San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie unveiled a citywide plan on June 10 to ban RVs from parking for more than two hours. Framed as an effort to “reclaim public space” and reduce vehicular homelessness, the ordinance introduces a new permit for residents enrolled in housing services.
On June 17, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA) Board voted 6-1 to approve the “Large Vehicle Refuge Permit,” a key step toward enforcing the citywide RV parking restrictions. The second part of the ordinance — the infraction of the two-hour parking limit — now heads to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.
As of press time, a hearing date has not been scheduled, but the legislation is expected to be referred to the Land Use and Transportation Committee or the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee before advancing to the supervisors for a vote.
At the board hearing, one RV resident — who asked to remain anonymous — spoke through tears, calling the legislation dangerous amid a surge of ICE raids targeting workplaces, schools and homes across the country. “We are being jeopardized by the raids and the removal of our RVs,” she said.
SFMTA Vice Chair Stephanie Cajina was the lone dissenting vote, echoing the fears of working-class immigrant communities facing both housing displacement and immigration enforcement.
But despite these concerns, the time limits on RVs are backed by multiple supervisors and city departments, who say the proposal is a compassionate intervention that will offer housing subsidies, outreach services and a six-month permit for RV residents actively seeking housing.
“This approach to tackling vehicular homelessness is grounded in compassion and coordination,” said Shireen McSpadden, Executive Director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH). “By offering a bridge to prevention, housing and social services, we are addressing the root causes of vehicular homelessness and fostering a pathway out of homelessness for those in need.”
But internal emails and public records reviewed by El Tecolote show that many of the tactics outlined — time limits, towing threats, overnight parking bans and limited housing subsidies — have already been used to displace vehicle residents. Housing advocates say the new law would codify a pattern of reactive parking enforcement that has left many families without shelter, and often without their only remaining asset: their vehicle.
“S.F. is facing an affordability crisis, and people who are mostly people of color, immigrant, working, retired, disabled are attempting to shelter themselves by living in RV’s,” said Jennifer Friedenbach of the Coalition on Homelessness in a press release. “They have been consistently harassed, towed, and evicted simply because of their economic status and the look of their vehicles.”
Support El Tecolote’s watchdog journalism.
We’re a small, dedicated team committed to informing, uplifting and defending working-class and immigrant communities. Your contribution goes directly toward reporter wages and the costs of producing investigative stories like this one.
How the ban would work — and its major limitations
The proposed legislation amends two key sections of San Francisco’s transportation code, which govern the use of large vehicles.
SFMTA staff have approved updates to Section 7.2.84, which regulates commercial large vehicles. Currently, the code limits parking to one hour and prohibits overnight stays for vehicles that exceed a certain weight. The revised version would extend the limit to two hours and redefine restricted vehicles by size, targeting those over 22 feet long or 7 feet tall. Violating the updated parking code could result in a tow.
But state law limits how cities can define commercial vehicles. Under California law, only the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has the authority to determine what qualifies and needs to be registered as a commercial vehicle. The DMV and California Vehicle Code § 260 defines it as a vehicle that is primarily used “to transport property or people for hire, compensation, or profit.” While a city can regulate vehicle movement, it cannot change legal definitions set by the state.
This means San Francisco’s attempt to treat RVs as commercial vehicles for the purpose of towing may not be legally enforceable — a tactic previously challenged in Berkeley that repealed its RV ban in 2022.
Under current law, parking code 7.2.54 restricts overnight parking for oversized vehicles, including RVs, trailers and fifth wheels, on designated streets with posted parking signs. Violations result in citations, but not towing. The block-by-block approach has not been cheap. According to SFMTA, it cost about $350,000 just to implement signage and designate staff to displace a large RV community like the one on Winston Drive.
The new proposal would replace those rules with a citywide two-hour parking limit for large vehicles, unless the vehicle is commercial or has a permit.
But questions about the feasibility of 24/7 enforcement still remain.
“As always, this program depends on adequate supply of off-street ‘safe parking’ and/or supportive/healthy housing – can’t move folks off the street if there’s no place to offer them,” wrote SFMTA’s policy analyst Andy Thornley in a memo on April 19 to senior staff. “Add another regulation that we cannot enforce?”
Hundreds need help, but only a few will qualify
City data shows that as of May, more than 500 RVs are being used as shelter across the city. Many residents face steep barriers to housing: caregiving responsibilities, disability, fear of institutional settings or long waitlists. About 55% of the RV population lives in the Bayview (District 10), while 25% live near Lake Merced (District 7), according to an HSH presentation.
Jessica C., an asylum seeker from Mexico, lives in an RV near Lake Merced with her youngest son and two guinea pigs, Pepe and Greñas. She said she and her family ended up there after being evicted from a shared house where she had been the master tenant. When her roommates couldn’t pay their share of the rent, Jessica couldn’t afford the full amount on her own.
Her RV has a propane stove but no running water or electricity. Despite being on waitlists for months with Catholic Charities and Compass, she has not secured shelter.
“I thought the fact that we didn’t have legal status was what was getting in the way,” said Jessica. “There are people who have papers, whose children were born here, and who are in the same situation as we are.”
As of May 22, there are 295 families on the waitlist for shelter, representing approximately 872 people.
Those who have secured an emergency bed or private room often rely on shelters for months, while they hope to secure a housing subsidy. Given the recently reinstated 90 day length-of-stay limits, many families have to continue applying for extensions every month, which they say becomes a heavy stressor on top of their search for more consistent work.
The mayor has proposed $13 million over two years to fund rapid rehousing, outreach and vehicle disposal. But it remains unclear how many people will qualify for those programs, or what happens to those left out.
At this stage, the proposed legislation would:
- Ban RVs over 22 feet long or 7 feet tall from parking more than two hours anywhere in the city
- Offer 115 rapid rehousing subsidies for families and funding for 130 hotel vouchers
- Introduce a voluntary vehicle buyback program to dispose of RVs
- Launch a “refuge permit” for six months to RV residents enrolled in city housing services
- Compliance with the “Good Neighbor Policy,” which is yet to be defined
- Enforce parking through police-supported SFMTA operations coordinated by the Large Vehicle Task Force
Initial enforcement would start in “high-impact” neighborhoods, led by street teams from the Department of Emergency Management (DEM). While HSH will lead outreach, SFMTA and SFPD will oversee citations and tows, especially for those without a valid permit or who decline shelter offers.
The permit can be extended once for up to six months. However, a last-minute amendment by SFMTA Board Director Mike Chen allows additional extensions at the discretion of the Director of Transportation, Julie Kirschbaum, in consultation with HSH. Additionally, SFMTA staff will “make reasonable efforts” to give 72 hours’ notice before revoking a permit. An appeals process for both the issuance and revocation of permits is expected to become available.
However, city officials have not yet defined what it means to be “actively engaged” in services or how issuing permits will be prioritized. The plan also doesn’t explain how enforcement will be balanced with housing subsidies, how outreach workers will build trust in a system many vehicle residents fear, or whether anyone will be allowed to remain parked on the streets if alternatives offered are not workable.
Even if all 245 subsidies and vouchers went to RV residents, they would cover fewer than half of the households currently living in vehicles.
A familiar playbook with legal limits
While the mayor’s plan is pitched as a new approach, it mirrors tactics used to displace a tight-knit Latinx RV community from Winston Drive in 2024.
That effort, led by Supervisor Myrna Melgar, imposed four-hour parking restrictions that forced families out, even though SFMTA staff warned enforcement would be difficult.
Public records obtained by El Tecolote show city officials weaponized parking codes and construction projects as tools to move RV residents out of the Lake Merced neighborhood.
“Bear in mind that this enforcement will not result in towing,” SFMTA liaison Joél Ramos wrote in a July 2024 email. “It is the Supervisor’s hope that the threat and/or issuance of parking citations alone will result in people moving the RVs.”
But that tactic has run into legal obstacles. In 2023, a state court ruled that towing for unpaid citations without a warrant is unconstitutional. Today, even if RVs rack up citations, the city cannot tow them.
City records also show logistical limitations on enforcement. In September 2024, SFMTA’s communications advisor Andrea Buffa, acknowledged in an email that certain overnight parking bans weren’t being enforced in the city due to lack of police staffing, raising questions about the feasibility of around-the-clock restrictions proposed in Lurie’s legislation.
Other internal emails reveal that some parking laws used to target RV residents weren’t designed for this purpose. One example, the 72-hour rule can be reset by moving just “a few feet,” wrote SFMTA policy analyst Andy Thornley in a March 2025 email.
Several SFMTA staff echoed concerns about its misuse: “The purpose of [the] 72-hour rule is to ensure vehicles are not abandoned,” wrote SFMTA’s Chadwick Lee. “I do not believe it’s applicable in this case.”
Conditional help leaves many RV residents at risk
While the permit is presented as a solution, advocates warn it creates a system of compliance-based relief, with little guarantee of long-term stability.
The proposed “Large Vehicle Refuge Permit” may offer temporary relief for those who qualify, but it comes with strict limits. The permit is valid for six months or a housing offer is made — whichever comes first — and can only be extended once. A single violation of any condition, such as failing to engage in services, can trigger permit revocation.
It remains unclear how many times a person can decline a shelter offer before losing their permit, or whether permitted RVs must stay in specific areas. For RVs visiting town, officials have floated a visitor permit system similar to Residential Parking Permits, but enforcement plans are still vague.
Meanwhile, existing laws like Police Code Article 1.1, which criminalizes vehicle dwelling, may conflict with this new permit system unless repealed. But as Thornley noted in an email to HSH Director Emily Cohen, the law is rarely enforced because “it’s a misdemeanor offense that must be served on a person, not an infraction citation that can be placed on a windshield.”
Advocates say the policy amounts to conditional protection, a system where people must engage with city programs or risk citation and displacement.
“This is a very expensive proposal utilizing extensive public dollars from multiple city agencies, that not only breaks trust with unhoused people by having a police-led response, but also wastes considerable public resources that could be spent on housing,” said Paul Boden of the Western Regional Advocacy Project. “This is coming at a time when multiple cities are attempting to disappear unhoused people in advance of massive federal cuts.”
Supervisor Myrna Melgar supports the new legislation but acknowledged past failures. “An offer of temporary shelter is not an alternative to living in a vehicle,” she said in a written response to El Tecolote’s RV investigation. “The alternative is affordable, safe housing.”
Meanwhile, community leaders say the new legislation targets vulnerable RV residents with inadequate safeguards and support.
“We urge the city to create solutions that address the root causes of homelessness, to protect RV residents’ right to safe parking and bring them viable and sufficient housing offers that do not come at the expense of others in dire need,” said Gabriel Medina, Executive Director of La Raza Community Resource Center.
“I am especially concerned that this ordinance violates the spirit of our sanctuary ordinance, given many RV residents are immigrants and this would send them out of town and further into hiding.”
Mariana Duran contributed to this report.
