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 <[email protected]>
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! <[email protected]>; District2 <[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]>; 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 <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>
Cc: Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Wilcox, Leland <[email protected]>; Taber, Toni <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Zarate, Sarah <[email protected]>; [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]>; 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 fiveyear 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.
■ SANJOSE Q DOWNTOWN
Re: Parking Position Letter
September 23, 2026
Page2
SJDA supports DOT's recommendation 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 gratuities. 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
Finally, we request the City of San Jose conduct off-cycle appointments of members to the Downtown Parking Board. While the Board's inability to meet quorum shouldn't automatically cancel scheduled meetings.
Having a board that can make formal recommendations should be a priority.
SJDA appreciates staff's willingness to slow down, engage broadly, and phase this proposal in response to community feedback. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Downtown Parking Board and DOT on a long-term comprehensive Downtown garage investment plan.
Thank you for your consideration 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 <[email protected]>; District! <[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]>; 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 administration of the Parking 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 General 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 DOT 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 recommendation 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
The 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. Because 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 more 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
The 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-Financials.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=llmlbg92h5riug1jtkct856 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
For 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 requirements 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 meter 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 Smart Meter installation.
Following COVID, I was told reinvestment would not be discussed until Parking Fund revenues returned to pre-COVID 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 Board 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 September 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. Litigation
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
The 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
Customer 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 offered 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
Taken together, the Globe's small contribution to the City's public parking inventory, financial performance, 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 services.
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, settlements, 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, staff 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 <[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]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of Protest on Downtown Parking Meter Measure [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message 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]
Dear 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 Downtown 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
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. gratuities toward the income limit and locking out workers who are functionally minimum-wage earners. That is why I strongly support DOT's recommendation to raise the eligibility threshold to minimum wage plus 50%, excluding gratuities. This change would let far more Downtown employees access a $55-per-month garage permit instead of feeding a meter or absorbing higher hourly rates every shift. I would ask the Council to treat this as a priority, not an afterthought, in whatever is approved on September 29.
I am also concerned about the proposal to extend meter enforcement hours from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Many Downtown businesses do significant business in the evening, which means many employees' shifts start or end well after 6 p.m. Extending paid enforcement into the evening does not affect customers as much as it affects the people working the shift, who cannot always justify even a $55 monthly permit on a part-time schedule. I would ask the Council to hold enforcement hours at 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and not extend into the evening as currently contemplated.
Thank you for your consideration and for supporting Downtown San Jose small businesses and employees.
Respectfully,
Flor Cecilia Meléndez Guzmán
Owner, Casa Guzmania
9/28/26, 4:41 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
residents, customers, and visitors, while remaining affordable for the employees who staff our restaurants, shops, and offices.
I support the recommended FY 2026-27 increases to garage event rates (by $3) and garage hourly rates (by $1 per hour), effective October 2026, to close a portion of this year's budget shortfall and begin to rebuild the Parking Fund balance after several years of drawdown. This is a reasonable first step.
Beyond the current year, however, I ask that Council direct staff to identify alternative General Fund revenue sources to cover the 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 residents, employees, customers, and visitors. This revenue should be reinvested in the parking system that generates it, not used as a structural General Fund backfill.
I recognize the transfer is already built into the 2026-2027 Adopted Operating Budget. My request is that this not become a default transfer going forward, and that staff bring alternatives to the Council during future budget cycles. I 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 during outreach, particularly for employees who work evening and closing shifts, and I believe it should not move forward at this time.
As someone who parks in these garages regularly, the most consistent theme I hear from neighbors and fellow Downtowners is 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, I ask that DOT work with the Downtown Parking Board and the San Jose Downtown Association to 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.
Finally, I support DOT's recommendation 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 gratuities. Many of the people who make Downtown work, including servers and bartenders, are effectively locked out of this program today because their tips count against them. Raising the threshold will give significantly more Downtown employees access to a half-price monthly garage permitand ease the cost impact of these rate changes for the workforce that keeps our Downtown open and vibrant.
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in as a daily stakeholder in this Downtown. I appreciate staff's willingness to slow down, engage broadly, and phase this proposal in response to 9/28/26, 4:42 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. community feedback, and I look forward to seeing continued partnership between the Downtown Parking Board, DOT, and the San Jose Downtown Association on a long-term comprehensive Downtown garage investment plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Tomoyo Yoshinaga
Downtown resident and business owner
9/28/26, 4:42 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 3/3
I can support the FY 2026-27 increases to garage event rates and garage hourly rates. A modest, one-time adjustment to garage pricing this year is manageable, and I understand the City's budget shortfall is real. What concerns me is what comes after, and how it lands on employees like mine.
Many Downtown employees are not high earners, and for those who depend on tips to get by, current rules for the Downtown Employee Discounted Permit Parking Program work against them by counting gratuities toward the income limit and locking out workers who are functionally minimum-wage earners. That is why I strongly support DOT's recommendation to raise the eligibility threshold to minimum wage plus 50%, excluding gratuities. This change would let far more Downtown employees access a $55-per-month garage permit instead of feeding a meter or absorbing higher hourly rates every shift. I would ask the Council to treat this as a priority, not an afterthought, in whatever is approved on September 29.
I am also concerned about the proposal to extend meter enforcement hours from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Many Downtown businesses do significant business in the evening, which means many employees' shifts start or end well after 6 p.m. Extending paid enforcement into the evening does not affect customers as much as it affects the people working the shift, who cannot always justify even a $55 monthly permit on a part-time schedule. I would ask the Council to hold enforcement hours at 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and not extend into the evening as currently contemplated.
Beyond the current fiscal year, I encourage the Council to direct staff to find other ways to fund the ongoing $1.2 million General Fund transfer rather than relying on repeated increases to meter and garage rates. That revenue comes out of the pockets of the same workers and customers who keep Downtown businesses open, and it should stay invested in the parking system itself. As part of that, I ask the Citycommit to keeping 90 minutes of free parking at all City garages. This matters for customers, especially those who are more price-sensitive about a quick trip Downtown.
Finally, safety is a real and daily concern for Downtown employees, many of whom are walking to their cars alone late at night after a closing shift. Before any further rate increases are approved, I ask that the City to work with the Downtown Parking Board and the San Jose Downtown Association to jointly create a garage investment plan that improves lighting, security presence, and elevator reliability in our garages. Employees should not feel unsafe getting to their car at the end of a shift.
Thank you for taking the time to hear from a small Downtown business owner. I am not opposed to fair and gradual rate increases, but I ask the Council to keep the people working the evening and night shifts in mind as you finalize this proposal, particularly by expanding the discounted permit program and holding the line on evening enforcement hours.
Thank you for your consideration.
9/28/26, 4:42 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Respectfully,
Tomoyo Yoshinaga
Manager, Owner, Operator
Haberdasher, Cash Only, BitterBuck
Cheers,
Tomoyo Yoshinaga
Cash Only
9/28/26, 4:42 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 3/3
Free street parking, after 6 pm, is one of the best motivators my business can offer for potential customers to come to Downtown. Removing that benefit, extending meter enforcement hours from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., will discourage evening customers and further reinforce their belief that Downtown is not a welcoming nighttime destination. I would ask the Council to hold enforcement hours at 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and not extend into the evening as currently contemplated.
I am not exaggerating when I say that this proposed enforcement change, adding three hours of for-pay evening street parking could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for Urban Putt, making it impossible for us to keep the business open.
In addition, I am greatly concerned with my employees who make my business run. Many of them rely on nearby street parking or a City garage to get to and from work. The imposition of a fee from 6 to 9 pm will present a real hardship.
I recognize the City’s need to increase revenue and can support the FY 2026-27 increases to garage event rates and garage hourly rates. A modest, one-time adjustment to garage pricing this year is manageable. What concerns me is what comes after, and how it might land on employees like mine.
Many Downtown employees are not high earners, and for those who depend on tips to get by, current rules for the Downtown Employee Discounted Permit Parking Program work against them by counting gratuities toward the income limit and locking out workers who are functionally minimum-wage earners. That is why I strongly support DOT's recommendation to raise the eligibility threshold to minimum wage plus 50%, excluding gratuities. This change would let far more Downtown employees access a $55-per-month garage permit instead of feeding a meter or absorbing higher hourly rates every shift. I would ask the Council to treat this as a priority, not an afterthought, in whatever is approved on September 29.
Beyond the current fiscal year, I encourage the Council to direct staff to find other ways to fund the ongoing $1.2 million General Fund transfer rather than relying on repeated increases to meter and garage rates. That revenue comes out of the pockets of the same workers and customers who keep Downtown businesses open, and it should stay invested in the parking system itself. As part of that, I ask the City commit to keeping 90 minutes of free parking at all City garages. This matters for customers, especially those who are more price-sensitive about a quick trip Downtown.
Thank you for taking the time to hear from a small Downtown business owner. I am not opposed to fair and gradual rate increases, but I ask the Council to keep potential customers as well as the people working the evening and night shifts in mind as you finalize this proposal, particularly by expanding the discounted permit program and holding the line on evening enforcement hours.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Steve Fox
Managing Member
Urban Putt San Jose LLC
9/28/26, 4:48 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Steve Fox
Chief Greenskeeper, Urban Putt San Jose
www urbanputt com
9/28/26, 4:48 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 3/3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. free parking at all City garages. This matters for customers, especially those who are more price-sensitive about a quick trip Downtown.
I know that you all have many difficult decisions regarding San Jose, but I feel the employees who make these restaurants and bars thrive—the culture that Downtown San Jose embodies—need to be taken into consideration. Without them, there is no culture, no vibe or experience that customers will continue to return to.
Despite the successes of the Super Bowl, NCAA Tournament & World Cup (My business didn't prosper at all), we don't have any big events in the foreseeable future so we can't bank on huge sporting events and raves to make San Jose relevant nationally. I am worried that these parking rate increases will eventually lead to a loss of talent and business closures due to continuing rising costs.
Finally, safety is a real and daily concern for Downtown employees, many of whom are walking to their cars alone late at night after a closing shift. Before any further rate increases are approved, I ask that the City to work with the Downtown Parking Board and the San Jose Downtown Association to jointly create a garage investment plan that improves lighting, security presence, and elevator reliability in our garages. Employees should not feel unsafe getting to their car at the end of a shift.
Thank you for taking the time to hear from a small Downtown business owner. I am not opposed to fair and gradual rate increases, but I ask the Council to keep the people working the evening and night shifts in mind as you finalize this proposal, particularly by expanding the discounted permit program and holding the line on evening enforcement hours.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Kenton Kuwada
Managing Partner
Courage Anyone
SoFa District Downtown San Jose
9/28/26, 4:49 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Thank you.
Namaste,
Forrest Nixon
9/28/26, 4:51 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
Thank you.
Forrest Nixon
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
9/28/26, 5:03 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2