A proposed zoning measure in San Francisco could temporarily delay DoorDash’s drone testing, affecting nearby neighborhoods, industrial land use, and future delivery options.
San Francisco lawmakers are considering a temporary zoning rule that could slow or halt DoorDash’s efforts to test delivery drones from a warehouse in the Mission District.
The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Jackie Fielder, was scheduled for review by the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee in mid-December 2025 and focuses on a DoorDash-leased facility at 1960 Folsom Street.
The site sits within an industrial zone designed to protect production and distribution activity.
The issue has drawn attention because it highlights how local governments regulate the ground-based operations that support new technologies, even when those technologies are overseen federally.
While the Federal Aviation Administration controls drone flight safety and airspace, San Francisco retains authority over zoning and land use.
The proposal uses that authority to introduce additional review requirements, raising broader questions about how cities balance innovation, neighborhood impacts, and job preservation.
The legislation would establish an 18-month interim zoning control requiring certain activities classified as “laboratory uses” to obtain Conditional Use approval in parts of the city’s Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) zoning districts.
Conditional Use approvals typically involve public hearings and allow the city to impose conditions on how a site operates.
DoorDash’s Mission District warehouse falls within one of the affected zones. The proposal does not name the company directly but would apply to any similar use during the interim period.
San Francisco has used interim zoning controls in the past to pause development activity while policymakers evaluate whether permanent rule changes are needed.
That ruling resolved a narrow question about how current zoning definitions apply but did not prevent lawmakers from revisiting the broader policy framework.
Interim zoning controls are often used in such situations to give officials time to reassess regulations without immediately overturning prior decisions.
Reaction to the proposal reflects a familiar San Francisco tension between encouraging innovation and protecting industrial land and jobs.
Supporters of the measure argue that PDR zoning exists to safeguard space for production, distribution, and blue-collar employment, and they warn that expanding drone-based delivery could, over time, reduce demand for traditional courier work.
Labor groups have framed the issue as one of long-term workforce stability rather than immediate operational changes.
On the other side, business and technology advocates caution that tighter rules on laboratory or testing uses could have consequences beyond drone delivery.
They argue that research, prototyping, and other emerging technologies often rely on industrial spaces, and that additional permitting requirements could slow experimentation across sectors.
DoorDash has maintained that its planned testing is limited in scale and designed to operate within existing federal and local regulations.
For residents near the Mission District site, the proposal’s immediate effect would be procedural. Conditional Use hearings typically open the door to public input and allow the city to impose site-specific conditions, such as limits on operating hours or on-site activity.
For customers, there would be no change to current DoorDash services, as drone delivery remains experimental and is not part of the company’s regular offering in San Francisco.
Taken together, the issue is less about near-term disruption and more about how the city chooses to manage new technology within long-standing industrial zoning rules, with regulatory delay not service changes, the most likely short-term outcome.
Commercial drone operations in the United States are governed by federal aviation rules that set standards for pilot certification and flight safety.
Those rules do not address how cities manage the buildings, warehouses, or launch sites that support drone programs.
San Francisco’s proposal focuses on land use rather than flight operations.
By requiring Conditional Use approval for certain activities in industrial zones, the city is exercising authority commonly used to manage compatibility between neighboring uses.
No. The measure would temporarily require additional local approvals for certain testing activities in specific industrial zones. It does not prohibit drone flights citywide.
DoorDash leased the Folsom Street facility as a base for drone-related testing. Its location in a PDR zone makes it subject to industrial land-use rules designed to limit non-industrial activity.
A Conditional Use approval is a discretionary permit that follows a public hearing. It allows the city to approve a use while imposing conditions to address neighborhood or policy concerns.
The measure must move through the Board of Supervisors’ committee process and then receive approval from the full board and the mayor to take effect.
The interim zoning proposal is set for committee review, where supervisors may choose to advance the measure, amend its scope, or hold it for further discussion.
If the committee moves it forward, the proposal would require approval by the full Board of Supervisors and the mayor before it could take effect.
If adopted, the interim rule would apply for 18 months. During that period, companies affected by the change could seek Conditional Use approvals through the city’s public hearing process or wait until the interim controls expire.
Beyond the immediate procedural steps, the debate reflects a broader policy question about how San Francisco uses zoning and land-use laws to manage emerging delivery technologies.
The decision carries implications for residents near industrial districts, workers concerned about automation and job security, and companies developing new delivery models.
It also illustrates how local governments can influence innovation through ground-level regulation, even as airspace remains under federal authority, potentially shaping future approaches to technology, employment, and urban planning.
