Petition Process Underway to Create Residential Parking Permit Area for North Bernal

/ Todd_Lappin

possibleNBrpp

Though opinions on the wisdom of implementing Residential Parking Permit (RPP) in North Bernal appear to be polarized, a process is nevertheless underway to implement an RPP district in Precitaville and Santana Rancho.

SFMTA recently set up a dedicated page for North Bernal RPP planning.  It explains:

Residents of North Bernal, generally defined as the blocks south of Cesar Chavez Street and east of Mission Street, organized two widely advertised community meetings to educate the public about the residential permit process. Both were held at the Precita Neighborhood Center. The SFMTA presented information at both meetings describing the residential permit program so residents could make an informed decision on whether to support permit parking.

The next step in the RPP process is collecting signatures for the North Bernal Residential Permit Parking Petition.  SFMTA says the petition allows residents to express support or opposition to residential permit parking for their block.  To succeed, “the petition requires signatures from at least 250 households (or 50 percent of total households, whichever is less), and must contain a minimum of one mile of street frontage.”

How would the program would be implemented if the petition indicates that support for the proposed RPP is uneven from one North Bernal block to the next? That’s not entirely clear, though SFMTA says “the boundaries of the new resident permit parking area will include those blocks with a majority of households in support of permit parking.  This suggests that the initial rollout of a North Bernal RPP could be irregular from street to street and block to block, depending on how many households on each block signed the petition. (Academic question: Doesn’t this seem like a RPP version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, on a block-by-block basis?)

To learn more about the proposal, visit the SFMTA’s North Bernal Residential Parking Petition site, or email questions or concerns to InfoRPP@sfmta.com.

MAP: Existing RPP areas near North Bernal, via SFTMA

133 thoughts on “Petition Process Underway to Create Residential Parking Permit Area for North Bernal”

      • As a thirty year resident of Bernal. I agree completely. The last thing we need are more meter maids patrolling our neighborhood. Many of our preferred parking spaces are only quasi legal. They would vanish under strick enforcement. Our community has done fine regulating itself. This proposal is a Trojan horse which we will all regret.

    • You can’t. Several people have tried to explain the Law of Unintended Consequences to those calling for RPP… but angry minds are notoriously difficult to change.

      And once it is done, there will be no going back. What do a few bucks per year, and some form-filling time matter to those who have money and plenty of time? Nothing. What do they matter to those barely managing to remain in the neighborhood? A larger percentage of expendable money, a new regime of SFMTA ticketing regulations to navigate, at the risk of fines, penalties and draconian punishments. Also, vastly increased SFMTA presence, with vastly increased citations for OTHER parking violations, which everyone commits on a daily basis and doesn’t give a second thought…

      All because a group of people have been inconvenienced into believing that Nanny will make everything all right…

      Anyway, we live under majority rule and so submit to the will of the majority… 🙂

      • Can you post the notes here? This is why NextDoor SUCKS as a community forum – it’s not publicly viewable. I understand why they designed it that way, but a major downside is that it’s basically a gated community.

      • FYI I am not an “angry mind” and I don’ have “plenty of money & time”” & I don’t expect “Nanny to make everything right”. Just a long time Bernal resident that sees it unfair that people feel that they can stow their cars here when they can’t do it where they live. I have talked to numerous Uber, Lyft & Airporters who say they continuously pick up people who store their cars here while they go to the airport etc. Just looking for a even playing ground. No need to call people names.

      • Thanks for the reply. I didn’t call anyone names. I characterized a group of people. Generalizations? Absolutely. But I do feel that people with those characteristics make up a significant enough portion of advocates for RPP to merit some repetition of opposing viewpoints.

        Also, I want to be on record, for future “I told you so” purposes. 🙂

        As for what “numerous… drivers” have told you, the best response I can give you is a reminder of the fact that anecdotes aren’t evidence. Here are a couple of problems with your story being relevant:

        If so many people are parking on your street and heading to the airport, why are you not turning them in for violating the 72 hour rule? Where are you meeting all of these drivers? Can you be more specific with the number? (It would need to be a huge number of provably honest and accurate drivers to be statistically significant.)

        None of this changes the fact that you are completely entitled to your opinion, and completely entitled to vote as you see fit.

        Btw, I sincerely hope whatever happens turns out to be the best outcome for you and your neighbors, even if it is RPP and I’m completely wrong about it.

      • Last comment since we will not agree. I just want you to know that I have been researching, talking to Uber, Lyft & Airporters, meter maids, neighbors and have had numerous people ask me personally if it “is safe to park here while they are gone to New York or……”. I am dealing with facts & not anecdotes.
        Also unfortunately I do call at least once every 2 weeks as do my neighbors for the 72 hr violations. It is a never ending cycle which is a total waste of our time & the city’s because it usually takes at least 7 days for a car to actually be towed (rare occurance since the people are usually back by then). But in the mean time they have been able to store their cars. I hate that it has come to this, it is a quality of life issue for us & we are all hoping that this will help alleviate the problem. I have lived here long enough to remember the days when you could come home at 2 am & actually park your car in front of your house, now you can’t come home after 7pm without driving around with the hope of finding a space 2-3 blocks away. Since we are one of the few neighborhoods without restrictions we suffer the overflow, fact.
        Peace out…

      • Anecdotes can be facts and still be misleading and/or inaccurate. Soon, however, we’ll have the results of the plate-reading survey, and we won’t have to rely on people’s impressions and unreliable recollections.

      • One thing left to clear up. Anecdotes can be facts. That isn’t why they don’t count as evidence. They don’t count because they only ever apply to individuals or individual experiences and are subject to the biases that this brings with it. It is impossible to say that an individual anecdote is representative and it is also impossible to actually detect the real cause of the anecdote.

        Best of luck!

      • Todd – “Gated community”? That’s the term I used to describe Bernalwood in an email to you when you censored one of my posts for its “tone”. Takes one to know one I guess.

      • Danny B! You’re fun. Look, you’ve written plenty here. According to the logs, you are the fourth most active Bernalwood commenter in the last 1000 Bernalwood comments. If deletions were a real problem for you, that would not be the case.

        Meanwhile, if you have a problem making a distinction between a platform where someone literally cannot even read a discussion unless they register on the site AND live in a specific geography [NextDoor], and one where ad hominem bile is moderated in the spirit of fostering constructive community dialog, then yeah… maybe Bernalwood is not a good place for you.

      • Todd – I guess the difference is where one chooses to put the gate. Your gate is erected around a definition of neighborliness that you enforce.

        “ad hominem bile” seems a bit hyperbolic for my original comment that got censored…. When Harvest Hills was opening a creamery I said I hoped the ice cream wasn’t as stale as the produce at Harvest Hills.

        And let me quote you on why you censored it: “the tone and phrasing were not conducive to constructive, neighborly conversation.”

        So yeah, if it’s not a gated community then, let’s compare it to a co-op board that only approves like-minded individuals to move in.

        Perhaps your choice of “constructive” is not the right word for describing Bernalwood, but rather “constructed”.

    • How do we stop this? Push back with information. Long term, quasi-“abandoned” cars are a problem. One with a simple, effective remedy.

      San Francisco 311 : Abandoned Vehicle Process
      http://www.sf311.org/index.aspx?page=729

      Report a parking hog, as anonymously as you like, here: http://crmproxy.sfgov.org/Ef3/General.jsp?form=SSP_DPT_Abandoned_Vehicle&page=SSP_Page_EmailEnter

      Too bad its not in the Uber/Lyft driver’s interest to report these. But the backend data would point right at car shares from Bernal to SFO by users with no Bernal home. PII concerns be damned, it would be low hanging fruit.

      • That point has already been addressed. In practice it actually takes 7 days for a 3 day parking hog car to be towed. Why? because they do not respond until 48 hours later, and they do not work weekends. The abandoned car policy in SF does not work to deter people who leave their cars for 5,6,7 days. Why folks don’t understand that fact is beyond me.

      • It can take as long as 7 days. But that is hardly the mean. 7 days is accurate if you include the time it takes to become clear that a car is not moving.

        I’ve used this option on the rare occasions that its been necessary — and it works. From the time I report it to the time the car has moved is usually 2-3 days. The fact is that most times the car moves before getting towed, as soon as the tags are on the windshield.

  2. The SFMTA wants only to collect more ticket revenue – do not fall for this hoax, neighbors! Our streets are not dirty and it’s us (not the occasional Missionite) who will pay the price!

  3. I have far more issues with lack or parking and blocked driveways than I do with the DPT. I haven’t had a ticket in over a decade, it’s easy, just don’t park illegally. I’d welcome more enforcement and more parking for residents in Bernal.

    VOTE YES!

  4. The issues I see with parking in our neighborhood would not be fixed by permits… For example… Residents that have an unreasonable number of cars, all parked on the street. Additionally, really inconsiderate parking jobs — 1 car taking up an entire area that could easily fit 2 cars, if they’d just pull forward a little bit..

  5. Thank you for providing the update. I knew it was coming. I recently spoke with a SFMTA employee who was writing down all license plate numbers of vehicles parked along Precita adjacent to the park.

    I already went to the SFMTA site and registered my “NO” vote.

    This will be interesting…

  6. I saw the plate-reading Prius coming up Shotwell this morning.

    If you are against this nonsense, you must show up at the SFMTA board meetings when it comes before them. If enough people voice opposition, they won’t do it. Their rep admitted as much at the community meeting they held on Precita. The board doesn’t want to get into the middle of a big fight over this.

  7. I have one car in in my garage and my second car fits snugly in front of my driveway, meaning I take zero parking away from others. Does this mean I will need to get a permit and possibly get a ticket for blocking my own driveway? If so, I’ll have to take a spot in front of a curb and now there’s one less place for everyone to park and one more aggravation.

      • However, if you have a friend/family visit and have them block your driveway while they visit, DPT will be all over that during what will become their regular patrols… Same goes if you have a loaner car while your vehicle registered to the address is in the shop, etc.

        You may be able to fight those types of violations, but of course, now you’re spending time fighting those things with DPT instead of spending time looking out your window being irked at all those other people destroying the world with imperfect parking 🙂

      • @brandon, the relevant section is CA Codes 22500 / SF Codes 1004

        ”
        SEC. 1004. – PARKING OF VEHICLES ACROSS PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.

        The owner or lessee of property shall be permitted to Park the owner’s or lessee’s vehicle across the private driveway of said property, provided that such vehicle displays a valid license plate registered to the address of that property with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and provided that such driveway serves no more than two family dwelling units. This Section does not permit the Parking of vehicles across sidewalks or in red zones.
        ”

        Don’t know if the URL will post, but:

      • I am not a lawyer, but that doesn’t seem to preclude charging the vehicle owner for a parking permit. The car is still being parked on the street. Also, given that most cars will encroach on the curb either side of the driveway, I’m not sure how they could claim an exemption from the RPP.

      • ahh. I glossed over that critical detail of the question. I’ve sent the question to that info email address. I’ll post-back if I hear from them. Probably not tonight as it’s past work hours.

      • The letter of the law misses the point. If you own a car and live on a street covered by RPP, you will find the convenience of a parking permit more or less required. I park across my driveway whenever I can. But sometimes cars encroach and make that impossible. Even if that’s only 1 night in 20, that would mean I’d need a parking alternative 18 nights, or risk 18 tickets? Yeah, I’d buy the permit. Or maybe I want car driving friends to visit? Leaving the driveway open for them is surely a nice gesture?

        And if I have two cars, am I really going to designate one permit-less car for parking in the garage and one permitted one for the driveway when available or on-street when not? No, I’m buying two permits.

      • Folks have probably since moved on from this article, but since SFMTA finally got back to me (after 6 weeks), I figured I’d post the answer for posterity 🙂

        Yes, you can block your driveway without needing a permit.

        However, SFMTA said blocking your driveway properly is defined as being, “allowed to park perpendicular to your driveway so long as the car does not extend beyond the width of your driveway/curb cut or encroach on any legal, on-street parking spaces or red zones.”

        So, if you’ve got a (very) small car or a (very) wide driveway you’re golden 🙂 otherwise you’re car is at the whim of the enforcement officer for either parking improperly or utilizing a legal, permitted space by encroaching on it. That likely puts you into a risk vs reward of having to pay up for the permit.

      • And I believe the answer is that you will still have to display a RP permit if you are parked anywhere on the street, including in front of your own driveway.

  9. I live on Coleridge near Fair and am in support of the permit parking. We have many individuals who work at St. Luke’s (take public transportation) and many more who park for days on end — presumably out of town (pay for airport parking). More recently we have individuals who are living in there vehicles.

    I’m not worried about the “police” intruding on my private. Quite the opposite, I’d welcome more a presence as car break-ins.

    This is a good thing for My street.

    • It’s a public street with public parking. Why shouldn’t the St. Luke’s employees park there? I would argue their use of it offers much more indirect benefit to the neighborhood and the city than yours does. And there’s already a law to address people who park for longer than 72 hours.

    • +1 to Brandon. In addition, the police do not issue parking tickets, and therefore I don’t think this would do anything to prevent or reduce break-ins.

    • At this rate, you will have to be ambulanced to Richmond because hospital employees won’t be able to afford to work in SF much less live here.

  10. Is there a clearer description of what they consider to be “North Bernal”? I see only two boundaries, Mission and Ceasar Chavez, which are obvious borders between Bernal and Not Bernal. The southern and eastern borders are much less obvious.

  11. Screw the ba’tards who are inviting this plague of trolling INTERCEPTOR vehicles to enter Bernal.
    The inevitable tide is slapping on her fair shores and soon our residential blocks will fall one by one as the forces of (dis)order and dominion insert themselves…no matter which side of the hill you dwell…

  12. I can’t wait for this to come to my block. I don’t know how many permits each address will get but I have a few neighbors with 5 cars that only move for street sweeping. I wish each address would only get one permit. It has gotten insane.

      • Car registration fees. Gas Tax. Any $ you pay to the government. Government (allegedly) builds and maintains roads. Government is funded by Citizens. You are a Citizen. Ergo….

      • @ takebackthegreen: Generally speaking, we all contribute with taxes and fees for all government expenditures – far beyond road maintenance. It’s worth noting that the paltry gas tax and greatly reduced vehicle license fees (thank you, Governator) together aren’t enough to cover road upkeep. Instead, the expense of maintaining roads is passed along to everyone – in the form of bonds and borrowing. As we all know, San Francisco is some of the priciest real estate around – yet street parking is “free.” If only it really were free.

      • You bring up several complicated issues that all bear upon this situation to some extent. You seem to acknowledge that we are all, in one way or another, already paying for roads. Thus, street parking is anything but free.

        This is a small, densely packed City in a fairly populous region. Parking and traffic will always suck. Until Google perfects the teleportation of humans and the things that keep them alive and happy, nothing will change that.

        Will the RPP neighborhoods become slightly easier to park in? Let’s say yes for the sake of argument.

        So… it will be ever-so-slightly easier than a hellish nightmare. Plus MTA patrols and the statistical certainty that a few people will be hurt by the $111 cost.

        Doesn’t matter. It will allow us to feel that we can exert some measure of control over the random chaos of life.

        Let’s do it. Easy parking and free beer are just out of reach…

  13. Your friends and family will never visit because they have to move their car to another block every 1-3 hrs depending on the policy.

    It did not help in Russian Hill. The permits are nearly 100 bucks.
    The same folks who never move their freakin car, will stil do the same because they most likely live in the hood.

    SFMTA just wants your cash. Some of those employees lie about a car being overdue in a spot.

    • And when you do move your car, it must be to a spot that is across an intervening street, i.e. not on the same block, or else you will still be ticketed.

  15. When I lived in Bernal the various neighborhood groups fought back against the prevailing wisdom that having residential permits would stop downtown workers from hogging neighborhood parking spaces. Well, the neighborhood prevailed and Bernal was one of the few congested neighborhoods without parking permits. Personally, I agree, though I have no dog in this race. I think the few parking places gained by the permit parking restriction aren’t worth the expense of adding a layer of bureaucracy to the Bernal parking situation.

    How to fight back? That’s what your local supervisor is for! If David Campos doesn’t respond then go to Scott Wiener. Even though he doesn’t represent the district, I’ve found him extremely attentive and helpful in situations where other supervisors wouldn’t respond.

  16. If RPP is approved, just remember to make sure your vehicle is always in good order even if you have a Permit.

    – park against the flow of traffic -> ticket (this is common on our village-sized “2 way” streets)
    – Have you been skirting the law and don’t have a front license plate mounted? -> ticket
    – Didn’t correctly curb your wheels on a 3% grade? -> Ticket
    – Were you a day late in putting your new registration stickers on -> Ticket

    yes, you should be doing those all the time. But just be aware that SFMTA’s patrol mandate is not to protect the residents from “outsiders”. It’s to issue any and all code violations it finds while patrolling. The permit fee just get’s you the privilege of being excused from 1 of these violations (daytime parking duration).

  18. This conversation, while highly controversial, also seems to have a lot of FUD, misinformation, and kneejerk emotional reaction. Not all streets may need permitted parking, and that’s cool! If it moves forward, only the blocks that opt in would get it — any block that does not opt in will not get permitting. It’s strictly opt in only.

    I strongly suspect that our block, for example, desperately needs parking permits. We see an enormous amount of abuse from people from outside our neighborhood (and even outside the city) due to our proximity to the freeway and Mission. Being a block from the valley tech shuttles makes it even worse.

    The first step in this process is for the city to survey who’s parked in our neighborhood, and share that data with the neighbors. Everyone can make an informed decision at that point.

    I wrote extensive notes on the last hearing, many of the concerns I’m reading in this thread are discussed / addressed there: https://nebernalheights.nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=13989828

    • “Only the blocks that opt in would get it.”

      This is just plain nonsense. Removing blocks from the common parking pool will increase the parking pressure on those remaining.

      Scenario: Your block rejects parking permits, but the block next to you doesn’t. Where do you think everyone will park (including those with permits if they can’t find spaces on their own block)?

      Make no mistake: This is not some everyone-does-what-they-feel-is-right-and-it-will-all-be-ok vote. This is a zero-sum game. Any block that goes permit reduces the total available parking space for everyone.

    • This assertion that only a couple of streets can get permits without affecting surrounding streets is either clueless or intentionally misleading. You can’t argue that nearby RPP areas are making parking difficult in Bernal and then reassure everyone that restricted parking Precita won’t do the same thing to Mirabel.

      These spaces don’t belong to any particular person. Your living on a street does not give you more of a right to park there than anyone else.

      Your folly is going make the situation worse for everyone. If you want reliable parking, pay for it. Rent a garage or buy a place with a garage. Otherwise, take your chances like everyone else.

      • “If you want reliable parking, pay for it.” Ummm… isn’t this exactly what the pro-RPP folks are saying?

        I think you make a fair argument against the RPP regime; but I can see how even a few stray “outsider” cars on a block can impact parking for residents at the margin. If that’s really happening, then I think the RPP system makes sense. If I thought RPP was the only way I could reliably find parking on my South Bernal block, then I would happily pay for it – as you advise.

      • Not really. RPPs are a license to park in a given area, not a guarantee of a space. Even the advocates here would likely agree that SFMTA will sell more RPPs than there are parking spaces in the area.

        Renting/buying a parking space is the only way to be sure that you’ll have a spot when you get home.

      • “Even the advocates here would likely agree that SFMTA will sell more RPPs than there are parking spaces in the area.”

        Let’s test that assumption. Advocates, what say you?

  19. YES YES YES !!!!! I have lived here 40 yrs and it has become a nightmare. I am not a high falootin’ gal. What you all don’t understand is that since we don’t have permit parking and most of the rest of the city does, we are considered a park free zone to everyone in the city. Uber, Lyft & the Airporters all pick up people here who leave their cars to go elsewhere in the city or out of town for days. I don’t object to the hospital workers parking during the day, it is the people who park here for days & weeks, it is just not fair. That’s all. And as far as infractions getting tagged—-CURB YOUR WHEELS!

    • Sigh.

      I live on the other side of the hill and sometimes (but really very infrequently) park all day on the other side since it is closer to BART. Public transit simply doesn’t work well enough. I guess I get lumped in with the others then? How neighborly we all are.

      • Your example proves the point that permit parking isn’t going to solve much. You will have the same neighborhood permit as the people whose street you’re squatting on 10 blocks away (gasp!). Nothing will change except we’re all gonna get a bunch of parking tickets.

    • I’ve lived here 15 years, I work at home, and my office window faces the street. I’ve never seen an Airporter pick up someone who parked their car for a long period of time. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but Beth’s experience may be an outlier.

  20. We live on Precita, have one car for our family, and have no garage or driveway. I really resent the implication in some of these comments that those of us who are in favor of RPP are wealthy and stupid and have too much time on our hands. I spend so much wasted time driving around looking for a place to park! And I don’t care if it’s blocks away or up the hill. It’s gotten much worse in the last couple of years. I would happily rent a garage or a parking space but there aren’t any that I know of. I’ve been on the waiting list for a place in the Mission/Precita lot for 2 years! (If you’ve got a spiot to rent, P,EASE let me know.) As for the suggestion that we who have no parking places should buy a house with a garage, well…… I’m speechless.

    I also don’t understand why the commenters would state as fact that RPP will solve nothing and that it doesn’t work in other neighborhoods. It certainly does! I have friends who live on Potrero and although they were initially against RPP, their minds have been changed since it was implemented. The parking situation there eased up overnight and now for $8.33 a month they can park near their house any time! People with driveways or garages don’t need permits, even if they are parking on the street and blocking their driveway. That’s the rule on Potrero and I doubt it would be different in Bernal. Also, you can drive around in the Mission and see that parking on the permit-only streets is much easier than on the other streets with no restrictions.

    We don’t know what the plate survey will show.

    I voted YES and really hope that my neighbors, even those with driveways, will also vote yes.

    • Well said Rachel!

      It seems there are just a few people on the thread who vehemently oppose RPP and will shout down anyone who comes out in favor of the proposal. I for one support the plan. I work in the Castro where permit parking is in place and it makes a huge positive difference for both those living in the community and the local businesses. With a daytime 2hr limit, people can shop/eat and then free up the space for someone else.

      Talk of the DPT trolling a neighborhood with RPP is unfounded and is amounts to fear mongering. It’s simple, obey the parking laws (curb your wheels, register your car, don’t park in a red zone, don’t block a hydrant, respect driveway-access) and you’ll be okay. These good-parking practices should be followed regardless of whether or not RPP is place. My friends who live in RPP neighborhoods have nothing but good things to say about permitting and its enforcement.

      As a side benefit, my friends also noted that having DPT do an occasional drive-by in their neighborhood has the added benefit of increasing the “eyes” in the community — along the lines of a neighborhood watch. Any additional presence is welcome as car break-ins have become a serious issue on our street, vandalism and drug-use are real issues on our block.

      Let me add some personal experience on the 72 hour rule. If someone abandon’s a vehicle or parks for an extended period of time (which happens continually on our street), having a car cited often takes a week. First off, you shouldn’t report a car unless its been parked there for three days. Then once it’s reported, it can take up to two days for the tires to be marked. Then another three days needs to pass before DPT can even begin to take action.

      I’m voting YES and encouraging my neighbors to do the same.

      • takebackthegreen, I must have struck a nerve.

        I’m under no false impression that everyone can give up their car, but in cities accross the country, hundreds of thousands do and get by just fine. Don’t like to bike, can’t bike, there’s a bus stop right at down the street, an uber is a click away, a ride share is easily had in the city in which it was invented. This worked for me and may not be for everyone. Further, I was motivated to do so because of the RPP program in place near my workplace. It was just too darn difficult to move my car every two hours during the day. I think others may opt to leav their car at home when commuting to st Luke’s — and maybe a few might ditch it altogether.!

        Please stop shouting down other’s ideas and input on this subject.

      • The things you suggest are certainly valid for many people. But your hand-waving away of the legitimate need for a car is no less dismissive than what you accuse takebackthegreen of doing. Going without a car is hardly a slam dunk in the Bay Area. And, yes, we are talking about the region, not just the city. Many people live here and drive out of the city to workplaces poorly served by transit. And the reverse is also true.

        I have occasionally been fortunate enough to be able to work in the city where I could avail myself of a carless commute. That’s my ideal, no question. But other times, like now, I have to get in the car every day. Saying “Über, bicycle, or bus” doesn’t change that reality.

        You don’t know why people are driving, and you’re not in a position to determine whether their choice to do so is “valid”. This country has been developed around the use of the automobile, so it shouldn’t be surprising that it’s a necessary piece of someone’s logistical puzzle.

      • Robert Dhal: My nerves are strike-proof.

        If what you say is true–that you are happy with your choices applying to only yourself–you aren’t part of the problem. In most cases, that is how the world is supposed to work. Kudos! You are a refreshing and admirable human.

        It is the people who are obsessed with forcing everyone else live by their religion (very carefully considered word choice) who need to knock it off.

        Could you please point out to me where I have “shouted down” anyone or been less than civil? That’s a head-scratcher.

        Note: If capital letters are the issue, take it up with WordPress. IF you exist as a well funded Tech Company whose PURPOSE is to facilitate the exchange of words among people; and you presumably have at least one programmer on call, I would think that giving your users the ability to… ummm… EASILY FORMAT TEXT wouldn’t be such an elusive goal. I know publishing and fonts and letters and such are brand new concepts; and why should we be allowed to enjoy the typographic freedom that everyone with a computer has had since the 1980’s; and who has the time to improve one’s only product–what with rolling around naked on the bed in piles of money and all… I’m sorry. What were we talking about?

    • Inherent in your position are these assumptions:

      1) The excess demand for parking comes nearly exclusively from “outsiders”

      This may be. But if the demand is from residents of a given street (or nearby streets), then it won’t free up parking. It will, however, negatively affect your neighbors who live around the corner from you but need to park on your now restricted street.

      2) Parking on non-permit streets is difficult because no permit is required

      Have you considered the possibility that parking on these streets is more difficult *because* nearby streets require RPPs? The demand for parking doesn’t go away, but you can certainly push it onto other streets nearby so that they bear the burden.

      • Brandon, Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding my post.

        Trust that I am not a callous person. I’ve been a resident of Bernal for nearly 20 years and consider many of my fellow neighbors good friends. That said, many of them share the same sentiment regarding parking. The city survey will definitely tell us how many “outsiders” are parking on our street, but after my many year’s of residency, I’ve fairly good sense of what is happening.

        I do hope that one of the benefit of the permit parking is that some may be compelled to give up their car. In our house, we only have one now. I bike to work or take public transportation so that I don’t have to deal with RPP where my place of employment is located. It would be great if some of the larger employer’s in the neighborhood, most notably California Pacific Medical Center, would consider supporting alternative commuting options for their employees rather than clogging our streets with cars. This would be especially beneficial to the community as they undergo a significant expansion in their workforce at the foot of Bernal.

      • Whenever people speak of encouraging others to give up cars, I always ask Do you think people are driving around San Francisco for joy rides? Because they WANT to drive and park in this city that has been purposefully made torturous to drive in? No.

        They are driving for the exact same reason you did, the last time you drove or rode in a car. OR they are old, infirm, or otherwise just have a NEED to drive. They may even just not feel like riding a freaking bike. Don’t look around at drivers and assume they are all driving just because they are lazy, love to chug gasoline and hate the Earth.

    • BRAVO Rachel, I agree with everything you said. I really object to the name calling by people that I just don’t think get what a problem it has become. I’m with you.

  21. I used to live in a neighborhood near Caltrain. Easy parking after 6pm, no parking during the day due to all the commuters leaving their cars. The residents petitioned and got parking permits and in my opinion it made zero impact on the number of spots available during the day. Many people seemed to roll the dice and parked without permits. In the meantime, we all ponied up for permits, a total waste of money.

  22. For those of us who live near Precita Park the last three years or so have seen a sea change as far as park use. It’s crowded all the time on a nice day. Doesn’t even need to be a weekend any more. In this same time period the Mission has gotten to be the hot spot place to be for the under 30 crowd. Both of these facts have many more people taking advantage of the lax parking rules in and around Precita Park. You cannot sit there and say that it’s the same as it used to be. That you successfully fought this back when, or whatever. Bully for you. But that was then, and this is now. Times done changed.

    And again, if your argument against the multiple day thing is “Why don’t you use 311?” then sorry but you don’t know how it really works. It takes a week to actually get an abandoned vehicle towed.

    • Day use of Precita Park by folks driving to the neighborhood will continue even with RPP. I agree that parking during the day around the park has gotten harder. But I disagree that permits will make any appreciable difference.

      Where RPP will make a difference is with overnight parking, and the impact will be first and foremost a tax hike on Bernalians. A direct tax in the form of the RPP fee plus an indirect one in the form of additional ticketing by DPT. A few vacationing parking moochers will be chased away. But I’d bet that’s a much smaller impact than the tax increase.

      • I is a de facto tax, agreed. 100 bucks a year or so, per vehicle To me, the quality of life will improve more than $100 a year stings the wallet. YMMV.

        Also, there’s the Mission things. This is just my pet theory. But I feel like SF used to be like this great puzzle that slowly unveiled itself over time. The fact that just a few blocks south and up the hill you can leave your car for days on end always used to be an open secret, sure. It didn’t used to be out in the open though. Nowadays just a quick Google search and voila. Here’s how you can sock your car away for days on end. So you’ve got that plus the Mission being overcrowded and super desirable. It makes for way too many cars in and around Precita Park.

        I really don’t think I’m saying anything far fetched here. And for the folks worried about the knock on effect, I’d say this. People are lazy. Parking four blocks up a very steep hill so that you can walk to BART or walk to the Park? not that likely. This is about us folks in and around Precita Park.

      • I don’t park by Precita Park daily, but I do frequently park there on weekdays (for a couple of hours, max). It’s a rare occasion when I can’t find a spot. The times I have difficulty are usually between 5 pm and 9 am. This is consistent not with airport parking or car dumping but with people who live in the area returning from work at the end of the day. Assuming the RPP area doesn’t extend into the evening, the high-demand time for parking won’t be addressed at all. Yes, more anecdata, but there you go.

        And let’s add some context to the “abandonment” issue. Unless your street doesn’t have street sweeping—and most of the spots in the proposed RPP area definitely do have street sweeping—cars have to move at least once a week. Between this and 72-hour rule, methinks this problem is being blown out of proportion.

      • We do not have street cleaning – Shotwell, Mirabel, Montezuma area. So we have no restrictions & trust me the 72 hr violation turns into at least 7-10 days.

      • PEOPLE WANTED the Precita Park Cafe; they embraced the new Hillside Supper Club. They wanted the playground upgrade in Precita Park. Well, all this comes at a price, and the price is that the area has now become a destination, and as such, you’re going to get hella parking issues with people who are legitimately parked, even if you folks go for the 2-hour parking permit.

        As I said before, I don’t have an interest in this one way or the other, but having lived in neighborhoods with the permits I discovered that you don’t really get much benefit from the permits. There are STILL more cards than there are spaces, and it will always be this way. So, save the $100 per person and contact your supervisor (or contact Scott Wiener if he doesn’t respond, because Scott does), and tell them no.

      • Since the SFMTA site doesn’t seem to specify which streets are included, I can only go by what I heard at the meeting. Even with Mirabel, Montezuma, and Shotwell, Precita makes up the majority of the proposed mileage in the RPP area.

        But, besides that, you’re arguing both sides when it comes to the affect on surrounding streets. In one comment you suggest that “People are lazy. Parking four blocks up a very steep hill so that you can walk to BART or walk to the Park? not that likely. This is about us folks in and around Precita Park.” But then you later suggest that Mirabel, Montezuma, and Shotwell are suffering from the outsider parking. If someone is willing to park on Montezuma, why not park on Aztec? Or Prospect? Or Winfield? It’s just one more block. And, presumably, a single block more when they’re *driving* around looking for parking. The walk is downhill at that point…

        Instead of denying the impact on everyone else, own it.

      • I’m not, actually. And I think Aztec is in this mix, anyway? But it’s a tiny street and there’s not very much parking regardless. Prospect? Unlikely. I’m not arguing both sides of anything dude. You’re reaching for some sort of internet type boxing me in technique, and I’m not having it. We who live down by the park are dealing with this fairly recent overrun of cars. Know that.

      • ’cause I mean, Prospect, Winfield? yeah, a block or two more. A very steep block or two more. And that was my point. So I said 4. Factor topography in too. Be glad you don’t live near a super busy park that’s an easy walk from BART, in an age when everyone is walking around with a computer in their hands, and there are Yelp reviews about parking cheats. Be glad about that, and let us do what we gotta do over here. peace.

  23. This is no win situation now. Your block must vote yes b/c if you do not you will never find parking. My part of Elsie has more parking than any other part of Bernal bc of the water reservoir.

    We basically have no choice but to play burreuacrtic game of getting permits and 20 temporary permits. It’s over.

  24. For all those who think that you will still be able to block your driveway……that is only if you have a driveway that’s as large as your car (think a 2 car wide garage). If you have a one car garage and you park across it and any part of your car is blocking a curb….you can expect a ticket (unless you also get a permit).

  25. Prior to moving to Precita Avenue in 2010, I lived in the Mission for 13 years. For the first half of my time there, there were no RPP. When RPP came up for consideration, lots of neighbors raised the same criticisms Brandon, takebackthegreen, and others are raising here on Bernalwood. They worried our neighborhood was going to be overtaken by a sea of DPT meter enforcers and that the availability of parking wouldn’t improve. Neither of these things happened. In fact, DPT enforcers came only once a day, even when they were aware of cars that had been parked in the same spot for a week and had four or more tickets on the windshield already. Parking availability didn’t improve as much as I would have liked, but there’s no doubt I spent less time looking for a spot after RPP went in place compared with before.

    Like many parts of north Bernal, my old neighborhood was also close to St. Luke’s and 24th Street Bart. I think RPP did much to improve life for neighbors by forcing day-time parkers to find another neighborhood. And I didn’t see any of the ill effects critics (some who have dominated this Bernalwood discussion with as many as 15 posts) are warning about.

    I say bring on RPP now!

    • “Parking availability didn’t improve as much as I would have liked, but there’s no doubt I spent less time looking for a spot…”

      That’s some mighty convincing support for new parking restrictions right there… 🙂

      And how dare those Hospital employees park on our public streets and inconvenience us.

      (Especially when the squeakiest wheels have insisted on making “private automobile driving” more difficult by advocating for elimination of parking lots for employees. You see that will force those lazy, gasoline-loving nurses to take public transit back home to the Far East Bay when they get off at 3am… Or force them to park on the surrounding streets. See how that works? Unintended consequences.

      Just food for thought. Anyone whose mind has changed during this discussion, please raise your hand and share with the class…

  26. Pingback: Today’s Headlines | Streetsblog San Francisco

  27. Hi, not a Bernal resident (but visit!).

    I do however live on a street in SF (Noe/Castro) which was RPPed a couple years ago, completely at the behest of neighbors who fill their garages with crap, park on the street, and want nobody else to park on the street because they think there will be more extremely close-by space for their excess cars.

    Reality in my hood is there never was any problem finding a parking space within a block on pretty much any day of the year. Nor was there ever any problem with awful evil non-residents parking all day for such nefarious evil purposes as “working in the area”, “shopping in the area”, or “catching transit”. (Not that those are “problems”, except by the twisted illogic of RPP prioritizing residential car storage over anything vaguely useful.)

    Despite this, RPP was pushed by by a couple garage-crap-hoarders from down the street, with few objections from any other residents because it all sounds so unobjectionable, right? You know, the PUBLIC STREET outside your house belongs to YOU ALONE and not to OUTSIDERS. Who wouldn’t want that? Who’d want OUTSIDERS on the street? MY STREET! MINE MINE MINE!

    Anyway, the actual outcome two years later is:

    * I’m forced to pay $111 a year for a parking permit for the car that lives in our garage, because on the occasions when it might be parked on the street for whatever reason it might get (will be!) ticked. In effect, I’m paying $111 to subsidize the parking availability delusions of the garage-crap-hoarders up the street. We pay $111/year in order to not be ticketed in front of our own house.

    * It’s a nightmare having people visit during the daytime into the early evening, because they are forced to move their car every two hours FOR NO REASON AT ALL. It’s horrible for house guests especially.

    * One can buy a day permit. They cost THIRTEEN DOLLARS A DAY, just to have your visiting friends not get ticketed on a PUBLIC STREET with plenty of free parking. And they will get ticketed, because DPT enforcement of permit parking is aggressive, especially in cushy residential areas. It’s a nice beat, few people around to bother you or yell at you unlike in commercial districts, and it sure beats doing something social useful, like citing and towing cars blocking sidewalks, or enforcing meter hours, or citing and towing the god-bothers who illegally double park anywhere they like in travel lanes of public streets on Sundays. Cushy for Cushmans!

    * Having anybody over to work on the house is pain, because either you’re out $13/day for the short term permits (and this adds up), or they’re out $938/year (per vehicle). This last option pretty much doesn’t work at all for workers who don’t live (ie can’t afford to live) in SF, so in practice you as the homeowner are out $13/worker/day for permits to park during the day on PUBLIC streets which didn’t ever and still do not have any problems with parking availability.

    Same thing goes for anybody visiting for non-construction professional (or social!) purposes for more than a couple hours.

    In short, RPP is both morally objectionable (the streets are public rights or way, established for public use, maintained using general public taxes) and practically harmful. If you to store a private automobile, either pony up $200,000 or so to make it a private cosy place to live, or share the public streets with other members of the public.

    • I concur.
      It is HELL for those who make a living in cleaning up/care for people. It is one thing to clean up/care for people and then be in the freaking hole financially because you did not make it to your car in time to move it in time.

      If you are willing to pay for the ticket and pay for the wages, fine…permit away.

    • You don’t even live in the area and you come on here with all these quotes and all caps and vehemence. Who cares. Nothing you said has anything to do with our issues. Beat it.

      • Eventually you’ll narrow the group who have standing to comment to those in your house. Maybe you’ll get the unanimity you want then?

  28. Is there somewhere you can get a map of the area involved in the RPP? I was under the impression that it was for northeast Bernal Heights. It appears that northwest Bernal is being sucked in with no input.

  29. Observations from RPP Area I in the Mission (my dog is a Bernal-ite–Bernal mountain dog?)
    It can take hours to get a car blocking your driveway ticketed, much less towed. The excuse is often, “I was getting a burrito”. Maybe I shouldn’t tell you this.
    Some people keep cars on the street that they never drive, for sentimental reasons. Some don’t run, & must be pushed to & fro on street sweeping days.
    Many cars fit parked across a 1 car driveway. Also, you can overhang about 9″ of someone’s driveway; you will only be ticketed if there is a complaint.
    Visitors with cars are a problem–I have a sticker & park on the street for guests, but only compacts fit in my garage. Cars got wider when side airbags came along. My street is 1 hour parking. $13 for a 1 day visitor permit seems high, also I doubt you can get this pass online.
    DPT seems to ignore worker trucks with contractor stickers. Contractors who work in SF are required to have a SF business license. Maybe that is the source of the sticker?
    If RPP goes through, you may see more handicapped tags–they are exempt. My dog & I are bemused by the dog walkers with handicap tags, walking their packs at Bernal Hill.
    Maybe some folk will clean out their garages, and use them for cars.
    Finally, my car-less kid lives in the new Area Q–there is more parking, but I can’t use it when I visit. Sigh.

  30. Pingback: Fate of Northwest Bernal Parking Zone Unclear as SFMTA Rewrites Rules | Bernalwood

  31. Pingback: Wednesday: Community Meeting on Controversial SFMTA Parking Permit Plan | Bernalwood

  32. Amazing how you never sent us when the date of public hearing was but sent an awful lot of postcards for hearing to be scheduled. Assholes and F your Red Carpet

    • They did send postcards about the public hearing and it was posted here and plenty of people on both sides were at the public hearing. This was hardly done in secret, it has been in the works for 2+ years.

Comments are closed.