San Jose council debates ‘responsibility to shelter’ policy as officials press county for treatment and MOU expansion

San Jose city leaders spent a large portion of a May council study session debating a proposed “responsibility to shelter” policy that would push outreach teams to offer shelter earlier, reserve placements for people assessed as highest‑need, and create procedures to connect people for treatment or, in limited cases, pursue enforcement when shelter is repeatedly refused.

Council members and city staff framed the proposal as an attempt to pair expanded shelter capacity and outreach with options to intervene when people are persistently living in public places and appear to be a danger to themselves or others. Mayor Mahan said the goal is to “intervene earlier and get people into shelter or treatment and hold people accountable for engaging with treatment when they’re unwilling to accept shelter.”

The council’s discussion focused on three practical dependencies: an agreement with Santa Clara County to accept some misdemeanor arrestees at the Mission Street Recovery Station instead of jail; available treatment and court diversion options; and higher‑quality data to measure whether outreach leads to placements.

Why it matters: City officials said expanded interim housing—about 1,400 placements scheduled to come online this year—must be paired with a clearer process when outreach fails. Proponents argued earlier offers and the ability to send appropriate arrestees to a county recovery center could break recurring cycles of addiction and untreated mental illness. Opponents and many public speakers called the plan punitive or warned it would criminalize homelessness if shelter capacity and services are inadequate.

What staff described. Eric Solivan, San Jose’s director of housing, told the council outreach will be brought “much earlier in the process” and an enhanced engagement team will collect consistent case information and flag individuals who may pose health or safety risks. Solivan said the enhanced engagement team would operate in three phases, provide more uniform data collection, and coordinate with police when outreach indicates risk to others.

Police and county coordination. San Jose Police leadership said the city already has an MOU with the county to bring certain arrestees to Mission Street Recovery Station (for example, some first‑time DUI and low‑level drug arrestees). Chief Joseph said the department is negotiating with the county to expand the MOU to accept more misdemeanor arrestees when appropriate, so a person could be booked into custody and taken to the recovery center rather than jail. “We would like to expand it to cover most misdemeanors,” Joseph said, while also noting exceptions would remain.

City attorney and legal limits. City Attorney Nora Freeman told the council the city cannot arrest people simply for refusing shelter; arrests would be for violations such as trespassing. Freeman said the United States Supreme Court has held there is no constitutional obligation for a city to offer shelter before a trespassing arrest, and that the city must therefore structure the policy around what is legally permissible while coordinating with county courts, the district attorney and the public defender about diversion or treatment options.

Treatment placement and court diversion. Officials emphasized the policy is meant to pursue treatment and diversion where possible rather than punishment. Councilmembers pressed staff about what would happen after someone reaches Mission Street Recovery Station or is booked: Chief Joseph and others said many misdemeanor arrests do not lead to long stays in custody and diversion or prosecution decisions rest with the county agencies. Councilmember Campos asked what the long‑term outcomes would be; staff said options include treatment placements, court diversion programs (behavioral health courts) or other non‑custodial outcomes when available.

County capacity and MOU status. City staff reported ongoing high‑level meetings with county leadership including the sheriff, district attorney, supportive housing, behavioral health and county executives. Solivan and the mayor described a recent meeting in which county leaders committed to continued discussion, but multiple councilmembers expressed concern that the county has not yet committed to scalable capacity and that Mission Street Recovery Station currently has limited beds. Council member Kameh reported hearing 27 beds mentioned; other staff said the facility has been described at various times as “20‑plus,” “22” or “27” beds and that county officials say the site is underutilized.

Criteria and equity concerns. Councilmembers asked what would count as a bona fide refusal of shelter, and how the city would treat families, people with special medical needs, and LGBTQ people who avoid shelters for safety reasons. Staff acknowledged those questions are being worked through in the city’s SOPs and said officers are to use discretion—particularly where separation of parents and children would be involved—and publicly described the code of conduct as an administrative tool, not a law.

Data, performance metrics and outreach. Multiple councilmembers stressed the need for clear, measurable performance indicators before authorizing enforcement steps tied to refusal. Housing staff said outreach data is case‑by‑case and they are developing uniform metrics (for example: number of offers, acceptance rates, services linked, and outcomes) so the enhanced engagement team can be measured against objective criteria. Chief Joseph said the police are also working with communications staff to modify 911‑call triage questions to identify mental‑health emergencies earlier.

Opposition and public comment. Dozens of speakers during the public comment period urged the council to reject enforcement or arrest‑based approaches. Speakers from Sacred Heart Community Service, housing advocates, and multiple unhoused or formerly unhoused residents said criminalization or citation would be inhumane and ineffective without large increases in permanent housing and prevention resources. Others, including neighborhood association and business representatives, said encampments and related criminal activity threaten public safety and that the city must have tools to remove people who repeatedly pose hazards to neighbors.

Remaining steps. Staff said more work remains: finalize SOPs for outreach, expand or modify the county MOU for Mission Street Recovery Station if possible, develop measurable performance indicators and bring back specifics about how “responsibility to shelter” would be operationalized. Councilmembers requested more time with county leadership before a vote; staff said meetings are scheduled and ongoing.

Ending note. City officials characterized the proposal as an attempt to combine expanded shelter and services with an intervention pathway for people with severe, treatment‑resistant behavioral health or substance‑use issues—but success, they said repeatedly, depends on county treatment capacity, clearer data and agreed operational protocols.