Outlook
FW: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Carmen S >
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 8:48 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 morel You don't often get email from
Dear City Council,
. Learn whY. this is imr;iortant
I am writing as a resident regarding the previous 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
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 Fri 8/14/2026 1:25 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Sonya Shen
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 1:23 PM
To: City Clerk <city.clerk@sanjos eca.gov>
Subject: Re: Concerns Regarding Agenda Item 2.21 on Downtown Parking Rates [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear City Council,
. Learn whY. this is imgortant
I am writing as a resident regarding the previous 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
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: City Council Meeting 9/15, Agenda Item 5.1 (Downtown Parking Meter Rates and Hours) From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/14/ 2026 2:10 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Tod
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 1:49 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District! <districtl@sanjoseca .gov>; District2 <[email protected]>; District4 <District4@san joseca.gov>; Districts <District5@sanjoseca .gov>; District 6 <district6@san joseca.gov>; District7 <District7@sanjoseca .gov>; Districts <district8@sanjoseca .gov>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected] >; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting 9/15 , Agenda Item 5.1 (Downtown Parking Meter Rates and Hours) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more) Dear Mayor and City Council,
Parking meter increases (hours and rates) will hurt our fragile downtown recovery and growth.
Additionally, using this revenue for the general fund proves the 'fee' is just a disguised tax.
Please do the right thing and vote NO.
Thank you,
Tod Williams
Vendome Neighborhood-D3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: Letter re: Downtown Parking Proposal
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Wed 9/23/2026 2:53 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@ 1 attachment (235 KB)
SJDA Downtown Parking Rates Letter to Council9.23.26.pdf, Item 5.2
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Jose
200 E Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
408-535-1260
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
From: Brian Kurtz
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 2:13 PM
To: Mahan, Matt <Matt.Mahan@sanjoseca .gov>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]> ; Campos, Pamela <Pamela.Campos@sanjoseca .gov>; Tordillos , Anthony <Anthony.Tordillos@sanjoseca .gov>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <Michael.Mulcahy@sanjoseca .gov>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>
Cc: Maguire , Jennifer <jennifer.maguire@sanjoseca .gov>; Wilcox , Leland <Leland.Wilcox@san joseca.gov>; Taber, Toni <[email protected]> ; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Zarate, Sarah <Sarah.Zarate@sanjoseca .gov>; jr.fruen@san joseca.gov; Yamamoto, Kiyomi <[email protected]>; Gvatua, Alexander <Alexander.Gvatua@sanjoseca .gov>; Nguyen, Lam <[email protected]>; Moreno, Brisa <[email protected]>; Lee, Lynn <[email protected]> ; Fleming, Jonathan <Jonathan [email protected]>; Adera, Teddy <[email protected]>; Hughes, Scott <scott.hughes@san joseca.gov>; Gomez, David <[email protected]> Subject: Letter re: Downtown Parking Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from earn whY. this is imnortant Mayor Mahan and Cify \jOunc11memoers: Please find the attached letter regarding the Downtown Parking Proposal coming before the Council on Tuesday.
This nuanced item requires a nuanced view. While SJDA cannot support the phased proposal, I believe we can find common ground by working together with further deferment of the phased plan beyond what's currently presented as year 1 garage and event rate modifications, as well as modifications to the employee discount program.
Please contact me with any questions and thank you for your time.
Brian Kurtz
Chief Executive Officer
San Jose Downtown Association
28 North First Street, Suite 1000
San Jose, CA 95113
SAN ,;:;;-ir,;;;_ Here for the game.
JOSE::::..5\..SJ SJ26.0RG
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
San Jose Downtown Association
28 N. First Street, Suite 1000
San Jose, CA 95113
sjdowntown.com
408.279.1775
September 23, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the San Jose City Council 200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: 9/29/26 Agenda Item 5.2 (File No. 26-1004) Parking Meter and Garage Rates and Hours Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the San Jose Downtown Association (SJDA) and the businesses, property owners, employees, and residents we represent, I write to share our position on Agenda Item 5.2, the staff-recommended five- year parking meter and garage rate and hours strategy. SJDA has participated throughout this process, and we appreciate the Department of Transportation's responsiveness to the concerns raised by Downtown stakeholders since the original proposal was deferred by Council in June.
Downtown's parking system is core infrastructure for a healthy Downtown economy. It needs to be adequately funded, well maintained, and priced in a way that supports a positive experience for customers and visitors and affordability for employees.
SJDA supports the recommended FY 2026-27 increases to garage event rates and garage hourly rates (by $1 per hour), effective October 2026, while maintaining 90 minutes of free parking. These changes close a portion of this year's shortfall, move City garage rates modestly closer to market levels reflected in the benchmarking data from San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento, and begin to rebuild the Parking Fund balance after several years of drawing it down. This is a reasonable, phased first step that Downtown stakeholders can support.
Beyond FY 2026-27, however , SJDA respectfully asks the Council to direct staff to identify alternative General Fund revenue sources to cover the planned ongoing $1.2 million transfer, rather than continuing to rely on rate and hour increases to Downtown's dedicated Parking Enterprise Fund. Parking revenue is paid by Downtown employees, customers, and visitors, and it should be reinvested in the parking system that generates it, not used as a structural General Fund backfill. We recognize the transfer is already built into the 2026-2027 Adopted Operating Budget. Our request is that this not be a default transfer going forward, and that staff bring alternatives to the Council during future budget cycles. We ask that the Council affirm this direction along with two conditions: first, that the City retain 90 minutes of free parking at all City garages, consistent with staff's five-year plan, including at the Convention Center on non-event days; and second, that on-street meter and enforcement hours continue to end at 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, rather than extending to 9 p.m. Extended evening enforcement was one of the most consistent concerns raised by Downtown employees and businesses during outreach, and SJDA believes it should not move forward.
Throughout the outreach process, the most consistent theme from Downtown stakeholders was not the price of parking, but the condition of it: cleanliness, security, lighting, signage and wayfinding, and elevator reliability. The staff report itself identifies significant unmet capital needs, including an $11-15 million elevator addition at the 2nd St/San Carlos Garage, a $2.5 million meter technology upgrade, a $1.5 million security camera system, and Market Street Garage façade and entrance improvements. Before any further meter or garage rate increases are considered, SJDA asks that the Downtown Parking Board, SJDA, and DOT jointly develop a Downtown garage investment plan that commits future Parking Fund revenue to address these conditions.
Downtown stakeholders should be able to see a clear connection between what they pay and the improvements they receive before being asked to pay more. To that end, we respectfully request that the City regularly report key parking system performance metrics. These would include garage and meter usage, revenue, and expenses as well as Parking Fund balance and progress on addressing the unmet capital needs in the system.
• I■ SANJOSE
Q DOWNTOWN
Re: Parking Position Letter
September 23, 2026
Page2
SJDA supports DOT's recommendat ion to expand eligibility for the Downtown Employee Discounted Permit Parking Program by raising the qualifying income limit from 30% above the City's hourly minimum wage to 50% above it, not including gratuit ies. Raising the threshold will give significantly more Downtown employees access to a half-price monthly garage permit (currently $55/month) and ease the cost impact of the rate changes for the workforce that keeps Downtown running. SJDA will continue to promote this program and its changes
Final ly, we request the City of San Jose conduc t off-cycle appointments of members to the Downtown Parking Board. Whi le the Board's inabil ity to meet quorum shouldn't automatically cancel scheduled meetings.
Having a board that can make formal recommendations should be a priority.
SJDA apprec iates staff's willingness to slow down, engage broadly, and phase this proposal in response to commu nity feedback. We look forward to con tinuing to partner with the Downtown Parking Board and DOT on a long-term comprehe nsive Downtown garage investment plan.
Thank you for your cons ideration and I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have.
Brian Kurtz
Chief Executive Officer
San Jose Downtown Association
Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 5.2: Parking Meter and Garage Rates and Hours From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 9/25/2026 11 :30 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@J 2 attachments (347 KB)
City Council - Sept 29, 2026.pdf; DPB Report-September 2026.pdf; From: Tamiko Rast
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2026 11:18 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <city.clerk@sanjose ca.gov>; District! <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <District4@sanjoseca .gov>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 9 <district9@sanjosec a.gov>; District 10 <[email protected]>; Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Hughey, Rosalynn <[email protected]>; Baker, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 5.2: Parking Meter and Garage Rates and Hours [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and esteemed City Council,
Please see the attached statement regarding Agenda Item 5.2 and my report on concerns as a Downtown Parking Board Commissioner. Thank you!
Best,
Tamiko
September 25, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 5.2: Parking Meter and Garage Rates and Hours
Dear Mayor Mahan and City Councilmembers,
I respectfully ask the City Council to postpone Item 5.2 on September 29.
The City is being asked to approve a five-year parking strategy while serious questions remain about DOT’s management, financial transparency, and oversight of the parking system.
As a member of the Downtown Parking Board, I am responsible for reviewing Parking Fund finances, rates, revenues, and facility operations. Yet half of our quarterly meetings have been cancelled over the past three years; historical records and meeting packets are missing; Board Members have repeatedly requested greater financial detail without receiving it; and significant Parking Fund expenses remain unexplained. I have attached a report detailing the aforementioned findings.
Parking Division Managers have the power to drastically change our city’s economic landscape, yet don’t involve the very constituents they represent in their policy decisions.
The September rate proposal was not provided to Commissioners in advance, and because the meeting lacked quorum, the Board could not act on the proposal now coming before Council. The meeting was so fraught and Commissioners so frustrated that Board Chair Heindel broke down, and a meeting attendee commented that she felt “the Commissioners are getting a brush off and that is extremely disrespectful.” More concerning, the Board was never informed of years of litigation involving the Globe Garage—one of eight garages under our purview—despite serious security, equipment, cleanliness, and customer-satisfaction problems that have resulted in additional personal injury litigation against the City.
We are falling short when the public opts to park on the street over our garages due to perceived safety.
Parking revenue generated by Downtown workers, customers, residents, and visitors should not become a structural General Fund backfill while basic parking system needs remain unresolved. Downtown stakeholders have made it clear that the fundamental problem is not simply what parking costs, but what customers receive for what they pay, and there is a clear need for improvement.
Before approving five years of higher rates and expanded enforcement, Council should require DOT to provide complete financial and operational information, allow the Downtown Parking Board to formally review the proposal, establish a clear reinvestment plan, and address the transparency and oversight failures already identified.
Best regards,
Tamiko Rast
Vice-Chair, Downtown Parking Board, Meter District Representative President, Japantown Business Association
Japantown business owner and resident
Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
Summary
I have served on the Downtown Parking Board (DPB) for seven years as the Meter District Representative and currently serve as Vice-Chair. I was elected following a 2018 amendment to the San José Municipal Code that converted the off-street parking facility owner/representative seat to a business association representative within a designated meter district. I also serve as President of the Japantown Business Association.
I have growing concerns about the adm
inistration of the P arking Fund, financial transparency provided to the DPB, and the lack of Board and community involvement before significant parking policies are advanced.
These concerns include incomplete public records, frequent meeting cancellations, insufficient financial disclosure, unresolved questions regarding meter district revenues and reserves, and the failure to inform the Board of significant legal and operational issues involving a City-owned garage.
These issues are particularly important as DOT seeks to address an approximately $1.2 million G
eneral Fund budget shortfall through changes to parking rates and enforcement.
The initial June 1, 2026 proposal included extending Downtown Core meter enforcement from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and increasing meter rates from $2 to $4 per hour within two blocks of City garages offering 90 minutes of free parking.
1 After concerns were raised by the Downtown
business community, DOT developed alternatives.
At the August 5, 2026 Special DPB meeting, Commissioners opposed extended enforcement and encouraged DO
T to focus first on event parking rates. The Board did not take formal action.
At the September 2, 2026 meeting, the Board lacked quorum. Chair David Heindel and I again opposed extended enforcement and the limited increases proposed for event parking.2 I stated that I would support a $5–$10 event rate increase to better align City garages with nearby facilities. I also stated that I would support a $3/hour citywide meter rate if a portion of the revenues were reinvested in the districts where it was generated.
Despite this input, the DOT recom
mendation scheduled for City Council consideration on
September 29 retains extended enforcement scheduled to begin in 2028.
These matters fall within the DPB's stated responsibilities, which include reviewing Parking Fund financial stability, use of parking revenues, parking rates, and parking facility operations. 2 https://youtu.be/USbL9j-VfBI?si=zw4b5F7o-f2imZRS
1 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p3szbnes3nr4xg1vikuaq/2026-09-02-DPB.pdf?rlkey=9pgu31xrmsoewqp2igz7ciqjh&st=lybtw67p&dl= 0 Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
Board Process and Public Records
1. Missing Meeting Records
Staff was not publishing meetings conducted. I raised this issue with DOT Director John Ristow, who subsequently instructed staff to publish the meetings. Records for five DPB meetings held in 2022 and 2023 are still missing.3
2. Missing Meeting Packets
Prior DPB agendas remain available through the San José Legistar, but linked meeting packets are missing. This prevents the Board and public from easily reconstructing the materials presented with prior Board actions.
3. Meeting Cancellations
Half of the quarterly DPB
meetings were cancelled in the last three years. At the September 2026 meeting, Division Manager Elias Khoury stated that informational meetings would be held in the future even without quorum.
4. August 2026 Special Meeting
At the August Special Meeting, Commissioners expressed concerns to DOT staff about extended meter enforcement hours and recommended focusing first on event parking rates. Subsequent DOT proposals continued to include extended enforcement.
5. September 2026 Meeting
T
he September parking proposal was not provided to Board members or the public 72 hours before the meeting. Commissioners instead reviewed it during the meeting.
Regardless of whether this constituted a technical violation of public meeting requirements, it did not provide Commissioners adequate time to analyze the proposal, consult affected constituents, or prepare informed recommendations.
Chair Heindel and I opposed extended enforcement. B ecause the Board lacked quorum, no formal action could be taken.
Technical difficulties also prevented all but one virtual attendee from commenting. I logged into Zoom during the meeting and confirmed that public commenting was unavailable.
3 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ks81t3trhuv52h9sdrqkv/01-2018-2026-Meetings.pdf?rlkey=c5v1h4lb1hvx2kvl6snxkv9lp&st=y2e8nha5&dl=0 Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
Financial Transparency and Board Oversight
1. Previous Extended Enforcement Proposal
In October 2020, DOT proposed extending meter enforcement from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and implementing time-banded pricing. The DPB rejected the proposal, citing impacts on businesses and customer confusion over dynamic rates.
Staff presented two options: adopt dynamic pricing and extended enforcement, or reactivate meters in exterior districts following the COVID shutdown. The DPB voted to reactivate exterior district meters.
4 2. Parking Fund Detail
Since 2023, Chair Heindel has repeatedly requested m
ore information about Parking
Fund expenditures. Staff has directed him to the City's website, where the requested documents are not available.
5 3. Contractual Services
For several years, I have requested clarification of the Contractual Services expense line item. Contractual Services is currently Japantown's third-largest line-item expense, behind Payroll and Audit & Overhead, yet I have not received an explanation of what services it represents.
6 Deputy Director Hoshii disputed this characterization at the September 2026 meeting.
4. Greater Downtown Smart Meter Reserve
T
he DPB voted 6-0 in February 2018 to create a Greater Downtown Smart Meter Reserve, with net revenues identified for the respective meter districts.7
According to then-Division Manager Hoshii's August 2021 memorandum, the reserve was consolidated with the Downtown Parking Investment Reserve in 2018. The first reference I have identified to the "Parking Meter District Reserve" appears in November 2019.
8 8 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cy7fhy7vjqbtpik5c0g14/2019-11-06-DPB.pdf?rlkey=2da3pmnbd5r1dkdq4o1kzytee&st=tk9jxfv3&dl=0 (pg. 13. Blurry document, third line down from Ending Fund Balance in bottom rows)
7 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3bsah4dg4zmdpeb3ywz45/2018-05-02-DPB.pdf?rlkey=r2iim4sa55c3ff26wwkihhz1t&st=cofrvp9w&dl=0 (pg 4, Draft Minutes from Feb. 2018)
6 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bbcs0cpbfs0da4vsvxj36/2018-2026-Facility-F inancials.pdf?rlkey=sfi0lpv1onxljylt2zyuyo26k&st=lzje3z53&dl=0
5 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b2bmkfmzs7wi0wke0h4ph/2023-03-08-DPB.pdf?rlkey=ficgx53q9tpg02mtmjebfy39g&st=da83upjo&dl=0 (pages 12-14 were presented by David Heindel at the meeting for further staff analysis)
4 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nfu7rh95261v8u26cvtln/Item-6.A-Conceptual-approval-meter-rates-and-hours-FINAL.pdf?rlkey=llm lbg92h5riug1jtkct856 qr&st=y54xkkk3&dl=0
Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
In 2021, the DPB requested that the Parking Meter Reserve be separated from other reserves to provide greater financial clarity.9
5. Meter District Reinvestment
F
or more than 12 years, City officials and the DPB have discussed reinvesting meter revenues in the districts where they are generated.10 To date, that has not occurred.
In 2014, City Council directed staff to evaluate "community parking districts" that could allow new meter revenues to be reinvested in the originating business districts. Staff subsequently determined that automatically redirecting those revenues was prohibited by bond requirem
ents associated with the 4th/San Fernando Garage.11
Funds allocated for meter districts have also been removed. The Parking Meter District Area Reserve, budgeted at $640,000 in FY 2017–18, was reduced to zero in the FY 2018–19 Proposed Budget when those funds were allocated to the Better Bikeways project.
12 Former JBA Executive Director Kathy Sakamoto has reported that, prior to 2018, the City could not separately account for m
eter revenues by district because collected coins were
not segregated by district.
In 2018, the JBA and then-District 3 Councilmember Raul Peralez advocated for district reinvestment and direct representation of meter districts on the DPB. 13 I was
subsequently informed that reinvestment would not be considered until districts recovered the cost of S
mart Meter installation.
Following COVID, I was told reinvestment would not be discussed until Parking Fund revenues returned to pre-CO
VID levels and Japantown could apply for a portion of its revenues. Over 100 Japantown leaders signed a letter in protest of DOT’s handling of meter revenues.14
Japantown currently generates approximately $300,000 annually in meter revenue and is still requesting that a portion be reinvested in streetscape maintenance, sidewalk 14 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lc0wc3yldkuqf5pilvhje/2021-DOT-DPB-D3.pdf?rlkey=mz0z0vghcmed5ua3v7xeu7g2c&st=jv88lgxj&dl=0
13 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/q9b2tnu3p6evkaf71q0hj/2018-JBA-DPB.pdf?rlkey=3iio7vszanrhqlcvykl1hswk9&st=uvk9molf&dl=0
12 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3bsah4dg4zmdpeb3ywz45/2018-05-02-DPB.pdf?rlkey=r2iim4sa55c3ff26wwkihhz1t&st=cbg177r8&dl=0 (pg. 19)
11 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tl6sbhjzn8l20sfuhgf5g/2021-09-01-DPB.pdf?rlkey=eeb60yidlvcgluhdmxtpu8kpn&st=4pefzdkp&dl=0 (pg. 12)
10 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tl6sbhjzn8l20sfuhgf5g/2021-09-01-DPB.pdf?rlkey=eeb60yidlvcgluhdmxtpu8kpn&st=bcv88ujo&dl=0 (pg. 11-14)
9 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vcc031aj7h9gbpr1uzdks/2021-11-03-DPB.pdf?rlkey=x9pg7dve2gvd92d93j7fug4by&st=7twdlpnv&dl=0 (pg. 14)
Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
cleaning, lighting, and infrastructure currently funded by the Japantown Business Association and local businesses. As of 2026, there has been no reinvestment from parking meter revenues in the Japantown community.
6. Parking Fund Expenditures
The Parking Fund has historically supported expenditures whose relationship to parking operations is not clear. Examples include:
○ $200,000 for the SJ Storefronts Initiative and $40,000 for fireworks; 15 ○ $250,000 for Business Permit Process Improvement Bootcamp; 16 ○ $100,000-200,000 annually for Downtown Ice Rink Improvements; 17 ○ $150,000 for the San Jose Sports Authority; 18 and
○ Annual line-items for City Hall Debt Service Fund, General Fund, San Jose Downtown Association, Street Activation, Retail Activation19
The Globe
The Globe Parking Garage at 25 S. Third Street is one of eight garages under the DPB's purview. The City owns the facility with financial responsibilities shared among the City, Globe Homeowners Association, and an entity representing the building's retail space. Its 67 public spaces represent approximately 1.17% of the City's off-street parking inventory.
In August 2026, I learned that the Globe HOA and City had been involved in litigation dating back over five years.
Given the DPB
's responsibility to review parking facilities, operations, Parking Fund finances, and use of parking revenues, I am concerned that the litigation was not disclosed to the B oard
despite its potential financial and operational implications. I found no references to the Globe in transcripts of the five DPB meetings held in 2021.
20 During my September 2, 2026 review of the Globe, I personally observed significant cleanliness, maintenance, and safety concerns. The garage reeked of urine; the elevator was inoperable; 20 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vxahg3igb5m6zjsnuvx3o/AIkcAEZU3 u6RD6OMK9S27w?rlkey=qtnow3mx828bjx02g8gvjbwmu&st=nq14s21e&dl=0
19 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/g6tzipd0788rnmbdqo7pm/ANbZqSCEvcM pQif2urKvj0?rlkey=wudp1dgi3v296iio0mltcev39&st=xug19zkm&dl=0 (All Mid-Year and Annual Financial Documents, FY Actual Budgets from 2019-current)
18 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/71a49rcamjhj8gohtlidl/2020-03-04-DPB.pdf?rlkey=r66bwswwjngx86n7egjj6foqm&st=6t0ur9oz&dl=0 (pg. 7)
17 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/g6tzipd0788rnmbdqo7pm/ANbZqSCEvcM_pQif2urKvj0?rlkey=wudp1dgi3v296iio0mltcev39&st=xug19zkm&dl=0 (All Mid-Year and Annual Financial Documents, FY Actual Budgets from 2019-current)
16 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wmwia8sw7dq2fyqkwuay8/2019-02-06-DPB.pdf?rlkey=yhioqh1snol1liz7hehuvvhxh&st=16u5rdv8&dl=0 (pg. 6)
15 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wmwia8sw7dq2fyqkwuay8/2019-02-06-DPB.pdf?rlkey=yhioqh1snol1liz7hehuvvhxh&st=16u5rdv8&dl=0 (pg. 6)
Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
stairs appeared damaged; and I witnessed an individual defecating and smoking out of what appeared to be a crack pipe. Photographs and video document conditions during the visit.21
These conditions raise questions about whether continued City ownership and operation of the Globe is financially and operationally justified.
If the City retains its interest, significant improvements are necessary to address cleanliness, safety, maintenance, and accessibility. Alternatively, the City should evaluate the reasonable disposition of its interest and removal of the facility from the public parking inventory.
I presented these concerns at the Septem
ber DPB meeting. Because the Board lacked quorum,
no formal action could be taken.
The DPB should have been informed of material legal and operational developments involving a facility within its purview. Without this information, the Board could not evaluate operational, financial, customer safety, and potential liability concerns.
The reported settlement paid $12,000 to the City with revised cost-sharing percentages. The City should disclose the total cost of the Globe dispute, including DOT staff time, City Attorney resources, outside legal costs, and other expenses. The relevant measure is the total cost to the City.
Specific Globe Concerns
1. L
itigation
The DPB was not informed when the City filed suit against the Globe in October 202122 or of the subsequent personal injury lawsuit involving an alleged fall on the garage stairs.
23 According to Globe HOA President Ivan Robertson, the stairs were visibly damaged and were repaired by the City after the personal injury lawsuit was filed. Robertson also stated that the elevator is frequently inoperable because of vandalism and damage.
2. PARCS
T
he Globe was initially included in planned Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS) upgrades. In September 2019, the Board was told that PARCS upgrades were "slated for deployment across all eight downtown City garages."24 Division Manager Collen subsequently told the Board that PARCS was unnecessary at the Globe because of its size.
25 25 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/71a49rcamjhj8gohtlidl/2020-03-04-DPB.pdf?rlkey=r66bwswwjngx86n7egjj6foqm&st=v4wtmv7k&dl=0 (pg. 18, hand-written note in left margin)
24 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7ut9g4eedskpvvsktehx2/2019-09-04-DPB.pdf?rlkey=2mv88bkyz8uyryhot3li30db9&st=4cukfs67&dl=0 (pg. 4) 23 Juliann Lallemand v. City of San Jose
22 City of San Jose v. The Globe Homeowners Association, et al. SCC Case No. 21CV389775 21 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eazg2kzctssfz9rhm3e95/The-Globe-Sept.-2026.m4v?rlkey=q4cnau9tk3d4w7yxr1gu0qyk5&st=e1a0yznc&dl=0 Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
The record therefore raises a question about when and how the Globe was removed from the PARCS deployment and whether that decision was formally presented to the Board.
3. Safety
Among 11 parking assets evaluated in 2024, the Globe had the third-highest number of reported security incidents, despite its small size. It also had an unusually high number of loitering complaints relative to its size.
26 4. Customer Service
Custom
er Service Surveys have consistently ranked the Globe at or near the bottom among City parking facilities.
a. The February 2024 survey presented in September 2025 ranked the Globe lowest in Customer Service, Parking Equipment, Facility Signage, and Safety, and second-lowest in Appearance & Cleanliness.
27 b. The February 2024 survey presented in March 2024 ranked the Globe lowest in Parking Equipment, Appearance & Cleanliness, Facility Signage, and Safety Satisfaction.28
5. Proposed Sale
According to Robertson, the City of
fered to sell its Globe interest at an "appraised value" of approximately $900,000 while requiring some continued public access. If accurate, this would transfer substantial operational responsibility and liability to the purchaser.
The terms warrant review to determine whether they offer a realistic resolution of the ownership dispute while reasonably allocating future maintenance, operational, and liability responsibilities.
Conclusion
T
aken together, the Globe's small contribution to the City's public parking inventory, financial perform
ance, customer satisfaction results, security incidents, physical condition, litigation history, and complicated ownership structure raise a basic question: Does continued City ownership and operation of the Globe provide sufficient public parking benefit to justify its total financial, operational, legal, and administrative costs? 28 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5rgf5bsusny8y671hb8n3/2024-03-06-DPB.pdf?rlkey=zx07i9famn2c6cdraft217hvf&st=1b88j7vn&dl=0 (pg.10) 27 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/exau5k5uq6p2ue1y2m3n1/2025-09-03-DPB.pdf?rlkey=69ryj4s3xiy2dxwll74135ecg&st=61zixz7q&dl=0 (pg. 8) 26 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1iccvk9skhzrz35zn6xjx/2024-06-05-DPB.pdf?rlkey=7jzqtqy61tawreut8bftie5u2&st=mr62arge&dl=0 (pg. 7, Parking Facility Security Program Overview)
Downtown Parking Board Report
September 24, 2026
Tamiko Rast
The DPB should receive the information necessary to answer that question, including historical revenues and expenses; capital and maintenance costs; security costs and incidents; legal expenses; staff time; accessibility requirements; ownership obligations; and the financial implications of continued ownership compared with disposition.
Without this information, the Board cannot determine the full cost or benefit of maintaining the Globe as a City parking asset.
Requested Actions
The DPB cannot fulfill its responsibilities without timely information, reliable records, understandable financial reporting, and meaningful review of major decisions affecting the parking system. I request that the DPB and appropriate City officials consider:
1. Parking Fund Financial Review: Provide a detailed accounting of Parking Fund revenues, expenditures, transfers, reserves, and contractual se rvices.
2. Meter District Accounting: Provide annual revenues, expenses, reserve balances, and reserve activity for each meter district with greater detail.
3. Parking Fund Expenditure Review: Evaluate whether Parking Fund expenditures appropriately support parking operations.
4. Board Notification: Establish a protocol requiring timely DPB notification of material litigation, settlem
ents, major facility failures, and significant operational changes involving facilities within its purview.
5. Public Records: Restore missing DPB meeting records and packets and ensure future records are consistently preserved and publicly accessible.
6. DPB Review: Provide the Board sufficient time and information to review significant parking rate, enforcement, financial, and operational proposals before they advance to City Council.
7. Globe Review & Ownership: Provide a complete accounting of the Globe's revenues, expenses, legal costs, staf
f resources, security incidents, maintenance history,
ownership obligations, and accessibility issues. Evaluate continued City ownership against disposition or restructuring of the City's interest.
8. Independent Review: Consider whether the financial, operational, recordkeeping, and Board oversight concerns documented in this report warrant review by the City Auditor or another appropriate independent authority.
Outlook
FW: Letter of Protest on Downtown Parking Meter Measure From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 9/25/2026 2:19 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@ 1 attachment (87 KB)
Mayor Mahan and City Council ltr.docx;
From: Mark Ritchie •
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2026 2:01 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Districtl <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <district3@sanjose ca.gov>; District4 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <district6@sanjos eca.gov>; District7 <District7@sanjos eca.gov>; Districts <[email protected]>; District9 <district9@ sanjoseca.gov>; District 10 <DistrictlO@sanjos eca.gov>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Lette r of Protest on Downtow n Parking Meter Measure [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this messa ge don't often get email from Mark Ritchie, President
RITCHIE Commercial celebrates over 65 years of providing real estate advisory and transaction solutions to owners, investors and occupiers through our four strategically located offices in San Jose, San Francisco, Walnut Creek and Santa Cruz servicing all of Northern California. Management accounts exceeding 3 million square feet through Ritchie Asset Management Company.
September 25, 2026
Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
D ear Mayor Mahan and City Council,
34 WEST SANTA CLARA STREET, SAN JosE, CA 95113
( 408) 971-2700 FAX ( 408) 971-1600
This letter is in protest of the proposed increase in parking rates but most especially extending meters into evening hours .
Many of you know me personally or know our commercial real estate business Ritchie Commercial . We have been the most active le broker in D owntown since 1965. I own two of the best historic commercial retail/ office buildings at our HQ) and Rookies Sports Lodge and Mezcal.
D owntown San Jose is in a dangerously fragile state in the post pandemic world, and the extension of meter hours is a bad way to raise nominal amounts of money . San Francisco tried that plus lighting the meters on Sundays some years ago and it was howled down . Now SF is in an AI fueled boom that might even make its way to Downtown if ,,,e steady the course. I urge you all to reconsider this measure .
Thank you for you service to San Jose.
Sincerely,
Ritchie Commercial
San Francisco • San Jose • Santa Cruz