The SFMTA is proposing to prohibit overnight parking for oversized vehicles along outer Clement
At their upcoming hearing on January 31, the SFMTA will consider a proposal to restrict the parking of oversize vehicles on certain city streets. The city defines an oversize vehicle as more than 7 feet tall or 22 feet long, into which RV’s squarely fall.
Last June, the SFMTA voted to launch a pilot program to prohibit overnight RV parking in areas of the city, including along Fulton Street in the Richmond District.
The 3 month program, which instituted a $100 fine for violators was considered a success.
“Along La Playa Street and the Great Highway, for example, 21 oversize vehicles were known to park. But after three months of enforcing the new law, just two were counted in October,” the Examiner reported in November.
During the three-month pilot, 74 citations were issued, of which 19 were for mobile homes or buses. Fourteen were issued to vans, including three to the same van. Another 26 were issued to pickups or other trucks. No oversize vehicle was known to have been towed, according to the SFMTA.
In the agenda for the January 31 meeting, the SFMTA will propose an extension of the initial program, restricting parking between 12midnight and 6am for oversize vehicles on streets in several neighborhoods including the Sunset, Mission, Haight/Panhandle, Potrero Hill, Western Addition, and the Richmond.
In the Richmond, the additional targeted streets are Clement Street, north side, between 33rd Avenue and 45th Avenue and Clement Street, south side, between 36th Avenue and 38th Avenue. This stretch of Clement borders the Lincoln Park golf course and Veterans Hospital, and is a popular spot for oversize vehicles to park.
This type of restriction would likely appeal to residents in another part of the Richmond District known as the “greenbelt” along Park Presidio.
The blocks of Funston and 14th Avenue between Lake Street and Fulton is a popular spot for oversize vehicles to park for days at a time. It borders federal park land on one side, and city streets on the other. The dual jurisdiction often causes a debate about which entity is responsible for eradicating the oversize vehicles and homeless encampments that take root inside the greenbelt.
The January 31 meeting, which is open to the public, will take place at City Hall at 10am in Room 416 (Hearing Room 4).
Sarah B.
Since the enforcement of the Fulton Street ban has been in place, the RVs are moving to the Park Presidio Greenbelt in droves. The pilot program should be expanded to include the Fulton and 14th Ave as well.
What’s wrong with RVs or people camping? Is it because some of them may tend to be slovenly? If so, then just ticket the dirty ones for being dirty. Levy fines on grime and litter, not camping. This includes work detail for people who spit on or let their dogs crap on the sidewalk – a day of sidewalk scrubbing for each infraction. We will clean up this city one slob at a time.
Once upon a time SF had an RV Park south of Market, perhaps it is time for some land to be put aside for this purpose. I believe there are already (unenforced) laws on the books regarding overnight camping within the City and County and am absolutely certain that all vehicles must be moved at least every 72 hours to avoid a parking ticket. The streets (Funston and 14th Avenue) are City streets, thus any vehicle on them should be subject to City and County law. Private vehicles aren’t permitted in the greenbelt.
I am surprised the Park Presidio Greenbelt is now in Federal jurisdiction because Park Presidio is under State jurisdiction with regard to maintenance, signs, signals and lighting. Was this a sneaky maneuver for the City to abandon responsibility for pruning and maintaining the trees in the greenbelt? It used to be a City asset.
@4thGenRichmond – SF Rec & Park does maintain the parks portion of the greenbelt, along with the help of many neighbor volunteers. There have been efforts recently to clear out and widen the paths within the greenbelt to encourage more use and prevent encampments from forming. Neverthless, it’s an ongoing problem that residents struggle with.
Sarah B.
And what a stunning success the previous RV ban has been (notably the one along the beach). They’ve (SFMTA) successfully pushed these “vehicles” and “occupants” into residential avenues taking up parking from the actual residents and introducing (not in all cases, but clearly some) risk to the community. I’d love to see crime states pre- and post-ban in those other areas. There should also clearly be a law to BAN THESE RVs from being within a couple of blocks of schools and playgrounds, something seemingly not considered by the SFMTA (shouldn’t this sort of policy rubbish be coming from the BoS?). This is also not an anti-homeless tirade regardless of what supporters of the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness may think – this sort of action simply shifts blight into areas where public voices are muted.
I’ve always been curious who is living in the RVs that park out here. Are these people who work in SF and can’t afford the rent? What percentage of them are just meth-heads? I’d also like to see the crime stats BobbittyBob mentions.
Some of the RVs I have seen along the Funston/14th greenway margins have been dumping trash on the greenway, unloading belongings and dogs onto and blocking the sidewalks, while some others not so much. My sense is that these are not folks looking for an RV park, rather, people looking to get by as cheaply as possible, often externalizing their existence where they park. In one case it looks as if someone is running a bicycle chop shop out of their RV. In a neighborhood with a high volume of bicycle theft, it stinks.
Many of the impacts that hit the folks living on La Playa are now visiting other folks/neighborhoods. I question whether a street by street “whack-a-mole” approach is really the answer.
I live along the greenbelt and the number of RVs has increased dramatically since the GGP ban. The RVs typically are either permanent RV dwellers, or travelers looking for a cheap place to sleep. Either way, they contribute to the trash dumping in the greenbelt along with the usage of the greenbelt as a toilet. SF needs to either enforce the current laws on sleeping in vehicles or add 14th and Funston to the list of streets where RVs are banned. Unfortunately with our dysfunctional city government I have little hope either of these solutions will be enacted.
I think its interesting to call this program a success but then state that less than a THIRD of all citations were actually given to the creepy mobile homes that this project aimed to eradicate. The rest were given to vans and trucks, most likely owned by rent-paying Richmond residents or merchants that had nothing to do with the problems caused by the people living in mobile homes. How is this a success if its putting more strain on residents than on the campers?
Banning a vehicle from parking simply based on its dimensions is ridiculous, there are completely valid reasons for people to own the kinds of vehicles that may be taller than 7 feet or longer than 22. Some people need large trucks for work, I personally own a large van that I use for recreation and most certainly do not live in. I used to keep it parked on Fulton out of everyone’s way because I understand that it may not be pleasant to have it parked at your front door, but now I have no choice. Another example is the large box truck that one of the produce stores on Geary owns, they used to keep it up on Fulton but now have to park it in the neighborhoods. Another is the resident who owns the silver Airstream RV that used to park on Fulton near Park Presidio. He doesn’t live in it, he just owns it. Now I see it parked in front of peoples houses in the neighborhood where I’m sure he doesn’t want it any more than the property owner does.
Why not implement a permit program for residents and businesses who want to park something larger on Fulton and live in the area?