Recently, the SFMTA added “N” permit parking requirements to a few blocks in the central Richmond District. So far I’ve heard it being expanded to the 200 and 300 blocks of 16th Avenue, as well as on 15th Avenue between Clement and Geary.
RichmondSFBlog reader Peter wrote in about his surprise encounter with the new law: “Certainly caught me by surprise today, getting a $65 ticket in a spot where I have been happily parking for the last 8 years.”
Another reader, also named Peter, called it “highway robbery” and declared “Don’t let them steal our parking!”
Typically, permit parking expansions are added at the request of residents. There are several requirements for adding permit parking to a residential area, according to the SFMTA website:
- The proposed block(s) must be contiguous to each other and must contain a minimum of one mile of street frontage.
- A petition signed by at least 250 households in the proposed area must be submitted to Transportation Engineering (one signature per household).
- At least fifty percent of the vehicles parked on the street in the proposed area must be non-resident vehicles.
- At least eighty percent of the legal on-street parking spaces within the proposed area are occupied during the day.
However it’s unclear what the notification process is once the new permit parking is put into place. Neither of these readers knew anything about it, and I’m guessing there are others who’ve been surprised with pricey tickets.
If you do live in that area and routinely park on those blocks, better get yourself a residential parking permit. A standard residential permit costs $98 per year, and there is a maximum of four per household.
Do you live in that area? Were you surprised by the changes?
Sarah B.
it is definitely creeping west from Park Presidio. Probably this is parcel to the Presidio Landmark opening, although tenancy there is still low
Is the city required to notify residents of this change? Seems like they ought to forgive the first few tickets after they put the change in effect.
Oh, thank you, thank you! I certainly hope that it continues to creep west so that eventually all of the Richmond (or at least the central Richmond) is under the permit parking plan. It would be so much better for the neighborhood.
I agree with Chris. Let these creep West. There are way too many cars that sit for weeks without being driven. People “reserve” spots and keep turnover low making it hard for residents to come home and park at the end of the day. Let alone the families that have multiple cars (ours has 4, with 2 drivers).
I have seen people park their cars, get a suitcase out of their trunk, then hop in another car. In other words, the unpermitted neighborhood has become a free parking lot for those heading out on vacation. I would gladly pay $98/year for some assurance that I might have a better chance to park.
I don’t know Chris. I kinda love my free parking out here. I would hate to have permit parking and then worry about what to do with guests etc.
@KC – $98 per year is practically free. The reasons that I support all match up with @Not Exprk’s reasons – way, way, way too many people use our neighborhood as long term storage for their cars (I actually know a person that lives in Nob Hill and only uses their car a couple times a month for out of town trips, so they park in our neighborhood most of the time since street cleaning is rare and parking is 100% free and permit-free).
The irony in referring to the DIScontinuation of people using public streets for free private use “highway robbery” just gave me a nosebleed.
Those who park for a month at a time are already taking a risk given the 72 hour rule in SF. I came back from my honeymoon with a $1500 tow fee after I parked in a no street cleaning, no permit zone for the month. If that was better publicized/enforced, occasional users would be much rarer.
It’s just a means to bleed more money out of the public. Have to keep those union pensions funded.
It’s well past time that *all* the city was covered by residential permits. Why should the bourgeois of the outer Richmond and Sunset park for free when the proletariat of the Tenderloin and Mission pay?
I agree with most of my neighbors who have already commented here — this is a good thing and should go even further. If folks want to use public space to store their cars, fine; but they can go ahead and pay their fair share, rather then expecting the city to eat the cost.
i feel for the residents but admitting you have 4 cars with 2 drivers, gets zero sympathy from me. that sounds more like suburbia or SoCal to me…
at the very least, the city should give 30 days notice before changing the parking status of an area. if those people who just got tix have to pay, then SF gets a thumbs down in my book.
Residential Permits do not make parking any easier. In no time everybody has one, through fair means or foul, and parking is just as much a hassle as before.
In case you’re wondering, here is the flyer posted on 16th Ave and Clement:
HIGHWAY ROBBERY ON 16TH AVE!
STREET CRIME ON THE 200 BLOCK!
DON’T LET THEM STEAL OUR PARKING! KEEP IT FREE!
SAY NO TO RESIDENTIAL PERMITS! WHO NEEDS ‘EM?
WHO REALLY NEEDS THAT NON-TRANSFERABLE 100 DOLLAR (PAYABLE EACH YEAR) PIECE OF STICKY PAPER ?
WHO NEEDS A 60 DOLLAR FINE FOR NOT HAVING ONE? YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR CLIENTS, YOUR CONTRACTORS?
UNLESS WE PROTEST, THE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY WILL PASS THIS INDECENT PROPOSAL FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 15TH! AND YOU CAN BELIEVE THEY’LL BE “PROPOSING” THEM FOR THE ADJACENT BLOCKS TOO. THE 100 BLOCK HAS ALREADY BEEN HIJACKED.
REGISTER YOUR PROTEST BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
FAX THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AT 415-701-4737
OR E-MAIL SUSTAINABLE.STREETS@SFMTA.COM
OR COME TO THE HEARING: CITY HALL, ROOM 416 TEN A.M. APRIL 15, 2011
DO NOT GIVE AWAY YET ANOTHER BIT OF FREEDOM! THE LOSSES ADD UP FAST!
I live on the corner of 16th and California and had not noticed that they changed all of that! My block was always so perfect for parking when friends came to visit. Now we can only hope that they don’t change the unlimited spots over off of Lake.
Residential Permits don’t fix the problem, for the simple reason that there are too many permits issued! If there are 4000 street parking spots and 4500 permits issued, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that you’re still going to have a problem.
Here’s my solution: the permits should be capped at ~80-90% of the available parking spaces. The question is then “who gets them?” Use a “dutch auction”, where if you have 5000 people bidding on 3000 permits, the 3000 highest bidders win, and the price for everyone is the 3000th highest bid. The proceeds should be used to fund improved Muni service and other street improvements. This way, people who pay to get one of the permits don’t have to hunt for a spot, and people who don’t pay get the benefits from the increased revenues.
On the flip side, it should be made easier for nonresidents to park without getting tickets. Technology has advanced to the point that this is possible. For example, you should be able to buy a day-pass or week-pass in a neighborhood parking zone so that contractors and visitors could park. It could be as simple as texting your license plate number to the MTA (or calling an 800 number for people who don’t text) and having the daily parking fee debited from your phone bill/parking account/credit card/clipper card. Then just set the fee high enough to discourage people from using it as long-term parking.
In this way, you can have a solution where you don’t need meters and people who need to park can park, but the parking isn’t so overused that it’s impossible to find a spot.
I like what Alai suggests about the “dutch aution” idea along with the non resident parking solution. Now if only our of SF can act in a truly enlightened manner and consider ideas like this. Too often the city is ONLY looking for revenue generation in the guise of “progressive reform”; I speak mainly of parking penalties.
Residential Parking permits are great in certain neighborhoods. I live near a BART station and it used to be impossible to park during the day because commuters would grab all the spots. We now live in an RPP zone and parking is much easier (though by night time all the spots are taken). So for solving that problem, the RPP is great and I am happy to pay $98/year for it.
@Not Ezprk – you really have 4 cars for 2 drivers? Do you have ANY parking at your residence? Do you use it to park at least one of those cars? I sure hope so!
Permit parking was established on the block where I live in the last year. We received a notification from the city well in advance before it was implemented. And, I actually knew it was going to happen as one of neighbors was calling house to house looking for signatures from residents in the affected area for submitting with the application for permit parking to be established. At first my wife was against it since we don’t have a garage to park and we have a couple of cars in our household. She actually went down to city hall and voiced her objection. I feel it’s pretty hard to stop the process when an application is submitted with the majority of the residents signing off on it. Plus who wants to take time off work (except for my wife) to go down to city hall and wait for the for the review to be heard. I was actually for it. When I walk to to the bus stop in the morning to work I see the same folks park in our street that work in the local businesses and when I come home I see them leave. Now that the permit signs are up and we have permits on our cars, parking is a lot easier. I see still see the same folks in the morning park their but it’s a block away.
This happened in my old neighborhood with no warning. And it took longer to get the parking sticker than the longest possible temporary permit lasted. Fun.
I understand that in some high-density areas these are needed, but I hope they don’t continue to spread into the Richmond. It’s not like we have easy BART or Caltrain access for visitors coming in from out of the city, and there aren’t a lot of parking garages in the Outer Richmond for visitors to put their cars either.
JL makes a good point — what’s sorely needed is better access to public transit, so people don’t need so much parking. The sooner we get that rapid transit on Geary, the better.
If you walk down any neighborhood block as the street-sweeper passes by, you will see a caravan of locals re-parking their unused vehicles. Seems like the city has been providing free long-term storage for people’s spare cars long enough.
Ask 3rd st how well that junky, crowded light rail is working out. God forbid Geary ever has something as ridiculously bad as the N Judah, that will drive everyone to drive.
There is absolutely no need for any household in sf to have more than 2 cars. We should really clamp down on these “families” that insist on using city street parking as their personal garages.
$100 a year is highway robbery to park a car, because it is so insanely cheap. I pay roughly 30 times that amount to park myself in an apartment per square foot. They should raise the fee and invest in better transit options.
Am I the only one around here who just feels sad that yet another rule has been laid upon us?
Good God, neighbors, where are your cojones?