Free Permits, Full Streets
When parking gets scarce near Downtown or the Caltrain station, the blame usually lands on new housing. It's an easy story to tell: more homes, more cars, fewer spaces. But the frustration people feel on their own street has more to do with how we manage the curb than with who moves in next door.
We've seen these challenges play out in North Central and should expect them in other areas where the General Plan 2040 directs housing density near transit. Researchers on the parking topic keep arriving at the same answer:
"The right price for curb parking is the lowest price that can produce one or two vacant parking spaces on each block. If many spaces are vacant, the price is too high. If no spaces are vacant, the price is too low." Donald Shoup
That is the standard, not "free parking everywhere" and not "no one ever has to circle," but one or two open spaces per block, on average, when demand is highest. Enough that a driver can find a space, a resident can park near home, and a delivery truck doesn't have to double-park.
Many blocks already work this way without any permitting. But in the neighborhoods absorbing most of the city's growth, streets are starting to fill up. The current Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) does not have the tools to address this issue.
One clarification first: this isn't about single-family areas far from transit. It's about the neighborhoods near transit, near jobs, and along the mixed-use corridors where the 2040 General Plan envisions more housing. For example, my own block near the Hayward Park Caltrain station isn't in crisis, but the pattern is visible. A small retail area, apartment buildings on adjoining blocks, all sharing the same limited supply of curb space. It's a preview of what's coming in other areas of San Mateo.
The city has already studied this
In 2018–2019 the Public Works Department ran a comprehensive review with public open houses and Council briefings before adopting an updated policy in September 2019. The review considered household permit limits, enforcement hours, permit types, and pricing.
The Council decided to make minimal changes and kept permits free. Seven years on, the pressures the 2019 review identified have only intensified. Growth, density, and demand on a fixed supply of curb space all keep pushing in the same direction.
Where the current program falls short of the standard
Read against Shoup's standard, and against the conditions San Mateo is actually facing, the adopted policy has several specific gaps:
-
The program's eligibility rules are too narrow. A zone can only be created where a non-residential "parking generator" (a school, business, or commercial district) exists, and the policy states it is "not intended for use in areas or on streets where there is a mix of commercial and residential use." That is exactly where the 2040 General Plan is directing growth.
-
There is no household cap. Within zones that do qualify, permits are issued one per licensed driver, with no ceiling on what a single household can claim.
-
Permits are free, which fails twice. They give away scarce curb space with no signal to manage demand. They raise no revenue, so there is no money for enforcement, signage, or the small physical improvements that make a permit zone work.
-
Occupancy is used inconsistently. The city requires above 60% occupancy to establish a new permit zone, but doesn't measure occupancy once a zone exists. The two-year permit renewal cycle and ten-year zone sunset don't adjust as conditions change.
-
The terms are set citywide. Residents vote on whether to have a permit zone through a petition and a mailed survey that requires two-thirds support. What they don't get is any say in how it works. The price, the one-per-driver rule, and the enforcement structure are fixed citywide, even though parking conditions are intensely local.
-
Renewal counts owners, not residents. Establishing a zone takes a survey of every household in the area. Keeping one at the ten-year sunset asks whether "the majority of the property owners show interest in maintaining the current program." The same neighborhood gets two different electorates depending on which question is on the table.
Each of these gaps makes it harder to get the kind of street most San Mateo residents actually want: one where a spot near home is findable, a delivery truck has somewhere to stop, and the curb has room left over for a wider sidewalk or a tree. A modern permit program is one piece of how we get there.
The conversation worth having
The question is not "should parking be free or expensive?" That debate has gone on for decades without resolving anything. The real question is how to get to one or two open spaces per block, in the neighborhoods where we currently can't find one.
Free works in some places. It doesn't work in all of them. A well-designed program would respond to that difference rather than ignoring it.
The census data helps to show what that difference looks like across renters and homeowners. The minority with three or more vehicles skews toward homeowners. Most homeowner households have two or more vehicles, while most renter households have one or none.
Renters have fewer vehicles than homeowners
Share of San Mateo households within each group, by vehicles available.
Most renters have one vehicle or none. Most homeowners have two or more.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 ACS 5-year, Table B25044 · City of San Mateo
Free curb storage is effectively a public subsidy, and the same mismatch shows up off-street: when landlords fold parking costs into rent, the car-less or car-lite renter pays every month for parking they will rarely use. That is what unbundling addresses, and it is the off-street companion to better management of limited curb space.
The current policy treats the two as competing instead. Residents of multi-family buildings with unbundled parking are not eligible for permits when a zone sits next to them. That rule is hard to justify once permits are priced to demand. A free permit would hand those households at the curb what they declined to pay for in the building, but a priced one wouldn't. If curb space is in high demand, price the permit and the conflict disappears. If curb space is readily available, there is no reason a renter shouldn't be able to use it on the same terms as anyone else.
San Mateo is not alone in facing parking challenges. Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View are all working through versions of the same question. Larger Bay Area cities have already moved further:
- San Francisco — $215/year, four-permit household cap
- Oakland — $162/year, caps that vary by zone
- Berkeley — $85/year
The 2019 process showed San Mateo is willing to look at this seriously. The next step is asking what it would actually take to reach the standard, and what the path looks like for residents who currently park free.
My own view is that the transition matters more than the pricing theory. A program that phases costs in for long-tenured residents, spends the money in the neighborhood that generates it, and leaves the specifics to the people who live there can work without asking anyone to absorb a sudden new bill. More on that soon!