
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - An initiative to increase the number of parking spaces in San Francisco has public-transit advocates furious, while supporters say it will help drivers and small-business owners as parking becomes more of a hassle.
Supporters claim the initiative, sponsored by the San Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations, prepares The City for an expected influx of vehicles during the next five years. Opponents, however, say it would reverse 30 years of successful public-transit planning and squeeze out areas dedicated to pedestrians, bicyclists and buses.
Specifically, the 61-page ordinance, formally called the “Parking for Neighborhoods Initiative,” would allow developers to build a minimum of three parking spaces for every four units in downtown San Francisco. Currently, developers are allowed to build one parking space for every four units.
The initiative would also require developers to build one parking space for each unit throughout the rest of The City and allow property owners to build parking spaces — even if bus stops, bicycle lanes or trees are in the way. Additionally, the measure requires a minimum number of spaces for low-emission and hybrid vehicles.
The measure would reverse a long-standing trend in San Francisco toward decreasing the amount of parking spaces. Both public-transit advocates and car-friendly backers say they have been battling for their respective interests for decades.
“We’ve added millions of square feet of office buildings and tens of thousands of jobs in downtown and have done so by increasing transit ridership,” said Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City.
In the last few years, Radulovich said downtown San Francisco has thrived as a mecca for retail without a significant amount of new space for parking. The Westfield Shopping Center, for example, opened without additional parking and still attracts thousands of shoppers each day.
Supporters of the initiative, however, say it will actually assist in the effort by getting cars off the streets and into parking structures. Jim Ross, a political consultant for the campaign, said the measure is an attempt to face the reality that more vehicles will be in San Francisco over the next few years.
“We can’t force a carless culture when the average household in San Francisco owns almost two cars,” he said.
The initiative is likely heading to the ballot in November. Ross said the measure needs a little more than 10,300 signatures to make it on the ballot, and supporters have already collected more than 12,000.
A new initiative altering the San Francisco Planning Code with regards to parking in The City is headed for the November ballot. Here are some of its proposals:
» Divides The City into four planning “quadrants” that correspond with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s “superdistricts.”
» Allows developers to build three parking spaces for every four units in downtown.
» Requires developers to build one parking space for every residential unit throughout The City.
» Allows property owners to build at least one parking space regardless of bus stops, bicycle lanes or trees that may be in the way.
» Expands the distance in which “off-site” parking can be built for a unit from 600 feet to 1,000 feet away.
» Requires a certain number of parking spaces for structures with 25 or more units to be dedicated for low-emission or hybrid vehicles.
- Source: Parking for Neighborhoods Initiative
Share your comments below.
Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
|
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
5:08 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 13, 2008 re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
5:37 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 9, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
2:46 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 9, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
3:26 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 4, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
2:53 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 4, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
2:49 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 4, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
2:46 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 4, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
2:35 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 4, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
10:02 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
8:06 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
7:40 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
4:32 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
4:27 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
3:47 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
3:22 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
2:42 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
12:53 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
11:52 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
11:16 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
11:16 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
11:03 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
10:48 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
10:37 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
9:58 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
9:00 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 3, 2007
re: "S.F. parking plan riles transit backers"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
you bet i do! and, the city should too with the new licence plate scanners they are using to ticket their residents to death. i talked with a meter maid the other day that blame my ticket on my voting. she didn't live in sf so the way she looked at it (it your problem not mine)
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Want more parking? Move to Pleasanton.
175 agree | 197 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
JSB said:
Where do the buses stop after this goes through? What about the tax payers that don't use cars and hope that a tiny share of their tax dollars will go to bike lanes so they can feel a bit safer? As for a lack of parking "hurting middle and low income houses the most"... most low income families rely heavily on public transportation. If you can afford to pay 300 bucks a month for gas and insurance (and way more if you have a break down) you can spend that same money on public transport and the occasional cab fare. Just because the government has a habbit of supporting people's driving doesn't mean that it's an obligation. Health care costs in this country are particularly high because people think that two blocks is a long way to go without a motor. I've been repeatedly told that the place I was riding to, only ten minutes away, was "way too far to bike" while asking for directions. People could stand to be forced out of their cars now and again. Or just to carpool.
184 agree | 198 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Roger Bazeley said:
There is a major failure in the areas of local and regional government’s participation in creating a policy and planning environment of excess in the inefficient use of land resources, by not accelerating the planning, development, and building process for TOD along major urban transit corridors with the appropriate capacity of underground off-street parking. The progressive pricing of parking in these TOD units can be related to not only the number of vehicles per household but also to the actual vehicle size category of sub-compact, compact, mid-sized and full size. European and other countries have in place policies which tax and charge owners not only by the size/weight of the vehicle but by the engine size to curb the inefficient use of resources. There may come a point in densely populated urban areas like Manhattan where one will have to secure a parking space before being allowed to purchase a vehicle as in Tokyo, Japan. Hopefully innovation in parking management, pricing,
192 agree | 192 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Roger Bazeley said:
The entire city needs to sign and map the location of major parking inventory boldly and uniformly, as is done in San Jose to accommodate City Hall, San Jose State University, and the commercial and residential areas. In fact, San Jose distributes both a public transit user’s brochure and a parking user’s brochure and location of parking areas, lots, and structures. San Francisco should allow appropriate scaled and designed supplemental off street underground parking and variable/congestion priced parking structures to make it easier for residents to park-off street, shop, and utilize major hospitals and medical facilities. Parking and user fees should not be priced at a level where it does not become so costly or unfriendly that residents chose to shop and utilize services outside of the city. In the transportation field one must market to the customer a properly priced product to stimulate a stable demand of products and services, for creating a continuous stable revenue flow.
190 agree | 221 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Roger Bazeley said:
Parking and user fees need to be approached with a neutral non-political agenda. There is a need for a city wide analysis of economic impact to commercial business and residents. These parking product and services users need to be treated as desirable customers with reasonable and purposeful pricing strategies. Certain types of parking, such as downtown commuter office and public parking can be priced carefully to affect the commuter choice of utilizing public transport instead of all day parking as a commuter. TDM pricing practices must be in step with the actual reality of the users or market segment profile, travel pattern, and need for convenient parking to support business. When these practices are over applied you end-up with residents and users shifting shopping out of those neighborhoods to the free parking areas of large shopping complexes/big box stores or areas like Colma’s Seramonte Shopping Malls away from independent street front/retail businesses located on streets with
243 agree | 176 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Roger Bazeley said:
The fragmented non-marketing approach to San Francisco’s parking needs and reduction of peak-hour congestion are pushed by well meaning environmental groups and agendas, as well as the uninformed are arbitrarily changing the urban fabric and impacting residential shopping convenience and negatively impacting urban transit corridor business revenue and vitality. Arbitrarily raising parking and user fees has the greatest impact on the city’s middle class/income and lower income families. The affect of this when combined with a low supply of affordable housing, and a high cost of living creates a double whammy on user pricing and costs.
262 agree | 190 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Roger Bazeley said:
SUBJECT: Parking Pricing/Fee Structure The City and County of San Francisco depends on a sustainable revenue stream to pay for transportation operations and improvements, of which a significant amount is derived from parking meters, parking violations, and parking garage revenue, as well as funding for capitol improvements from other federal, state, and local/funding mechanisms such as gasoline taxes and the Measure K sales tax. The availability of parking is conditional by the overall distribution, supply, and pricing of the various types of parking products. Parking pricing can not be arbitrarily hiked or supply tightened by increasing yellow commercial zones or other types of subsidized parking without negatively affecting the commercial viability, travel mode choice and shopping patterns of residents who need to use a car for certain types of activities in addition to the broad range of multi-modal MUNI transportation products and services. The fragmented non-marketing app
176 agree | 170 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There is a place for folks who want more parking, it is Bakersfield.
236 agree | 181 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Sounds like the "Cars first, Transit last" initiative! To curb global warming, people must get out of cars and onto transit. Period! Whatever way we can accomplish that goal we must do it. Congestion pricing, DMV taxes, higher gas taxes.
176 agree | 182 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jeffrey W. Baker said:
If you want to drive to shopping why don't you park at 5th & Mission or Sutter & Stockton or Ellis/O'Farrell like everybody else? Those garages are never full. Or, were you whining about the lack of _free_ parking?
244 agree | 205 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This ordinance should have been thought of long ago. I live in The City, own a car, walk to and shop at my neighborhood businesses and if I need to hit a shopping mall I DO NOT head downtown (because MUNI sucks) but hop in my car and hit Serramonte or other business outside of The City that have ample parking. I would rather spend my money in S.F. but the current car-phobic, (broken-down) transit first policy makes it prohibitive.
225 agree | 206 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jeffrey W. Baker said:
The average household owns "almost two cars", does it? According to the MTA there are 1.2 vehicles registered per household in San Francisco County. If that's "almost two" then I'm a banana. For your information 27% of all San Francisco households own zero vehicles.
181 agree | 194 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The only way to get MUNI to start running on-time is to get rid of all of the double parked cars in the streets. If DPT spent more effort to do that, and proper traffic control during high traffic times, then we would see the benefit through more MUNI buses getting in on time. Until cars are given a place to go, nobody moves.
233 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Cycleogical said:
As a property owner, voter & pedestrian I say no more parking. The only good thing about parking is that street parking protects pedestrians on the sidewalk from insane motorists. I like what Jello Biafra proposed when he ran for mayor. Park all cars outside the city in huge lots served by Caltarin, BART and light rail. More parking means more cars. We need less cars, more room on the road for more light rail, bus rapid transit and bicycles.
209 agree | 177 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Yes we need more parking. Even people like me who rarely drive own cars need to have a place to park them other than the street.
264 agree | 196 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
NO! to more parking. More parking enables the car-dependent suburbanites who infest and dominate this country.
192 agree | 176 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Anyone know how many tourist rental cars are in the city on an average day?
189 agree | 182 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
More cars in the City will equal more traffic congestion, the only result this pro-global warming initiative will have. As long as street parking is free there will be little available. A terrible idea, particularly at this moment in human history.
253 agree | 205 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
From the article about tourists using muni, "according to the APTA, Muni saw a 1.7 percent decline in riders." Why did Radulovich find it necassary to lie about tranist ridership in San Francisco?
185 agree | 193 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
More parking sounds great to me. The current system is broken I think we need to look at a change.
260 agree | 194 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
jimsr said:
Under any plan, you need to limit the traffic coming into the city between 6 and 9 am from M-F. The people who actually live in the city are not the problem.
162 agree | 166 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
SF is a great place to live, work, shop, and enjoy because of the relatively low ratio of metal and plastic vehicles against pedestrians (transit riders) and bicycles. Only one way to make it better--fewer cars, except for ride share pools.
229 agree | 163 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This idea is utterly backward, but that's no surprise when our government has brought back torture. It's wrong-headed on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. It would basically privatize public space. Unfortunately, City officials give out the message that polluting machines are more important than people with their failure to keep cars off sidewalks, forcing pedestrians into the street. On a moral level, it prompts the question, What kind of city would mandate housing for a hunk of metal when so many humans live on the streets?
163 agree | 172 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What a destructive idea! It would prohibit any environmentally sustainable, car-free development in the city; it would prohibit neighborhoods that want to experiment with parking requirements (such as Duboce Triangle and Hayes Valley) from doing so; it would drive up the cost of affordable housing; and it would mean that any future changes to parking requirements would have to be put up for another vote of the people. But people who value easy and free parking above all else when they go shopping will continue to drive to the suburban malls no matter what happens. If this thing passes, San Francisco will have to give up any pretense of being an environmentally responsible, transit first city.
202 agree | 183 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree