DoorDash delivery drones would be grounded under SF proposal

A fight over how and where tech companies operate in the Mission is heating up, reminiscent of battles that have flared up in the neighborhood during previous booms.

Food delivery company DoorDash wants to expand its San Francisco service by testing airborne drones, but the plan could be delayed 18 months under legislation seeking to preserve industrial space and blue-collar jobs in the Mission District and surrounding neighborhoods.

The Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee on Monday voted unanimously to support legislation by Supervisor Jackie Fielder that would require a special permit for some kinds of “laboratory” uses in industrial areas of the Mission District, Dogpatch and Potrero Hill. 

The legislation, which needs approval from the full board, comes a month after the city’s Board of Appeals upheld a ruling confirming that current zoning allows DoorDash to test delivery drones at 1960 Folsom St., a 35,000-square-foot warehouse the company leased in August. While much of the test would happen in the warehouse, drones would also be flown outside.

Teamsters Local 665 had argued that outdoor drone testing doesn’t qualify as “laboratory use” under city zoning rules for DoorDash’s warehouse. The Teamsters are concerned that the drones will eventually replace well-paying union delivery jobs.

They warned that what begins as research could evolve into a drone operation whizzing through one of the city’s densest neighborhoods. The warehouse is adjacent to Casa Adalante, an affordable housing complex at 2828 16th St. The building was previously occupied by Canvas, a company that makes robots capable of hanging drywall.

Fielder said her legislation would provide a pause during which the city could study industrial  buildings and get a better sense of what uses are in place in the Eastern Neighborhoods, an area that was rezoned in 2009. While the rezoning allowed for dense housing in parts of Potrero Hill, Dogpatch and the east side of the Mission District, it also excluded housing and office space in areas that had traditionally been home to blue-collar businesses ranging from commercial printers to auto repair shops to plumbing supply warehouses.

A survey of industrial buildings in the area hasn’t been conducted in more than a decade, during which the life science industry, which is allowed under industrial zoning, has spread from Mission Bay into adjacent neighborhoods. 

Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who heads the committee, agreed that it was time to take inventory of the city’s industrial space and look at what companies and sectors it’s serving.

“Our research and development sector and the technology it produces moves so fast, much faster than our code,” said Melgar. “Sometimes the consequences of what happens on the ground is not quite what we intended so I think it’s perfectly appropriate that we revisit it once in a while.”

Fielder said the legislation “is not taking a position opposing these kinds of uses in the city.”

 “I am just asking that, given the influx of AI and automation into our best-paying immigrant job spaces, that we add some additional review for the next 18 months,” she said.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce expressed concerns about the legislation, and Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan and other tech executives took to social media to pan the proposal.

“If you live in San Francisco and want to make sure we keep R&D and laboratories legal in the city and in the Mission (uh wish I was joking but this is serious) You need to email your supervisor today,” he wrote.

The proposal is the second time in recent months that Fielder has pushed back against the tech industry. In November, she introduced a resolution urging state leaders to change how autonomous vehicles are regulated by enabling local governments to put the matter to voters. 

It’s unclear where Mayor Daniel Lurie, who has been welcoming to tech companies, stands on the legislation. A Lurie spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The clash over DoorDash is reminiscent of the battles over industrial and arts spaces that have flared up in the Mission during tech booms since the first dot-com frenzy in the late 1990s, as the neighborhood first became a magnet for startups. While a 2009 rezoning sought to protect space for blue-collar jobs, nonprofits and the arts, a 2016 study showed that the Mission and surrounding neighborhoods lost about a million square feet of such space in the five previous years. 

While pressure from fast-growing tech companies subsided during the post-pandemic slump, the current AI-fueled gold rush is once again putting pressure on what remains of the Mission District’s blue-collar businesses, Fielder said.  

Fielder told the Chronicle that a study of industrial buildings would allow a “thoughtful conversation about where we are putting new high-tech spaces like AI.” 

“It’s about how we can keep our limited blue-collar jobs for immigrant families in this part of the city while still incentivizing aligned tech uses to activate empty buildings in other parts of the city such as downtown,” Fielder said.

While the legislation doesn’t mention DoorDash or drones, that project has become an early test case of how the city planners will handle increasing number of artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing companies that have flocked to what some tech workers have dubbed “the Arena,” a quartet of neighborhoods comprising West SoMa, the Mission District, Potrero Hill and Dogpatch.  

David Harrison, director of public policy for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, declined to comment on the DoorDash situation but said the chamber has “concerns regarding how the legislation as written would apply more broadly.”

“That zone is a cluster of companies that are industries San Francisco wants to retain and grow, including important scientific research,” he said. 

The chamber has been working to get amendments to the legislation so that it wouldn’t harm other companies that do scientific research, Harrison said.

“There are companies that do vaccine research, companies that do cancer research. There are companies looking into sustainable agriculture and climate technology,” he said. “We don’t want to see conditional use requirements for them in the future.”

DoorDash did not respond to a request for comment by deadline but in previous statements and letters to city planners has insisted that the testing would be mostly indoors and done safely.

The company, which is testing drone delivery in other cities, previously said it plans to study how drones interact with ground infrastructure — not conduct flight operations — inside an 18,400-square-foot gated parking lot at the site. Jim O’Sullivan, the company’s head of drone strategy, told the board any future flights would comply with Federal Aviation Administration and state privacy regulations.

In a letter submitted to the city in July, DoorDash said testing would also occur on the outside parking lot during “normal business hours” and in accordance with federal regulations. 

“No more than two drones would be operated at the same time, and no individual flight would exceed 30 minutes in duration,” the letter states.

But for opponents of the DoorDash proposal, the legislation would at least slow down the testing of drones opposed by some public safety agencies and labor groups.

Sam Gebler, vice president of Firefighters Local 798, said: “Our No. 1 concern is the safety of our members and the safety of the public.

“A bunch of bowling balls flying around in the sky doesn’t sound great to firefighters. It just sounds like more work, to be honest, and more danger,” he said. 

High winds and the prevalence of power lines could knock drones off course and endanger residents, Gebler said. He called for the city to come up with “safety protocols and programs” to ensure any delivery drones are tested safely.

Mark Gleason of Teamsters Joint Council 7 said in a letter to the Planning Department that the drones, equipped with cameras, could be an invasion of privacy. He said the drones “weigh as much as a bowling ball” and that a mechanical failure at 150 feet would cause significant damage. 

“A crash in the Mission District does not mean a fire in an empty field; it means a high-intensity chemical fire on a wooden roof, a condo balcony or a crowded awning,” he said. “The Mission is not a ‘Laboratory’ and our members, their families and neighbors should not be turned into DoorDash’s guinea pigs.”

At the hearing, Scott Feeney, a tech worker who lives in the Mission near the DoorDash site, said he supported the city taking a fresh look at its industrial zones. With over 30% of office space vacant, he said the city could afford to have stricter zoning to preserve a diversity of jobs.

“Office vacancies are still very high in other markets, such as Mid-Market and downtown, there are places for AI companies to go where they are not out-competing (industrial) businesses and what we would think of as more traditional laboratory businesses,” he said.