Outlook
FW: October 6, 2026- Item 5.1: Delivery Robots, Public Safety, and Accountability From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/5/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2026 6:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: October 6, 2026 - Item 5.1: Delivery Robots, Public Safety, and Accountability [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear City Clerk,
Please include this email in the public record for Item 5.1 of the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting and share it with the Mayor and Council.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I support the City's effort to establish clear rules for personal delivery devices. I believe these robots will eventually handle a substantial share of local deliveries. This technology is unlikely to go away, and San Jose should get ahead of it by setting expectations now, while the City can still learn from a relatively limited deployment.
There are real opportunities here. Reliable deliveries could help people who have difficulty shopping or carrying groceries, including older adults and people with disabilities. The technology may also reduce some vehicle trips and parking conflicts. I appreciate staff's work to recognize those possibilities while addressing the problems that can arise when robots share public space with people.
My strongest concern is that pedestrian and bicycle safety must have clear priority over delivery speed and convenience. A person using a sidewalk, curb ramp, crosswalk, or bicycle lane should be able to count on a delivery robot yielding safely and predictably.
After approximately 45 years working with people with disabilities, older adults, and people experiencing homelessness, I have seen how an obstacle that seems minor to one person can become a serious barrier for another. Someone using a wheelchair may have no way around a blocked curb ramp. A person with limited vision may not recognize what is approaching. Someone using a walker may need more time and space than the device anticipates.
The proposed five-mile-per-hour sidewalk limit should therefore be treated as a maximum, with lower speeds or a complete stop whenever conditions require it. I would like the operating rules to make clear that people should not have to step into the street, squeeze past a device, or move out of its way to complete a delivery.
The proposed 30-minute removal requirement also deserves careful attention. Thirty minutes is a long time for someone whose only accessible route is blocked. I appreciate that the ordinance allows immediate city impoundment, but there should be a practical response plan for urgent obstructions:
who receives the report, who responds, and how quickly the route will be cleared. Operators should have enough personnel available to handle these situations throughout their operating hours.
Accountability needs to be equally clear. The proposed fines of $100, $200, and $500 provide a starting point, but tickets need to change behavior. Please explain how repeat violations will be tracked across an operator's fleet and when continued problems will lead to fewer permitted devices, restricted operating areas, suspension, or revocation. Repeatedly blocking accessible routes should have consequences that an operator cannot simply absorb as a routine business expense.
Residents also need an easy way to report a problem. That process should include a telephone option and accessible online reporting, without requiring someone to download an app, create an account, or read a small identification number on a moving robot. A location and description should be enough to start getting help. People should receive confirmation that their report was received and, when possible, an explanation of how it was resolved.
I appreciate the outreach already conducted with disability and bicycle advocates. I encourage the City to continue that involvement through practical testing with wheelchair and walker users, people who are blind or have low vision, people with hearing loss, and people with developmental disabilities.
Their experience can reveal problems that may not appear in a controlled demonstration.
The roadway pilot should also have clear measures for success before it expands. Public updates should cover collisions, near misses, blocked routes, response times, citations, and repeat violations, along with the number of devices and trips. That would help the Council and the public judge whether the program is improving and whether the claimed transportation benefits are being realized.
Finally, as the industry grows, I encourage the City to revisit whether operator fees adequately support monitoring and enforcement. Staff needs the resources to make these rules meaningful. Residents should also have clear information about responsibility for injuries or property damage and how to file a claim.
I am encouraged that the City is addressing this issue now. I believe delivery robots can become a useful service, provided their operation respects the people already relying on our sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Establishing clear priorities, prompt responses, and enforceable accountability at this stage will put San Jose in a stronger position as the technology develops.
Thank you for considering these comments and for the work being done to prepare the City for this change.
Sincerely,
Brian Darby
Santa Clara Valley resident
Outlook
FW: Item 5.1, 7 October 2026 session.
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/5/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: NicWeste
Sent: Sunday, Oc
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5.1, 7 October 2026 session.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn wh this is im ortant I'm writing regarding item . m e upcoming city council session, Actions Related to the Regulation of Personal Delivery Devices in City Right-of-Way.
I was part of the July zoom meeting the city held and I am happy to see that the city has taken many of our concerns into account in the final recommendation. In the months since that meeting I've come to accept the sidewalk robots, they're not getting in the way as much as I expected so I support the one-year permit for them. However I would like the council to reconsider the pilot program for delivery robots using our bike lanes.
At first I opposed it because something just sat wrong with me that I couldn't explain beyond "It's a bike lane, not a bot lane." I couldn't think of anything more than that for a while and it was only once I accepted that on a fundamental level it IS a bike lane, not a bot lane, that I've been able to articulate why I don't like the idea. Our bike lanes are a public good, they're meant for cyclists to get around the city. I can't drive a car in them, I can't walk in them, if I want to use a bike lane I need to use a bike of some sort--mountain bike, dirt bike, street bike, ebike, anything with two wheels and pedals. Our bike lanes are underutilized so there's a natural temptation to let robots into them so that they get more use and the city has forced DoorDash into a number of concessions and reasonable regulations so that the pilot program shouldn't be an undue burden on the cyclists we have (And, if it is, I trust that the city will take those burdens into consideration when the pilot program has ended). But, ultimately, it comes down to that same overly-simplistic fact: It's a bike lane, not a bot lane. It's for us, the people of this city, and those robots aren't us. It just feels like a tech company wanting to exploit a public service for their own profit margins.
The sidewalk robots begrudgingly make sense from an environmental standpoint, taking cars off the road for short deliveries. I get that, I accept that. I don't like that it'll take the jobs of a lot of delivery workers, but the public good of lower traffic and lower emissions outweighs that cost by eliminating 1-2 mile range deliveries. But the bike lane robots, with their 3-5 mile radius, are taking the jobs of delivery workers who ride bikes. We should be protecting and encouraging those jobs, a bike delivery worker is superior to a robot in every way-they can enter buildings, they can deliver to upstairs units, they won't stall in the middle of the street, they don't need any oversight for breakdowns, they won't be the targets of vandalism, they also take a car off the road and won't require electrical recharging. I see no benefit to the people of the city by allowing robots to use our bike lanes and certainly none compared to encouraging deliveries by bike.
It's noted in the city's recommendation that we would like to charge permits similar to the rate that LA charges, presumably the low introductory permit fees are to get the business started and the intention is to charge a market rate when the first year of permitting ends. I strongly feel that we could use this year to build up our bike infrastructure to encourage delivery by bike and that by the time the first year is up we will have a clearer picture of how much to charge DoorDash should we choose to pursue a pilot program at that time. -Nick!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: SJSV Chamber Support letter on Item 5.1: Personal Delivery Devices in the City Right-of-Way From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/5/2026 2:40 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
IDJ 1 attachment (277 KB)
SJSV Chamber POD 10 OS 2026.pdf;
From: Lennies Gutierrez
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 2:37 PM
To: District2 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Zarate, Sarah <[email protected]>; Fruen, Joseph <[email protected]>; Yamamoto, Kiyomi <[email protected]>; Gvatua, Alexander <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Lam <[email protected]>; Moreno, Brisa <[email protected]>; Lee, Lynn <[email protected]>; Fleming, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Adera, Teddy <[email protected]>; Hughes, Scott <[email protected]>; Laveroni, Kyle <[email protected]>; Gomez, David A <[email protected]>; Ristow John <John.Ristow@san·oseca. ov>· Rocha Vincent <[email protected]>; leaht • Lina Guzman
Subject: SJSV Item 5.1: Personal Delivery Devices in the City Right-of-Way [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber, attached is our support letter for Item 5.1:
Actions Related to the Regulation of Personal Delivery Devices in the City Right-of-Way, up at council tomorrow.
Please reach out if you have questions.
Lennies
Lennies Gutierrez
Policy Consultant
San Jose Silicon Valle
Email
Cell:
www,sjchamber,com
Office: 101 w, Santa Clara Street. San Jose . .,CA
9511 3
Mailing Address: PO Box 149, San Jose, CA
95103
©@®0
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 101 W. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113 | sjchamber.com | 408-291-5250 | [email protected] October 5, 2026
Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council 200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: Agenda Item 5.1 - Actions Related to the Regulation of Personal Delivery Devices in City Right-of-Way.
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce and our members, we are in support of the City of San Jose’s Personal Delivery Device Ordinance that would allow innovative, autonomous delivery technologies like DoorDash’s Dot, to responsibly operate in San Jose.
San Jose has an opportunity to establish a responsible and thoughtful regulatory framework for personal delivery devices that supports innovation, strengthens local commerce, advances sustainability and road safety, all while providing residents and businesses with additional delivery options. We believe the proposed ordinance strikes the right balance by establishing clear rules for the safe and responsible operation of these devices while allowing communities, including San Jose residents with limited mobility or transportation options, to benefit from emerging technology.
As Council considers the one-year pilot program, we want to highlight the following:
Manufactured and designed in the Bay Area: Dot is a fully electric, compact autonomous delivery vehicle designed for local neighborhood commerce. Dot is designed to safely navigate local roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, and driveways while supporting local businesses and reducing vehicle miles traveled and was designed locally in the bay area.
City’s Climate Smart San Jose plan: The plan identifies transportation as the city’s largest source of emissions at 51% and sets a goal of citywide carbon neutrality by 2030. Two of the plan’s core strategies are reducing vehicle miles traveled and shifting to zero-emission vehicles, both of which Dot, a fully electric vehicle, can help advance by replacing short delivery trips that would otherwise be made by car, helping reduce emissions and advance the City’s climate goals.
Innovation & Delivery Economy: Personal delivery devices can also complement the existing delivery economy. By handling shorter and more routine delivery trips, autonomous delivery can allow delivery workers to focus on deliveries where human judgment, care, and personal interaction matter most. At the same time, these technologies can give local businesses another flexible option for reaching customers during their busiest times and growing their SanJose
Chamber of Commerce
Serving Ssn Jose and Silicon Valley for 140 Years
SanJose
Chamber of Commerce
Sorv;ng S•n Jose cMd Sificon Vltlloy for 140 Yo.trs
delivery operations. As autonomous delivery grows, it also has the potential to create new local jobs in fleet operations, maintenance, and field support tied to keeping devices running smoothly on San Jose's streets.
The City of San Jose should have a clear, predictable framework that allows innovative technologies to operate responsibly whi le protecting the safety and accessibi lity of pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. The Personal Delivery Device Ordinance provides that framework and creates a path for San Jose to responsibly embrace innovations that can benefit residents, workers, and local businesses.
We respectfully urge the City of San Jose to support and approve the Personal Delivery Device Ordinance and welcome Dot and other responsible personal delivery devices to San Jose.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leah Toeniskoetter
President & CEO
San Jose Sil icon Valley Chamber of Commerce
101 W. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113 I sjchamber.com I 408-291-5250 I [email protected] Outlook
Fw: Comment letter: Agenda 5.1 (personal delivery ordinance) From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/5/2026 3:29 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@ 1 attachment (84 KB)
1 0.0S_Personal DeliveryOrd inance.pdf;
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Adrian Covert
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment letter: Agenda 5.1 (personal delivery ordinance) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Greetings,
Learn why this is important
Please see the attached letter from the Bay Area Council to the Mayor and City Council in support of the proposed personal delivery ordinance (agenda 5.1 ).
Best,
Adrian
Adrian Covert
1 , e Embarcadero, San Francisco
000
areacouncil.org
KUM.A.TH
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
October 5, 2026
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Agenda item 5.1 - Actions Related to the Regulation of Personal Delivery Devices in City Right-of-Way (SUPPORT)
Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I write to express our support for the City of San José’s Personal Delivery Device Ordinance that would allow innovative, autonomous delivery technologies like DoorDash’s Dot to responsibly operate in San José.
San José has an opportunity to establish a responsible and thoughtful regulatory framework for personal delivery devices that supports innovation, strengthens local commerce, advances sustainability and road safety, all while providing residents and businesses with additional delivery options. We believe the proposed ordinance strikes the right balance by establishing clear rules for the safe and responsible operation of these devices while allowing communities, including San José residents with limited mobility or transportation options, to benefit from emerging technology.
Manufactured and designed in the Bay Area, Dot is a fully electric, compact autonomous delivery vehicle purpose-built for local neighborhood commerce. Dot is designed to safely navigate local roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, and driveways while supporting local businesses and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
San José, like communities throughout the Bay Area, is looking for ways to reduce traffic congestion and emissions while supporting local businesses and keeping our streets vibrant.
The City’s Climate Smart San José plan identifies transportation as the city’s largest source of emissions at 51% and sets a goal of citywide carbon neutrality by 2030. Two of the plan’s core strategies are reducing vehicle miles traveled and shifting to zero-emission vehicles, both of which Dot, a fully electric vehicle, can help advance by replacing short delivery trips that would otherwise be made by car, helping reduce emissions and advance the City’s climate goals.
Personal delivery devices can also complement the existing delivery economy. By handling shorter and more routine delivery trips, autonomous delivery can allow delivery workers to focus on deliveries where human judgment, care, and personal interaction matter most. At the same time, these technologies can give local businesses another flexible option for reaching customers during their busiest times and growing their delivery operations. As autonomous delivery grows, it also has the potential to create new local jobs in fleet operations, maintenance, and field support tied to keeping devices running smoothly on San Jose's streets.
The City of San Jose should have a clear, predictable framework that allows innovative technologies to operate responsibly while protecting the safety and accessibility of pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. The Personal Delivery Device Ordinance provides that framework and creates a path for San Jose to responsibly embrace innovations that can benefit residents, workers, and local businesses.
We respectfully urge the City of San Jose to support and approve the Personal Delivery Device Ordinance and welcome Dot and other responsible personal delivery devices to San Jose.
Thank you for your consideration.
Adrian Covert
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
Bay Area Council