×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Climate Adaptation & Resilience Plan

In 2018, the City of San José adopted its climate action plan, Climate Smart San José (Climate Smart). Climate Smart provided strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement goals and to prevent or reduce the occurrence of climate-related impacts. However, San José is already experiencing the effects of a changing climate and anticipates future increases in intensity due to continued worldwide GHG emissions. In response, the City developed the CARP with a focus on reducing the impact of climate-related threats, such as wildfires, flooding, sea level rise, and extreme heat events, on the community. This Plan identifies the foundational measures, policies, and procedures necessary to achieve this goal, while enhancing equity by addressing the unique adaptive needs of vulnerable communities that can be disproportionately affected by climate change impacts.

For more information, please visit our website.

AI Search Full Document

AI Tools

Hide

Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.

You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.

Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.

What would you like to know?

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Cancel

Commenting is closed for this document.

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 8:46PM on page 61

Suggestion

use this definition when you introduce the term in the intro rather than the one you have that is focused on assets

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 8:45PM on page 61

Suggestion

mimic natural systems

lucabarchietto Oct 26 2025 at 8:09PM on page 12

Suggestion

Quantifiable data would help explain the effects of the socioeconomic factors better

in reply to Dashiell Leeds's comment

Mani Bekele Oct 26 2025 at 8:01PM on page 37

Agreed, both for their co-benefits, and greater effectiveness at achieving the primary resilience goals.

Mani Bekele Oct 26 2025 at 8:00PM on page 27

Suggestion

Suggested 5th criterion: "Also contributes to climate mitigation efforts", that help reduce emmissions

E.g., heat pump installations, complete streets improvements, insulation, etc.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:46PM on page 38

Question

Why is it a 2-5 year effort just to do this planning (not even implementation)? It feels like it should be a 1-2 year effort, and if it takes longer than that, we're losing valuable time.

in reply to Betsy's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:44PM on page 38

Suggestion

I mostly agree with Betsy, but given that we're trying to make sure that we correct historic inequities: it might not be feasible to expect that every community has the time and resources to work for free. The city would need to provide tools, and pay residents/contractors/staff for the work involved.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:39PM on page 38

Question

Is this a taxation district? I'm definitely amendable to creative funding mechanism, but I'm against specifically taxing the socially vulnerable communities. That would be very regressive. The wealthier parts of the city need to chip in more than their fair share to correct these inequities.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:35PM on page 38

Suggestion

I don't like that this measures is only under "Knowledge". Once these studies are complete, we need to start the action.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:33PM on page 37

Suggestion

One option for the equity priority communities in Alviso should be relocation assistance, should they choose to relocate to areas that are (further) above sea level. At a certain point, it may become infeasible to continue to protect human inhabitants of Alviso. This assistance should be available only for existing residences and existing small businesses. New developments should have to acknowledge that they are building in an area that is projected to be flooded, and the City might not be able to protect them from that inevitability. We should also zone Alviso to prevent development there. There's lots of other land in the city, and even lots of other land within just North San Jose, that is better for development, both industrial and residential.

in reply to jor1127mol's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:26PM on page 36

Suggestion

I don't think it's a good idea to develop the Alviso area. I think it makes sense to keep this area as natural as possible, and to serve as a flood basin / buffer between the rising sealevels and the rest of the City. But if the City continues to allow development in Alviso, the current and existing industries should be heavily taxed for a climate-specific fund, since the City will have to spend huge sums of money protecting them from the sea level rise that WILL happen.

Dashiell Leeds Oct 26 2025 at 7:14PM on page 54

Suggestion

Locally native trees should be prioritized within this strategy, due to the co-benefits of ecosystem health, which are not fully realized by non-native trees and plants.

Dashiell Leeds Oct 26 2025 at 7:12PM on page 46

Suggestion

The last sentence could read: "Assess the gaps and opportunities to encourage resilient development patterns, and to restore and protect ecosystems.

Dashiell Leeds Oct 26 2025 at 7:11PM on page 45

Suggestion

Electrification should be explicitly mentioned here, due to synergies with Climate Smart San Jose and co-benefits including improved air quality and reduced emissions.

Dashiell Leeds Oct 26 2025 at 7:09PM on page 37

Suggestion

Nature-based solutions should be prioritized

Dashiell Leeds Oct 26 2025 at 7:08PM on page 26

Suggestion

Biodiversity should be considered as a criteria to evaluate measures

in reply to Mani Bekele's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:04PM on page 36

To add to that, everyone needs to be a partner in climate resilience. Green banks, non-green banks, other financial institutions, tech companies, colleges, industrial companies, developers, etc.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 7:03PM on page 36

Suggestion

As applicable and relevant, introduce climate impact fees and climate resilience requirements on large businesses and large developers/developments. And structure things such that the entity is incentivized to do the work themselves, and to do the work as early as possible. For example, consider the tree replacement policy. Maybe we could make the policy something like: every tree you cut down has to be replaced by 10 trees; but if you plant the new trees before you cut down the old ones, then you only need 5 replacement trees; but if you don't plant any trees and you instead decide to pay an in-lieu fee to the City, you have to pay for 20 replacement trees.

in reply to jor1127mol's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:57PM on page 36

Suggestion

Do not introduce any regressive or flat taxes. These would make it so that vulnerable communities are burdened by the expense of fixing the historic injustices that were done to them. Taxes need to be progressive.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:51PM on page 36

Suggestion

We need to identify types of CIP projects that are either significantly climate negative, or significantly maintaining the status quo; and delay/cancel many of those projects so that we have more funding for climate positive / climate mitigation projects. For example, building new parking lots and parking structures maintains the status quo at best, and at worst is encouraging a lot more climate-negative driving. Over-investing in EV charging infrastructure, at the expense of other climate projects, also maintains the car status quo.

in reply to Mani Bekele's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:48PM on page 36

Suggestion

Agreed. The City needs to make a higher committment to implementing quick[-as-possible] build green streets projects, with green drainage on the sides of streets and sidewalks, or getting more serious about using permeable roadway and sidewalk materials.

in reply to Melissa Ko's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:45PM on page 36

Suggestion

Agreed. It is concerning to see this as costing "$$ - $$$", and not "$". Obviously securing new sources of money is not guaranteed (we have to win grants, or win ballot measures), but we should make sure that the expected return is orders of magnitude higher than the expected expenses.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:42PM on page 36

Suggestion

Use parking revenues to invest in local neighborhood projects that will have an obvious benefit. We need to be redirecting money like this away from car infrastructure, and towards resilient and climate-positive infrastructure.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:35PM on page 36

Suggestion

Maybe we don't have a complete list today, but can we at least make a partial list of the obvious choices? eg 2024 Proposition 4 Climate Bond, state Cap & Trade, grants from MTC / Valley Water / VTA

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:16PM on page 35

Suggestion

Without knowing what a Resilience Hub is or how many there should be throughout San Jose, my inclination is that Resilience Hubs should ideally be within the socially vulnerable communities, or within a mile when that's not possible. Making someone go 1-3 miles, when they might not have access to a car, should only happen if it's absolutely impossible to locate a Resilience Hub that is closer, or if there's a very direct and frequent transit route between the socially vulnerable community and the Resilience Hub.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:12PM on page 35

Suggestion

Resilience Hub has not yet been defined in this document up to this point

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 6:11PM on page 35

Suggestion

How much does it matter to align with Measure T projects, since Measure T is almost over?

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:32PM on page 54

Suggestion

"other nature-based improvements..."

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:30PM on page 52

Question

is there a way to measure reduced load on the grid?

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:28PM on page 51

Suggestion

also heat mitigation needs and ecosystem connectivity potential

in reply to Mani Bekele's comment

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:27PM on page 50

Suggestion

number installed (and maintained), number of acres treated, amount of impervious area converted

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:24PM on page 50

Suggestion

and "ongoing"

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:24PM on page 50

Suggestion

remove "treats in helping"

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:20PM on page 47

Suggestion

make sure this aligns with the strategy that is identifying routes to be kept clear during/after climate events

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:13PM on page 45

Suggestion

How about a strategy to provide educational materials to owners of private developments to communicate the need and potential solutions to mitigate vulnerabilities?

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:10PM on page 45

Suggestion

aggressive defensible space clearance (aka hardscaping) can make many other problems worse, including flooding and heat. Please take a balanced approach when considering changes to these rules.

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:08PM on page 45

Suggestion

there are many nature-based features that should be incorporated into this list that would reduce the need for some of these technological fixes

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:06PM on page 44

Suggestion

also less impervious surface at new developments along with nature-based projects that reduce runoff, improve air quality, reduce heat (and energy needs), and improve mental health

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:03PM on page 44

Question

new and redevelopment?

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 5:03PM on page 43

Suggestion

are parks and other open spaces considered "infrastructure"? if not, they should be part of this measure

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:58PM on page 43

Suggestion

co-benefits should also include water quality, air quality, and equity (assuming the socially vulnerable communities are the focus because of the historical inequities that made them more vulnerable than other communities)

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:46PM on page 39

Suggestion

based on IC-2, you should also have a tracking metric here about the development of a CARP tracking system

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:36PM on page 36

Suggestion

I would add a strategy here that says something about the need to coordinate across agencies to identify the highest priority projects consistent with CARP measures so departments are collaborating rather than competing for funding

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:33PM on page 36

really happy to see this shout-out to maintenance funding

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:30PM on page 35

Suggestion

if this plan is interested in ecosystem impacts, there should be a strategy here to identify vulnerable ecosystems and identify strategies to conserve/restore/mitigate

in reply to Mani Bekele's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 4:29PM on page 34

Suggestion

"Reduction in homlessness"

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:29PM on page 35

Suggestion

I would remove the phrase "harden or otherwise" and just say "Study options to protect..." There are many nature-based solutions or combo green/grey solutions (e.g., elevate and vegetate) that can address they issues and provide multiple co-benefits. By specifying "hard" in this strategy, that is the first option departments are likely to consider.

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 4:28PM on page 34

Suggestion

Maybe another one like "water transportation and capture": during heavy rains, can we successfully move water out of our roads and away from critical infrastructure, and move the water into bio-swales, aquifers, etc. and into storage locations like groundwater "reservoirs" and tanks. Our primary benefit would be "make sure we don't flood", but the co-benefits would be sending that water to useful locations, instead of just dumping it all to the bay.

in reply to Mani Bekele's comment

jor1127mol Oct 26 2025 at 4:25PM on page 34

Suggestion

Also, something like "local resilience" (maybe there's a better term for this): how many of your emergency needs can be met within a short walk / bike ride / bus ride of your home or workplace. Does the action increase the density of parks/libraries in areas that are currently deficient of them, or otherwise increase the number of normal and/or emergency services that are within close distance.

foleyme Oct 26 2025 at 4:23PM on page 34

Question

is something missing here? i'm not seeing a graphic or text explaining the metrics