Outlook
FW: Public Comment - September 15, 2026 City Council Agenda - Item 3.5 From City Clerk <city.clerk@sanj oseca.gov>
Date Tue 9/1 5/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: brian darby
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 4:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - September 15, 2026 City Council Agenda - Item 3.5 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
I am writing in support of the efforts described in Agenda Item 3.5 to reduce unsheltered homelessness and help San Jose move toward functional zero.
People who are unhoused are members of our community and should be treated with dignity, patience, and understanding. Every person's circumstances are different. Some need temporary shelter, while others may need permanent housing, behavioral-health care, substance-use treatment, medical assistance, safe parking, employment support, or help obtaining benefits and identification.
I support the City's effort to better match people with the services and housing pathways appropriate to their individual needs. I also support improved coordination among the City, Santa Clara County, service providers, and other regional partners. San Jose cannot solve homelessness alone, but it should do everything reasonably within its authority while pressing other responsible agencies to do the ir part.
The goal should be more than moving people from one location to another . It should be helping people move indoors, receive appropriate support, and ultimately reach stable housing whenever possible. Progress should be measured by lasting improvements in people 's lives-not only by the number of encampments cleared or contacts made.
Please continue working urgently and compassionately to help people who are living without shelter. I support accepting the report and approving the updated work plan, with continued public accountability for whether these efforts are producing safe, humane, and lasting results.
Thank you for considering my comments and including them in the public record for Agenda Item 3.5.
Respectfully,
Brian Darby
San Jose, California
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: City Council, Sept 15, 2026, Item 3.5
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 9/1 5/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Debra Townley
Sent: Tuesday, Septem
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council, Sept 15, 2026, Item 3.5
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Council Members,
I am writing to share my experience living at a Permanent Supportive Housing site in downtown San Jose to illustrate the lack of quality services and supportive housing. Over the course of five years, I lived where promised housing and supportive services were severely lacking -like many of our current EIH and PSH sites such as the Taylor Tent Site that was recently closed.
During my time in PSH, the services provided were essentially non-existent or unhelpful.
Specifically:
- Lack of Mental Health Support: The provided therapy room was not soundproof, compromising patient privacy. After being falsely told by 211 operators that I was on a (non existent) waitlist for over a year, I had to file a grievance with Santa Clara County Behavioral Health just to secure access to my own external therapist. - Harassment and Victim Blaming: After being assaulted by another resident who was also not receiving necessary services, I experienced harassment and victim blaming from my case manager (who was also the Program Manager).
- Discriminatory Accusations: Property management questioned my son's and my disabilities, claiming we were not disabled simply because we could walk our dogs. Not all disabilities are visible.
- Inadequate Program Offerings: Official "services" were limited to basic arts and crafts, a volunteer-led salad assembly class, and assistance with forms that were ultimately completed incorrectly.
- Dismissal of Safety Concerns: When I requested help regarding stalking and safety concerns, I was simply told to move back into homelessness.
Putting a time limit on basic needs such as shelter and housing is counterproductive. Time limits are not realistic until services are robust, effective, and a data-proven time limit for recovery from homelessness is established.
Services must include evidence based practices by trained professionals for successful outcomes. A strong community network of services does not currently exist. We need a plethora of quality Medical and Mental Healthcare practitioners , Doctors, Licensed Clinical Social Workers, Psychologists , Psychiatrists , Licensed Health and Wellness practitioners of diverse modalities, life coaches , Vocational Evaluators and mentors, quality child care providers, peer support , community volunteers, working connections with affordable and accessible educational/licensing and trades programs, a network of quality caregiving services for keeping disabled people successfully housed. And we need low client/provider ratios. 20 to 1 is better but in my opinion, 15 to 1 is best.
We must ask, is what we are doing helping or hurting people? The hour by hour damage the city continues to inflict on people who need help and not more harm done to them is outrageous and unethical. People are being stolen from by the city, moved into hiding, made to keep walking, and threatened with criminalization for refusing to be a part of the already established and ineffective revolving door process. A time limit to shelter and housing without robust services is essentially a costly perpetual loop of ineffectiveness. The missing peices are QUALITY, ROBUST, CONTINUOUS, LONG TERM, VOLUNTARY, HUMANE SERVICES.
I am bringing these issues to your attention so that action can be taken to ensure Housing sites provide access to the actual support, safety, and care that residents need for as long as it takes to develop relationships and community that heal and promote stability.
A random time limit for shelter and housing that is not based on real data should never be implemented.
The city should be fined and criminal charges brought to decision makers who have supported sweeps and forced the criminalization of people who refuse services that are historically ineffective or do not exist. Forcing inadequate housing run by staff that do more harm than good should be criminalized.
Stop hurting people.
Sincerely,
Debra Townley
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: Item 3.5: Updated Functional Zero Model and Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness Focus Area Work Plan
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 9/1 5/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@ 2 attachments (243 KB)
SURJ Letter Sep 15 2026 Item 3.5.pdf; GRACE CityCounty Sign On.pdf; From: SURJ Santa Clara County
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 11:14 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <mayor@sanjoseca .gov>; Districtl <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]> ; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <District7@sanjoseca .gov>; Districts <district8@sanjoseca .gov>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Item 3.5: Updated Functional Zero Model and Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Reducing Unsheltered Home lessness Focus Area Work Plan
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from earn why this is imRortant Hi,
Please see the attached letter from SURJ (and the letter it references from URG/GRACE) for public comment on Item 3.5.
Thanks,
SURJ Santa Clara County
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
We, the undersigned, ask the city and/or county to address the following issues, inequities and insufficiencies with unhoused services provided by various providers at motels and tiny homes in San Jose. We feel the mental and physical health of unhoused people is being sacrificed and current policies are creating additional trauma.
GRACE (Growing Roots, Advocating, Community Empowerment) and URG (Unhoused Response Group) are the primary authors of this letter, with unhoused voices driving this whole process, as they should.
1) We demand the county address the failure of the Here 4 You hotline to lead unhoused people to receiving adequate services. Elderly, pregnant, sick, and IPV victims have all repeatedly called H4Y and received no assistance. The hotline is not accurately assigning services based on acuity. For example, someone was just left on the street with a feeding tube. The hotline cannot be effective until there is sufficient shelter available and options following shelter, as demonstrated by the long and lasting waitlist. Suggestion: Ensure that people who sign up receive biweekly touch backs to stay in touch, keep data up to date.
2) We demand an end to sweeps if there is no housing available that meets the individual needs of people. There are still people who had verified stickers on their tents who were never housed during the Columbus Sweep. There are at least 40-50 people who signed up for housing prior to and during the Jungle sweep who are still waiting for housing. There are numerous people who are now on the street because their RVs were thrown away and they had nowhere else to go. Every additional sweep only adds more trauma and we cannot be so dismissive about that. Sweeps are not “solving homelessness”--the real solution to homelessness would be housing that meets individual needs.
3) The people who were placed in hotels nearly a year ago as a result of the Columbus Park sweep need clear communication and housing options that work for each person. People have now lived with their own bathroom and to ask them to move to shared bathrooms is a step down. Their lives are focused on the downtown area, so the options offered them should reflect that. Columbus Park residents, Jungle residents (and others) who have been sent to tiny home sites far from downtown AND without bus passes, have reported suicidal ideation. This is a systemic failure including VTA, the BOS, SJC Housing Department, Office of Supportive Housing and more.
4) We demand that the city and county work to create a hoarder program that includes therapists and professional organizers who specialize in hoarding. This team should work with currently/formerly unhoused people at all stages of housing, including PSH. Include people who suffer from hoarding in creation and implementation of the team. Stop removing hoarders from their housing without offering treatment. Doing so will only cause additional trauma and cause them to create another hoard at a new location.
5) We demand that the city and county ensure that providers have licensed therapists on duty 8am-7pm to allow for people who work, and case managers at a 20 to 1 ratio. Multiple sites have either no therapists or one for only one or two days a week. It should be contractual that should a provider lose a therapist, that they notify the city/county who then provides one in the interim.
6) The Participant Advisory Councils that SJC is establishing at the hotels and tiny homes should be free of any and all influence from the city or providers. They should create their own agendas, meet independently of SJC or the provider, and only approach SJC and/or the provider if they decide to.
Agape Silicon Valley
CARAS (Community Agency for Resources, Advocacy and Services)
CHAM Deliverance Ministry
Debra Townley, Advocate
GRACE (Growing Roots, Advocating, Community Empowerment)
Hello Angels
Helping Hands Silicon Valley
Hero Tent
Hope for the Unhoused, Milpitas
OCI (Orchard City Indivisible)
Rose Gregorio, Advocate
San Jose Food Not Bombs
San Jose May Day Coalition
Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition
Silicon Valley DSA (Democratic Socialists of America)
SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice)
SV De-Bug
URG (Unhoused Response Group)
West Valley Community Services
SURJ Santa Clara County
c/o Urban Sanctuary
80 South 5th Street
San Jose, CA, 95112
September 15, 2026
Re: Item 3.5: Updated Functional Zero Model and Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness Focus Area Work Plan
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
As you consider Item 3.5 today, we write to uplift the concerns raised by your unhoused constituents in the URG/GRACE sign-on letter earlier this month (see attached).
We invite you to ask questions regarding what steps the City of San Jose Housing Department will take to ensure motel, tiny home, and tent city residents have access to:
● Sufficient voluntary supportive programs (therapy, transportation, job support available to all residents),
● A pipeline to long-term housing options that meet their needs (not just the Rapid Rehousing V ouchers that many residents simply cannot afford), and ● The opportunity to shape EIH programs without fear of retaliation (especially crucial given how many motel residents have already been kicked back onto the streets).
We must preserve and create deeply affordable permanent housing if we hope to truly house all San Jose residents. In the meantime, we can take important interim steps to build a better San Jose together.
We can fund services for our neighbors who live on the street instead of destabilizing sweeps.
We can reject time limits and program participation requirements in EIHs that rarely have sufficient long-term housing placements or on-site programming available to meet residents’ needs. More cycling won’t solve San Jose’s shelter shortage.
We can ask our neighbors living on the streets and in the EIHs what they need to thrive, because they know what they need and they must be partners in any sustainable solution.
The people most affected by the problem usually have the best solutions.
If the City of San Jose is ready to get serious about reducing homelessness, then the City must listen to these people–your constituents–living on the streets, in motels, in tiny homes, and across the shelter system. They have the answers.
We hope you will take this agenda item as the first of many opportunities to take their expertise seriously.
Sincerely,
SURJ Santa Clara County
Attachment: URG/GRACE Sign-On Letter