LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

To: The Honorable Board of Supervisors

From: Elaine Forbes, Legislative Analyst

Date: November 29, 2001

File no: 011628

Subject: Street Use Permits

Summary of Request

On September 17, 2001, a motion introduced by Supervisor Peskin and approved by the Board of Supervisors directed the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) to provide assistance in exploring governmental reforms that would allow more efficient utilization of street space by construction projects, in order to minimize the inconvenience that local residents currently face. In response, this report outlines the current street space permit process, identifies areas for improvement, and provides options.

Executive Summary

Street space permits are necessary for construction projects because they allow for the delivery and storage of materials and supplies adjacent to or near construction sites. However, these permits also restrict on-street parking for local residents, merchants and shoppers. While these permits are necessary, the current rules and regulations governing street use permits do not encourage an efficient use of on-street parking spaces and confuses and inconveniences the public. In particular, this report identifies four major areas for improvement:

1. Jurisdictional Issues. The issuance and enforcement of street use permits involves three City departments, which are not adequately coordinated in terms of information sharing.

2. Requirements and Fee Structure. The requirements and fee structure for obtaining street space permits do not give incentives to contractors to encourage the most efficient use of on-street parking.

3. Inspection, Enforcement and Penalties. Street space permits are not adequately inspected, unevenly enforced, and without sufficient penalties for improper use on the part of the permit holder. The primary enforcement trigger resides with the permit holder; this benefits the permit holder, to the disadvantage of those seeking on-street parking.

4. Signage and Posting Responsibilities. Current practices place responsibility for obtaining and posting signage, and receiving calls from the public on the contractor. This arrangement has led to confusing and inconsistent signage, over posting (contractors reserve too much space), posting without active permits, improper notification, and an inability for the public to verify permits. This results in public confusion and illegal tows that anger residents and are an expense to the City.

5. Neighborhood Impact Considerations. There is no limit to the amount of street space permits that DPW can issue in a particular area. This can result in parking shortages in neighborhoods where multiple construction projects are taking place.

Scope of Review

Three types of construction in San Francisco are allowed, and in some instances are required, to reserve street space through the City"s permitting process:

1. Construction by small residential contractors who typically reserve street space fronting the construction site, property line to property line.

2. Construction by larger commercial contractors who reserve street space fronting the construction site, property line to property line.

3. City sponsored construction and excavation, including PG&E, cable and telecommunication related construction.

Two general types of permits are issued for construction and excavation projects that impact on-street parking.

1. Street Space permits, which allow for the delivery and storage of materials and supplies in front of or near a construction site.

2. Street Excavation permits, issued to allow for the resurfacing of a roadway or excavation of a street for working underground.

This analysis focuses on street space permits. The OLA will evaluate the street excavation permits process at the request of the Board.

Current Law and Practice

Jurisdiction. Currently, three departments have jurisdiction over the issuance and enforcement of street use permits:

· The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) - Issues building permits for construction projects, ranging from minor renovation to new construction, and requires street use permits for all construction projects (waiver is available). DBI also collects fees and refundable deposits, and processes requests for refunds of deposits.

· The Department of Public Works (DPW) - Responsible for the physical issuance of street use permits and for limited enforcement related primarily to job site conditions and DPW/DPT codes and policies. DPW staff enters permit specifications into a database, which is the most valid list of active permits.

· The Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) - Responsible for registering signs and for limited enforcement of the no-parking zones street use permits create. DPT uses a permit registration list for enforcement purposes.

Requirements and Fee Structure. Article 15, Sec. 724 specifies the fee structure, clearance requirements, deposit fees and reimbursement requirements. Applicants are required to pay 1/10 of 1% of the total estimated costs of the proposed construction, with a minimum fee of $30 (Article 15, Sec. 724.1). The applicant is also required to pay a refundable cash deposit (usually paid in the form of either a check or credit card) of a minimum of $10 per linear foot of the sidewalk frontage of area occupied (Article 15, Sec. 724.3).

Street space permits are issued in two ways: over the counter or accompany building permits.

1. Over the Counter - Individuals and contractors engaged in light construction work that does not require a building permit but benefits from reserved street space generate the demand for these permits, which are obtained over the counter at DPW. These permits are active for 4-months regardless of the nature of the job and/or the time the space(s) is needed. The fees are 1/10 of 1% of the total construction cost. No language or existing legislation allows DPW to deny these permits and as a result, complete permit applications with required fees are approved.

2. Accompany a Building Permit - Individuals and contractors engaged in construction that requires a building permit are required to purchase a street use permit. Waivers are available for those who can demonstrate that the construction will not require street space. These permits are obtained from DPW and are valid for as long as the building permit is open. Like over the counter permits, fees are 1/10 of 1% of the total construction cost.

Issuance, Enforcement and Penalties. No-parking zones become enforceable only after the permits are registered with DPT. Contractors contact DPT by phone and provide the permit number, application number, company name, contact person, exact address of the no-parking zone, date and times valid, and the number of feet reserved. DPT staff may ask the contractor to fax in the DPW permit. If the contractor verifies that signs are posted when they register with DPT over the phone, DPT may tow vehicles 72 hours later provided other conditions are met. Currently, DPT relies on the contractor"s representation of the specifics of the DPW permit and that signs are posted and does not independently verify this information. Additionally, the DPT Code requires that the posted construction signs need to be re-registered once every 30-days. Re-registration also takes place by phone.

Setting up a no-parking zone with proper signage is currently the responsibility of the contractor. Temporary "Tow Away, No Stopping" signs can be purchased throughout the Bay Area. DPW instructs permits holders, using a handout, on the following:

1. Standards regarding maximum spacing between signs.

2. Attachment criteria.

3. Information that must appear on the sign(s) (state the street space permit number, effective times, effective dates, name of contractor, and limits of zone).

4. Registration of signs with DPT and posting at least 72 hours in advance of the effective date and time in order to be valid.

Additionally, rules in the DPT Blue Book (General Rule 8), that do not appear on the handout provided to contractors, indicate the following:

1. The appropriate sign size (18"x12").

2. Wording (TOW AWAY NO STOPPING).

3. Lettering and background (White letters on Red Background).

4. And, that the contractor name and phone number must be listed below the prohibited times and dates.

The permit holder contacting DPT to tow a vehicle parked in a no-parking zone is the primary method of enforcement of street space permits. Cars parked in these zones are not ticketed unless DPT receives a call from the contractor to tow the vehicle. Additionally, if neighbors complain that a no-parking zone is in place and no work is apparent, DPW will check that the building permit is active and will investigate if permits appear to be inactive. If the permit is active, no action is taken. According to DPT staff, DPT does not have the staff or accurate information to enforce that no-parking zones are lawful.

Article 15, Sec. 724 specifies the penalties for street use permits. The penalties are structured primarily to ensure that work sites are maintained and that any defects caused by the contractor are repaired. This section does allow DPW to charge contractors a $1,000 fine for exceeding allowable street space use. According to DPW, fines are primarily assessed on contractors who have waived the street space permit requirement but occupy street space. However, very few fines are issued due to limited enforcement personnel and fewer are paid. The number of total fines issued is not available because DPW does not keep a record of issued fines but does track paid fines. In FY 1999-2000, 7 fines were paid, generating $7,000. If violators do not pay the fine, the only remedy DPW currently has is to revoke the street space permit.

Permits Issued, Revenues Generated, and Reimbursements. According to the DPW, in FY 2000-2001, the City issued 2,676 street use permits, of which 1,618, or 60%, were for residential properties and 1,058, or 40%, were for commercial properties. Fifty-six percent were issued over the counter; the remaining 44% accompanied building permits. The amount of parking spaces reserved by the permits is undeterminable because DPW does not currently keep information on the parking spaces, and applications can range from one space to several blocks. In FY 2000-2001, street use permits generated $1,607,744 dollars in revenues. These funds are held in the Street Space Fund, and are returned to DBI and DPW to pay for inspectors.

In FY 2000-2001, DPT reimbursed 527 individuals for unlawful tows, 152 (29%) of whom where towed from no-parking zones created by street space permits, costing DPT $11,400. The primary reasons for unlawful tows associated with street space permits were confusing and inadequate posting and unauthorized and/or expired construction zones.

Past Policy Actions.

1. Street Construction Coordination Center - The Street Construction Coordination Center, established by an ordinance authored by Supervisor Katz (Ordinance 341-98), was founded in April of 1999. The goal of the Center is to coordinate street excavation by the City, utilities, and telecommunications companies in order to minimize public disruption and to achieve cost savings through added efficiencies. Street use permits are not presently part of this coordination process.

2. Take Back Your Parking - Supervisor Yaki amended Section 33.1A of the Traffic Code (Ordinance 023-98) to allow the public to park in no-parking zones in areas zoned residential or neighborhood commercial if construction work has not begun by 12:00 p.m. According to DPT staff, the unintended consequence of this action is tows that result from the public not understanding that commercial areas are excluded and misunderstandings as to whether work has begun. For example, a contractor may have begun work but the work is not visible. Section 33.1A does not provide a definition of the term "work" which leaves this question open.

Challenges and Solutions

Jurisdictional Issues. Currently, no information link exists between DPW, which issues and records permits, and DPT, which is charged in part with enforcing permits. According to DPT staff, DPW has reviewed DPT"s list for accuracy and has found approximately 1/3 of DPT registered permits were expired.¹ Program benefits and costs are unevenly distributed between DBI, DPW, and DPT (e.g. DBI and DPW collect all revenues for permit issuance and DPT funds enforcement and illegal tow reimbursements), which may be a factor in inadequate information sharing. Lack of information sharing results in:

1) Inability to exclude disabled and white and disabled zone spaces from no-parking zones (DPT has this information but DPW does not);

2) Inability to enforce permits properly because most accurate information is not given to DPT, the department primarily charged with enforcement;

3) Illegal tows that results from DPT"s misinformation with regards to proper posting and permit validity;

4) Uneven enforcement which likely results in a loss of on-street parking (more under enforcement).

Potential Solution

1) Create shared DPT and DPW database. This would allow for necessary information sharing of one accurate street use permit database. However, effectively developing and managing such a database would create an initial expense for the City (hardware purchase and program development) and would require ongoing staff training. As an interim solution, DPW could provide DPT with a weekly print out of active permits, which DPT could use for cross reference and enforcement purposes.

2) Charge one department with the issuance and enforcement of street use permits. This would eliminate the inter-departmental coordination effective street use permit issuance and enforcement currently requires. This may also result in closer monitoring and information coordination. Whether DPW or DPT is best suited for this requires further analysis. According to DPT staff, DPT does not have the resources (staff and technology) to verify permits presently. Likewise, DPW does not allocate inspectors to monitor job sites and whether no-parking zones are lawful due to a lack of resources. The added value of placing both functions with DPT includes an existing expertise in parking citations and fines, a general understanding of issues related with on-street parking, and an ability to consider meter revenue and white and disabled zones. The added value DPW brings to both functions includes inspector training which is construction specific and database and mapping capabilities. If the Board chooses to encourage that both functions are in one department, a least one additional full time equivalent (FTE) may be required.

Requirements and Fee Structure. The fee structure does not encourage contractors to use the space(s) for less than four months or the time the building permit is active, or to return space(s) to the public in the hours the space(s) is not needed during construction.²

Potential Solutions

1. Create a fee structure that is based on a per parking space, per day fee. This approach would encourage contractors to efficiently plan deliveries and also consider alternative shortage sites on the property instead of the public right-of-way. However, in order to assess fees at permit issuance, contractors would need a firm understanding of delivery schedules, which are likely subject to change. Additionally, funding for enforcement efforts would have to increase; without enforcement, contractors could use the parking beyond the purchased hours. Lastly, a new fee structure may result in a loss of revenue. However, the City likely both under and over charges for permits currently. Therefore, if carefully crafted, the new fee structure could be revenue neutral.

2. Create time limited and unlimited permits with differing fees. This approach would free up on-street parking in the early morning and evening hours when demand is at its peek and would encourage material storage on the construction site. Street space permits are intended for the delivery and storage of building materials. Some construction sites will have ample material storage areas apart from the public right-of-way and may need the permit only for delivery. In these instances, a time limited permit, from 9am - 2pm or 11am - 5pm for example, may be all that is needed. Limited time permits could be issued at a lower cost. In order to implement limited and unlimited permits, standardized signs would have to be distributed by the City or private vendors. Without clear signage and increased enforcement efforts, contractors with limited permits could use the parking beyond the purchased hours.

3. Enforce the existing rule to post decrease hours of no-parking zones. Section 33.1A of the Traffic Code requires that contractors post when work will not occur so that the public may use the parking spaces. No mechanism for enforcement exists and according to DPT, this rule is rarely followed. If enforcement were to increase and clear instructions were given, this approach may free up some on-street parking spaces at little cost to the City.

Inspection, Enforcement and Penalties. Street space permits are under inspected. In particular, whether contractors use signs with the necessary information, post signs properly, create correctly sized no-parking zones, or have active permits are not inspected. Additionally, although zone may not be used for parking, members of the public complain that zones are used for construction worker parking. Current practices place enforcement triggers primarily in the responsibility of the contractor. Simply put, DPT responds to a contractor call to tow vehicles parked in the no-parking zones. The consequence is an uneven enforcement of regulations resulting in tows for parking in a no-parking zone, but rarely in citations for improper or unlawful street space use.

Potential Solutions

1. Inspect no-parking zones and apply existing $1,000 penalty for improper posting and posting without a permit. This approach addresses the uneven enforcement problem and gives the public some assurance that the appropriate spaces are zoned off and that posting is proper. However, any type of additional enforcement requires better information sharing between DPT and DPW (see Jurisdictional Issues above) and may require additional resources. Lastly, failure to pay the $1,000 penalty results only in a revocation of the street space permit. The City may consider linking failure to pay to the issuance of business licenses, which would give contractors an additional incentive to pay fines.

2. Ticket cars parked in no-parking zones. This approach addresses public complaints that contractors unlawfully use street space permits for parking. However, accurate information is necessary for DPT to effectively ticket parked cars. Jurisdictional issues need consideration first.

Signage and Posting Responsibilities. Reports suggest that some contractors do not follow the rules for sign posting, signage is irregular, unclear, and sometimes blows away. This confuses street parking seekers. Additionally, the telephone number for the contractor is the only number that is required to appear on the no-parking sign. This does not give the public a way to verify the validity of the permit from an independent source.

Potential Solutions

1. Charge a City department with the inspection of signage as part of the registration process. This approach would place some assurances beyond the contractor"s representation, that signage is standardized and would also give a City department an opportunity to provide additional training on street space regulations in a face-to-face permit registration process. The current DPT over the phone registration process adds little value to the effective utilization of street space and, according to DPT staff, results in an inaccurate tow list (See the Issuance, Enforcement and Penalties section above).

2. Provide complete information on proper posting requirements. The City has an opportunity to provide clearer instructions on proper posting requirements as part of the process of applying for permits at DPW and/or registering permits with DPT. Currently, DPW makes a paper handout available to contractors that outlines how to establish a construction zone. However, critical information regarding signage, which is in the DPT Blue Book and available on the City"s website, is not included in the handout and is not provided to contractors elsewhere in the permit process (see the Issuance, Enforcement and Penalties section above for more information).

3. Charge a City Department with issuing and/or posting no-parking signs. The City"s issuance of street use signs would ensure that signs are standardized, and the City assuming responsibility for the posting and removal of these signs would ensure that the appropriate amount of street space is included in no-parking zones for the permitted amount of time. The San Francisco Police Department issues and posts signs for street use permits for short-term special events. According to DPW, DPT and the SFPD staff, the no-parking zones established by SFPD receive fewer complaints and rarely result in illegal tows. This result may be in part due to the short term nature of the SFPD issued permits; however, placing control of the establishment of no-parking zones in a City department increases City control and consequently, tightens standards. A potential problem with this approach is transferring these responsibilities from the contractor to the City would create an additional cost for the City. However, the City could pass on these cost to contractors in permit fees. The Board may wish to explore the potential of City issued and/or City distributed signage separately from the City assuming responsibility for sign posting and removal. The latter would be more costly and would require additional staff resources.

4. Provide City contact number on Tow-Away signs for the public to call to verify permits are valid and/or to issue complaints. This would provide the public with reliable source of information about street permits and would provide the City with information about potential improper activities. The intention of Section 33.1A of the Traffic Code, which specifies that the contractor"s phone number must appear on Tow-Away signs, was to place accountably on the contractor. However, the result is that the public is not afforded an appropriate place to make complaints and get accurate information. In order to implement this needed change, a City department would require the resources to maintain an accurate record of street use permits, handle incoming calls, and insure that the a department followed up on valid complaints (expired permits, etc).

Neighborhood Impact Considerations. Currently, there is no limit to the amount of permits DPW can issue in a particular area. This can result in extreme parking shortages in neighborhoods where multiple construction projects are taking place.

Potential Solution

Consider neighborhood impacts in permit issuance decisions. The permit issuing agency could separate the City into neighborhood areas and could track the number of permits in a particular neighborhood. The City could implement an impact threshold over which contractors could 1) pay an extra fee for the permit (disincentive), 2) submit an exception request, or 3) be unable to obtain a street use permit where the maximum threshold was reached. This approach could alleviate the burden placed on residents who live in areas where multiple construction projects take place but would require careful development and implementation so that the unintended consequence was not an improper limit on development.

Conclusion

Several approaches to improve the street space permit process are available, ranging from simple to more intensive proposals. The most effective solution will be a multi-pronged approach that addresses the four major areas for improvement identified in this report in short and long range plans. While perhaps the most difficult to address, the jurisdiction issues may need to be addressed first because without a department(s) effectively issuing and enforcing street use permits, changes to the requirement and fee structure or to the signage and penalty rules will not have the intended benefits.

¹ According to DPT staff, the large number of invalid permits is a result of contractors believing they can renew permits by calling DPT without requesting an extension from DPW.

² Article 15, Sec. 724 does not have explicit rules that seek to minimize the time and amount of street space used.