The process has been long, contentious, and marred by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s obfuscation and incompetence, but the latest news is that the proposal to create a new Residential Parking Permit area in northwest Bernal Heights is moving ahead.
In an email some Bernal residents received yesterday, SFMTA wrote:
Residential Permit Parking Coming to Northwest Bernal Heights
Thank you for your continued interest in parking in northwest Bernal Heights.
The Voting Results Are In
- Nearly 1,230 residents responded to the SFMTA’s survey regarding residential permit parking (RPP) for northwest Bernal Heights.
- As a result, 14 blocks voted to establish an RPP area, viewable on this map [PDF].
- For those 14 blocks, 624 votes were tallied with 360 (58%) of the households voting for RPP on their block.
- This spreadsheet [PDF] provides a full breakdown of how each block voted.
How Residential Permit Parking Came to Northwest Bernal Heights
The creation of the RPP area was driven by interest from neighbors in establishing an RPP area, community conversations that started in the spring of 2015, and the SFMTA’s RPP Evaluation and Reform Project, which is an effort to improve the city’s outdated RPP regulations.
Northwest Bernal Heights Community Engagement and Voting Timeline
- June/July 2015 – SFMTA staff attend two community-organized meetings to provide general information about the RPP program and process.
- Fall 2015 – The SFMTA creates and hosts an online survey where residents can vote for or against RPP on their street.
- December 2016 – The SFMTA hosts a public meeting to share findings on parking in the neighborhood and possible next steps for the community.
- April 2017 – The SFMTA hosts a community meeting and presents RPP recommendations to neighbors with details about next steps and opportunities to vote again on RPP.
- May 1, 2017 – Residents vote for or against RPP, including two pilot measures, resulting from the RPP Reform Project. Voting took place through an online ballot, as well as through direct contact with SFMTA staff. Voting closed on May 17.
- May 30, 2017- the SFMTA sends out results of the community vote.
This map [PDF] shows the blocks where 50% or more residents voted for inclusion in the RPP pilot program, with the following RPP regulations:
- One parking permit per driver
- Two parking permits per household
- Two-hour parking limit for non-permit holders Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
An SFMTA public hearing will be scheduled within the next several months. When the hearing is scheduled, the date, time and place will be broadly announced.
If your block was not included in the RPP area, but you are interested in being included, visit the SFMTA’s RPP area expansion website to learn about the process to expand an existing permit area.
38 thoughts on “Permit Parking Set for Northwest Bernal as SFMTA Releases Updated Zone Map”
The tyranny of the majority. I’ll bet most of the folks who voted for this have off street parking and most against it have to park on the street. It will be a financial burden for some…
By the way, I live on the south slope, and I have off-street parking, but I remember what it was like not to have it.
Well, we who voted against it are f*cked. I looked at the list of the voting. It’s hardly a mandate.
I wonder where all of their visitors are going to park their cars, you guessed it on the blocks that didn’t pass permit. ugh this is all BS… Thank you SFMTA and all the great Bernal neighbors
Its just Monday-Friday from 8AM – 6PM. Visitors are mostly likely to visit in the evenings or on weekends, so I don’t see how that affects them.
…unless your visitor happens to be a caregiver, contractor, house cleaner, multiday guest, friend, pet care provider, nanny, or anyone else who may visit your home during the day. In which case, they are fucked.
There may be senior citizens who need to have visitors and support people see them during the day; hallo! Expand your horizon.
How about visitors who stay a couple days from out of town?
To the question of home workers and caregivers, I believe they are eligible for permits for the zone they work in.
I don’t believe that is true, but I may be mistaken. Can you please cite a source?
Yes, that would seem to be logical, but can you tell us more about this, or how we can find out about it? It seems like those of us who have to pay for stickers should be allowed guest passes for visitors, contractors, care givers, etc.
Short-term guest passes are definitely available, but they are expensive and not useful for longer-term needs:
I’d like to see this extended to the North Slope. I thought we were voting on that, but perhaps I was mistaken. Any information?
What a disaster. Keep track of how many extra tickets you get once this goes into place. It’s the same process as when someone calls about a blocked driveway and the eager meter maids ticket every wrong-way parked car they see, only this will be happening on a 2-hour basis, 5 days a week.
BTW, The SFMTA has removed the 80% non-resident requirement for all future RPP plans as of April 23, 2017. Clearly, they’ve seen the dollar signs.
Original RPP requirements requiring 80%+ non-resident parking (Oct 13, 2016)
New “relaxed” RPP Requirements (Changed on April 23, 2017)
Is it possible to sue the SFMTA for violating their own requirement and forcing down the people, so we can get this overturned?
I think there might be a good lawsuit here, if the reports are accurate that the votes were based on a different set of conditions/expectations than what was actually enacted. The question is whether the voters were misled about what they were voting on.
But the problem is, who can hire a lawyer for this lawsuit (and wants to bother)? There is probably a good chance that the lawyer could get their attorney fees paid by the city if they win, but that’s a big “if” for lawyers so there will almost certainly have to be a good amount of up-front money paid, with no guarantee of getting it back.
If folks really want to fight this, though, I’d recommend consulting with plaintiffs-side attorneys. Get your evidence in order, though, regarding the misleading or fraudulent vote – that will need to be airtight.
They re-did the vote with the updated rules. Presumably to avoid successful legal challenge like this. If there’s a record of the last meeting, they did lie and say that it was happening no matter the vote, which almost definitely bullied/scared votes so as not to be the impacted “next street over.” If there’s a record of the meeting, that could be the basis for a successful challenge. If that record exists and folks want to pursue this, I’m happy to help. Not sure of SFMTA decisions, but there’s likely at least one challenge available (maybe to the Board of Supes?) before needing to bring it to court.
I said years ago that it was a mistake. I lived in a couple neighborhoods that had previously had no permits and then got them. It didn’t change a thing except that the city made even more money and created empty spaces at a time (daytime) when they weren’t needed anyway. It didn’t change a thing because residents tend to park their cars on the street and use them for work. Meanwhile others park in the area maybe to go downtown or whatnot, but they’re gone by the end of the work day.
I cant wait for this to start!
So pleased with this outcome. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to spearhead this effort.
NO! This is terrible news for those of us living within a few blocks. NO THANKS to the neighbors who voted to this
Well now is your chance to get your block involved too.
Why so you can pay to park and not have an actual parking spot? This is a terrible idea.
Let the infection spread!
Such a the perverse incentive here; neighbors adjacent to RPP zones get burdened with more parking, and that motivates them to adopt RPP to push the problem to someone else.
The question should be is how we get this overturned when the SFMTA they bypass their own rules at their own will
Agree with you peterke
just curious has the SFPD provided any more information on the Murder at bernal park .Ive heard it was a heinous crime .If that is true all neighbors should be aware of it. Anthony Najera Lead Engineer Pan – Med Enterprises
Since all streets have voted for permits, except short section of Prospect, leaves that section near Coso, in a compromised position, perhaps can be revisited.
Thank you for continued strong coverage of these micro issues, community journalism.
Hope this never comes to South Bernal…ever
Why is Alabama Street included when every single block had more votes against than for?
Never mind. I was looking at the dotted lines and not the blue areas. Phew!
I wasn’t involved in this at all but don’t you have to have a much larger area of permit parking to make this successful? They literally just permitted two blocks in any given direction. Of course everyone who has no garage or full garages is just going to dump their cars on surrounding blocks. This seems like it should at least be a one mile square to be effective. The people on the outside of the permitted area will always be the real losers. They won’t be able to park on their street ever.
Bingo! DPT just needed to get a foothold into Bernal. Now the RPP cancer can spread “naturally” as nearby streets/neighbors feel they are negatively impacted by the adjacent RPP zone. SFMTA changed their own rules just to get this foothold and people fell for it despite the open discussion. Those who voted yes (or vote yes on expansion) are fools.
I expect we’ll have a discussion in the future about how difficult it is to REMOVE an RPP zone. I would guess impossible.
Dang Russians… can’t just they leave us alone. Don’t read yer Facebook – it’s lies. Don’t answer the petitions… it’s lies. Now they invaded Bernal with their swamp.
Start taking photos of your car when you park. Some meter people stretch the time.
Tickets are now 81.00. They go up without warning.
And you have to move your car to a different block in a 24 hr period.
If you wonder why your paid helpers leave earlier or often… it’s because one ticket wipes out your earnings.
Also… those annual permits increase exponentially .
Hey. Where’s “Ellen”? I would think she’d be doing a dance on here.
Now that you’ve gotten what you wanted (deserved?), will you apologize to Todd for your BS comments earlier?
This feels queasily like the results of another vote, from early November 2016. Be careful what you, under some deluded impression of whatever you think of as “progress,” wish for. We should come up with a new name for it: Populist Fallacy? Trump-onomics?
Comments are closed.