SFMTA Apologizes, Halts Parking Meter Plan

SFMTA  staff listen as neighbors ask questions about a proposal to install about 5,000 new parking meters throughout several eastern neighborhoods

SFMTA staff listen as neighbors ask questions about a proposal to install about 5,000 new parking meters throughout several eastern neighborhoods

En Español.

Go social - share this article with your friendsFacebookGoogle+PinterestRedditLinkedInEmail

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) agreed Monday night to assess people’s parking needs block by block in the Mission and other southeastern neighborhoods before installing any new parking meters.

That marked a change in the agency’s attitude since a Jan. 13 meeting in which a hearing officer approved the installation of about 5,000 parking meters in several eastern neighborhoods despite the objections of hundreds of people who spoke unanimously in opposition to the proposal.

“First an apology for the Jan. 13 meeting,” Jay Primus, project manager for the SFMTA’s SFpark program, said on Monday. “It was not how it was supposed to go; it was a deeply unsatisfying and upsetting process for everyone.”

Since Jan. 13, hearing officer John Newlin has rescinded his approval, effectively rewinding the process to the community outreach stage, which could take an additional two or three months, according to SFMTA Executive Director Ed Reiskin.

The turnaround came after a group of residents from the Mission, Potrero Hill and other neighborhoods organized to oppose the project. They sent emails to the SFMTA and called their supervisors — Jane Kim, David Campos and Malia Cohen — who were also in attendance at the meeting.

“We are going to take a cues from the folks in the room and the folks not in the room to solicit feedback and to gather data in a much more comprehensive way,” Reiskin said. “We will reconsider the plan, share it with the community, hopefully being able to go to the SFMTA board with a recommendation that the majority of the community can support.”

At the meeting, held at a theater in the Mission and attended by more than 100 people, Reiskin and Primus heard neighbors’ wrath over the proposal.

Among the chief complaints was the SFMTA’s poor outreach effort, with many noting that the only notification was through English-only notices posted on street poles.

Neighbors, who frequently broke into applause and stomped on the stage when someone spoke against the meters, also protested “blanketing” the neighborhood with parking meters without taking into account its mixed-use character.

The SFMTA drafted the proposal for the northeast Mission as a solution to the loss of parking at 17th and Folsom, which is set to be converted into a park.

Parking in the northeast Mission is difficult during daytime hours on weekdays, but more manageable at night. Currently the area is a favorite parking spot for out-of-town commuters who take BART, people who sleep in their cars and bus drivers who don’t want to pay for parking at the Muni yard at 17th and Bryant streets. Street sweeping once a week is the only restriction in some areas.

“Leaving parking unmanaged next to a BART station doesn’t make sense,” Primus said.

In recent years, the neighborhood has changed from an industrial area to a mix of commercial, residential and industrial uses. The bottom line, Primus said, is that there is a greater demand for parking.

“Parking meters as a tool, they are never going to be popular,” he said.

John Lum, an architect based in the Mission and a moderator at the meeting, said that the neighborhood has changed because many neighbors have helped improve it.

“There has been this kind of thought that we are complaining about free parking and that we are just whiners,” Lum said. “No, you are actually destroying neighborhoods and the ability of the people to live and work in their community that they actually created.” Lum said that he would not personally be affected by the meters.

Some neighbors argued that the SFMTA should enforce rules already on the books, such as prohibiting people from living in their cars. Residential permits would also deter those taking advantage of the free parking, they said.

Primus responded that it is not clear how effective residential parking is. Additionally, the SFMTA cannot “privatize the right-of-way,” he said.

Under the SFMTA’s proposal, the meters would have no set time limit and rates would start at 25 cents an hour.

A neighbor suggested that the rate was a “teaser” that would likely increase, because the meters are demand-based.

Primus countered that SFpark is required to charge the lowest rate possible and has only increased the rate three times at other city meters since the program launched almost a year ago. All the pricing data is available on their website, he said.

Tony Kelly of the Potrero Hill Boosters club suggested that the SFMTA continue to work with the neighbors.

“We are the experts of the neighborhood,” he said. “Let us help you.”

One thing was clear to Reiskin by the end of the meeting: The SFMTA needs to change the way it does outreach. For this proposal, its staff contacted some neighborhood organizations, such as ODC Dance Theater, the Mission Neighborhood Centers and UCSF.

“We obviously missed a lot of the voices in the community,” he said. “This process would help inform on how we do outreach as an agency going forward in matters far beyond parking and far beyond this neighborhood.”

13 Comments

  1. Mister Big

    Thanks for covering this!

  2. indhood

    And once again no advance notice of last nights meeting. Got an email at 3pm yesterday for a 6pm meeting. Thanks sfmta for the heads up.

  3. soma resident

    Good job – phase 1 (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/apress/SFMTAHostsAdministrativeHearingonProposedNewlyMeteredParkingSpaces.htm and http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/06/18/emotional-debate-over-new-parking-meters-at-marathon-sfmta-hearing/) met with stiff but disorganized resistance and the concerns of folks were ignored then. it’d be nice to hear them reconsider that plan. :(

  4. Michael

    From article:
    Primus responded that it is not clear how effective residential parking is. Additionally, the SFMTA cannot “privatize the right-of-way,” he said.

    2 QUESTIONS:

    1) How is head of SFPark questioning effectiveness of residential parking? Is there research to back this or is it just an empty answer?

    2) What does this mean? “SFMTA cannot ‘privatize the right-of-way,’”

    • Alex

      Both good questions to very cryptic statements that seem to delegitimize a very obvious solution to this impasse….

    • Guerrero

      The California Vehicle Code precludes local governments from designating on-street parking (public right of way) for a private purpose. In 2006, the CVC was amended to allow on-street car-share spots, though.

  5. Mister Big

    The MTA has not studied the societal repercussions of installing meters in these neighborhoods, whether these meters will drive out longtime residents and businesses. My guess is that a lot of the independent businesses (production, distribution, repair) will leave and we’ll get a bunch of bars and clubs. MTA may not care as long as they get their cheddar.

  6. jaime

    Here are the real culprits: The Policy and Governance Committee of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors meets on the second Friday of every month at 9 a.m. at One South Van Ness Ave. on the seventh floor, unless otherwise noted.
    Tom Nolan, Chairman
    Cheryl Brinkman, Vice Chairman
    Leona Bridges
    Malcolm Heinicke
    Bruce Oka
    Jerry Lee
    Joél Ramos
    Any conflict of interest? when passing let go help the MUNI?
    http://www.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/mtaindx.htm

    The SFMTA Board of Directors holds regular meetings on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 1 p.m. unless otherwise noted. They meet in City Hall, Room 400.

  7. mission bred

    Good job neighbors!

  8. Robert

    SF Park is an EPIC FAILURE! Jay Primus and the rest of the SFMTA are not listening to the residents!! SF Park came through my neighborhood in SOMA and replaced half of the Residential (Y) Zone parking with meters. The end result is that taxpaying city residents can no longer park their cars near their homes, apartments, and businesses.

    The epic failure is that **NO ONE IS PARKING AT THE METERS** along the Caltrain line Near Townsend and 6th street. Residents on Bluxome Street now have to park our cars up to 4 blocks away from our homes or pay $2.00 an hour to park at the meters to bring in groceries or off load our children. Is it any wonder why families have given up on San Francisco?

    It is a huge inconvenience to the businesses and residents in my neighborhood and its made SOMA a less desirable place to own real estate, or operate a business. The residents see this as a money grab by the SFMTA who rammed these meters through without regard for the needs or input of our neighborhood. The city takes away street parking from hardworking residents so that the SFMTA can build useless parking apps. What the Hell kind of class warfare is this? Residents should not need an app to park in their own neighborhood.

    Residents in other parts of the city should fight this fascism and not allow these meters to be installed. The people who implemented this poorly run project should be ousted from their six figure, App writing, Ivory Towers and replaced with people who are willing to work with residents.

    • GL

      Robert – completely agree, and this point was made in the meeting. However, I see a problem with the citizen response.

      Everyone was trying to project an attitude of cooperation, but that isn’t what we need. They have come forward with a “solution” in search of a problem. We don’t have a problem, and don’t need ANY new parking meters in our residential and mixed use neighborhoods.

      If we “negotiate” their proposal down to only 2500 new meters instead of 5000, it will still destroy our neighborhoods.

      They have come to our healthy neighborhoods and said: “We think you need your legs cut off”. We say: Well, we don’t think there is anything wrong with us.” We then negotiate and agree to allow them to cut off just our feet!

Comments are closed.