SFMTA Median Parking Survey Summary 12/3/15
2. What is your affiliation to the areas of the Mission affected by median parking?
100
75
50
46.3%
46.2%
25
14.3%
4.8%
1.6%
0
Resident
Business Owner
Congregation Member
Park-goer/frequent visitor to
the neighborhood
None of the above, but
interested in the matter
6. How supportive are you of completely removing median parking along Dolores and Guerrero streets?
Completely unsupportive 22%
Somewhat unsupportive 7%
Completely supportive 57.3%
Neither supportive or unsupportive 3%
Somewhat supportive 10.7%
1
7. How supportive are you of continuing with weekend median parking if it is available to all and if the hours
during which it is legal are clearly posted?
Completely supportive 25.8%
Completely unsupportive 36%
Somewhat supportive 19.6%
Somewhat unsupportive 13.3%
Neither supportive or unsupportive 5.3%
8. How supportive are you of current median parking conditions continuing as they are?
Completely supportive 14.3%
Somewhat supportive 6.2%
Neither supportive or unsupportive 3.8%
Somewhat unsupportive 10.8%
Completely unsupportive 64.9%
2
9. How supportive are you of implementing an adopt-a-median program for neighborhood institutions? (E.g.
churches, businesses, community organizations, etc).
Completely unsupportive 14.9%
Completely supportive 35.4%
Somewhat unsupportive 6.3%
Neither supportive or unsupportive 19.9%
Somewhat supportive 23.6%
10. How supportive are you of providing fencing around median plants?
Completely supportive 13.6%
Completely unsupportive 24%
Somewhat supportive 18.5%
Somewhat unsupportive 20.3%
Neither supportive or unsupportive 23.7%
11. Optional: feel free to enter any additional comments/thoughts on median parking here.
Count
Response
1
1 set of rules for everyone, not different rules for park goers and church goers.
1
About time this is being talked about and death with!
1
Adding fencing will be trip hazard.
1
Additional Sunday parking should be available to all.
1
Also stop double-parking and median parking on valencia!
1
Another option would be to narrow the median while allowing parking.
3
Count
Response
1
Another solution in search of a problem! Why do you want ALL families to leave the city?
1
Anything to improve the traffic in the area on Sundays would be great.
1
Appreciate the chance to voice an opinion.
1
As a daily cyclist, the congestion creates serious danger in visibility and activity.
1
As a resident, I'm glad this is being addressed as the lack or regulation is frustrating.
1
Bring back Sunday Meters!
1
Bring back Sunday meters, too.
1
CLEAR posted signs indicating all parking rules are needed ASAP!
1
Can't have public parking for churchgoers only. It violates every equal rights law ever.
1
Church goers shouldn't get special exceptions.
1
Church only median parking is unconstitutional.
1
Church shouldn't get special treatment
1
Churches and church goers shouldn't get special permission to break the law.
1
Churches are absolutely welcome to build parking garages or lots.
1
Churches can provide their attendees with parking passes for along the median.
1
Churches do not deserve any special treatment.
1
Churches should NOT get special consideration...everyone or no one is my opinion.
1
Churches should have shuttle services.
1
Churches should not get a pass. Either make it open to everyone or ban everyone.
1
Churches should not get special treatment.
1
Churches shouldn't be exempt from the rules!!!
1
Churches shouldn't get a free parking pass. It's also extremely dangerous to cyclists.
1
Churches shouldn\'t get special treatment. Legalize it for everyone.
1
Clarity and equity of parking is ideal.
1
Clarity would be #1 Enforce whichever fix gets the nod
1
Completely against it. Make it go away. Dangerous!
1
Congregations need median parking after dark in winter.
1
Current situation feels unfair. Preventing our formalizing it is at least fair.
1
Current system is unfair and arbitrary.
1
DO NOT ALLOW PARKING AT ANY TIME BETWEEN MEDIANS. DO NOT ALLOW APRKING DURING DARK HOURS.
1
Dangerous and illegal. Stop it at once!
4
Count
Response
1
Don't fix it if it is not broken......
1
Don't give churches a special break. That's not fair!
1
Drivers can mame, kill, terrorize, and park wherever the fuck they want. That's bad.
1
ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS! You guys are so pathetic, it boggles the mind.
1
Either free for all or free for none. I favor none simply for safety.
1
Either no median parking for all; or equal access to medium parking for all.
1
End non secular parking now!!! Separate church and state!!!! About time!!!!
1
End special treatment of religious organizations by government.
1
Enforce the current law, ticket and tow
1
Enforce the law.
1
Everyone should follow the existing rules.
1
Everyone should have the same access to PUBLIC street parking, not just Jesus.
1
Extend this down to Guerrero and 24th...why stop at 21st???
1
For everyone or for no one.
1
Get rid of Sunday parking on Guerrero median
1
Get rid of all doubling parking along major streets.
1
Get rid of it! Church-goers are capable of taking mass transit just like everybody else.
1
Get rid of this ridiculous practice.
1
Give the churches a break (and I'm not a church-goer).
1
Given that people will jaywalk, fencing on the median may make this more dangerous.
1
Giving special privileges to a church is against the powers of church and state.
1
Glad this is finally being addressed!
1
Glad to give the feedback.
1
Good luck with that.
1
How about increasing transit to the area during peak times so that parking isn't necessary?
1
I
1
I am a bicycle rider. how about better bike parking along the street also.
1
I am really glad that thought is being put into this.
1
I am so HAPPY that the MTA is taking a look at this. Nice survey- thanks for aloowing input.
1
I appreciate that this is being opened to public input.
1
I don't see a compelling need to alter the status quo.
5
Count
Response
1
I don't think churches should get special exceptions to any rules
1
I don't think religious orgs should have special privileges
1
I don't think there should be special parking in the middle for a religious group for any sorts
1
I hope we may be able to find ways to all get along--and arrive at an amicable solution.
1
I like this unusual tradition.
1
I observe vegetation more affected by dogs and dog walkers than anyone else.
1
I support either option that does not give churches special privileges
1
I support only outstanding surveys.
1
I support the churches but the current parking situation is unsafe and unclear. It must change.
1
I think it is unfair that a Church which already does not pay any taxes gets special privledges.
1
I think median parking should be permitted during certain hours on the weekends, for all.
1
I think most of the damage to plants is from local residents using the median as a dog toilet.
1
I think signage should also include the DAYS allowed for parking (not just times).
1
I too believe in separation of church and state. That says it all.
1
I want to keep the way it is and keep also on Sundays.
1
I would hold off on making a decision for about 5 years while auto technology changes
1
I would like to allow Cornerstone Church continued use of the median parking.
1
I would prefer no fencing in the medians, unless I was convinced it would not be an eyesore
1
I would support this type of parking in other parts of SF as well.
1
I'd like to see SFMTA enforce ticketing for cars that park on the street with their yield signs.
1
I'm not a frequent visitor, but my passage along the narrowed corridor is a challenge.
1
Idea: Dolores & Guerrero, all-day (not just a.m.) Sunday median parking allowed.
1
If MUNI didn't suck, maybe we'd be more willing to stop using cars. . .
1
If available to anyone, median parking shroud be available to all...not just churchgoers.
1
If its safe and legal, allow everyone to use it equally. If not, then enforce it aggressively.
1
If median parking is adopted then holy days for all faiths need to be included.
1
If my sex club can't park in the median then neither should the Christians
1
If one person can park then all should be able to park.
1
If religious people can park on the median non-religious should be allowed to as well.
1
If the church can do it, then we all can at any hour of the day.
1
If the decision is made to allow median parking, it should be allowed city-wide.
6
Count
Response
1
Improve MUNI and availability during these sunday peak times and perhaps people wouldn't drive.
1
In a transit first city, continuing the status quo makes no sense.
1
Install a STOP sign on Dolores at 19th Street!!!!!!
1
Instead of median parking, how about a shuttle for churchgoers?
1
Is SF a transit-first city or isn't it? I would like to see all median parking banned.
1
It is a huge neighborhood disruption that really should be stopped.
1
It is a nuisance and safety hazard to allow individuals to park along the median on Dolores.
1
It is a traffic lane, not for parking.
1
It is hazardous! Time to end it.
1
It is not fair that religious institutions get special treatment to break the law.
1
It is very unsafe for bicyclists. I feel it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.
1
It really isn't that confusing the way it is today. I would prefer to just leave it alone.
1
It will only get worse once the whole park opens.
1
It's 2015, it's time to end preferential treatment for 1 religion.
1
It's a drought the plants look DEAD because of that...let's pray for rain and all be happy!
1
It's a safety issue, not a religious issue. Safety first.
1
It's against the rules and dangerous to allow people to park in the median
1
It's good for churches, and bad for everything else.
1
It's good to review this situation.
1
It's just too dangerous to park like that.
1
It's never seemed like a large enough issue to worry about for me.
1
It's not fair that median parking exists for churches. It needs to be for everyone.
1
It's not just these two streets!!!
1
It's outrageous that drivers are allowed to park in a traffic lane.
1
It's really dangerous to allow median parking at all.
1
It's time to make parking available to all... we live in a city of mass transit - use it!!!
1
It's unsafe and unregulated anarchy. Stop it.
1
It's unsafe. I've bicycled through there and it's harrowing.
1
It\'s about time you address this issue.
1
Jesus would carpool
1
Just make it parking 24/7 and cut the streets down to one lane each way.
7
Count
Response
1
Keep median parking as it is on 17th and Guerrero for Cornerstone Church
1
Keep the current practice
1
Keep the median parking!!!
1
Laws should be enforced without regard to religious affiliation!
1
Leave it alone
1
Leave things the way they are. It seems to be working fine.
1
Legalize and regulate the parking on weekends - don't let churches get a special pass.
1
Let them take public transport like everyone SHOULD be doing.
1
Like many things in SF, it's a tradition I've grown to love and accept.
1
Losing the weekend parking it will be extremely disastrous for some organizations.
1
Love these surveys. More please. Thank you.
1
Make all spots 2 hours on Sunday's without permit.
1
Make people park legally!
1
Making a reasonable accommodation on weekends would be beneficial to all. Thank you.
1
Median Parking is dangerous and illegal. One has to jaywalk across busy lanes to do it.
1
Median double parking should be illegal! Enforcement needs to happen!
1
Median parking as it is, is a huge reason I continue attending Cornerstone Church.
1
Median parking happens on Valencia Street too; please don't leave it out of consideration!
1
Median parking is a dangerous safety hazard. It should never have been approved.
1
Median parking is a mess. Please make it stop.
1
Median parking is a unsafe allowance that blocks emergency first responders
1
Median parking is an absolute nuisance!
1
Median parking is dangerous and unfair
1
Median parking is essential to being able to attend my church in the Mission.
1
Median parking is illegal. Tow them all and use the money for park and median restoration.
1
Median parking is incredibly dangerous and unfair to the tax payers of San Francisco.
1
Median parking is incredibly hazardous.
1
Median parking is unsafe and inequitable. Please stop it.
1
Median parking needs to be clearly available to everyone, not just church-goers.
1
Median parking should be allowed during hours of worship.
1
Median parking should be available to all, not just church-goers.
8
Count
Response
1
Median parking should not be allowed, definitely not for use by churches alone.
1
Median parking shouldn't be removed
1
Medians are open public greenways. They should not be fenced off, nor used as parking lots.
1
More parking needs to be designated for the handicapped .
1
Neighborhood Zone style parking stickers should be required at similar fees!
1
No free parking for special interests, find a spot like the rest of us.
1
No free parking in SF
1
No group should get special rule exemptions. Separation of church and state.
1
No groups should be permitted to block traffic lanes at ANY time.
1
No median parking
1
No special church parking!
1
No special exceptions for religion.
1
No-brainer. I've always hated this practice. It's dangerous and unsightly.
1
Nobody should double park. Nobody.
1
Non residents should have to pay to park to help pay for upkeep of the area.
1
None
1
Not safe, not fair, totally unclear.
1
Now it is very unfair. Church people can take muni like others.
1
OPEN THE STREETS
1
One group, i.e. church goers, shouldn't not be given special privileges in this city.
1
Open it to all.
1
PRETTY PLEASE DONT TAKE AWAY MY CHURCH PARKING FOR THE LITERAL LOVE OF GOD K THANKS BYE
1
Parking at medians should not be on Sunday only. This seems to show support for the churches.
1
Parking for all or parking for none. No special treatment for churchgoers
1
Parking in general in SF is getting harder every year. SF needs more parking period.
1
Parking rules should be the same for everyone. It's not that complicated.
1
Parking there is illegal and parasitic. Why in the world are you not just towing these jerks?
1
People should be treated equally.
1
People should walk to the park/church. The Mission is not a parking lot.
1
Perhaps permits for these organizations along with restricted hours could work better.
1
Perhaps we should remove parking altogether.
9
Count
Response
1
Please allow median parking on Saturdays too
1
Please consider evaluating weekend double-parking on Hermann Street as well.
1
Please do not allow any free parking during high traffic times.
1
Please do not let organizations use public resources for their exclusive benefit.
1
Please eliminate unfair, illegal, and unsafe church parking.
1
Please end the parking along Dolores and Guerrero streets it is very unsafe
1
Please keep in mind that some congregations have evening services
1
Please keep median parking available in some form!
1
Please keep the median parking, but make it available to everyone. Thank you.
1
Please keep the parking tradition!
1
Please make this type of parking banned, it's gone on for far to long and it's very unsafe.
1
Policy creates traffic congestion and benefits a select few based on religious affiliation.
1
Post signs limiting the time frame and have parking available to all comers.
1
Public transportation is available and should be utilized.
1
Really not happy with bending traffic standards for church parking.
1
Religions should have no special rights
1
Religions should never be exempt from the laws the rest of us must adhere to.
1
Religions shouldn't get special exceptions to breaking the law. Not cool.
1
Religious groups shouldn't get preferred tx
1
Religious tradition should not trump the law. The law provides equality for all citizens.
1
SFMTA
1
STOP DOUBLE PARKING! TAKE THE BUS!
1
Safety first.
1
Selective enforcement is an incredibly unfair thing to do.
1
Separate church and street!
1
Separation of Church and State
1
Separation of church and state. Why is it even allowed?
1
Should not be available just to religious institutions.
1
So cool you're doing a survey!
1
Some of the questions seemed biased, just FYI when it comes to designing the next survey.
1
Special parking privileges for churches could lead to the city being sued.
10
Count
Response
1
Stop blocking traffic, its dangerous to everyone!
1
Stop fucking up this city. Leave shit alone assholes.
1
Stop giving churches a free ride. Either everyone gets to park, or no one gets to park.
1
Stop median parking!
1
Stop this unsafe practice
1
Stop with all the parking. Make people take the bus. NO MORE PARKING!!!
1
Sunday parking on median should be allowed for churches.
1
Tax the churches!
1
Thank you SF
1
Thank you for asking for our opinions
1
Thank you for asking our opinions. Hope you publish the results.
1
Thank you for asking these questions!
1
Thank you for asking!
1
Thank you for finally tackling this issue
1
Thank you for listening!
1
Thank you for looking into this :)
1
Thank you for making reasonable accommodations for all people.
1
Thank you for posting this survey. This "issue" strikes me as much ado about nothing.
1
Thank you for taking on the hard work of taking about this issue and finding solutions.
1
Thank you for taking this on, it deserves City scrutiny.
1
Thank you for taking this on. The status quo is not working.
1
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue.
1
Thank you for this opportunity.
1
Thank you for this survey opportunity
1
Thank you for your consideration of this topic.
1
Thank you!
1
Thanks for addressing this issue. It has confused me for 7 years.
1
Thanks for asking! The median parking for congregations is a good thing.
2
Thanks for asking.
1
Thanks for doing this!
1
Thanks for looking into this issue.
11
Count
Response
1
Thanks for soliciting our views!
1
Thanks for starting this process! I\'m sure it\'s going to be a complicated task.
1
Thanks for working on figuring out the best solution!
1
Thd church goers act like they own the median parking and are pretty pushy and rude
1
The church has been there for years. We need to work with churches wk LK
1
The city needs to put a stop to double parking, and not just in one area but all!
1
The current situation is very obviously unconstitutional.
1
The current system works fine and has been in place for many many years
1
The illegal parking is extremely dangerous!
1
The less free parking in San Francisco, the better.
1
The median parking is ridiculously dangerous - I cannot believe it is allowed.
1
The median parking on Dolores Street is dangerous and needs to end!
1
The median parking poses a major safety hazard and should be eliminated.
1
The median parking should at least be allowed on Sunday's, it's well regulated already.
1
The more parking the better
1
The plants in the media are looking great. I would be happy to help take of them.
1
The public should have clear notice of parking restrictions.
1
The rules should be the same for everyone. Let us know what's OK and what is not.
1
The solution has to be fair, uniformly enforced, and transparent.
1
The status quo is dangerous and unsafe.
1
The status quo is unfair and unsafe!
1
The weekend parking is needed but parameters & limitations need to be defined.
1
There are plenty of ways to get to the area via public transportation, cars are not a necessity.
1
There should be NO parking during the weekend. Traffic is already unmanageable in this area!
1
There should be No median parking allowed in the city & should be enforced by the city
1
There should be no median parking allowed period!
1
There should be no median parking allowed.
1
There should be no special privileges to religious institutions. Period.
1
These rules should also apply to turn lane parking on Valencia at between 19th and 20th streets
1
They can adopt a median as long as that means they do not get exclusive rights to that median.
1
Things are fine as they are. Please don't remove another SF tradition.
12
Count
Response
1
This 'loop hole' of illegal activity needs to be closed. It is unsafe.
1
This is a double standard that needs to be addressed.
1
This is a huge safety issue to Pedestrians, bicycles, and other motorists!!!
1
This is a tempest in a teapot.
1
This is dangerous and just inviting more cars into the city
1
This is illegal. Public transport must be used by all. And Remove Google Buses!
1
This is silly. You're not going to do anything about median parking.
1
This needs to be regulated. Your enforcement is so aggressive in other areas!
1
This parking makes me feel very unsafe when driving or riding in the area.
1
This process has to stop. Leave the medians free and clear.
1
This should NOT be allowed.
1
This should not be allowed. It's not safe.
1
Transit First Policy
1
Unfair to have one set of rules for churches and another for the rest of the public.
1
Use google shuttles to bring people to and from church and relieve the parking shortage.
1
Very much appreciate the coming together of communities to resolve some issues!!!!!
1
We need to preserve existing parking spaces
1
We should all be treated equally by the government
1
We should ban church double parking throughout the city.
1
We should be charging for on street parking! Return to Sunday metering, even if only after noon.
1
We should be encouraging the use of PUBLIC Transportation for situations such as this...
1
We think that the parking should remain in place for Churches.
1
Whatever the decision is, it should be enforced.
1
Why can't people go to church in their own neighborhoods? God is everywhere.
1
Why not on Valencia and all the way to Chavez St???
1
Why should "churchgoers" be allowed to park illegally ? They can take mass transit or an Uber.
1
Would Jesus break parking laws?
1
Would love to see an assessment of this type of parking in other neighborhoods as well
1
You forgot that public transportation (MUNI) is an option for those that don't drive.
1
alternatively, make the two streets one lame and add parking and bike lanes
1
ban should apply to the entire city.
13
Count
Response
1
churches should have No special parking rights- separation of Church and parking!
1
do not incur any costs to residents with this process.
1
encourage people to write share a remote parking location
1
end church double-parking
1
ensure that the parking is not controlled by the churches de facto.
1
fencing makes the meridian a fortress against the community
1
formalize median parking 7 days a week, protect median grass and plants
1
it needs to end.
1
just charge for parking already.
1
just make a clear policy!
1
keep it as it is
1
kill the median parking - it's dangerous.
1
losing that parking area would not be fun at all.
1
median parking makes it impossible to back out of our garage during the weekends
1
no special privileges for churches. separation of church and state
1
nothing additional
1
preferential use of city resources for religious institutions or one particular group is not ok
1
separation of church and state, please.
1
striping should be discouraged
1
the current status is unfair. Either option is better than the status quo
1
this is discrimination and dangerous for people
1
we need the parking in this area
1
what
1
why do church goers get a special pass? its not fair.
1
Median parking is so unsafe -- any where in the city. Please prohibit, especially on non-median streets such as Steiner St at
Oak St
1
This is something that is decades old. Use church or Velencia if you need to go in that direction
1
This should not just be considered at the Guerrero/Dolores illegal double parking areas but at churches throughout the city.
Separation of Church and State is a thing that our country supposedly stands behind. If I can't double park to go to a bar or
restaurant (my "churches") then people who worship make-believe sky-friends shouldn't be able to either.
1
Cars that currently park next to the Median on weekends is very unsafe and creates traffic backups. I hope The City/SFMTA
reconsiders allowing this.
14
Count
Response
1
I think the current situation where church goers from outside the neighborhood block an entire lane of traffic for several blocks
in violation of parking rules and regulations is completely unfair and should be stopped.
1
A government should never favor any religious institution and that is what sanctioned median parking does presently.
1
While in principle I don't support median parking for churchgoers, I also don't see it as a major problem affecting my use of city
roads (though I live in the city, I very rarely travel by car on affected streets on Sunday mornings).
1
That church goers are afforded free Sunday parking is unfair. The rest of us use public transit, bikes, walk and ride shares to
get around--let the devout do the same. They are not a protected class.
1
I am against the median parking due to the traffic congestion caused, the safety implications of having stationary objects in a
roadway, as well as the haphazard enforcement and questionable legality of the parking. If median parking is to be approved, it
should be for everyone, and not just church congregation members.
1
If parking is formalized, it should not be free. The increase in car traffic as a result of more cars parking, the increase in
pollution, and the increase in noise should be considered. I much prefer to do away with the parking completely and perhaps
add bike lanes or more curbside plantings. We don\'t need to use every available inch for car parking.
1
I\'ve lived between Guerrero & Dolores for over 20 years. Weekend parking has gotten ridiculous, but it is very difficult to travel
down Dolores and Guerrero with hundreds of cars parked along the median. The lack of enforcement is abused - I\'ve seen
people park on medians to go out drinking, knowing they\'ll get away with it, and I have reported them. The situation is totally
unfair to those of us who live here.
1
Ok to put fence around median plants as long as it does not block the entire path to cross the median to get to the other side.
Thanks for your consideration!
1
Median parking for churches drives me crazy! Separation and church and state please. These boulevards are hard to navigate
with one late out. Please stop this practice. (Second choice - open them up to everyone clearly, but would be better to have
them gone altogether.)
1
It's dangerous for people walking and on bikes for the illegally parked cars to be in the street. Please don't allow them to park in
the middle of the street.
1
There is loose enforcement if any when it comes to current policy of allowing religious organizations to park ILLEGALLY. This
includes non-religious drivers parking in the ambiguously enforced areas. City streets are subject to impartial laws and
enforcement of said laws. Religious organizations do not justify exception simply due to the nature of their organizations. Why
is this a consideration on a municipal level?
1
If we lost the ability to park on Guerrero median, it would SEVERELY affect my ability to attend my place of worship. I would
hate for a few nay-sayers to cause this. I am open (as I'm sure my church is) to creating and following guidelines that enhance
the experience for all. I also know that we tried to purchase a lot on 16th to turn into a parking structure, but the city did not allow
us to do that, saying that there was enough parking available. Clearly there isn't, or else we wouldn't have this problem on
Guerrero. We have tried many options and we are very good at directing traffic and keeping Guererro parking organized. I
believe it is the responsibility of the city to provide for all members, including religious-goers who wish to worship on Sundays.
We only park there on Sunday mornings. I think that is acceptable. It's not every day. I think it is reasonable to continue to allow
this. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to share my thoughts and needs.
1
Median parking creates the perception that certain groups have special privileges to violate parking regulations. This decreases
city-wide respect of parking regulations. It increases double parking, reducing pedestrian and bicyclist safety. It also undercuts
the argument that Guerrero needs to be maintained solely as an automotive-oriented street. If half the road capacity can just be
taken away and given to free car storage, that says the roadway capacity is underutilized, and it's not being used any better as
car storage. Rather than free storage for steel cages, a better use of that space would be wider sidewalks, protected bike
lanes, or parklets.
1
I don't use median parking myself (I walk to my synagogue), but many members of my congregation do. Eliminating median
parking would likely reduce participation and result in a financial burden for my synagogue.
15
Count
Response
1
From a fairness standpoint, if median parking is legal then it should definitely be available to everyone. In terms of
safety/convenience the three areas that I think most need to be addressed with regards to median parking are: 1) preventing
cars from blocking/parking in the openings within the medians, 2) the scenario in which a single car remains parked long after
all other parked cars have left (if the car is parked near an intersection, until you are up close it looks like it's just a car waiting
for the light to change and not a parked car), and 3) cars should not be allowed to park within ~50 feet of certain intersections
because it causes traffic backups when cars are trying to turn left from the one remaining open lane.
1
Muni and Bart coverage is very good in this area. Allowing people to park illegally is baffling when public transit is viable.
1
The mission neighborhood is named as such for the many churches and subsequently neighborhoods that started here. It'd be
a shame to alter that impact due to parking
1
I know at least one church on Guerrero, near my house, serves a minority population. It would be a shame, as they get
increasingly pushed out of the city due to gentrification, if the lack of parking made coming to the church prohibitive. The city is
rapidly losing its diversity. Let's not help it along. Also, I like how it slows down traffic on Guerrero on the weekends.
1
Traffic does backup during the day on Sunday between 15th and 16th. There have been difficulty with moving trucks double
parking on weekends during church services and holidays and street fairs.
1
Please make this fair to everyone. Either allow anybody to use the medians for parking, or outlaw it completely. Why should
church-goers get special treatment?
1
Those cars are hella dangerous... it creates this gauntlet where you have to continually slam on the brakes to avoid old people
(who probably shouldn't be driving) backing up, getting out of their cars, yelling at clouds, etc.
1
I can't believe we've allowed this practice to go on as long as we have. The churches don't pay taxes, and shouldn't be subject
to any special treatment. I live several blocks away, but I have to drive that way to get to most other parts of town, and every
Sunday I'm enraged by the churchgoing scofflaws.
1
It is important to me and many of my friends and community to keep the parking as it is currently.
1
The current situation in allowing parking on city thoroughfares is not fair or legal (vehicle code) due to it allowing a privilege and
benefit to one group and not to the community as a whole. This especially becomes problematic during Sunday Streets,
parades and other events. Additionally, this does not adhere to the Transit First policy of the city.
1
I find the median parking extremely dangerous and detrimental to the already over-run and fragile neighborhood. Support the
taxpaying homeowners and please remove.
1
It's absolutely absurd that median parking is allowed on a particular day with no proper signage or enforcement. Obscure,
unwritten parking rules and looking the other way for ticketing might fly in a small town, but not in a major city like San
Francisco. It's unfair, and abused to those who it's meant to benefit.
1
I don't understand what's taken so long to address this. My church on Sundays is any place that serves breakfast, but I can't
just stop my car in the middle of any active street I want to go there.
1
Would like to see parking during church services on Sundays and Saturday for synagogue on Dolores. Would time ending at
3:00
1
Must stop the between median parking that blocks access to some streets like Chula. Also, median parking must not be only
for church goers.
1
Everyone deals with parking problems in this city, and we should all have to play by the same rules.
16
Count
Response
1
I would prefer more public transit solutions to help solve this problem. Many people in our small church, which is the only one in
the Bay Area, come from the east bay or south from the peninsula to attend our church and have to drive to get to church in the
morning. So no good public transit exists to get people not in San Francisco to 16th and DOLORES, especially older people
who attend. But until we get better public transit, people who drive need a place to park near the church (especially the elderly).
And our small church can't afford to pay someone for parking every month. I personally am elderly, but ride my bike. Though I
got a ticket for not stopping completely at a stop sign $197 fine!
1
Parking is, basically, a better land use than travel lanes, because, as stupid as it is, it provides additional access to the area
without wasting any off-street space. In fact, double-loaded street parking is probably the most land-efficient vehicle access
possible do because it wastes no space at all on drive aisles. My problem with the current arrangement is that it is focused only
on churchgoers and on looking the other way when choosing what to enforce. Please, by all means, put up signs to make it
uniformly available, make it available at all times of day when two travel lanes are not absolutely required by traffic volume, and
*meter it* when utilization is still excessive. Since parking lanes are narrower than travel lanes, you might even be able to
restripe each carriageway for one travel lane, one bike lane, and two parking lanes, which would be even better.
1
Median parking is unsafe and causes congestion! If the city can make money adopting out certain medians, that's fine. But
generally they should not be used for this.
1
Protecting median plants in either manner is not feasible. The Guerrero median is too narrow for neighbors to safely work.
Fences would be stepped over by parkers, or so high as to be ugly and visually obstructive.
1
Can I let my friends park in the alleyway where I live on Sundays if I declare my home to be a church? If not, then enforce the
law for everyone else, too.
1
Why is this conversation taking place at all? What's happening now is simply illegal. The city either selectively enforces or fails
to enforce the law. Quit using the term "median parking". The correct description: drivers are purposely parking in the street
blocking a lane. That's all there is to it. If vehicles are parked illegally they should be cited and towed. If people cannot find
parking then too bad. They should quit driving. That's they way it is for everyone else and all other events. Houses of religious
worship do not deserve special accommodations above everyone else.
1
the more I think about it, I really like the idea proposed to open up median parking to everyone during high use times! That
would allow church goers to park and help to alleviate the 'unfair' accusation some people throw at them.
1
Keep the rules clear, and that way no one is confused. You can either always have, or never have median parking.
1
I'm supportive of eliminating the confusion. If it's legal, it should be legal for everyone to park, not just some group or other. I'm
supportive of fencing, depending on how well / attractive it is.
1
The median parking on Sunday as practiced in San Francisco violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied
States, and I strongly support that municipalities not purposefully violate the Constitution. The First Amendment includes and
clause know as the establishment clause, and it forbids the Country and through the 14th Amendment state and local
governments from enacting rules to \"establish\" a religious preference of secular usages. No0ne has provided a convincing
argument on why Church parking would be an exception to the establishment clause. Some people have posited that it is not a
governmental practice in furtherance of religious observation, because there is no actual law on the book that can be pointed to,
and that it developed organically and has existed historically in San Francisco on these Streets. While that history appears
truthful, and thus not without appeal, it does not answer legally compared to the weight of the First Amendment Establishment
clause. In a case that arose in San Francisco, Yiick Wo, out of analogous fact pattern, and the Supreme Court found the
actions unconstitutional. In that case, the City had no law forbidding the opening of laundry by Chinese people, by by and
organically and historically developed practice no laundries owned by Chinese were . approved. Thus, the City can not get
around Chruch Parking on Sunday, by saying the parking regulations don\'t address it, if the reality is that free illegal parking is
only available to those attending certain selected religious meetings. Additionally, the Sunday parking places a strain on
crowded Streets. Traffic back up. There is a cost in time and convenience. And, in the event of a fire in the Area, the near
shutting down of halve the lanes of traffic, and funneling the rest of the cars into too few lanes, is a burden of ristk
1
The current parking situation is dangerous, slows traffic and gives an unfair advantage to religious groups that use median
parking every day of the week. It's time to change this.
17
Count
Response
1
Median parking is unsafe. It makes left turns unsafe at intersections because you can't see oncoming traffic well due to all of
the parked cars in the oncoming lane. Just think of all the times you were waiting to make a left turn and someone coming the
opposite direction was waiting to make a left turn and you had to sit there because you couldn't see past their car.
1
The median parking creates dangerous situations for both pedestrians and drivers. People should be encouraged to take public
transit. The city should not be encouraging the use of cars by catering to the parking whims of polluters.
1
We shouldn't be encouraging people driving by providing them with free parking. Pretty sure the current policy violates the 1rst
Amendment.
1
I feel as a resident, the churches are being targeted. As a fifth generation San Franciscan, as long as I can remember, the
center media has always been reserved for the churches on Sunday's. If everyone from the park can soon park there, there
will no longer be parking for people going to worship. The park is now a huge magnet for everyone from the Bay Area, not just
the City anymore. I know churches aren't a real priority, but can't we reserve anything for the few instead of always appeasing
the "entitled".
1
The city needs to look at other methods of increasing parking rather than sweeping it under the rug and transforming roads into
temporary parking lots. It's unsafe, aesthetically unpleasing, and causes traffic backups since traffic is bottlenecked onto one
lane. I've even seen people waiting behind a line of parked cars, thinking it was just traffic. I applaud and appreciate the steps
being taken to receive community feedback and address this issue once and for all.
1
These streets are difficult to navigate on Sundays because of the existing policy. Removing this will open up the streets to
bicycle and automobile traffic flow to match the rest of the week, which I support. This would also have an additional benefit -- it
would help to solve the problem of Dolores Park cleanup on Sundays.... because (I reason) that if the DP users can't park their
cars there, they can't haul in as much of the crap that they then litter the park with after their departure. If these people can't
responsibly pack their stuff back out, then this would be another deterrent to preventing that behavior.
1
Let's be fair to everyone, including the plants and either eliminate parking or making it safe and available to all.
1
The double parking must stop, it is creating a massive traffic problem and I want to see SFPD motorcycle officers out there in
their leather jackets and tall boots every Sunday enforcing this. Churches or not, we all have to follow traffic laws and this is not
a gray area, its find legal parking or don't go to church. It's a nightmare and I want my comments sent directly to Chief Suhr.
1
Clarifying the rules of median parking is important. I think it is also important to recognize how important religious services are
to some of the congregants who live outside this neighborhood. For some elders, this visit to church is the most important part
of their week- and I would hate to see this important social and spiritual access restricted, especially for those with mobility
issues. I'm concerned that this survey doesn't seem to consider or reference the needs of these institutions. If religious
institutions don't think that restricting parking is an issue- I would withdraw my reservations- but I don't feel like their voices
have been integrated into this survey and analysis. Yes, I live in the neighborhood- but part of what makes it great is interacting
with the broader City family- at the park, church or hanging out in the medians.
1
This has bothered me since I moved to San Francisco's Bernal Heights neighborhood and experienced this at times. I think
even fictional biblical characters would agree that it is not fair and definitely not safe to continue this practice.
1
I wanna be able to ignore the law too. No special privileges for churches (who I might add, PAY NO TAXES).
1
Any plans going forward should include everybody or nobody. SF stop giving privilege to so many individual groups
1
I support separation of church and street. The only way I could support median parking is if it is equally available to all, but in
that case, it defeats the purpose of supporting community organizations like churches, and likely means it will be a bunch of pot
smoking 20 somethings going to dolores park that are parking up the medians and clogging the streets. SO, the only thing to do
is prohibit this illegal parking altogether. Thanks for listening to community feedback.
1
It would be helpful if this was an option for all residents (i.e families with small children) and not just for members of certain
churches. The same parking should be available regardless of church affiliation or lack thereof.
18
Count
Response
1
I used to live at 18th and Guerrero and have a close friend that lives at Dorland and Guerrero. Parking on the weekends is
absurd - I have driven to 544 Guerrero to pickup my friend to find her driveway 'parked in', tried to use the medium parking for a
minute and was screamed at and threatened by the 'church attendant' - there is no reason for the city to support religious
institutions like this while denying this benefit to residents..... FYI, once years ago I called SFMTA to see about getting a permit
for median parking and they laughed at me. The churches can rent parking in the burbs and use shuttle buses (SFMTA seems
to like those) - or open up the median parking to all. kevin trevas
1
If all median parking is banned, parking on Sundays will be next to impossible. If we tighten and clarify the rules and enforce
them, it may go a long way towards allaying some of the objections to median parking. At the very least, a trial period of
increased enforcement would seem like a reasonable compromise.
1
Thank you for taking the time and interest in median parking, rather than just implementing changes that perhaps only a few
vocal minorities support.
1
Median parking seems dangerous and invites more driving but does calm and sloe traffic, reduce street width for peds
perhaps.
1
Thank you for working on this issue. If median parking is formalized I would appreciate it going until at least 2 or 3 on Sunday's
due to after service meetings that frequently happen. That is just my preference.
1
Concerned that if the median parking goes way completely that then all those cars then would take up neighborhood parking
spots.
1
Driving through the area on a regular basis and having to be subjected to slow downs is already a pain. And then I have to be
extra vigilant with all the jay walkers popping out from in between cars in the middle of the block, especially occasional groups
of drunk Dolores Park revelers. Also, I am personally a very responsible driver and car owner and I make sure to always park
legally using free street parking, paying for the meter, paying for expensive private lots, or having to drive around the block ten
times.. and meanwhile, the people parking in the medians get an amazing perk that any San Franciscan would love. I WISH I
could park in the medians like the others but I've always been afraid of getting a ticket. But if the outcome of this debate ends
up meaning there is 0% chance of me getting a parking ticket, they I will absolutely start taking advantage of it.... why should I
circle around looking for parking to go have lunch on Mission Street... I'll just park on Dolores and walk those couple blocks.
Finally, in every other aspect across the city people are being encouraged to take public transportation and leave the car
behind... maybe with the exception of the "people going to church in the neighborhood"... well, I also go to church, but in the
Richmond where I regularly have to park 3 blocks away and walk. No exemptions for us there.
1
Should never have added plants to the Guerrero street median. Already there is garbage collecting in the plants and trees.
Fencing will make it worse! The street is busy enough with out the added distractions and visual inmpairment added by median
trees. In doing what you have done it makes it less safe for pedestrians. I don't know why main traffic corridors need trees.
1
I believe this issue simply needs to be regulated. If services are 8-9pm, then no vehicles should be there at 10pm. Also chuch
members should obtain a parking ticket from their church (at the door) to ensure attendance- meaning make it really for church
attendees and not people going to brunch
1
1. Remove the lanes on either side of the median and either widen them with more vegetation, or add bike lanes. Stop wasting
incredibly valuable land, literally hundreds of dollars per square foot, on parking for a tiny subset of the population. Even if the
parking isn't free, the parking fee comes nowhere close to covering the true opportunity cost of that wasted space. Be brave.
Don't be afraid to take away parking spaces. A lot of people like me frequent the neighborhood and its businesses without ever
using a car.
1
The knowing lack of enforcement of these blatant violations of the city's democratically enacted laws is nothing short of
unconstitutional. Churches do not get special treatment under the law simply by nature of being churches. I'm glad the city is
taking this growing problem seriously. The Mission is one of the most accessible neighborhoods by public transit, and I would
support the adoption of special bus routes to assist with bringing folks in and out on days of worship. There is simply no reason
for anyone to drive and park in the Mission every weekend, full stop.
19
Count
Response
1
the median parking needs to be managed, the Samoan church on Guerrero is the only one I see that actively manages it. I'm
all for median parking with distinct times and active towing of violators. The current ad hoc situation is a hazard. Cars parked on
the median should be towed within 30 minutes of the end of services
1
This is in essence 'double parking' which is otherwise illegal. I live on Golden Gate and there are 4 churches in a 5 block strip
which constantly double park to varying degrees. It's really about extending special rights to a group of people and to
institutions that do not pay taxes.
1
My husband and I are Reality SF church goers who had to move from the city to the East Bay because of rent prices. So, my
husband and I commute every Sunday to church from West Berkeley. Without this street parking, we would have to pay so
much more ($70/mo BART & 2-3 hours each Sunday for back & forth commute). We are good citizens who work in and love
the city, serve at St. Anthony's, Glide SF, and The Arc, our church meets at Everett Middle School and as a church we support
the school and it's various organizations with various events and fundraisers throughout the year. I really hope we can come to
a compromise to let people who love the city, it's churches, and Dolores Park be able to get there on a smaller budget and
faster.
1
We cherish our Church's location in the mission. We respect the local parking issues and appreciate the accommodation of
having managed median parking available on Sundays.
1
As someone who leaves in Noe Valley but travels through Mission almost daily, I find median parking increases congestion
and creates traffic hazards. If parking is that difficult for people who attend the church or come into Mission, it would be better if
they used public transportation or other transport options that doesn't involve parking.
1
It's completely ridiculous to allow the median parking. People should take transit to churches or we should encourage them to
move elsewhere. Streets are for people, not for cars.
1
SFMTA Should consider a road diet on Valencia or Guerrero, using the additional space created for a Protected Bike Lane and
full-time parking.
1
I'm not a big fan of median parking, whether formally allowed or not, since it creates a huge traffic flow issue on two of the major
transit corridors through the Mission neighborhood since both streets are reduced to one lane in either direction, and it creates a
big safety issue as people are more likely to J-walk across the one lane of traffic on each side and oncoming traffic cannot
easily see these pedestrians (both in crosswalks and J-walkers) as they continue down either street. I've seen many narrow
collision misses in my time in the neighborhood and I'm not comfortable with allowing that to continue as a hazard.
1
Median parking can cause dangerous situations for bicycles along Dolores. This should be taken into account when planning
for formalized parking rules. As for have formal rules or no more median parking, the policy needs to be applied uniformly to all
users: either no one can park there or everyone can park there. The current unwritten policy which provides a massive benefit
to some businesses (churches) and not to others is simply wrong and possibly illegal. Please, apply one policy to all public
users of city space and infrastructure.
1
I find it a bit ridiculous, especially to individuals that come into the neighborhood to worship, that they have uninhibited access to
the neighborhood amenities that we pay for and maintain. They do not contribute anything to the neighborhood but dangerous
streets as a result of being unaware of how to drive and park in a city. This is problematic for not only other drivers, but
especially dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians (there are so many parks and schools in this neighborhood!). Either
everyone gets to park and use the street so that people who do not normally occupy the neighborhoods can learn by example
of local residents, how to interact with San Francisco's streets or not at all...
1
Religious institutions are part of what make the Mission still a neighborhood, not entirely a hipsters-and-condos colony.
Preserving free parking for people attending services and religious schools helps protect the neighborliness and long-term
residents, and means that we don't have to fight for parking with people coming for the restaurants or shopping. It protects
community institutions.
1
Median parking for churches can continue. There should be restrictions. Clear signage, hours restricted to Sunday mornings
only. Friday night OR Sat. AM for synagogue. No longer than 3 hours during any period. Tickets or towing for violation of
restrictions.
20
Count
Response
1
Allowing illegal double parking, including median parking is unsafe for drivers and pedestrians, unfair to residents, and should
be abolished as soon as possible.
1
Median parking serves faith based organizations and the general community. We want to maintain the diversity of San
Francisco and make it welcoming to all, even faith-based organizations. Mine has mostly members who live in SF and we also
try to support the businesses local to our church.
1
"Adopt-a-median" programs are a shortsighted band aid to the traffic congestion and maintenance issue. How about a parking
improvement district that would fund landscaping maintenance of the street medians, while also providing an additional source
of revenue for the SFMTA? It's done all over Southern California. . .
1
The churches and their community are part of SF culture. Although I do not practice that faith I feel that many social and cultural
events, including going to church, folsom street fair, SF bike party to name a few deserve recognition and support. Thanks for
reading this SFMTA member!
1
I think it is unfair and somewhat discriminatory to use traffic congestion on Dolores street as a reason to discontinue median
parking. Allowing median parking from Friday night through Sunday noon to facilitate congregants attending religious services is
a much less drastic change than permanently eliminating one lane of traffic on Valencia street, and removing significant parking
through the permanent installation of parklets. Valencia street also continues to allow religious parking in the center on Sunday
mornings. It would create unnecessary hardship for the religious communities, most of whom are older or aging adults, along
the street when Guerrero street could easily absorb additional traffic during the hours which allow median parking. Signage can
provide redirection during median parking hours.
1
I live on Landers St. the parking between the medians blocks access to my one way street. It is completely unsafe to drive
down Dolores where pedestrian visibility is already difficult. Riding a bicycle down Dolores during this parking ritual is even
more treacherous. No religion is above the law, nor should it be allowed to act in a manner outside of the law, ever. There is
ample public transit that services the area, there is no need to allow unsafe, illegal parking for their benefit.
1
Churches and businesses if they want parking for their members, need to pay for it. We cant sacrifice safety with illegal
parking, one day someone not from SF will come and slam into the back of a car it doesnt realize is parked. Its horrible. As for
medians, only citizens, real people, not entities or businesses should be able to adopt and care for the median. A business or
church that adopts will then claim they are making the neighborhood better and deserve different concessions higher than all
the rest, its just our civic duty to take care of our city and keep people safe and not provide only for some people who need
parking if all of us dont benefit. Sorry.
1
I understand neighbor's concerns, but I am a respectful median parker when I come to church services. These institutions
were built without parking lots, where else should one park if you are coming from further away then is possible via bike or
walking.
1
Median parking that was posted for certain days and hours is the right balance for the parking needs of diverse congregations,
avoids impacts on residential parking, and can be managed to protect median vegetation
1
Safety is definitely a problem. And church-only privilege is another problem. The median was never intended to be for parking.
Please make it enforced no parking and let the plants flourish.
1
We cannot allow the flawed argument to exist, that this practice of parking in the middle of traffic lanes be allowed simply
because it has always been allowed. If parking is a problem for churchgoers, they need to consider alternatives to driving,
including: public transportation, taxis/rideshare, bicycles, or walking. Thank you for your time.
1
SF should not be taking measures that encourage further car trips/parking. This is counterintuitive to its environmental and
even Vision Zero goals. These medians should be enforced like any other medians.
1
This parking situation has become far worse over the past 5 years. It's a complete nuisance and VERY SCARY when cars are
parked in the median after dark. Also, it's very difficult to get thru the 18th/Dolores intersection. BAD!!
1
I'm glad someone is finally doing something about this - it unfairly favors churchgoers over anyone else who needs to park in
the mission and makes traffic terrible.
21
Count
Response
1
Churches and other institutions should be able to use median parking as long as they continue to manage and monitor the
practice that they have in place. They go about it in a way that is safe and civil. However, visitors to Dolores Park should't be
able to use median parking as there is no formal process or people to oversee that it is being carried out safely.
1
I'm asking SFMTA to please keep median parking the way it is, particularly for outside the churches. I understand that there
may be some small consequences, and I really appreciate that you're coming up with ways we could keep median parking and
still preserve plants (and other great compromises). In San Francisco, we pride ourselves in supporting all walks of life and
helping people with what they need. For the church, what so many of us need is our community and everything that supports
us there. When you spurt support our ability to park in the median, you help us get to church on time, not have to drive around
in circles and walk several blocks with our kids. You help keep a tradition that says that San Francisco cares. Thanks for
listening!
1
If you were to allow median parking during "peak demand" i would like to see a study of when "peak demand" is. In addition to
sunday morning, perhaps friday and saturday eventing are also "peak demand" and in fairness to those local businesses,
median parking should be allowed then too. This should not be a perk only allowed to churches.
1
I don't think median parking should be allowed. But if it is, it should be clear when/where it is permitted, and it should be
metered.
1
Some people don't like it but it's been that way for so long and it just works. Leave it alone. The complaints of a few shouldn't go
against what the majority is fine with/doesn't even care about.
1
Any negative impact of median parking seems minimal compared to the cost of increased enforcement to formalize or
eliminate median parking. Those funds would be much better used on other necessary tasks.
1
It is unfair and illogical that SFMTA has looked the other way while certain parties utilize this illegal practice yet fine others who
would do it elsewhere. I am for abolishing it altogether and leveling the playing field.
1
I used to live in the 240 Casa Delores building...And the Sunday church double-parking and median parking squeezed off the
street. I also didn't appreciate that the CIty of San Francisco was pandering to religion.
1
Separation of church and state in the constitution prohibits favoring religious organizations' creating unsafe conditions while
ticketing everyone else.
1
We need to also ban parking in the center of the road at Valencia and 14th on weekends. There should be no special privileges
for Church per the Constitution. This makes taking turns to/from Brosnan and Clinton Park to Valencia st extremely dangerous
as it's hard to see oncoming cars and bicycles.
1
I can't wait to see the survey about police cars blocking a full lane of traffic on Bryant between 7th and 8th. This sort of parking
bs is unacceptable.
1
-There is sometime dog feces in the median; damage to the median vegetation is probably more from local residence. -There
isn't other available parking for faith based groups.
1
These are transit-rich corridors and priority should be with improving transit, as well as pedestrian and bicycle access. The
creation or preservation of temporary parking spaces is not in line with the vision for better streets.
1
I learned about this survey from the NextDoor App. It was being pushed as an anti-religion opportunity to restrict
'discriminatory', e.g. religious use of the street. I think SF should be live and let live. Religious people deserve to be able to
continue as they have been doing. I hope sfmta will consider that many of the 'anti-median parking' arguments are in some
cases about attacking organized religion.
1
This is a First Amendment issue. If you don't deal with this, someone will sue the City. Plus it's just wrong. Also, what about
Valencia churches/median?!
1
This is very important to keep available as removing the parking option would further alienate and displace the families and
long-time residents we want to keep in the city.
22
Count
Response
1
I've been nearly hit trying to cross the intersection near Mission Dolores and have always been offended by the City not
enforcing the parking laws.
1
For the church I attend, all the church people using the parking in the median on Guerrero are aware of the vegetation and has
been told by the Church to not step on them. We have follow that and only step on stone curb or on the dirt where there are no
plants/vegetation.
1
SF is violating separation of church & state by allowing such illegal parking. Ending it should be a no-brainer.
1
median parking is a symptom of both a lack of transit options and complete lack of parking enforcement for religious people.
why should only people who go to church be able to block a road? makes no sense except for election cycle politics
1
Median parking is a longstanding form of subtle discrimination in our communities (as a matter of tradition, it has only been
extended to those in the Christian faith). I am very much against it philosophically, and also practically as a resident of the
Mission. Traffic jams get noticeably worse on Sun and I fear it's unsafe during those moments when just a few cars are left in
the median (as opposed to a whole row).
1
Bring back Sunday metering and parking restrictions to manage demand. It\'s a zoo because it\'s free.
1
Please allow parking to be used for secular as well as faith-based purposes on the weekends. Increased weekend parking for
everyone is fair and practical.
1
Median parking is confusing and dangerous for other drivers using the lanes. It also backs up traffic. Free parking for people to
go to church is unfair to others.
1
Don't forget the illegal median parking on Valencia too. Also, we should have 7 day a week permit parking.
1
Somehow people in San Francisco MUST learn to use the excellent public transportation we have and how to walk to where
they feel they must go. How about cutting the fares on Sat. & Sun. Or ALL the time.
1
Median parking has worked well for the neighborhood for decades. Don't waste resources on this non-issue.
1
There needs to be some order. I think the slowing of traffic is actually good for a Sunday, but it seems lawless and dangerous.
Some lines on the road and signs would go a long way.
1
This survey hasn't mentioned what the current legalities of Median parking are. I've lived in the neighborhood for ten years. And
my impression, since it's not posted, has always been that it's specifically for faith based institutions. Which is why it's always
seemed unfair. And ultimately, the city can't clearly and effectively state what the legality of median parking is. It is by it's very
nature illegal! It's confusing, and we have enough rule benders in the mission. Median parking only serves to further rule
bending. I am opposed to it. Medians should be for vegetation, dog walking, and community enjoyment. Parking should be
clearly marked and strongly enforced.
1
There have been times in the late afternoon or evening when a few cars remain parked along the median, but not enough to
make it obvious that there might be cars there. I've nearly gotten in accidents as each successive car realizes this and tries to
swerve into the other lane, leaving less time for every car afterwards. This is a HUGE safety issue, and I can't believe the city
allows such a dangerous situation to develop. As for making it legal for all, that will still create confusion and congestion and
safety issues as people cross the street ad hoc, as so few will go down to a crosswalk. All of this is just so dangerous.
Guerrero has been designed as a street, and is safest when operated in that manner.
1
I've lived in the neighborhood for over 25 years. I've never understood why it's legal to block a full lane of traffic for any reason
other than construction.
1
Having people tend to the church parking is key, which could use a bit more training/education. Otherwise, the traffic doesn't
bother me. Fencing up the median may bring other inconvenience/risk/maintenance overheads, like trashing (hard to clean up).
City could suggest median-friendly vegetation (certain types of succulents?) and the neighborhood can chip in to grow things.
1
Traffic doesn't seem to back up much on the weekends, median parking or no. Also, I doubt you'll get enforcement directed at
churchgoers; the only fair solution is to open parking to everyone.
23
Count
Response
1
I feel the current parking practice is absolutely absurd and want it discontinued immediately. There is no reason why those
attending a church (or any other organization) should get any special treatment. It was especially offensive when the city
charged for parking on Sunday as it was simply a way of folks avoiding paying their fair share. Absolutely unacceptable!
1
As a former long-time resident of the Delores Street corridor and current frequent visitor to the neighborhood, I find it completely
reprehensible that church members are given parking privileges that non-members are not offered; I have been
inconvenienced considerably more times than I can count by this practice, and now avoid visiting that area on Sundays.
Opening up median parking to everyone equally seems like a fair compromise. Might make up for all the parking lost to all of
those parklets springing up everywhere...
1
i believe businesses and congregations and park goers of Dolores park would be served well if median parking were legalized
on weekends to encourage people's use and accessibly of our beautiful city.
1
Something needs to change, right now its very dangerous if there is only one car parked next to the median and with
pedestrians walking every where since drivers drive too fast on the streets around here. That being said it will only work if it's
enforced. Right now it's a free for all.
1
Median parking should be illegal and a ticketable offense. Its dangerous, traffic causing, and ignores the seperation of church
and state.
1
We brought this on ourselves by granting "unofficial" parking law exemptions to church-goers on Sundays. Maybe that made
sense in the past but times have changed. Parking laws should be enforced for ALL. No special rights for Christians.
1
Living on Guerrero and being a driver gives me special insight. On the one hand I get irritated with weekend parking on
Guerrero, primarily because I'm an atheist and providing special parking rules for church goers is unsettling. However, it does
keep these folks from taking up all the parking. So I'm neither supportive or unsupportive. Opening up these spaces to
everyone could be a nice alternative.
1
Churches should be required to find legal parking options for their congregants. If they need to rent out a nearby lot (and pay for
it), that's life in the big city.
1
if the medians will be removed, more cars will drive through and fewer parking will be available.
1
I don't understand why people need to drive to church. If one lives in the city, one can take a variety of public transit options to
get where you want. If one lives outside the city, one can still take public transit to get where you want, or frequent a church
that's local to your area.
1
While you're at it, the churchgoer double parking phenomenon is terrible around Glide church. Please help end this practice
citywide.
1
Church goers can be given a sign to place on windshield that indicates what church they are going to. This way, other folks not
going to church can be ticketed. Median parking should be continued one morning a week for church goers only. All others
should be ticketed.
1
This should be applied to Valencia Street as well. Either everyone can do it or no one. Stop special treatment for churches.
1
There is currently an arbitrary policy throughout the city that looks the other way for church goers that once church hours are
over often turns into tickets on cars hours later. A fair application of the law to all should be in place. either allow or restrict
everyone on Sundays, but be clear and fair in application of the law.
1
People should be able to park in the median regardless of whether they're going to church. It is not a privilege reserved for a
few simply because it is public space.
1
I have seen the churches along Gurerro and Dolores St. use traffic cones to prevent non-churchgoers from parking along the
median. I would like if there were signs, and if this parking was available to everyone on Sundays.
24
Count
Response
1
As a congregation member, I benefit from the current situation; however, I recognize that there is some confusion and possible
unfairness to others in this arrangement. Thus I would accept formalizing the arrangement. People should not step on the
plants, but fencing them destroys their beauty. Signage and enforcement should help this problem.
1
Median parking is a great idea for a small town but it's a terrible idea for a large city. Further, it's just wrong to provide
exemptions to ordinances based on religious institutions or services. Just is.
1
If churches want to take a lane of a public street (it is NOT a median) and convert it to a private parking lot for their use 1 day
per week, I'm ok with that, but they need to pay (market rate) for that privilege. No such thing as a free lunch.
1
We've appreciated and have benefited from median parking so we hope it continues. We're also aware that the Mission is
changing, with much more diverse interests and people, so it's understandable that coming up with "solutions" can be tricky.
Thanks for working on this issue and inviting Mission neighbors to talk together. A worthy effort!
1
If streets like Guerrero and Dolores are not clear, more traffic tries to clog Mission St. and holds up MUNI there.
1
Removing median parking would severely negatively impact members of faith-based organizations to attend scheduled
services, especially the elderly, handicapped, and those driving in from out of town, of which there are many in our
congregation. Clearly visible signage and the elimination of parking close to intersections and mid-block turn-arounds will
increase safety for all and improve access for emergency vehicles.
1
It's a completely unfair abuse of privilege for churches to enjoy free parking in the middle of the streets on Sundays, when no
one else (residents or visitors) enjoy that same privilege.
1
I have almost been killed twice on Guerrero due to people parking in the middle of a busy street. This needs to stop. We need
more parking in the area but this is not the way.
1
Allowing people to break the law simply because they are going to church while doing it has to stop. I would prefer that both
lanes be clear of parked vehicles because having them there makes it more difficult to get from the freeway to my home, which
I am far more likely to be trying to do on weekends.
1
I have found it infuriating that the city gives churchgoers special parking privileges denied to others. I understand there's a huge
demand for parking on Sundays, so it wouldn't make sense to eliminate median parking completely, but making it legal to all,
with clear signage would make a huge difference. Thank you for looking into this.
1
Regardless of the outcome. Vehicles that are left parked in the travel lane at the end of the day (by dusk) should be towed.
1
We attend St Matthew's on Sundays and we drive down from Santa Rosa.. My mother requires handicapped parking - I realize
there is very limited parking available in the area. Are there businesses that are closed on Sunday that have nearby parking
that church members could use just during Sunday services?
1
Median parking is essential for attendance at the Jewish services at Congregation Sha'ar Zahav on Friday night and Saturday
morning. Attendance at the services of other religious groups in the area also require median parking.
1
Congestion and risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers stem from turning a blind eye toward unauthorized parking
situations. Often it's the unpredictability of other motorists parking in an unexpected way that causes the problem. We have
wonderful public transportation in this city amicable for all states in life. Please enforce a consistent standard.
1
I'd like to see the issue of double parking around other places of worship addressed. I live near at least 3 churches and they
seem to have carte blanche to take over the street.
1
The key is to avoid providing a special privilege only to one religious group, which is repugnant and illegal on its face. If going
forward everyone gets to park in the middle of the street on Sundays, that's much better than the current situation. However,
even with that necessary and minimal improvement, it remains obvious that this convention exists primarily to single out
Christian churchgoers and provide them a convenience, and that still smells bad.
1
Median parking is not necessary in the Mission and is particularly dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
25
Count
Response
1
Current exclusive median parking is essential for the ongoing operation of the churches in our city. Please do not take away!
1
1. Look at all the streets in the Mission. There is a lot of bar/restaurant parking going on along streets other than Guerrero and
Dolores. 2. Enforce or enable it evenly for everyone. It's not appropriate that churchgoers get a free pass, but residents do not.
If it's a parking space, treat it as such and allow a car to be there 72 hours. If it's not a space, ticket the car immediately. 3.
There is no need for the city to provide a provision (stated or unstated) to allow congregation members to park. I disapprove of
this government-sponsored endorsement of specific faiths. On the other hand, I would be in support of it if every resident were
issued a one-day-per-week pass that allows them to park anywhere they want, with no consequences. This way, churchgoers
in the Mission can park in the median, and people who derive spiritual sustenance from nature can park in otherwise illegal
spots in Golden Gate Park, Glen Canyon, etc.
1
I'd be in favor of formalizing Sunday parking plans/hours, and making it available to anyone, not just church goers. Generally, I
don't mind that there's more cars parked on the street, just when it gets sloppy (because no one knows what is/isn't allowed)
and that it feels like an exclusive arrangement for a religious institution. For the record, I'm not a resident of the Mission, but am
next door in the Castro, so I'm going through there pretty regularly.
1
I think that religious observers have the right to observe their faith. Parking is a separate issue.
1
It is ridiculous that religious institutions should receive special treatment. San Francisco is a Transit First city; reducing the
amount of free parking available will not unreasonably restrict access to religious institutions.
1
The SFMTA should allow unrestricted median parking and not change the current situation, it's working fine
1
so many of our traditions are being done away with. people can drive a little slower and take more time when driving through
this very small area. what's the big rush! it's our city, leave it be. the median is actually used as a dog toilet, what plants need to
be protected?
1
I mostly bike rather than drive but getting anywhere by car really sucks now, and not just related to this median parking issue.
How important is this when you make decisions? For example, why a bike lane on Cesar Chavez? It took away a lane for cars
each way and thus makes traffic much worse and the few (as in very few) bikers could easily take 26th like I do, rather than
breathing in car exhaust on Cesar Chavez.
1
Start giving churchgoers tickets for parking illegally!! You do t have a problem writing tickets when I miss dropping a quarter in.
Meter but you let people park illegally all day long without any consequence. We have lived at Dolores and 15 for 12 years and
are a fourth generation family on this city. Stop playing favorites and get on with it. Enforce existing parking laws.
1
This is the camel's nose under the tent. Allowing median parking will just draw more car traffic to an already congested area. It
won't stop with just week-ends, the beautiful median which is now enjoyed by all (except for Sundays) will become part of a
parking lot
1
No fencing is needed. We just need to make medium parking illegal. We need to also implement Sunday parking meter
enforcement again. I don't get to ride the Muni bus for free on Sundays. Why should people be able to park the car where the
demand for parking is high at parking meters for free on Sundays?
1
These parked cars take up one entire lane of a two-lane road. It causes traffic congestion and bad visibility. And when there are
few cars left, they are haphazardly left "in the middle of the street" and are a nuisance and unsafe.
1
So odd that in San Francisco, we still don't separate church and state! City perq's for christians only? Preposterous!
1
I'm not into have the median parking there at all but if we do, it should be open to all. Not just church-goers.
1
Churches and church-goers shouldn't be treated differently from residents and others parking in the neighborhood.
1
Either parking on the median should not be allowed at all, or there should be a system that allows for fair access to median
parking, non exclusive
26
Count
Response
1
Separation of church and state. No freebies for churches. If they want to take over our streets, then get a permit asking for the
right. Publicly disclosed permits should be posted that they've filed the correct paperwork and paid the fees. If not, sorry sheep
of faith, but your false god should not get special treatment when the rest of us have to suffer.
1
I feel like that's a major street for how the traffic moves and both median parking and vegatation should be removed.
1
This happens not just in the Mission but in my neighborhood of the Lower Haight. It's a huge danger for both cars and
pedestrians, and also provides government sanctioned preferential treatment to a subset of individuals based on religious
beliefs. Can I double park in front of someone's house because they are hosting a Quaker gathering?
1
The existing parking situation is dangerous, and gives churches illegal financial support. End it.
1
I believe median parking is acceptable during the weekends, so long as it is not dominated by one group. I personally feel that it
is unfair to only allow religious groups the opportunity to park in the median. That said, the religious groups often provide
"enforcement" that other secular activities do not. Furthermore, most people who park in the median for religious services are
only there for the length of the service (usually about an hour), which means the turn over rate is higher and thus more people
get to use the median. I worry that if we allow park visitors to use the median, they may leave their cars there for several hours
or most of the day. Therefore, I would feel a lot a better about a median parking if people are only allowed to park for 1-2 hours.
1
This isn't a church/state thing: this is a safety and congestion issue. I hope sfmta makes the right choice :)
1
I like the tradition of allowing church goers the option of nontraditional parking during worship services -- Sunday morning or
Friday evening for the synagogue.
1
Median parking for church goers should only be allowed with supervision provided by the church and only allowable during
specific times. I appreciate that they are not taking up scarce public parking during church services but It's the random cars
that are parked after others have left and no cones or other warnings that cause accidents. Cars not moved after designated
median parking times need to be towed immediately.
1
Median parking is a poor solution to the problem. We need parking and traffic solutions in the city but this is a dangerous
practice both for drivers and pedestrians. Improve transit and create parking options to work with transit. A lot of traffic in the
city is a result of people driving around looking for parking.
1
The rules must be posted clearly and open for everybody on an equal basis, not just church goers or park users.
1
Please get rid of median parking. As our city gets more crowded, the risk of collisions with other cars, bikes and pedestrians
increases.
1
When approach the area during median parking, it\'s hard to know when the parking \"lane\" begins and ends. This makes it
hard for drivers to get in the correct lane to pass through it safely. If median parking continues, I would hope for clear signage
on the approach at either end to improve traffic flow and prevent jams of drivers trying to get into the single lane to pass the
parking.
1
I think signage will encourage more parkers, which some seem to disapprove of increasing congestion. However, each place
or worship can share neighbors' concerns with congregants and as prayer communities we can all be more aware and
respectful. If there are joint activities for planting, I'm confident there will be volunteers to represent. Thanks for asking for
feedback.
1
Timing & enforcement is what is needed. sometimes there are cars still parked on the median at 7pm with no tickets.
1
Ideally I would like a full ban on median parking. It's simply unsafe and everyone should play by the rules. Churches should
provide parking options for their members. There are at least three school grounds nearby that can be used as a short term lot
- with the proceeds benefitting the schools and not the city. People should be strongly encouraged to take public transport or
uber/taxi options - be it to the park or the church. Or bike/walk.
27
Count
Response
1
It is an issue of vehicle and pedestrian safety to discontinue median parking on these streets. The diversion of traffic into one
lane, the idea that cars are the primary form of transportation to church, and the precariousness of these parked cars next to
pedestrian walks are a few of the many reasons I have opposed this practice. It should be discontinued. Churches might be
encouraged to invest in shuttle buses rather than parking lots that fill and relying on our kindness on Sundays. Stop this terrible
policy!
1
I like the current system, but would like to see signs posted indicating it's for sundays/services times only so people not from
the neighborhood know what to expect. I don't want it open to all bc it will only increase neighborhood traffic congestion.
1
I believe that allowing churches to double park in spaces, especially highly traveled thoroughfares as Dolores, is very disruptive
and unsafe for the people parking, pedestrians and commuters. I also do not think the city government should be permitting and
supporting (through traffic reinforcements) one specific type of establishment. What is to say that a music venue or local
business cannot have the right to double park on certain days of the week. It seems that SFMTA and the City of San Francisco
has generously allowed these groups to do this for years when we should be encouraging public transit instead of encouraging
individuals to drive and park placing the burden on the neighborhood.
1
My primary concern is with cars left after the majority of median parked cars have left. They are an incredibly dangerous traffic
hazard especially at early dusk with no flasher lights!
1
The median parking creates a serious hazard for pedestrians and cyclists, as it seriously impairs visibility. Furthermore, I don't
think any group should be entitled to free street parking privileges based on race, ethnicity, religion, or church affiliation.
1
Churches represent a spectacular asset to a neighborhood. In a city where very few parking garages exist the city should do
everything in its power to accommodate an occasional church service.
1
Median parking is unsightly and dangerous to residents. I understand that it's difficult for visitors to find parking right in front of
their church, but this is a dense urban neighborhood, not a suburb. Parking won't always be convenient. However, public transit
in this neighborhood is amazing! We are served by Bart and *every* muni line. And it's a pedestrian and cyclist paradise. Let's
stop encouraging 1950's driving culture and start encouraging the Transit First and Vision Zero priorities that we've publicly
endorsed, but silently neglected. Our neighborhood, our streets and our medians. Our safety should come first.
1
I lived in this neighborhood for 20 years and now live a few blocks away. Median parking makes it VERY uncomfortable to ride
my bike on those streets and encourages a disregard for traffic and parking laws that extends to people parking on the
sidewalk and not stopping for pedestrians at all times. This neighborhood is well served by transit, even on Sunday mornings,
and reducing parking even further will help people wake up to the reality that no one needs to drive to that neighborhood. Ever.
And it will create respect for pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, it chafes me that CHURCHES get this free handout and a pass
on dangerous, illegal behavior from the City! I pay taxes too and I follow the laws about parking. Time for the City to get a spine
and start making things work for those of us who DON'T create traffic, dangerous intersections, noise, air pollution, and climate
change. For too long you have ignored, endangered, and in effect, punished people who don't drive. Time to stop it.
1
Before fencing is placed on medians, there should be clear evidence that damage is being caused by those parking there. The
median spaces are used by other members of the community who have no affiliation with any of the congregations and their
access should not be impeded.
1
Would be ok with median parking if there were better regulation/limits. Don't allow cars to park all the way up to the cross walk,
so there's better visibility/safety for pedestrians
1
Parking for church on these streets is a long tradition, respect long traditions that's all we have left of our city!!
1
As a resident of the Mission since 1993, I'm very supportive of the plan to rationalize median parking. It's been unclear to me
when it's permitted and why tickets/towing happen some times but not others. Please move fast to make it an orderly system
available to all. BTW, I would guess having cars in the median makes through traffic move more slowly. Would be nice if the
SFMTA could measure and validate that. Perhaps SFMTA or DPW could come up with a way to clearly mark median parking
so through traffic would be forewarned to slow down if they aren't already. Please contact me if necessary: Lalit Balchandani
lalitbalchandani@aim.com
28
Count
Response
1
It took me a long time to find a church since I moved to San Francisco. Aside from feeling at home with Cornerstone, one of the
biggest drivers was having a place to park. Please don't take this privilege from us. This space is only used during 2 services
on Sunday - that's 2 hours. We also constantly remind one another to get back to our cars after the service to be mindful of our
neighbors. It's a well-oiled machine for us. And considering everything that is happening in this world, it's more important than
ever for us to stay strong in our faith and refuel at church. That includes needing a place to park for those of us who are
commuting in. It's a blessing to see the Mission become more alive with the new restaurant and shop scene, but this should
come as a consequence to the Church. And to be perfectly honest, the neighbors that have complained are likely going to
move at some point. We Churchgoers are not. So long-term should benefit those that are staying - not the transient. Whoever
you are that is making this decision, I'm praying for you. I'm praying for the hard spot you're in, and I pray that whatever
decision you make is blessed by our Father. I pray that your mind be free of distractions so you can make the wisest decision.
And I pray for whatever it is you are going through. You are loved. God bless you.
1
Median parking is harzardous and confusing. Too many mornings have I walked along Dolores St on Monday to see cars still
parked along the median. This is dangerous for cars driving and creates confusion. Without signs specifying what is and is not
legal, it is increasingly confusing and not all medians in the city are similar. Creating more parking on the street does not align
with a mass transit centric ideal. For areas like 16th and Dolores that are next to the 22, the J, and BART at 16th St Station,
thereby accessible by multiple modes of transport, it makes no sense that we would allow this odd addition to parking.
1
Elimination of median parking on Dolores would severely impact my and my family's ability to attend services at Congregation
Sha'ar Zahav on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings.
1
There is simply too much traffic to encourage neighborhood residents to clean up the medians. If you do continue the present
median parking program for Sunday morning church-goers, please do not not expand it beyond the areas near active
congregations. It is very hard for drivers to see through the parking congestion. An accident waiting to happen. Thank you for
asking
1
I hope that any decision made will also take into account traffic studies/counts. I am not completely opposed to making this
parking available as long as it doesn't increase traffic backups. Much the way some cities have rush hour lanes that are
available for parking during non-peak traffic times but are regular traffic lanes during rush hour.
1
This should also be considered for other parts of town where double parking is not enforced (eg on Page st)
1
While I believe churchgoers and others should have the right to parking, I cannot support the blocking of traffic lanes to
accommodate their parking needs. If median parking is not allowed at any other point in the week, it should not be allowed on
Sunday to fit the needs of those who believe median parking is convenient.
1
I've lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and the parking has always felt very unsafe to me given people leave their cars until
it's very dark and hard to see. The traffic caused by the extra parking is very frustrating, given the neighborhood residents get
nothing out of it. I'd prefer less parking and for churchgoers to find other ways to get to church.
1
It is not safe and it is unfair to the community to open up medians to select groups. This area is served well by transportation,
churchgoers should take public transportation rather than flooding the neighborhood with their cars.
1
Median parking is disruptive and hazardous but I would support it if it were more organized and the community at large derived
some benefit from it.
1
The problem is preferential treatment of church-goers. Make them come into compliance, either by legalization for everyone or
removal for everyone. It being under-the-table legal for them and no one else is nonsense.
1
Encouage churches to provide shuttles for their members at a slightly further away location with a parking lot (i.e. Schools, etc)
1
With more residents and visitors in the areas around Dolores and Guerrero having that "extra" parking on weekends is
important. The plantings in the medians should be protected - could something other than fencing be used?
1
I find the median parking on Guerrero is much more of a problem than on Dolores, since it is a major thoroughfare and on
Sundays, stretched late into the day.
29
Count
Response
1
The adopt a median program is fine if it is voluntary, but I am opposed to a mandatory burden placed on specific institutions for
groups.
1
Stop trying to take away parking!! We have allowed churches and others to park in the medians forever. Stop moving here and
trying to change everything! It has never been a problem before. Leave it alone!
1
This city already has enough rules about parking restrictions which can be a pain in the rear. And as the population in this city
increases, the harder will be to find free easy parking without all the inconvenient restrictions and wasting gas trying to find a
convenient parking spot. Signs can be placed in the areas of vegetation alerting pedestrians to help preserve the natural
environment. Parking rules are a pain in the rear.
1
Illegal double parking should not be allowed, period! People attending church should not be granted leniency with regards to
parking laws. They should have to find or pay for legal parking like everyone else.
1
Separation of church and state! Enough giving the churches free reign over clogging the streets and not ticketing church goers
for illegally parking. I've lived in this area for over 25 years. If I parked there I'd get ticketed.
1
I don't want fences because they are ugly, but i do want the vegetation to be respected. Perhaps dedicated pathways for
median parking is the right decision.
1
The ability for you to pray to your god should not grant you immunity from the law. The law is the law and should be upheld.
Render unto Caesar.
1
I am so happy to hear about this. I used to drive a taxi in SF and it was amazingly dangerous and still is. I complained to police
and got the same answer... they're in church. We don't ticket them. Well then let me park there too. Oh that's not ok though
they said. It's over 20 yrs that it's been going on. Unfair. Glad to see some action. Thx
1
I'm not religious at all, and I live in the neighborhood and have a parking spot, so I don't need to park in the median very
frequently at all. However, I think that the practice helps maintain the community that exists within the Mission, both in terms of
support for churchgoers, and also others who use the parking to get access to the parks, to stores, etc.
1
Cinemas, sports arenas, and other institutions with \"spiky\" travel demand get by just fine without special double-parking
privileges. Consider AT&T Park; we don\'t tolerate illegal parking by sports fans just because it\'s game night. Instead, we
manage automobile travel demand by increasing curb parking prices, and we supply valet bicycle parking and extra Muni
service to help visitors get to and from the event without driving. To be consistent with the city\'s Transit First policy, we should
encourage non-automotive travel to religious institutions. The study area is already well served by public transportation. Set a
price for curb parking that discourages automobile travel while ensuring space availability (i.e., extend SFPark to the study area
and resume Sunday metering). This can be marketed to religious institutions as a way to guarantee parking availability for
congregants who want it.
1
I\'m okay with median parking so long as the rules are clear and fairly enforced, and it is open to all residents (e.g., you should
need a S or Z parking permit, or a day permit from a business or church).
1
Medians should be left clear of vegetation and flexibly used for left turns, Sunday parking, Emergency Vehicles, and passing
broken down or double parked vehicles. If vegetation is put in by the City, the City should maintain it fully. Median vegetation is
a trash collector, distraction to drivers, and hides pedestrians from view of traffic and vice versa
1
Guerrero seems to me to be more negatively affected by median parking. Dolores median parking has struck me as
problematic only next to 18th St intersection.
1
Separation of church and state means church-goers don't get special parking. It's illegal and dangerous.
1
The status quo policy on Sunday church parking does not work. Last year I parked in my mother's driveway for five minutes on
a Sunday afternoon and I returned to a $110 parking ticket. If I had simply double parked in front of the church down the block I
could have left my car there all day. This is unacceptable. I have no problem with allowing liberal parking for churchgoers. I
lived on a block for two years that was partially blocked by churchgoers. This does not bother me. What bothers me is ignoring
them and then bringing the hammer down on the rest of us who are just running simple errands....and actually live in these
neighborhoods!!!
30
Count
Response
1
I strongly oppose leaving the system as it is currently. The notion that there are laws that one can break simply because it's the
weekend is unacceptable to me. Parking rules and regulations should be about safety and traffic flow, not about who is parking
there. If median parking is (or can be made) safe during these times, it should be allowed. If median parking cannot be made
safe, it should be illegal AND ENFORCED. Exemptions from the law be made simply for the convenience of one type of user.
1
Median parking just makes already dangerous streets more dangerous. I see things that scare me around this parking
constantly. Our neighborhood is super accessible by transit, bike, or walking - folks who want to come to the neighborhood on
weekends should utilize those means of transport or park in the spaces that do just fine to handle similar crowds on
weeknights.
1
I think letting people park on the medians creates unsafe conditions for the people driving through and also for the people that
park there. It also creates so much traffic and confusion. It's time to enforce the existing traffic laws.
1
There is no excuse to continue median parking for church goers when this city's policies for all other transportation is to
remove parking and encourage public transportation. Church goers should be no different.
1
The problem if anything has been a lack of clarity. If the median parking is legalized, it will be fairer. It will not induce more
people to drive to the neighborhood b/c they're already coming anyway.
1
This is a handout to religious organizations, which is against the constitution. IF you want people to park there (in a transit first
city), then it must be open to everyone.
1
I would like to thank SFMTA for coordinating this conversation regarding median parking along Guerrero and Dolores Streets.
We appreciate all you do to make our city run safely and smoothly. As a member of Cornerstone Church, I can testify that the
median parking along Guerrero is a HUGE blessing for our congregation. Many of us come from out of town or from distant
districts around the City, so driving is one of our best options. Even with the Guerrero Street median, parking can be
challenging and, therefore, I believe removing this parking will have a significantly negative impact. I believe my fellow
fellowship members would agree with me when I say that we want to collaborate with SFMTA to reach the best possible
decision for all parties involved.
1
Median parking is awful. If it has to stay it needs to be formalized and available to everyone, but it\'s dangerous and needs to
go. Enough of these parking handouts to churchgoers. Bring back Sunday meters, too!
1
1. I live on Guerrero and it is extremely difficult to get in and out of my garage when people park along the median. 2. Instead of
adding more spaces people should be encouraged to take public transportation. There are many ways to get to the Mission.
This includes the 22, 33, 14, 47, 49, bart, J, N, K, L, and M. This would lead to less traffic and reduced emissions.
1
Either median parking should be open for everyone, or open for no one. No individual, organization, nor congregation has
parking privileges over the other. Equal parking privileges or no parking privileges.
1
I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to allow cars to fill the middle of the street. if more parking is needed, the street should
be modified to allow for more parking (like angled parking) or they should park elsewhere.
1
As a life-long resident of San Francisco and specifically the Mission, I have always thought it unfair and peculiar that
enforcement agencies have turned a blind eye to the churches that break the law, inconvenience fellow residents, create traffic
congestion and
1
We don't need the median parking; it only encourages driving. Take street space from cars and give it to Muni so we can all get
where we're going without investing tens of thousands of dollars into a vehicle.
1
No special exemptions for churchgoers. Either everyone can use the resource equally, or have strict towing enforcement.
31
Count
Response
1
I would prefer that the city provide enough transit service on weekends to serve the churchgoers adequately.
1
Median parking the way it stands is completely unacceptable. Churches and other organizations take on the role of traffic
police, directing traffic around this illegal parking. It should be stopped.
1
I have long held that this casual use of our streets for parking is inconvenient at best and dangerous at worst. I would be
interested to know what the input of the SFFD is on this. This parking style seems like it would be a great impediment to
emergency vehicles.Furthermore, I do not feel that churches should be given any extra privileges in this matter. They already
hold tax exempt status and it should be on them to figure out ways to transport their congregations. They, as well as the nonchurch goers who park in the medians should be strongly encouraged to use public transportation.
1
Allowing free parking along the medians is disruptive to people living or visiting or traveling through the neighborhoods. Free
parking along the medians does nothing to encourage use of public transit in SF, a transit-first city. Free parking along the
medians should end ASAP.
1
The current situation isn't a great one and I appreciate your taking the time to be thoughtful about the issues on both sides. I
also think our community benefits greatly from the vegetation in the median and that should take a priority. If I'm planning on
going to an area of town that doesn't offer much parking, I will take one of our many public transportation options. Certainly
some of these church users could commit to doing their part in saving the environment by taking public transit to our
neighborhood, and either preventing illegal parking or enforcing stricter rules could help them consider the impact they are
having on both the environment and our neighborhood.
1
So glad you are tackling this issue, which (in my opinion) has been a big problem for a long time.
1
Doing nothing should not be an option. This is an unsafe and illegal practice which gives preferential treatment to congregations.
Either the system should be applied fairly and safely for everyone or it should be discontinued
1
Median parking is a safety hazard. Cars are parked at the median well after dark with no enforcement.
1
We need this option to worship. We had this for so many years since i have become a member of MIssion Dolores which is
over 40 years now. The city needs to respect our place of worship and it's needs.
1
The median parking works extremely well for discrete weekend event parking without taking more parking spaces off the start.
1
I think the current situation is unacceptable. I would support either continuing median parking with improved signage and
access for all or discontinuing all median parking.
1
I belong to a Jewish congregation which needs parking on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings, and the allowance for this
non-Christian need seems to be nil at present. The idea of regular, posted, weekend hours that help us too would be a great
improvement.
1
While the traffic backups increase slightly during the allowed median-parking times, I think extra parking is a warranted need
and I greatly appreciate the feeling of living in a vibrant, active community. What I don't agree with is the 'off-the-books'
congregation parking only rule. I don't believe that the church attendees/visitors to our neighborhood should be allowed priority
or exclusivity over other visitors on a Saturday or Sunday. Parking should be first-com, first-served; clearly marked; and
strictly enforced for all visitors who seek to take advantage of the extra parking real-estate.
1
The median parking has often felt unsafe to me. As a frequent cyclist, median parking turns a wide road with space for
everyone into a single shared lane with poor visibility. I have to slow way down to safely approach intersections, and cars can
get pretty angry about it.
1
All city residents who own cars pay for parking in some form or another. It's not clear why church-goers (or anybody else) get
any sort of allowance to park illegally along medians. I think that SFMTA/SFPD should ticket and tow, just like all other parking
scofflaws.
32
Count
Response
1
i would like to see open weekend parking for the median especially along Dolores Park for everyone not just church goers. I
have no problem with the churches using the lane on weekends but it should be open to everyone, and I dont think the
intersections or turn arounds should be allowed to be blocked.
1
I would also like to see something done about people double parking in bike lanes along Folsom on Sundays.
1
I've lived here for 10 years. I'm fine with it as it is. Since median parking can't go away (where would all the church and park
goers park their cars? and don't tell me they'll all start taking the bus..), i'd rather just leave the situation alone. why waste
money making signs when the signs would just legalize behavior that is already happening? ie the only thing that would change
is the signage.
1
Religious institutions bring value to neighborhoods. The short time that part of the street is blocked is well worth the slight
inconvenience.
1
People need access to park on weekends for faith based events, this also includes going to lunch after services or dinner as
the case may be. Some faith based holidays are also celebrated in the park such as sukot and easter.
1
The median parking situation is out of control, people park there all day on all sides and on many different unrelated blocks, it's
incredibly dangerous for the drive through traffic. The idea of putting fences around the medians is horrid, please no! the visuals
would be awful.
1
It is ILLEGAL parking. We have one less lane on Saturday and Sunday because of those illegally parked cars; and it gets
congested. Also, for us (residents) it is difficult to pull cars in/out from our garages. MTA officers are not doing anything. I don't
understand.
1
This parking occurs not just along the Dolores/Guerroro corridor but throughout the city. I live by a church that is allowed to do
this and it increases traffic and road noise (honking, idling buses for churchgoers) significantly.
1
Honestly, Either legalize it formally or totally remove it. The current system is not great, can be very confusing for all involved
1
We don\'t need more cars in the neighborhood, we need FAR less. Let\'s use the extra street space for wider sidewalks and
bike lanes.
1
Parking in the median is illegal. It has always been illegal. Churches should NOT be given special rights because it is "easier"
to enforce! WHY CANT PEOPLE TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT TO THE PARK AND TO CHURCH???? (That's what it's there for,
right?)
1
It is completely unfair to give people going to churches special privilege over those who live, work, and visit the neighborhood.
End the practice.
1
Attending church service is an individual's choice, there is absolutely no obligation to do so. One may consider it obligatory for
a faithful religious lifestyle, but even then said lifestyle is ultimately a choice (as per the constitution). Thus church attendance
cannot be considered different from any other pastime - such as going to a bar or movie theatre - and therefore warrants no
special treatment. The minor inconvenience of not being able to park right outside the church is also by no means an
infringement on the (rightfully) constitutional right of religious freedom. Median parking must be either equally available for all
businesses/events/etc. (obviously a TERRIBLE idea) or banned entirely.
33
Count
Response
1
If median parking is made legal on weekends I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY due to the clogged
roadway and the proximity of parked cars to my driveway - I will not be able to back out. How is the City of SF going to deal
with that? What are my rights when I can\'t get in and out of my driveway as a taxpaying resident of San Francisco? Why is the
City of SF putting the concerns of out of town churchgoers above those of us who live here and pay taxes here? Guerrero
Street has been dumped on for decades, treated like a freeway, our traffic calming measures destroyed, ignored, and
dismissed as \"elitist\" (never mind the safety of our children, we must be elitist if we want to slow people down below 35mph on
a residential street). I am completely AGAINST having legalized median parking on weekends unless you make median
parking legal 7 days a week and divert some of the egregious volume of cars that come in on San Jose avenue to Guerrero at
WAY over the 25 mph speed limit to other arteries that serve the exact same corridor (Dolores, Church, Valencia). How about
enforcing the speed limit? How about enforcing safety measures for those of us who live here instead of clogging our streets on
weekends with unsafely parked cars that will block our driveways and leave us trapped or calling tow trucks every weekend?
1
I commute to services at Sha'ar Zahav from Marin. Median parking has been essential to my being able to attend religious
services. The increased popularity of the Mission district restaurants has made parking quite difficult on Friday evenings. It
generally takes 1 hour to get to Dolores and 16th street.
1
Median parking should be open to all regardless of religious affiliation. Rules should be formalized and clearly posted.
1
I believe this issue needs to be addressed and parking restrictions enforced. It continually makes for an unsafe driving situation
(it's bad in the Mission, but even worse in other areas - Page Street in the Lower Haight for instance). Even if one accepts
religion is an excuse for illegal doubleparking, the current system favors only religions worshipping on Sundays. Further, how
can one even be sure the parking is for religious observances an not visits to nearby Dolores Park? I am firmly in favor of
enforcing the parking code and ending this unfair practice.
1
The hours of permitted usage should be specified and limited to a reasonable time frame when churches, synagogues and
other religious organizations conduct their services. I think this is a valid peak period need for the neighborhood. No parking
should be allowed after sunset (or a specified time tied to before sunset). The spaces should be set back from the intersections
for visual and turning clearance/safety. Cars not abiding by the rules should be ticketed, and if after sunset, should be towed for
safety reasons. My thoughts are based on the assumption that the members of these long-standing organizations actually are
the ones using the median parking. Is this actually the case? It would be helpful to provide the data on this as part of getting
meaningful feedback and ideas for addressing the problem. I ask this question as it seems that many individuals would use the
median parking, not just members of these organizations. I wonder if the members of these organizations find they can secure
median parking on a consistent reliable basis. I am less sympathetic to median parking if most of the users are not members of
these organizations that have peak parking needs. Or perhaps I would remain supportive of the median parking if I knew that
the spaces were helpful for supporting local businesses.
1
There are so many transit options available within a 3 block radius for people who chose to commute to the churches in the
area.Also - a bunch of people going to the same place, at the same time, they could easily start carpooling and cutting way
back on the number of cars.
1
I park in the median every Sunday and really appreciate being able to do that. I would fully support signage with times.
1
I don't attend a church affected by these changes, but I do think it's important to allow this kind of parking. People already
carpool to church & it would be terrible if we made it impossible for many of those folks to attend
34
Count
Response
1
I have been a resident at 17th and Guerrero for 2 years. Over this time I shifted from being supportive of the church parking to
absolutely opposing any median parking in SF. First it is just dangerous. Forcing 4 lanes of traffic down to 2 without warning of
any kind is negligent on the city's part. What are you guys thinking? Second the church near me has folks half assed directing
traffic. These are mostly young looking men who are more interested in looking at their phones than making sure people who
are actually attending service. Or the older guys who would rather chat than paying attention to the task at hand. If you don't
believe me just watch sometime. Third. The church doesn't seem at all concerned about the aftermath. Every Sunday after the
last device the church's parking guys disappear. Without fail, every Sunday there are multiple cars left in the left hand traffic
lane. Every Sunday I am treated to a constant soundtrack of cars horns and the occasional locking of wheels directly outside
my window. This is because drivers are suddenly faced with a randomly stopped and unoccupied car in their path. This is
completely ridiculous. Again. What is the city thinking? Finally we come to the city's response to my only complaint. One
Sunday was particularly bad. There were 4 cars left in traffic on Guerrero between 17th & 18th. 2 in each direction. After an
hour constant horns and screeching tires I called 311 to file a complaint. I was met with complete apathy. The person I talked to
couldn't care less. Later that day. Many hours after the church's services were done and the cars still in the traffic lane, I
watched a PCO literally drive past the scene and didn't even pause. I called 311 again I told the person what I saw. I was told
the PCO was on assignment and couldn't stop. Think about that for a minute. This practice should be ended asap. The church
can't be trusted to police themselves. The city turns a blind eye to dangerous roads that mostly endanger pedestrians and
people on bikes. And let's not forget that I'm talking about the most transit rich part on SF. Most of the folks I see going to
Sunday services are young able bodied people who have no excuse not to use MUNI or BART. The median parking is being
abused by the church and people who all too easily are able to take advantage and spend the day at Dolores park while my
neighbors and I are bombarded by unnecessarily increased traffic noise.
1
Weekends need to begin at 6:00 PM on Friday evenings to accommodate the Jewish Shabbat and this comes with the added
benefit of providing additional parking for patrons of local businesses on weekends, including Friday evenings.
1
Having the median available for parking on Sunday mornings is essential for my participation at my church. Thank you for
allowing it to be available.
1
Okay as is, do not expand! Churches that benefit should be required to protect plants - but fence is bad/dangerous idea.
1
Church members shouldn't be treated differently from other residents. Either ticket/tow or allow everyone to park on medians.
1
Religious organizations should not be allowed to illegally park unless EVERYONE gets to illegally park.
1
My biggest concern with median parking right now is how close to the intersection some of the cars park. Many of the cross
streets are regulated by stop signs, which being able to see who is coming is very important and also very difficult/dangerous
when there are cars blocking your view. I also find the parking in the turn lane on Valencia on Sundays to be pretty awful as
well, since the turn lane was put in place to reduce pileups because of people turning left.
1
It is outrageous that churches which PAY NO TAXES get to abuse street parking rules this way. They do not deserve special
privileges. No median parking, no exceptions.
1
Legalizing has the benefit of reducing the number of cars on the street and making it safer for pedestrians. Delores often feels
like a freeway through the neighborhood.
1
I don't mind the median parking. I just wish there were signs to let me know when I can take advantage of this as well. thanks!
1
Churches should absolutely NOT be given favored status by our government for parking. I'm surprised this is even still an
issue. It's essentially the government giving approval to churches at the expense of people, forbidden by our Constitution.
1
Thanks for asking. Dolores St now is completely unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers with the weekend parking
madness.
1
Every new construction should have ample parking. I have no problem with people parking on the median for personal worship
and consider this effort discrimination and find it offensive. Our tax $ would be better spent paying the streets instead of this
frivolous study.
35
Count
Response
1
I believe it is unfair that only church members can park in the median. It also creates a dangerous situation for those
pedestrians to enter and exit their vehicles in the street, as well as slows traffic in those areas.
1
Not only does this policy ignore the separation of church and state, it's a crazy-unsafe thing to do to foot, bike and auto traffic in
the area.
1
I don't understand today's existing rules for who is allowed to park on the median - have always been confused about this. The
survey would have been improved had this been explained.
1
Laws are laws. Why should church goers be allowed to park along the median? They should have to deal with transportation
and parking just like everybody else. If the city has a way for churches to pay money for a permit we should figure out what that
should be and make them pay.
1
As a non churchgoer who is queer and hears homophobic propaganda coming from churches, I don't know why my tax dollars
have to support special rights for hateful folks
1
The median parking causes dangerous conditions when drivers unaware of the situation have to stop short or quickly change
lanes to avoid hitting the parked cars. The situation is ridiculous and should be stopped.
1
This is an unconscionable abuse of civic space and an illegal blurring of the separation btwn State and religion. Also, it's unsafe
and unfair. SF should enforce the law and ticket these illegal parkers! Now.
1
blocking off curb parking for Uber to drop people off would be great so that the stopping Ubers don't block moving traffic.
Thanks!
1
Traffic incredibly backed up on weekends due to only one lane on Dolores Street. Lots of congestion. Also it is against the law
for vehicles to be parked there and the law should be enforced, not have law enforcement look the other way.
1
If there's space for cars to always be parked, let's do something better with the space. Protected bike lanes, more people
space, bus lanes, something like that. There's clearly a surplus of street space, let's cut it!
1
I regularly bike on Dolores with children to get home. It is incredibly dangerous with cars parked on either side and there is
nowhere safe to bike outside of the door zone without completely blocking traffic.
1
The current median parking is dangerous and against CA vehicle code. People should be encouraged to use public
transportation to get to the places they want to go. Just think if everyone parked next to the median on Van Ness so they could
go to the ballet/opera?! Let\'s not forget that this illegal parking also happens on Valencia (with fake permits) and other parts of
town.
1
Median parking on Dolores Street is essential to allow us to attend Friday evening and Saturday morning services at
Congregation Sha'ar Zahav (Dolores at 16th).
1
I strongly agree that median parking, if allowed should be available to all people, not a select group of people.
1
Median parking is a safety issue. Even though it is inconvenient at times, there are places for people to park, or the J is close
by. Walking is excellent exercise. My vote is NO on median parking anywhere in the city. How about the median parking on
Dolores? Can we vote to ban that area as well? Thank you for putting out this survey.
1
It should not even be an issue: anyone parking on the median is breaking the law and should be ticketed. Anything that implies
special treatment for churches is unacceptable. Medians and other public property should not have to be "adopted" by private
individuals or businesses; the City should maintain public property -- the insane policy of devolving responsibility for tree
maintenance to property owners has set a terrible precedent.
1
As a neighbor and frequent visitor to the neighborhood (on foot and by car) I find the current situation absurd and confusing. I
am fully in support of a policy that clearly outlines policy and enforcement and does not favor particular \"in the know\" church
goers.
36
Count
Response
1
Median parking makes it a lot more stressful to drive down affected streets due to visibility being hindered. Independent of who
is parking in the median, I strongly believe it shouldn't be allowed.
1
Churches should not receive special exemptions from parking regulations. San Francisco has an adequate public
transportation system to bring congregants to their places of worship.
1
I regularly have to drive along Dolores and Guerrero. The median parking obstructs my vision, people (including children) climb
out of vehicles directly into traffic or trample the plantings in the median, and cross the road in the face of oncoming traffic
without first proceeding to a safe intersection. For safety's sake, please STOP this very dangerous (and illegal?) practice of
median parking.
1
This seems like the least important problem SFMTA could be addressing. Church parking has happened for decades. Why
shouldn't a local congregation get this perk? Those of us going to the park should take Bart. Muni timeliness, or routes only
going halfway encourage driving ("let's turn the 48 around on Sat/Sun as there's no one going from the mission to the beach or
vice versa on weekends" ?!?) Obviously muni sucking is a hard nut to crack and only park of SFMTA, but people whining
about parking are worse. I don't go to church but if you have people complaining about the median parking by church goers,
these people are just bad, not nice jerks.
1
Let the churches operate shuttles from Bart and muni rail. This illegal parking is frustrating, especially when Dolores park goers
take advantage due to lack of enforcement.
1
SF needs to be car-free, not car-dependent. This starts with a position on enforcing existing laws.
1
I think the proposal to regulate parking on weekends is a good one, provided that it is liberal enough to accommodate Friday
evening parking for those attending synagogue and Saturday and Sunday parking for those attending religious services and
using the park. However, I also think that parking in the gaps in the medians should be prohibited if parking along the medians
is allowed, because of the need for emergency personnel to have access to those in need.
1
As a long term resident of SF, let the church parking remain. I have lived in the Delores / Guerrero neighborhoods and it has
never been bothersome, If anything street parking remains viable to residents as non-resident churchgoers have places to
park. put up signs and legalize it!
1
You will always have bad actors when you allow any form of median parking, no matter the rules you put in place. It will create
confusion and cause constant headaches. People will abuse the rules and think that median parking (or double parking) is
allowed in other, unspecified areas.
1
I am opposed to Christianity being blessed with parking privileges. Keep religion out of civic affairs.
1
I believe that clear times and rules for median parking would allow this tradition to continue wth defined boundaries for all.
1
No special treatment for religious organizations. If there is free parking in Sunday in medians this should be allowed for all
people. This is a non-secular city and country and the police should enforce it as such.
1
Traffic congestion has become increasingly problematic and narrowing traffic paths further (for parking in a non-commercial
district) is not of value to the community, nor to drivers in our city.
1
San Francisco needs more parking. Taking this option away would make it a nightmare on sunday mornings, and just mean
everyone is driving around longer and fighting over less spots. It's only a few hours a week, that doesn't seem like too much to
ask for the residents like us.
1
While I sympathize with the parking situation, it doesn't justify the safety issues it causes. The area has drastically changed
and is now too congested to allow for median parking.
37
Count
Response
1
We are supposedly a transit first city. We should enable private vehicle use as little as possible. Also, for bicyclists, allowing
cars to continue to park by the medians is deadly! Only one lane for a car, and no place for a bike!! I belong to one of the
congregations and I believe that we ought to encourage as many visitors as possible to use any mode of getting to and from
the neighborhood other than a private car. With J-Church, BART and 14, 49, 22 and 33 buses, there are many options. A formal
SFMTA program to work with neighborhood congregations to promote public transit use would be desirable. SFMTA could
provide technical assistance for congregations to include specific transit info on their websites.
1
I don't like the median parking because it makes it harder when I need to drive north through the Mission, but I sympathize with
churchgoers' need to park.
1
As a Jewish, long-time resident of San Francisco I find this practice completely unfair to non-churchgoing people. The same
courtesies are not extended to those of us who attend synagogues or other religious institutions, and the practice has expanded
to two-lane streets in the area, such as 26th, where the parked cars block the entire westbound lane, making it nearly
impossible for traffic in either direction to pass. It's also extremely spotty, so it's sometimes difficult to tell whether a car near
the median is parked or just stopped, which makes for very hazardous driving conditions. Please stop this dangerous and
discriminatory practice immediately.
1
This ridiculous practice has been going on for decades. Do Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs get to park illegally in
front of their houses of worship across the city on any given day of the week? No. It's a terrible allowance and must stop.
1
It has always been puzzling that church-goers feel the need to drive. Most groups in the city know driving is going to be difficult
for the majority of participants. In addition to removing the parking, SFMTA should work with the churches to provide adequate
bus/train access on weekends.
1
I used to live on Guerrero St. The church has people parking in one lane of traffic several days per week. It made it extremely
difficult to get in and out of my parking garage and very dangerous as there was so much traffic congestion and not enough
space to maneuver in and out of the garage without holding up all traffic. People honked and almost hit me all the time. It also
wrecks havoc on traffic flow. This parking has to stop.
1
There is NO acceptable solution except complete separation of Church and State. Get those parked cars out of our driving
lanes!
1
Median parking has been in SF for a long time to accommodate for Church-goers. Unfortunately, it is also used by those who
take advantage of the opportunity so that they can park to attend activities unrelated to what it is intended; temporary parking
for Church-goers.
1
I really feel this is a safety issue that the city ignores fearing the churches. The city should have been sued over this long ago.
1
The median parking is only for a limited amount of time on Sundays. With the many places of worship located on Guerrero,
Dolores (& even Valencia) - this adds a lot of cars to the area. By having short time parking in the median, this frees up street
parking for the residents and people visiting the area. It's a moderately controlled situation, one day a week. The amount of
street parking available wouldn't even begin to handle all the cars. Which in turn means, that (1) residents wouldn't have
parking, (2) people would have a harder time going to Dolores Park events, (4) difficulty attending their place of worship, (5)
people wanting to shop/eat in the area would be discouraged. Thereby effecting local business revenue. Please consider
leaving the parking situation as is. If needed, enforce strict time frames for parking and start ticketing if the privilege is abused.
Thank you.
1
Stop bias toward non-taxed religious organizations. Ticket ALL illegal parking, which is what this is.
1
Fix illegal bike lane parking, it's incredibly dangerous for bikers and causes traffic backups!!!
1
It's important to allow people to come worship in the Mission District and still find parking at peak times. Thank you.
1
I think the prioritized parking situation for religious institutions is absurd and should be done away with as soon as possible.
1
MTA is driving families out of the city. It is now so inconvenient to get around, many are leaving, extended family won't visit,
and valuable roadways are ceded over to the 3% of cyclists in SF. MTA's policies are very unfair, cater to a vocal and radical
minority, without offering ANY alternatives. This is non-representative government at its worst.
38
Count
Response
1
Please get rid of the median parking situation! It creates a serious safety issue for people crossing Guerrero at 19th on their
way to Dolores. With all the children and dogs living in this neighborhood, it is only a matter of time before a tragic accident
occurs.
1
I would be okay with the status quo continuing but only if parking meters (or an equivalent fare collection system) was
implemented. As it now stands, Sunday parking (and, in this case, obstructing traffic lanes) is free. Rents are sky high in San
Francisco, unless you're occupying street space on a Sunday (or after hours, etc.). The additional revenue from Sunday
meters would help support Muni and MTA's parking enforcement. All those automobiles are directly causing congestion and
slowing Muni. If they wish to do park in (and on) the street, there should most definitely be a fee. Thank you.
1
If median parking is legalized, adequate space must be made for left turns from the left lane to help alleviate traffic backups.
1
I think it will need to be clear that if cars are not removed by a certain time they will be towed.
1
The majorityh of churchgoers in the Mission who are christian are Latino. You shouldn't be ticketing them or making their lives
harder, but giving warning and a chance to move away from tradition before being POLICED. Obviously you guys LOVE
making money off of us, and the Latino Population in the Mission is already financially struggling. If you want to enforce fairness
do what you can to: not punish the low income people and locals who have been doing this for a long time, and bring
awareness before bringing out your bloodhounds (that's the police)
1
Our neighborhood needs more parking. And we welcome people from everywhere to enjoy this great neighborhood.
1
I hope the MTA looks at this issue throughout the city. I live on Golden Gate Avenue and there are several churches that use
an entire lane for parking all day long, often blocking in cars parked legally on the street. I have been trapped in a parking spot
for hours on numerous occasions because church goers were parked illegally in a lane, blocking cars in. This is completely
unacceptable. Thank you.
1
Tacitly allowing illegal parking denies the city the ability to plan parking and congestion, and weakens the entire legal code. Who
determines which laws can be safely broken? Either make it legal, or make it illegal and enforce it.
1
Most of these churches have been a part of the community for many years. San Francisco is becoming less and less of a
community and more of a singular, somewhat selfish bunch of complainers. These church goers would have no place to park
as parking in San Francisco is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. They would not be able to attend their church and we would lose an
important part of our community. Work with the churches to make the issue less annoying to the neighbors (e.g. this parking is
only available during certain hours and on certain days and cannot block certain areas/driveways - be creative and work
together instead of against each other...we already have enough of that in our world.
1
Double parking on the median blocks traffic, is unsafe, and unfair to the rest of the neighborhood and residents of the city as a
whole. End of story. The areas on Dolores and Guerrero are well served by Muni metro and BART. Living too far, being old
and/or being lazy are pitiful excuses. This is a city, people need to get over it.
1
Calling it weekend parking is insulting, it is Sunday parking. I have never seen the synagogue have members park there on
Friday or Saturday
1
Traffic along Dolores is relatively light and low-speed, but parking is extremely limited. If this parking status quo became
prohibited, it would increase vehicular traffic from those now searching for parking, which would increase the chance of
pedestrian collision. Also, from what I understand, this type of parking isn't specific to religious congregations, but to
"community events", of which religious services are one. I don't see any violation of church and state if that's truly the case.
Allowing this for other community events is only fair.
1
Our city is getting bigger and denser and traffic is a problem. We need to be focusing on how to move forward with better public
transit and usage of our limited road space. Trying to shut down traffic lanes for more parking is the opposite of what this city
needs.
39
Count
Response
1
The churches bring the median parking issue to bear and they are vital parts of our community even though I myself am not
among their numbers. I say leave it as is
1
I am very concerned about safety more than anything. I often am worried that emergency vehicles will not be able to get
through the area with the parking situation as it exists now.
1
Illegal median parking on Dolores specifically makes the neighborhood far less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists, as traffic is
narrowed into only one lane and sight-lines at intersections are reduced. Also, there really should not be selective and all-butofficial situations in which one group (e.g. Christian church-goers) are granted immunity from breaking laws that other groups
on other days and/or in other places are not also granted. It is unfair and ties church to state.
1
If people want to park near to their church or park they should arrive early and find regular street parking. They should not
inconvenience the rest of us by closing off an entire lane of traffic for their selfish convenience.
1
Not only is public transit in the area more than sufficient to provide for all incoming churchgoers, but it's absolutely ridiculous in
a progressive city like San Francisco that religious organizations should be given such clearly preferential treatment. Their tax
exempt status is more than enough exemption from the law of the land, thank you. They don't need the ability to create a public
safety hazard stacked on top of it. Even if the median parking is "available to all"
1
As someone who has lived on Guerrero and now drive extensively on Dolores, I highly support the SFMTA taking action to
articulate a clear stance on how to tackle this issue.
1
Thanks for looking into this! We lived for 9 years at 14th and Dolores and now live at Cesar Chavez and Dolores and the
median parking on the street has been completely annoying / weirdly enforced, glad that whatever the outcome is here it's
going to get formalized.
1
Private vehicles that don't belong to residents should not be encouraged to drive in the mission. Allowing non residents to park
there illegally is a bad idea as well. The only vehicles we should allow in the mission are buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles.
1
I live in the nearby Castro and have worshiped in the area for more than 15 years. In addition, I have parked along the median
sometimes by Dolores Park, particularly when my kids were younger. I frankly cannot imagine what the neighborhood parking
situation would be without the median parking. It would actually have a terrible impact on neighbors, since curb-side spots
would be used by visitors, too - residents would likely have a much harder time finding parking. The system we have works
well. I am at that corner multiple times over the weekend, and have not witnessed major traffic problems. Finally, it's important
that the City treat religious institutions equally across the city, barring significantly different circumstances. There are not such
circumstances here.
1
Continue to enforce as is. I don't understand why people whine so much about it. If you don't like it move on.
1
In the past, when the city has put the maintenance of sidewalks trees on homeowners, the health and care of some trees has
been neglected. I believe the city should maintain the health of the medians. That said, while we need to respect the role of
religious institutions in our community, we also need to respect the residents, business owners, and citizens who spend time in
our neighborhood. I believe that regulating the median parking will allow churches/synagogue-goers to continue using the
median for parking for elderly and handicapped members, but will also allow non-religious folks to use the space to frequent
businesses in the area and increase economic activity. My recommendation is that the city negotiate a certain number of spots
with religious entities and save 40% of spots for people not affiliated with these groups. Another options would be to assist the
churches in negotiating parking arrangements with private parking lots and garages.
1
The elephant in the room here is that Christian churchgoers are getting a perk that does not apply to other communities in the
city. What about Jews on the Sabbath (Friday-eve.Sat-sunset), etc.? If such a policy is permitted at all it should be for the entire
weekend for all people and not cater to a grandfathered in tradition. P.S. This happens on Valencia, too, and I've seen it on other
streets where there are churches.
1
Median parking is inherently unsafe. Why it has been allowed to go on so long when it is clearly illegal is beyond
comprehension. San Francisco is a city with ample transit options. There is no need to continue to encourage such dangerous
habits.
40
Count
Response
1
I would hugely favor the weekend parking meter plan in the proposal overview. Make the spots available but charge people at
least a nominal fee for them, to discourage driving when other good options are available.
1
The efforts to improve the medians on Guerrero in the past couple of years are appreciated as is the improved street lighting.
The most important things to my family as residents of Guerrero street are intersection safety (it\'s difficult to safely turn left
when median parking is taking place) and maintaining the plants. I want people to be able to attend their church even if they can
no longer afford to live in the neighborhood, but also think there is public transit available nearby.
1
Cornerstone church does an amazing job of organizing and staffing the parking - keeping both pedestrians and other drivers
safe. I worry about the safety of a free for all but this is better than no parking. Some access needs to be made available to the
areas with planting for safe pedestrian entrance / exit but this could be mitigated by design of where / how planting are located.
All these churches and religious institutions are an asset to the neighborhoods and we should keep this parking.
1
I'd like the street parking to remain as it is. Parking can be very difficult to find Sunday morning. As a senior with walking
troubles it can be very difficult for me to walk a long way to church.
1
Church parking should not receive special privileges because of religion. They should be treated like every other citizen of this
city. Stop all median parking.
1
I'm not sure why this is even a question. I've gotten ticketed for parking while my car was stolen and when my tires weren't
turned on a barely-noticeable incline in the Mission. The churchgoers (and let's be real, some Church of Dolores Park
members) are literally mooching off everyone else, illegally. C'mon. This is San Francisco. This is SFMTA. Why would you err
on the side of NOT ticketing?
1
If median parking is allowed, it should be allowed equitably to road users, not just for faith-based trips.
1
Equal protections. I can't double park when I visit the movies of go to dinner. Also, this is extremely dangerous for cyclists.
1
Religious organizations should NOT have a special right to park. It should be available to all, or they should have to pay a fee
for the privilege of inconveniencing other people, including bikers.
1
Do not continue to allow this dangerous practice to continue. Able bodied people should accept consequences. Disabled people
can use available street parking. If a congregation has so many disabled people they need more parking to accommodate
them, they should ask the city to designate more disabled parking around the church locations.
1
If we are going to allow median parking it must be available to everyone, not just church goers. I would also encourage making
deals for the use of any existing private parking lots. It s wasted space that could help alleviate the problem.
1
The wording of the survey is awful; very difficult to understand. Full of implicit double negatives. Next time, run it by a review
committee of real people, please.
1
We should be encouraging people to drive less, not more. By allowing this illegal parking practice to continue the city is only
encouraging more driving. It's also very unsafe to those of us who choose to go carless in the neighborhood.
1
We all know that if median parking is allowed, only the churchgoers will be able/allowed to use it. You think just anyone is going
to be able to drive up and park in the median on Sundays and not get harassed by one of those church valets? Forget it. Start
enforcing the damn law and stop letting churchgoers park in the middle of the street.
1
In order to continue to participate in services at my congregation there must be parking that is near to my house of worship and
plentiful during service hours!
1
If it ain't broke... don't fix it. The war on religion from the left continues. Don't create problems where there are none. Let the
neighbors maintain the planted median strips... especially businesses and churches.
1
Median parking creates a traffic mess in the neighborhood. Let's stop it and give out tickets to all who park there.
1
San Francisco is too congested to allow preferential parking for any institution or business when that blocks a public
thoroughfare.
41
Count
Response
1
I live on the 600 block of Guerrero. The median parking on the weekends is the bane of my families existence. The parking was
suppose to be for the church but the general public uses these spaces all day.
1
As a 16 year resident of SF, in the Mission Dolores area, and a driver on these streets, my primary concern has been the
straggling cars parked along the median long after church services are done and the sun sets on Dolores Park. There should
be clear hours posted for when median parking is permitted. Whatever you do, lead with Safety in the chosen policy,
Equitability in its implementation, and Consistency in its enforcement. Thanks.
1
Separation of church and state. They should not be allowed to break rules for something as BS as church
1
I am FINE with the church goers parking on the median. They are done by noon on Dolores. BUT THE PARKING GOES ON
ALL NIGHT; IT ISN'T THE CHURCHES, IT'S PARK GOERS AND RESTAURANT PATRONS! and, they block access to
Dorland street between the medians on Dolores. This is out of control
1
Preferential parking for specific religious groups is completely wrong. Any median parking make congested, dangerous
conditions. As a neighborhood resident, the practice must stop.
1
I believe in one standard for all. Churches and residents and tourists would have the exact same parking status.
1
Our streets are for more than just the free flow of traffic. They are public places to be used by us. If the church-goers want to
use them for a few hours on slow Sunday mornings, great. I support the SFMTA opening it up to other groups/events to "book"
median parking.
1
1) More parking = more driving. Adding parking on the median is no different than building a large parking garage, which
undoubtedly shifts hundreds of trips to driving from other modes. This is a very, very transit-rich neighborhood, and there\'s no
reason to invite driving here. Worshippers are welcome here, but they should do as the locals do and take transit and walk. Our
regional transit connections are stellar, so there\'s no excuse except for people with mobility impairments, and that should be
addressed through blue-curb spaces. 2) Median parking on Guerrero and Dolores could make sense if it\'s a swap for lost
parking somewhere else nearby. For example, Valencia could be made car-free on weekends, with parking added back on the
medians of parallel streets.
1
There's no justification for providing special privileges to certain religions (Christian denominations). The city should enforce
parking regulations, and require church goers to find legal parking just like everyone else.
1
Cars should not be parking in the median. They cause traffic backups, and it is dangerous to passing motorists.
1
I think it's atrocious that the city has tacitly given special legal status to religious organizations for years by refusing to enforce
parking laws on Sundays.
1
I pay for parking in a garage on Dolores. On the weekends when people are parked in the left hand traffic lane it is very difficult
to maneuver safely out of the garage. I am extremely opposed to allowing median parking to continue in any way.
1
This issue is a problem in other neighborhoods where churchgoers are allowed to double park for any church service (i.e. all
churches in Nopa). I've had my car blocked and it was not easy to get them to move their cars, and incredibly awkward to
disturb a funeral or nightly bible study. There should not be preferential treatment to make parking easier for churches and not
other establishments. Median foliage should be restricted or well maintained. As lovely as it is, there are several medians in the
city (i.e. Divisadero/Waller), where it obstructs the view. Thank you!!
1
Unsupportive of adding fencing, fences should not need to be added to have people obey parking laws. It should be obvious
that it is illegal.
1
It's about time the SFMTA addressed this issue. As a 40-year Jewish resident of SF it has always struck me as deeply
undemocratic that Christian people have access to median parking while all other religions are excluded. Bravo for taking this
on!
42
Count
Response
1
The issue about health of the medians is totally bogus. People use them a pet potties which we know to be a plant killing
activity. Those lucky enough to live adjacent to these strips take no pride in them and they are frequently littered and messy,
some worse than others. Once again, I hate to say it, the influx of new people into this city has made driving, parking, cycling,
empathy and community border on the selfish and entitled. If it were otherwise this issue would never have been raised.
1
Fencing around plants may cause people who are getting out of their cars to move u safely into traffic In other words the
median acts as a pedestrian safety zone too perhaps figure a way to use median planting area as both place for vegetation and
pedestrian safe zone
1
The neighborhood and it's businesses greatly benefit from the visitors to and regular attenders of Cornerstone SF church.
Reducing or removing people's ability to attend this church will lessen the neighborhood.
1
Separate church and parking. And there are way to many cars in the city. everyone walk or take a bike.
1
I understand the desire to push people into using mass transportation, however, the system cannot accommodate the volume
of the citizens who need it. Having alternative parking is a treat on Sunday when I want to go to the park or visit friends in the
area.
1
If there was a parking fee that existed, 15$ for parking then great, that money could go for restoration and parks. This system
has benefitted the church goers at the detriment of the neighborhood and safety of cyclists and pedestrians in the area.
1
At a very minimum, the City must post signage to clarify existing enforcement policy with regards to median parking. That said,
my personal preference as a neighborhood resident, former taxi driver, and current business owner is to not allow median
parking.
1
Leave the parking situation the way it is - unless the city plans on providing an alternative place for the cars
1
People should be encouraged to ride MUNI to church, especially considering the J runs nearby. Maybe instead of catering to
these illegal parking demands, make muni free on Sundays until 1 pm etc to allow people to get to the area easily and cheaply.
1
The parking in the traffic lanes during church services should be designated with bright cones in the back, and vehicles should
be towed after a certain time for safety purposes.
1
Median parking is an unsafe practice. I have had far too many close calls as a pedestrian and motorcycle rider due to impaired
visibility and confusion over the parked cars. The additional parking is NOT worth dying over.
1
I ride my bike through the area (I live right off Valencia, so just around the corner), and the parking situation creates a life
threatening situation, with traffic condensed to 1 lane and no room for bike riders as is.
1
As a resident it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I do think it's a bit confusing and would appreciate more clear signage.
Maybe because I'm not looking hard but I've never seen any signs that clarify what the rules are. But I don't see any harm
being caused and so if it helps people out then I'm fine with it.
1
parking is extremely difficult to find in the mission. It's offensive to me that churchgoers get special allowance to double park
and take up lanes during church hours. This happens on my street every sunday as well (folsom between 25th and 26th, we
have two churches) and I have been blocked in when trying to go somewhere. Yet, regular people are not allowed to do this.
When I come home and have to circle the neighborhood for 30 minutes looking for parking it sure would be nice to be like, meh,
I'll just double park right in front of my apartment. But, I don't do that, because I'll get a ticket. So I feel that if the churchgoers
can do it, then I should be able to do it. If I can't do it, then neither should they.
1
This has long been a safety hazard and a moral hazard in this neighborhood. Please end "Free Parking For Jesus". Thanks!
1
Median parking is counter to the city advocating the use of public transportation. It is also extremely dangerous to have
pedestrians crossing mid-block with cars zooming by. It is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
43
Count
Response
1
As a thirty year resident of the neighborhood, I have seen multiple iterations of this debate. As a car driver, I find the current
situation tolerable though recognize that the lack of published rules creates uncertainty that leads to odd behavior such as
finding one car parked hours longer than all the rest. Clarification of the policy would be good. As a bicyclist, Dolores and
Guerrero are both dangerous and the extra congestion probably lowers the risks because of the slower traffic. As a church
member, I see that the churches and synagogues have organized a little bit to clarify the rules by putting out monitors and
cones. This is really good. The other users, such as UPS and Fedex, and the Boys Club on Guerrero, double park without a
thought to the congestion and really create problems. An organized approach would improve things dramatically. Lastly, this is
an example of the shared economy. At the times when most vehicles are parked in the median for religious services, the traffic
is not very congested. It does tend to get congested after noon on Sundays. So, re-purposing a resource (the median lane) and
sharing it is a great idea. Of course, the idea that the lane is exclusively used by church people is flawed. There are plenty of
people who park in the median and go straight to Tartine or Fellow Barber at 9AM on Sunday morning or to Dolores Park later
in the morning. Proper signage would serve these institutions as well. Prohibiting parking in the median would serve a few
neighbors but few other users of the neighborhood. I strongly support a more clarified, more regulated, better marked sharing
approach. Thanks.
1
I don't think it is fair to give preferential treatment for one specific thing. I would be okay if median parking was allowed for low
traffic times like middle of the night?
1
I feel that median parking is extremely dangerous and am aware of collisions with the parked vehicles. I also feel it is
discriminatory to allow such parking for only certain religious institutions.
1
Eliminating the current allowance for parking along the medians on Dolores and Guerrero on weekend days would have a
tremendously negative impact on Cornerstone Church and the members' ability to attend services. Please keep our needs in
mind since we are a very positive contributor to the neighborhood and a longstanding Mission institution. Thank you.
1
This needs to be examined in more than 9 question format. Allowing these groups to do this just because they're churches
while penalizing any one else who does the same isn't fair.
1
Median parking is, and has been, a hazard for all: pedestrians, cars, cyclists, even people attending these services. It
compromises safety and increases traffic.
1
The only thing I don't like about the practice is that it's not explicitly available to everyone. It's unfair for the churches to bully
non-parishioners from parking there.
1
Please don't change policy. It's a brief time period and needed for many Sunday morning events.
1
I first learned about the 'informal' median parking system after being confused about why there were so many cars parked
unsafely in the mission. I came to know that this was associated with church going members of the public and was saddened
by the fact that I am not (apparently) entitled to park in these convenient spots as someone who isn't Christian. I'm glad to see
that the SFTMA is addressing this issue in the name of fairness and equality.
1
Whether I support eliminating median parking in these areas is dependent on the context and where this is all headed. If, for
instance, SFMTA wants to eliminate median parking on Guerrero as prelude to making it easier to run the 33 Bus on Guerrero
then I' prefer to have church parking on the weekends than to have a bus running on Guerrero all day long. I don't believe that
you guys are particularly forthcoming about your plans and so I'm highly suspect of why this has suddenly become and issue.
I've lived at my place on Guerrero for 30 years and the median parking has never really been much of a bother. Maybe it's a
bigger deal on Dolores but on Guerrero, it's really a non starter.
1
Double parking (but only for Jesus) days creates significant safety hazards for peds and cyclists. The narrow remaining lane of
travel and potential for being doored on either side now requires cyclists to 'take the full lane' which should not be necessary
since there should be two lanes. Peds also cannot be seen in the crosswalks because of the double parkers, and there are
also increased peds crossing mid-street (jaywalking) from in between the cars. Very dangerous!
1
SFMTA has punished residents and commuters endlessly with NO solutions for families with children or pets. No wonder
families are fleeing and refuse to even visit. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If you remove a parking space, build an off street space
and charge did it. SF has become a non-diverse playground for rich, white, male single techies on shuttles. The rest of us can
go to hell according to city government.
44
Count
Response
1
I have lived here since 1989. The median parking feels like part of the neighborhood fabric to me. It is not especially
inconvenient and I feel it adds to the character of SF.
1
Some cars start parking in the median as early as the night before Church. I have almost hit cars driving down Guerrero
Saturday nights and it is really nerve-wracking!
1
Please stop illegal parking in the median or double parking on streets as it contributes to congestion and unsafe driving
conditions as well as danger to pedestrians trying to cross the street.
1
As a bicyclist, I can tell you that those of us who bike around Dolores or Guerrero, have to dodge drivers who are pulling in and
out of the median parking, as well as the drivers who are trying to get around these illegally parked cars. I also wish that you
would extend your survey to include Valencia, which, even though it has a bike lane, becomes much more dangerous when
people park in the middle of the street and other drivers encroach on the bike lane. Please stop this madness and encourage
these worshipers to take MUNI, BART, or better yet, a Bike. Thank you.
1
We have parking issues all over the city. Why should a select few businesses and other parties get special treatment in certain
location when others do not. Work on improving parking and parking access for all SF streets, not just a select few for a select
few users. No fair!
1
I would be somewhat more accepting of the median parking as long as the church goers or users of said parking pay to
maintain the median vegetation or some sort of fee that goes toward funding muni or bike/ped safety improvements. But people
definitely should not be entitled to free parking like that.
1
Median parking creates confusion among drivers and causes traffic jams. It also gives the public a vibe that SFMTA gives
privileges to religious organizations by creating medium parking for them since medium parking mostly occurs outside of
churches.
1
It seems completely against the rule of law to permit illegal parking for religious institutions. Tacit also violates the first
amendment by favoring certain religious institutions - even if by proximity - over other institution and over non-religious
residents. It is unconstitutional and not acceptable.
1
The median parking is mostly used during religious services all over San Francisco, not just on Dolores St. Allowing parking on
the median for church services is unacceptable. When I have to get to an appointment or a date and decide to take my car, I
have to take the time to find proper parking (or get ticketed/towed) or take a bus. Going to church should not exclude anyone
from getting their car towed or getting a ticket. It's an obstruction and can cause major delays in our small city.
1
This kind of illegal median parking would be enforced if were for a concert, meeting, conference, or party. But because it's for a
church, the city allows it. It's unacceptable to treat churches differently than other institutions.
1
My family and me will be very grateful if the median parking situation is resolve, because it is stressful to park and be thinking if
the city is going to tow the car or to get a parking ticket
1
I support median parking within several blocks of an active religious/faith based organization that has services or meetings at
specific and regular times. I support the median parking within an hour on either end of the service times. I support those areas
being marked by high visibility cones (for example) to encourage traffic flow. The markers could be placed and removed by the
institutions. I do not support parking in the intersections, or in the turn-arounds. I do not support median parking for recreational
visitors (shopping, dining, using the park).
1
I think it is a valid concern for the community to want equal access to special parking rights. If that means posting rules, great.
From my experience, Sunday morning parking doesn't seem dangerous or disruptive - if anything it slows drivers down to a
safer speed. So let's just do what's fair (and post signs) rather than over-react. I also think the idea of putting fences around
decorative plants defeats the whole point - let's just put a few signs up asking people to please be careful of plants. It's not as if
people parking in the street are the only people who walk across the median. Thanks for intaking neighborhood input!
1
If parking were managed better, ie there were reasonable, congestion-based charges for parking, this would likely not be an
issue.
45
Count
Response
1
Keeping the median parking is very helpful to all Church and Park goers. Please consider keeping everything the same. Thank
you.
1
Please continue the past practice, (50 plus years), of allowing congregation members to park along the median on Guerrero.
Please don't allow our City of San Francisco to be converted into a gentrified suburb! Thank you for listening.
1
The use of driving lanes for congregation parking must stop immediately. It is illegal and extremely unsafe. Also, I would like to
see a city campaign to encourage non-car solutions for kids getting to school.
1
This has been a ridiculous tacit allowance for years and years. I lived in the Mission for a decade. I live in Precita Park area
now, so I'm affected all the time. It's really unfair, and it's dangerous too. Get rid of it yesterday.
1
The median parking is incredibly unsafe for anyone passing through the neighborhood--driving or walking, it's difficult to tell
sometimes whether a car is actually parked or not. It creates an unnecessary burden on traffic in the neighborhood as well.
1
I think the system right now works great and I appreciate the kind and watchful attendants that help monitor the neighborhood
while they assist and regulate street parking for the church on Sunday mornings. They are an asset to the neighborhood.
1
I feel that it has long been unfair that religious service attendees have been given a pass on parking rules when shoppers,
residents, and (non-religious service attending) visitors are not. The neighborhood gets many visitors at many times that would
benefit from median parking but only on Sunday mornings is the practice tolerated.
1
It is kind of a nuisance but I think it relieves parking elsewhere in the neighborhood on Sunday mornings. I agree that insitutions
that benefit from the parking should take some responsibility for protecting the median plantings. Fencing the medians would be
a shame.
1
Median parking is a disaster right now - so unsafe, Congesting the neighborhood, and people abuse it. Also the fact that
churches get special parking rights is ridiculous and should have long been ended.
1
Parking should never be \"free\", especially in places where it is in high demand. When he cost of parking (parking control
officers and enforcement) is not covered by users, the cost is put on the shoulders of transit riders, who do not get to ride for
free; not on holidays, not on Sundays, and certainly not after 6PM. Considering that people who take transit are often of lower
incomes than car owners, this is a glaring example of classism. If parking is allowed in medians (for all), and where there is a
demand for it, that parking should be taxed and regulated so that sufficient revenues can be generated to cover the cost of
providing, regulating and enforcing the parking.
1
I support median parking but only for restricted hours. Cars park on the median the entire day on Sunday. I would support
parking only during church service hours on Sunday morning.
1
Parking should be permitted for people going to church. I find it extremely rude that others would like to use the parking to go to
the park or have brunch. I am a lifelong resident in the neighborhood and would never dream of parking in these areas as I
know they are for the church-goers. I would be up for the parking being reserved for them only.
1
Though not a person of faith, I think it is important to maintain some tradition in a city that is losing it out of every possible
oriffice.
1
It\'s a hassle, confusing, traffic jamming, and it encourages people to drive. Also, it\'s pretty sad that we\'ll provide free parking
to churches but not to schools. Get rid of it.
1
Without median parking attending church would become a significant hardship for my family. There is simply not adequate
parking otherwise. Our congregation draws members from all over the Bay Area and many have no reasonable alternative to
driving to church. Please provide the parking we need.
1
This program was set up for churchgoers. It has now turned into anyone can block a lane, park for free and disrupt traffic,
neighborhoods and those that actually attend church. And, what about synagogues? Can we park on Friday night? NO
46
Count
Response
1
Churches shouldn't be treated more specially than any other citizens needing to find parking spots, and if there's not enough
parking space on Sundays, church goers should do the same as everyone else and take advantage of carpooling, muni, biking,
etc.
1
I don't like the idea of my tax dollars providing free parking for religious purposes. Please stop this practice. Thank you for
asking for input.
1
Median parking is a bad idea. You're driving along, minding your own business, then realize the car in front of you isn't merely
stopped, it's PARKED. If you're going to allow people to park in the street, in what should be a moving traffic lane, [1] there
should be big, clear, readable signage to alert drivers that their public street is now a parking lot, and [2 the option should be
available to EVERYONE, not merely to members of some private club/church.
1
This program is dangerous and creates great inconvenience and confusion for drivers. It should be stopped.
1
It's a sad, sad statement on San Francisco that the SFMTA is going through this community outreach crap and not just issuing
tickets. The whole problem is drivers with questionable morals parking illegally. The people parking on the median create traffic,
make it harder to see people crossing the road. They park in the U-turrn gaps so I have to drive up to the corner and do it
around two lanes of parked. I avoid Guerrero because not a lot of drivers know that traffic's going to sop right in front of them. I
keep some room between me and the car ahead because I've seen a lot of sudden lane changes. When I'm walking, I worried
about other drivers not being able to see me. There isn't all that much of, but the honking ruins our peaceful Sunday mornings.
This all s probably causes a lot of accidents and all for Christians to park illegally. Please stop putting religion ahead of the
neighborhood and safety.
1
I think this practice should either be stopped completely, or formalized and made available to all equally. The latter seems a
more workable solution to me, particularly in conjunction with traffic calming measures such as Sunday Streets on adjacent
blocks.
1
The current lack of enforcement and favoritism shown to certain users on Guerrerro and Dolores is deplorable. Thank you for
taking a thoughtful approach to addressing this situation.
1
The too issues I would like to see addressed would be to make the rules regarding median parking consistent for all people and
to address the issue of cars remaining parked in the median after dark/overnight.
1
I've lived in this neighborhood for 12 years and the weekend median parking is completely out of control. It's also dangerous.
We have such good public transit to the area, it seems ridiculous to make these accommodations only for the "church of the
divine parking spot"
1
Please stop Sunday "church" double-parking throughout they city. We have this problem all the way around Glide (the
neighborhood). We're so close to public transportation, there is no reason anyone should be driving if they can't find a legal
parking spot.
1
I think the median parking provides a useful relief valve to Sunday parking, which would otherwise be truly insane with the influx
of church goers. But, as someone whose life has been harmed by the Catholic Church this special dispensation for them
strikes me as very undemocratic and unfair. So, I support measure to standardize median parking that is available to all.
1
To me it currently appears to be heavily abused and unfair. I have seen people BBQing and drinking out of their cars on the
median. Why the heck are they allowed to do that?
1
Completely banning median parking will not work. Will harm those least able to afford to pay for parking or understand the rules
(examples: disabled, seniors and young families who need to drive, funeral procession attendees from out of the City). Is a hate
campaign against religion and cars. Is a State sponsored program to deny free practice of religion.
1
If I leave my car parked in the street ot will be ticketed and towed, and I even PAY taxes. Do your job, enforce the law. Remove
the nuisance.
1
Here's another option: implement some sort of "median parking pass" - for a fee, of course! The fees could then be used for
upkeep/maintenance of the median and for parking enforcement.
47
Count
Response
1
I would support enforcement of zones that are supposed to be no parking, equally across the board, with no exceptions. As a
non churchgoer, I would be ticketed or towed for similar behavior, so I have no sympathy for the concerns of people that
actively make the decision to drive. They are no more entitled to public access than anyone else. It is also dangerous for the
rest of us and encourages people to break the rules. I myself have double parked in these areas while running errands or going
to the park because I knew I wouldn't get caught. That said, if there were dedicated zones, during certain hours, with no
requirements (eg churchgoers and non churchgoers alike), I could support that. As long as it was available to all on a firstcome-first-serve basis and aggressively ticketed when the time was up. Another exception could be permits/zones for
mortuaries and funeral services (such as Guererro b/t 25th and 26th), since these geniuely require people to caravan.
1
The areas on Guerrero and Dolores that are being used for church parking occurs in Friday evenings after dark, Saturdays and
Sundays, not just from 9-11 am on Sunday's as proponents of median parking assert. These hours, particularly at night,
increase danger/visibility issues. Also this area is well served by Muni (J and buses) and BART (16th and 24th). We are a
transit first city and should not give a free ride to any business or religious organization who wants to skirt the rules.
1
I live on the one street block-Guerrero between 20th and Liberty where there is no permit required which is nice but sucks
because everyone parks there and you can never find a spot. The big thing is that we are not eligible to get a city parking permit
for our own neighborhood. We can't park around the corner from the house for over 2 hours
1
Some of these options are not really feasible, Sunday onstreet parking was a " handshake deal" between the SFPD who used
to administer parking and the churches. De facto SFMTA is favoring certian institutions by this policy, some churches have
their own parking, some like the Temple Zar Shav have recieved parking privileges for High Holy days which revolve annually
and happen at sundown. This is unfair to people who either have residential permits or are in the neighborhood for other
purposes. i.e. shopping. This is indicative of parking space "carve outs" given to certian institutions, businesses and individuals
including city employees !!! This needs to stop. Stop privatizing city streets!
1
Adding fencing around the vegetation only leads to more unsafe conditions for those people who are getting out of their cars
and trying to cross the street as well as issues for those people driving down the street; I can see people merely trying to walk
over the fencing, getting caught and tripping, breaking the fencing, etc. This and other areas of the city with heavy parking traffic
and congestion are begging for those dreaded two words: PARKING LOTS. No one likes them until they need one. I\'m not an
urban planner, but there aren many talented people who are, and there are ways to incorporate parking with greenery, case in
point: hundred of cities across the world, such as Barcelona, etc., which have had to incorporate parking and traffic whilst
maintaing the integrity of the surrounding landscape. Do some research, take some notes, hold a competition, there are many
people far more knowledgeable than I who will have some ideas and answers to this and other urban congestion issues.
1
I've lived on Dolores at the intersection of 16th for 7 years and have been a long-time witness to median parking situation. I
really have no formal objection to it, as long as safety is insured (clear access to intersections) and it's open to everyone.
Knowing the specific hours media parking is allowed would be a huge improvement to the current situation.
1
Even though median parking has been a longstanding practice, the idea that it is for 'churchgoers' is somewhat absurd. The
median has become a convenient place to park for everyone in the Mission for any reason, backing up traffic and causing
unsafe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians who are either crowded off of roads or forced to jaywalk across a busy lane of
traffic to get to the sidewalk. I am supportive of continued parking in median spaces if it is conspicuously marked and times are
limited to when church is in session.
1
I've only gone by this area a few times on Sunday, but I'm familiar with the situation. I live and work near Webster and ride my
bike and walk from around Geary to Hayes on Webster. The same problem persists, bike lanes are blocked, residents are
confused, rules apply to everyone.
1
About time this was addressed, especially as it has turned into street parking for all at any time perceived as a time that
congregations are having services. The city should retain control of ticketing and collecting revenue; public streets should be
under the control of the city, not private for profit.
1
I have seen instances when fire trucks were not able to use Dolores St. because of the double parking. I think it is very unsafe
and the neighborhood is too congested to allow it any longer.
48
Count
Response
1
Difficult to find parking for the various services, particularly later in the day so median parking is very helpful. Currently, we are
required to be of the median parking 15 mins after last service so only~3 hrs is taken for church parking on Sun. We support
and respect the businesses/residents in the local area. I never step on the vegetation but need to stand walk through or walk
along the edge to get to the traffic light/crosswalk. Most parishers will respect that also, especially if they are aware that is a
concern. As with God's house, we respect God's creations in nature. Thank you.
1
Keeping median parking in its current state is unfair to everyone except the church groups. Whatever happened to separation
of church and state. It also creates congestion and decreases the ability of emergency vehicles to get through traffic. Get rid of
it. Or at least make it fair and safe for the neighborhood. The church groups contribute nothing but noise and trash and a sense
of entitlement to the area.
1
Wharton to me that we remember that religious services are observed on and around the Dolores median on Fridays,
Saturdays, and Sundays. Creating legal parking zones only on Sundays would be discriminatory.
1
It makes no sense that people can drive straight to church like a bunch of 1%ers when the rest of us get around in a more sane
manner with Muni. I bike down Dolores and the median parking is dangerous. We shouldn't have to wait for a serious accident
to do something about this. While you're at it, remove half the Muni bus stops. The people who cry about losing door to door
service will just have to deal with getting where they need to go much faster and feeling better and healthier from the additional
1-2 blocks of forced walking inflicted upon them.
1
While I understand and appreciate the contribution of religious organizations to our social network, it is completely unacceptable
to subsidize/under-write the cost of parking for people who are going to church/religious institutions. If everyone can park in the
middle of the street without penalty (and it's clearly posted, not just an "insider's understanding"), then fine.
1
The median is a roadway and should never be used for parking. Churchgoers should take a taxi, Uber, walk or don't come to
SF neighborhoods where you don't live!
1
as a long time SF resident and former congregation member (Cornerstone Church) I feel that if median parking on weekends
continues, it should be equally available to all. however, if the church(es) continue to use median parking, either way, they
should pay for it via permits. it is completely unfair for the churches to exclusively use the parking without cost or regard for
other residents and visitors to the vibrant Mission Dolores neighborhood. The churches have not earned the right to use the
medians without paying or contributing positively to the neighborhoods in other ways. I do not believe that Cornerstone Church
reaches out the neighborhood at all, and if median parking continues (with permits!) they absolutely should pay for the plants
that their congregants and staff trample upon every weekend.
1
Median parking is essential as there extremely limited parking/public transportation alternatives to this area.
1
Parking should not be eliminated however, it most definitely needs to be posted, monitored and enforced. Right now people
take advantage of the ability to park on the median. Cars are there long after services are over. Non-church people use it to
hang out at Dolores Park and park there all day without getting ticketed.
1
Don't make this church specific. Parking or no parking should apply to all. Also fewer cars are better, so remove one lane
entirely on dolores and make a bike line instead would be ok.
1
Churches should not have different parking benefits from others. Guerrero should not allow median parking in any event.
1
The median parking is not only unfair(I'm Jewish and can't do this when I go to synagogue) , but it's dangerous, and it wrecks
the plants on the median. Plus there are so many folks wanting to use the park, traffic gets crazy with just one lane.
1
Preferential treatment of churchgoers, whether it's through the current non-enforcement of parking regulations, or through
establishing new parking regulations to legalize double- and median-parking during Sunday services, seems like a First
Amendment violation. If a large group of my friends wanted to meet for Sunday brunch during Sunday church hours, would we
be allowed to double- or median-park on Lombard, Van Ness, Lincoln Way or Divisadero without getting ticketed and towed?
Could we double- or median-park on Guererro or Valencia any other day of the week?
1
Fix this dangerous and unfair situation ASAP, before a child in a stroller gets killed in a crosswalk.
49
Count
Response
1
San Francisco is not a driver friendly city. Most of the parking lots are gone. In the neighborhoods, street parking is nearly
impossible to find anywhere in the city. The merchants and residents would benefit from multi-level parking garages
constructed in each business district. In the absence of these garages, the churches and other organizations must maintain
their double parking privilege if they are to continue to thrive in the city.
1
The parking situation at present provides a completely ad-hoc preferential arrangement for local congregations at the expense
of other people who live and visit in the neighborhood. This has the effect of creating a situation that is both dangerous and
unfair. Either ban parking in the median and enforce the rules, or legitimize it for all users.
1
Providing extra free parking and/or allowing card to park illegally goes against our city-wide transit first priorities.
1
Hi, it is very important that church members be allowed to park in the median as it was cause hardship for the elderly and
families with children since they may need to park far away. I believe church goers are respectful of neighbors and do not try to
abuse the privilege of parking in the median which mostly occur on Sundays. I recommend making this weekend parking legal
in the day so it would reduce any confusion. Thanks
1
This has gone on long enough. It needs to stop. If your church can't afford a parking lot, then it needs to move or you need to
ride the bus to church. Churches shouldn't get special treatment and they have for FAR too long.
1
Why do churches get special treatment? Lots of people go to the park on the weekend, too -- should they get parking spots?
Having a weekly event is not an excuse for special treatment unless that special treatment has been properly negotiated with
the city and the impact assessed (and hopefully paid for). They're effectively renting out public streets for free and without
anyone's permission. Why not have the same regulations that apply to the rental of any other city property?
1
It's easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to get entitled church goers into heaven. NO ANARCHY
PARKING FOR AAANNNY CHURCH.
1
I am completely against the church parking on Dolores and Guerrero, unless there is a charge for it! Make them pay for the
right to park. Put it in the users, not the churches. If you don't pay, you get towed.
1
The median parking is wholly unfair and a violation of our founding principles if churches and no one else is allowed to park
illegally without consequence. What if an atheist just wants to go to the Mission on a Sunday? The ad hoc parking is a huge
hazard with people in the streets and confusing traffic patterns for left turns and sudden merges. If people want to continue this
practice it has to be managed in a safe manner that manages traffic flow and clearly indicates the beginning and ending of such
areas. Median vegetation can be nice but is a hazard for left turns to the extent that it obstructs visibility, particularly around
Guerrero and 23rd (off the top of my head).
1
Stop removing parking spaces for Google busses and reduce the number of yellow business parking meters and reduce the
time frame for those meters
1
People should walk to Dolores Park from BART. If church-goers need parking, the Church should be responsible for installing
it's own parking meters and sending revenue to improving bicycle facilities to their church. They can install them on the church
days then take them out at the end of the day.
1
If faith-based organizations insist on permission to do this, they should be issued permits which carry hefty annual fees.
Otherwise, they're preferential treatment is a clear violation of church and state. And sends the message to the community that
they are above the law.
1
The fucking church parking is ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. It is DANGEROUS. DANGEROUS for PEDESTRIANS and
BICYCLISTS and for other drivers. It is ILLEGAL. Why the hell are you even asking these stupid questions? ENFORCE THE
LAW. Jesus presumably will pay the fine and settle the injury lawsuits for his chosen people. JUST STOP IT. NOW.
1
Nothing wrong with the way things are. Don't take away median space for dogs to protect plants.
1
It does seem to attract a LOT of cars to the median on Sundays, and it does take up a lot of space.
1
I think it's wrong to allow churches have their parishioners park there, yet disallow any one else to do the same. If parking there
is legalized, it should be done in a more safe manner than it is done in its current manner.
50
Count
Response
1
I think it should be meetered on Sundays, with posted signs. That way, both Church/Temple-goers and Dolores park picnicers
can park there, but pay for it. Use the money for media plant/tree upkeep.
1
I support someone's right to worship with their community. I do not support anyone's right to block traffic to do so.
1
If parking is alloweed, everyone should be able to park. Also, if parkers have full use of the lane, you may be able to avoid
some median damage.
1
The parking is very necessary on this intersection to attend church with all of the traffic and events always going on.
1
There are many congregations that use median parking to attend worship on Sundays. Formalizing parking restrictions would
aid those living in the neighborhood and clarify it for those who only occasionally come into the neighborhood.
1
I'm a bicyclist and the median parking is a nightmare. I've been doored more times than I remember. I try to leave enough
space to parked cars on both sides of me, but then I get cars attempting to squeeze past. Please, please, please eliminate the
median parking.
1
The current median parking provides an excellent and at the same time also only solution to allow out-of-town visitors to attend
the Cornerstone Church. I strongly support the proposal to maintain the current parking policy.
1
This parking is from a time gone by. I have seen so many accidents or near accidents around this parking. Please make it go
away! Bring San Francisco into the 21st century!. Let the church people use public transit, like everyone else.
1
I'm in favor of a structured, parking program for Dolores Street, where the traffic is slower then Guerrero. I'm less supportive of
median parking on Guerrero, which has faster moving traffic and impacts the plants in the median. If we are to allow parking on
Guerrero, I think it would be best limited to the block between 18th and 19th, alongside the church on that block of Guerrero.
1
I'd like to know the impact on traffic the median parking has, specifically. It seems on Sundays there isn't a ton of traffic up and
down Dolores (particularly in the evenings) but I'm not certain. Another aspect I didn't see mentioned is the fact that removing
this parking solution will make things considerably more difficult for residents in the area to find street parking on Sundays. I'm
sure residents would love if those cars just disappeared but they are just going to overflow into the neighborhood streets.
Honestly given the popularity of Dolores Park itself, it's surprising the city doesn't have more parking structures in the Mission
area.
1
I am a member of Congregation Shaar Zahav and find that median parking is imperative for attending Friday night and Saturday
morning services. We used to have a sign to put on our dashboard showing which congregation we attend and that we are
parking at the median due to services. Perhaps this could be implemented again. I do not support people parking in ways that
completely block an opening in the median, however. Perhaps there could be red makings along those areas that are
perpendicular to Dolores St.
1
If special parking privileges are bejng provided to faith-based organizations, they ought to pay something for those privileges,
especially since they do not pay taxes.
1
Religious people should not have a free pass to cause unnecessary strain on our transit infrastructure, which is already
dangerous due to its failure to keep up with the evolution of modern transportation, such as better accommdation for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit. Passing any laws to formalize this practice that makes our streets less safe and
accounts to a violation of the first amendment of the United States, which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion" as it would clearly only benefit those religious practitioners rather than the residents of San Francisco
as a whole
1
There should not be a preference for any one business, church or group. It should be available, if it is to be available, to all on
an equal basis.
1
I have been highly critical of the median parking on Delores. It's completely unfair to allow certain groups to park at certain
times. It also causes traffic at some peak drive times. Do away with it as soon as possible.
1
This also happens on Golden Gate between Pierce and Webster. (Double parking in the right or left lanes -- not median
parking.) Would love to see that enforced as well. Especially dangerous for bikers.
51
Count
Response
1
This has been part of our neighborhood for more years than I can remember, and that is many, many Over 50 years.. We need
parking for our church goers. There has been very little problems with this arrangement. Keeping the plants healthy should be
the responcibility of the churches they serve and it would be nice to post hours for the parking. Some people think it is an all
day parking situation. Most people do move. I don,t think this is a major problem.
1
I have always felt the median parking is unfair to those who are not congregants and is a violation of church and state. My
Buddhist organization has never been afforded the same perks and had to create a parking lot. Churches should either provide
their own parking or require their members to park legally and use public transit.
1
Median parking is really awful for traffic flow - especially given Church street's status as a no turning, bus & bike special area.
Lots of organizations and businesses and houses are on Dolores and sometimes they legitimately block a lane of traffic for
deliveries, etc. The wonderful thing about the medians is people can use them to turn off at many points safely, reducing
congestion at lights where people are trying to make left turns while cross traffic is coming (and while bikes & pedestrians are
moving as well). Also, people are completely abusing the median parking and have been for at least 8 years.
1
Thank you for doing this! Church median parking is unfair to those of us who don't go to church..
1
Anything we can continue to do to discourage commuting into the city by car and instead encourage public transportation
alternatives is a huge plus in my opinion. People visiting the Mission (either main thoroughfares or near Dolores Park, etc) can
easy do so via both two BART stops and numerous stops on the J train.
1
The only problem with median parking is that SFMTA ignores all the illegally parked cars. SFMTA keeps taking away parking
for MUNI lanes that do nothing to help those of us who live here and need a place to park. It isn't fare that I have to pay for a
parking pass, and then I got a ticket because I was just a little too late to move my car by, like, 5 minutes. I have never, EVER,
seen a double parked car ticketed on Sundays. Why do people WHO DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE get to park illegally while I get
a ticket? Isn't breaking the law a sin? SFMTA would be doing the sinners a favor be teaching them a lesson. Why am I the one
being punished for there sins?
1
The median parking can be irritating on church days, however I understand that for church goers there aren't really any better
options. I think that the best solution is to continue to allow, with clearly posted days and hours for when median parking is
legal/illegal. Asking the prominent churchs what their service hours are on Sundays and then finding a time period that seems
to best suit/encompass/facilitate parking for these services would be the logical next step. I see the median parking on
Sundays being used for church services, but I also see it being abused by people who want to go to brunch in the neighborhood
or hang out at Dolores park all day. I think it's fair for people to have median parking to attend church services under the current
conditions, but it needs to be regulated.
1
ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL TO PARK THERE THIS SHOULDNT BE A QUESTIONAIRRE. SFMTA, seriously, GET YOUR
FUCKIGN ACT TOGETHER AND TOW THE CARS THAT PARK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKIGN STREET.
1
It'd be helpful to know the actual/historical impact (# and severity of incidences) of the median parking on collisions, travel
delay, vegetation, etc, rather than anecdotal/potential references. Thanks!
1
Religious groups, specifically, not being required to adhere to parking regulations is wrong and unacceptable in several ways.
1
As a 12-year resident of the Mission, I can attest that many of those who double-park along Dolores and Guerrero are NOT
church goers but visitors to the area who take advantage of this unregulated parking. Further, allowing double parking along
these streets only encourages visitors to use private vehicles rather than take public transportation, which is counter to the
City's goal of reducing car congestion and use. Please STOP this practice.
1
Would like to see parking for everyone but during certain times make it exclusively available for local churches as they struggle
with their members finding adequate parking options.
1
This city is becoming less of a place for Families. I've only heard complaints about church parking from young, recent
transplants, all of whom do not go to Sunday church (but they enjoy brunching near Dolores Park). Burdening churches to
provide parking squeezes out the types of regular, non-tech, families from the city.
52
Count
Response
1
I've always found it quite unfair that members of certain religion(s) are allowed to park on the median when they attend their
services, yet meanwhile I am ticketed while I grab a coffee. What's the difference? Coffee is my god!
1
Parking should be equally available to everyone, so removing it entirely is fair. Not everyone drives, so removing parking to
make it easier to walk and bike is the most equitable options.
1
I don't go to church but I feel it's important that people can get there and park who want to attend. Not sure how small churches
could survive without it. Thanks.
1
All places of worship regardless of faith, should be accessible. Can churches carry the burden of maintenance? Specific areas
allowed which might better help traffic flow. A happy median!!
1
I see it mostly as a safety issue because of the limited visibility when crossing a median with a car, and driving between two
rows of parked cars because the remaining lane is very narrow. It would be interesting if the parking pattern could be changed
to perpendicular parking on the weekends instead.
1
As an atheist who believes that separation of church and state requires us to treat churches as any other establishment, it has
bothered me deeply that they're allowed to abuse parking regs when no other org is. I sincerely doubt that a gathering of the
Satanists using Dolores Park would find a sympathetic police force were they to park along the median.
1
Read the CVC; according to it, parking in traffic lanes is forbidden by state law. Not sure you should have the authority to
dispense with such a commonsense rule.
1
Parking on the median reduces crucial space necessary for safe passage of bicycles and allows for increased likelihood of
jaywalking causing further safety concerns. The fact that a blind eye is turned to this illegal parking, suggests favoritism by
local authorities to select businesses and organizations.
1
I have been attending Cornerstone Church at 17th for the past few years. Parking is extremely difficult during service hours and
limiting parking further would create a real burden. My family and I, five of us, often go on to restaurants, coffee shops, and
stores in the Mission area after service and moving our car, which we otherwise would not do on a Sunday. The impact of a
church is positive, adds to the economy in that area, shows off the Mission to people from surrounding areas, adds diversity,
and parking is limited in duration.
1
The median parking is mildly annoying, but the people opposed to the parking situation are much, much more annoying.
1
Cornerstone Church has a vested interest in being a good neighbor. Every time I have parked at a median area, I have been
instructed to respect the plantings by walking on the cement. I haven't witnessed anyone walking on the plants. People take
precautions to respect the vegetation. I've experienced wrongful accusations by community organizers that I was walking on
plants while , in fact, I was walking on the cement. I'm not sure what is happening in other areas where median parking is
allowed. Perhaps it's best that each organization that uses median parking commit to protecting the vitality of the vegetation ?
It's foreseeable that opening up median parking to anyone may increase the damage to plants because of a decreased sense
commitment to the neighborhood. I don't find the traffic patterns to be a huge problem. The traffic is still able to flow at a
reasonable rate.
1
I appreciate that traditional congregations of various religious institutions continue to practice together in our neighborhood, and
that as real estate prices have soared many locals have had to move far away. I\'m glad to be lightly inconvenienced so that
congregations can continue to practice together. I also hope that we can be smart together about ensuring pedestrian and
vehicle safety.
1
Discrimination favoring the religious over all others has no place in the 21st century. Enforce the current laws, don't recreate
new laws to accommodate one group over others. Church goers can use public transit like the rest of us or pay to park in
garages like the rest of us. Stop this outrageous discrimination against non Christians.
53
Count
Response
1
I've never seen a survey so poorly written, and so obviously biased. Some of the "cons" presented simply aren't "cons", but
more text in support. Please respect (a) the intelligence of the community and (b) the dignity of your rules in civic leadership by
presenting prudent attempts at objectivity in data collection when it comes to polling your constituency. I'm ashamed to be living
in a progressive, informed city where public servants show such blatant disregard for fair and equitable representation of
people's voices.
1
This median parking is essential for church attendance. The parking attendants at Cornerstone Church are vigilant about
minding the plants and they are well trained with managing efficient parking and through traffic on Guerrero. I sincerely hope we
can keep median parking and work together.
1
While a bit hyperbolic, the acceptance of double parking in this area will likely spread to other parts of the city. Recently, on
numerous occasions, I've seen double parking near the intersection at 9th and Irving partially blocking the N Muni tracks and
thereby stopping the light-rail and all traffic behind it for stretches as long as 15 minutes. Each time the Muni driver just lays on
their horn until eventually the driver of the offending car stumbles back to their vehicle once they realize they've brought an
entire square block to a halt, and then drive off without any repercussion. This sort of thing will become more common if a
driver thinks "I see cars double parked at Dolores/Guerrero all the time, it'll be fine if I do it here for half an hour."
1
Change Dolores to one lane each way and diagonal parking instead of parallel parking - fits more spaces, and slows down
traffic.
1
I believe median parking is a safety issue. Not everybody is aware of it, there is no signage to watch out for it, and the hills can
obscure the parked cars. This make the street ripe for a collision, either into a median parked car or a rearender due to
slamming on the brakes.
1
I believe that median parking should be illegal and not tolerated anywhere in the city. All churches are accessible by public
transportation. If it is maintained then the churches have to pay for the parking spaces.
1
Enough with this religious exemption -- the streets belong to everyone; if the street is blocked off for parking, everyone should
be allowed to park there, no matter what their reason.
1
If parking is being allowed, it should be allowed for all, not just faith based institution visitors. In addition, Faith based institutions
should share their parking lots with others instead of relying on the city to provide for all (ie. the church on 16th and Dolores has
a parking lot that is never full, and doesn't seem to make sense that they are not sharing with others around them)
1
Parking is becoming so rare in this city and now our hour of worship might be in danger. I take my mother and elderly auntie to
church and not being able to park close by would be very hard for them to walk.
1
People should only be able to park there during morning church hours. All day parking should be abolished.
1
I've always thought it was unfair that median parking is acceptable for churches due to high demand but not for, say, Friday and
Saturday night dining, which is also high demand.
1
Parking in the neighbor is a major issue, especially on weekends. Unless/until more parking is built, median parking should be
allowed and available to all. I\'d support raised medians, but nothing that could be a safety hazard (like fencing).
1
Allowing church-goers to park in the middle of the street while ticketing others is a clear 1st amendment violation.
1
The vegetation recently added to parts of Guerrrro are a hazard since it blocks drivers' views of pedestrain crossings,
especially at intercections with no lights or stop signs.
1
It has always seemed incredibly discriminatory for religious institutions to get this special treatment which creates problems for
everyone else.
1
Get rid of all double parking for church services until you allow me to double park at my favorite restaurant.
1
Allowing the current model to continue is almost certainly an unconstitutional benefit given to some religions, but not all.
54
Count
Response
1
If there must be parking for the places on Sunday, please make it stop at 1. Also, this place is very accessible by Muni & Bart
so I see no reason not to take public transportation if parking is hard.
1
I think the options presented here are equally good: the median parking should be either formalized and written down and
accessible to all, or terminated with prejudice. The current situation is a wacky transfer of public streets and right-of-way to
private institutions (the churches) whenever they deem it in their interest.
1
I have never understood that there was illegal parking for church or synagogues. It is suppose to be separation of church and
state. Do not think it is fair or legal. It also creates a real traffic problem around the park. We all have to find a place to park to go
to a function and no institution should get preference. Should teachers get a right to park illegally to park near their school???
When asked about any parking problems, we are to,d take public transportation. It is not that easy to do in all areas and not
reliable or cheap.
1
Median parking for churches is completely illegal, senseless, biased and dangerous. In no way should it be kept. In fact, it
should be halted immediately and the people parking there should be ticketing and towed. It's people parking illegally in the left
hand lane and, quite simply and logically, cannot be seen any other way.
1
My wife and I have been attending church in the mission district for about 7 years, and without the parking on Guerrero we
would likely have to find another location, because the parking is so difficult otherwise.
1
Completely unfair practice that certain churches and establishments are given this right. Traffic jams and aggressive driving
result from the extra congested streets. San Francisco is hard enough to drive in already. General population would be served
better if the practice went away.
1
The city needs less parking overall. We should not be incentivizing driving for any reason. The locations in question are very
near public transit, so accessibility should not be an issue.
1
all double parking regardless for church or other purposes should be ticketed. it's gone on for too long.
1
I don't need special parking privileges to attend church services. (Nor would it be fair to grant those privileges. Everybody has
to follow the same rules; that includes people of faith attending religious services.)
1
The status quo is unacceptable. I support enforcing the law and removing the illegal parkers. However, if parking is going to be
tolerated, it should be available to everybody - not just churchgoers.
1
drivers get frustrated when driving along Dolores and Guerrero street and end up speeding / accelerating and that is very
dangerous. There are too many blind spots where pedestrians will walk between parked cars.
1
There should be a question or two focussing in on keeping median parking, but cutting it back and being more restrictive on
exactly what parts of the Dolores and Guer. median one can park on.
1
Thank you for your consideration. It's really helpful to be able to park on the street during services. Many would not be able to
attend and have that support if this were removed.
1
I have no objection to the parking for the churches b/c spaces are so limited as is without trying to find space during services (I
do not attend the churches on Guerrero or Dolores). Rules for who can apply for median parking should be very clear and not
so broad that anyone can basically "apply" for permits. I would save the money for pothole repair (like the one that was painted
over with crosswalk paint and made me trip and fracture my face).
1
Please don't give up safety and aesthetics for the rights of a few people to go to church, and/or overcrowd the streets with cars
to visit Dolores Park.
1
The median parking is a hazard to the less protected users of the roadway: cyclists and pedestrians.
1
This has been done for years. People should be used to it. It helps with the lack of parking situation, but would be very helpful if
signage with times listed was up.
55
Count
Response
1
What time is church over? There are always a few cars parked in the left lanes in the later afternoon on Sunday, and that is
dangerous if you don't expect them.
1
This is a transit rich and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Encouraging people from elsewhere to drive here and then park in
the middle of the street is ridiculous. Furthermore, religious groups should not receive special privileges of any sort, particularly
ones with negatve effects, just because their members want to drive cars to our neighborhood. Allowing median parking to
anyone at any time is hazardous, damaging, and in general, hostile to the neighborhood. Median parking should have been
banned fifty years ago!
1
Keep the church parking the way it is. Churches are a traditional SF institution. People from the churches should get to keep
parking where they always have on Sundays. People who aren't attending church don't need to be parking there. We don't need
to make every last bit of the City into a Political Correctness zone. The techies can have Mission Dolores Park, but Sunday
median parking belongs to the churches.
1
Left lane / median parking is extremely dangerous. It decreases visibility of pedestrians crossing streets. Even worse, it makes
riding a bicycle on Guerrero / Dolores a frightening experience. Drivers become frustrated at the slow traffic and low visibility
and pay less attention to bikes than normal. Also you can be doored from both the left and the right. Finally, the Mission has
AMPLE local and regional transit options (22, 55, 14, 49, J, BART, etc) which should be encouraged.
1
Whatever you do. DO NOT bring back meters on Sunday's! What the area really needs is one or two large hourly parking
garages.
1
Parking in the 'dead' lanes each Sunday morning is a great way to use that space! It should be more widespread across SF.
We need more parking spaces in SF, not less.
1
No special right for people who refuse to take public transit. No special rights for religious institutions. The status quo is terrible
for pedestrians, cyclists, residents, and the environment.
1
If median parking is formalized, be sure to lower the speed limits for the targeted areas during the times it is in effect.
1
As a cyclist, it is quite scary to ride around median cars parking on the right, because 1) we can get "doored" easily, 2) cars
looking for parking as a tendency to make sudden left turns (to park) without signaling, 3) more people running out to the street
to get to their cars in areas with median parking. Please take cyclists into account, and keep parking to the right. Thank you.
1
I believe Sunday mornings have relatively fewer vehicle traffic and therefore the complaints about median parking are quite
rediculous. A bigger problem in this very congested area are the double parked cars on almost every block during rush traffic
times. I believe the answer to both of these problems is better public transportation and fewer vehicles on the roads...or make
all roads on way traffic.
1
Median parking on the weekends is very important because it allows people from different parts of SF (or the Bay Area) to visit
parks, churches, and restaurants/shops in the area, bringing in income to local merchants and the city.
1
It's confusing to be driving down Dolores and suddenly see a parked car in the left lane. It's unexpected, unsafe, and slows
down traffic
1
We travel from the East Bay to San Francisco for church. The availability of median parking is VERY IMPORTANT to us on
Sunday mornings. It allows families with young children and attendees with physical limitations to attend services without
hassle and appears to work very well for the community on weekends.
1
I hate the church parking. It just seems so unfair that only people attending church get to park in those spots - as if there
weren't other ways to get to church! If there is parking in the median, hours should be clearly marked and it should be open to
all.
1
Median parking is critical to the life of our community at First Mennonite Church of SF. Without it, half the congregation would
not/could not attend. We are willing to abide by reasonable hours, rules, and help keep median vegetation healthy. Thanks!
56
Count
Response
1
It is unfair towards all residents to allow a small group to have this special parking on Sundays. It causes major traffic issues
for the neighborhood. I choose to not patronize businesses in the area on Sundays specifically because of this. The same
issue on Page and Octavia is a huge traffic nightmare for residents.
1
If churches get the privilege to park on the median, ALL citizens should. No group of individuals should be using city resources
exclusively.
1
median based parking should be limited to the members and attendees of faith based institutions. I'm supportive of faith based
institutions managing the parking of their members this could be done by self governance as is currently or through more
formal permitting. Casual park goers leaving their cars in the middle of the street all day with little regard for the impact to the
neighborhood or median vegetation should abide by the parking laws currently in place for all other visitors or members of the
neighborhood. opening up median parking to all sounds like a terrible idea, why would anyone support a free for all of leaving
cars in the middle of the street. the attitudes, concern, and sobriety of the two parties (church goers and park goers) differ
greatly as do their impact on traffic, vegetation and the neighborhood. median parking is an offering and sacrifice the
neighborhood makes to the institutions that have resided here for many years and who make the neighborhood what it is. this is
not something i would support for "all"
1
As a couple that are atheist and Jewish, we have always found the informal church parking permits troublesome. It violates the
equal protection clause of the constitution. If the City chooses to continue not to enforce universal traffic regulations, then it
seems to us to be a legal exposure.
1
Although I'm not a church-goer, I deeply respect the local tradition of allowing median parking during service. I know it's a mess
now, though, and I hate the craziness that happens with the rising popularity of the park. The median is used a lot for dog
pooping, so if the fence will help keep some of them out, too, that'd be an extra benefit!
1
Median parking is only acceptable for short term uses, such as church-going, and only when monitored and controlled by
participating churches -- and only because median parking is "grandfathered." As a 20-year, home-owning resident of this
crazy place, I am completely unsupportive of any attempt to make median parking available to any and all who may drive into
the city for a weekend jaunt. Public transit to this area is better than almost anywhere else in the city, from all parts of the bay
area. The cars left in the median lane for hours and well after dark are insanely dangerous. I would rather see median parking
eliminated than allowed for even the most responsible and pro-active churches, such as the Somoan church at Guerrrero and
19th. Please, listen to those of us who live here.
1
We are supposed to separate church and state, the current situation is intolerable, dangerous,unfair, probably unconstitutional
and certainly illegal. If lives are lost due to this practice you have been warned San Francisco.
1
The current situation is unsafe, and clearly preferential to certain institutions with no community benefit.
1
I think dog walking and runners are as much a culprit for median vegetation deterioration as people who park in the median.
1
Am ok with using a lane for parking for church, school, community, funeral and other services if they are unable to coordinate
with an off street alternate. There must be clear signage with start/end times and someone from the org making sure folks
move by a specified time - otherwise tow & ticket. If a group uses the median they need to be responsible for the maintenance
and cost of replacement for any damage to the vegetation.
1
I hate the parking mess on Sundays around churches in the neighborhood. Seems ridiculous that it happens at all. With this
said, I'm fearful of how difficult it might be to park in my neighborhood on Sunday mornings if the informal median parking goes
away.
1
Median parking is weird. But guess what church's and their old folks deserve a decent place to park. I drive my mom to
church. Drop Her off and spend 20 min searching for a spot and 10 More minutes to walk to church. And she has a handicap
placard. I don't want to fight with th brunch crowd for that privelege. Churches in that n'hood will be gone in 15years. Let these
old folks have their 9-2 status. Don't grant new ones. And then as the churches die let it go. Stop with the unnecessary
bureaucracy. Get the line shorter at bi rite!!!
57
Count
Response
1
let the church park by median..not the hipsters..none of the plants are harmed..I checked today & all are fine..otherwise remove
plants & put in stones like around trees...there is a lot more congestion & bad behavior by line @ Tartine then the really nice
church people!!! I think this is a move by rich hipster folks to get rid of more neighborhood ethnic groups like the church!
1
Live in Noe valley. I have always appreciated the parking for others even though I can walk to church and Dolores park. Taking
away the parking is a bad idea for everyone.
1
While you are at it please look into the double (or triple) parking problem at Glide Church on Sundays.
1
Can we do this for hayes too? people double park for the church between laguna and Buchanan on hayes too--it's so
dangerous and a nuisance
1
I don't think we should privilege members/visitors of religious congregations above other road users. But I don't necessarily
think parking is such a bad thing if rules are formalized and well-understood. But I don't use a car to get to my services; it's a
short walk (
1
The city should not encourage driving by providing parking. The more parking that is completely eliminated, the healthier of a
city we will have.
1
Churches don't pay taxes and get free parking. It is a dangerous situation to have a main thoroughfare be half closed to the
public.
1
Also consider the situation on Bush and Golden Gate where entire lanes of traffic are blocked... first one side then a block later
the other... causing extremely unsafe backups while people (who normally can't merge anyway) try to merge to avoid hitting
illegally parked cars.
1
It's is completely ridiculous that in 2015 you are providing differential treatment to religious organizations. As a resident this is
not only infuriating it's unconstitutional. You should be ashamed.
1
Hi, I've been a resident for 20 yrs on Guerrero bet 17th and 18th. I'm so glad this issue is finally being addressed. First of all we
have a separation of church and state. why does church goers get a free pass when everyone else does not. Are they more
deserving then me or my neighbor whom have inhabited this wonderful spot in the world? why can't my friends visiting me park
there on weekends? some may say that going to church is spiritual. is not connecting with a friend or family member not
spiritual? This is a privatization of public roadway for one groups benefit. (unfair and unamerican) Taking up the median also
prevents me from pulling in and out of my narrow driveway in a safe manner. 1)backing out is extremely inconvenient and a
hazard when the median lane is 'occupied' I have to back out in a extremely careful manner because i'm at risk of scratching
my car and the other car parked right next to my driveway. Moreover, when cars are parked to a point when it violates the curb
cut, it makes even more difficult to pull out. As a resident of Guerrero street, is the convenience of a driver living outside the
neighborhood that comes and parks in the median worth more than a resident? San Francisco has a transit first policy. why not
have the church goers encourage their congregation to respect that and have them take public transit to the neighborhood? If
they do I only see benefits to the neighborhood and SF. Less carbon and toxic pollution from the added cars coming into the
area let alone the cars that idle in traffic because a lane is occupied by people parking. safer streets because of visibility and
less frustration from drivers. less damage to the plants in the newly installed green median. better exercise for the congregation
because they need to walk more. walking in the neighborhood increase food traffic encouraging people to spend in the
neighborhood. decreases the overall traffic in the core of the city allowing muni to effectively have a better travel time ( avg
mph) therefore more efficient. this neighborhood is well served by public transit so I really do not see why the need to drive in. if
people take public transit it increase muni's revenue as well. every single time median parking is allowed and people leave
church. some cars are left in the median after church and is a road hazard when people don't expect a car to be in the road
without just cause. Additionally, when they have to evasively swerve out of the way they have cause accidents. I can go on but
i'm tired of typing. thanks for listening and i hope action is taken regarding this abuse of our public streets
1
Median parking has been differentially enforced in the past, with preference given to Sunday parkers. It is needed by several
congregations and should be available to all of them.
1
As a cyclist and pedestrian the limited visibility created by these illegally parked cars makes me feel unsafe.
1
Friends of the Urban Forest (fuf.net) does great work if you want to fix the vegetation in the median.
58
Count
Response
1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I support having permanent median parking --- though signs could be
confusing (esp for tourist or those not familiar with the process), and then if there is one car left in the median after posted
hours, does it get ticketed or towed? For the current situation, perhaps a median parking attendant from each institution who
uses it should be required to monitor the car situation and to be able to clear all cars by the end of the allotted time of median
parking.
1
The status quo is terrible. I've tried to park in the median parking, and been told by parking enforcement areas that I would get
ticketed. I pointed to all the cars parked in the same manner, and I was told "but they're going to church." The government
should not be deciding that there are some types of car trips that are allowed to have parking, and others don't. Church goers
don't have more of a right to parking than other people. It also creates a very dangerous environment. I hope this isn't just
address in the Mission, but in the Tenderloin as well, where I live. But as a frequent Mission visitor, it's most pronounced there.
1
Seems as if most users of the median parking on said Sunday's are cooperative and respectful as much as median vegetation
can endure. Median vegetation, while truely enhances the neighborhood esthetics, is absolutely zeroscaping and also meant
and chosen for their heartiness and resilience.
1
My main frustration around this issue is that double parking is not available to all faiths. Church-goers have been allowed to
double park every Sunday for YEARS, but if Jews tried to double park near synagogues on high holidays (2-3 days a year), we
would surely be ticketed. If it is allowed (or if laws are not enforced) for one faith, than that courtesy should be extended to all
faiths.
1
enough nonsense with Guerrero St traffic and parking situatuion Keep Guerrero free of accident causing median parking .. and
protect the median landscapping we A GUERRERO ST RESIDENTS FINANCED AND MAINTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
The faith organization I belong to has regular services on Friday nights (Congregation Sha'ar Zahav). The option that would
eliminate after-dark parking along the medians would therefore remove parking at exactly the time our congregation holds
services and needs parking. The Christian churches, with services on Sunday mornings, would not face this restriction on
parking. Many of our members come to our synagogue from all parts of the Bay Area and drive out of necessity. Eliminating
parking along the median would drastically affect our viability as an organization. I would be more supportive of formalized
median parking if the nighttime restriction were removed.
1
Please put an end to the dangerous, illegal, unfair, potentially unconstitutional and highly disruptive practice of weekend
"church" parking.
1
This practice of allowing religious institutions in the Northern Mission is not only unfair to the non-religious but also to many
religious institutions many of the other areas of the city.
1
These churches have been here since before the traffic, and for guerrero before the median vegetation. Parking is horrendous
in this neighborhood, getting rid of median parking will cause major problems. It's not just the churches who use them, plenty of
Dolores park people use them as well. Stop changing everything.
1
There is NO EXCUSE for special treatment of churchgoers from the suburbs! This behavior encourages bad behavior among
drivers and endangers pedestrians and cyclists throughout the neighborhood (and beyond). Parking in the city is difficult—that's
just the way it is.
1
The current situation is the worst - flagrant abuse of traditional churchgoing practice. If limited parking is allowed with clear
signage AND ENFORCEMENT I would support that. Otherwise I support a complete ban.
1
I find it interesting that there is FINALLY some open dialogue about the median parking. Why is it that as more money comes to
the mission and while people are being displaced, it seems like more demands of money are being met? Why don't you just
build more parking structures that ARE NOT in the middle of the street? And/or stop with the parklets that take up metered
parking.
1
Two concerns: Fencing around vegetation may be inconvenient to dog owners that use the medians. Legalized median parking
should limit parking within some proximity to an intersection otherwise left-turning traffic cannot safely judge oncoming traffic
risks.
59
Count
Response
1
Median parking is fine, but I don't understand why it's only on Sundays as a preference to religious people. If there's enough
room on Dolores and Guerrero for median parking, it should also be available Saturdays for residents and park visitors. The
status quo seems like the government favoring Christians above others.
1
Ceding traffic lanes to religious organizations for the exclusive use of their members should be illegal and is certainly a violation
of the Constitution.
1
I think it would be a good idea to remove vegetation given the current water situation. Secondly allowing people to use the
median parking with permits on special event and would help and keep control of the area.
1
You couldn't have said it better: "Pros of completely removing median parking: increased clarity of legal parking options,
ensures that neighborhood parking options are equally available to all users, potentially reduces traffic backups, increased
intersection visibility, decreased chance of cars being parked in an unsafe manner, reduced damaging of plants, easy to
implement from a policy/legal perspective." These people are breaking laws but they are getting special treatment based on
religion. It is unsafe for the churchgoers and everyone nearby. There are plenty of public transit lines that special needs people
could use. If the SFMTA is truly in the best interest of the residents of San Francisco they would prohibit median parking, it's flat
out unsafe!
1
Many of the drivers parking by the median are visiting Dolores Park and surrounding businesses, not church. The median
parking creates a hazard because of decreased visibility when pulling out of my driveway.
1
The median parking should continue as is. It's a local's perk. I don't drive to the Mission and I don't go to church so it might not
be any of my business, but I just think it's hard enough being a native San Franciscan so let this just be a perk for locals. Let
the out-of-towners and transplants learn to take Bart and Muni.
1
Calling blocking the left traffic lane of Guerrero and Dolores \"median parking\" is ridiculously misleading. It\'s unsafe and this
practice should be eliminated.
1
All of these care should be towed the second the driver leaves his car unattended on a major road. This is dangerous and
completely unfair to give certain religious organizations the ability to endanger the roadways.
1
I have lived here 11 years and still don't understand the median parking or how it works. I like the slower safer traffic, but
otherwise find it annoying and unfair -- why do churchgoers get free parking that would normally be illegal?
1
If median parking exists, I feel it should be available to everyone and not just church goers. People going to church should be
encouraged to use public forms of transportation, and median parking encourages unnecessary traffic and safety hazards in a
crowded city like SF. I feel it is unfair to give this priority to religious organizations.
1
Median parking is essential for many churches in the neighborhood. The median parking on Dolores and Guerrero streets
provide crucial parking, particularly for families with children to be able to attend their chosen place of worship. Most churches
within the neighborhood are conservative in the amount of median parking they use and delegate staff to ensure those parking
in the medians are doing so respectfully and safely. Additionally cornerstone has approached the city about buying property for
sale in the mission to build a parking garage. This request was denied. If the city is not allowing more parking to be built in the
mission while simultaneously banning median parking, the city is only making the parking situation worse while providing zero
solutions.
1
Median parking, whether legal or not creates a mess for residents and drivers trying to make their way along Guerrero or
Dolores. It should NEVER be allowed.
1
Take the street and streetscape seriously. The design of the street influences everyone who passes through, in many nuanced
ways. Letting this get to current point has been silly.
1
Everyone should obey the law and park legally. There are many options to getting to the Mission area, and driving does not
have to be the only one. More importantly, these illegally parked cars are a danger to everyone on the road.
1
Parking is being reduced in SF overall to promote livability. We should encourage churchgoers to use public transportation,
especially when it's so easily available along this corridor.
60
Count
Response
1
Most support options 7 and 9 from the committee proposed solution list. Parking in the intersections is the biggest problem,
followed by the uncertainty around what time a parked car is likely to get ticketed.
1
As a neighborhood resident I am torn on this issue. I do not think it's fair that only faith-based guests can park along the median
and block the intersections. I mostly lean toward a ban on parking in these areas altogether. Namely for three reasons: 1.
Weekends are a nightmare on Dolores Street due to slow driving cars looking for parking or cars completely stopped waiting
for a spot/trying to fit into a spot. 2. It decreases the usage of public transportation and may aid in the problem of people bringing
a bunch of things into the park that they don't pack out. 3. In no way should that beautiful vegetation along the Guerrero median
suffer. That was one of the best beautification efforts in this city. I could be swayed to agree that the parking along the medians,
but not the intersections, is allowed if it is open to all, and times and restrictions are enforced. And if the vegetation does not
suffer.
1
The city could put narrow the Dolores Medians and install meters to make the area more convenient to reach by car and still
not spoil the beauty. SF would make money from parking, from more sales tax, etc. Win Win for SF and businesses
1
This is a non-issue brought up by disgruntled people who gain nothing by taking away parking from the church goers in our
neighborhood. I think these churches are fine if they want to park there, and I support NO changes to the current system. I am
not a church member but feel that people who support these changes are doing so out of a dislike for churches in general. It's
pathetic.
1
My primary concern with this issue is that things be fair. It is not fair for church-goers to get special privileges -- whether those
are de facto because laws are not enforced, or whether they are codified into the law. I'm fine with any solution, as long as
everyone has the same rights and it makes sense to the traffic planners.
1
It is time to stop special treatment of churches. This type of parking is never allowed at any other time or place, for any other
type of institution or business.
1
End median parking, please. Not is it unfair that certain religious faiths get to park in the middle of the street when others don't
(you don't see this allowed at synagogues!) ... but its also dangerous, confusing, and causes traffic headaches.
1
I\'ve been in situations in a car and on a bike on Dolores and Guerrero that were less safe because of cars parked on the
median and in the street. Turning left on Dolores on a Sunday is particularly dangerous with visibility severely reduced.
1
I have observed median parking for 20 years and have come to the conclusion that it should be prohibited 100% of the time: 1.
It is very difficult to safely back out of my garage. It takes many forward/reverse maneuvers to accomplish this. All the while,
traffic is backing up (because of the tight quarters.) 2. Traffic backs up because everyone is trying to get into one lane. This
especially causes danger to bicyclists and impedes emergency vehicles. 3. The entire neighborhood comes to a traffic
standstill, with church and Dolores Park parking. It is a MESS. 4. The effort to implement median parking convinces me that
SFMTA has completely disregarded the plan of encouraging use of public transportation. Either support the public
transportation or don't. Just stop pretending. 5. If abolition of median parking occurs, then make sure it is enforced. Any talk of
of increased city costs will be taken care of by parking fines. 6. People may, at first circle the block looking for parking.
However, after a time they will realize that parking is limited and will take public transportation.
1
I put "somewhat support" for formalizing the median parking. But that support is 100% dependent on the city charging fees for
that parking which are similar to area parking permits. Without those fees, I do not support formalizing median parking at all.
Bottom line either get rid of it entirely or charge for it.
1
1. Median parking provides a valuable means for calming traffic along the Guerrero traffic sewer, Dolores, and to a lesser
extent Valencia. 2. If preserved, median parking should be designed and striped to avoid interfering with turning lanes,
driveways, and loading zones. 3. If preserved, median parking should be metered at all times. If the city continues to fail to
enforce paid parking on Sundays, the Sunday revenue should be earmarked to support streetscape improvements and
maintenance on the Sunday parking corridors. 4. The current arrangement is undemocratic, unfair, and subsidizes a connected
and privileged few at the expense of the city. Median parking is now frequently spreading to Valencia between 24th and 26th
and other locations. The current situation is untenable and must not be allowed to exist.
61
Count
Response
1
As a biker, pedestrian, and nearby Mission resident it is baffling that SFMTA has left this issue go unattended for so long. In
addition to the utter confusion for drivers passing through the area, cyclists are often left with no safe passage around the
parked vehicles. It also sets a terrible precedent - if I go to church i'm allowed to double park, but visiting family in another
neighborhood doesn't provide me with that luxury? End it.
1
it is not fair that church-goers get to park there while the rest of us don't. I feel somewhat discriminated that because of my
Jewish faith, since I do not attend a Christian church, I may not park there.
1
Church parking is a confusing and unfair assignment of public property which leads to unsafe conditions for pedestrians,
cyclists and drivers. The obligation to accommodate the congregation belongs to the church, not to residents.
1
Median parking endangers other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. It is used largely by parkgoers (clearly recognizable with
coolers, 6-packs, etc.) and NOT churchgoers. Having seen many accidents as a result of median parking, I am astonished
that this unsafe practice is tolerated, as the city must surely be liable for allowing such a dangerous and illegal practice.
1
The current situation is a blatant 1st amendment violation, giving churches the right to adopt a median would make that worse.
1
Until the city decides that cars actually exist and need to park in specfic locations (e.g. build more parking structures) then I
don't see how regular events like church program and funerals can function. Seriously, does every Supervisor plan on giving
up their car(s)?
1
The city should be focused on a transit first policy, and the lack of enforcement around this issue is not in the right direction.
1
Religious organizations should not have any special right or the ability to get away without tickets or pentalty for illegal parking.
1
There are several churches that need the parking for congregants. Let's continue to support our faith strong neighbors.
1
I live at 20th and Noe and often drive down Guerrerro or Dolores on the weekends to get too and from my house. But I never
park in the area, preferring to walk from my house. I do think, however, it is a great idea to continue the median parking on
weekend days when traffic is light but modifications to make it safer and open to anyone looking for parking in the area.
1
Houses of worship don't deserve special parking privileges in San Francisco whether it be on the median in this corridor or
along Page St or Haight St. Church goers can learn to take public transit or pay large fines for double/illegal parking!
1
Eliminate bicycles and bike lanes; the jerks just ride on the sidewalk, and when they are in the street, they go through red lights
and stop signs. If one more critical mass occurs, I'm suing the city and relevant agencies.
1
I think it.. a.) causes traffic problems b.) is VERY unsafe c.) favors religious groups over residents.
1
I'm under the impression that cars parked along the medians are ticketed after a certain hour on Sunday (8:00 p.m.?) That is
reasonable.
1
As I cyclist I find median & double parking to be quite dangerous due to the traffic issues it causes.
1
They're churches in SAN Francisco's MISSION district. Ffs, it doesn't get any clearer than that.
1
Even better along Dolores and/or Guerrero would be to convert a lane each direction into a bicycle/scooter lane only, which
would increase throughput and not add to the parking problem... But, this is a tough issue - good luck!
1
Allowing members of "faith based" organizations to have priorities in parking is ridiculous - they ought to be paying for it
1
The median parking issue should not just be focused on the said neighborhood, but also all the other neighborhoods in the city.
1
In their current state, Guerrerro and Dolores are fairly dangerous when two lines of cars are parked. Mostly, I'm concerned
about the laissez-faire approach. I would prefer formalizing whatever situation is decided: either allow it for all or don't at all.
1
It's dangerous, and unclear on what those parking restrictions are. Sunday is a free for all, for church and park goers. SF is a
transit first city, we should not be encouraging people to drive.
62
Count
Response
1
i can't believe median parking has been supported by the MTA for so long. Why should these organizations get special
treatment, when the MTA treats everyone else (like me) as a revenue source at every opportunity? I just want equal treatment
for all, regardless of organizational affiliation.
1
I would only support it if the median parking was open to all on a first come first serve basis. As it is now it is treated as free
parking for the churches which equals a public subsidy for the express purpose of their worship which then makes it a
church/state violation. No where 9
1
This tradition has been happening for decades. Leave things alone. I would rather see people going to church then people
trashing the park, smoking pot and drinking.
1
Dolores and Guerrero are huge, wide streets, so I think that to the extent median parking slows drivers down, it is a good thing.
The way it is now is pretty chaotic, so figuring out whether there are certain blocks that are more appropriate that others would
be helpful. Median parking is way better than double parking that you see blocking bike lanes on Folsom, for example!
1
Thank you for trying to keep the median parking as finding parking in this area is VERY difficult.
1
Don't like the illegal median parking at all. Wouldn't care for it much more if it were legal due to the traffic problems it creates.
That said, if it is going to be allowed to exist, it must be available to all residents of the city, not just special interest groups.
1
I would support a tiny tax increase to pay the City for median vegetation maintenance and servicing. I oppose the 'adopt-amedian' program. That should come out of City funds. Thank you for the chance to participate in this survey.
1
I have lived in SF since 1980 and always liked our idiosyncratic parking "laws" (or lack thereof) especially when I lived in the
subject area and needed to park on street. The status quo has worked all this time albeit with some damage to median
plantings. Fix the latter and keep the former.
1
I've lived at this location for 8 years. I understand that congregations have been displaced over the years by gentrification and
rising rents, however, the city has a serious and increasing congestion problem which also extend to double parked delivery
trucks and ubers creating safety hazards all day, every day. Deliveries should be limited to the middle of the night, as they are
in NYC and there should be space made on all major thoroughfares for designated uber/lyft/taxi pickup and drop off. Thank you!
1
On Guerrero traffic should be one way into downtown. On Valencia the opposite. All day street parking should have lines
marked in spaces that fit cars ( not twice the size) and anyone not in that space $200 fine. 30% of parking is wasted by terrible
wasteful parking. As a business owner who left the city I have to commute into the city by car no special parking is avaiable to
me, I park in Daly City and cycle in and no special provisions (permits even) are given to me so weekend people should suck it
up too. This is a major issue when I need to bring things to the store but I have learned to deal with it. No parking in mediums!
Instead grow things there lose a lane anything is beetr than Guerrero right now, so ugly with all the cars.
1
As long as it doesn't interfere with traffic flow, I think that it's a good idea to formalize the use of the median to allow people to
visit the neighborhood. However, to discourage abuse and to incentivize the use of public transportation, parkers should be
required to pay to park this way. Either a special monthly permit or a day-pass. In no way should this be free.
1
Some amount of clearly marked parking doesn't bother me, esp during 5-11am on Sunday. I want my neighbors who have
trouble getting to church to be able to drive themselves. The level, abuse, and inconsistency of parkers though needs to be
addressed. I am in favor of limited permits to community organsizations who take steps to responsibly limit, mark with signage,
and monitor parking use (including facilitating towing after their permit window)
1
separation of chuch and state (streets). I've always felt left out of the privileged ones who church go one day a week and get
rewarded for it.
1
When I first moved to San Francisco I parked along the Dolores median on a Sunday afternoon while I went to an early dinner. I
hadn't realized there was enforcement of an end-time, so my car was towed, costing me about $450. I now live in the
neighborhood and know better, but I still think the status quo is not acceptable. We definitely need clear signage if this is to
continue. I also support a landscaping plan that can endure people parking along the median. I'm not sure if fences are the right
approach, but definitely better than nothing.
63
Count
Response
1
The SFMTA seems to be in violation of the Separation of Church and State. Why do religious nuts get a free pass to break
laws, and a government agency looks the other way just because it's supposedly for church?
1
I understand churches/other religious institutions have peak times when they need additional parking and this is a tradition.
However, if median parking is allowed on a public space on weekends it should be labeled and available to everyone. I am
opposed to having parking charge anywhere in the city on sundays. Unfortunately, Dolores Park is overwhelmed now with
people from everywhere increasing parking problems.
1
Simple fact is its dangerous. I can't count the number of almost collisions on that street. Worst is when church is over but
there's still a couple of car sporadically parked on the left lane. I've seen way too many drivers pull emergency stops or last
minute lane changes when they realize that car isn't moving. Amazing to me that someone hasn't died or been seriously hurt in
a crash but it's only matter of time.
1
Just because people have been parking illegally for years doesn't mean they should continue to be able to do so
1
Stop giving preference to religious groups, parking should not be allowed in no parking areas just because someone wants to
drive to church.
1
The current situation is just wrong. Just because I don't belong to a church I cannot park there. Discrimination is what it is.
1
Not fair that only people who know about the "grey area" in the rules will park their. This parking opportunity should be clearly
marked as legal or otherwise.
1
I like the tradition of the median parking, it's something church goers have been doing for years and it gives me comfort to
know that despite the neighborhood changing, this tradition is still alive on the weekends. I'd be sad to see it go but understand
that with more folks in the area, it needs some type of regulation. I support there being signs indicating when it's appropriate to
park along the medians. That area is essential for parking on the weekends!
1
I am fine with the Sunday church parking as long as they are paying, and are gone by a certain time. Too often I go down
Guerrero on a Sunday, late afternoon, and there'll be just one or two cars parked in the lane messing up traffic.
1
Religious institutions absolutely should not be provided special privileges. Whatever privileges are implemented should be
available to all.
1
I'm OK with median parking if it is available to all. The churches should not continue to have access to this privilege alone
without paying for it.
1
This policy has been unevenly applied for years, especially favoring religious organizations. San Francisco is so busy now and
car, pedestrian and bike traffic so heavy that the extra lane is needed. Also, the popularity and usage of Dolores Park has
soared. It's a wonderful gesture to non-profits, but as with many changes in SF it's time for that practice to come to an end.
1
It's silly that there's any group of people allowed to double park. Our streets are incredibly congested even without these double
packers. There's no reason why churchgoers should receive special treatment.
1
Many residents use those medians to take their dogs out for walks. Please consider the residents when it comes to the
vegetation of the medians.
1
Is unsafe. Congregations should look into other alternatives such as shuttle buses or utilization of Public Transport.
1
It's illegal. It's dangerous. It's certainly invalid by constitutional law. It's illegal.
1
My family has fought for democratic principles embodied in the U.S. constitution. This includes the separation of Church and
State. I think preferential treatment of churchgoers is therefore illegal.
1
I've lived in SF for over twelve years, and I've had a vehicle since I got my driving permit at 13. I grew up in South Dakota
where we literally needed to drive everywhere, public transportation did not exist where I grew up. I still have a vehicle, however
this idea that people need to drive to church is bull. I don't drive my vehicle much in SF unless I know I'm going to have a place
to park it when I get there. The majority of the time I take public transportation. I do not support any median parking.
64
Count
Response
1
1. One of the options listed is to contract for valet parking or shuttle buses. This should absolutely NOT be at the city's expense
- the organizations attracting people should pay. 2. Nearly all the options talk about parking. There should be much more
emphasis on reducing parking demand: carpooling, transit, bicycles etc.
1
the city of San Francisco should not be responsible for church attendees access to services, that is solely the responsibility of
the people going to their service. Parking at the median creates a bottleneck that is irresponsible due to the limited access fire,
ambulance and police have to the affected area. Parking is at a premium in San Francisco and to pander to the religious is
unconstitutional and ignores safety of those living along the streets affected.
1
Parking on the median is fine as long as the institutions involved pay for the public space they're absorbing and the space goes
to the highest bidder. It should have regular renewal periods as well so that every community group has a chance at them.
Also, specific parking times need to be enforced. Cars that are left are seldom towed, even 24 hours later.
1
Please keep the median as is. Thank you. And thanks for conducting a public survey. It's a great way to hear the voices of the
community!
1
Churches are nice, but parishioners shouldn't break the law regarding parking, and the city shouldn't let them get away with it.
1
As a mission resident and non-church goer, I would support the church communities need to sustain attendance and efforts of
the city to make it possible for their services to have parking. However, there needs to be strong monitoring and clearly posted
times for services only.
1
The median parking on Sundays allows us to attend services in San Francisco, as well as eat out, shop and support local
businesses in the Mission and Castro. Please keep free median parking on Sundays!
1
Clarity is better than confusion. Also, either everyone should be allowed to median park or nobody should be allowed to do so.
Favoring some groups or people (e.g., religious organizations) is the worst possible outcome.
1
stretching of rules for religious services should not be permitted in any part of SF. It's unfair to everyone else who must follow
parking rules. Thanks for getting on this. Please do so for Bush St, and all over city.
1
I hope something is actually done to close the loophole where church goers get to double Park when everybody else is forced
to pay the fine. My opinion of this is favoritism for religious persons and probably some bribes going on to keep this going.
1
charge a market rate for existing parking so as to leave a few spots free. Let the money raised go to benefit the local
neighborhood organization for improvements. Give nearby residents a break on parking fees. That's fair and just. When we
don't have enough space in San Fransisco to house the poor, we don't need to dedicate free space (and public investment) to
house cars.
1
Those who park in the medians should use transit or other means to go to church or whatever purpose they are parking in the
medians for. It is dangerous to pedestrians and traffic to allow median parking and reminiscent of poorly managed cities like
Philadelphia to allow this kind of behavior.
1
To me median parking is fine during church hours -- the danger to me is the cars that remain parked hours after the rest have
left -- there is often one or two cars left well after dark and this is extremely dangerous as drivers come flying down the road
and do not realize there is one car blocking in the middle of the block -- and have to swerve to avoid. I believe the median
parking, if allowed, must have strict hours so that all cars leave after services end. Cars remaining after dark in particular
should be towed away for safety.
1
so long as there is space in between the medians for cars to be able to pull a U-Turn, or to turn from Dolores onto, say, Alert
alley, I have ZERO problem with the parking situation.
1
should just not be allowed for churches only… separation of church and state… or if the churches want to exclusively have that
right they should be paying into the median gardening and city for it's use
65
Count
Response
1
You're supposed to be the Municipal TRANSPORTATION Agency yet in your survey you never mention the effects of median
parking has on traffic. Not only does this situation cause traffic back ups it creates a very dangerous situation for drivers,
creating a major visability problem. Imagine what it's like driving down one of these streets in the median side lane, going up hill
(as you know there are several on those streets) and as you,re about to decend finding that cars are parked in your lane. Your
mission is "the safe and efficent movement of vehicles in the City". You should give some VERY serious thought to ending this
ridiculus situation.
1
leave the church along. let them park there. They were here waaaaaayyy before all of these ubersensitive people moved in
1
I have lived on Dolores @ 16th street for 30 years. I hate all the cars / traffic and have always felt just cause it is a Sunday it
was unfair to let people park in the median making it dangerous for ambulances, fire trucks get through or turn around where
they should be able to.
1
I think it makes sense to evaluate this. Just because something has been done for years doesn't mean it's the right decision.
1
Our streets should be used as designed. I'm curious if these churches used to serve their neighborhoods but now serve
displaced former residents, or why it is that they need all this parking in the first place, but I'd like to see fair application of law
that does not give special rights to religious groups.
1
Pointless survey considering SFMTA will implement what's least optimal for the residents and instead what's most profitable
for the agency. but thanks for asking.
1
This needs to change. Not enforcing parking regulations on sunday for churches violates separation between church and state
and creates an unsafe driving/biking situation.
1
I like the idea of "owning" a part of the median as some institutions do a better job of making sure that traffic and care of the
median is maintained. Though I have to ask, "How would one penalize an institution for not adhering to whatever codes are
instituted?"
1
Please expand either the median, make a vegetation barrier along the part of the sidewalk closest to the road, or put in a
separated bike lane between the sidewalk and parked cars in order to remove the median completely. The extra space
shouldn\'t be devoted to cars and it shouldn\'t be just unproductive asphalt. Let\'s get some more green and/or bike space and
remove the temptation to park cars there at all.
1
As a long time resident of this neighborhood, I find this to be a non issue. It is far less of an inconvenience to me than the traffic
congestion caused on a daily basis by people going to Dolores park and tartine and the bi rite creamery. These churchgoers
are often older people who have been displaced from their neighborhoods and are now driving to the small amount of
community participation they have left to them. Everyone visiting this neighborhood on Sunday, not just churchgoers. Please
leave them alone, they have suffered enough in the hyper gentrifying of this area!
1
Parking for church goers only has infuriated neighbors for years. I am happy this is being reviewed to potentially create clear
guidelines and equal access.
1
Many elderly and disabled people attend services at local religious institutions and lack places to park. The medians provide
that option. However, it's clear that parkgoers and others take advantage of media parking and I can see how neighbors would
be upset. A legal framework that allows media parking at specific times would be the best solution.
1
This is a dangerous practice and should be stopped immediately. The Church people should take buses.
1
Without the option of using median parking, I would not be able to attend religious services at my congregation.
1
Formalizing median parking would solve the parking need in the area and give consistent information/rules for all to follow. I
don't believe fencing the median would be appropriate as many people use the grass area on the median as an open space for
walking their dogs.
1
I'm routinely blocked from moving my (legally) street parked vehicle because of (illegally) double parked chucrh goers.
66
Count
Response
1
The City should be maintaining median plantings. The city our them there, the city should maintain them. I can't believe the city
is trying to foist yet another task onto "volunteers." Also, maintaining those plantings is hazardous - why should citizens be put
at that risk? Get your shit together, MTA!
1
Streets like Guerrero are very pedestrian unfriendly. As a resident who has to cross this street many times, I'd not only like to
see median parking removed, but the medians removed entirely so that traffic calming/more pedestrian friendly measures can
be implemented.
1
The church is a vital part to the vibrancy of the city we love San Francisco. As a native, i am interested in making it as stressfree as possible to attend church in San Francisco. This gives the congregation member the reservoir they need to work LOVE
into the city of SF by serving in various capacities. Better Parking = Healthier Church = Healthier San Francisco.
1
Churches have had this perk for too long as it is. Most churchgoers are not local residents, which is why they drive; and their
volunteers harass non-churchgoers into not parking there. It is unfair to local residents, non-Christians, the secular, and
taxpayers. In addition, it is also dangerous for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians -- not to mention damaging to the vegetation
in the median strip.
1
The asking was for churches now its just for those using Dolores ark. let them find regular asking like the rest of us. Or
designate those for church with a sign on windshield.
1
Median parking on Sundays is used not only by congregations but by weekend visitors to the area. Diners, park users, movers
and shoppers use the median parking probably more than area congregations since most let out prior to noon. Also, the idea of
less impact on the vegetation from median park users is ridiculous. Have you seen the lack of upkeep from falling debris from
the palm trees and the huge impact from dog owners who freely allow their animals to defecate/urinate on the grass. There is
little to no impact from median parkers (1 day a week) as I usually walk along the concrete boarder (cracked and in disrepair)
or the median breaks along the road to avoid said obstacles.
1
This illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional behavior needs to stop. There doesn't need to be any study or survey. Rather
there needs to be enforcement of existing law. Median parking creates a public nusiance and danger. End it, please.
1
I have lived in the area for 4 years, and in SF longer, and I have no idea what the rules are for the median parking. It seems to
be for churches on weekends only, but I have no idea how it is enforced and it\'s dangerous. This is especially true at the end of
the day when there are just a few cars left and driving cars have to dodge them. Please either remove the parking OR make it
very clear what the rules are so that everyone understand them and knows when/where it\'s acceptable to park, and so that
parking enforcement can ticket those who stay too long and break the rules. Great idea doing this survey! Thank you!
1
While I strongly oppose a policy that encourages driving at the cost of public access and safety, it's imperative that the status
quo be changed and made fair for all. Currently, churches keep a staffer out to organize this illegal parking, and refuse to allow
non-church-goers to park. No one should be able to unilaterally take over public space like that.
1
Churches have often staffed the medians to allow only their own patrons to use this illegal parking. This abusive practice has
gone on long enough and it offends me that the city turns a blind eye to flagrant disrespect of the law. Churchgoers can arrange
to use public transportation like everyone else. Or maybe they can attend services online.
1
The current parking situation is dangerous and is not supported by the street designs. It reduces visibility of pedestrians at
intersections and is not an expected use of the left travel lane causing unsafe vehicle maneuvers. There have been times cars
were left parked with no markings, cones, etc. causing confusion and unsafe driving. Street redesigns for more parking or
metered parking might be a good idea if more parking is needed
1
I am opposed to the community/city having to support religious organizations frequent burden on communal resources: those
groups should be shouldering more of the burden they are placing on all of us. I'm further against adding parking privileges for
all to a major throughway: the congestion and increased risk to that area is not worth the parking. We should be focusing on
disincentivizing more cars in an urban environment that cannot sustain that crowding.
1
This area of town is easily accessible by public transportation. Enforcing parking rules would encourage churchgoers to take
alternative forms of transportation. It would also cut down on the abuse of non-churchgoers blocking traffic lanes.
67
Count
Response
1
There should be no special rules for churches or churchgoers. Do not continue to allow them to flaunt the rules and think that
they are above everyone else because of how they chose to spend their Sundays.
1
Churches seem to be the only ones benefitting. They need to be encouraging congregants to take public transportation- this will
force the issue.
1
I think that median parking should be discontinued. Christians and other church-goers should not have special rights to parking
that privilege them over others in the neighborhood.
1
The laws exist for a reason. It does not make sense that any organization should get an informal "pass" on enforcement. The
law should be applied equally to all members of the community, regardless of their affiliation with a religious entity. We either
need to enforce the existing laws equally, or change the existing laws to explicitly allow for the current use-case, but we cannot
stay in this fuzzy middle place.
1
Why can't we separate 'church' and 'state'. Church goers get free parking at the cost of the city and the residents. The
churches / or parishioners should pay for their parking instead of expecting the city to pay for it for them.
1
To get rid of it is a clear attack on Religion. There is an obvious secular agenda in this topic, and it will further harm the religious
fabric of the city.
1
I have generally thought of using median parking as a way to not use up the neighborhood's regular street parking on Sunday
morning. Recently my family often will stay past 12:30 and so have been finding regular street parking on Sunday mornings.
Parking would be extremely hard for everyone if everyone coming into the neighborhood for church and park going were to take
regular street parking. Thanks for seriously considering ways for parking to be agreeable to everyone who needs it in the
neighborhood..
1
Parishioners should attend service at churches by where they live rather than driving through an already traffic-congested city
and receiving preferential parking and treatment because of their favoured place to talk to an imaginary friend.
1
Noe resident, so the median parking affects travel to/from my area. Keep it or lose it are both OK with me - just either way
please make it clear what the rules are! :) Thanks for the great job you do, SFMTA!
1
i think it is fine with me even though i am not a regular church goer. however, i can understand it might be unfair if it only applies
to religious groups. having it available to public will ease the traffic congestion in the weekend. but i think during congregation
service hours perhaps church members should be allowed to regulate/adopt certain medians for their use.
1
Get rid of lane of traffic (er, parking on weekends) and use the space to widen the median and completely redo it to have a path
down the middle with lots of trees, plants, and flowers along the side to block the view to the road. Get rid of the non-native
palm trees and plant somethinf native to the area. Such a street would be a huge asset to the neighorbood and would nake
news around the nation. For inspiration, look at Commonwealth Ave in Boston: https://goo.gl/maps/SSUzhL36KP62
1
As a resident who has to travel these streets, this parking makes things confusing to traffic and unsafe for both those traveling
in cars and pedestrians. Seen multiple instances where intersections are blocked b/c people get caught behind parked cars as
no one is directing traffic around them and nothing is posted that they are parked there. Also seen pedestrians almost get hit
when emerging from vehicles parked in median as well as pedestrians trying to cross the street. Seems more dangerous than
what is necessary.
1
That this has continued for so long is offensive. They can take public transportation or carpool.
1
The Mission is well served by both transit and parking. MTA has parking garages at both 16th and 21st Streets if people
absolutely need to drive their vehicles. Provide information to the stakeholder communities (church and park goers) that it's a
three block walk from BART, less by bus, and there are parking garages available. Somehow the businesses and vast majority
of other area users don't have trouble reaching their destination or attracting people without double parking. Double parking is
illegal, dangerous, and should be enforced.
1
Stop the madness! Private vehicles should not be allowed to park in a travel lane. This is unsafe and runs counter to Vision
zero policies.
68
Count
Response
1
Glad that SFMTA has been making this a priority and working with all sides to come up with a solution for all.
1
Churches should not have anykind of priority over anyone else. They can walk/bus/taxi/uber. No need to 'need' a parking
space to go to church
1
Almost every single weekend, I find myself stuck in traffic jams that are directly caused by cars parked in the road, alongside
the median. I'll be forced to sit at stoplights for 2 or 3 rotations, simply because of the snarl of cars up ahead. The special
treatment seems antiquated, as well; between public transit and services like Uber and Lyft, it's becoming more and more
difficult to justify driving in the city, especially when doing so is causing so much frustration for others (i.e. the residents who are
tired of seeing their neighborhoods turn into parking lots each weekend).
1
The most direct and logical solution to the median parking situation is a no-tolerance approach. Those areas are not designated
for parking and therefore those who park there should be ticketed and/or towed. Parking is limited, but this city is a transit-first
city and those who want to come into the neighborhood for church services or any other reason should take transit instead of
driving. If there needs to be a compromise, then I think that limiting the amount of time people can be parked along the median
on Sundays would be a step in the right direction. Limit the amount of time to 2 hours after the last church service. Drivers have
taken advantage of the lack of enforcement, and I see cars parked along the median on Dolores well into the evening most
Sundays. Thank you for looking into this issue.
1
Church double parking in particular is a mess; when I've had to call SFPD due to being blocked in, I have no real recourse
because they don't enforce median parking rules for churches. Whatever we decide, it needs to be *equal* for all- remove the
exceptions, set a common standard.
1
Entirely removing median parking is an extreme response to our current situation. Perhaps having the end users/organizations
adopt and maintain the occupied medians is a way to have some accountability for the area and provide a free service to the
City in on-going maintenance. Posting signage that limits the use of the medians to certain hours would also free up any
confusion regarding use and overtime parkers would be warned of leaving vehicles in a lane that has returned to traffic.
1
I appreciate that the median parking is offered as an option for those visiting the city on weekends. If rules are followed, it helps
create a welcoming environment for visitors and encourages people to visit, worship, and shop/eat in the area.
1
If median parking happens, charge for it. Post weekend parking hours and meters. ON SUNDAYS TOO.
1
If median parking is allowed it should be equal to all and not catering to those who are essentially religious.
1
The medians need to be kept open as green space, with grass that can be walked on and enjoyed. It would be a shame if they
were fenced off or not open to walkers.
1
This parking situation should just come to an end and enforcement of ticketing procedures begin immediately.
1
This should of been decided upon years ago when there was a blatant separation of church and state being enforced for 100
years!
1
I generally feel that the median parking is a bad thing, but I agree that if it is going to happen at all, it should be posted, available
to everyone, and regulated.
1
The current policy/no-policy of ignoring parking on the medians is appalling and dangerous. Formalizing a bad practice is only
slightly better. The promise of "free" parking draws cars into the neighborhood. When there are major events at Golden Gate
Park the city doesn't temporarily suspend reason and planning and let visitors park on medians in the surrounding
neighborhood, despite there being much greater demand, nor would anyone ever propose "formalizing" such a terrible idea.
Instead there is massively increased towing. The fact that something has been done for a long time doesn't make it a good
idea, and median parking is an idea that deserves to die.
69
Count
Response
1
The taking over of a whole lane on both sides of the Dolores Street median on weekends has been an ongoing safety hazard
for my neighborhood. Emergency vehicles are hampered. People stand with their side doors open when getting in and out and
block traffic altogether. They leave their garbage behind. It is unsafe and entirely unfair for the residents. Also,please consider
that this lackness in the rules originally intended for church goers has grown into a throng of hundreds who come to party in
Dolores Park. When the MTA "looks the other way" people start interpreting this to mean they can park anywhere, including
driveways and crosswalks. It becomes chaos.
1
Dolores Park draws seemingly thousands of people on weekend to enjoy this marvelous oasis. Parking on my street is
affected a couple blocks away and if the weekend median parking were to be eliminated I can only cringe at prospect of more
cars looking for a nearby space. I have no garage to take refuge in.
1
My suggestion is to keep the existing median parking policy but add signage so it's clearly understood by all.
1
Thank you for taking feedback about this issue. As a long time resident, I am very strongly against weekend parking in the
middle of the street. It is disruptive, unsafe, and not equitable. People traveling to neighborhoods for Church (and let\'s be real,
it\'s only for Church) should be encouraged to take public transportation or walk. It\'s unsafe to block off half the lanes and have
pedestrians and parking enforcement staff walking haphazardly across roads. Please get rid of this.
1
median parking is dangerous -- causes traffic merges and bottlenecks in bad spots, creates confusion for drivers who are not
familiar with the area, promotes lawless nature of parking / driving in the city.
1
I feel that this "right" should not be given to just religious groups. If you're going to do this you need to provide the right to other
events as well. If not, then nobody should be allowed to park there. Anyone using this parking should have to pay for it.
1
This illegal parking is dangerous to pedestrians and drivers (especially at intersections) and should be completely outlawed.
1
Not sure why, in 2015, it takes a formal survey to eliminate an extralegal benefit enjoyed only by some, based on their religion.
1
While I do not live directly on the Dolores/Guerrero corridor, the practice of Median Parking during weekend hours in the
Mission occurs regularly in/around my neighborhood as well. So I know that whatever policy decisions & rule-makings that are
enacted along Dolores/Guerrero will likely apply elsewhere in the Mission where I live. One issue I would like to see addressed
is that of vans and buses that park seemingly wherever they want near worship centers over the better part of a day on the
weekends. Please consider size restrictions for parking vs. drop-off in your plans. The cars may block the intersections, but it's
the vans and other large vehicles which often force me to detour around several blocks of the Mission in/around
Dolores/Guerrero as well as near Bryant & York, on 25th/26th near Alabama & Florida, etc. It makes it hard to get around the
Mission as a whole on the weekends.
1
Median parking is unsafe to drivers and pedestrians due to reduced visibility and single lane access. During weekends, it is
very difficult to navigate in or out of a garage and extremely difficult to see children darting between parked cars.
1
My street is not a parking lot. It's terribly dangerous to drive when the street is full of cars parked at strange angles. It's already
very crowded as it is and I'd rather if the city provided public transport to the churches instead of letting people park there.
1
How else would people get to church if they can't park there, set limits on the time or give specific permits to the church to hand
to parishioners
1
It is unconstitutional to give some religious groups preferential treatment. In addition, the police should be disciplined for failing
to enforce the law. They should start ticketing parking violations immediately, and without regard for religious affiliation.
1
Please don't take the parking away. It's already a challenge getting to that area to begin with, parking makes it very helpful,
especially to disabled people and people with children. please keep parking there!
1
The City is going towards mass transit and alternative transit solutions as traffic continues to grow and worsen. The congested
thru streets like Dolores and Guerrero are rendered impassable when Church is in session. And the area supports a lot of
churches/places of worship. People need to abide by safety standards that keep traffic moving. Try ride share, public transit, a
church closer to where you live, etc. The benefit to the few is to the great detriment of the many.
70
Count
Response
1
This parking should be illegal at all times. The only reason why churches should be allowed to park there during designated
times, would be if they made a financial contribution to the SFMTA.
1
Wider sidewalks, more transit lanes, less parking, no giveaways to attendees of religious institutions or park goers, walking,
transit, and bikes should be encouraged, driving should be discouraged.
1
The median parking seems fine, I haven’t noticed any particular problem. Those times aren’t otherwise particularly busy trafficwise, and without median parking, church-goers including the elderly and disabled would need to hike for several blocks from
scattered street parking. Opening up median parking to everyone would be a disaster. Folks going to Tartine on weekend
mornings would fill the median up within ten minutes, and all the church-goers would still be left without parking spaces. My
only complaint about Guerrero Street is that taxis and Uber/Lyft cars speed along at 50+ mph from midnight to 4AM every
night, especially weekends. It would be great to slightly reduce the width of traffic lanes, and maybe post one of those signs
which shows drivers their current speed next to a posted limit. Some stricter police enforcement wouldn’t hurt either. The
official speed limit is 25mph, and I’d be happy to see anyone going >40 get hit with a ticket.
1
If the option is taken to formalize this terrible idea, is there any restriction as to who will be allowed to do it? I expect not. Will
churches be informed that they will have no special accommodation? Right now this is wildly abused by everyone and only
serves to make increasingly bad traffic worse. Please end this practice
1
I retook this survey because when I took it the first time, I mistakenly market #6 as Completely unsupportive, when I meant
Completely supportive. If you can only count one survey, please count this one. Thank you.
1
I think the existing practice of allowing church attendees to flagrantly break parking and traffic laws is completely unacceptable.
This practice is a double standard, and endangers people walking and bicycling. I support better management of the existing
on-street parking supply.
1
Granting illegal parking to Christian church groups is absurd and dangerous to those Christian pedestrians. Unfair,
discrimantory and just plain dumb
1
The current situation regarding median parking is a disgraceful violation of church/state separation. As a minimum, the city
should commit to eliminating all special privileges for churches and other religious institutions. Everyone should have the same
access to the parking resources. I say eliminate median parking entirely. The weekend times where there is heavy need for
parking are also heavy traffic times, so removing a lane of traffic just so churchgoers can park in the middle of a public street is
completely unjustified. Completely. Improved traffic flow (even if it means higher speeds) will mean an INCREASE in safety
because people will not be jockeying to squeeze into the one-lane leftover space and people will no longer be jumping into and
out of the active roadway to get to and from their illegally parked cars. Please stop the current ridiculous situation and eliminate
this median parking. There is no other sane option.
1
I think things are fine the way they are. The local churches are an important part of the neighborhood and being able to offer
median parking to their congregations on Sunday mornings is a small price for the rest of us to pay in exchange for the benefit
they provide the rest of the community.
1
I think it's important we keep parking available for the churches in the area. However, only for these reasons. We shouldn't
open it up for folks just trying to come to the neighborhood and trash Dolores Park.
1
thank you for dealing with the disaster of the double parking on the weekend next please handle Divisidero !!!!!!
Chinatown?????
1
I find median parking for attending Sha'ar Zahav very helpful. Once when I attended a service when there wasn't median
parking, I missed most of the service. I might find attending the temple very difficult otherwise, especially since I have young
children who attend the Hebrew school there.
1
Churches have extended median parking to \'anytime they want to park\'. Clearly this should be eliminated and current laws
enforced.,
1
I know this is a complex issue. Thank you for trying to improve the situation. I support any change that is easy for people to
understand and treats all equally.
71
Count
Response
1
Posting signs A FEW STREETS AHEAD before reaching this area VISIBLY to inform drivers so they can make intelligent
decisions to reroute earlier - that is what is needed. I've passed by Glide / Guerrero and cars in front of me WAITING for
parked cars to move and realized later that they are parked for church service. I can tolerate this practice BUT it needs more
signs around these streets informing passing cars of the temporary parking situation - EVEN ADDING ORANGE CONES AT
THE END OF EACH ROW OR BESIDES THEM WILL HELP!
1
It completely violates the separation of church and state to allow church goers to park in the road, but to ticket and tow people
who need to park for non-religious reasons. Parking in the unneeded center lane of Valencia used to be tolerated in the evening,
but has been quashed. Meanwhile, people get to park in a traffic lane on Sunday morning without consequence? It's
outrageously inconsistent. I don't care whether such parking is totally banned or totally allowed, as long as the same rule
applies to everyone, regardless of their reason for parking.
1
It's a small price to pay to continue an important part of SF's culture. Personal view: there's plenty of Sunday double parking in
the W.A. where I live, but people seem far less concerned. Could it be the demographics of the Mission District complainers?
For instance, then why not object to Sunday farmers markets or Sunday Streets? Lastly, what person who's lived here more
than a couple months doesn't know what streets to avoid Sunday AM?
1
Having median parking would be tremendously beneficial to Cornerstone church congregants. We are extra careful and mindful
with the vegetation in the median.
1
PARKING HAS WORKED ON DOLORES STREET FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO REASON TO CHANGE AT THIS TIME. I
DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE PARKING AFFECTS THE VEGETATION.
1
It’s important to me to understand who is using the median to park and where are they going. Are they tourists wandering
around the neighborhood? Are they actual churchgoers and parkgoers? If possible, i’d prioritize usage of church, then park, and
de-prioritize neighborhood parking for people just visiting the neighborhood. For example, a stamp booth at each of these
locations (church, park) which can be used to make a dated (or perhaps colored by week) receipt that the person is attending
these venues.
1
I have found myself driving on Dolores street in the evening and coming upon scattered cars parked in the middle of the road
on Dolores which is extremely dangerous. If you allow this type of parking is should be CLEARLY marked and all cars should
be removed by a specified time like 5:00 pm
1
The special treatment afforded to churches needs to end. I'm happy with any solution as long as parking is available to anyone
who wants it.
1
Mostly just seems unfair that only people attending church are allowed to park in the medium. If it was open to all that would
feel more fair. But ultimately we are a TRANSIT FIRST CITY. So I'm not feeling that we should be going to heroic measures to
make it easier to own a car in SF.
1
Parking should be equal for everyone, there should be no advantages to specific groups except those who physically need
them (ie the handicapped)
1
Take away the double-standard. Churches should not be the sole parties in San Francisco to be able to double-park on streets
- not just the Dolores/Guerrero corridors. This happens all over the city.
1
It causes too much traffic and the pedestrians who park their cars on the median are reckless and put themselves in danger.
1
The city has way more traffic and people, navigating this area on the weekends in summer is terrible mostly due to the parking
situation.
1
What needs to end is the unfairness of Sunday median parking. What needs to increase is the sense of community
responsibility on the part of those institutions that take advantage of the extralegal median parking tradition. The Guerrero and
Dolores medians deserve care and protection from both the City and the institutions whose members park at the median and
currently may do more harm than good to a citywide amenity, the planted medians.
72
Count
Response
1
The parking area should be fenced off front and rear during applicable hours and any unsafe parking should be penalized. If not,
then the parking should just not be allowed. Conceding to the religious needs of others is often part of living in a diverse society
but not at the cost of the rights and safety of others.
1
If Sunday median parking is available, it should be made available to everyone, not just the Jesus people.
1
It causes traffic congestion, people wo use it do in very unsafe way, they treat it as if it was their personal driveway
1
Unofficial median parking feels really unsafe for pedestrians since it makes the street far less predictable and interrupts sight
lines. It's also generally confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the neighborhood, decreasing safety for everyone.
1
Parking in SF is already difficult enough - the proposed solutions will only make it more difficult.
1
I live right in the middle of this situation. My main gripe about everyone parking in the medians on weekends is the fire hazard.
There are fires ALL THE TIME in our neighborhood and the added congestion is a major hinderance to a fire truck's response
time. Please consider banning median parking at all times.
1
This has been an issue for years in this area and it is unfair for one group to illegally park on a consistent basis.
1
People coming to the neighborhood to shop or eat have to find parking or come to the neighborhood without an automobile.
There is no reason there should be exceptions for people coming for other reasons.
1
If cars can park in the medians and in the street then cyclist should be ALLOWED TO RIDE BIKES ON THE SIDEWALK along
these routes.
1
The median parking presents an ongoing risk. Straggler cars - first parked in the median on Fri nights and last parked in the
median on Sun nights present a clear and present danger to traffic . We should put an immediate end to parking in the median.
1
Dolores is a main thoroughfare for Noe Valley that becomes completely unusable from Friday evening through Sunday
evening. Most of the median parkers aren't even church-goers, based on the timing -- they're in Dolores Park or in the Mission.
It's totally unsafe for drivers and pedestrians and unfair to residents who live further south and are just trying to get to Market
street. Please enforce the law and ticket median parkers!!
1
There is no need to stripe medians. Parking in a traffic lane is already illegal. Please start enforcing the existing traffic laws,
before someone gets injured by the illegal parking.
1
The churches have been parking there for years. I think that it makes it viable for them to remain in our neighborhood and
contributes to its diversity
1
Fencing should be low, not change the sight lines and be made to discourage parking by puncturing car tires
1
Thanks for addressing this! When I first moved here, I was very confused as to why people parked along the medians. There
was no signage to explain the practice or tell me when it was allowed vs not allowed. I think signage and an official policy would
be great for everyone involved and pretty easy to implement.
1
This is a busy neighborhood. We should not be encouraging driving here! Nor should we allow only a certain group of people to
use these spots.
1
The congregations should provide paid permits to their members that would like to park in these lanes.
1
The Dolores park area is far too crowded already between visitors and uber drivers, we shouldn't remove additional traffic lanes
as Valencia and Castro have already been constricted. Lastly allowing churches to blatantly disregard the law is an abhorrent
and discriminatory practice.
1
The status quo is capricious -- and I believe predominantly abused. I have never seen anyone park and enter a place of
worship, but I have seen many median parkers come and go from Dolores Park. In the meantime, it causes major traffic
congestion and safety issues along Dolores St. that impact those who live there.
73
Count
Response
1
Thank you for considering this issue. I think it is very important that Christians not be afforded special rights not available to
anyone else. This is a parking and safety issue but it's also an equality issue. Thank you!!!
1
I've been used to median parking on Sundays for as long as I've been alive. I'm used to driving with it, so I'm all for keeping
median parking alive.
1
Allowing people to illegally park and present inconveniences and dangers to others, based on their religion, violates separation
of Church and State, and is discriminatory.
1
The churches use the spaces for very limited times each week. If it is limited to Sunday mornings AND church volunteers are
enforcing the parking then we should allow them to continue with proper signage, i.e. Authorized assembly vehicles allowed
Sunday 8am-12pm
1
Allowing people to park in the media with no signage is extremely dangerous. Something needs to be done, whatever it is.
1
Anything to reduce double parking in this city should be a high priority. It is dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists! Thank you.
1
Immediate deportation of illegal aliens and undocumented immigrants would immediately improve the parking problems.
1
It seems to me that some of the controversy is around people of faith parking, from Friday evening through Sunday evening.
People no longer necessarily worship in their neighborhood parish, but travel to their community of choice. Most of the houses
of worship in our city don't have parking lots, which weren't needed in the old days when people did pray in their local parish
and walked. We need to park and pray, and I hope that parking will continue. This is vital for everyone, but especially for older
worshippers who cannot walk even a longer distance. Regulate parking if you must, post signs if you must, but please keep
this option. Thank you!
1
It is completely ridiculous that church-goers double-park without being TOWED. Get rid of it for good.
1
From my experience many of the people who come to the churches in the neighborhood are not city residents and certainly not
members of the community. Why should they get special treatment when citizens and residents do not?
1
This is a safety issue. Current parking practices are dangerous for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers.
1
Sunday should be a day to make the life a little easier and enjoy the day without the drama of finding a parking space. Thank
you for all the wonderful job you do!
1
Illegal parking is illegal regardless of the reason. I have been very disappointed that median parkers are allowed to disregard
parking rules simply because they are attending church.
1
Even formalized median parking is creating exceptions designed to serve a particular class of citizen. If the city is going to
create special parking rules for people to go to church, they are obligated to create special parking rules for people going to
concerts or other live events.
1
Our clients are victims of serious crimes and coming to our business to apply for legal status in the U.S. Their appointments
are VERY important, and arguably, no less important than the church services for church members. Our employees AND
clients find a way to either (a) park legally or (b) take public transportation. Those attending church should have to do the same.
Their special illegal parking is extremely dangerous to those trying to drive or walk or bike safely on those streets.
1
The drivers on Dolores on Sunday are terrifying, especially if you're riding a bike. We need a better (public transport) solution
for church-goers, because the current one isn't working.
1
Separation of church and state. If church-goers are allowed to double-park, then everyone should be allowed to do so for
whatever purpose.
1
It is imperative that parking is available to people who want to worship. Restrictive parking may lead to less attendance which
could be detrimental to those in need of worship time
74
Count
Response
1
Thank you for addressing this. I've learned to live with the situation but never felt it was safe and never understood what hours it
pertained to. I support the need for parking for all the faith community members on sundays though as our neighborhood has so
all within a few blocks of each other.
1
The city needs to maintain it's plantings, not foist them on groups. The city needs to keep streets clear and safe. If you want to
create parking, create parking where it doesn't create unsafe conditions.
1
The median parking should be available to all users. It should be clearly marked. From Saturday at 1am to Sunday at 12:59am.
Median vegetation should be kept healthy and available to dog walkers and anyone who would like to walk through. Make it
desirable for people to want to have the job to keep the area clean and policing traffic, etc.
1
I am not OK with any changes on sunday other than enforcing the law. I'm OK with an "adopt a median" under the one condition
that all churches be banned from being allowed to sponsor the same medians they are destroying. I'm not OK with fencing off
Dolores or Guerrero. We who live here don't deserve to have our neighborhood fenced off because non-residents are killing the
plants with illegal parking. I'm going to be very upset if the SFMTA doesn't start and the very fact this poll exists is about
1
Even though I don't worship in the area, I like the fact that the city is flexible about parking in this area, as it provides more
parking, it's practical and seems to work well for a lot of people.
1
The practice of turning a blind eye to illegal median parking has gotten worse over the past decade as the population has grown
and mission Dolores has become more of a destination. There's absolutely no reason to allow it- it causes traffic jams,
dangerous blind spots at intersections and is an unfair exception for "religious reasons."
1
Informal non-enforcement agreements with religious institutions are not how a city should operate.
1
I is ridiculous that the churches get this exception to parking laws. More and more I see non-church goers parking along the
median to get bi-rite ice cream or coffee at dolores park cafe. Its just infuriating. Take Muni and leave your car (legally parked)
at home!
1
The current situation is absurd and unacceptable. It creates two classes of citizens (churchgoers and everyone else). Those
that go to church get to drive their polluting cars right into our neighborhood, don't support public transportation, and get parking
for free. Everyone else has to take Muni and pay for parking. Additionally, it is unsafe and creates congestion. In general
median parking is illegal and this should be enforced. Churchgoers can take the J train like everyone else, making our public
transportation system and removing congestion from the streets, rather than insist on getting special privileges that nobody
else gets to have. Making median parking legal for everyone is more fair, but again it should be city policy to encourage public
transportation, and there is good public transportation in this area, so I don't see the reason why we should use up a travel lane,
which makes it less safe for pedestrians, cyclists, etc.
1
I haven't seen any major congestions or clear danger due to the median parking. As long as everyone can park in the median
during low usage times I'm ok with it. How about installing meters on the median for the sunday parking?
1
All double parking and median parking should be illegal at all times, including Sunday for church goers, in all neighborhoods.
1
Make it easier to park. Let them park in the street. I don't want these churchgoers taking my parking spots on the side streets!
Just needs some regular hours posted, so everyone (including non-churchgoers) can know when they can park there. I have
definitely parked in the median when it's been really busy by my apartment, so you may as well define a process around it. In
an adopt-a-median program, I could see the churches only allowing those attending services to park there, but if you have a
resident permit parking sticker in the neighborhood, you should be able to make use of the parking, too. I just don't want to have
to park blocks away from my house because of some dumbass religious bullshit.
1
The city's non enforcement of church parking is a violation of the 1st amendment and needs to be fixed. More important than
what law is on the books, is that the laws we do have are consistently enforced.
1
If it were an area in which organized sports occurred, no one would say 'boo' and people would be parking wherever they
wanted to! Can we continue as a city to support activities that have preceded the complaints of gentrifiers?!?! Let churchgoers
be able to park, worship, and go home. Be civil, SF
75
Count
Response
1
I feel that present parking is abused by young people partying at Dolores Park. Would prefer posted hours during
church/synagogue and tickets written after hours.
1
It seems very unfair that the church next to my building gets to park when they want, and my own friends cannot. Let the
church stay, but it does not seem ecumenical to give them preference. Also, the traffic is horrific on Sunday thanks to their
parking.
1
The mission needs more off street parking. Developing more parking lots would help businesses.SF is now way too dense to
have grandfathered unclear rules like this one. People goes to church should take public transportation like everyone else in
SF.
1
It's never seemed right that Christian religious services are given special treatment. I meditate as part of my spiritual practice-can I just declare I want special parking rights whenever I feel like meditating somewhere?
1
The loss of median parking would mean that disabled worshippers might be unable to attend their synagogue/church for
services, being unable to get close enough.
1
In addition to weekend parking in the median being formalized, I respectfully suggest that median parking also be available 1)
on weekday holidays, since that wouldn't cost anything in terms of enforcement, and 2) during weekday special events when
parking is at a premium. Thank you.
1
If SF wants to offer median parking it should adopt a uniform policy that allows all non-profits to use one lane of all two land
roads. This would create all sorts of problems throughout the city but at least it would be fair. Offering this accommodation only
to a few select churches is patently unfair.
1
The neighborhood needs bigger sidewalks and better bike lanes, not more accommodations to car traffic. There\'s a bus stop,
nearby BART stop, and J Church stop all within a few blocks. It seems ridiculous to special case making the neighborhood
more congested with cars just to lopsidedly benefit park goers from out the neighborhood and church members that already
benefit from plenty of federal, state, and city subsidies.
1
No median parking should be allowed, and no special considerations should be given to Churches who already don't pay taxes.
1
Hello, I have been attending this Church for a long time. I have even had the opportunity to serve with the parking team who
help out on Guerrero. They do a very good job at ensuring both their safety and the safety of the people who attend the church.
We have even received welcoming from some of the local neighbors. The team there tries its hardest to tend to the plants that
are in the median. In my honest opinion, I think the renovations to the medians was a complete waste of money. Our state is in
a drought and yet we use tax dollars to plant on medians that previously never needed maintenance to them. I have never seen
anyone complain to the team regarding the plants except one blonde middle aged women who is consistently harassing the
parking team who is trying to ensure the safety of those parking at the medians. She makes it unsafe by distracting those who
are trying to keep the areas as safe as possible. I think a bigger problem Guerrero has is the speed which is rarely ever
enforced. You have people driving down Guerrero as though it were the freeway. You would never know it was a marked 25
mph speed zone by just looking at the speed the cars are driving.. I think the current set up is very effective considering the
amount of time the churches in the area use the space. Please reconsider your actions.
1
I sympathize with the churchgoers because stopping median parking on Sundays is definitely destructive to their communities.
Also, those roads have the extra space on Sundays. I do believe everyone should be able to use the extra space--not just
churchgoers. However, it should be made clear WHEN and HOW you can use the median parking. And proper enforcement
should be used so that people only use that parking when the space isn't needed.
1
It isn\'t clear how much dog owners are impacting the median vegetation from your survey... I see more of them in the medians
than people exiting cars on weekends... Parking rules need to be clear and properly enforced, not the free-for-all it seems to be
now.
1
The parking is helpful in that it reduces the speed of traffic on Dolores and Guerrero. The fact that it's provided free to churches
- is this a joke? What is this - 1950? The best solution here would be a road diet on both streets, and stop giving church people
special treatment.
76
Count
Response
1
These are 2 of the busiest streets in the Mission. For people that are not familiar with the process it causes problems when
they come up to the parked cars ahead of them and have no clue what is going on. It also restricts the flow of traffic in these
areas on already busy days.
1
With the increased traffic in the area and popularity of dolores park, median parking should be illegal. It is only a matter of time
before someone is hurt or even killed due to the danger of the narrow streets and reduced driver visibility.
1
I would be OK if median parking if it were not being abused; currently, there are those who park there who have no affiliation
with the church/institutions.
1
These are public streets and should be used for median parking only for Dolores Park on Sundays and not exclusively for
church parking
1
Median parking in the daytime doesn't bother me much, unless I forget to take a different route, but the random single cars still
parked in the street at night are dangerous. The hours when parking is permitted should be clearly marked, and after those
hours a fleet of tow trucks should descend and remove stray cars.
1
It's a nightmare the way it is. Definitely get rid of median parking altogether and encourage people to use public transit.
1
I drive in the city professionall, and I've seen so many near missea.of.cyxliata and pedestrians along these corridors because
drivers can't see around the parked cars. Median parking is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed.
1
the special treatment of those who believe in religion is prejudicial and needs to end. There is no place for favoritism in San
Francisco
1
Allowing public space to be reserved for people only of one religious belief is pure discrimination.... being supported by a
government office. Completely offensive.
1
Emergency services (ambulances and fire trucks) commonly use Guerrero Street as a thoroughfare. Weekend parking
impedes their efforts.
1
There's no solution here that benefits residents. If we take away median parking, then residents have even less parking
available to them If you keep it, traffic continues to be a nightmare. If you make parking available for everyone during posted
times, you welcome even *more* traffic to the neighborhood, and the same dangers to pedestrians and cyclists remain.
Churches SHOULD be encouraging their parishioners to seek alternate means of transportation, such as buses and car-sares,
and SHOULD consider a shuttle program that buses parishioners in from offsite parking elsewhere.
1
Median parking, though it has never benefited me or anyone I know directly, is a great example of SF showing a little flexibility
in the face of a pretty bad parking situation. It makes those who run SF look more understanding and willing to work with
communities and less like an organization that uses parking as simply a means praying on its own citizens for income. That
may or may not be true but it's the perception.
77
Count
Response
1
First and foremost the SFMTA needs to start enforcing the law. And not just church parking on Sundays, there's no
enforcement at any time drivers and cabbies treat bike lanes as loading zones. Fire hydrants might as well be USPS parkings.
Delivery drivers and postal workers act like the soft-hit posts aren't even there, and they probably don't care because they
know the SFMTA and SFPD won't do anything at all about it. Median parking means drivers makings left turns from the outer
lanes and that means two cars along the median blocking their view when I'm crossing until I'm right in front of them. Because
of the SFMTA's complete disregard for human life it means I'm often within a few yards before they see me. Why does my life
matter less than making it easy for church-goers to park illegally? And they're trampling the plants as well! In no way, shape, or
form should churches be allowed to sponsor median plantings. If a church's name is going to be posted in the median, it should
be in big scarlet letters reading something like, "Plants in this median killed by members of [church name]'s congregation"
Make church-goers circle around for parking like people who live here have to. Once they've missed or been late to enough
services because they have to do like everyone else, they'll get the idea they should take Muni or expect to park a little further
and walk a little further. Why does my life matter less than slightly inconvenience church-goers to walk a few blocks? Don't let
them use the disabled as an excuse, if this means folks with mobility problems really do have problems then there should be
more disabled parking in front of the churches. Don't give church-goers even an inch. They've been ruining every Sunday
morning for decades and don't deserve any special treatment. If you're going to do anything, reduce parts of Dolors to one lane
and make parallel parking into perpendicular or angled parking. That would be fair because it benefits everyone: church-goers,
residents, and visitors coming to the neighborhood the other 6-1/2 days of the week as well.
1
I think it's best to do away with all median parking. If it stays, it needs to be clear and regulated. The area is already congested
enough and perhaps if it's clear that parking is limited, people may drive less. I know I often don't drive because I know parking
is too much of a challenge.
1
The city could solve this problem by enhancing public transportation options. There is currently no bus service on Dolores,
Guerrero or Valencia, with the exception of private tech shuttles. Or, perhaps the churches could lease shuttle buses.
1
Allowing median parking for churches seems to give public space preference to Christians. Also I have seem vehicles parked
in the. Middle lane near churches (for example, Dolores near 16th) well after church was closed ...Sunday evening
1
What ever happened to SF's Transit-First policy? Private cars parking on public streets, in the MIDDLE of public streets is
unsafe and unfair. Transportation alternatives should be encouraged, public trans, biking, walking, etc. Thanks.
1
Ultimately, this "unofficial" agreement should be illegal. Double Parking in Traffic lanes is against the written rules of the road
and should not be allowed to continue. It is unsafe for people crossing the street, people on bicycles and people in cars.
1
Parking is already to difficult to the ones we live around here even on the wkds, we need let's pollution
1
I am not a churchgoer, but I think it is ok to have a policy that only allows median parking sometimes, for their benefit (not
everything has to be the same for everyone, all the time). But maybe the churches should be required to post volunteers out
there...and they should be able to talk their members out of median-walking.
1
I'm fine w/ short fencing around larger trees, but fencing off the entire medians for vegetation preservation is visually and
socially disruptive. I'd prefer alternative planting options (ones that are less likely to get damaged or which would encourage
people to park farther away) or alternative methods of keeping the plantings safe. I like the idea of providing clear markings and
signs to inform park goers and neighborhood visitors that the parking is open to all, but limiting it to weekends and not requiring
resident stickers (this is key, and the signage should reflect that).
1
I liked the idea in the drafted (50+ pg) document about institutions using valet services and unused school parking lots to
reduce or eliminate median parking. This may encourage people to use public transit or walk to church & the park, and for
those with disabilities which preclude those more effective methods of travel, it would allow them to be dropped off at their
destination without walking from parking spots. Although this could cause a need for more frequent bus routes at peak times,
and would result in cost (tips for valet, bus fare) for the economically disadvantaged. This idea's feasability & implications
should be debated.
1
Left-over parked cars pose a unlit hazard Sunday evening. Whatever policies is enacted should implement rules and towing
guidelines for cars remaining after dusk.
78
Count
Response
1
as a business owner, i can barely find parking near my business because the surge of church goers on Sunday . i believe that
if the church goers and any other parker's can park in the medium from a certain time on a Sunday, it would be very helpful in
relieving parking shortages in the area. plus it will be bring shoppers and diners who can find easy parking during that day. i am
all for this and happy that they moved the parking one block down to start from 17th/guerrero and down. 16th street is a major
artery and needs to be clear of cars. thank you
1
I think traditions are very important. By the same token, one can eliminate Cable Cars, but it is things like that that make give
San Francisco its unique character.
1
This would not be an issue if the city built parking garages near the churches. Senior Citizens come from all over the city to
attend church services. Leave the churches alone or risk them cutting of social services to the city.
1
I am supportive on continuing median parking, but allowing it to be for all instead of just churchgoers. I also very much support
enforcement outside of approved hours. Too many single cars remain on the median near my apartment towards the evening
and pose a major risk to drivers who don't realize a car is parked there. I have observed many near misses around these cars
that are parked alone later in the day.
1
Median parking creates an unsafe situation for cyclists. It should be removed all together. Public transit is great in this area and
of parking is not available, people can learn to take transit. Perhaps adding a few more ada parking spots to those areas to
ensure people who need parking can get it. Everyone else can bike or take transit.
1
If the parking isn't available to all it should be removed, otherwise open it up to everybody and keep it.
1
It is unbelievable that churchgoers have this informal parking privilege. I'm glad someone's addressing the issue now; please
EQUALIZE parking rights or eliminate this ridiculous parking fiasco. Thanks.
1
I really appreciate that this survey has been created and that the SFMTA is listening to the residents of this city. I hope it helps
you reach the right decision, whatever that may be.
1
The biggest issue I have with median parking currently is that it is poorly implemented. The parked cars are not well marked
and the direction sare poor; sometimes one car is left in the middle of the street with no warning signs. Legalizing median
parking would be fine, but it can't occur when there is otherwise lots of traffic on Guerrero; So Sunday morning is not a problem;
Friday evening would be a disaster.
1
I do not understand this tradition in San Francisco. People should be encouraged to take public transit--even to church! Though
I think most people parked on the median near me are going to Dolores Park.
1
We have separation of church and state in this country. Parking should either be clearly legal and available to all or clearly
illegal and available to none. You are treating this issue as if the street is the private parking lot for one shop. How parking
works is a matter for the experts hired by the city to regulate traffic and safety to decide based on traffic loads, not spiritual
needs, and they are not hired to prejudice one group because they agree with their God. Would we really be having a survey if
that were a mosque?
1
To be entirely honest - there are two big issues with median parking: 1) Blocking of turn areas / cut aways in median (i.e.
Dolores betweet 15th & 16th). People completely block those instead of just parking along the median 2) Disturbances / Litter
from park-goers gets dragged out all the way to the median (i.e. a trail of trash from the park to their car) as well as inebriated
park goers loitering in the median. Church goers are not as much of a problem because: they'll park for 2 hours or so, not drink,
and not litter. Most of the troubles come from parkgoers that stay all day (no really) blocking the area.
1
I'm curious about the impact on handicapped parking options if median parking is completely removed. Reducing handicapped
parking is not a good outcome. Also - perhaps sign instead of a red curb?
1
I do have a problem with people who follow a certain religious tradition (Christian – the Jews don’t get to park in the middle of
the street on Shabbat and I’ve never seen a mosque get this privilege) getting a special perk just because “we’ve always done
it that way." It strikes me as wrong in a secular society where one set of rules apply to some and a completely different set
apply to others.
79
Count
Response
1
Laws should be enforced regardless of 'tradition' or 'religious' purposes. You walk a fine line when you make exceptions. Laws
are laws and everyone should have to obey them for the safety of everyone in the community.
1
Ideally shouldn't be allowed as it snarls traffic and makes it more dangerous for pedestrians in the area. But if it is to continue,
there should be no special rules for church goers and the same rules should apply to everyone and the rules should be clearly
posted and strictly enforced.
1
I think the idea of putting up a fence to protect the vegetation will be costly and take away from the aesthetic of the streetscape.
1
Why are you calling this "median parking" and not "illegal double parking," which is what it is. They're blocking traffic lanes you
should enforce the damn law.
1
Median parking is dangerous for walkers, cyclists, & drivers alike. Congregation that each benefit only a few members of the
community endanger both their own members and the entire rest of the community with this practice.
1
it is completely unfair to have unwritten under-the-table rules that freely allow church-goers to double-park in the median. we
should either have it for all, or for none; not just for members of a particular faith. Don't forget about separation of church and
state!
1
Median parking badly needs to go. It\'s a safety and visibility hazard. If it doesn\'t go, it should be metered like every other
highly desirable parking zone in the city, and the churches that use 90% of it should be charged a maintenance fee for the
damage their members do to the medians. San Francisco is a transit first city. We should not be giving church members and
park users a free pass to drive everywhere. The park region/Dolores is well served by the J-Church. Perhaps a north/south
Guerrero bus line should be considered.
1
I am fed up with people getting away with illegal parking just because they are going to church. They can take MUNI or walk to
church, but their illegal parking should not continue to be overlooked by SFMTA.
1
It is always dangerous when driving on Dolores on Sunday night and there is one black car parked in the median lane. Have
seen many near misses!
1
Why the fuck do church goes get to park on Dolores and Guerrero. I'm jewish and I don't get free parking at my temple.
1
Providing preferential treatment for members of faith based organization but not members of other groups or organizations is
unfair and unacceptable. Either allow median parking for all at certain times of day on a first-come first-served basis, or to ban it
completely. There is no acceptable justification for members of certain religious groups to get preferential treatment.
1
It always struck me as odd that this happens - it's a street, people shouldn't be parking on it.
1
It's unfair for churches to be able to block roads and double park while no one else is allowed to. Makes no sense to have a
different sets of rules for religious purposes
1
I feel that we should be encouraging public transit vs. private vehicles to access the Dolores/Guerrero corridors. I think that
parking should be allowed on the medians on weekends for the various congregations in that areas but should be made
available only to those who are elderly or disabled or for families with small children. I do know that some churches utilize
volunteer or paid staff to guide traffic. Is there a way that we could have standardized parking passes for congregations to pass
out to members who need them? I see too many people taking advantage of the lax median policing who are just heading to
Dolores Park with coolers.
1
In addition to organization-based "adopt a median" efforts, you may be able to find interest among local residents to care
plantings within medians.
1
Driving in SF is extremely frustrating! Between parking lanes been taken away for bikes, and bikers not obeying the law, driving
in SF has become more frustrating to all drivers. An example of POOR planning is the lane set up near Costco. Who designed
that set up should be fired!
1
If the city is transit-first, then stopping these kinds of "because we've always done it this way" car-centric patterns has to be
done.
80
Count
Response
1
without median parking, access for the large number of elderly and/ or dusabled will be severely restricted. there are only one
or two official handicapped slots. people who cannot walk far must be accomodated
1
I suggest that median parking be available to cars with window placards identifying them as formal members of a specific
church congregation. Those placards can be made available via the affected churches. Churches have their own policies about
what constitutes membership in their congregation and can have their own process for distributing the limited number of
placards they receive.
1
This double parking is unsafe. My daughter and I have had some near misses by drivers who can't see us coming from the left
at stop signs
1
Please get rid of the median parking. As a growing city, we can no longer afford to extend this courtesy as it hinders the flow of
traffic in this areas. It has become a huge safety issue and a nuisance to other people in this neighborhood.
1
It's dangerous how it currently stands. Let's formalize a policy that reduces Dolores to one lane on Sundays.
1
The fact that we allow certain groups to behave illegally on Sundays is crazy. The streets are for everyone, not just cars, and
we should not be adopting policies that support cars as an only means of transportation.
1
I bike on these streets (though not for very long, because they are too fast) in order to visit friends, get to the park & bus stops,
get to 1-way streets. The median parking makes biking more unpleasant & dangerous. If there's heavy parking, cars are stuck
behind you biking, get impatient, and sometimes tailgate or honk. If there's light parking, cars will accelerate quickly to move
into the left lane, then cut back in front when the encounter a parked car, risking hitting you.
1
Faith communities do a lot of good in San Francisco and eliminating all median parking would make it difficult for congregants to
participate.
1
I used to live on Dolores at 15th. The median parking was a nightmare. People have to get out of their cars and take public
transportation or make other arrangements. I would suggest to churches that they arrange shuttle vans for their members.
1
...its an absurd practice and is completely discriminatory toward non-christian practicing persons. Its dangerous and causes
traffic stoppages. ...If this practice of allowing median parking is going to continue (in all fairness, and addressing actual needs),
then it should extend to nighttime usage for needs of neighborhood residents (i.e. 9pm-7am everynight)... This is allowed as
standard in major European cities. Priorities of MTA (and S.F. new housing permitting policies) have been generally to take
away public parking spaces for cars. For longterm residents with cars who live in the mission and S.F. at large, this squeeze is
felt adversely, increasingly, every day 24 hrs a day (not just on sundays during christian religious services)...
1
Median parking is a disgraceful use of our streets. Noone should be entitled to just subvert the rules because of their religious
beliefs. It's incredibly entitled.
1
Parking in the mission is so difficult that without median parking congestion would be much worse because of all the people
driving around looking for parking. But perhaps it could come with the mandatory carpooling of 2 or more people per car. For
our family of 5 public transportation is cost prohibitive so driving is our only option.
1
I feel the practice of median parking creates a significant safety risk for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists; particularly towards
the end of services when most of the visible parked cars have left, but a few remain as surprises/obstacles. This practice is
generally illegal for a good reason. Drivers doing the same elsewhere/on other days would get towed.
1
Where will people park if they can no longer park around the medians? In my neighborhood? Why can't the City maintain the
medians? That's what I pay for.
1
Fencing seems potentially problematic on these streets, as many people cross mid-block (and should be able to, I would
argue). Perhaps paved stones between sections of plants would encourage people to walk around rather than through the
plants.
1
Seems to me it is going to be worse as to parking here on a Sunday if there is no median parking. I do not see the median plant
problem ? What are you going to fence in the Palm trees?
81
Count
Response
1
As a confirmed papist and churchgoer I am stunned at the rule breaking around churches. Typical San Francisco-style variable
enforcement of rules coupled with typical San Francisco-style refusal to abide by rules.
1
Dog waste and similar means that the medians have become filthy, which is a much greater concern than weekend parking in
a very crowded neighborhood that needs it. Further, prohibiting median parking would disproportionately affect family members
of long-time residents of the community who have already faced major disruption from Mission gentrification. Allowing parking
to continue makes it easier for neighborhood ties to be maintained through Sunday services
1
The current situation is unfair and causes traffic problems. However, one option that should be considered would be a process
for organizations to apply for temporary parking at specific times, and a process for SF MTA to consider such requests with
universal approval criteria across the city.
1
Churches shouldn\'t be able to use public space illegally and without regard to public safely, especially as enforcement is low
during that time period. Get rid of the parking as default.
1
I've almost run into cars parked like this before, especially when turning onto the street (this has happened to me on Dolores
and separately on Bush where a similar problem exists). It's hazardous to park cars in the middle of a street, and also
completely illegal. It boggles my mind that we make a religious exemption to our laws and enforcement of those laws for a
subset of our population.
1
I think you're a solution in search of a problem. I've lived her 10 years & have NEVER heard a neighbor complain. And,
personally, I find it concerning that you are trying to take parking away from local churchgoers especially.
1
I'm a atheist, so churches rub me the wrong way in general. But many of these churches are attended by minority groups who
have it hard as it is in the city. Many of them are driving to these churches because they were forced out of the city by high
rents and are now geographically separated from the rest of their congregation. Causing these people more stress by making
their community time more difficult is disturbing and unacceptable. Please leave things as is or improve them for the people
involved with the church. This is not as big a problem as many might see it.
1
Adapting to the long term pattern of the church going population feels right. Their contributions to the neighborhood are positive.
Traffic and parking issues are tedious
1
My concern with the option of formalizing the median parking is that churches may still try to mark off the space as theirs. I
think they need to be restricted from doing this.
1
The Median Parking, like much of the Parking&Traffic in the city, has gone off the rails. Repeatedly we find one car parked into
the night in the median and it is a miracle someone doesn't plow into it. Further, much has been done to plant the medians and
now people trample all over them. The safety issue per Fire Trucks seems a key issue .
1
The current state of things is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that parking laws are unwritten and seem to unfairly favor
churchgoers over everyone else.
1
Median parking in the neighborhoods noted in the survey is important and necessary, especially for people like me who are
handicapped and could not access worship services at 16th and Dolores without finding parking.
1
It is very important to me that any system implemented is not done in a way that gives special benefits to people attending
religious services, which currently seems to be the case. Churches should be prohibited from reserving spots or otherwise
getting preferential access to median parking. If legalized, median parking should probably also be made available on
Saturdays as there is also high demand on Saturdays that makes parking in our neighbor very difficult.
1
Having done landscape design work, landscape border is preferable for protecting plants rather than fencing which will be less
aesthetically pleasing.
1
Parking should be equally available to ALL. Median parking is creating a nightmare in this neighborhood. Enhance greatly public
transportation to reduce use of cars.
82
Count
Response
1
Although churchgoers find median parking convenient, I'd find it convenient in many other places in the city for retail shopping,
going to restaurants, and visiting friends. It makes no sense to give churchgoers this parking advantage over anyone else who
might have a reason to want to park in the middle of a traffic lane.
1
1. As a cyclist in the neighborhood, I've felt unsafe when passing thru the areas where median parking occurs. When traffic
backs up due to blocked lanes, some drivers trying to get through the area seem more aggressive which puts other road users
at higher risk. 2. Why do churches get special treatment? 3. Why limit this debate to these two streets? Parking in the middle of
Valencia and Folsom Streets also occurs.
1
This is foremost a safety issue. Pedestrians from cars parked in the median will get hurt when they cross the street. Unfair to
drivers who attempt to avoid the resulting jay walking and unfair to plantings in the median. Someone intelligent at the sf mta
needs to take a leadership role and abolish this legacy, rediculous practice.
1
parking is a challenge in this city, and to keep the weekend median parking for residents, faith-based visitors and park goers is
really the only solution. we can make it safer by posting permanent signs so there is less surprise about the parked cars. i love
the adopt a median idea, i think that is helpful to the plants and a great way for the city to save money on restoration.
1
I've lived in the Dolores park area for 7 years and have always thought this needed to change. It's confusing for people who are
parking and for drivers. Turning left onto 18th is a nightmare. I fully support getting rid of median parking.
1
If median parking is permitted, it should be available to all. Churches should not get special privileges and should not be allowed
to set up traffic cones and control parking on public property.
1
As a Sunday church goer, I am very appreciative of the city to allow median parking to its congregants and hope this practice
can continue as it is a great benefit.
1
It's not really fair that folks going to church in those areas don't have to follow parking rules but the rest of us do.
1
I've found the city's complicit allowance of church goers to park in the street is (a) unsafe to motorists and pedestrians and
cyclists and (b) unfair - giving those who attend church a special parking privilege over the rest of the neighbors and visitors.
1
This isn't just a problem on Dolores & Guerrero. I hope you realize it happens elsewhere in the Mission on Sundays as well,
such as 14th St between Valencia & Guerrero.
1
An issue I find MUCH more annoying than the median parking is the way that in the mission (on South Van Ness near 26th, for
example) people will simply drive up onto the sidewalk during street cleaning. It makes navigating the sidewalk impossible.
Additionally people park two rows thick, on Folsom street near the church and block cars that are parked there in!!!! How is this
ok?
1
Additional option: allow synagogue and church parking only, with placards issued by those institutions either permanently for
members and/or power down for one-time events.
1
This parking should not be limited to religious organizations, that is a direct conflict of church and state separation. It should be
available to anyone during designated hours that are clearly stated.
1
I think that the parking situation currently is manageable. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic on the weekend, so I don\'t see the
need for roads to be so clear that people can fly down Dolores and Guerrero. I\'m in favor of keeping weekend parking leniency,
let\'s not increase the number of traffic police nor hyper-strict parking rules and enforcement. I pay more money in parking
tickets than I do in health insurance, so I think the city and SFMTA should also evaluate ticketing practices. I see tons of
SFMTA carts blocking fire hydrants while the traffic officer is around the corner ticketing people for less offensive and less
hazardous parking violations. The SFMTA and their ticketing practices will be the reason I move my family and business from
SF if it doesn\'t change.
1
This should not be free!!! Median parking should require a either a resident parking sticker or a PAID permit.
1
As long as one group is not favored while others are punished, it's OK. 1.) Please expand area under consideration in this
survey to include Valencia Street parking in median: churches, funeral parlors. 2.) If churches, businesses, community
organizations are to help maintain median vegetation, there must be means of enforcement via fines for lapsing in its care.
83
Count
Response
1
This should not be a Christian privilege. If it's okay, then my god of pabst blue ribbon (bar) should be ok too. Yoga should be ok,
synagogue should be ok on sabbath
1
I am a Mission resident who is in full support of the separation of Church and Street. Churches should be paying taxes if they
want special privileges from the taxpayers.
1
I like the idea of both these streets getting a road diet. More parking on the median for more time! Slow drivers down!
1
If churchgoers are able to drive to church and also tithe their 10% than they can afford to pay for parking . Also the illegal
parking seems to be all day in a Sunday after church services are over. So many it appears non churchgoers take advantage
of this - probably non residents of the city
1
I think the current Sunday parking is a vital solution to the parking woes caused by churches. In most cases it's a minor
inconvenience. If you are a resident of San Francisco you can probably figure out a good alternate route around this kind of
intermittent traffic anyway. I don't think it should be extended to people outside of those attending churches.
1
Laws, if possible, should be made explicit. This is very easy to codify. Just come to a determination, please!
1
I truly appreciate SFMTA's efforts to address this issue. This is not only a problem in the Mission District, but a city wide
problem. I live on the 500 Block of Lyon street and constantly have to deal with my car blocked due to a double parked Church
goer on Sunday. I understand parking is limited within the city however the residents of our neighborhood shouldn't have to be
trapped because of it. The reality is parking is extremely difficulty in San Francisco. Us residents sometimes have to park
many many blocks from our homes or destination and there is no reason why Church members should have an exception.
1
I am a member of Sha'ar Zahav - and on Friday nights and Saturday mornings we depend on median parking during service
times. If we didn't have the ability to let people park in the median during service hours, our membership would be severely
impacted. Please allow median parking for Sha'ar Zahav and other institutions. I'm sure there can be a workable solution.
Thank you.
1
i don't mind parking that takes up one of two driving lanes. what i think is a BIG issue is that cars block the spaces between
medians on Dolores such that a fire engine WOULD NOT be able to get down alleys like Chula lane. there should be a clear
"box" that indicates no parking there ever. Chula can be accessed from Church st but it seems to me that is a real limitation.
1
Anything done to add clarity to what is legal around parking is fantastic. It's also seems to be "legal" to park on the sidewalk
during street cleaning on south van ness (approaching Cesar Chvz.) and then ignore the signs after the cleaners come. Makes
me nuts.
1
there is no good reason to have median parking. we have a perfectly adequate mass transit system to bring people to and from
church.
1
I'm ok with providing SOME parking for churches on Dolores during very limited hours on the weekends, but it's gotten
completely out of control.
1
I really like the idea of formalizing median parking on Sunday mornings, and making it available to all.
1
Why should churches get special parking privileges? What about separation of church and state????
1
While this only focuses on one area this needs to be addressed city wise. It's a nightmare of near collisions, unsafe for
pedestrians crossing the roadway, unsafe for cycling and a general nascence. That applies to all the situations where this
practice is ignored by SFMTA.
1
This is downright dangerous. You can't park a car in the middle of a street. It makes turning off and on Dolores/Guerro even
more dangerous than it already is.
84
Count
Response
1
Thank you for doing this, I am a resident and a vehicle parker. I have found it very unsafe when vehicles park anywhere they
want, but as a resident and non-religous person, I find it extremely unfair that I cannot park there legally (as far as I know).
More resident parking is always fine, especially if it is kept from the intersections and cut throughs, so that I can see oncoming
vehicles when I turn on to Dolores. The only reason I would vote for No Parking at all, is to keep non-local residents from
flooding the neighborhood with vehicles for church or to get fucked up at dolores park. They should walk or take public
transportation, or find churches/parks in their own neighborhoods. If parking is made legal with signage, an add-on option may
be to extend the hours of existing residential permit parking to require a sticker on the weekends as well. Then the residents will
not be completely drowned out by visitors on the weekends.
1
Dolores Street on Sundays is crowded with traffic and difficult to drive on because of the median parking. In addition I often see
people parking in the spots to go to Dolores Park, not church. Third, people often park in the spots all day, well past church
hours. The intended purpose of median parking is obviously abused; it should come to an end. Churchgoers can also use
public transportation -- Guerrero and Dolores are close to BART and plenty of bus lines.
1
Median parking allows my family to attend church in mission district. Without the additional parking in the median finding a
parking space would be very difficult.
1
For congregation members great who depend on cars and might not live in the area anymore but enforce so its not freely used
by park goers.
1
Median parking should go away. But also the median vegetation needs to be finished on Guerrero - there are still blocks that
don't have it!!!
1
What's going on now allows a special class of people to break the law and inconvenience others. Churches are nothing more
than another form of business, they have patrons and collect money. They already get special tax privileges and shouldn't be
granted special parking rights in addition.
1
Prioritizing parking in a transit-rich neighborhood makes no sense. SFMTA should be working with these churches to find other
ways for members to attend, not just allowing parking in illegal and unsafe locations. If churches needs parking, the SFMTA
should consider changing time limits in EXISTING street parking to a two or four hour limit to allow for street parking for church
goers. We should not allocate any more space to free car storage.
1
I do feel a need to clarify and codify the media parking. While the unwritten rule has worked well in the past, the neighborhood
has changed and so have the needs of the residents, visitors and churchgoers (religious institution participants).
1
This is a non-issue brought to the SFMTA by an extremely vocal minority. Things should remain as they are, since many
Mission residents and members of faith-based institutions benefit from these long-standing parking practices.
1
Please get rid of the church parking on these streets. There is no reason they find a parking spot or take mass transit like the
rest of us.
1
School drop offs dont get preferential parking. Why should churches? They only serve a subset of the population based on
religious belief.
1
As a City resident for nearly 20 years I have always been baffled by the pseudo-legal median parking for churches. I am 100%
opposed to status quo and find the practice to particularly troubling from a constitutional separation of church and state aspect. I
have queried the City on the practice and have inquired about the practicality of suing the City for allowing such a blatantly
illegal practice to continue. Either a) ban the practice entirely (and enforce that ban) or b) develop rules so that any and all
groups or organizations that wish to arrange for surge parking in such areas as medians or other similar areas have a clear
method to submit proposals, have them reviewed, amended, and approved. And most importantly a formal appeals and protest
process.
1
The churches and funeral homes deserve no special treatment. No one should park in the median. Cars will fill as much space
as they are given, but people will adapt to less parking spots. If a few less people crowd into Dolores Park on busy weekends,
it would actually be nicer for all, and perhaps would get less trashed.
85
Count
Response
1
Make it available to everyone or make it clear that it's against the rules. I think available to everyone is better, considering
there's not enough parking in general in the Mission.
1
In a city like San Francisco, there is absolutely no reason other than physical disability to necessitate a private vehicle for this
purpose.
1
Median parking on weekends, as long as it is open to everyone, is fine with me. Other church-related double parking, is not.
1
Double parking is dangerous and causes undue traffic in an already congested area. This wouldn't be accepted in other parts of
the city, and really is preferential treatment for a small subset of people who attend church. Fairness and consistent
enforcement are far more important than protecting the status quo of illegal parking and dangerous streets.
1
The churches along Dolores and elsewhere (e.g. double parking at Golden Gate and Central every Sunday) flout laws laid
down for the safety and convenience of everyone. Let them take transit or find parking elsewhere. While you're at it - reinstate
charging for parking on Sundays.
1
Current situation is very unfair in my opinion. I live on Guerrero and don't have the option to park in front of my own apartment
while someone who doesn't live anywhere near by is allowed to
1
My answers reflect this sentiment, but this CAN NOT continue. Cyclists and cars are much more at risk on these streets when
people park their cars along the median. Parking in a traffic lane on a Sunday should be the same as parking in a traffic lane on
a Wednesday: TOTALLY unacceptable.
1
Providing median parking for religious institutions has been proven to be favorable for all businesses and residents that live in
the area. I envision parking being nightmare for the folks who live in this neighborhood as the impact it would have on
businesses. I support keeping it just as it is as it has been for about 100 years. Placing fences around the plants would
endanger those parking at the median because it would not be easy to get to the crosswalk This with force people to cross mid
block which is against the law or in between parked cars.
1
Extend this to all neighborhoods, like Golden Gate street in the Western Addition, where you see double-parked cars along both
sides of the street on Sunday. Ticket them all and enforce the traffic laws.
1
There should be no median parking 24/7. It causes traffic and is dangerous to all including pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.
1
I am in full support of road diets and any intervention that makes San Francisco Streets safer and more convenient for people
who walk, bike and take transit in the city.
1
This survey should have separated the discussion of Guerrero and Dolores. I live on Dolores and do not mind people parking
on the inner lanes of Dolores because Dolores is a slow street. Guerrero, though, is more of a throughway and the parking
there really causes problems. However as someone who lives on Dolores, I want the rules clearly established and posted so
that my guests know when and where they can park.
1
It should be everyone is allowed to park along the median or nobody is, regardless of if you attend church or not.
1
The median parking is a danger to me and my family as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian. It also creates liability for the city as
these streets were not designed for median parking, and the city has negligently ignored the ongoing danger. SFMTA should
end this practice immediately and inform the organizations (and Dolores park goers) that they will be enforcing the laws that are
currently on the books. The city has multiple schools in the area with large empty parking lots that could easily be rented to
organizations for weekend parking.
1
In the area where we park (approx. Dolores & 16th), I've never seen people walking in the median section other than people
walking their dogs there.
1
No one should be double parking, not sure why religious people are allowed to avoid the laws that atheist abide by
1
Considering how sporadic the parking is setup, it's a horrible accident waiting to happen. Also, if the churches can't agree to
allow everyone to park during high demand parking times, then we shouldn't have it at all.
86
Count
Response
1
I often drive from Market to 22nd in the evenings on Sundays. The cars left parked after dark are unbelievably dangerous. I
would support limited hours for parking (for everyone, not just church goers), and then enforced ticketing at a certain time. That
would be a win-win situation--allow people to park, but keep them responsible and let the city benefit from lazy parkers.
1
I have no problem with median parking so long as it is available to all residents, not just those that are going to church.
1
Not one question about enforcement, which is fitting since SFMTA refuses to ticket anyone ever. Now that I know these hateful
cristians are destorying the median plants, I'm even more angry. Fuck them, fuck them hard!
1
I do not live in the area, but I am a frequent visitor and I have noticed this issue all over the city (although not to the same extent
as the Guerrero nightmare). Church-goers should not have special privileges because the institutions they patronize don't have
the foresight to find suitable parking for their flock.
1
Median parking is allowed as a concession to churches. The City has no business pandering to any form of religion.
1
I do like the idea that parking supply can increase when there isn't much traffic on the weekend. However, access to median
parking is inherently unfair due to the demand profile from churchgoers versus the demand profile for other area destinations.
Other destinations pay taxes, churches don't. They should handle their demand privately.
1
Sunday activities do not exempt you from obeying basic traffic laws. The entire city deals with congestion and strictly enforced
parking laws and accept the consequences. The same modes of alternative transportation can be used for those looking to
congregate at the community centers mentioned in this survey: bus, walk, bike, uber, lyft, flywheel, yellow cabs.
1
I think it's completely wrong to allow double parking/median parking for any kind of religious/church event. It caused dangerous
driving conditions and back-ups. If they are doing this they should pay for proper signage and policing.
1
No change needed here. It's been like this for year and we need to let be what work for the people.
1
This should NEVER have been permitted, giving benefits on the basis of religion unequally. I believe in the separation of church
and state, equality, and removing the HUGE hassle and parking mess that this give-away requires. If you decide you MUST
give away our traffic flow and pedestrian safety to churches, please charge them $1500 per day for the privelege. Then use this
money for sidewalk repairs and wheelchair ramps.
1
St not just church members parking on medians on Sunday. The stupid hipsters and out of towers do it, even if they have to
pay. Yes people are charging for parking on city streets!
1
If you "formalize" median parking, consider adding demand-based parking meters as in the downtown areas that also address
times of abnormally high use.
1
I have lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and dislike the median parking, esp on Dolores Street. There are already too
many people in the neighborhood and maybe no parking on the median will discourage people from driving or coming to the
neighborhood on weekends.
1
Please do something about this! It's aggravating and confusing, especially when a few random cars are left. Posting specific
times or doing away with the parking altogether seems fine to me. Perhaps the churches could work to shuttle people from
nearby parking lots instead.
1
I don't believe people against median parking fully appreciate what its elimination would mean for parking in the area to visit
Dolores Park on the weekends.
1
The current state of things is ridiculous. It's dangerous to all road users, including those in cars. Adding signage to make it
official makes it less fraught for those in cars, but the roads would need improvements to actually accommodate the parked
cars safely, and it would still be confusing and dangerous to people on foot or bikes, etc. End the parking enforcement shell
game and enforce the rules so that those roads can be safely navigated by all!
87
Count
Response
1
The median parking for churches on Sunday is a necessity. We would not be able to attend church weekly without the median
parking that is available. I also think too many patrons to the park would park in the medians on Sunday mornings of signage
were posted. As it stands now, I believe park patrons do not park in the medians as much because they are confused about
the rules. If everyone going to Dolores park on Sundays were able to park in the spots where church congregations park in the
medians, then church numbers would diminish.
1
A friend visiting SF once parked by the median on one of these streets and was shocked to find the car towed when he
returned. Parking rules should be clearly posted so they can be understood by all users, not just those who know the unspoken
code -- no city policy should be this opaque. In any event, this parking is dangerous. Entire lanes of traffic are blocked, reducing
the amount of space and creating a hostile environment for cyclists when drivers approach from behind and find they cannot
pass because of the parked cars. Then they honk, blaming (and threatening) the cyclist. This parking is also unnecessary in an
area that is better-served by public transport than almost anyplace in the Bay Area.
1
Eliminate the vegetation in the median. Re-plant more drought friendly landscaping (i.e., hardscaping), now it's just a public
toilet for dogs. Also how about leasing Mission HS parking lot to a parking lot operator for use on weekends? This can bring in
badly need revenue to the school while easing parking problem.
1
This seem to be started by a new comer to the area and as it is a one day a week occurrence that may affect you. This is the
city yu chose to move to and changing it to fit is not an option
1
I'm often worried about energency vehicles getting through during the many hours when people park along the median. Cars
backing in or out can hugely impede traffic flow.
1
I commute 50-75 minutes to church on Sundays with my children. Median parking has been beneficial.
1
Even with median parking it can be a great hardship to find parking for church in the neighborhood. I cannot imagine how
difficult it would be without the median parking.
1
Churches don't have a right to free parking. Get rid of it. (Better yet, widen the medians on Dolores so there's only one traffic
lane each way.)
1
The parking situation on weekends along Dolores and other streets is completely out of control. Cars are parked in the median
until late in the day and at night. It is very dangerous to come up a parked car in a right of way thoroughfare when it is dark.
Plus people entering or exiting cars are doing in the middle of the only remaining lane. The heavy use of Dolores Park is taking
advantange if a system the has quietly worked for years. People should be taking Public Transit to the area, not driving from all
over the City and the Bay Area! The number of people coming from Bart to the Park indicates that this park has become a chill
zone for people who don't respect the area, the residents or the churches. It must end NOW!
1
It's an unfair practice to allow the double parking/median parking for churchgoers and then ticket other people in the City for
doing the same thing.
1
This area has become extremely busy, parking is always an issue- make it fair & and clear for everyone.
1
I feel that no one should be parking on the medians, park- or church-goer. Those coming into the neighborhoods should do so
on foot or by transit. That may mean parking outside the city (Daly City, Balboa Park, Oakland) where there is ample parking &
garages and traveling in, but this benefits both those who need to drive and local businesses.
1
Thanks to all who are trying to work this through. Also, note that dog-walkers are a major user of the Dolores median (not just
folks getting out of cars.)
1
I think it's absolutely absurd that one group of people get special privilege for parking. How is going to church more important
than if i want to go eat out or go grocery shopping and can't find a parking spot. They are not special and should not be any
different than any other vehicle owner.
1
The median parking is generally beneficial to the area, as it provides additional parking to a busy area without interfering
significantly with traffic flow, walking, biking, or transit operations. Even as a non-driver, I would prefer to see the parking
preserved. However, whatever the City decides, median parking rules must be equitably enforced. There is no reason why
membership in a particular congregation should entitle people to get away with ignoring the law.
88
Count
Response
1
having special rules that only benefit a single group of individuals (i.e. churchgoers) is unfair, especially when there's a penalty
for non-churchgoers. make it legal for all, or shitcan the entire thing.
1
Median parking for churches is a violation of the separation between church and state in the 1st Amendment to the
Constitution.
1
Any parking should be available to all. Religious church goers should not be above the law. Overlooking this parking violation
because they are attending church is biased, unfair, and create anymosity among residents who follow traffic and parking laws.
1
This situation has gone on for far too long and needs to be stopped. Allowing this recklessness is hurting business, creates
traffic, and is outright dangerous. The city needs to better manage parking and ticket drivers breaking the law before somebody
smashes into the illegally parked cars on guerrero. Stop this madness now!
1
Parking in this neighborhood is hard enough to find that I can appreciate the need for allowing additional parking on weekends.
Congestion is a concern, as is safety, but I think so long as the neighborhood expects this behavior, then people will sort it out
by avoiding these streets on the weekends and driving carefully.
1
It is something I am incredibly grateful for! Very helpful as it can be so difficult to park in that area.
1
Speaking as part of the faith-based community, I appreciate very much of the neighborhood allowing us to park at the median
on Sunday all these years!
1
As a recent newcomer to San Francisco, it was a real surprise to see cars parked next to the medians. But, given that this
occurs at weekends when the traffic flow is much reduced, it does not seem to cause any extra congestion. As a cyclist I am
aware that there is less road space available, but most motorists seem to be considerate towards cyclists anyway.
1
Church goers currently have a right that non-church goers do not, yet they are using a shared public resource. Many of the
churches pass our placards for dashboards to "prove" to the SFMTA that the parking is "allowed". Not okay. Kudos to SFTMA
for FINALLY fixing this discriminatory practice.
1
When a confused visitor asked "will I get ticketed or towed if I park here?" I'd reply: "Parking control officers work in mysterious
ways, if you're going to church it might help to pray extra hard.
1
As a twenty-year resident, it's clear this practice has been co-opted by people who are not affiliated with the churches, who
otherwise monitor and maintain their congregants' vehicles. People park along the median Saturday morning through Sunday
evening and head straight to the park/lunch/Bi Rite ice cream. My suggestion would be to provide a permitting system to the
churches and other orgs (Boys and Girl's Club?) who have a legitimate short-term parking need. Heavily enforce others who
feel entitled to park in this manner.
1
It is hard to fathom how this practice isn't a tacit endorsement of religion on the part of CCSF. The reality is that illegal median
parking is ignored, on a major street, only and solely for the purposes of assisting church-goers. If I want to shop at a business
and I park in the median, I will be ticketed and towed. Literally the only difference is destination: church versus commerce.
Furthermore, legalizing median parking on Guerrero or Church is simply unworkable--both streets operate at capacity as it is,
both are major north-south connectors for that region of the City, both keep traffic off of smaller side-streets (which improves
traffic and pedestrian safety, which the City's Vision Zero program theoretically is supposed to help). Traffic in the Mission
district is already a nightmare. Eliminating lanes of travel on two of the major streets in the area will not help anyone. If the City
wants to improve parking maybe....it could actually approve a parking ramp or two! *gasp* I know: the horror, the horror..... But
eliminating a lane of traffic is not an answer any sane person would seriously consider.
1
The congregations of these churches are mostly former neighborhood residents who've been scattered to the four corners of
SF and greater Bay Area by gentrification. Attending services a church where one has strong family ties - that often go back
multiple generations - is very important!
89
Count
Response
1
People CAN and SHOULD take public transit! Turning streets into parking lots only encourages driving and lots of cars. Which
is not the city's aim moving forward. I'd love to ride my bike, but it's too dangerous with all these cars in the city!
1
It would be near impossible to attend church in the Mission area if median parking was unavailable.
1
I've lived on Dolores street for almost 10 years. In that time, I've seen several accidents and near-misses caused by the
haphazard median parking and the confusion it creates. I'm so happy that you are addressing this issue.
1
border around plants might be dangerous while walking at night (dog-walker). Asking congregations to adopt a median may not
be feasible for groups with poorer/older members. Allowing all to park in the median will effectively prevent congregants to find
parking. It is already easy to spot the cars of those who are not congregants: they are still there at 3 p.m. on Sunday. Difficult to
limit parking to Sunday (not everyone worships on Sunday) Parking needs to also be available on other feast days (Rosh
Hoshanah, Ash Wednesday....) It gets really hard to enforce. I used to live in the area (Liberty Hill-20th Street), and it never
affected my ability to park. I now walk there on weekends, so I am mostly impacted as a driver. It is annoying, but it is
something that predated me moving into the neighborhood. I was forewarned, so I did not feel I had any right to complain.
Those congregations cannot find parking out of thin air, nor can they sell & move to the suburbs. They are longtime neighbors
and we should tolerate the extra traffic & the parking situation, the same way we tolerate daily traffic jams at drop-off and pickup times around schools. If protecting the plants in the median is an issue, why not contact each pastor and with their consent,
go to each congregation and talk to the members during or after the service?
1
Christians should not get to break the parking laws on Sundays. It's ridiculous that this has been allowed in a once progressive
town.
1
This has been a tradition,of S.F. to, allow churches to park along medians for many years and I strongly support the idea to
continue with the present practice as it exist now... Thank YOU
1
The only way you're going to be able to keep this something like the current situation is to give a strong message about the
decision that has been made. Or we can keep doing surveys every year.
1
I am a member of Congregation Sha'ar Zahav. Our services are Friday night, Saturday morning. Our biggest service is Friday
night. Many of our members are seniors. Without median parking many will not be able to come.
1
Parking in an active lane is dangerous, especially dangerous when only a few cars remain, giving motorists a fall sense of
having an unobstructed motorway
1
The median isn't as bad as the parking they do on 24th street where they block on hole lane and turn the road into a 1 lane, 2
way street
1
Need clear restrictions posted. Even though I live in the neighborhood and is aware that there "could be a parked car" well after
church service, it's unsafe to have random parked vehicles in a travel lane well into the evening when all other cars are gone,
esp. this time of year when it's dark earlier in the day.
1
I am supportive of issuing permits to houses of worship and other neighboring institutions to allow their members and guests to
use the medians without fear of being ticketed.
1
The trampling of plants does not occur because of parking. People who walk their dogs on the medians are trampling the
plants. There are a great many dog walkers and the damage is highly visible.
1
As a nonreligious park-goer who more often bikes than drives to the park, I think the median parking should be regulated and
also reserved for church services during specific hours rather than park users. Churches should pay the mta or the city for
this.
1
I'm against the median parking as it reduces the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists by the cars driving down Dolores and
Guerrero, especially at certain intersections. Furthermore, why should cars get free parking on Sunday if I don't get free transit?
I also do not understand why people drive to churches in a dense city, as opposed to walking or taking the various forms of
transit, but thats my not understanding not the SFMTA.
90
Count
Response
1
Every Saturday and Sunday parking on the median creates a problem for anyone who's destination is not a religious institution.
Traffic is bad enough without the loss of one lane in both directions. Why should illegal behavior be tolerated?
1
I fail to see why we should have the municipal government sanction special privilege for churchgoers that are not extended to
all citizens in all places. If the rest of us have to take the bus to work because there is no place to park, the faithful can take the
bus to church.
1
The City of San Francisco where majority is a home for many events regardless i.e DreamForce, Parade StreetMarket etc
some strrets are needed to be closed during the events. Dolores streets from market up to 14th,15th,16th,17th,18th,19th 20th
should be free median parking for residence, faith communities, tourism, and all peoples. It's ONLY once a week as you see
everyone enjoying shopping from Wholefood or Safeway or eat at cafes' or have picnick at Dolores Park with their families and
friends children and adults or simply worshiping on Sunday's so please let it be! Thank you
1
It is totally unfair ( and I thinl illegal??)that only members of certain churches have been allowed to use the public space as their
private parking lot
1
I am as inconvenienced as anyone else by the median parking (or as I call it "JudeoChristian parking"), but I value the fact that
churches and synagogues are actively engaged in community-building. We need to support this, even if it is personally
inconvenient. As for the median planting, I am opposed to adding any more barriers to visibility around these plantings,
especially as we have frequently chosen plants that grow above windshield height. The City should not offload maintenance of
these plants to churches and synagogues, any more than it should offload maintenance of street trees to homeowners. The
congregations are no guiltier of harming these plants than the 837,442 other jaywalkers in this town. For the record, I am not a
member of any of these churches or synagogues. But I value face-to-face community-building--all too rare in this town! The
"Sunday Streets" and "parklets" programs are way more inconvenient and remove more public common space than the
Sunday parkers.
1
As a resident of the neighborhood for over 20 years, I have never understood how this special treatment is rationalized. It
should either apply to all, or none.
1
I have always felt that giving privileges to Church goers on Sunday discriminates against those of us who do not follow the
Christian faith, or are non-religious. It gives Church goers privileges, without offering equal privileges to those who are not
religious and may want to park in the median while supporting their own weekend habits.
1
It is outrageous that a religious organization gets special weekend rights for neighborhood parking. They should follow the same
rules as everyone else.
1
For years people have been parking in the median. It is only now that new people who have moved into the neighborhood and
are complaining that SFMTA think it's okay to reevaluate. Many of the people who attend these services are people who used
to be my neighbors but now longer can afford to live in SF. Should we also kick them out of the churches? As long as it's
clearly marked and the churches do something about the new beautiful medians with a plants than I think things should stay as
is.
1
I recognize the concerns of neighborhood residents with the current median parking situation, and I sympathize. However, my
family drives up from San Jose for church on Sundays. We do support local restaurants and businesses while in the city. I am
certain if we did not have median parking that my family would come to church in SF much less, possibly not at all. I appreciate
the tolerance of the neighbors, and believe that median parking should be regulated to certain hours and available to all during
those hours.
1
I'm a resident, not affiliated with any of the churches. I like the median parking. It means I can go out and run errands with my
car and not have to worry about parking for that day. Provides a great deal of service to me.
1
Unofficially or officially allowing it for church days and no other time is awful. Allowing it all weekend would be fine, but I'd prefer
that it just wasn't allowed.
91
Count
Response
1
My impression is that the city allows median parking for Sunday church attendees that do not reside in the neighborhood. As
part of disallowing median parking, the city should encourage churches to set up shuttle services from BART/CalTrain stations
to encourage their congregation to use public transportation to come to our increasingly busy neighborhood. Church goers
should not be given special rights to park in the middle of our streets, especially because such special treatment has an
extremely detrimental impact on our neighborhood. I do not support the use of our traffic lanes for parking on any day of the
week. However, if this "median parking" continues to be allowed, it should not be monitored or policed by church staff - rather
should be free to the public to use. Churches should not receive special treatment relative to any other business or resident of
the neighborhood.
1
I have never understood why median parking is allowed for people attending church. This seems like an obvious violation of the
separation of church and state. If it is not allowed for people going to school or hanging out in a cafe, it seems obvious that it
should not be allowed for people attending church.
1
If median parking is legalized, it should be available for other institutions and events that apply, not just faith-based institutions.
1
1-Clear signage would go a long way. 2-Regardless of median parking, parking in traffic turnarounds on Dolores should not be
allowed & should be clearly indicated with signs & penalized accordingly.
1
Allowing the median parking to remain simply panders to special interests. Most of SF's traffic policy is designed to reduce
congestion, this just intensifies it. Plus, I have a hard time believing that most of the people leaving their cars there all day are
actually attending religious services. It seems more like that they're defending their right to accidentally stumble into a church
on the way back from their brunch fix.
1
as long as either everyone gets rights or nobody does, i'm fine with it. end religious privilege!
1
It is a violation of church and state to allow churchgoers to part near the median. They should take public transit.
1
Medians need to be prominently signed to allow high density parking only on Sundays during daylight hours, with towing after
dark
1
People using their religion as an excuse to make things unsafe for bicyclists is hypocritical trash behavior
1
It never seemed fair to me that church goers get this bonus parking all weekend while everyone else has to park in regular
spots and/or take public transit. Seems like church goers should consider doing the same as the rest of the neighbors.
1
1) Median parking has been a nightmare for almost 30 years. It is dangerous and irrational, especially to drivers who are
encountering it for the 1st time. Imagine if it became non-secular and was open to the brunch crowd! Those streets would
become even more impassable on the weekends. 2) The City should be taking care of the medians. We have the money. It is
public property and should be considered like the parks. Neighborhood businesses and community members already pay for it
with their taxes.
1
I regularly attend Cornerstone church on 17th St near Guerrero. The median parking has been a tremendous help for us to
attend else many of us would be circling around & around for parking, which will probably make us late or miss the service
altogether and so will create more traffic congestion as we spend our time looking for parking instead of being in church.
1
Next: illegal church parking from center median on Valencia, 19th to 20th streets, & 23rd to 24th streets. There are times when
police and ambulance vehicles can't pass due to parking in the center median.
1
Median parking is done for large congregations of people that occur on a regular basis. It allows members of a community to
continue accessing their congregation spaces even when they may have been pushed out of the neighborhood by rising costs
of living. It also allows members who are too old, infirm, or disabled to walk long distances to still maintain a connection to the
community. I am not a part of any congregation, I do not use the median parking, but I think it is an important aspect for
maintaining community spaces in the Mission. Additionally, removing it will essentially eliminate any street parking for residents
on Sundays as the median parkers will begin taking street spots for extended periods of time.
1
It's horrible having the churches take over the medians every Sunday & on some Saturdays. They refuse to let people going tot
eh park or non church members park on the median. It's like the churches think they own it every Sunday.
92
Count
Response
1
The elephant in the room here is that Dolores doesn't need 2 lanes in each direction. The current street design encourages
speeding, and I've experienced some really bad road rage. The street is ripe for a road diet - 1 traffic lane in each direction, and
physically separated bike lanes (maybe parking buffer, like in the GG park?). The current condition of special treatment for
church parking is completely unacceptable.
1
I would continue to go to this church if the median parking goes way and public transit is not an option for me. So then I would
or at least a good amount of our congregation (40-80 cars) would most likely have to part in the neighborhood.
1
Without median parking these congregational institutions would suffer drastic attrition. These same congregations are vital to
the city and give back in many ways.
1
If median parking is available at all, then it should be available to everyone regardless of religious affiliation. Otherwise, it
shouldn't be available.
1
If we allow median parking for all, eh... . But most ppl parking there (now) aren't going to church.. they are going to Dolores
park. Duh.
1
I'm very invested in median parking remaining an option after dark on Friday evenings, otherwise it will not benefit congregants
at Congregation Sha'ar Zahav.
1
The effect of median parking is different on Delores and Guerrero. Delores seems to be able to handle it better.
1
The current situation sets aside public space and creates dangerous road conditions for the benefit of certain religious groups.
San Francisco should obviously stop doing this. Either end the practice or open it to everyone and create rules that make it less
dangerous.
1
Policies that favor drivers are policies that favor people who can afford to own a car. The Mission is one of our best-served
neighborhoods by public transit and I don't see why churches should receive special treatment instead of just having people
take the bus / train to church.
1
I'm completely against churches being given special (tacitly approved) rights to park illegally on Sundays. The only other side
of the coin I can see is that MUNI service is abysmal on Sundays before 10. 1 M line every hour isn't very doable for people
trying to get around.
1
I'm fine with continuing to allow church-goers to park in the median as long as: 1. everyone else can do it too 2. hours are
extended throughout the day on Sunday.
1
Driving on Guerrero last Sunday evening at 9:00 PM there was a lone, unlit car parked next to the median. Hard to spot from a
distance, it was certainly a hazard. If median parking is to be allowed, times must be posted and cars parked after hours must
be towed.
1
As a resident of the Mission, and specifically living at Dolores/20th St., I have seen the disruption this causes every week for
years. What justification does SFMTA have for allowing this blatantly illegal and dangerous situation to keep happening? It
slows traffic, blocks visibility, reduces street space so cars and bikes are forced closer together, and is a generally chaotic
scene every Sunday. We live in a secular country, yet for some reason because people are parking for church that somehow
makes it ok? I in no way support allowing this to continue. I also do not see how any formalized program could actually work in
practice - you propose allowing "median parking to be equally available to all potential users" - how? There is only so much
space and obviously overwhelming demand, which is why this is even an issue in the first place. Please recognize that no
group should be given special permission to flout the law and end the illegal median parking on Dolores and Guerrero.
1
It's absurd that churches essentially get free unencumbered parking of city/public areas that are maintained by tax payers.
Either everyone gets to park or no one. I would also suppose paid parking which is likely not popular but cars and parking are
not the wave of the future. Public transit should be. If parking is expensive, people will opt for cheaper methods such as
walking, biking, and public transit.
1
Thanks for taking on this sensitive topic (well, only sensitive to politicians who don't want to be called out for 'targeting'
churchgoers)
93
Count
Response
1
Median parking continues to be a significant traffic hazard along Dolores, particularly on busy weekends. Selective
enforcement makes a mockery of existing laws and regulations, and overweights the needs of churchgoers with the broader
community. Particularly when those cars are still parked in the median when church is long over. End the median parking!
1
This issue is also very pertinent for NOPA. I go through those streets on Sunday mornings/early afternoon and it is VERY
dangerous, there are so many cars double parked. I can't believe there have not been more accidents as a result of limited
visibility and limited movement for cars on those streets with double-parked cars.
1
Thank you for taking the time to hear our opinions. Median parking is only part of the problem. The church goers should not be
parking on the street at all.
1
Biking on these streets is sometimes necessary, even though Valencia is the main bike cooridor. Perhaps median parking
would allow the addition of bike lanes or sharrows as well.
1
Don't give churches special privileges! Either ban it for everyone and actively ticket median parkers or let everyone park on
medians.
1
It's not just a matter of inconvenience. I have seen the median parking cause several dangerous incidents in the area.
Someone's going to get hurt, if they haven't already.
1
The median parking situation is a relief from fast and dangerous traffic on Guerrero. For that reason I am supportive, the respite
is welcome. However hours should be posted when it is acceptable and clear rules should be enforced. It can become a
hazard once the evening rolls around again.
1
When I go someplace in the city, I take Muni as much as possible. The people going to churches can also take Muni, instead of
driving cars through the city and searching for a parking place. How much money does the city loose by not encouraging
people to use Muni? It is unfair to allow churches to use our streets as parking and not allow everyone else to do the same.
What if I wanted to go to the movies on a Sunday afternoon, can I just park my car on the street, blocking traffic? Why not?
Churches do!
1
I run my dog along the median and I do clean up after my dog. The parking thing is not a big deal for me.
1
Driving in this city is perilous enough without the added hassle that median parking creates (increased traffic congestion,
decreased visibility, and thus decreased safety), but the most absurd aspect of this entire issue is that it gives special rights to
the religious.
1
Sporadic enforcement of median parking is the worst issue and parking for church only is not fair. Should be available to all and
transparent as to the law.
1
This is what happens when you displace an entire community of people. Those parking spots are needed more than ever by
the churches & organizations that have been there for decades, except now the people that make up those communities are
geographically split between those still able to hang on to their residences and those who were forced to leave. If San Francisco
cares a whit about losing the Mission's Latino community en masse, then the city would do well to try & help preserve what's
left of those decimated communities, and that includes helping them retain their community bonds in the face of the complaints
of the neighborhoods' gentrifiers. You don't move next to the airport & immediately start complaining about the noise from
airplanes, just like you don't expel an entire ethnic community from their homes of decades and expect those lucky enough to
stay to kowtow to your unrealistic & offensive demands. The Mission's new residents need to be taught a lesson: just because
you live here now does not give you the right to start changing everything in your image. When one moves into an alreadyestablished community, one makes an attempt to acclimatize & integrate with it, not to pave over it and pretend it didn't exist.
They'll have to just deal with it, much like those whose homes they now live in have just had to deal with losing their lives and
starting over.
1
I strongly recommend abolishing median parking and launching a campaign to get people to take public transportation into
crowed neighborhoods such as the Mission.
94
Count
Response
1
Median parking causes more traffic at an already congested area. Those who have garages in the area can't use them
because it's impossible to get in and out. It's also confusing even as a resident to distinguish whether or not someone is double
parked or parked for church going. I have never understood why median parking was allowed in the first place and would love
to see it go. If median parking was to continue there should be at least a area clearly marked out for it or to have less of it.
1
1. Would be much better to widen the sidewalks. 2. Failing that, let\'s have parking on the medians at all off-peak times, and
make it METERED, including evenings and weekends. 3. Let\'s also meter 18th street please. 4. We need more traffic calming
in all parts of Guerrero.
1
Median parking is dangerous. Further, there are church/state separation issues. I expect formalizing this will open the city up to
lawsuits. I'm not a church goer, so I don't support this benefit offered only to the religious.
1
I don't understand why church goers get to double park and no one else does. doesn't seem fair. It's very dangerous when cars
come down guerrero expecting to use both lanes and have to quickly merge into one.
1
There should be not be median parking anywhere in the City if they are only reserved for church goers (or they make it so that
if you're not a church goer then you can't park there). Everyone should get a fair shot and just because you go to church does
not give you a priority of parking. If churches and other religious organizations want to ensure that their congregation has
parking, then they need to find special parking for them. The City and residents should not subsidize their parking.
1
Because I live on an alley off Dolores near 17th there are times when existing our alley becomes unsafe or impossible when
cars are parked alum the Dolores median.
1
The weekend median parking along Dolores + Valencia is completely unsafe and terrible and causes further traffic and issues.
Am 100% supportive of NOT allowing any median parking at any time on Dolores or Valencia streets.
1
Keep the median parking. Don't put fences up, no need to enforce the median parking. I am a Noe Valley resident and
frequently head down to the Mission area. I am familiar with the median parking as it has been happening my whole life, and
really never an inconvenience. Traffic still flows.
1
Allowing parking in the median at any time causes major traffic problems. If the median is taken by parked cars and a delivery
truck needs to stop then ALL traffic is stopped for that time. Churches should not be given any special pass as it is
discriminatory to other groups who may not be religious but like to have events and gatherings and would not be allowed to get
away with such actions.
1
All that's needed are signs indicating the hours, and towing anybody who parks in the turnabouts. Don't put fences in the
medians.
1
The parking situation as it stands is dangerous to "congregation members" and residents alike. It is also an egregious violation
of the separation of church and state.
1
This is a sticky wicket. The places of worship have a long-standing practice of street parking on Sundays, but the median
parking does create safety issues. The church on 26th Street & Fair Oaks, for example takes up the entire east bound lane on
26th on Sundays, reducing it to a single lane. There is no oversight of the situation, and 26th is a primary route for fire trucks
coming from nearby fire station.
1
Safety should be the #1 priority here. Parking along the median is extremely unsafe for pedestrians, bikes, and other cars. The
churches should be paying for shuttles to pick up congregation members that cannot find legal parking.
1
It is not ok to provide institutionalized support of religion by a government funded agency, this includes parking
accommodations. If it's a matter of access by elderly or disabled, make more handicap spots. But fully functional adults should
not be allowed median parking for easy church access. If they want better parking, they should leave for church earlier. Plain
and simple.
1
Median parking should remain available to the local church goers for approximately 4-5 hours on one day a month isn't a lot to
ask the City that could benefit from our prayers. Thanks,
95
Count
Response
1
Public transit is a better option - these are not under-served neighborhoods. Except for cases of the disabled, those who have
been "pushed out of their neighborhood" but still want to attend these churches can drive to an area with more parking and take
a bus or train. It's not fair to residents (both there and passing through) and businesses for any group to get special privileges
and block public streets and damage public plants just because they are too lazy to walk an block to say the J line or the 14
bus (again excepting the disabled). If their members are so important to the churches, and that specific church is so important
to its members, why don't they pay for bus shuttle service (and pay to use the bus stops) like all those silicon valley tech buses
that they are all so up in arms about?
1
Busses run all along these routes on Sundays. If there's not enough, is it possible to have more?
1
City government has no business providing special benefits to churches. Someone taking a trip to church shouldn't get any
more consideration than anyone else making any other trip. Muni runs on Sunday and churchgoers have just as many options
to get around as everyone else.
1
Median parking should be available to all San Francisco residents. Religious organizations which encourage their members to
park along the medians should be responsible for upkeep and care of medians in return for the free parking.
1
US Law is quite clear on the separation of church and state. Churches should not be allowed to selectively break the law
without enforcement. Additionally, navigating those streets with median parking is incredibly dangerous for pedestrians and
bicycles, along with other vehicles. Parked cars block visibility, are frequently parked poorly, and it significantly reduces the
width of the traffic lane. Median parking should be removed completely.
1
SFMTA is a money hungry cooperation what worries more about making a $ than keeping things safe. However median
parking is garbage the way it is now. People just doing it with no cares about the law. It's bullshit
1
Thank you for taking on this important issue. There have been many times in my 10 years living in this area of the city that I've
seen and been involved in unsafe situations created by the Sunday parking.
1
It is currently a very dangerous situation that needed to be resolved. Those people who currently use median parking have a
total lack of concern about the safely of others, parking in place that make it extremely hard to see traffic and pedestrians. Very
suppose someone has not been hurt.
1
Guerrero is a high-injury corridor that desperately needs a Valencia-style road diet and other traffic calming measures. Arguing
as this survey does that illegal median parking is somehow a traffic calming solution is negligent, nuts, and very unfair to our
neighborhood.
1
I don't understand why the City wouldn't assume the cost of providing and maintaining median fencing. I would also hope some
thought would be given to making the fencing aesthetically pleasing.
1
This provides the necessary parking for the services being offered. It also promotes foot traffic to support the local businesses.
Having a time frame also helps.
1
I think if these places want to bring in their members, they should ask their members to fund parking through weekly donations.
They should stay off of public streets. That being said, everything has a price...and the price should be $3.67 per car per hour,
plus the cost of the parking enforcement officer. The $3.67 per car per hour is the same price the tech shuttles pay and that
money should go directly into the transportation fund. The other money just needs to pay for the parking enforcement officer.
1
The congestion in the city has changed, it's time for the city's parking policies to change with it.
1
As a frequent visitor to SF, this is one of the most confusing, and annoying things about the city. No other city that I have
traveled too allows this, most would be towing cars.
1
If there was a way to know that everybody parking in the medians were going to church, that's one thing. The problem is,
people have started parking there to go to Dolores Park. This is why we can't have nice things.
96
Count
Response
1
As an SF native, someone who used to live on Dolores St., and who visits the Mission still, I have been aware of the practice of
allowing this kind of parking on Sundays for church-goers for over 30 years, and it has never bothered me. It seems like an SF
tradition, and worth keeping as we are losing them. Also, it is kind to the people who want to come and worship. These parking
perks have never bothered me, even as a non-church-goer. It seems mean-spirited to change it completely now (although I am
in favor of protecting the plants).
1
just look at how the current median and double parking hurts traffic in so many ways. Why is this even up for debate?
1
I think it is absurd that churches get a free pass at parking rules during services. It causes dangerous conditions on the road
and violates church/state separation. Churchgoers are adults who are capable of figuring out how to get themselves to church
and deal with their cars without demanding special exceptions that are not available to the rest of the public.
1
You should not be able to double park in this city and not expect a ticket. Why does someone who goes to a specific church get
an advantage over anyone else. Either enforce double parking laws for everyone or no one at all. If it's too hard to park for
church goers they should look into a taxi, carpool, or public transit.
1
It's unclear to me why the SFMTA is conducting a surgery regarding a blatantly illegal activity. Such type of parking should not
be provided for anyone. It is unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. Instead of encouraging more cars in neighborhoods, encourage
the use of public transportation and car-pooling.
1
The main objection I have to median parking is that it is not available to everyone. There is no good reason to exempt religious
events. If it were available to all users during non-peak hours, I'd be fine with it.
1
Allowing parking within median and along median curbs on Sundays (or weekends) makes efficient and safe use of underutilized street space and reduces need for space cruising..
1
My family of 4 travel to San Francisco from the East Bay every Sunday to attend our place of worship. This church is the rock
and foundation of our family's culture, principles and tradition. One of our greatest hindrance in keep this tradition and fostering
our growth with our church, would be for parking to be made difficult because we have small children who we want to keep as
safe as possible, in the busy streets of metropolitan San Francisco, as we come to worship. Not only for our own family, but to
our extended family and friends who we invite to to come celebrate and participate with us throughout the year. An attraction to
come to a San Francisco church, besides the church itself, is that they will have an easy time parking. Please consider
carefully and from all perspectives of the ripple effect that would be affected by your decisions. Thank you kindly and God
bless!
1
The churches should not get special treatment. If they get to disrupt the traffic, etc then they should have to get permits and pay
a fee to block off certain areas for parking during designated times AND if they do that then it is up to them to identify/hire a
parking monitor to make sure that the parking is occupied by only churchgoers. this should not be such a huge problem for the
city. Make the church pay and work for it. Also, if they are the ones messing up the vegetation then it should be strongly
suggested that they adopt that median and they must maintain it. In the current situation the city should at least tow and/or
ticket people and make money off of it since what they are doing is actually illegal and this city is always broke!
1
Churches should not be able to use median parking as a perk for magical thinking. Park goers and church goers should
consider taking public transportation or carpools to the activity of their choice. Streets should be for bicycles and motor
vehicles.
1
Allowing some churchgoers to park in the median is a *clear* and egregious violation of the separation of church and state. I
am contacting the Freedom From Religion Foundation to see if they will get involved.
1
St. Mary's has the exclusive parking rights to the entire block of Dolores Street between 16th and 17th Streets all day every
day. Sha'ar Zahav asks only to use the Dolores Street median on Friday night. How about a little parity? If we are not able to
use the median, where can we park? Between 50 and 125 people attend services on any given Friday night depending on the
service. Having no place to park will jeopardize the viability and accessibility of this synagogue, which is a world renown
institution reflecting well upon San Francisco. Having no place to park may well eventually jeopardize the survivability of this
wonderful institution, as people elect not to attend rather than try and park in this crowded neighborhood on Friday night.
97
Count
Response
1
Too hard to enforce special parking rules. Just keep the rules the same all the time- no parking in medians or in Guerrero
lanes. Thank you.
1
This is obviously motivated by anti-religious sentiment. I am not a church goer, but the warm up to this initiative made it
abundantly clear that it's being pushed by folks who don't like churches, synagogues or the people who attend them. However,
the churches were here well before any of the current residents, who had a choice to live elsewhere.
1
I think it's completely unfair that Churches in SF get to double park all over the city. I fully support equal access to the parking
available on Dolores.
1
I've lived in this area for ~23 years and the number of illegal and unsafe parking adds undue stress to enjoying my
neighborhood. In my experience and opinion, enforcement would be easier if parking would be eliminated 100%. It would also
allow us all to enjoy the beauty of the median.
1
I feel bad for the old and disabled people who need to go to church. Hipsters who want to go to the park are just jealous.
1
This survey is a joke! The SFMTA doesn\'t care about anything but handing out free parking to religious wingnuts. Now you
want to let churches buy the naming rights to the medians? Since you\'re totally cool with allowing churchgoers to park illegally
wherever they want without any enforcement, I\'m totally going to vandalize anything any church puts in the public medians.
Hurray for enforcement free sundays!
1
The median parking along dolores and guerrerro leads to an incredibly unsafe situation for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists, in
a major traffic thoroughfare for which this level/type of parking is unsuited.
1
I am sympathetic to the need of churchgoers to have access to peak-demand parking, but it strikes me as unfair on a first
amendment basis to limit this access to churchgoers.
1
There is median parking also in other streets like 26th, despite the fact there is only one lane in each direction. This should stop
as it is very dangerous.
1
The unofficial Sunday church double-parking policy is exceptionally biased and unequally enforced. It is directly tied to actively
favoring certain religious groups and is a traffic hazard and serious public safety issue. Furthermore, Dolores and Guerrero
have excellent public transit service and Walk Scores of almost 100. There is no need to drive here, and it is outrageous to
support and subsidize this illegal parking scheme.
1
Parking in the median is simply a safety hazard. I can't tell you how many fender benders I've seen because cars pull in and
out of lanes to avoid illegally parked cars.
1
Do not overlook other parts of these streets where cars routinely double park in areas without a center/median. The double
parkers are more annoying and dangerous than the median parkers. Churches should have no special rights to median spaces
or to double parking.
1
It's ridiculous. It's a road not a parking lot. Do you know what a pain in the neck it is to get around the area when they park on
the median like that? I can't believe it has been allowed to ever happen. People abuse it.
1
The media church-goers sometimes crowd into the turn lanes, which makes it very difficult and dangerous to turn. This
happens at Valencia and 25th. Note that Valencia between 25th and 26th median parking happens frequently, often in the
evenings.
1
Its ridiculous to allow during any hours, but especially dangerous at night when there are still a handful of vehicles parked in
what should be a lane of traffic with their lights off while its dark out. It has taken me by last minute surprise several times
depending on which end of the block they're parked.
1
It is unacceptable that religious organizations are permitted to ignore the laws which govern our society. Our government is
supposed to be secular not providing preferential treatment to anyone based on religion.
98
Count
Response
1
Street parking in the area is hard as it is and becomes even worse on the weekends since we have not only church traffic (and
so many churches concentrated in one area) but we also have all the tourists coming for Dolores Park, Tartine, Delfina and
Birite Creamery. If you take away this extra parking, it will make it impossible and possibly drive the tourists away.
1
I have mixed feelings. I don\'t own a car so parking is not an issue for me personally. Formalizing weekend parking seems ok
as two lanes of traffic are not needed. In fact it may help calm traffic. A paver strip on the edge of the median could
accommodate vehicle boardings and alightings. To help preserve vegetation, think about deisgnating one of the medians as a
dog walk and prohibiting dogs from the other medians. As a dog owner i use the medians but also see the impact. Please
conduct a before and after crash evaluation to measure impacts of whatever the new policy is on safety.
1
The current situation is a hazard for drivers and pedestrians. Parking is difficult all over the city and the median parking solution
does more harm than good.
1
Congregational parking needs are very time specific. We need use of the median on Dolores. Otherwise, it is impossible to
park in the area.
1
More pervasive than the issue of median parking in this one neighborhood is the issue of church-goers double parking
throughout ALL neighborhoods. No other group is allowed to park illegally, weekly, with impunity. It impedes traffic, is
dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists and provides a free benefit to religious institutions that is unavailable to all others. I
urge you to seek fair and even enforcement of our traffic laws throughout the city.
1
1. Bring back Sunday metering. 2. Add Sunday-only meters to the median along Dolores (may not be feasible due to narrower
median along Guererro). 3. CHARGE FOR PARKING. Considering traffic on Sundays is so light, using a travel lane for parking
is probably safer for neighborhood pedestrians. (Though perhaps striping to keep cars away from intersections as a daylighting
feature would be good?) But if you're going to allow parking, allow it for everyone, and charge for it--going to church doesn't
entitle you to free parking that no one else can use.
1
I am somewhat concerned that if you formalize median parking during Sundays/peak church-going times, there will be
pressure to also allow it during peak park usage times (Saturday). I also wonder if the adopt-a-median program would allow
participating churches to feel entitled to the special parking situation... on the other hand, they already benefit from the situation,
and probably should be giving back. If parking is formalized, it absolutely should be open to all, not just the church-bound. I lived
by Sanchez and 18th Sts from 1999 - 2011, though for the past 4 years I've lived elsewhere in SF and have been a
neighborhood visitor / park user, arriving by bike or transit.
1
The current situation of illegal unenforced parking disproportionately benefits one group of users of the neighbourhood to the
detriment of almost all others. While legalization of median parking would make it accessible to other vehicle users it doesn't
assist in mitigating the impact of having parking in two lanes on Dolores. Having median parking impacts traffic flow and even if
intersections are not blocked increases risk of injury and collisions by turning a major road into very narrow road with people
entering and exiting vehicles on both side as well as people trying to parallel park in a now very narrow space.
1
It's shameful that this selective enforcement of parking rules has been allowed for so long. And it's dangerous as a pedestrian
in the neighborhood to have so many cars blocking the roadway and reducing visibility. End this practice!
1
I think median parking should stay as it is now with the exception of fencing the median vegetation. Thanks
1
Why only churches getting the special treatment? When can other businesses expect to let patrons start parking in the
medians?
1
Parking needs to be controlled. People often leave their cars far into the evening and this is a dangerous situation after dark you drive over a hill and whammo - there is a car parked in your lane. I am astonished that there has not been a bad collision.
1
THIS PARKING HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR YEARS...DECADES. LEAVE IT ALONE. I APPRECIATE THE PARKING
SITUATION. SFMTA HAS ALREADY TAKED AWAY ENOUGH PARKING.
1
The median Parkin situation as it stands is highly selective. As a non-churchgoer, I'd like to be able to park illegally when it's
convenient for me. I also wonder about other, less popular faiths and services being equally represented. Equality aside, I find
cars parked illegally along medians and double parked to be highly disruptive to normal traffic in the area.
99
Count
Response
1
Median parking blocks traffic on Dolores and Guerrero, two streets on which I travel frequently on Sundays. The same issue
exists at 16th and Dolores on Saturday mornings. Why should I be inconvenienced by someone who wants to drive to a
church? Outlaw median parking. Ticket and tow offenders. In addition, median vegetation should be maintained by the city, not
private organizations.
1
The practice of median parking unfairly puts the rest of us at a higher risk of injury by vehicle, as well as blocking an active
transit lane that could be put to a better and more efficient use than private vehicle storage by a specific subset of the
population of San Francisco and beyond.
1
This shouldn't be available to only a few. If church-goers don't have to follow parking laws, I shouldn't have to follow them when
I go to yoga. If it's available during certain hours in certain locations for everybody, it's annoying as all hell but whatever. People
who go to mainstream churches shouldn't get rewarded/special dispensation from the city. It's either available to everybody, or
it's not. The logic behind why they should be allowed to park wherever on Sundays to me boils down to the same arguments I
use when I go to yoga, or my surfer friends go to the beach. You're never going to be adequately able to define what a religion
is without pissing off most of your constituents.
1
This issue occurs all over the city. Not just the mission. My neighbors on page between Pierce and Stronger are particularly
bad about this.
1
Why make it legal just on weekends? How about 9pm to 7am during the week, or similar low traffic times?
1
This has been an informal "look the other way" policy by SFMTA for years, extending a benefit only to specific organizations
(churches, that do not even pay taxes). Anyone else doing this would be towed and cited- a very expensive occurance. In
addition to that, it is very dangerous. Who would be liable in the instance of a vehicle crash or fatal accident because if this
situation- I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Lastly, it's quite a nuisance to the neighborhood, as it makes it difficult to get
around and enjoy the area.
1
Median parking is unsafe—turns become dangerous and bikers are more likely to get creamed. It's illegal for a reason, and it's
doubly illegal for the city to give churches (but no one else) a bye on median parking. End it now.
1
Traffic, number of residents, and number of visitors continues to grow in these neighborhoods and along these streets. Median
parking used to work before that, but it's become unsustainable at this point. There's no reason we should be encouraging
additional traffic and visitors by allowing median parking on weekends.
1
I just don't think one religious group should be afforded special privaleges at the expense of the rest of us.
1
Churches are businesses. They should not be allowed to have special rules or standards beyond what any other San
Francisco business has. The median parking is dangerous and must be stopped.
1
Parking is a disaster in this area even outside of worship hours. There is a dire need for public parking for residents, visitors,
worshippers, park goers, shoppers and bar/restaurant patrons.
1
I think the current system could be kept, as long as there are parameters and permits for any organization wishing to
participate. Participants would need to hand out dash stickers, provide times for the end of their median use, and be
responsible for staffing parking during the entirety of the time they wish to use the medians. At the end of their time, median
parking would be swept by SFMTA w/tow trucks. This would allow equal access to organizations of every type, and allow for
some oversight.
1
Clearer rules and better enforcement of median parking would make a huge difference in the neighborhood. It is difficult and
unsafe to drive because the road conditions are unclear. By providing at least clarification and signage, neighborhood life would
improve immensely.
100
Count
Response
1
I live at Corbett and Clayton Aves. I walk to synagogue as often as I can, although the walk home is all uphill. At 59, I am happy
to still be able to do this walk. However, when I need to drive on a Friday night or Saturday morning, the median parking is
invaluable. I remember when we didn't have this available. There were times I gave up looking for parking and drove home.
Certainly, my circling the block caused congestion and safety issues also. I vote for the status quo. It seems to me that this
movement for change is another example of the new wealth telling us long term residents we are not welcome in our own
neighborhood. Thank you.
1
Median parking should be allowed during congregation hours where a large group of members will be at one location at a time.
Parking is needed and city should support freedom of religion
1
I would support a very limited median parking program (2-3 hours, e.g., 8 am to 10 am Sundays) but would oppose a more
substantial program. Also, I favor protections for the medians on Dolores as well as Guerrero (e.g., banning dogs).
1
Current median parking practices are incredibly inequitable and demonstrates clear favoritism towards certain groups. It is
asinine MTA does not enforce traffic/parking laws in relation to median parking. This is especially concerning because we are a
"Transit First" city, but are caving to pressures from institutions saying "Without this parking being allowed people can't park
easily here". We should be discouraging this parking behavior, as current practices of non-enforcement encourages driving.
Enforcement of parking regulations would encourage people to take transit, which is our policy as stated in the City Charter!
1
The biggest issue is that median parking and much of the other illegal parking across the city is reserved mostly for
Christian/religious activities on weekends. \"It\'s ok \'cuz it\'s church people\". This is absolutely unfair to not only other religions
but other, perhaps more legitimate and economically beneficial activities. So, no way you can leave it as is, either change to
allow for all (make it paid and bring back Sunday paid parking) or maybe scrap it (cop out).
1
The roads are already too congested in the mission, limiting through put on roads with median parking only worsens the
problem. Special parking privilege should not be given to specific classes of people. Median vegetation is important to the cities
environmental and psychological health, the burden of maintaining said vegetation is the cities responsibility. It should not be
offloaded on to a third sector. I do not oppose an extra tax to cover the cost of said maintenance.
1
Regardless of outcome, it is important that whatever solution not give special preference to any one group. Nor should
churches be able to save spaces for their congregants.
1
Double parking is illegal and makes driving in an already complex part of the city completely unsafe.
1
I am both a resident of the neighborhood as well as someone who attends a synagogue nearby. If parking is not allowed Friday
nights or Saturday mornings on the median there will be absolutely nowhere to park for church-goers. Parking is basically
impossible at those times. Not allowing median parking will put a serious undue burden on the churches located on Dolores; I
simply don\'t know how any church goers will be able to attend. As a neighborhood resident I don\'t mind the extra cars. Let\'s
have less NIMBYism these days in San Francisco and more YIMBYism!
1
People going to religious gathering should have to do what the city expect everybody to do they should have to take the bus or
walk or ride a bike to there services.
1
no one should be allowed to block the street, especially when it can cause a lack of throughway for emergency vehicles. S.F. is
reducing roads in an effort to increase bicycles, which is contrary to this measure.
1
If median parking will remain, signpost it to allow all neighborhood residents and visitors to use it without guilt or ambiguity. This
may have the effect of reducing the number of spaces that churchgoers use but that seems reasonable given that the street is
a shared public space.
1
If you continue to allow median parking, there should be a time limit and enforcement. There are people who park there at night
and it's very dangerous when you cannot see the parked car while driving.
1
I have long loathed median parking. It is illegal (despite being "winked at"), it is unsafe, and it is profoundly unfair. Please, get rid
of it!
1
It's a good way to make use of un-used space and provide temporary parking when needed. Would find it much more
reassuring if it was marked though! So I really like the signage idea.
101
Count
Response
1
Formalizing median parking would need to take in all uses instead of just religious affiliated ones.
1
Eliminate all median parking! Get people out of their cars and onto Muni. Protect median plantings, and protect pedestrians
from the dangers of crowded streets. Right now Dolores and Guerrero are huge, free parking lots, funded by taxpayers, for
people who don\'t live in the neighborhood.
1
Religious belief shouldn't get to slide by on law enforcement. Separation of church and state, remember? Tell 'em to take the
bus (not Uber/Lyft/Sidecar/Tech Bigots) if they can't find parking.
1
Due to the popularity of Dolores Park, it feel it is probably a necessary evil to provide median parking on weekends. However,
there needs to be an ENFORCED time limit and specific areas off limits. This would enable the neighborhood residents can
navigate the smaller available areas for movement and allow them access to their driveways.
1
Cornerstone Church just takes and takes. They think they own Guerreo St and 17th Street on Sundays. The church should pay
for median upkeep in this illegal parking is allowed.
1
I am a resident of Guerrero Street and frequent cyclist and pedestrian in the neighborhood. I fully support enforcing existing
legislation and ending the illegal practice of median parking. As a cyclist, the loss of a full lane by median parking is a hazard for
me, especially since Guerrero and Dolores don't have dedicated bike lanes. Every week I have cars trying to pass in between
me and cars parked on the median, while I'm riding dangerously close to cars parked on the right-hand side of the road and
risking getting doored; or honk and get angry at me because I take up the full only remaining lane. Whenever I make a left turn
off of Guerrero, I have to make a guess about whether there may be oncoming traffic because of the impeded visibility into the
left-hand lanes. I have no understanding for this illegal and dangerous practice on some of the city's busiest traffic arteries.
Please put a stop to it and enforce existing legislation.
1
It is a menace and should not be allowed. By the way, it's not just on Sunday. The church near our house allows median
parking for weddings/funerals on weekday evenings, even during rush hour. I have seen near misses from traffic trying to turn
left across the parked cars at 23rd and Guerrero. The church has a parking lot and I don't think the congregation is large
enough to require spillover parking on any but the busiest days (Christmas, Easter) I think it's more for convenience than
anything. Non worshippers see the rule flouting and park in the median as well. This neighborhood is well served by public
transportation. Can't find parking? Leave your car at home.
1
It is dangerous and the public right of way is misused. these churches and institutions should shuttle people from public pay
lots.
1
I think the function of median parking is great--it slows down traffic which is WAY to fast right there. However, I am an atheist
and take very strong issue with this resource being for people who believe in God only. It feels VERY un-San Francisco. But if
it is for everyone, I support it as a traffic calming measure. The city should also get some money for this, and it would be ideal if
that were put back into our community in the form of neighborhood improvements.
1
Parking must be available to all, if available to any, and motorists not going to church must not be harassed for making use of it,
or those in power of enforcement must not misrepresent median parking as if it were denied to non-churchgoers.
1
Why not allow parking in the medians at all times? Slow traffic down, particularly on Dolores, where you can't go fast anyway.
Just keep sightlines at intersections clear.
1
There's a huge first amendment problem here with the SF government allowing churchgoers priority parking, while not
providing the same opportunities to non-religious people. Please remove the median parking for churches.
1
Fencing off the median is completely unrealistic considering the large number of dogs in the neighborhood.
1
I believe that median parking, especially on an irregular basis, is dangerous to pedestrian and road safety. Median parking
causes an increased number of pedestrians in the street, opening doors and crossing out of sync with existing traffic lights.
This is an unsafe design. I don't believe the issue is about money, or favoring the church goers over secular citizens. I believe
this is an issue of traffic safety and should be addressed with as little political clout as possible.
102
Count
Response
1
NYC is a perfect exaple of poor double parking standards. I would not allow the median parking concidering the public transit
nearby.
1
As a SF native, this parking arrangement (and in other neighborhoods) seemed like an affront to separation of church and state.
Why do churches get special treatment?
1
Compound questions are a bad idea for a survey--lots of them in this survey. Bottom line is, this is not a safety issue--for most
people it's a fairness issue, and they find it unfair for church goers to get a free pass for parking, when parking enforcement is
so draconian in this city anyway. To me, it's a basic gesture of accommodation to these church goers, many of whom
obviously have no other way of attending church. I am not a church goer, but I think it's a nice gesture to members of the
community--especially members who have moved, and their churches are their last tie to this community. And again, I know of
no one who is against this type of parking who is not also primarily venting their dislike of churches and religion in general-sorry but that is always what I see. I have never heard a neighbor complain, who is not also complaining about religion and
religious institutions getting priority that others don't. I say, live and let live--it's only a few hours per week. The only people who
are abusing this are the people who aren't attending church who park there anyway. If you want to post a sign and enforce it
only during church hours, fine. But eventually, you will ticket and tow church ladies in your dragnet, and that just seems stupid.
1
The current policy is unconstitutional under both state and Federal law, because it improperly favors churches over everyone
else. The city used to kinda-sorta pretend it didn't know this was happening even though we all knew that wasn't true, but now
that the city has fully and finally admitted that it does know exactly what's going on, as public servants, the city has an
obligation to adopt a policy that does not impermissibly favor religion over non-religion. The current policy cannot stand.
1
I am opposed to median parking because: 1. It delays emergency vehicles-almost for sure median parking has been
responsible for deaths. 2. It delays traffic in general. The area under consideration is one of the most accessible areas of the
city by public transit. 3. As enforced presently, (by the police and church workers) it is a violation of first amendment rights. 4.
People who park there trample on the vegetation.
1
I've had plenty of friends park in the median when visiting me thinking they are safe to do so with all the other cars there only to
find their car ticketed or towed. This either needs to go or be formalized. There should also be a process to allow for
neighborhood organizations to petition for additional days/times of median parking (eg, a non-Christian church with temple
days/times not on the weekends or a holiday like Christmas that may not land on a weekend or, of course, a secular non-profit
that needs extra parking for an event).
1
The only reason why I'm not "completely supportive" of the adopt-a-median idea is that more conversation is necessary to
clarify goals and expectations. To work together as neighbors to keep medians attractive is a good idea, to be sure. Also, I am
"completely un-supportive" of maintaining current practices, because of the confusion, divisiveness and ill-will it fosters. Not
good for the neighborhood and city as a whole.
1
I understanding the parking issue in the area, particularly along Dolores and that historically the median parking was allowed
because of the churches. However, with the greatly increased interest in Dolores Park in particular, it has become totally out of
control . Cars are still double parked as late as 10pm on Dolores and have become a safety issue. We are supposed to be a
public transit focused city. This area can easily be accessed via many transit forms – Muni lines 14, 22, 33, 49, J and BART
via the 16th/Mission Street station. Allowing this illegal parking to continue only encourages people to drive into the area.
1
double parking around churches needs to be stopped all together- we are a transit city, use transit or walk to get to church (or
anywhere else for that matter) no where else is this allowed in the city, and the SFMTA needs to be consistent with parking
enforcement
1
in an environment where residents and businesses are being squeezed for parking it is completely unfair to allow churches to
use this public space. The congregants should be required to find other means of transportation to the church if there is
insufficient parking, just like any other resident or business
103
Count
Response
1
I'm glad that this issue is finally being addressed. Median parking has caused a significant number of problems in terms of
increased traffic and safety issues with people crossing the middle of the street. I hope that going forward, the city will be
consistent in enforcing all parking laws equally across the board.
1
In this supposed "transit first" city to allow church going people to park where others can't is wrong. What ever happened to
separation of church and state?
1
Median parking is the cause of SO much traffic and so many accidents! There is no reason that in one specific area of the city
only, there should be this situation. Locals hate it, but tourists are just confused and in danger with not knowing that it might be
legal for some but not for others, not to mention rear ending the tail end of a line of cars without knowing they aren't going to be
moving.
1
instead of permitting illegal parking, mass transit might be tweaked to serve church goers more efficiently
1
Several years ago on my motorcycle, I was almost hit by a car pulling out from being parked in the median on Dolorse Street.
Since then I have always viewed this as an unfair and dangerous way to park.
1
Our family drives in from Oakland for services, and would not be able to do so if there was no median parking available, so
there is a fairly good chance that we would have to resign from the synagogue. btw, we are daily transit users and choose to
drive to services because we have no other practical option.
1
I have lived on this block since 1976. The traffic has increased exponentially. The median parking is extremely hazardous and
is illegal and unenforced. I feel this does not take into consideration the SFMTA\'s responsibility to provide safe streets to
residents, pedestrians, and motorists. Parking for faith-based organizations and businesses is Not the responsibility of the city
especially when it is at the expense of the people who live nearby. There should not be any median parking period. It is illegal
and should be enforced.
1
Kick those parking freeloaders out. Just because they go to a 'church', that doesn't give them a right to take all the available
parking
1
Keep median parking for congregation members during Sunday service times as is so they don't need to take up parking spots
of local residents. Obviously, parking is very limited with the growing population but the city hasn't offered a solution for more
parking space in general for the city.
1
Parking is difficult in the Inner Mission, median parking should be available for all including groups like the Mime Troupe, local
businesses etc. or none.
1
As a driver and bicylist, median parking is a hazard as it visually blocks intersections and confuses traffic. It is abused
constantly, and hardly ever actually used for churchgoers to go to church. Most often it is used to pick up food or a quick stop,
or when a driver is too lazy to find a spot. Ticketing should be enforced currently, but isn't even a little. Something needs to
change.
1
What ever happened to SF's Transit First policy? Bringing more cars into our congested neighborhoods is a bad idea. This is
illegal parking, it's unsafe, it's an illegal religious gimmie as well, not cool SF, not cool,
1
The current situation is patently unfair and possibly unconstitutional as the City is treating religious people differently than they
treat non-religious people. Thank you for looking into and hopefully changing this situation. Church parkers should have to find
parking just like everyone else.
1
For a city that is trying to be bike and pedestrian friendly, we still have lots and lots of cars. I wish we could have underground
parking all over (believe me, the loss of the Hayes parking lot is a problem for those of us who sing at the symphony) but that
isn't fiscally feasible. Better ways to spend money. We know in the neighborhood when Dolores will be blocked for parking so
we know not to take Dolores on weekends. It's all screwy with pavement patches anyway. Let the park and the churches have
parking. ALSO, look into ways to provide protection for the plants. They are really pretty and provide another piece of evidence
that people live here, they are welcoming and they have an aesthetic appreciation for (drought resistant) plants. thanks for your
time.
104
Count
Response
1
In general I think it is an OK practice, particularily along Dolores Street where the median is quite thick and people can access
their cards by walking up it. Guerrero has a much thinner median and the biggest problem my eyes is that there is no clear
indication of when it begins and ends. I have seen single cars left over with people dodging in and out of traffic to get back to
their cars and it seems quite dangerous.
1
The illegal median parking currently taking place is unsafe and unfair. Many of the church-goers do not park safely or
responsibly, and people unfamiliar with the practice, who visit the area, don't know how to deal with the illegal parking. And why
should church-goers get a free ride for illegal parking that others would be ticketed for? This is discriminatory against the
majority of the neighborhood and the city, who do not attend these churches. Parking in the city is a challenge, and churchgoers just have to learn to deal with it like the rest of us.
1
Stopping the illegal parking can't come soon enough. What may have started as a special priveldge for church-goers is
completely antiquated now. Traffic will flow better. Fewer people, one can hope, will chose Dolores Park and instead chose a
park less over-loved. Make it so now pls.
1
There should not be any favor towards churches or any religious organizations. That violates the church and state separation
requirement. It should be allowed for all.
1
I think the days and especially the times of median parking should be limited and most importantly, enforced. I agree that the
parking should be available to all, within a clear time-frame and ALL violators should be punished with a ticket or a tow.
1
I like the idea of the parking being available to all - when I have guests to my house I discourage them to park in the median
because I never know when they might get a ticket -- and I've lived in the area nearly 15 years. If rules were clearly delineated
everyone is clear and no one has to worry. Please do take measures to keep the medians' vegetation preserved! Mostly I see
dog walkers using them to relieve their dogs -- would be great to make sure the dog owners are being responsible and picking
up after themselves. Thanks for this survey!
1
Parking on or near the median is dangerous to everyone involved, causing confusing and huge traffic problems. Roads exist for
the public good, and when a tiny number of people is allowed to block the road by parking by the median, this behavior has a
huge negative externality on the rest of the public. If I chose to park my car in the middle of Market St. or Van Ness, I would
rightfully be cited and my car would be towed. There's no reason to permit this on Dolores or Guerrero.
1
Claiming median parking reduces speeds is a strange argument; I support fewer cars in SF and would prefer traffic calming
along Guerrero and Dolores that worked 24x7, not when a special interest finds it convenient. I do believe the current situation
is dangerous and confusing, so support either removing the special exception or formalizing it with signage.
1
The city has gotten itself into a bind because under strict zoning, churches are not allowed to be here. However, they have
been here for a long time and they have been grandfathered in, waiving the zoning requirements. If the churches weren't here,
then there wouldn't be a need for median parking for the churchgoers.
1
Why do only Christians have access to median parking? I belong to a synogogue and attend services on Friday nights and
Saturdays and must search endlessly for parking. Not everyone observes Sunday as the sabbath, do just try a little to think
differently.
1
Why is this limited to just the mission? I live in a neighborhood where this is also an issue. The median parking is much less
egregious than the double parking that happens in other neighborhoods.
105