Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission legalizes parking of two operable vehicles in existing driveways, with limits to curb new curb cuts
Summary
The commission unanimously recommended a planning-code amendment legalizing parking of up to two operable vehicles in existing residential driveways while prohibiting RVs/trailers, restricting new curb cuts, and exempting driveway parking from size-limit landscaping triggers; staff recommended three technical modifications.
The Planning Commission on Oct. 23 voted unanimously to recommend approval of a planning-code amendment that would legalize the widespread practice of parking up to two operable vehicles in existing residential driveways.
Staff framed the ordinance as a modest Permit SF reform to reduce inequitable enforcement and support housing conversions of garages into living space. Key provisions: up to two operable vehicles allowed in preexisting driveways where those driveways historically provided access to enclosed parking; boats, trailers, RVs and buses remain prohibited; vehicles must not encroach on the public right-of-way; driveway parking would not count toward maximum off-street parking limits; screening requirements would be lifted for driveways; and applicability is limited to existing driveways to avoid incentivizing new curb cuts.
Planning Department staff proposed three technical modifications to clarify (1) applicability only to driveways that previously provided access to enclosed parking, (2) restriction to existing driveways to avoid new curb cuts and parking pads, and (3) confirmation that driveway parking under the ordinance is not considered the addition of parking that would trigger landscaping and permeability requirements. Staff said SFMTA and police would continue enforcement when the public right-of-way or sidewalk is obstructed.
Public commenter Emily Brough (real-estate attorney) asked for an amendment to allow legalization of longstanding unsanctioned structures in front yards; staff said that broader change was beyond the scope of this ordinance. Commissioners debated vehicle definitions, enforcement challenges for ephemeral violations, and equity trade-offs. Several commissioners voiced support for the staff modifications and emphasized the need to monitor curb cuts and neighborhood impacts. The commission approved the recommendation for approval with staff modifications on a 7–0 vote.
