Most of those are well intentioned laws to fix actual problems, but the lawmakers didn't take into consideration that not all developments would have those problems. The parking thing is a good example. It basically just says you need to have a space for most people in the building to park so they don't fill up the street parking for the entire block all of the time. A very valuable rule for suburban development where most units will have at least one vehicle. Not so necessary for downtown units where most of the apartments won't own a vehicle.
Or there are just cases where the developer is complaining about having to build parking, but if they had built the building as they wanted the parking would have been a total nightmare, not only for residents but also for everybody else in the neighborhood. In other words they're being forced to consider the actual cost of their actions instead of pushing them off on the community and pocketing the profits like in the good old days.
If you could designate a building "car free", and have all local street parking be permit parking, AND don't hand out permits to people living in "car free" buildings, it seems like it would fix the problem. But I don't know how practical it is to do this.
The city is in charge of handing out parking permits. When you apply for a permit they check their list of "car free" buildings. If you're in a car free building your application is denied. Aside from filing an extra form with the city, the developer saves tens of thousands of dollars per space: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-cr...
