SF couple gets $1,500 fine for parking in their driveway despite doing so for nearly 40 years

SAN FRANCISCO — It appeared so unfair. They’d been utilizing their carpad for many years – when all of the sudden town mentioned it is unlawful. Not solely that, they had been threatened with a $1,500 advantageous – an enormous penalty even for San Francisco. The one means out? Return into San Francisco historical past.

Parking in San Francisco is a tough a part of life right here. You discover a spot… however get a ticket anyway.

For Judy and Ed Craine it appears particularly unfair.

“We at all times use the carport,” mentioned Judy.

“Parked in that driveway every single day and each evening,” confirmed Ed.

They dwell on a steep hill the place parking is usually a gravity-defying problem.

However they might slip into their driveway and park on their carpad, which they’d been doing every single day for the previous 36 years.

However not anymore.

“We received this e-mail saying we will not park within the pad anymore. I mentioned what, that is loopy,” recounted Ed.

Out of the blue, the couple received a ticket for parking in their very own driveway.

“It was very stunning, to say the least,” mentioned Judy.

And worse? It got here with an infinite advantageous: $1,542, plus one other $250 per day in the event that they did not get the automobile off their carpad.

“I wrote them again saying I believed this was a mistake,” Judy mentioned.

California fuel tax: Simply as fuel costs had been seeing a drop, fuel tax will increase Friday

Nevertheless it was no mistake. And no peculiar parking ticket. It got here from town Planning Division, telling them it is unlawful to park within the entrance of a home.

“And if we had been discovered parking there once more, it could be a $1,500 advantageous,” Judy mentioned.

And they also rapidly pulled the automobile out — however none of it made sense.

“Why are you taking away one thing that has nice utility?” requested Ed.

Ed and Judy had been parking there for practically 4 many years. And so far as they might inform, the house was used for parking for the reason that home was constructed again in 1910 – one of many first of their Noe Valley neighborhood.

“To impulsively to be informed you’ll be able to’t use one thing that we may use for years. It is, it is startling. Inexplicable,” Ed mentioned.

And so the Planning Division gave them a problem: show that parking was a historic use on the lot, they usually would possibly get a waiver.

“We may very well be grandfathered in. If we present them a historic photograph that confirmed a automobile… or a horse-drawn buggy within the carport,” mentioned Judy.

Immediately they dug up a photograph of their daughter 34 years in the past – part of the automobile barely seen.

However officers mentioned: not sufficiently old.

“I did numerous on-line searches,” mentioned Ed.

And they also combed via tons of of historic images.

Loads confirmed the early days, when there have been few streets or houses.

“Our home and our neighbor’s home had empty fields throughout,” Ed mentioned.

However to discover a photograph of a automobile or horse of their explicit driveway, again earlier than the times of iPhone cameras?

Practically inconceivable.

After which, bingo.

“To me, it is fairly compelling that was a automobile,” Ed mentioned.

An aerial photograph from 1938 reveals their precise house – and Ed is certain he can see a automobile – or horse-and-buggy — pulling into his driveway!

“So this little black blob seems to be prefer it’s pulling into our home,” Ed mentioned.

It seems to be like only a blob from above. However Ed says it have to be a automobile — like all the opposite blobs you’ll be able to see alongside the street.

“I do not know what else they’d be,” he mentioned. “To me, it is fairly compelling that that was a automobile pulling in or out of the parking pad.”

They rushed the photograph to the Planning Division – the proof they want!

Proper?

Unsuitable.

“They mentioned that they had been too fuzzy,” Judy mentioned.

The Planning Division mentioned this was not clear proof.

Officers inform KGO’s 7 On Your Facet the couple was violating a code part banning autos in a setback in entrance of a home, even when it is not blocking a sidewalk.

Planning Chief Dan Sider mentioned it was enacted many years in the past for aesthetic causes, to “be certain that entrance yards do not flip into parking tons.”

But, it is OK to park in entrance of a storage, like their neighbors,

“I do not suppose our automobile seems to be any worse than all of the vehicles stacked in entrance of garages,” Ed Craine mentioned.

And why implement the rule in any case these many years?

Sider mentioned somebody made an nameless criticism to town. Two neighbors additionally received tagged for a similar violation, parking in a entrance driveway.

In an e-mail, Sider wrote:

“I acknowledge that the property proprietor is pissed off. I feel I’d really feel the identical means of their scenario. However the Planning Code would not enable for the Metropolis to grandfather unlawful makes use of on account of their having flown beneath the radar for a size of time.”

And so their carport sits empty — the oil stain a testomony to simpler days — as they wrestle to park on the hill.

“I had to make use of my head to maintain the trunk open whereas getting out groceries,” Judy mentioned.

“The onus is on us to show we’re harmless… although I do not really feel responsible,” Judy mentioned.

Town did shut the case with out charging any penalties after the couple received the automobile off the carpad and stored it off. And town says they might construct a coated carport or storage to park there – or perhaps discover that previous photograph.