With San Francisco’s RV parking ban starting on Saturday, Nov. 1, RV dwellers who say they qualify for the city’s six-month extension are instead facing the prospect of being towed if they park on any city street for more than two hours, including overnight.
A survey conducted by the Department of Emergency Management, alongside the mayor’s office and other city agencies, in May identified 451 inhabited RVs parked on public streets within city limits. Those vehicles automatically qualify for a six-month grace period to continue parking in San Francisco while their owners find alternative housing.
But many said they were overlooked in that count, and are now struggling to claim their right to an extension.
Even when they have subsequently won a permit, days before enforcement begins, the process has been maddening and filled with contradictory advice, changing rules, and sometimes multiple rejected applications, they said.
“They want us to disappear,” said Gregory, an RV dweller who said he wasn’t counted in the May survey, but has parked in the same spot at Masonic Avenue and Geary Boulevard for two and a half years. He isn’t planning on staying in San Francisco if he can’t live in his RV.
“I’m not giving up my RV,” he said. “They’re not taking it from me.”
RV dwellers like Gregory say they have submitted various forms of documentation to demonstrate that they were on city streets during the May count, proving they have parked in San Francisco for years: Recent photos of their RVs, parking citations, and tax documents, among others.
One RV dweller even submitted an article from the San Francisco Chronicle showing his name, printed next to a photo of him positioned in front of his RV.
But such attempts have been rejected. Dozens could now be at risk of having their homes towed.
As of Oct. 21, the city has considered 88 appeals from RV dwellers who say they were missed in the May survey count, according to the mayor’s office. About 40 percent of those have been rejected. It is unclear how many people are affected, because a single RV dweller can submit multiple appeals.
Like Aris, who on Wednesday was trying to claim his extension for the fourth time.
Aris, who spoke to Mission Local through a Spanish interpreter, was one of a group of more than 10 RV dwellers at the corner of 15th and Potrero streets in the Mission District on Wednesday evening, at a popular parking place for people living in their vehicles.
City outreach workers had set up tables to help the RV dwellers fill out permits. They have held more than a dozen events, with 26 planned, doling out free pizza and answering questions about the fast-approaching ban in the past month.
On Wednesday, a line quickly formed.
Aris should meet the qualifications for a permit; he’s lived in his vehicle in San Francisco since 2019, and said he was there during the May survey count. But there’s a catch: He sold the RV he was living in at the time, and bought a new one three months ago. This makes it difficult for Aris to prove his residency.
“We’ve been circling the wagon on this for a while now,” an outreach worker said when Aris asked her what he could do. “We have a desire to figure out how to make it work with the parameters that we’re trying to set.” Aris was told to return with more evidence. Or he could request an administrative hearing to dispute the count.
He is now considering moving in with his adult son, who also lives in an RV.
City officials assert the survey count was “extensive,” covering not only popular parking spots for those living in their vehicles in San Francisco, but every inch of the city.
“We have been working to create a policy that puts families on a path to permanent housing and delivers clean, safe streets for residents and visitors across the city,” a spokesperson for the mayor’s office said in a statement.
“As we continue listening to those directly affected, we’re making real-time adjustments to deliver results with compassion and accountability.”
Even if people were missed, homeless outreach workers assured RV dwellers that appealing the count would be “easy.”
That has not always been the case. Some RV occupants are illiterate or non-native English speakers. Others experience mental illness or substance abuse issues. Gathering the proper documents to apply for city permits can be difficult, but moreso for these individuals.
Richard, for example, has parked in San Francisco since 1994, and was also missed in the survey count. But that’s no problem, he said: He believed he did not need a permit.
After learning about the RV ban from turning on the news, he soon began the application process, until he heard from a friend that all he needed was a disabled placard to avoid the ban.
RV residents expressed confusion over this rule, and placards were not listed in the local ordinance as an exception to the rule. But after publication, the mayor’s office told Mission Local that the city would not tow RVs with disabled placards.
When asked if he was interested in still applying for a permit, Richard responded that he had no need for it. “That’s my permit,” he said, referring to his placard. “I’m safe.”
Then there is the AI chatbot. Earlier this month, the city rolled out an artificial intelligence tool meant to answer questions from RV dwellers about the upcoming ban and, among other things, help them appeal an unfavorable decision and get an extension permit.
Mission Local found that the chatbot was confusing and, at times, contradictory.
The rules of the permit process were also altered at least three times weeks before enforcement is set to begin, and became more restrictive. Among other things, that made relying on the AI chatbot to answer questions difficult; the rules were changing before RV dwellers’ eyes, and the AI was struggling to keep up.
Still, some have been lucky, relatively. Raymundo, who immigrated to San Francisco from Mexico City more than a decade ago, was not listed in the May survey count, even though he said he has parked in an RV he shares with his mother by Lake Merced for years.
At $610 a month paid towards monthly installments, it’s much cheaper than renting a room, he said.
But he found one piece of eligible evidence after a week of searching: A local mechanic’s receipt for maintenance he had done on his vehicle in March, within the mandated five-month period.
It’s a lucky break, he said. He usually doesn’t have maintenance done in the city, and hadn’t been ticketed during the period when he’d need documentation, as he’s learned to be careful about street sweeping and other rules.
“If you don’t get parking tickets, you would think you would see that as a good thing,” said Zach Bollinger, who has lived in his RV for nearly a decade and was, himself, counted in the May survey. “But if you don’t have them, now you’re out of luck.”
Bollinger has been helping other RV users like Aris with finding the right documentation for their permit application. In the first few weeks before the rules were changed “they were accepting everything,” said Bollinger. But recently, it’s become more difficult.
For Armando Bravo Martinez, whom Mission Local profiled earlier this year, it took three tries and the help of a chatbot before he was deemed eligible for a permit.
He submitted “mountains” of evidence that were rejected, including a parking ticket dated from last year and a note from an outreach worker stating he lived in his vehicle, he said, before he finally found a parking ticket dated between January and May.
That was the only ticket he received during that time period, he said. “If I hadn’t gotten that ticket, I don’t know what I would do,” Martinez said.
Martinez is on a waiting list for a low-income apartment, he said. But with hundreds of others vying for the same apartment, it’s unlikely he will find housing in time. Like Gregory, he is also considering moving outside of the city.
Hans Ege Wenger, an aid worker and homeless advocate, has also stepped in to help. Along with city outreach workers, who have been doorknocking on RVs five days a week, Wenger has also gone door to door since the parking ban was signed into law in July.
Wenger said some RV dwellers, many of whom are Spanish speakers, have expressed confusion.
“Some people don’t know that the permits are even a thing,” said Wenger. He said he spoke to a family parked just two blocks away from an info session hosted by the city who wasn’t aware of the ban at all. And had heard nothing of the city’s outreach. “The city just expected them to show up.”
This piece was updated on Oct. 28 with data on appeals based on new numbers from the mayor’s office and additional information on disabled placards.


“He isn’t planning on staying in San Francisco if he can’t live in his RV.”
He gets it!
Do YOU get our affordability crisis that isn’t helped by YIMBY sellouts?
YIMBYs are the only one with a theory for how to help more people afford living in San Francisco. The NIMBYs are happy with the status quo where the city produces a few $1,200,000 apartments and then gives it to a lucky lotto winner, the other 99 applicants be damned. They call this “affordable housing”.
“YIMBYs are the only one with a theory”
At least you admit their BS is of theoretical benefit at best.
No, they aren’t the only ones with a theory, and they didn’t invent selling out to developer groups either. They’re just tools.
If you want to move the housing crisis needle you build affordable low-income housing (which isn’t being built really at all, vs. YIMBY yuppie condo towers) and stop pretending that we have to have 100% focus on placating the AI bubble transplants who will be moving right on back out within a decade, leaving gentrification and overpriced kitsch in their wake.
Pretending YIMBY is the only way and NIMBY (everyone else not on the developer catnip) are “happy” with the fact that the City and State aren’t doing their part to build low income housing is not on a silly, stupid fallacy on its face, it’s just more of the same from YIMBY tools who make such pronouncements about everyone else and never tell the truth about themselves.
Your “theory” is a joke that you don’t even get.
You don’t have a “right” to live illegally in your RV. Bye now.
“Live illegally” is an interesting choice of phrase. What does it mean?
It wasn’t illegal until now. This policy is cruel and needless. SF needs affordable housing, not the hollowed out city we will get by simply banishing people who can’t afford the high rent.
And where would you propose they live? Are you offering a room in your house? People have a right to live somewhere. We can’t constantly say “not here”.
Literally anywhere else in the country. Ideally (for them) someplace with a lower cost of living since they can’t seem to afford here. They have an RV after all, being able to move is the point.
A lot of them are actually RENTING the RV’s and they aren’t capable of moving without serious repairs from deferred/zero maintenance. So not really, and a lot of them work blue collar jobs that people who can afford to own a home won’t do. Nice attempt at being thoughtless but obviously you’ve got to have more going on than that.
of course we can lmao… most aren’t even from here, it’s not our job to solve their problems for them when we have a mountain of other things to address.
So if they’re “from here” it should be “ok” for the City to designate an empty vacant lot somewhere in an under-utilized corner of the SF for them, without even “sanctioning” or paying for anything they aren’t already. There are dozens of such sites. The City would rather kick the can down the road instead of even meeting these people – law abiding people trying to survive – halfway. The 2 hour rule is ridiculous and the money they spend on enforcement of that could be doing something useful.
Okay, Jack. Read Ramona’s comment, below, and then tell her, directly, that she should just GTFO.
I would “propose” they live anywhere where they pay property taxes (funding police, fire protection, code endorsement). pay for water and sewer, pay for trash removal, pay for utilities. Either subsidized, or through rent payments, or even the entire monthly bill. Als
Great point. The majority of San Franciscans that are homeless were last housed in San Francisco according to the Point In Time survey that the city does: https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/2024_San_Francisco_Point-in-Time_Count_Report_8_13_24.pdf
This is a 2013 talking point. By now, people know that the PIT survey uses an extremely generous definition of “last housed” which can mean “slept on a friend’s bed for one night” and even still does nothing to verify validity of responses. Remember when we had tent city the beginning of the pandemic even though evictions were all banned and no rent was due and low income people were getting super doles up the wazoo?
So you admit the methodology of deciding who gets waivers and who doesn’t is flawed.
Gee, we know that already.
The RV’s don’t belong to San Francisco, as the headline suggests. They are just as much Pacifica’s RV’s or North Bend, Oregon’s RV’s as the wheels can stop rolling anywhere. Good riddance – we need the parking spaces for people who live and work and do economic activity around here (add emphasis on work and economics).
People who live in RVs work (and shop). They are San Franciscans as much as you or me. Many had apartments before they got evicted – it could happen to you too. Cruelly banishing the unfortunate doesn’t make for a great city, or one in which any of us are safe.
> People who live in RVs work (and shop). They are San Franciscans as much as you or me. Many had apartments before they got evicted – it could happen to you too.
LOL. Shopping for boosted snacks on 24th and Mission BART does not count. And if I got evicted in San Francisco, I’d be pretty happy since at minimum it means I’m walking away with a 5 figure relocation payment.
You have no idea how things work. You sit up online complaining about the poor all day long like it’s a job.
Could use fewer parking spaces in SF to reduce the traffic and useless single-person trips. I would prefer our public land be used for housing for the least fortunate rather than storage of private, polluting piles of metal. I say MORE RVs and tiny homes on public land, not fewer.
Dumping septic tanks on the sidewalk and hoarding garbage is also pollution.
So cite them for that. Duh.
For decades, there was no enforcement or consequences! They defecated on our streets, started fires under bridges, received free drugs and taxpayer dollars while refusing rehabs and honest work. It’s time to go! We do have RV parks!
Meanwhile billionaires are pilfering our public funds, committing wage theft, destroying our climate, among thousands of other crimes. They cost the taxpayers millions of times more per person and just get a break because they do their public-good destruction and drug use behind their walled compounds. They impact your life so much more but they have convinced you that our neighbors are the problem. Shame on you for trusting the slimy billionaires over your neighbors.
Is that a “straw man” argument?
A straw man argument it isn’t quite. It could be considered whataboutism, but so can any comparison made for perspective if obtusely viewed as such.
San Francisco’s Planning Department has more to do with climate destruction than local billionaires, who mostly made their money in extremely resource efficient businesses.
You just spout nonsense. None of that is a fact.
Thanks to Mayor Lurie for finally doing something about this. Perhaps these folks could take those RVs to one of this country’s 18,000+ RV parks instead of illegally squatting on SF land.
That would make too much sense, plus cost $$$$.
There’s nothing illegal about a licensed vehicle parked legally on the street. Frankly you’re illegally squatting on Ohlone Land, pilgrim. Time to pack it up and git.
Unfortunate that not everyone can live in the SF or the Bay Area, but that does not mean that the rest of us need to put up with the blight. You want to live in an RV, go enjoy the great outdoors in sparely populated states with like Wyoming (~600K population) or Montana (~1.2M population) or any other similar state.
Start at Oakdale and Griffith. Those “residents “ have been up to no good for years. Last Saturday they had the sawzall out cutting up catalytic converters amongst other illegal activities that fund their drug habits.
Sorry, that they have to live that way, but it R.V parking should never have been allowed. It’s no fun to walk in that area, of B.H, due to the vehicles, and walking is one of the few free activities that people can afford in this city.
Campers,
The City should build 4 KOA style campgrounds inside our limits.
Make them a thousand spaces each with a hundred each for RV’s in the City and 200 each on Treasure Island.
The two RV/Tent KOA style units in the City proper should get their space from our 2 municipal golf courses.
One of those Campgrounds even adjoins the VA’s, FT. Miley Medical Center and I’m pretty sure we have 1,000 Homeless Vets to live there.
That’s the thing is that we’re coming up on a time when AGI erases Homelessness and we’ll have 4,000 camp spots inside our City limits and millions on UBI looking for something to do.
go Niners !!
h..
and maybe one such ‘KOA’ can be next to where you live.
Milo,
The point of choosing the golf courses (they can play 9 holes or in the case of MSB’s course (Harding which he controls thru his majority interest in the PGA)
I chose these spots because they are so far far away from the action so to speak and when you toss in the fact that thousands of homeless and other vets are being treated and some living at Fort Miley.
My point to you is where do YOU want to put this population or are you happy to having them herded from one block or neighborhood in the Tenderloin and Mission ?
I am in the center of the Mission hub behind the Armory daily with my dog picking up trash 3 o 4 hours every morning.
go Niners !!
h.
Kudos to mission local for reporting on the plight of people living in RVs. It’s bold journalism like this that keeps me as a paid subscriber!
Don’t worry; building lots of $3,000 studios will help.
THIS IS NOT HOW YOU COMBAT HOMELESS EPIDEMICS IN CALIFORNIA.
Come on, Mr. Mayor, this action will only create more homelessness.
I appealed Sept 29, 2025. Ignored. I was one of the one lied to endlessly at the Vehicle Triage Center. They hired an unlicensed mechanic to hurt my RV even more. He put car passenger tires instead of truck tires, they could blow at any time. I’m very ill from a long cancer fight, I’m 65, disabled on SSI. A widow. This RV is only place I have where my late husband still feels alive.
I’m going to court. Let’s get a judge to have a look at this is elder abuse.
Good luck Ramona. Since you “moved” to SF in a rundown RV in 2021, the city owes you the world and definitely a skilled mechanic and $2k in tires.
Jake I hope you’re homeless someday so you become a human again.
Sorry for your plight, but why didn’t you move to Marin or San Mateo? Tell you why, because they don’t allow R.V parking, they would give you 48 hours and you’d have to be gone.
How is it “elder abuse” to enforce parking laws? Why don’t you move somewhere more affordable?
I’m so sorry you have to deal with this cruelty. You matter and you belong here in San Francisco.