if any, they would like to see made to their local park, 35% of respondents could not think of an improvem ent (22%) or indicated that no changes were needed (13%). Among the specific improvemen ts mentioned, enhancing park cleanliness was most common (15%), followed by addressing homelessness (11%), improving landscap- ing, trees, grass, or turf (9%), and providing or improving parks more generally (8%).
NOTABLE CHANGES FROM FY 2025 TO FY 2026
• Many performance metrics exhibi ted statistically significant changes between fiscal years 2025 and 2026, with the vast majority of these changes reflecting improvements in resi- dents’ perceptions and experiences, including:
• Community Safety Perceptions of safety continued to improve across the board from 2025 to 2026, with statistically significant increases in the percentage of residents rating the City as a safe place to live (+5% ), as well as safety ratings for neighbor- hoods (+5%) and downtown San José (+5%).
• Neighborhood Cleanliness The percentage of residents who rated the City’s overall appearance as very or somewhat clean increased significantly by 10 percentage points from 2025 to 2026. Statistically significant improvements were also recorded in eight of the ten specific areas tested, with the largest gains recorded for major streets (+7%), creeks and waterways (+6%), public trails (+6%), public parks (+6%), and properties along freeways and highways (+5%).
• Encounters with Unsheltered Homelessness The percentage of residents who reported encountering homeless people in their neighborhood at least weekly declined from 63% in 2025 to 53% in 2026 (-10%), driven primarily by a significant decrease in daily encounters (-11%). Residents were also significantly less likely to indicate that homelessness in their neighborhood had increased during the 12 Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 7City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
months prior to the interview (-11%) and more likely to say it had decreased (+5%) or stayed about the same (+4%).
• Perceptions of Downtown Agreement increased from 2025 to 2026 for all six state- ments about downtown San José. Statistica lly significant increases were recorded in the percentages who said they enjoy visiting downtown (+4%) and that downtown is a good place to live (+3%).
• Awareness of 988 Services Awareness of 988 increased significantly for each of the three resources tested—support for mental health crises (+9%), suicidal thoughts (+8%), and substance abuse (+7%). Overall awareness of at least one 988 service rose from 26% in 2025 to 34% in 2026 (+8%).
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 8
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UALITY OF L IFE
At the outset of the survey, respondents were as ked to identify the one change they would like the City government to make to improve San José as a place to live. Question 2 was presented in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any change that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the ver- batim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2.
Among the changes desired to make San José a better place to live, addressing homeless issues was the most commonly mentioned (24%), followed by providing more affordable housing (16%) and improving public safety/reducing crime (11%). Beautifying the City/landscaping (8%), improving public transportation (6%), and improving infrastructure/roads (5%) were the only other specific changes mentioned by at least 5% of respondents, respectively. One-in-ten respon- dents could not think of a desired change (8%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (2%).
Question 2 If the City government could change one thing to make San José a better place to live, what change would you like to see?
FIGURE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY
Table 1 on the next page shows the top five responses to Question 2 by fiscal quarter in 2026, while Figure 3 compares responses by study ye ar. Addressing homelessness was the most fre- quently cited response in every quarter and study year. Providing more affordable housing ranked second in every quarter, while improving public safety/reducing crime ranked third in three of the four quarters. Both addressing ho melessness and providing more affordable hous- ing were also among the top three responses in each study year.
23.6 15.7
10.6 7.9
7.5 6.0
5.3 4.5
3.7 2.7
2.7 2.5
2.3 2.3
2.2 2.0
1.9 1.8
1.7 1.5
3.0 2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Address homeless issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public transportation
Improve infrastructure, roads
Improve police response, presence
Reduce cost of living in general
Reduce taxes, fees, gas prices
Improve government, council, leadership
Enforce traffic laws
Provide, improve rec facilities, parks
Address parking issues
Enforce city codes
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Reduce traffic congestion
Address illegal immigration issues
Improve budgeting, spending
Provide more activities, entertainment for all ages
Improve city planning
Improve schools, education
% Respondents
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 9City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Although still in the top spot, fewer respondents cited addressing homeless issues in fiscal year 2026 than in 2025 (-9%). The only other statistically significant change of at least three percent- age points was a decline in mentions of beautifying the City/landscaping (-3%).
TABLE 1 TOP 5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY FISCAL QUARTER FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Address homeless
issues
Address homeless
issues
Address homeless
issues
Address homeless
issues
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Beautify City,
landscaping
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Beautify City,
landscaping
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Improve
infrastructure,
roads
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Beautify City,
landscaping
Fiscal Quarter
15 6
6 4
3 2
2 2
1 1
1 0
1 15
8 6
3 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
16 11
5 4
2 2
2 2
2 3
2 7
3 11
15 36
2 2
33 11
11 4
6 2
2 3
3 3†
2 2
2 3†
5†
6†
8 24†
2 2†
2†
3 3
8†
0 1 02 03 04 0
Address homeless issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public transportation
Improve infrastructure, roads
Improve police response, presence
Reduce cost of living in general
Reduce taxes, fees, gas prices
Improve government, council, leadership
Enforce traffic laws
Provide, improve rec facilities, parks
Address parking issues
Enforce city codes
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Reduce traffic congestion
Address illegal immigration issues
Improve budgeting, spending
Provide more activities, entertainment for all ages
Improve city planning
Improve schools, education
% Respondents
2024
2025
2026
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 10City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 4 shows how responses in 2026 differed according to whether respondents rated the City of San José as a safe (green bars) or unsafe (r ed bars) place to live. Those who feel the City is unsafe were much more likely to mention improving public safety/reducing crime (+13%) and addressing homelessness (+9%) as the one change that would make San José a better place to live, and less likely to suggest providing more affordable housing (-7%) or say that they did not have a suggestion or no changes needed (-7%).
FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY SAFETY RATING
21 18
7 9
7 7
5 3
3 2
3 2
3 2
2 1
2 2
2 2
30 11
20 4
8 4
5 7
5 4
4 3
1 3
1 3
3 5
3 1
2 1
3 3
01 0 2 0 3 0
Address homeless issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public transportation
Improve infrastructure, roads
Improve police response, presence
Reduce cost of living in general
Reduce taxes, fees, gas prices
Improve government, council, leadership
Enforce traffic laws
Provide, improve rec facilities, parks
Address parking issues
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Enforce city codes
Reduce traffic congestion
Address illegal immigration issues
Improve budgeting, spending
Provide more activities, entertainment for all ages
Improve city planning
Improve schools, education
% Respondents
City is a Safe Place to Live
City is an Unsafe Place to Live
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 11
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NCREASING C OMMUNITY S AFETY
The first of four City Council Focus Areas (Increasing Community Safety) seeks to enhance pub- lic safety through responsive services, preven tative measures, and community engagement to safeguard life, property, and the environment. Key programs incl ude field patrol, crime preven- tion, youth intervention services, and Vision Zero traffic safety. To help measure the City’s prog- ress in this area, the survey asked about resi dents’ perceptions and experiences related to safety, crime, traffic accidents, and awareness and household use of 911, 988, and 311 services.
HOW SAFE IS SAN JOSÉ AS A PLACE TO LIVE? The first question in this series asked respondents to rate the overall safety of San Jo sé as a place to live (Figure 5). Approximately seven-in-ten residents (72%) rated San José as either very safe (16%) or somewhat safe (56%) as a place to live, with the remainder viewing the City as somewhat unsafe (20%), very unsafe (8%), or preferring not to answer the question (<1%).
Question 3 Overall, how safe is the City of San José as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
FIGURE 5 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Safety ratings varied somewhat by quarter in fiscal
year 2026, ranging from a low of 67% in Q2 to a
high of 76% in Q3 (see Figure 6).
Figure 7 on the next page shows that the percent-
age of respondents who rated the City as a safe
place to live has improved each year. Following a
six-percentage-point increase from 2024 to 2025,
ratings improved by an additional five points from
2025 to 2026, with both gains achieving statistical
significance.
FIGURE 6 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY FISCAL QUARTER
Somewhat safe
55.6 Very safe
15.9 Somewhat
unsafe
20.3 Very unsafe
7.8 Prefer not to
answer
0.4 51.1
58.4 57.6
23.4 20.4
12.916.8 16.3 17.5
55.4 19.5 18.0
9.0 8.45.87.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Som ewhat
unsafe
Som ewhat
safe
Very safe
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 12City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 7 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Figures 8-12 show how residents’ assessments of San José’s safety varied across subgroups in fiscal year 2026. In general, safety ratings we re highest among respondents ages 65 and older, Caucasian and African American respondents, men, those with no children in the home, those who took the survey in English or Chinese, respondents with annual household incomes of $100,000 to $149,999 or at least $250,000 annually, those living in households where no one had been a victim of a crime in the past year, those who had not been involved in a traffic acci- dent during the past year, and residents in the west area of the City and Council Districts 1, 6, 9, and 10. Across all subgroups, Vietnamese-lang uage respondents and residents who reported that they or someone in their household had been a victim of crime were the least likely to pro- vide a very safe rating (7% each).
FIGURE 8 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
55.6 10.3 12.0 15.9†
50.2 54.5
27.4 20.3†24.0
8.8 7.811.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Som ewhat
unsafe
Som ewhat
safe
Very safe
16.6 14.3 14.5 14.1 15.7 15.9 21.6
53.8 62.1 58.2 53.2 49.2 53.9
58.3 16.015.514.6
Ver y
safe
13.4 61.6 56.0 57.5
Smwt
safe
59.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Ye ars in S an Jo sé (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 13City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 9 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY ETHNICITY, GENDER & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 10 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & HSLD INCOME FIGURE 11 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, HSLD VICTIM OF CRIME IN PAST 12 MONTHS, INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS & AREA OF CITY
15.6 17.9 22.5
15.2 18.7 13.2 12.9 17.9
60.1 57.5
56.1 49.0
56.1 55.7 53.3
57.5 11.413.1
21.3 Ver y
safe
12.6 58.3
60.0 46.9
Smwt
safe
55.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Am er /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female Yes No
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD5)
% Respondents
10.1 13.6 15.9 11.8 17.8 16.2 20.8
52.6 53.8 54.8 59.4
58.1 53.8
56.6 7.313.511.9
Ver y
safe
17.2 55.3 58.5
41.0 Smwt
safe
56.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Under $25K $25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Survey Language Hsld Income (QD11)
% Respondents
11.0 16.7 14.9 14.0 13.6 16.5 19.9
50.3 57.0
53.3 53.9 57.1 57.7 57.2
Ver y
safe
16.4 16.0
7.3 19.3
Smwt
safe
55.9 62.0
41.1 55.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Own Rent Yes No Yes No Central East North South West
Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Hsld Victim of Crime in Past
12 Months (Q6)
Involved in Traffic Accident
in Past 12 Months (Q8)
Area of City
% Respondents
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 14City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 12 OPINION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY COUNCIL DISTRICT REASONS FOR FEELING UNSAFE Respondents who indicated that San José is an unsafe place to live were next asked to describe the reasons or issues contributing to this sentiment.
Question 4 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any reasons that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 13.
Among this subgroup, the top reasons given were homeless people (32%), crime and violence (30%), and theft and robberies (18%). These were followed by street gangs (10%), car break-ins and carjackings (10%), drug issues (9%), and a lack of traffic law enforcement (9%).
Question 4 Are there particular reasons or issues that make you feel San José is unsafe? FIGURE 13 REASONS FOR FEELING UNSAFE
10.2 18.7
10.9 16.9 17.9 19.2
53.1 57.1
48.7 54.9 59.3 60.3
Ver y
safe
17.2 12.4 17.5 13.4
Smwt
safe
59.5 55.8 53.0
51.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents
32.0 29.8
18.0 9.9
9.5 8.6
8.5 7.4
6.0 5.3
4.7 4.1
3.0 2.9
2.8 2.3
2.0 1.9
1.5 5.9
4.4 01 0 2 0 3 0 4 0
Homeless people
Crime, violence
Theft, robberies
Street gangs
Car break-ins, car jacking
Drug issues
Lack of traffic law enforcement
Gun violence
Lack of police, police presence
Unresponsive police department
Lack of mental health support
Lack of criminal accountability
Poor infrastructure, narrow streets, unsafe sidewalks, crossings Inadequate law, code enforcement
Illegal immigration issues
People becoming aggressive, hostile
Poor government leadership
Not sure / No particular reason
High cost of living
Trash, uncleanliness
Population increase, overcrowding
% Respondents Who Feel Unsafe
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 15City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 2 shows that the top three responses were consistent by fiscal quarter (although the order shifted somewhat from quarter to quarter).
TABLE 2 TOP 5 REASONS FOR FEELING UNSAFE BY FISCAL QUARTER FIGURE 14 REASONS FOR FEELING UNSAFE BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Homeless people Crime, violence Homeless people Crime, violence Crime, violence Homeless people Crime, violence Homeless people Theft, robberies Theft, robberies Theft, robberies Theft, robberies Lack of traffic law
enforcement Street gangs Gun violence Street gangs
Poor infrastructure,
narrow streets,
unsafe sidewalks,
crossings
Car break-ins, car
jacking Street gangs Drug issues
Fiscal Quarter
37 5
9 7
13 5
4 2
0 3
0 36
24 6
12 9
7 2
8 2
3 3
0 1
2 4
0 32
9 9
9 4
3 2
2 29
26 14
4 8
2 1
1 1
2 1
6 6
11 24
2†
3†
3†
7†
10†
18†
2†
5 5
6†
30†
4†
6 0 1 02 03 04 0
Homeless people
Crime, violence
Theft, robberies
Street gangs
Car break-ins, car jacking
Drug issues
Lack of traffic law enforcement
Gun violence
Lack of police, police presence
Unresponsive police department
Lack of mental health support
Lack of criminal accountability
Poor infrastructure, narrow streets, unsafe sidewalks, crossings Inadequate law, code enforcement
Illegal immigration issues
People becoming aggressive, hostile
Poor government leadership
Not sure / No particular reason
High cost of living
Trash, uncleanliness
Population increase, overcrowding
% Respondents Who Feel Unsafe
2024
2025
2026
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 16City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 14 on the prior page presents responses by study year and flags st atistically significant changes from 2025 to 2026. Focusing on statistically significant changes of at least three per- centage points, the percentages citing crime/violence and gun violence increased significantly in 2026 (+6% and +5%, respectively), reversing the declines recorded between 2024 and 2025.
Mentions of street gangs also increased signific antly (+4%). Conversely, statistically significant declines were recorded for theft and robberies (-6%) and lack of police/police presence (-5%).
SAFETY IN SPECIFIC SCENARIOS Whereas Question 3 asked respondents to rate the overall safety of San José as a place to live, Question 5 dove deeper by asking them to describe how safe they feel in their neighborhood as well as in downtown San José using the scale shown on the right of Figure 15.
Respondents were more likely to report feeling safe in their neighborhood (80% very or some- what safe) when compared to the City overall (72%, see How Safe is San José as a Place to Live? on page 11) or downtown San José (43%). Furthermore, respondents were more than twice as likely to report feeling very safe in their neighborhood (39%) than in the City overall (16%), and six times more likely when compared with downtown (6%).
Question 5 Next, I'd like to ask how safe you feel in different settings. Would you say _____ is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? FIGURE 15 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING
6.1 37.3
14.7 34.5
0.7 38.7
41.7 4.3
17.3 4.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Your neighborhood Downtown San José
Q5 Feeling safe in . . .
% Respondents
Not sur e /
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Somewhat safe
Very safe
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 17City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 3 below shows that, similar to citywide safety ratings (refer to Figure 6 on page 11), neigh- borhood ratings were lowest in Q2 and highest in Q3. Downtown safety ratings, meanwhile, remained relatively consistent across quarters, ranging from 42% to 45%. As shown in Figure 16, safety ratings continued to increase from 2025 to 2026 for neighborhoods (+5%) and downtown San José (+5%), with both improvements being statistically significant.
TABLE 3 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING BY FISCAL QUARTER (% VERY + SOMEWHAT SAFE) FIGURE 16 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Figures 17 to 20 show how feelings of safety in each setting varied (among those with an opin- ion) by age, gender, ethnicity, whether anyone in the household had been a victim of crime dur- ing the past 12 months, area of the City, downto wn visitation frequency, and Council District.
Most notably, downtown safety ratings generall y increased with visitation frequency, ranging from 24% among residents who never visited downtown to approximately half of those who vis- ited at least once per month.
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Your neighborhood 78.8 77.4 85.6 79.5
Downtown San José 42.2 41.7 45.3 44.5
Fiscal Quarter
43.2 33.0
18.4 35.2
34.5 20.5
6.15.34.2 27.7 32.3 38.7†
37.3†
41.7 45.3
27.2 20.3
14.7†
37.8 17.3†
5.0 26.1
4.35.9 4.8†6.04.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026 2024 2025 2026
Your Neighborhood Downtown San José
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sur e /
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Somewhat
safe
Very safe
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 18City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 17 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING BY AGE & GENDER FIGURE 18 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING BY ETHNICITY & HSLD VICTIM OF CRIME IN PAST 12 MONTHS FIGURE 19 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING BY AREA OF CITY & DOWNTOWN VISITATION FREQUENCY 84 79 77 78 79
90 83
79 47 46
42 39
45 56
48 43
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age (QD1) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Somewhat Safe
Your neighborhood Downtown San José
74 89
83 71
88 85
81 81
61 89
44 53
38 35
48 46
59 40
29 53
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed / Other Yes No
Ethnicity (QD10) Hsld Victim of Crime in Past
12 Months (Q6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Somewhat Safe
Your neighborhood Downtown San José
74 76 79
87 88
77 84
87 80
70 54
43 38
44 46
51 52 50
36 24
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Central East North South West 1x+ per wk 1-3x per mo 1x per 2-3 mo
<1x per 2-3
mo
Never
Area of City Downtown Visitation Frequency (Q22)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Somewhat Safe
Your neighborhood Downtown San José
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 19City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 20 PUBLIC SAFETY RATINGS BY SETTING BY COUNCIL DISTRICT VICTIM OF CRIME The next few questions in the safety series asked respondents to indi- cate whether they, or anyone in their household, had been the victim of a crime in San José in the 12 months preceding the interview (Q6) and if so, whether that crime was reported to the San José Police Department (Q7). Overall, approximately 23% of residents live in a household where someone had been the victim of a crime in San José over the past year. Among these individuals, 63% said they reported the crime to the San José Police Department (15% of all respondents).
Question 6 In the past 12 months, have you or other members of your household been the vic- tim of a crime in San José?
Question 7 Was the crime reported to the San José Police Department? FIGURE 21 HOUSEHOLD VICTIM OF CRIME IN SAN JOSÉ & WHETHER REPORTED As shown in Figure 22 on the next page, the
percentage of victimized households that
reported the crime was lowest in the third quar-
ter (Jan-Mar 2026) at 57% and ranged from 64%
to 66% in the other three quarters. Although the
year-to-year differences were not statistically
significant, the perce ntage who reported the
crime increased steadily across the three fiscal
years (Figure 23).
87 79
73 81
64 85
67 85
89 91
43 44
53 37 40
51 52
44 43 45
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion That
Feel Very or Somewhat Safe
Y our neighborhood Downtown San José
Have not been
a victim of
crime
73.1 Reported
crime
14.6 Didn't report
crime
6.7 DK/NA 1.9
Victim of
crime
23.1 Prefer not to
answer
3.8 Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 20City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 22 REPORTED CRIME BY FISCAL QUARTER (% AMONG VICTIMS) FIGURE 23 REPORTED CRIME BY STUDY YEAR(% AMONG VICTIMS) The next set of graphics shows how the percentage of victimized households that reported the crime to police varied by individual- and househ old-level characteristics. At least seven-in-ten (70%) reported the crime among re sidents of Council District 10, those with annual household incomes of $50,000 to $79,999, residents who have lived in San José for less than five years or 15 to 19 years, respondents ages 18 to 24, and African American/Black and mixed/other ethnic- ity respondents, while fewer than half of households earning $25,000 to $49,999 annually did so.
27.5 32.4
24.0 6.4 6.6
57.4 64.163.8 66.0
32.2 6.8
2.02.0 3.3 3.42.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crime
Reported
crime
29.5 28.8
5.2 63.061.757.8
33.5 5.55.7
2.9 2.7 3.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crime
Reported
crime
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 21City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 24 REPORTED CRIME BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE (% AMONG VICTIMS) FIGURE 25 REPORTED CRIME BY ETHNICITY & GENDER (% AMONG VICTIMS) FIGURE 26 REPORTED CRIME BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & EDUCATION LEVEL (% AMONG VICTIMS)
60.5 70.1 66.8 61.1 64.8 58.0 59.6
34.5 27.5 18.9
30.7 23.5 27.4
28.7 26.5 33.2 31.9
1.2 7.4 5.6 4.1 5.2
4.6 5.8 5.3 7.4
72.270.4
62.5 66.6
20.9 8.7 3.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
mo re
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crime
Reported
crime
63.1 51.2
71.1 73.2
64.6 60.0
32.9 35.0 28.3
31.7 40.9
19.6 19.8
28.3 29.8
3.5 8.2 1.5 3.9 7.8 6.1 4.6 7.2
60.065.3 62.5
54.6 25.3
5.7 10.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crimeReported
crime
54.2 64.5 62.7 62.1 59.5 64.0 63.4
25.3 28.1 29.1
22.3 21.3
37.3 27.8 29.0
29.5 31.3
9.9 7.8
16.3 13.6
0.0 4.5 8.1 4.2 3.7
57.0 63.7 63.3 58.0
29.6 3.7 13.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Less than
HS
HS grad Vocational /
Trade
Som e
college
2-yr college
degree
4-yr college
degree
Grad / Post-
grad degree
Survey Language Education Level (QD9)
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crimeReported
crime
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 22City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 27 REPORTED CRIME BY HSLD INCOME & AREA OF CITY (% AMONG VICTIMS) FIGURE 28 REPORTED CRIME BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD (% AMONG
VICTIMS)
FIGURE 29 REPORTED CRIME BY COUNCIL DISTRICT (% AMONG VICTIMS)
69.3 61.3 59.6 59.5 61.8 60.7
69.3 64.4
28.8 24.5
22.8 22.1 31.4 34.3 31.1 28.3 31.2
24.6 29.7
18.4 2.6
5.2 5.8 4.6 6.2 7.5 6.0 3.4 2.8
65.459.4
48.1 72.8
35.4 5.2 2.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Under
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Central East North South West
Hsld Income (QD11) Area of City
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crime
Reported
crime
59.7 54.5
66.5 59.8 66.9 61.1
26.9 22.3 39.2 32.2 43.3
27.2 30.2
24.1 31.7
13.4 4.2 6.4
2.3 4.6 6.8 6.6 5.0
56.6 64.7 57.9
67.7 26.9
5.4 7.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full time Part time Self-
employed
Student Retired Unemployed Own Rent Yes No
Employment Status (QD6) Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Child in Hsld (QD5)
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crimeReported
crime
56.2 59.1
68.7 61.1 65.7
75.5 25.2 25.1 29.6 33.5
36.9 20.8 30.1
28.3 19.2
2.0 8.6 10.3 2.9
7.7 3.6 2.7 4.0
59.859.0
67.1 64.7
34.5 2.4 7.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Households That Had Been
Victim of Crime in Past 12 Months
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not report
crime
Reported
crime
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 23City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT Respondents were next asked whether they had per- sonally been involved in a traffic accident with another vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or pedestrian in San José within the 12 months prior to the interview. Overall, approximately 13% of respondents self-reported involvement in a traffic accident during the prior 12 months (Figure 30), which was statistically consistent with the percentage repo rted in 2025 (13%, see Figure 32). In 2026, the percentage was relatively consistent by fiscal quarter, ranging from 10% to 13% over the course of the year (Figure 31).
Question 8 In the past 12 months, have you been involved in a traffic accident with another vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or pedestrian in San José?
FIGURE 30 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS For the interested reader, Figures 33-37 display self-
reported involvement in a traffic accident in the 12 months preceding the interview by a host of demographic charac- teristics.
Notably, accident involvement was inversely related to age:
it was highest among the yo ungest respondents and gen- erally declined as age increased.
FIGURE 31 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY FISCAL QUARTER Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
1.9 Involved in
traffic accident
11.4 Not involved in
traffic accident
86.7 86.5 86.9 85.2
2.3 11.411.39.5 13.3
88.2 1.51.62.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answer
Not involved
in traffic
accidentInvolved in
traffic
accident
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 24City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 32 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 33 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
85.6 86.7
1.6 12.4 12.8 11.4
85.5 2.1 1.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerNot involved
in traffic
accidentInvolved in
traffic
accident
10.2 9.8
16.7 10.8 14.2 13.5 12.2 12.7 8.6 8.3
88.1 88.4
82.9 86.9 83.0 85.1 86.9 85.1 88.3 90.7
0.2 1.7 1.9 0.4 2.3 2.7 1.4 0.9 2.2 3.1 1.0
13.1 86.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
mo re
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
Not
involved in
traffic
accident
Involved in
traffic
accident
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 25City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 34 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 35 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & EDUCATION LEVEL
10.1 8.3 11.7 12.5 10.8 8.0 13.2 11.4 11.1
89.0 90.0 82.7 85.9 88.0 92.0 85.9 87.4 86.8
2.2 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 0.0 0.9 1.2 2.1
12.9 84.9
5.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
Not
involved in
traffic
accident
Involved in
traffic
accident
15.5 7.4
14.9 16.8 13.7 10.0 12.5 15.0 10.0 10.3
81.9 90.8 75.8 74.2 85.5 90.0 86.6 82.6 88.6 88.2
1.4 2.5 1.8 0.8 0.0 0.9 2.4 1.5 1.6
10.7 87.9
9.09.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Less than
HS
HS grad Vocational
/ Trade
Som e
college
2-yr college
degree
4-yr college
degree
Grad /
Post-grad
degree
Survey Language Education Level (QD9)
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
Not
involved in
traffic
accident
Involved in
traffic
accident
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 26City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 36 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HSLD INCOME & AREA OF CITY FIGURE 37 INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY COUNCIL DISTRICT 911 SERVICES The next question in the safety series asked respondents if, prior to taking the survey, they were aware that they could contact 911 for po lice and fire emergencies, as well as emergency medical services. As shown in Figu re 38 on the next page, 96% of respondents were aware of each of the three 911 services. Ta ken together, 98% of residents were aware of at least one service, and 26% of households had contacted 911 in the 12 months prior to the survey (Figure 39). While awareness was consistently high across fiscal quarters (Figure 40), 911 contact varied, reaching its lowest level in Q3 (20%) and highest level in Q4 (31%).
11.3 14.9 13.1 10.9 10.7 10.6 10.2 12.8 11.4 12.0 9.8
87.1 82.1 85.5 87.8 88.0 88.7 87.9 84.6 87.2 86.1 88.9
0.5 1.6 3.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.9 2.6 1.4 1.9 1.3
12.6 87.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Under
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
more
Central East North South West
Hsld Income (QD11) Area of City
% Respondents
Not sur e /
Prefer not
to answer
Not
involved in
traffic
accident
Involved in
traffic
accident
11.8 11.6 9.0 14.9 8.6 14.2 10.6 14.3 11.7
86.0 87.6 88.5
83.5 89.7 81.9 86.5 84.4 86.2
1.0 2.1 0.8 2.6 1.5 1.7 3.9 2.9 1.4 2.1
8.1 90.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
Not
involved in
traffic
accident
Involved in
traffic
accident
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 27City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 9 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that you can contact 911 for: ___? Question 12 In the past 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household contacted: ___? FIGURE 38 AWARE OF 911 SERVICES
FIGURE 39 AWARE OF 911 SERVICES & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS FIGURE 40 AWARE OF 911 SERVICES & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY FISCAL QUARTER
96.0 95.7
3.1 3.4
96.4 2.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Police emergencies Emergency medical
services
Fire emergencies
911 Awareness (Q9)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Not aware
Yes, aware
Prefer not to
answer
0.3 Aware of at
least one 911
service
97.7 Prefer not to
answer 0.4
Household
has not
contacted,
not sure
71.2 Contacted 911
26.1 Not aware,
not sure
1.9 98.2
19.9 98.0
31.328.2
98.0 25.7
98.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Aware of at
least one 911
service (Q9)
Hsld
contacted 911
in past 12
months (Q12a)
Aware of at
least one 911
service (Q9)
Hsld
contacted 911
in past 12
months (Q12a)
Aware of at
least one 911
service (Q9)
Hsld
contacted 911
in past 12
months (Q12a)
Aware of at
least one 911
service (Q9)
Hsld
contacted 911
in past 12
months (Q12a)
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 28City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
More than 90% of residents in every subgroup were aware of at least one of the three 911 ser- vices (not shown). Household contact with 911 was highest among mixed/other ethnicity respondents, followed by Spanish-language re spondents, central area residents, households with children, and Latino/Hispanic respondents . Contact was lowest among Vietnamese- and Chinese-language respondents, those who descri bed their ethnicity as Chinese, Vietnamese, or East Indian, and residents ages 55 and older. Co ntact also varied by council district, ranging from 20% to 31% (see figures 41-44).
FIGURE 41 HOUSEHOLD CONTACT WITH 911 IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE FIGURE 42 HOUSEHOLD CONTACT WITH 911 IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY ETHNICITY & GENDER
26.5 28.0
30.8 29.8 30.9
21.7 18.1
20.9 27.025.0
29.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Households That Contacted 911 in Past 12 Mos
25.1 20.5
24.9 44.5
25.2 27.1
18.1 16.0
25.2 31.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian
/ White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Households That Contacted 911 in Past 12 Mos
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 29City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 43 HOUSEHOLD CONTACT WITH 911 IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY CHILD IN HSLD, SURVEY LANGUAGE & AREA OF CITY
FIGURE 44 HOUSEHOLD CONTACT WITH 911 IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & COUNCIL DISTRICT 988 SERVICES Respondents were next asked if, prior to taking the survey, they were aware that they can confidentially contact 988 to connect to trained counselors for mental health and substance abuse support. As shown in Figure 45 on the next page, 32% of respondents were aware that they could contact 988 for help with suicidal thoughts, 32% knew they could utilize it for a mental health crisis, and 25% were aware th at 988 counselors provide confidential support for substance abuse. From 2025 to 2026, awarene ss of all three services increased significantly (Figure 46).
18.2 13.0
31.9 24.0
26.2 25.1 23.5
33.4 26.224.2
31.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 Yes No English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Central East North South West Child in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language Area of City
% Households That Contacted 911 in Past 12 Mos
30.2 27.1
30.4 25.9
31.0 20.9
24.4 23.9
28.7 20.4
29.2 23.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
Own Rent One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Hom e Owner ship
Status (QD3)
Council District
% Households That Contacted 911 in Past 12 Mos
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 30City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 10 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that you can confidentially contact 988 to connect to trained counselors and support for: _____? FIGURE 45 AWARE OF 988 SERVICES
FIGURE 46 AWARE OF 988 SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
25.3 69.3
3.6 4.6
31.732.1
63.863.5
3.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Suicidal thoughts Mental health crisis Substance abuse
988 Awareness (Q10)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Not awar e
Yes, aware
23.2 18.6
70.7 74.4
4.6 4.5 5.5
25.3†31.7†32.1†
23.8 69.3†
63.8†63.5†
70.0 3.7 4.63.6†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2026 2025 2026 2025 2026
Suicidal thoughts Mental health crisis Substance abuse
988 Awareness by Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Not aware
Yes, aware
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 31City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As a follow-up, respondents who were aware of at least one of the three 988 resources—support for mental health crises, suicidal thoughts, or substance abuse—were asked whether anyone in their household had contacted 988 in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Question 12 In the past 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household contacted: ___? FIGURE 47 AWARE OF 988 & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS Figure 47 combines responses to Question
10 (awareness) and Question 12 (contact)
and shows that 34% of all respondents were
aware of at least one 988 service in 2026,
while 2% of households had contacted 988
during the prior 12 months. Both percent-
ages increased from 2025 to 2026 (see
Table 4). Awareness ranged from 30% to 38%
by fiscal quarter, while household use
ranged from 1% to 4%.
FIGURE 48 AWARE OF 988 & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY FISCAL QUARTER TABLE 4 AWARE OF 988 & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Prefer not to
answer
0.9 Aware of 988
33.5 Prefer not to
answer 0.2
Household
has not
contacted,
not sure
31.1 Contacted 988
2.3 Not aware,
not sure
65.6 31.6 35.5
2.71.13.5 30.2
1.8 37.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Aware of at
least one 988
service (Q10)
Hsld
contacted 988
in past 12
months (Q12b)
Aware of at
least one 988
service (Q10)
Hsld
contacted 988
in past 12
months (Q12b)
Aware of at
least one 988
service (Q10)
Hsld
contacted 988
in past 12
months (Q12b)
Aware of at
least one 988
service (Q10)
Hsld
contacted 988
in past 12
months (Q12b)
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
2025 2026
Aware of at least one 988 service (Q10) 25.7 33.5 +7.8† Hsld contacted 988 in past 12 months (Q12b) 1.4 2.3 +0.8† Study Year % Change
2025 to 2026
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 32City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the interested reader, Figures 49-52 provide the percentage of respondents who were aware of at least one of the three 988 resources across a variety of demographic characteristics. Nota- b l y , n e a r l y h a l f ( 4 7 % ) o f r e s p o n d e n t s a g e s 1 8 to 24 were aware of at least one of the three resources.
FIGURE 49 AWARE OF 988 BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
FIGURE 50 AWARE OF 988 BY ETHNICITY & GENDER
33.2 46.6
37.5 33.0
29.0 30.4 29.2
35.3 31.9 32.1
37.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Aware of 988 Services
36.2 29.7
36.6 32.4 31.3
36.3 27.927.9
34.135.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian
/ White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Aware of 988 Services
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 33City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 51 AWARE OF 988 BY CHILD IN HSLD, SURVEY LANGUAGE & AREA OF CITY FIGURE 52 AWARE OF 988 BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & COUNCIL DISTRICT 311 SERVICES The last topic in this section asked re spondents whether, prior to taking the survey, they were aware that th ey could contact 311 to request non-emergency city services for issues such as illegal dumping, graffiti removal, and streetlight outages. As shown in Figure 53 on the next page, approximately two-thirds (68%) were aware of 311, and 30% of all households had contacted 311 in the 12 months prior to the survey. Awareness and household contact were generally consistent across fiscal quarters. Awareness ranged from 66% to 70%, while household contact ranged from 29% to 31% (see Figure 54 on next page).
22.2 21.9
36.2 33.8
26.5 34.9
31.632.7 34.3 34.5 35.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
Yes No English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Central East North South West Child in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language Area of City
% Respondents Aware of 988 Services
38.9 27.8
37.9 32.8 31.8 31.7
35.3 30.7
37.5 28.5
37.4 30.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
Own Rent One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Hom e Owner ship
Status (QD3)
Council District
% Respondents Aware of 988 Services
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 34City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 11 Prior to taking this survey, were you aw are that you can contact 311 to request non-emergency City services for issues such as illegal dumping, graffiti removal, and streetlight outages?
Question 12 In the past 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household contacted: ___? FIGURE 53 AWARE OF 311 & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS FIGURE 54 AWARE OF 311 & HOUSEHOLD CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY FISCAL QUARTER Not aware,
not sure
32.0 Contacted 311
30.0 Household
has not
contacted,
not sure
37.5 Prefer not to
answer 0.3
Aware of 311
67.7 Prefer not to
answer
0.3 69.1
30.5 69.7
31.0 65.6
30.2 67.2
28.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Aware of 311
(Q11)
Hsld
contacted 311
in past 12
months (Q12c)
Aware of 311
(Q11)
Hsld
contacted 311
in past 12
months (Q12c)
Aware of 311
(Q11)
Hsld
contacted 311
in past 12
months (Q12c)
Aware of 311
(Q11)
Hsld
contacted 311
in past 12
months (Q12c)
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 35City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures 55 through 58 show how awareness of 311 varied across resident subgroups. Awareness generally increased with age and was highest among residents ages 45 and older. Awareness was also higher than average am ong those who have lived in the City for at least 20 years, Cau- casian/White and African American/Black respondents, and homeowners. By contrast, awareness was lowest among residents who have lived in San José for less than five years and respondents ages 18 to 24. Awareness varied by council district, from a low of 56% in District 1 to a high of 74% in District 10.
FIGURE 55 AWARE OF 311 BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
FIGURE 56 AWARE OF 311 BY ETHNICITY & GENDER
72.8 49.5
60.5 69.8
75.6 74.2 74.5
61.4 68.864.7
43.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Aware of 311 Services
64.5 68.8
73.7 59.7
68.3 67.166.4
75.1 56.4 60.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian
/ White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Aware of 311 Services
Increasing Community Safety
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 36City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 57 AWARE OF 311 BY CHILD IN HSLD, SURVEY LANGUAGE & AREA OF CITY FIGURE 58 AWARE OF 311 BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & COUNCIL DISTRICT
57.0 62.1
68.9 66.6 63.5
70.9 65.7
70.8 67.2 68.2 70.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Central East North South West Child in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language Area of City
% Respondents Aware of 311 Services
69.9 62.0 65.9 69.7 69.2 67.7
71.9 73.5
65.9 56.059.0
75.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Hom e Owner ship
Status (QD3)
Council District
% Respondents Aware of 311 Services
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 37
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C LEANING U P N EIGHBORHOODS
Cleaning and maintaining the City’s shared spaces and resources through proactive and commu- nity-driven blight reduction, beautification, an d code enforcement services is one of the four Focus Areas ( Cleaning Up Our Neighborhoods ) established by the City Council for fiscal year 2025-2026. Key programs include illegal dumpin g, anti-graffiti, encampment trash services, community code enforcement, and SJ311. To help gauge the City’s progress in this area, the sur- vey measured residents’ opinions of the appearance of San José as a whole, as well as the clean- liness of various areas and public spaces throug hout the City, including neighborhoods, parks, and downtown San José. The survey also measur ed awareness and household use of the City’s Free Junk Pickup Program.
APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ A s s h o w n i n F i g u r e 5 9 , h a l f ( 5 0 % ) o f r e s i d e n t s a s s i g n e d a positive rating of either very clean (5%) or somewhat clean (45%) when asked to rate the appear- ance of San José, whereas 49% said somewhat unclean (33%) or very unclean (16%) and 1% chose not to answer the question. Figure 60 on the next page shows that appearance ratings increased during the first three quarters of the fiscal year , rising from a low of 48% in Q1 (July-September 2025) to a high of 54% in Q3 (January-March 2026), before declining to 46% in Q4 (April-June 2026). The current results continue the positive trend reported from 2024 to 2025, with appear- ance ratings significantly higher in 2026 than in 2025 (+10%, see Figure 61).
Question 13 Overall, how would you rate the appearance of San José? Would you say it is very clean, somewhat clean, somewhat unclean, or very unclean? FIGURE 59 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ
Figures 62 through 65 display San José appearanc e ratings by resident subgroups. Ratings were highest among residents ages 65 and older and those ages 18 to 34, while respondents ages 35 to 54 were less positive. Residents with no child ren in the household, renters, and those who took the survey in Chinese or English were also more likely than their counterparts to rate San José as very or somewhat clean. By geography, ratings were highest in the west area of the City and Council District 1.
Prefer not to
answer
0.6 Very unclean
16.4 Somewhat
unclean
32.9 Very clean
5.2 Somewhat
clean
44.8 Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 38City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 60 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ BY FISCAL QUARTER FIGURE 61 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
47.4 47.1
41.8 28.6 35.2
6.85.14.4 4.6
43.1 33.2
34.5 17.1 12.0 17.918.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unclean
Som ewhat
unclean
Som ewhat
clean
Very clean
37.2 5.2†3.42.8
44.8†
33.1 36.3
32.9†
37.4 26.3
16.4†22.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unclean
Som ewhat
unclean
Som ewhat
clean
Very clean
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 39City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 62 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE FIGURE 63 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ BY ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 64 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ BY CHILD IN HSLD, SURVEY LANGUAGE & AREA OF CITY
4.6 7.4 5.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 7.6
43.9 51.6
49.9 38.0 35.1
41.7 55.0
5.27.84.8 Ver y
clean
7.2 43.7
43.4 51.4
Smwt
clean
47.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
3.0 9.1 10.2 7.4 6.2 4.7
49.2 46.3 44.0
43.0 46.5
44.2 Very
clean
4.5 5.7 3.6 3.3
Smwt
clean
41.1 47.650.346.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed / Other Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents
3.8 4.9 5.3 4.8 5.6 5.3 5.5
50.7 38.4 41.7 44.8 42.5 45.4 49.0
3.35.66.1 Ver y
clean
4.0 49.2 45.9
38.4 Smwt
clean
37.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Yes No English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Central East North South West Child in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language Area of City
% Respondents
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 40City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 65 OVERALL APPEARANCE OF SAN JOSÉ BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & COUNCIL DISTRICT REASONS FOR RATING SAN JOSÉ AS UNCLEAN Respondents who indicated that San José is unclean were next asked to describe the reasons or issues contributing to this sentiment.
Question 14 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any reasons that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a set list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 66.
Question 14 Are there particular reasons or issues that make you feel San José is unclean? FIGURE 66 REASONS FEEL CITY IS UNCLEAN
5.8 5.2 4.2 4.7 1.7 6.3 6.1 4.5
41.1 43.4
38.0 43.9 49.1
46.7 45.9 49.9
Ver y
clean
4.4 6.5 7.3 5.5
Smwt
clean
42.8 40.0
53.8 48.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Own Rent One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine T en Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Council District
% Respondents
64.1 43.8
12.4 8.5
7.3 7.0
5.1 5.1
4.3 3.4
3.3 2.2
2.0 1.7
1.3 0.9
0.8 0.6
3.7 2.8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0
Lots of trash, litter around City
Homelessness
Vandalism, graffiti
Lack of city services, street cleaning
Unmaintained landscapes, public areas
Abandoned cars, rundown RV's
Abandoned buildings, urban blight
Foul smell around city
Quality of infrastructure, roads
Unmaintained downtown area
Lots of debris along roads, highways
Not sure / No particular reason
Unmaintained parks
Crime, drugs
Lack of trash bins
Dirty creeks, rivers, waterways
Furniture, appliances on side of road
Lack law enforcement
Lack of consistency accross neighborhoods
Pest infestation
% Respondents Who Feel City's Appearance is Unclean
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 41City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Among those who rated the City as unclean, trash and litter around the City (64%) and homeless- ness (44%) were the top reasons for their rating. Vandalism/graffiti was the next most frequently cited response at 12%. The top three responses have remained consistent since 2024.
TABLE 5 TOP 5 REASONS FEEL CITY IS UNCLEAN BY FISCAL QUARTER Table 5 shows respondents’ top
five reasons for rating the City’s
appearance as unclean by fiscal
quarter. While the top two were
consistent across quarters, posi-
tions three to five varied. Figure 67
compares responses by study year.
The only statistically significant
changes exceeding three percent-
age points were trash and litter
around the City (+4%) and home-
lessness (-8%).
FIGURE 67 REASONS FEEL CITY IS UNCLEAN BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Lots of trash, litter
around City
Lots of trash, litter
around City
Lots of trash, litter
around City
Lots of trash, litter
around City
Homelessness Homelessness Homelessness Homelessness
Lack of city
services, street
cleaning
Vandalism, graffiti Vandalism, graffiti Vandalism, graffiti Vandalism, graffiti
Lack of city
services, street
cleaning
Abandoned cars,
rundown RV's
Unmaintained
landscapes, public
areas
Abandoned cars,
rundown RV's
Unmaintained
landscapes, public
areas
Unmaintained
landscapes, public
areas
Foul smell around
city
Fiscal Quarter
60 54
11 3
6 6
7 0
2 2
2 1
3 0
0 52
11 7
7 6
5 0
3 1
2 1
0 0
12 8
7 7
5 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 3
2 4
1 60
2 3
5 4
2 3
3†
4†
44†
1†
1†
2†
5†
64†
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0
Lots of trash, litter around City
Homelessness
Vandalism, graffiti
Lack of city services, street cleaning
Unmaintained landscapes, public areas
Abandoned cars, rundown RV's
Abandoned buildings, urban blight
Foul smell around city
Quality of infrastructure, roads
Unmaintained downtown area
Lots of debris along roads, highways
Not sure / No particular reason
Unmaintained parks
Crime, drugs
Lack of trash bins
Dirty creeks, rivers, waterways
Furniture, appliances on side of road
Lack law enforcement
Lack of consistency accross neighborhoods
Pest infestation
% Respondents Who Feel City's Appearance is Unclean
2024
2025
2026
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 42City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RATING ASPECTS OF CITY CLEANLINESS All respondents were next asked to rate the appearance of various aspects of San José using the now familiar scale of very or somewhat clean or unclean (Figure 68). Ratings were most favo rable for the cleanliness of private residential properties in San José (77% very or somewh at clean) and residents’ neighborhoods (74%).
Approximately two-thirds gave a similar rating to private commercial and business properties (66%) and six-in-ten rated streets and sidewalks in residential areas (63%) and public parks in San José (59%) as very or somewhat clean. The majority of respondents gave a favorable rating to the appearance of major streets with at least four la nes (55%), while nearly half said the same about public trails (50%). Ratings were less positive for the cleanliness of properties along freeways and highways in San José (28%), creeks and waterways (29%), and downtown (34%).
For the interested reader, Table 6 on the next page displays ratings by fiscal quarter while Table 7 shows them by study year. Cleanliness ratings improved over the past three years, including statistically significant increases in eight of the ten areas from 2025 to 2026.
Question 15 For each of the following items I mention, please rate them as very clean, some- what clean, somewhat unclean, or very unclean.
FIGURE 68 RATING CITY CLEANLINESS
51.4 44.1
50.3 49.4
47.1 45.7
39.0 30.5
25.2 23.1
15.0 17.8
22.1 25.8
24.2 29.5
23.6 36.8
31.8 37.4
7.1 6.1
9.2 10.6
12.1 11.9
23.4 28.7
31.1 2
4 25.2
30.2 15.7
13.8 12.3
9.4 10.6
4 4
4 3
5.9 5.8
5.2 1
3 5.6
14.9 10.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Private residential properties in San José
Your neighborhood
Private commercial and business properties in San José
Streets and sidewalks in residential areas of San José
Public parks in San José
Major streets (4+ lanes) in San José
Public trails in San José
Downtown San José
Creeks and waterways in San José
Properties along freeways and highways in San José
% Respondents
Very clean Sm wt clean Smwt unclean Very unclean DK/NA
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 43City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 6 RATING CITY CLEANLINESS BY FISCAL QUARTER
TABLE 7 RATING CITY CLEANLINESS BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
AWARENESS & USE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM Residents were next asked about their awareness and use of the City’s Free Junk Pickup Program, which allows residents to schedule cost-free collection of large junk items such as mattresses, furniture, and tires.
Question 16 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware of the City's Free Junk Pickup Program, which allows residents to schedule cost-free colle ction of large junk items such as mattresses, furniture, and tires?
Question 17 In the past 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household used the City's Free Junk Pickup Program?
FIGURE 69 AWARE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM & HSLD USED PROGRAM IN PAST 12 MONTHS As shown in Figure 69, seven-in-ten resi-
dents (72%) were aware of the program
prior to taking the survey. Overall, 40%
reported that they or someone in their
household had used the program during the
past 12 months, while 32% were aware of it
but had not used it. Both awareness and use
were consistent across fiscal quarters (see
Figure 70 on next page).
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Private residential properties in San José 74.3 79.1 79.4 73.8 Your neighborhood 72.9 72.8 76.9 74.9
Private commercial and business properties in San José 65.2 66.3 68.3 64.2 Streets and sidewalks in residential areas of San José 59.8 64.4 66.3 62.2 Public parks in San José 56.2 57.7 63.5 59.8
Major streets (4+ lanes) in San José 55.0 57.2 56.0 52.2 Public trails in San José 49.7 46.4 54.8 47.2
Downtown San José 33.2 34.5 36.1 33.0
Creeks and waterways in San José 27.0 30.8 33.0 26.2
Properties along freeways and highways in San José 26.2 28.3 30.1 25.4 Fiscal Quarter
2024 2025 2026
Major streets (4+ lanes) in San José N/A 48.1 55.1 +7.0† Creeks and waterways in San José 22.0 23.2 29.3 +6.0†
Public trails in San José 42.8 43.8 49.5 +5.7†
Public parks in San José 50.3 53.8 59.3 +5.5†
Properties along freeways and highways in San José 18.6 22.4 27.5 +5.1† Downtown San José 25.8 30.1 34.2 +4.1†
Streets and sidewalks in residential areas of San José 53.4 59.3 63.2 +3.9† Your neighborhood 69.9 70.6 74.4 +3.7†
Private residential properties in San José 75.1 74.9 76.6 +1.8 Private commercial and business properties in San José 64.9 65.8 66.0 +0.2 Change in
Very+Smwt
Clean
2025 to 2026
Study Year
DK/NA
3.0 Aware of Free
Junk Pickup
Program
72.1 Prefer not
to answer 0.2
Didn't use,
not sure
32.4 Used Free Junk
Pickup Program
past 12 mos
39.5Not aware of
Program
24.9 Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 44City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 70 AWARE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM & HSLD USED PROGRAM IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY FISCAL QUARTER Figures 71 through 74 show how awareness of the City’s Free Junk Pickup Program varied across resident subgroups. Awareness generally increa sed with age and was highest among residents age 45 and older. It was also notably higher among homeowners than renters and among resi- dents of Council District 10. By contrast, awareness was lowest among residents who have lived in San José for less than five years, respondents ages 18 to 24, and those identifying their ethnic- ity as mixed/other.
FIGURE 71 AWARE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
74.2 40.1
71.8 39.5
71.2 39.5
71.2 39.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Aware of Free
Junk Pickup
Program (Q16)
Hsld used
Program past
12 months
(Q17)
Aware of Free
Junk Pickup
Program (Q16)
Hsld used
Program past
12 months
(Q17)
Aware of Free
Junk Pickup
Program (Q16)
Hsld used
Program past
12 months
(Q17)
Aware of Free
Junk Pickup
Program (Q16)
Hsld used
Program past
12 months
(Q17)
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
76.2 51.5
66.5 75.2
80.1 78.3 79.0
46.5 75.2 74.1
66.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
mo re
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Aware of Free Junk
Pickup Program
Cleaning Up Neighborhoods
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 45City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 72 AWARE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM BY ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 73 AWARE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM BY CHILD IN HSLD, SURVEY LANGUAGE & AREA OF CITY FIGURE 74 AWARE OF FREE JUNK PICKUP PROGRAM BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & COUNCIL DISTRICT
66.7 74.3 75.5
59.9 69.9
74.472.670.6
77.9 69.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Aware of Free Junk
Pickup Program
72.6 70.2 69.4 72.4 70.9
74.7 71.875.4
71.3 72.1 72.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Central East North South West Child in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language Area of City
% Respondents Aware of Free Junk
Pickup Program
69.6 73.2 73.2 71.6
67.1 72.6 75.7
81.5 65.765.862.5
80.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Own Rent One T wo T hree Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine T en Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Council District
% Respondents Aware of Free Junk
Pickup Program
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 46
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R EDUCING U NSHELTERED
H OMELESSNESS
As noted previously, San José residents have consistently rated homelessness among their top concerns, a pattern reflected in the City Council’s identification of Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness as one of four key Focus Areas for 2025-2026. The goal of this Focus Area is to implement comprehensive strategies and supportive services to decrease the number of individ- uals experiencing homelessness and improve quality of life. Key programs include homelessness prevention, outreach, case management, interim housing construction and operations, and homelessness concerns. To help gauge the City’s progress in this Focus Area, the survey asked residents how frequently they en counter homeless people in their neighborhood and whether they perceived that the level of homelessness in their neighborhood had decreased, stayed about the same, or increased during the 12 months prior to the interview.
FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD When asked how frequently they encounter homeless people in their neighborhood, 30% of respondents said every day and an additional 23% said a few ti mes per week. Approximat ely one-third reported encountering homeless people a few times per month (16%) or less often than a few times per month (17%). Eleven percent (11%) stated that they never encounter homeless people in their neighborhood, and 2% were unsure or preferred no t to answer the question (Figure 75). Taken together, 53% of residents reported encounteri ng homeless people in their neighborhood at least weekly in 2026, down from 63% in 2025 and 68% in 2024. The decline from 2025 to 2026 was driven primarily by a statistically significant decrease in daily encounters, from 41% to 30% (Figure 77). As shown in Figure 76 on the ne xt page, reported weekly encounters ranged from 50% to 56% across fiscal quarters.
Question 18 How often do you encounter homeless peop le in your neighborhood? Every day, a few times a week, a few times per month, less often than a few times per month, or never? FIGURE 75 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD A few times per
week
23.1 Every day
30.3 A few times per
month
16.2 Less than a few
times per
month
17.0 DK/NA
2.2Never
11.2 Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 47City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 76 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY FISCAL QUARTER FIGURE 77 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Figures 78 through 82 show how the reported frequency of encountering homeless individuals in residential neighborhoods varied across su bgroups. Daily encounters were most common among residents who perceived that the number of homeless people in their neighborhood had increased over the past year and those living in Council District 7. Daily encounters were also much higher than average among respondents with annual household incomes under $25,000, residents of Council District 3, Spanish- and Vietnamese-language respondents, and central area residents.
22.0 22.8
24.2 15.6
15.3 10.5 10.9 12.6 10.8
32.232.4 29.5 27.2
23.5 16.4
17.6 19.6 15.817.6
15.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
23.1 7.8 7.4
43.8 41.4
30.3†
21.5 23.7
14.711.9
16.2 12.7
17.0†
10.6 11.2†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 48City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 78 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE FIGURE 79 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 80 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & HSLD INCOME
34.0 27.9 27.5 30.8
21.0 32.7 35.1 39.2
32.5 21.5
22.0 25.6 23.8 22.3
21.5 22.1 23.1
25.0 23.2
21.5 18.2
14.3 14.6 16.1
15.0 16.3
16.3 15.1
14.3 18.5
14.3 15.5
21.3 16.8
22.4 14.4
16.2 13.1
16.5 21.7
9.7 8.8 11.6
17.5 11.6
6.7 11.4 15.0
1.5 1.4 2.2 2.1 1.8
28.6 26.4
18.6 18.9
7.611.811.2
2.5 0.82.8 1.72.2 2.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
23.8 14.6
33.6 26.5 26.5 30.9 33.8 28.8 31.1
24.2 24.3
21.0 19.0 20.0
22.7 24.2
23.3 23.4
19.1 19.3
15.7 17.4 14.9
17.6 18.4
16.7 15.7
12.6 21.2 19.0
20.3 15.2
13.3 10.4
17.1 17.3
8.1 10.8 8.4
20.3 12.7 12.6 10.2
0.9 2.2 3.6 2.3
39.6 24.5
13.0 24.5
15.9 13.2 11.4
3.01.3 1.7 2.9 1.42.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnam ese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
45.6 15.1
44.0 50.0
33.7 33.4 36.5 29.9 29.1 23.6
26.4 27.0
21.9 17.4
20.5 23.9 22.8
24.5 25.0
24.1 10.5
18.7 16.4 15.3
18.9 14.4
18.7 19.7 15.3
15.4 17.7
12.0 10.9 7.3
13.8 16.7
12.7 16.6
15.8 22.5
12.7 4.1 3.3 11.1 10.8 8.7
12.4 12.9
1.5 3.5 1.0 2.3 1.5
27.9 22.4
17.0 24.7
8.39.1 13.7
2.2 0.60.8 1.00.9 2.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Under $25K $25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Survey Language Hsld Income (QD11)
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 49City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 81 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY AREA OF CITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS,
CHILD IN HSLD & HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD
FIGURE 82 FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY COUNCIL DISTRICT HAS THE AMOUNT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE CHANGED? The next question in this series asked respondents whether, over the pa st 12 months, they perce ived that the number of homeless people in their neighborhood had decrea sed, stayed about the same, or increased. As shown in Figure 83 on the next page, a majority (53%) felt that the number had stayed about the same, while 20% said it had increased and 17% sa id it had decreased. An additional 10% were unsure or declined to state.
Figure 84 on the next page shows that responses we re fairly consistent by fiscal quarter. Figure 85 shows continued improvement from 2025 to 2026, with statistically significant increases in the percentages who said the number had decrea sed (+5%) or stayed the same (+4%) and a sig- nificant decline in the percentage who said it had increased (-11%). The percentage who were unsure also experienced a small but statistically significant increase (+2%).
31.2 32.4
22.2 19.9 26.6
35.4 32.4 28.5
20.3 27.6
57.4 21.5 22.3
21.3 24.6
23.8 23.0 24.0
22.6 28.7
22.7 25.0
14.1 19.8
17.8 19.9
16.3 16.0 17.6
16.0 18.9 17.2
10.89.8 15.5 22.6 21.9 19.2
14.1 17.3
17.5 24.6
17.0 5.32.8
15.4 14.2 12.3 9.6 13.1
6.4 14.5
1.12.3 1.8 2.1 1.1 0.9 0.5
46.7 26.3
12.2 12.9
7.911.59.8
2.2 2.31.9 0.82.8 1.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Central East North South West Own Rent Yes No Decreased Stayed the same
Increased
Area of City Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Child in Hsld (QD5) Homeless in Neighborhood (Q19)
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
31.0 49.2
32.7 36.3
29.7 57.7
21.2 19.4 17.9
27.3 27.7
21.9 24.1
29.7 17.7
17.6 20.0 18.9
15.3 10.4
19.2 15.4 17.6
8.4 16.1 20.8
16.9 24.9
18.1 13.9
16.4 15.0
11.9 15.9
22.7 25.8
12.2 6.3 9.7 6.0 2.1
16.1 18.1
2.0 2.6 1.7 2.3
15.9 23.4
20.6 7.6
26.2 6.03.43.1 1.12.3 3.11.8 2.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents
DK/NA
Never
Less than a
few times per
mo nth
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Every day
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 50City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 19 Over the past 12 months, would you say the level of homelessness in your neigh- borhood has decreased, stayed about the same, or increased? FIGURE 83 OPINION OF NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD FIGURE 84 OPINION OF NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY FISCAL QUARTER Stayed the
same
53.2 Decreased
17.3 Increased
19.7 Not sure
8.9 Prefer not to
answer
0.8 51.6 55.1 51.4
18.5 22.3
18.416.1 17.5 17.3
54.9 20.4 17.8
11.5 7.19.17.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Increased
Stayed the
same
Decreased
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 51City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 85 OPINION OF NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
The figures to follow show the percentage of respondents who perceived that homelessness in their neighborhood had increased in the 12 mo nths preceding the interview by a variety of demographic characteristics. As one might ex pect, frequency of homeless encounters was strongly correlated with reporting an increase in the number of home less people in the neigh- borhood (see Figure 88). More than one-third of residents who encountered homeless people every day (37%) or felt unsafe in their neighborhood (37%) reported that homelessness in their neighborhood had increased over the past year. Perceptions of an increase were also higher than average among residents with annual household incomes under $25,000, those ages 45 to 54, and residents of Council Districts 5 and 7.
FIGURE 86 INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
8.3 12.0 17.3†
53.2†
44.7 49.3
40.1 19.7†
30.7 7.4 8.9†6.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Increased
Stayed the
same
Decreased
21.0 13.7
20.8 23.4
28.8 19.8
11.4 17.0
20.3 18.0
15.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
mo re
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents That Feel Homelessness Has
Increased in Past 12 Months
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 52City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 87 INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 88 INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERS WITH HOMELESS &
HSLD INCOME
17.7 16.5
18.7 22.9
17.1 22.1
25.1 15.1 16.0
20.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese VietnameseOther Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents That Feel Homelessness Has
Increased in Past 12 Months
27.7 20.4 18.4 20.1
16.1 20.0 19.1
37.4 21.4
13.2 6.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
Every day A few x
per wk
A few x
per mo
< A few x
per mo
Under
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Frequency of Encounters With Homeless
(Q18)
Hsld Income (QD11)
% Respondents That Feel Homelessness Has
Increased in Past 12 Months
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 53City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 89 INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY AREA OF CITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS,
CHILD IN HSLD & YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
FIGURE 90 INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOMELESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
16.8 19.6 20.1
23.7 17.3 15.8
36.5 21.2 21.9 20.4
18.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 Central East North South West Own Rent Yes No Safe Unsafe Area of City Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Child in Hsld (QD5) Your Neighborhood
(Q5a)
% Respondents That Feel Homelessness Has
Increased in Past 12 Months
28.5 16.3
29.5 13.1
16.8 20.5
17.3 19.4
23.3 18.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents That Feel Homelessness Has
Increased in Past 12 Months
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 54
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A TTRACTING I NVESTMENT IN J OBS &
H OUSING
The final Focus Area for 2025-2026 is Attracting Investment in Jobs and Housing , through which the City seeks to catalyze growth to encourage a strong economy, robust housing, healthy neighborhoods, and a vibrant downtown. Key pr ograms include planning and permitting, devel- opment services, business outreach and assi stance, and business district management. To gauge the City’s progress in this area, the survey assessed residents’ perceptions of downtown San José, their frequency of visiting downtown, and the changes they would most like to see to make it a better, more vibrant place.
RATING ASPECTS OF DOWNTOWN The first question in this section presented respon- dents with a series of statements about downto wn San José and asked them to indicate their level of agreement, using the scale shown on the top of Figure 91. Six-in-ten respondents agreed that downtown San José is a good place for dini ng (63% strongly + somewhat agree) and enter- tainment (61%), while half also agreed with the statement I enjoy visiting downtown San José (53%). Four-in-ten (40%) agreed that downtown San José is a good place for job opportunities and work, although this item also had the highest percentage who were unsure or did not answer (27%). There was less agreement that downtown San José is a good place to live (29%) or go shopping (21%).
Question 20 I'd like to know your perceptions and opinions of downtown San José. For each of the following statements I read, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.
FIGURE 91 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ
Table 8 on the next page displays the percenta ge of respondents who agreed with each state- ment about downtown San José by fiscal quarte r, while Table 9 presents the results by study year. Agreement was generally consistent by quar ter, with differences of five percentage points or less across the fiscal year for nearly every statement. Agreement also increased from 2025 to 2026 for all six statements, including statistically significant improvements in enjoying down- town San José (+4%) and viewing downtown as a good place to live (+3%).
19.4 19.4
14.0 10.8
43.5 41.6
39.0 29.2
23.5 16.7
18.4 17.9
22.9 19.3
26.9 29.3
10.8 11.8
17.6 13.5
26.7 39.3
5 4
6.4 27.2
17.7 10.6
7.8 9.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Downtown San José is a good place for dining
Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment
I enjoy visiting downtown San José
Downtown San José is a good place for job opportunities and work Downtown San José is a good place to live
Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping
% Respondents
Strongly agree Sm wt agree Sm wt disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 55City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tables 10 through 17 show how responses varied by a host of demographic traits. Most notably, agreement was positively correlated with freque ncy of downtown visits (see Table 10). Respon- dents who visited downtown at le ast monthly consistently provided the highest levels of agree- ment, while those who visited less often than ev ery two to three months—and especially those who never visited—were substantially less likely to agree with each statement. Younger respon- dents, particularly those ages 18 to 24, also te nded to provide more posi tive ratings across the statements.
TABLE 8 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY FISCAL QUARTER (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) TABLE 9 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY STUDY YEAR (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
TABLE 10 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY DOWNTOWN VISITATION FREQUENCY (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) TABLE 11 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) TABLE 12 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY AGE (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep
2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec
2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar
2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun
2026)
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 61.8 63.9 62.2 64.0 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 59.6 59.6 61.5 63.2 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 51.5 53.9 54.0 52.9
Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 39.9 40.7 39.7 39.6 Downtown San José is a good place to live 31.6 26.1 29.0 28.2 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 19.7 21.3 19.9 22.3 Fiscal Quarter
2024 2025 2026
I enjoy visiting downtown San José 47.1 49.6 53.1 +3.5† Downtown San José is a good place to live 24.7 26.3 28.7 +2.5† Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 56.2 58.9 61.0 +2.1 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 40.5 38.2 40.0 +1.8 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 18.5 19.2 20.8 +1.6 Downtown San José is a good place for dining 57.8 61.8 63.0 +1.2 Change in
Agreement
2025 to 2026
Study Year
1x+ per wk 1-3x per mo
1x per 2-3
mo
<1x per 2-3
mo Never
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 73.4 75.6 66.7 51.8 19.3 D o w n t o w n S a n J o s é i s a g o o d p l a c e f o r e n t e r t a i n m e n t 7 1 . 07 4 . 76 7 . 54 7 . 61 6 . 8 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 71.6 70.3 57.1 33.0 3.2 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 55.3 47.5 38.1 29.5 12.0 Downtown San José is a good place to live 44.3 38.0 26.5 15.7 4.2 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 27.0 28.2 20.1 13.1 5.1 Downtown Visitation Frequency (Q22)
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more Yes No
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 69.0 64.9 62.6 63.3 61.8 61.9 65.1 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 63.8 64.7 60.4 64.1 59.7 63.1 62.2 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 56.1 58.5 54.0 62.2 50.2 50.7 55.9 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 40.0 41.0 40.0 41.2 39.6 43.8 40.0 Downtown San José is a good place to live 27.5 31.9 28.4 31.3 28.1 27.1 30.4 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 31.0 24.5 21.0 25.5 17.8 21.2 21.0 Years in San José (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD5)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Downtown San José is a good place for dining 74.9 73.9 63.0 53.9 57.2 59.2 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 72.3 70.3 62.1 55.4 54.8 55.2 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 69.4 62.4 52.5 44.2 48.4 48.8 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 59.9 45.5 36.3 37.0 36.3 32.2 Downtown San José is a good place to live 39.4 29.2 26.5 25.3 25.9 28.9 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 41.6 25.3 18.1 14.2 14.9 15.9 Age (QD1)
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 56City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 13 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY ETHNICITY (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) TABLE 14 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & GENDER (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) TABLE 15 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY AREA OF CITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %
AGREEMENT)
TABLE 16 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY HSLD INCOME (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) TABLE 17 OPINIONS OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY COUNCIL DISTRICT (SHOWING % AGREEMENT) CHANGES TO IMPROVE DOWNTOWN The next question in this series asked respon- dents to indicate the one thing they would change to make downtown San José a better, more vibrant place. Question 21 was presented in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to men- tion anything that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 92 on the next page.
Approximately one-in-five respondents could not think of a desi red change (19%) or stated that no changes were needed (3%). Am ong the specific changes desi red, addressing homelessness (18%) and beautifying the City/landscaping (14%) were the most commonly mentioned, followed by improving public safety/reducing crime (11%), addressing parking issues (11%), providing Latino/
Hispanic
Caucasian
/White Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian
Af Amer
/Black
Mixed
/Other
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 66.7 63.3 60.7 65.6 63.1 58.9 60.9 53.4 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 65.5 59.7 52.3 61.1 60.3 61.4 61.0 58.2 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 55.1 54.4 48.2 56.2 52.4 52.4 53.1 49.2 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 42.4 34.9 41.5 47.7 38.4 40.8 40.9 41.1 Downtown San José is a good place to live 31.6 30.2 22.0 31.9 26.2 24.1 34.7 19.8 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 22.5 14.9 21.5 28.6 26.5 19.5 24.0 17.8 Ethnicity (QD10)
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Male Female
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 62.6 69.2 59.3 55.5 61.8 66.2 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 61.3 69.1 47.7 47.4 59.9 64.0 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 52.6 60.1 44.7 51.0 54.4 53.1 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 38.9 44.1 43.1 44.5 42.8 38.7 Downtown San José is a good place to live 27.7 36.4 21.8 31.7 30.0 27.3 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 19.5 25.3 19.8 30.9 23.0 18.2 Survey Language Gender (QD2)
Central East North South West Own Rent
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 68.3 63.8 60.1 62.3 58.1 59.2 69.0 D o w n t o w n S a n J o s é i s a g o o d p l a c e f o r e n t e r t a i n m e n t 6 8 . 06 1 . 75 6 . 55 8 . 15 8 . 05 8 . 46 5 . 9 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 62.0 54.3 47.8 48.9 49.2 48.7 59.4 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 41.8 42.3 37.3 39.6 36.5 37.0 44.7 Downtown San José is a good place to live 42.9 25.8 23.7 24.7 24.6 26.3 32.9 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 20.3 24.3 26.0 19.2 15.8 15.5 27.7 Area of City
Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
Under
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K
or more
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 72.3 73.3 64.1 68.2 66.1 62.6 61.3 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 65.9 61.2 65.7 68.9 62.4 60.8 61.7 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 59.1 60.6 58.6 55.3 56.6 53.8 51.3 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 49.0 48.4 42.9 41.3 40.4 40.5 38.4 Downtown San José is a good place to live 36.3 35.0 33.0 29.2 32.3 26.8 28.9 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 38.8 30.2 25.3 23.3 20.7 18.7 15.6 Hsld Income (QD11)
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Downtown San José is a good place for dining 57.4 64.1 69.6 58.4 68.5 62.2 67.2 62.6 59.8 59.3 Downtown San José is a good place for entertainment 57.1 64.1 66.7 58.1 62.3 62.9 64.7 62.0 56.8 54.4 I enjoy visiting downtown San José 45.7 51.9 63.4 48.4 57.4 56.0 56.6 52.0 48.8 47.2 Downtown San José a good place for job opportunities, work 35.7 40.0 39.5 35.7 44.8 38.5 48.0 40.5 40.1 39.6 Downtown San José is a good place to live 24.0 27.2 47.7 22.6 29.8 30.9 29.3 25.1 22.6 23.5 Downtown San José is a good place to go shopping 18.2 23.2 23.2 24.2 23.4 15.7 20.8 25.4 16.4 18.1 Council District
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 57City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
community events/entertainment for all ages ( 7%), and providing more shopping opportunities (7%). Table 18 presents the top five recommend ed changes by fiscal quarter and shows that, although their order shifted, the same five responses ranked highest in every quarter.
Question 21 If you could make one change to downtown San José to make it a better, more vibrant place, what change would you make?
FIGURE 92 CHANGES TO MAKE DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ A BETTER, MORE VIBRANT PLACE TABLE 18 TOP 5 CHANGES TO MAKE DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ A BETTER, MORE VIBRANT PLACE BY FISCAL QUARTER
18.9 17.7
14.1 10.7
10.5 7.2
6.6 5.2
4.8 3.0
3.0 2.7
2.2 2.1
2.0 2.0
1.6 1.5
2.8 4.1
0 5 10 15 20
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Address homelessness
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Address parking issues
Provide community events, entertainment for all ages
Provide more shopping opportunities
Provide more dining options
Provide more police presence
Clean up, renovate rundown buildings
Provide, improve public transit
Improve economy, jobs
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Make City more walkable
Address drug addiction issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve downtown area in general
Support for small, local businesses
Improve traffic congestion
Improve parks, rec areas
% Respondents
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Address
homelessness
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Beautify City,
landscaping
Address
homelessness
Address
homelessness
Address
homelessness
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Beautify City,
landscaping
Beautify City,
landscaping
Beautify City,
landscaping
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Address parking
issues
Address parking
issues
Address parking
issues
Address parking
issues
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Improve public
safety, reduce
crime
Fiscal Quarter
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 58City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 93 presents responses by study year. The on ly statistically significant changes of at least three percentage points from 2025 to 2026 were an increase in beautifying the City/landscaping (+3%) and a decline in cleaning up or renovating rundown buildings (-7%).
FIGURE 93 CHANGES TO MAKE DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ A BETTER, MORE VIBRANT PLACE BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2025 and 2026 studies.
Figure 94 displays how responses differed acco rding to whether respondents felt safe (green bars) or unsafe (red bars) in downtown San Jo sé in 2026. Compared with their counterparts, those who felt unsafe downtown were much more likely to mention addressing homelessness (+15%) and improving public safety/reducing crime (+13%) as the one change that would make downtown San José a better, more vibrant place. They were also more likely to mention beautify- ing the City/landscaping (+8%).
Figure 95 on page 60 shows the analysis by whether respondents rated downtown San José as clean (green bars) or unclean (red bars) and yields similar results. Respondents who viewed downtown as unclean were much more likely to suggest addressing homelessness (+13%), beau- tifying the City/landscaping (+12%), and improving public safety/reducing crime (+10%). In con- trast, respondents who felt safe downtown or rated it as clean were much more likely to say they were unsure/could not think anything or that no changes we re needed. In fact, not sure/cannot think of anything was the top response among both subgroups. 13 6
5 9
2 2
0 5
1 2
18 12
6 7
6 5
2 2
3 0
3 2
3 2
2 19
11 11
7 5
5 3
2 2
2 23
16 11
8 7
6 2
1 2
2 10
11 20
2 11
2†
2†
2†
3†
3†
3†
18†
14†
7†
4†
0 5 10 15 20 25
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Address homelessness
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Address parking issues
Provide community events, entertainment for all ages
Provide more shopping opportunities
Provide more dining options
Provide more police presence
Clean up, renovate rundown buildings
Provide, improve public transit
Improve economy, jobs
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Make City more walkable
Address drug addiction issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve downtown area in general
Support for small, local businesses
Improve traffic congestion
Improve parks, rec areas
% Respondents
2024
2025
2026
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 59City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 94 CHANGES TO MAKE DOWNTOWN A BETTER, MORE VIBRANT PLACE BY DOWNTOWN SAFETY RATING 22 10
10 4
10 10
9 6
3 4
3 3
1 3
2 2
1 2
14 25
18 17
11 5
5 5
7 4
3 3
1 2
3 2
2 2
2 1
5 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Address homelessness
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Address parking issues
Provide community events, entertainment for all ages
Provide more shopping opportunities
Provide more dining options
Provide more police presence
Clean up, renovate rundown buildings
Provide, improve public transit
Improve economy, jobs
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Make City more walkable
Address drug addiction issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve downtown area in general
Support for small, local businesses
Improve traffic congestion
Improve parks, rec areas
% Respondents
Downtown is Safe
Downtown is Unsafe
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 60City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 95 CHANGES TO MAKE DOWNTOWN A BETTER, MORE VIBRANT PLACE BY DOWNTOWN CLEANLINESS RATING FREQUENCY OF VISITING DOWNTOWN The final question in this series asked resi- dents how often they visit downtown San José. Overall, 22% indicated that they visit downtown at least once per week (Figure 96 on next page), while a similar percentage (23%) visit one to three times per month. Nineteen percent (19%) visit on ce every two to three months, 28% visit a few times per year, 5% never visit downtown, and 2% we re unsure or preferred not to answer Ques- tion 22. Responses were generally consistent ac ross fiscal quarters and study years (Figures 97 and 98).
Figures 99 through 103 show how frequency of visiting downtown (among those who provided a response) varied by a number of demographic char acteristics. At least three-in-ten respondents ages 18 to 24, those who took the survey in Spanish, residents with annual household incomes under $80,000, those who commute within San José for work, and central area residents reported visiting downtown San José at least once per week. Council District 3 stood out, with a majority of residents (54%) reporting weekly visits. Additionally, frequency of visiting downtown was inversely correlated with age, generally dec lining from 34% among respondents ages 18 to 24 to 13% among those 65 and older.
25 10
7 4
11 8
8 6
3 4
2 3
1 2
2 1
1 1
13 23
19 14
10 7
6 5
6 5
3 3
1 2
3 2
2 2
2 2
3 6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Address homelessness
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Address parking issues
Provide community events, entertainment for all ages
Provide more shopping opportunities
Provide more dining options
Provide more police presence
Clean up, renovate rundown buildings
Provide, improve public transit
Improve economy, jobs
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Make City more walkable
Address drug addiction issues
Provide more affordable housing
Improve downtown area in general
Support for small, local businesses
Improve traffic congestion
Improve parks, rec areas
% Respondents
Downtown is Clean
Downtown is Unclean
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 61City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 22 How often do you visit downtown San José? At least once per week, one to three times per month, once every two or three months, a few times per year, or never? FIGURE 96 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ
FIGURE 97 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY FISCAL QUARTER Never
5.3 Not sure
1.2 A few times per
year
28.2 Once every two
to three months
19.4 At least once
per week
21.8 One to three
times per
month
23.2 Prefer not to
answer
1.0 22.2 22.8 24.9
19.5 19.3
5.6 5.4 5.2 4.9
21.021.723.4 21.1
22.9 21.217.5
28.4 28.2 28.028.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
months
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 62City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 98 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 99 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE FIGURE 100 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY ETHNICITY & GENDER
22.8 23.2
18.7 5.3 5.5 5.3
21.821.623.1
23.1 19.418.8
27.3 28.229.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2024 2025 2026
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
mo nths
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
24.7 22.9 27.4
20.8 34.0 28.2
21.0 21.6 19.6
12.8 25.5 26.9
24.0 22.0
32.6 28.7
24.0 20.5 20.1
19.8 22.3 20.4 19.9
19.0 13.8
19.2 23.2
20.1 21.5
20.8 22.0 23.1 24.4
31.8 18.5 20.9
27.9 32.7 32.7
36.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 1.1 3.0 5.0 6.2 10.3
23.6 29.3
20.8 27.0
4.06.42.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
months
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
20.9 13.8
24.4 20.9 16.6 17.9
24.6 23.8 21.1
24.2 21.2
18.3 21.2 24.3 25.8
21.9 24.3
22.9 23.7
21.5 19.9 19.8 23.5 18.5 18.8 19.8
20.1 25.3 25.6
31.8 29.9 30.3 33.9 29.3 27.5 29.9
4.6 5.6 5.7 5.4 4.0 4.6 5.9
27.7 26.3
16.0 39.3
4.2 8.2 5.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
months
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 63City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 101 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & HSLD INCOME FIGURE 102 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY COMMUTE TYPE, AREA OF CITY, HOME OWNERSHIP
STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD
FIGURE 103 FREQUENCY OF VISITS TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSÉ BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
34.1 13.7 20.0
41.1 32.3 31.2
24.2 20.3 19.2 19.5
24.9 22.6 13.5
28.9 19.7 19.9
19.5 28.0 27.1 24.1
17.1 18.4 20.0
8.2 21.6 17.3
20.2 18.0 17.4 25.6
28.6 20.6
43.4 19.3
21.4 26.6 30.3 28.3 31.7 26.9
5.9 3.4 3.1 5.0 4.9 5.3 4.6 3.9
21.0 24.2
20.3 41.4
5.72.53.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Under $25K $25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Survey Language Hsld Income (QD11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
mo nths
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
18.6 41.6
21.1 19.3 14.8 13.3 17.2
28.9 21.4 23.1
25.5 26.4
22.8 25.0
22.3 23.3 21.0
26.9 23.4 24.1
23.4 13.2
19.1 20.3
21.8 25.4 22.2
17.5 21.3 19.7
22.3 28.8 32.3 28.0 34.4 31.8 32.7
23.5 30.0 27.7
2.9 3.7 4.7 6.7 6.2 3.2 3.9 5.4
33.4 24.6
16.9 15.7
3.1 7.4 6.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Within City Outside of
City
Central East North South West Own Rent Yes No
Commute Type (QD8) Area of City Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Child in Hsld (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
months
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
20.8 53.5
20.1 27.8
19.7 28.3
13.0 14.2 12.1
21.6 24.6
24.0 23.4
31.2 20.4
23.2 24.4
19.3 20.4
9.9 18.1
16.4 22.1
20.1 21.0
23.2 23.1
35.6 29.8 31.2
28.4 23.7
25.4 37.8 32.9
37.5 8.2 7.4 6.6 3.3 5.7 5.3 8.0
11.0 19.7
25.5 9.2
2.8 4.0 5.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Never
A few times
per year
Once every
two to three
months
One to three
times per
mo nth
At least once
per week
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 64
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ARKS
New to the 2026 study, the final section of the survey focused on residents’ perceptions of and experiences with public parks, trails, and recreation spaces in San José.
OVERALL SATISFACTION Respondents were first asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the public parks, trails, and recreation sp aces in San José. Approximately two-thirds (66%) indicated that they were very (14%) or somewhat (52%) satisfied in this regard, whereas 29% were dissatisfied and 5% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion (Figure 104). By quarter, sat- isfaction was consistent at approximately two-thirds in Q1, Q3, and Q4 (67% to 68%), but dipped to 60% in Q2 (Figure 105).
Question 23 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the public parks, trails, and recre- ation spaces in San José?
FIGURE 104 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES FIGURE 105 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES BY FISCAL QUARTER Somewhat
satisfied
51.7 Very satisfied
14.1 Somewhat
dissatisfied
21.0 Very
dissatisfied
8.2 Prefer not to
answer
5.0 45.9
52.2 54.3
24.1 19.3
4.7 6.9 4.1 4.5
15.614.213.6 12.8
54.3 22.118.6
8.8 5.9 9.18.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 65City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures 106 through 110 show how satisfaction wi th San José’s public parks, trails, and recre- ation spaces varied across resident subgroups am ong those who provided an opinion. Satisfac- tion was highest among respondents ages 18 to 24 and 65 and older, those who have lived in the City 15 to 19 years, respondents who commute outside San José for work, residents of the south and west areas of the City, those with no children in the household, and residents of Coun- cil Districts 1 and 10. By comparison, satisfacti on was lowest among central area residents and those living in Council District 3. Satisfaction also generally increased with household income through the $100,000 to $149,999 category before declining among respondents with higher incomes.
FIGURE 106 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE FIGURE 107 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES BY ETHNICITY & GENDER
15.1 18.1 19.6 13.9 9.1 12.2 16.9
53.3 59.8 52.0
53.1 52.1 52.7
60.6 Ver y
satisfied
13.5 15.1 15.8 12.9
Smwt
satisfied
55.6 62.154.254.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
14.8 17.4 17.0 13.6 15.5 14.5
54.8 56.0 57.7
50.6 56.1 53.7
10.210.215.8
Ver y
satisfied
16.1 56.8
56.2 60.4
Smwt
satisfied
50.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed /
Other
Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 66City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 108 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES BY SURVEY LANGUAGE & HSLD INCOME FIGURE 109 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES BY COMMUTE TYPE, AREA OF CITY, HOME
OWNERSHIP STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD
FIGURE 110 SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATIONAL SPACES BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
17.8 15.1 17.8 17.0 17.1 15.6 12.4
51.6 57.0 53.9 57.4 58.0
51.9 54.8
11.19.0 18.5
Very
satisfied
14.8 43.1 56.4 56.2
Smwt
satisfied
56.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnamese Under $25K $25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Survey Language Hsld Income (QD11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
15.8 19.2 13.1 12.8 17.8 14.0 15.9
53.1 55.9 61.2 56.1 52.5
50.1 57.3
Ver y
satisfied
13.1 15.9 13.0 13.0
Smwt
satisfied
53.9 54.447.5
56.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Within City Outside of
City
Central East North South West Own Rent Yes No
Co mmute Type (QD8) Area o f City Ho me Ow nership
Status (QD3)
Child in Hsld (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
15.6 11.3 13.2 12.1 16.4 22.9
46.4 53.6
57.6 58.8
57.1 56.4
Ver y
satisfied
15.8 17.0 11.2 14.8
Smwt
satisfied
61.9 56.3
46.9 53.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 67City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMPARISON Respondents were next asked to compare the quality and opportunities available at parks in th eir neighborhood with those at parks in other parts of San José. Approximately equal percentage s rated their neighborhood parks as at least somewhat better (35%, including 11% who said much better) or about the same (35%). Just over one-in-five (22%) rated them as somewhat or much worse, while 8% were unsure or declined to state (see Figure 111). Ratings were generally consistent across fiscal quarters, although the per- centage rating their neighborhood parks as better was slightly lower in Q2 (32%) than in the other three quarters (35% to 37%, see Figure 112).
Question 24 When compared to parks in other parts of San José, would you say the quality and opportunities at parks in your neighborhood are much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, much worse?
FIGURE 111 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ FIGURE 112 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ BY FISCAL QUARTER Much worse
7.8 DK/NA
7.7 Somewhat
worse
14.0 About the same
35.1 M uch better
10.6 Somewhat
better
24.8 22.9 26.4 25.1
35.2 34.1
8.3 9.3
6.2 7.5
8.1 8.9 5.9 8.0
12.110.5 9.1 10.6
24.7 35.2 35.7
14.6 13.215.2
13.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Fiscal Quarter
% Respondents
DK/NA
Much worse
Som ewhat
worse
About the
same
Som ewhat
better
Much better
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 68City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures 113 through 117 show how comparisons of neighborhood parks with parks elsewhere in San José varied across resident subgroups among those who provi ded an opinion. Ratings were most positive among residents who have lived in San José for 10 to 14 years, those ages 65 and older, respondents with annual household incomes of at least $100,000, homeowners, and resi- dents with no children in the household. A majority of residents in the west area of the City and Council District 10 rated their neighborhood park s as better than parks elsewhere in San José.
Ratings were lowest among Spanish-language re spondents and residents of Council Districts 3, 5, and 7.
FIGURE 113 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ BY YEARS IN SAN JOSÉ & AGE
FIGURE 114 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ BY ETHNICITY & GENDER
10.2 15.0
8.2 11.4 9.2 10.5 8.7 11.0 12.6 16.5
26.0 28.0
28.5 26.9
24.8 26.1 24.7
27.7 28.9
30.2 42.0
35.2 41.2 37.2 44.4 38.3
34.8 35.9 36.3
36.8 14.8 15.8 12.4 16.0 16.0
14.9 20.2
15.3 13.8
12.0 9.7 6.0 9.8 5.6 10.3 10.0 8.4 4.5
12.6 24.6
38.2 12.9
8.9 8.4 11.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in San José (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Much worse
Som ewhat
worse
About the
sameSom ewhat
betterMuch better
14.6 7.5 7.1
15.2 13.7 12.5 11.7 10.5 12.6
30.2 29.7 29.3
27.5 29.1
21.6 30.8 28.6 26.2
37.3 42.4 39.8
34.4 34.1
44.8 39.6 39.9 35.5
18.3 12.8
14.9 14.3 15.1 14.8 11.2 13.5
16.4 12.1
5.1 8.9 7.9 6.3 7.5 9.3
9.1 22.5
38.0 14.8
6.68.65.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Caucasian /
White
Chinese Vietnamese Other Asian East Indian Af Amer /
Black
Mixed / Other Male Female
Ethnicity (QD10) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Much worse
Som ewhat
worse
About the
sameSom ewhat
better
Much better
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 69City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 115 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ BY SURVEY LANGUAGE &
HSLD INCOME
FIGURE 116 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ BY COMMUTE TYPE, AREA
OF CITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD
FIGURE 117 COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH PARKS ELSEWHERE IN SAN JOSÉ BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
7.0 8.4 8.4 13.5 11.6 6.4 6.4 10.1 13.2 15.5
18.2 32.0 26.2 17.0 20.8
22.6 26.6
30.9 29.6 28.3
34.1 42.2
39.1 44.9 42.4 45.0 41.3
35.7 34.7 35.7
13.9 23.3
16.2 15.1 15.9 18.3 17.8 14.2 13.4 12.8
7.3 17.3
10.1 9.3 7.7 9.1 9.1 7.7
12.5 28.0
38.3 14.5
7.99.52.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
English Spanish Chinese Vietnam ese Under $25K $25K to
$49K
$50K to
$79K
$80K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$249K
$250K or
mo re
Survey Language Hsld Incom e (QD11)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Much worse
Som ewhat
worse
About the
same
Som ewhat
betterMuch better
8.8 9.5 8.2 7.7 14.7 16.0 12.3 10.4 8.7 12.8
29.2 21.9 21.7
32.1 29.1
34.4 29.4
24.1 24.7
28.4 36.3
34.4 37.9
39.9 41.7
36.4 36.8
38.6 38.4
37.4 14.5 17.1
20.0 14.5 10.2 9.1
12.7 18.4 17.6
14.1 10.9 8.6 12.2
4.4 4.1 8.4 10.5 7.3
11.3 26.0
37.3 20.6
13.6 5.7 8.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Within City Outside of
City
Central East North South West Own Rent Yes No
Commute Type (QD8) Area of City Home Ownership Status
(QD3)
Child in Hsld (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Much worse
Som ewhat
worse
About the
sameSom ewhat
betterMuch better
9.8 6.5 7.6 2.3
16.3 6.8
14.2 14.4 20.9
22.0 18.9
32.6 13.8
31.1 22.6
27.5 28.9
36.5 50.4
34.7 41.3
38.8 33.3
34.0 37.4
41.9 32.5
11.3 12.5 14.2
25.9 13.0
25.9 12.8
10.9 6.9
4.7 5.3 4.3 6.3 10.7
3.8 3.2
11.1 33.8
39.0 22.0
17.9 19.2
8.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Council District
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Much worse
Som ewhat
worse
About the
sameSom ewhat
betterMuch better
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 70City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESIRED PARK IMPROVEMENTS The final question in the section asked respondents in an open-ended manner what impr ovements, if any, they would like to see made to their local park. True North later reviewed the verbatim re sponses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 118. Just over one-third (35%) of respondents either were unsure or could not think of an improvement (22%) or indicated that no changes were needed (13%). Among the spe- cific improvements mentioned, enhancing park cleanliness was most common (15%), followed by addressing homelessness (11%), improving landscaping, trees, grass, or turf (9%), and providing or improving parks more generally (8%).
Question 25 If you could make improvements to your local park, what changes would you like to see?
FIGURE 118 IMPROVEMENTS TO LOCAL PARKS
Table 19 on the next page show s the top five responses by fisc al quarter. The three most com- mon responses overall—being unsu re or unable to identify an improvement, enhancing park cleanliness, and indicating th at no changes were needed—ra nked first, second, and third, respectively, in every quarter.
21.9 15.4
13.4 10.9
9.3 8.2
6.0 4.6
4.5 2.3
2.3 2.1
2.0 1.6
2.2 2.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve cleanliness of parks
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Address homeless issues
Improve landscaping, trees, grass, turf
Provide, improve parks in general
Improve safety
Improve maintenance of restrooms
Provide, improve playgrounds
Provide more community activities, events
Provide, improve walking, hiking trails
Provide, improve lighting
Provide, improve dog parks
Provide, improve BBQ, picnic areas, shades
Provide more trash cans
Reduce drug use in parks
% Respondents
Parks
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 71City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 19 IMPROVEMENTS TO LOCAL PARKS BY FISCAL QUARTER Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Improve cleanliness
of parks
Improve cleanliness
of parks
Improve cleanliness
of parks
Improve cleanliness
of parks
No changes needed
/ Everything is fine
No changes needed
/ Everything is fine
No changes needed
/ Everything is fine
No changes needed
/ Everything is fine
Address homeless
issues
Address homeless
issues
Address homeless
issues
Improve
landscaping, trees,
grass, turf
Improve
landscaping, trees,
grass, turf
Provide, improve
parks in general
Provide, improve
parks in general
Address homeless
issues
Fiscal Quarter
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 72
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 20 DEMOGRAPHICS OF 2026 SAMPLE BY FISCAL QUARTER Table 20 presents the key
demographic information col-
lected during the 2026 survey
by fiscal quarter, while Table
21 shows the same information
by study year.
Because of the probability-
based sampling methodology
used in this study (see Sample,
Recruiting & Data Collection on
page 74) and weighting to
match the latest Census Ameri-
can Community Survey (ACS)
estimates, the distributions
shown in the tables are repre-
sentative of adult residents in
the City of San José during each
time period. In addition to
keeping track of the sample
profile, the background and
demographic information was
collected to provide insight
into how the results of the sub-
stantive questions of the sur-
vey vary by demographic
characteristics.
Q1 2026
(Jul-Sep 2025)
Q2 2026
(Oct-Dec 2025)
Q3 2026
(Jan-Mar 2026)
Q4 2026
(Apr-Jun 2026)
Total Respondents (unweighted) 3,695 811 850 973 1,061
Total Respondents (weighted) 3,200 800 800 800 800
Years in San José (Q1)
Less than 5 9.5 7.4 13.5 9.1 7.8
5 to 9 10.2 8.9 7.6 11.7 12.7
10 to 14 10.6 10.7 7.8 11.2 12.7
15 to 19 9.1 8.8 8.1 9.7 9.8
20 or more 60.3 63.8 63.0 57.7 56.5
Prefer not to answer 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.4
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 12.1 10.7 13.3 13.2 11.2
25 to 34 19.7 19.9 19.5 19.7 19.8
35 to 44 17.4 17.8 17.6 17.2 17.1
45 to 54 15.5 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.9
55 to 64 14.0 14.2 14.2 14.1 13.6
6 5 o r o l d e r 1 5 . 81 6 . 31 5 . 21 6 . 01 5 . 7 Prefer not to answer 5.4 5.1 5.3 4.5 6.7
Gender (QD2)
Male 49.0 50.4 48.4 49.1 48.3
Female 45.3 45.1 45.6 44.2 46.5
N o n - b i n a r y 1 . 51 . 31 . 71 . 81 . 5
Prefer not to answer 4.1 3.2 4.3 5.0 3.7
Home Ownership Status (QD3)
O w n 5 1 . 45 0 . 95 1 . 55 2 . 05 1 . 3
Rent 42.7 43.7 43.0 41.0 43.0
Prefer not to answer 5.9 5.5 5.5 7.0 5.6
Home Type (QD4)
Single family 61.9 61.9 63.5 60.8 61.3
A p a r t m e n t 1 4 . 81 4 . 81 4 . 11 3 . 91 5 . 8
Condo, townhome 13.6 13.6 13.4 13.3 13.4
M o b i l e h o m e 2 . 52 . 51 . 52 . 62 . 7
Prefer not to answer 7.2 7.2 7.4 9.5 6.8
Child in Hsld (QD5)
Y e s 2 7 . 02 7 . 93 0 . 22 4 . 42 5 . 4
No 67.7 67.4 64.2 69.6 69.8
Prefer not to answer 5.3 4.7 5.6 6.0 4.8
Employment Status (QD6)
Full time 51.2 51.1 50.9 52.9 49.6
P a r t t i m e 6 . 66 . 57 . 95 . 26 . 6
S e l f - e m p l o y e d 5 . 66 . 55 . 15 . 45 . 6
S t u d e n t 5 . 75 . 65 . 56 . 25 . 5
R e t i r e d 1 8 . 91 7 . 91 9 . 31 8 . 61 9 . 8
U n e m p l o y e d 3 . 93 . 73 . 24 . 44 . 5
Prefer not to answer 8.1 8.8 8.0 7.3 8.4
Work Location (QD7)
Only work from home 6.6 5.8 5.3 7.4 7.8
Commute outside home 35.1 36.4 37.2 32.1 34.7
Mixture of both 20.3 20.4 20.7 22.6 17.4
Prefer not to answer 38.0 37.3 36.8 37.8 40.1
Commute Type (QD8)
Within City 29.4 30.2 30.3 28.6 28.3
Outside of City 25.4 26.2 26.6 25.6 23.4
Prefer not to answer 45.2 43.7 43.0 45.8 48.3
Education Level (QD9)
L e s s t h a n H S 2 . 32 . 02 . 82 . 71 . 8
HS grad 10.7 8.6 12.9 9.3 12.0
Vocational / Trade 3.3 3.9 2.2 4.5 2.7
Some college 10.6 11.7 10.0 9.1 11.7
2-yr college degree 8.5 7.5 8.5 9.9 8.3
4-yr college degree 30.9 33.8 32.1 27.4 30.3
Grad / Post-grad degree 28.7 27.6 27.3 31.3 28.6
Prefer not to answer 5.0 4.9 4.4 6.0 4.8
Ethnicity (QD10)
Latino / Hispanic 30.8 31.4 30.1 28.7 32.9
C a u c a s i a n / W h i t e 2 4 . 42 3 . 42 7 . 22 4 . 22 2 . 8 C h i n e s e 6 . 87 . 25 . 88 . 95 . 1
V i e t n a m e s e 9 . 39 . 89 . 68 . 79 . 0
O t h e r A s i a n 9 . 49 . 49 . 29 . 79 . 4
E a s t I n d i a n 8 . 68 . 58 . 88 . 48 . 7
Af Amer / Black 4.9 4.3 4.0 5.2 6.1
M i x e d / O t h e r 3 . 73 . 83 . 34 . 23 . 6
Prefer not to answer 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.5
Hsld Income (QD11)
Under $25K 4.0 4.5 4.3 3.8 3.7
$25K to $49K 6.6 7.1 6.3 6.1 6.8
$50K to $79K 11.0 10.9 12.4 9.4 11.3
$80K to $99K 7.5 8.5 6.8 6.6 8.1
$100K to $149K 13.9 13.9 13.9 11.8 15.8
$150K to $249K 21.7 26.8 18.6 15.8 25.7
$250K or more 20.0 19.5 18.4 22.5 19.7
Prefer not to answer 15.2 8.9 19.2 24.0 9.0
Survey Language
E n g l i s h 7 8 . 37 7 . 97 7 . 57 9 . 87 8 . 1
Spanish 12.4 11.8 13.5 9.6 14.8
C h i n e s e 4 . 54 . 74 . 65 . 72 . 9
V i e t n a m e s e 4 . 85 . 64 . 44 . 94 . 2
Overall
Fiscal Quarter
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 73City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 21 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
2024 2025 2026
Total Respondents (unweighted) 3,626 3,454 3,695
Total Respondents (weighted) 3,200 3,200 3,200
Years in San José (Q1)
Less than 5 9.3 8.9 9.5
5 to 9 8.3 10.0 10.2
10 to 14 8.2 8.8 10.6
15 to 19 7.4 6.6 9.1
20 or more 66.1 65.2 60.3
Prefer not to answer 0.5 0.5 0.3
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 11.4 11.2 12.1
25 to 34 18.8 19.4 19.7
35 to 44 17.3 17.3 17.4
45 to 54 16.6 16.4 15.5
55 to 64 14.8 14.4 14.0
65 or older 17.2 16.3 15.8
Prefer not to answer 3.8 5.1 5.4
Gender (QD2)
Male 50.1 48.0 49.0
Female 45.4 46.6 45.3
Non-binary 1.1 1.3 1.5
Prefer not to answer 3.4 4.0 4.1
Home Ownership Status (QD3)
Own 52.3 51.5 51.4
Rent 42.0 42.8 42.7
Prefer not to answer 5.8 5.8 5.9
Home Type (QD4)
Single family 62.2 62.1 61.9
Apartment 14.7 15.9 14.8
Condo, townhome 14.0 13.6 13.6
Mobile home 3.0 2.7 2.5
Prefer not to answer 6.1 5.6 7.2
Child in Hsld (QD5)
Yes 30.8 29.0 27.0
No 65.6 65.7 67.7
Prefer not to answer 3.6 5.3 5.3
Employment Status (QD6)
Full time 52.2 50.6 51.2
Part time 7.2 6.0 6.6
Self- employed 5.7 5.8 5.6
Student 4.8 6.0 5.7
Retired 18.3 19.0 18.9
Unemployed 4.6 4.6 3.9
Prefer not to answer 7.1 8.0 8.1
Work Location (QD7)
Only work from home 8.3 7.5 6.6
Commute outside home 34.7 32.9 35.1
Mixture of both 20.8 20.9 20.3
Prefer not to answer 36.2 38.8 38.0
Commute Type (QD8)
Within City 30.5 28.9 29.4
Outside of City 24.3 24.4 25.4
Prefer not to answer 45.3 46.7 45.2
Education Level (QD9)
Less than HS 3.1 2.9 2.3
HS grad 11.6 8.6 10.7
Vocational / Trade 5.1 4.8 3.3
Some college 11.9 13.6 10.6
2-yr college degree 11.3 11.4 8.5
4-yr college degree 26.6 28.4 30.9
Grad / Post-grad degree 27.1 27.1 28.7
Prefer not to answer 3.3 3.3 5.0
Ethnicity (QD10)
Latino / Hispanic 31.3 31.4 30.8
Caucasian / White 22.6 23.8 24.4
Chinese 6.6 6.1 6.8
Vietnamese 11.2 8.7 9.3
Other Asian 10.3 10.8 9.4
East Indian 8.1 8.8 8.6
Af Amer / Black 4.1 4.9 4.9
Mixed / Other 3.8 3.7 3.7
Prefer not to answer 2.0 1.7 2.2
Hsld Income (QD11)
Under $25K 6.7 5.1 4.0
$25K to $49K 8.3 7.2 6.6
$50K to $79K 13.2 10.4 11.0
$80K to $99K 12.3 9.2 7.5
$100K to $149K 12.6 14.8 13.9
$150K or more 40.6 42.6 41.7
Prefer not to answer 6.3 10.8 15.2
Survey Language
English 75.4 77.2 78.3
Spanish 14.3 13.8 12.4
Chinese 3.4 3.6 4.5
Vietnamese 6.8 5.4 4.8
Study Year
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 74
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of San José to develop a question naire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement erro r, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents who rated the City as an unsafe place to live (Q uestion 3) were subse- quently asked to describe the part icular reasons or issues influencing their rating (Question 4).
The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire on page 78) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting the teleph one interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate questi on items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they ha ppen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese to allow for data collection in four languages.
SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of San José households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in San José had the opportu- nity to be selected for the survey. Once select ed at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents. The sam- ple was then divided into quarterly subsamples to distribute data collection over the entire fiscal year.
Individuals were recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods.
Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to par- ticipate in the survey online at a secure, pa sscode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual wa s assigned a unique passcode to ensu re that only San José resi- dents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passc ode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data col- lection each quarter, True North began placing telephone calls to land lines and cell phone num- bers of sampled residents that had yet to pa rticipate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 75City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To accommodate the City's interest in evaluating how survey responses may vary among resi- dents living in different areas of San José, respondents were grouped by Council District and into one of the five areas displayed in Figure 119 (North, Central, East, West, South) based on the City’s 12 inclusionary housing ordinance areas.
• North: Alviso, North, and Berryessa
• Central: Central and South
• East: Alum Rock and Evergreen
• West: West Valley and Willow Glen
• South: Cambrian/Pioneer, Edenvale, and Almaden.
FIGURE 119 MAP OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AREAS Telephone interviews averaged 15 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 3,695 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone throughout the 2026 fiscal year of July 2025 to June 2026. More specifically, 811 interviews were conducted during the last two weeks of September (Q1 2026: July-September 2025), 850 in the first two weeks of December (Q2 2026: October-December 2025), 973 during the last two weeks of March (Q3 2026: January-March 2026), and 1,061 in the last two weeks of June (Q4 2026: April-June 2026). To balance the data over time and ensure that each quarterly survey contributed its proportionate amount (25% ) to the annual total, each quarterly sample was weighted evenly to 800 (3,200 total).
/g3066
/g57
/g82/g88/g69
/g54/g68/g81
/g41
/g72/g78
/g75
/g38
/g48/g87
/g81/g53
/g53/g71
/g68
/g47
/g55/g94 /g89 /g80
/g80
/g49/g83/g89/g82
/g87
/g73/g87
/g39
/g85/g87/g82
/g76/g87/g75/g38
/g54/g68
/g82/g57
/g39/g83/g91 /g44/g77/g80/g80
/g55
/g93
/g43/g72 /g72
/g54
/g3066
/g3066
/g3066
/g3066
/g57/g57
/g82/g82
/g88/g88
/g69/g69
/g54/g54/g54
/g68/g68
/g81
/g81/g81
/g41/g41
/g75/g75
/g38/g38
/g81/g81/g81/g81/g53/g53
/g47
/g47/g47
/g55/g55
/g94/g94
/g89/g89
/g80/g80
/g49
/g49
/g49/g49
/g83/g83
/g89/g89
/g82
/g82
/g82/g82
/g87/g87/g87
/g73/g73/g73
/g87/g87/g73/g73/g73
/g39/g39
/g85
/g85/g85/g85/g85/g87
/g87/g87
/g87/g87/g87/g87
/g82/g82
/g76/g76/g76/g87
/g87/g87/g87/g87
/g75/g75/g75
/g87/g87/g87/g87/g87
/g38/g38/g38
/g54/g54
/g54/g54
/g68/g68
/g82
/g57/g57/g57
/g57/g57
/g39/g39
/g83
/g83/g83
/g91
/g91/g91
/g44
/g44/g44
/g77/g77/g77
/g80/g80
/g80/g80
/g55/g55
/g93
/g93/g93
/g43/g43/g72 /g72
/g54/g54
/g53/g53/g53/g71/g71/g71
/g53/g71
/g48/g48
/g48/g48
/g87/g87
/g48/g48/g87
/g78/g78
/g68
/g72/g72
/g78/g78/g78
/g40/g71/g72/g81/g89/g68/g79/g72
/g58/g76/g79/g79/g82/g90/g3/g42/g79/g72/g81
/g58/g72/g86/g87/g3/g57/g68/g79/g79/g72/g92
/g49/g82/g85/g87/g75
/g40/g89/g72/g85/g74/g85/g72/g72/g81
/g38/g72/g81/g87/g85/g68/g79
/g38/g68/g80/g69/g85/g76/g68/g81/g18/g51/g76/g82/g81/g72/g72/g85 /g37/g72/g85/g85/g92/g72/g86/g86/g68
/g36/g79/g89/g76/g86/g82
/g36/g79/g88/g80/g3/g53/g82/g70/g78
/g36/g79/g80/g68/g71/g72/g81
\J
(VUL 1$6$ 1*$ 86*6 &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD &DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH3DUNV (VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJH PHQW (3$13686'$
,QFOXVLRQDU\+RXVLQJ2UGLQDQFH$UHDV
$OPDGHQ
$OXP5RFN
$OYLVR
%HUU\HVVD
&DPEULDQ3LRQHHU
&HQWUDO
(GHQYDOH
(YHUJUHHQ
1RUWK
6RXWK
:HVW9DOOH\
:LOORZ*OHQ
&LW\RI6DQ-RVH%RXQGDU\
30 P L
N P
2IILFHRI(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW
&LW\RI6DQ-RVH2IILFHRI(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW
South
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 76City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 3,695 adult residents for a particul ar question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 808,580 adult residents
4 had been interviewed.
Figure 120 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 1.6% for questions answered by all 3,695 respondents (i.e., overall analysis) and ± 3.0% to ± 3.4% for the quarterly analysis (for questions answered by all respondents in each quarter).
FIGURE 120 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the respondent. Figure 120 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographics, and the final sample distribution closely matches the City of San
4. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimate, 2024. 3,695 Total
Respondents
± 1.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
811 to 1,061 Quarterly
Respondents
± 3.0% to ± 3.4%
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 77City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
José’s demographic profile on age, ethnicity, home ownership, presence of a child in the home, and geographic area based on the latest Census ACS estimates.
Because the research objectives involved compar ing the 2026 results with those of the prior study, where appropriate, True North also accessed and proce ssed data from prior surveys to allow for comparisons and tests of statistical significance.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when co mparing tables and charts for a given question.
Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that add to more than or less than 100%.
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 78
City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 1
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey
Phone English
2025- 2026
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____? Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San José (Ho-Zay). The City is conducting a survey of residents about important issues and Id like to get your opinions it should take about 12 minutes.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If needed: Your responses to the survey will be confidential.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
Section 2: Quality of Life
Q1 To begin, how long have you lived in San José?
1 Less than 1 year
2 1 to 4 years
3 5 to 9 years
4 10 to 14 years
5 15 to 19 years
5 20 years or longer
6 I dont live in San José Terminate
99 Not sure / Prefer not to answer
Q2 If the City government could change one thing to make San José a better place to live, what change would you like to see?
Record Verbatim Response Record first response only.
97 No changes needed/Everything is fine
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Section 3: Increasing Community Safety
Q3 Overall, how safe is the City of San José as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
1 Very safe Skip to Q5
2 Somewhat safe Skip to Q5
3 Somewhat unsafe Ask Q4
4 Very unsafe Ask Q4
99 Prefer not to answer Skip to Q5
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 79City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q4 Are there particular reasons or issues that make you feel San José is unsafe? If yes, ask:
Please describe the specific reasons.
Record Verbatim Response Record first two responses.
2 No particular reason
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Q5
Next, Id like to ask how safe you feel in different settings.
Would you say _____ is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? Randomize
Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Your neighborhood 1 2 3 4 98 99
B Downtown San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
Q6 In the past 12 months, have you or other members of your household been the victim of a crime in San José?
1 Yes Ask Q7
2 No Skip to Q8
99 Prefer not to answer Skip to Q8
Q7 Was the crime reported to the San José Police Department? 1 Yes
2 No
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Q8 In the past 12 months, have you been involved in a traffic accident with another vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or pedestrian in San José?
1 Yes
2 No
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 80City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Q9 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that you can contact 911 for: _____? Randomize Yes No Not sure Prefer not
to answer
A Police emergencies 1 2 98 99
B Fire emergencies 1 2 98 99
C Emergency medical services 1 2 98 99
Q10 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that you can confidentially contact 988 to connect to trained counselors and support for: _____?
Randomize Yes No Not sure Prefer not
to answer
A A mental health crisis 1 2 98 99
B Suicidal thoughts 1 2 98 99
C Substance abuse 1 2 98 99
Q11
Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that you can contact 311 to request non- emergency City services for issues such as illegal dumping, graffiti removal, and streetlight outages?
1 Yes
2 No
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Ask Q12A if Q9A, B or C=1
Ask Q12B if Q10A, B or C=1
Ask Q12C if Q11=1
Q12 In the past 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household contacted: ____? Randomize Yes No Not sure Prefer not
to answer
A 911 1 2 98 99
B 988 1 2 98 99
C 311 1 2 98 99
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 81City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
Section 4: Cleaning up Neighborhoods
Q13 Overall, how would you rate the appearance of San José? Would you say it is very clean, somewhat clean, somewhat unclean, or very unclean?
1 Very clean Skip to Q15
2 Somewhat clean Skip to Q15
3 Somewhat unclean Ask Q14
4 Very unclean Ask Q14
99 Prefer not to answer Skip to Q15
Q14 Are there particular reasons or issues that make you feel San José is unclean? If yes, ask:
Please describe the specific reasons.
Record Verbatim Response Record first two responses.
2 No particular reason
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Q15
For each of the following items I mention, please rate them as very clean, somewhat clean, somewhat unclean, or very unclean.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Would you rate this as very clean, somewhat clean, somewhat unclean, or very unclean?
Randomize
Very clean
Somewhat
clean
Somewhat
unclean
Very unclean
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Your neighborhood 1 2 3 4 98 99
B Downtown San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
C Public parks in San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
D Public trails in San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
E Creeks and waterways in San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
F Streets and sidewalks in residential areas of
San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
G Properties along freeways and highways in
San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
H Private residential properties in San José 1 2 3 4 98 99 I Private commercial and business properties
in San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
J Major streets (4+ lanes) in San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 82City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Q16
Prior to taking this survey, were you aware of the Citys Free Junk Pickup Program, which allows residents to schedule cost-free collection of large junk items such as mattresses, furniture, and tires?
1 Yes Ask Q17
2 No Skip to Q18
98 Not sure Skip to Q18
99 Prefer not to answer Skip to Q18
Q17 In the past 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household used the Citys Free Junk Pickup Program?
1 Yes
2 No
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Section 5: Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness
Q18 How often do you encounter homeless people in your neighborhood? Everyday, a few times a week, a few times per month, less often than a few times per month, or never? 1 Everyday
2 A few times per week
3 A few times per month
4 Less often than a few times per month
5 Never
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Q19 Over the past 12 months, would you say the level of homelessness in your neighborhood has decreased, stayed about the same, or increased? 1 Decreased
2 Stayed about the same
3 Increased
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 83City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
Section 6: Attracting Investment in Jobs & Housing
Q20
Id like to know your perceptions and opinions of downtown San José. For each of the following statements I read, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Downtown San José is a good place to go
shopping 1 2 3 4 98 99
B Downtown San José is a good place for
dining 1 2 3 4 98 99
C Downtown San José is a good place for
entertainment 1 2 3 4 98 99
D Downtown San José is a good place for job
opportunities and work 1 2 3 4 98 99
E Downtown San José is a good place to live 1 2 3 4 98 99 F I enjoy visiting downtown San José 1 2 3 4 98 99
Q21 If you could make one change to downtown San José to make it a better, more vibrant place, what change would you make?
Record Verbatim Response Record first response.
2 No changes needed/Everything is fine
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Q22 How often do you visit downtown San José? At least once per a week, one to three times per month, once every two or three months, a few times per year, or never? 1 At least once per week
2 One to three times per month
3 Once every two to three months
4 A few times per year
5 Never
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 84City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
Section 7: Parks
Q23
Overall, are satisfied or dissatisfied with the public parks, trails, and recreation spaces in San José? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
1 Very satisfied
2 Somewhat satisfied
3 Somewhat dissatisfied
4 Very dissatisfied
99 Prefer not to answer
Q24
When compared to parks in other parts of San José, would you say the quality and opportunities at parks in your neighborhood are much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, much worse?
1 Much better
2 Somewhat better
3 About the same
4 Somewhat worse
5 Much worse
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Q25 If you could make improvements to your local park, what changes would you like to see? Record Verbatim Response Record first three.
2 No changes needed/Everything is fine
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Section 8: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have several more background questions for statistical purposes.
D1 In what year were you born?
Record four-digit year
99 Prefer not to answer
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 85City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male
2 Female
3 Non-binary
99 Prefer not to answer
D3 Do you own or rent your residence in San José?
1 Own
2 Rent
99 Prefer not to answer
D4 Which of the following best describes your current home? 1 Single family detached home
2 Apartment
3 Condominium or townhome
4 Mobile home
99 Prefer not to answer
D5 Do you currently have any children under the age of 18 living in your home? 1 Yes
2 No
99 Prefer not to answer
D6
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, self-employed, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you currently laid-off or furloughed from work?
1 Employed full-time Ask D7
2 Employed part-time Ask D7
3 Self-employed Ask D7
4 Student Skip to D9
5 Homemaker Skip to D9
6 Retired Skip to D9
7 Laid off, furloughed or unemployed Skip to D9
99 Prefer not to answer Skip to D9
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 86City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
D7 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
1 Working from home Skip to D9
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home Ask D8
3 Mixture of both Ask D8
99 Prefer not to answer Skip to D9
D8 When commuting to a workplace outside of your home, is that place within the City of San José?
1 Yes
2 No
99 Prefer not to answer
D9 What is the last level of school or college you completed? 1 Less than high school
2 High school graduate
3 Vocational/Trade certificate
4 Some college
5 Two-year degree
6 Four-year degree
7 Post-graduate work/Graduate degree
99 Prefer not to answer
D10 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Latina/Latinx/Hispanic
2 Caucasian/White
3 Chinese
4 Korean
5 Vietnamese
6 Other Asian
7 East Indian
8 African-American/Black
9 American Indian or Alaskan Native
10 Pacific Islander
11 Middle Eastern
12 Mixed Heritage
Questionnaire
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 87City of San José
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San José Quarterly Focus Survey 2025-2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
98 Other
99 Prefer not to answer
D11
This last question is for statistical purposes only. As I read the following income categories, please stop me when I reach the category that best represents your households total annual income before taxes.
1 Under $25,000
2 $25,000 to $49,999
3 $50,000 to $79,999
4 $80,000 to $99,999
5 $100,000 to $149,999
6 $150,000 to 249,999
7 $250,000 or more
98 Not sure
99 Prefer not to answer
Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of San José.