Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 6/22/2026 8:04 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
~ 1 attachme nt (225 KB)
Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates.pdf;
From: gumb
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 6:31 PM
To: City Clerk <city.clerk@sanjos eca.gov>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Dow ntown Parking Rates [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn whY. this is imgortant Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident regarding the upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21 , which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my concern about this amendment.
While I understand the need to manage downtown parking effectively, I am worried that increasing rates or extending hours could disproportionately affect local residents and small businesses by making parking less affordable and accessible. It would be helpful to have more clarity on how these changes will balance revenue generation with community needs.
Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I appreciate your attention to ensuring that any amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Gumby Marques
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work on Downtown’s recovery. I would appreciate your support in pulling Item 2.21 from consent and allowing for a fuller public discussion before any vote is taken.
Sincerely,
Dan Phan
M.O. Hospitality
amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident
Regards,
Gia
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. at a metered space under their dynamic pricing. Under the flat $4 rate now proposed for downtown San José, that same three hours would have cost double what I actually paid in San Francisco.
San José's proposal would do the structural opposite. It sets a single flat $4 rate across the whole downtown core, with no adjustment for demand or time of day, and pushes it three hours later into the night. It would charge peak level prices during exactly the dinner and nightlife hours when San Francisco's demand based rates are at their lowest. That is not an apples to apples comparison, and the underlying data deserves to be examined in public before any vote.
A change with this much impact on downtown businesses, our employees, and our customers should not move forward as an unexamined consent item. I respectfully ask the Council to pull Item 2.21 from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, and to reject or defer it until there has been genuine outreach to the downtown business community.
Thank you for entering this comment into the record, and for your work on behalf of downtown San José.
Frank Nguyen (He/Him)
Owner, Academic Coffee
www.academiccoffee.com
https://www.instagram.com/academiccoffeeco
Cell:
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. climate where customer hesitancy, competition from suburban alternatives, and the lingering effects of reduced office occupancy continue to suppress foot traffic and sales. The proposed changes further increase those pressures, particularly during evening hours, which represent some of the most critical revenue periods for restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues.
We are asking for the time to work through it together to understand implementation, to explore whether phased rollouts or targeted geographic application might reduce impact, and to ensure that Downtown businesses have a seat at the table before a policy of this magnitude is codified. This also warrants further investment in consumer marketing of parking options and finding additional safe locations for employees of our small businesses to park their vehicles.
The memo notes that San Jose's current rates and hours have not been updated in more than a decade. That history supports taking a few additional weeks to get this right, rather than moving forward through the consent process without further conversation. We appreciate the Council's ongoing commitment to a thriving Downtown and look forward to working with you on a path forward.
Thank you for your consideration.
Brian Kurtz
Chief Executive Officer
San Jose Downtown Association
28 North First Street, Suite 1000
San Jose, CA 95113
The proposal would double metered rates from $2 to $4 per hour and extend paid enforcement from 6
p.m. to 9 p.m. By the city’s own description, it falls on roughly 1,600 meters in the downtown core,
while about 1,000 other metered spaces, including Japantown and the areas east of City Hall near SJSU
and the county civic center, are exempt. The full burden of this increase is concentrated on the one
district that has spent years working to rebuild its evening foot traffic. Downtown is being singled out
to carry what is, in effect, a citywide revenue measure.
I also want to flag that the comparison being used to justify this, that $4 is still cheaper than San
Francisco, does not hold up to scrutiny. San Francisco prices parking by demand and by time of day. Its
rates run from $1 per hour up to a ceiling that very few meters ever reach, and even on its busiest
downtown and SoMa blocks, prices fall to roughly $1 to $2 in the evening. I saw this firsthand last
week. I had dinner near the ballpark and paid less than $6 for almost three hours at a metered space
under their dynamic pricing. Under the flat $4 rate now proposed for downtown San José, that same
three hours would have cost double what I actually paid in San Francisco.
San José’s proposal would do the structural opposite. It sets a single flat $4 rate across the whole
downtown core, with no adjustment for demand or time of day, and pushes it three hours later into the
night. It would charge peak level prices during exactly the dinner and nightlife hours when San
Francisco’s demand based rates are at their lowest. That is not an apples to apples comparison, and the
underlying data deserves to be examined in public before any vote.
A change with this much impact on downtown businesses, our employees, and our customers should
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. not move forward as an unexamined consent item. I respectfully ask you to pull Item
2.21 from the
Consent Calendar for separate discussion, and to defer it until there has been real analysis and genuine
outreach to the downtown business community.
Thank you for your time, and for your work on behalf of our district.
Cheers,
Tomoyo Yoshinaga
Cash Only
Haberdasher
BitterBuck
nomikai
social food + drinkery
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. your community. Stop using your power to afflict the people who appointed you to serve them, or they will likely vote against you in the next election.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Alfredo Muccino
Founder / Executive Creative Director
Solid Branding
Silicon Valley / New York
Description automatically generated
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. lingering from the Nvidia Conference in March, not to mention we don’t have access to the 90 minutes free at the Convention Center lot.
If the memo discusses the cost of parking in other major metropolitan areas that is one thing, but the direct comparisons should be downtown San Jose’s more direct competitors including Santana Row (2 hours free, then $3 per hour), Valley Fair (2 hours free, then $2 per hour) or the Cities of Campbell, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos for nearby examples which are predominantly free.
I love downtown San Jose but by those comparisons please tell me how we are supposed to attract a visitor or a business at the proposed parking rate hikes.
This a serious issue that will have a drastic affect on many lives and livelihoods going forward and it is decision worth discussing more thoughtfully with your constituents particularly the businesses that make up the heart and soul of our San Jose Downtown Onwards and upwards!
Alan “Gumby” Marques
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Jun 21, 2026 at 6:31 PM -0700
To:
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident regarding the upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21, which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my concern about this amendment.
While I understand the need to manage downtown parking effectively, I am worried that increasing rates or extending hours could disproportionately affect local residents and small businesses by making parking less affordable and accessible. It would be helpful to have more clarity on how these changes will balance revenue generation with community needs.
Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I appreciate your attention to ensuring that any amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Gumby Marques
Another concern is the impact on customers who simply want to make a quick pickup. Many downtown businesses, including restaurants, serve customers who may only need 30 seconds to a few minutes to walk in, collect an order, and leave. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for customers to receive a parking citation during these very short visits if they are unable to pay the meter immediately or are simply unlucky with timing.
A $60 parking ticket can easily overshadow an otherwise positive experience and discourage that customer from returning downtown in the future. In my experience, many customers are already hesitant about the inconvenience and cost of parking when deciding whether to visit Downtown San Jose. The fact that some visitors are concerned about paying for parking even for a brief pickup demonstrates how sensitive customers are to these barriers. If customers are already hesitant to put a quarter in the meter while choosing to spend their money downtown, that alone says a great deal about the challenges we face in attracting visitors.
I understand the importance of managing parking resources and supporting city services. However, I respectfully ask the Council to carefully consider the potential consequences these changes may have on the small business community that contributes to the vitality of Downtown San Jose. I encourage the City to seek solutions that balance parking management goals with the need to maintain a welcoming, affordable, and accessible downtown environment. Consideration should be given to short grace periods, designated pickup zones, or other customer-friendly solutions that support both parking management goals and the economic health of downtown businesses.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment and hope the Council will take into account the perspectives of local business owners when evaluating this proposal.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Business Owner in Downtown San Jose
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This proposal would also put Downtown San José at the very high end of regional meter rates, but without the demand-based flexibility used in places like San Francisco, where rates adjust by location, time, and demand rather than applying one broad evening increase across a district.
If this proposal is being advanced as part of the City’s budget solution, I believe Council should have a separate public discussion about why the burden is being concentrated on Downtown, how the new revenue will be used, whether it will be reinvested into Downtown, and what alternatives were considered.
This is not a routine consent item. It has a direct impact on Downtown businesses and the broader recovery of the district.
Please pull Item 2.21 from the Consent Calendar, discuss it separately, and direct staff to conduct real outreach with Downtown businesses and stakeholders before moving forward.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dan Phan
M.O. Hospitality
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/23/2026 12:29 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Joanna Fumiko >
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:26 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident regarding the upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21, which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my concern about this amendment.
While I understand the need to manage downtown parking effectively, I am worried that increasing rates or extending hours could disproportionately affect local residents and small businesses by making parking less affordable and accessible. It would be helpful to have more clarity on how these changes will balance revenue generation with community needs. Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I appreciate your attention to ensuring that any amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders. Sincerely, A Concerned Resident
Best,
Joanna Acevedo
Social Media Manager (Contract)
LinkedIn
Note: I work flexibly, so I don't expect a response right away!
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/23/2026 12:40 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Brittany Stocking
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:35 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident regarding the upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21, which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my concern about this amendment.
While I understand the need to manage downtown parking effectively, I am worried that increasing rates or extending hours could disproportionately affect local residents and small businesses by making parking less affordable and accessible. It would be helpful to have more clarity on how these changes will balance revenue generation with community needs.
Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I appreciate your attention to ensuring that any amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/23/2026 12:40 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Holly Elizondo
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:37 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident regarding the upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21, which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my total opposition of this matter.
Increasing the parking rates would be detrimental for businesses, employees of downtown, and simply the everyday person. This is a classic example of price gouging in an already difficult cost of living area in an unstable time in our world.
Everything about this is impractical for the regular person/downtown resident. The idea of shifting people toward the parking garages is unsafe. As a downtown employee I see people get their cars broken into and their tags stolen frequently when parking in the local garages. There is zero security in these places and it is not only physically unsafe but damaging and therefore extremely costly as well as emotionally taxing.
As a downtown employee I would have to strongly consider quitting my job and working elsewhere since driving my own car and paying for metered parking is my only way of reliable transportation and ease and safety of parking. If parking doubled it would take a considerable amount of my daily pay. And i could simply work somewhere else where parking is not a problem and I wouldn't have to worry about the city or local government taking hours of my pay jusy to show up.
Lastly there is not reliable public transportation to take for me to get to downtown. It not only feels unsafe with the amount of people loitering at stations downtown but the trains and busses stop running early and I would not be able to get home from work. The only other option would be taking expensive lyfts or ubers. Again not practical or reasonable for normal everyday use for work.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I hope you make the best choice for your San Jose residents, employees, and visitors. I hope its clear that raising the prices would be damaging all around.
Sincerely,
Holly Elizondo
Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/23/2026 12:50 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Edwards
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:49 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City Council,
I am writing as both a resident and manager of a downtown business. This is in regard to the upcoming meeting today, June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21, which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my concern about this amendment.
While I understand the need to manage downtown parking effectively, I am worried that increasing rates or extending hours could disproportionately affect local residents and businesses, including my own, by making parking less affordable and accessible. It would be helpful to have more clarity on how these changes will balance revenue generation with community needs.
Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I appreciate your attention to ensuring that any amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident and Business Operator
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/23/2026 12:57 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Alp Gurer
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:54 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident regarding the upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026, specifically about Agenda Item 2.21, which proposes an amendment to the Master Parking Rate Schedule for downtown parking meter rates and hours. I wish to express my concern about this amendment.
While I understand the need to manage downtown parking effectively, I am worried that increasing rates or extending hours could disproportionately affect local residents and small businesses by making parking less affordable and accessible. It would be helpful to have more clarity on how these changes will balance revenue generation with community needs.
Thank you for considering public input on this matter. I appreciate your attention to ensuring that any amendments serve the best interests of all downtown stakeholders.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Street, only steps from where I live, and one person lost their life. That tragedy is a painful reminder that our neighborhood is facing serious issues that deserve immediate attention. Residents are worried about safety, stability, and the overall quality of life in our community.
I understand that parking, public safety, and neighborhood quality of life may fall under different departments and budgets, but from the perspective of the people who live here, priorities matter.
Right now, increasing parking costs and extending enforcement hours is not the answer. It is an unfair burden on residents and a distraction from the issues that truly need attention.
I urge the Council to reject these proposed changes and instead focus on better outreach, clearer communication about payment options, affordability, and the safety and well-being of downtown residents and neighbors.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sierra Clary
Resident of South 2nd Street