Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves end to citywide minimum parking requirements after heated debate
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 6-4 to eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements citywide on first reading, a change supporters said modernizes land-use rules and critics warned could harm transit‑poor neighborhoods.
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 6-4 on Dec. 4 to pass on first reading an ordinance that eliminates minimum off‑street parking requirements citywide.
Proponents framed the change as an incremental policy aligning San Francisco with cities that have removed parking minimums, freeing developers from automatic parking mandates and lowering housing costs. “San Francisco has the opportunity to be the first major, American city to remove minimum parking requirements,” Supervisor Kim told colleagues, adding the measure “in no way removes the option of the developer building parking.”
The measure drew sharp objections from supervisors representing neighborhoods with limited transit access. “Eliminating parking requirements across the board does not necessarily result in fewer drivers,” Supervisor Yee said, and warned the change could push people toward ride‑hail services rather than public transit.
Supporters argued the ordinance mostly formalizes existing practice and gives developers discretion to build less parking where the market or transit access supports it. Supervisor Peskin recounted earlier local fights over parking policy and said the change is “overdue.” Supervisor Brown said removing requirements will help lower the cost of housing.
After debate the roll call produced six ayes and four noes. Ayes: Mandelmann, Peskin, Ronan, Tang, Brown and Kim. Noes: Safaie, Stephanie, Yi and Cohen. The ordinance was passed on first reading; second‑reading and final adoption rules were not completed that day.
The ordinance’s text preserves developers’ ability to build parking where desired and keeps other tools—such as bicycle parking and transportation demand management—in place. City staff and supervisors said they will continue monitoring impacts and that the planning department and SFMTA have been involved in review and outreach.
Supporters said the change aims to reduce construction costs and promote transit‑oriented development; opponents asked for additional safeguards for areas with weak transit service and sought more time for community outreach. The board duplicated the file for a follow-up process to consider a carve‑out or additional implementation details for particular districts.
The measure will return for additional hearings and a final vote consistent with the ordinance schedule.
Ending: Supervisors said outreach will continue and staff will prepare follow‑up materials and implementation guidance for affected neighborhoods.
