San Francisco Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (February 3, 2026)

The Board of Supervisors met on February 3, 2026 (regular meeting; proceedings referenced times including 2:20 p.m., 2:30 p.m. special order, and multiple 3:00 p.m. special orders). All 11 supervisors were present at roll call; Supervisor Cheryl was later excused for the remainder of the meeting due to other obligations. Major actions included final passage of multiple ordinances, approval of grant acceptances and major contracts, creation of a downtown tax-increment financing district, submission of a June 2, 2026 charter amendment on lifetime term limits to voters, and three major appeal hearings (a parcel map appeal tied to an SB35 senior housing project; a CEQA appeal of the SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan EIR; and an appeal of a conditional use permit for autonomous-vehicle fleet charging that the sponsor withdrew). The meeting also featured Black History Month commendations and extensive general public comment focused on gender-affirming care and tenant displacement after the December 12, 2025 fire at 50 Golden Gate.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1–8: Approved on consent with 11-0 (noted as “There are 11 ayes”); the ordinances on consent were finally passed.

Unfinished Business

• Items 9–10 (Capital Expenditure Plan & GO Bond Election):
  • Item 9 amended reporting for the capital expenditure plan to shift reporting from odd years to even years, with the next report due March 1, 2028.
  • Item 10 called a special election on Tuesday, June 2, 2026 for a proposition to incur up to $535 million in general obligation bond debt for ESER facilities, and consolidated that special election.
  • Supervisor Wong cited USGS: a 72% chance of a magnitude 6.7+ earthquake in the region within 30 years, and argued the bond would help fund seismic work including the Taraval Police Station (described as over 110 years old).
  • Both items were finally passed without objection.

Discussion Items

• Item 11 (Hydrogen fueling station permitting / Building Code): Finally passed 9-2, with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

• Item 12 (Charter amendment—Mayor/Supervisor term limits: consecutive → lifetime; June 2, 2026 election):

  • Supervisor Walton asked whether California Government Code §36502 (1996) requiring term-limit changes to apply prospectively would constrain San Francisco.
  • Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi stated the statute does not apply to San Francisco due to home rule authority; San Francisco could apply lifetime limits to current and past officeholders.
  • The charter amendment was ordered submitted to voters on June 2, 2026 by a vote of 7-4 (no votes included Walton, Chan, Chen, Mandelman per the roll call as transcribed).

• Item 13 (Access Line Tax applied to VoIP): Passed on first reading, 11-0.

• Items 14–15 (Mayor’s Office grants):

  • Item 14: $7 million Bloomberg Philanthropies grant to fund the Mayor’s Office of Innovation (Jan 1, 2026–Dec 31, 2028) and create four grant-funded full-time positions (classes 0931, 1053, 1054, 1043) in the Office of the City Administrator.
  • Item 15: $700,000 Tipping Point Community grant (retroactive authorization) for a Director of Strategic Partnerships (Jan 20, 2026–July 1, 2028).
  • Supervisor Chan moved to amend Item 14 to make it retroactive (seconded by Dorsey). Item 14 passed on first reading and Item 15 was adopted without objection.

• Items 16–18 (India Basin Shoreline Park grants—Rec & Park): Adopted without objection.

  • Item 16: ~$1.1 million Measure AA grant; requires continued public recreation operation for 20 years after completion.
  • Item 17: $2 million EPA Brownfield Cleanup Program grant; term estimated Oct 1, 2025–Oct 31, 2029.
  • Item 18: ~$3 million grant increase from CA State Coastal Conservancy for new total ~$8.6 million.

• Item 19 (SFMTA towing contract—Texco LLC): Approved 10th amendment increasing contract by $22.1 million to total $158.8 million; extended term 9 months plus up to six 1-month extensions; potential term Apr 1, 2016–Jun 30, 2027. Adopted without objection.

• Item 20 (Downtown Revitalization & Economic Recovery Financing District / EIFD):

  • Action established the district, approved the financing plan (division of taxes), and authorized filing a judicial validation action.
  • Concerns raised:
    • Supervisor Fielder opposed, stating the plan “diverts $610 million in taxpayer revenue into private hands” for market-rate development and exempts the first 1.5 million square feet of conversions from affordability requirements; stated it could incentivize luxury apartments.
    • Supervisor Chan opposed, citing lack of transparency about the “48 properties” referenced in analysis; stated projected $610 million over 45 years and uncertainty about General Fund impacts; voted no.
    • Supervisor Chen opposed, stating the 5% below-market-rate requirement was “irresponsible,” and said promised community conversations about affordable housing/community stabilization had not occurred.
  • Support/defense:
    • Supervisor Dorsey supported; stated program sunsets in 2032, projects must be approved by the district board, and annual reporting is required.
    • Supervisor Sauter supported; framed choice as “empty offices” vs “new homes,” and stated state legislative groundwork (Phil Ting).
    • Supervisor Melgar supported; argued downtown historically ~60% of tax base and changes in retail (pre-pandemic) necessitate action; noted plan only works if assessments increase.
  • Property-list dispute:
    • Supervisor Walton asked why the 48 candidate properties could not be identified.
    • OEWD (Jacob Bentliff) said consultants produced only a high-level estimate, not a site-specific list; number came from an exercise based on factors like building age, vacancy, class, and floorplates.
  • Vote: Adopted 7-4 with no votes from Walton, Chan, Fielder (and one additional “no” in the roll call as transcribed).

2:30 p.m. Special Order — Commendations

• District 10 (Supervisor Walton) commended Paul Belezane Jr., community leader/CEO providing transitional housing and youth anti-violence/softball mentorship programs.
• District 5 (Supervisor Mahmood) commended Victoria “Vicki” Lee for 47 years at Glide Memorial Church; remarks by Marvin K. White, Minister of Celebration.
• District 4 (Supervisor Wong) commended St. Ignatius College Preparatory Wildcats for the school’s first state football championship; remarks by team captain David DeLucci/DeLuke (as transcribed).

Additional Legislative Actions (Selected)

• Item 21 (DPH contract—HealthRight 360): Adopted 10-0 (with Supervisor Wong noted absent at vote). Extended term to July 1, 2024–June 30, 2028; increased by ~$28.6 million to total $38.6 million.

• Item 22 (Waterfront Resilience Program—Jacobs Engineering): Approved professional services agreement $40 million for 5 years (Mar 2, 2026–Mar 1, 2031) with a 5-year extension option.

• Item 23 (Port emergency declaration—Pier 68 Dry Dock #2): Emergency repairs estimated $10 million; adopted without objection.

• Item 24 (State Pro-Housing Incentive Program grant): $1.5 million grant; adopted without objection.

• Item 25 (Planning Code—allow parking up to two operable vehicles in certain driveway areas): Passed on first reading without objection. Supervisor Wong supported as a practical change for west-side neighborhoods; noted unanimous Planning Commission support.

• Item 31 (Tenderloin Retail Hours Restriction Pilot expansion to Tenderloin and parts of SoMa; extend pilot):

  • Would expand restricted-area rules prohibiting certain retail establishments from being open to the public 12:00 a.m.–5:00 a.m. (or 2:00 a.m.–5:00 a.m. for ABC-regulated businesses) and extend duration to 18 months from the ordinance’s effective date (replacing prior expiration of July 2026).
  • Supervisor Fielder opposed, stating it scapegoats small businesses and may displace crime.
  • Supervisor Dorsey supported, citing an independent study finding a 56% reduction in drug-related crime and stating it found “no evidence of displacement.”
  • Supervisor Mahmood supported; cited the same 56% reduction and emphasized the measure as temporary.
  • Supervisor Walton opposed, citing revenue loss and lack of a mitigation plan for impacted businesses.
  • Vote: Passed on first reading, 8-2 (no votes: Walton, Fielder).

Appeal Hearings (3:00 p.m. Special Orders)

SB35 Parcel Map Appeal — 3333 Mission St / 190 Coleridge St (Items 33–36)

• Subject: DPW decision (Nov 7, 2025) approving a tentative parcel map for a three-lot vertical subdivision tied to a mixed-use condominium configuration (described as 5 residential and 10 commercial condos) at 3333 Mission and 190 Coleridge.
• Appellants’ positions:
  • Don Lucchese and neighbors stated they support affordable senior housing but opposed a proposed park reduction described as over 42% smaller; cited a neighborhood petition with 360 signatures and said SB35 limited meaningful negotiation.
  • Supporters of appeal raised: park value to community, traffic/loading-zone turnaround concerns on one-way Coleridge, and desire to “rezone the park parcel” to increase open space.
• City department testimony:
  • Public Works (Elias French) said subdivision review is technical and does not cover park/building design; map complied with Subdivision Map Act.
  • Planning (Audrey Maloney/Muriloni) stated the subdivision does not reduce park size itself; it reflects reconfiguration already approved under SB35; state law (SB35/SB423) limits local discretion.
  • City Attorney (Brad Russi) stated Board’s review is limited to map compliance.
• Sponsor testimony:
  • BHNC CEO Gina Dacus supported project, describing 70 units of 100% affordable senior housing, a 1,000 sq. ft. community room, and park redesign preserving 3,885 sq. ft. of park space while removing 2,835 sq. ft. of “concrete and bushes”; stated park is privately operated and closed since 2020 due to safety/maintenance.
  • Land use counsel Lauren Chang argued the appeal was time-barred under SB35 timelines and inconsistent with streamlined ministerial approval.
• Board action:
  • Supervisor Fielder moved to approve DPW decision (Item 34) and table Items 35–36; emphasized design issues are not within appeal scope.
  • Vote: 11-0 to approve Item 34 and table Items 35–36.

CEQA Appeal — SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP) Final EIR (Items 37–40)

• Appellant: City of Palo Alto (Rick Jarvis, CEQA counsel) argued the EIR failed to analyze future (2045) aircraft noise impacts over Palo Alto and challenged the EIR’s use of a 2045 baseline.
• Public comment in support:
  • Jennifer Landesman (Palo Alto resident) described lived impacts since flight-path changes around 2014–2015 and criticized lack of monitoring/roundtable participation.
• Planning Department response:
  • Planning (Kei Zushi) stated RADP is a 20-year plan through 2045; EIR is programmatic; project does not change runway capacity or flight paths (FAA-controlled) and thus does not induce additional aircraft operations.
  • Planning referenced SB 131 (2025) regarding improper CEQA use for delay/competitive leverage.
• Airport/project sponsor:
  • SFO Environmental Affairs Manager Audrey Park described SFO as 13th busiest U.S. airport, serving 50+ million passengers, contributing $58 million to SF General Fund in FY 2024–25, and planning for facilities sized to 71 million passengers; emphasized no runway changes.
  • Recondo (Steve Culberson) stated runway capacity is the constraint; cited historical operations ~470,000 annually and capacity ~505,000 annually.
• Board action:
  • Motion to affirm Planning Commission certification (Item 38) and table Items 39–40.
  • Vote: 10-0 (with Supervisor Cheryl excused) to approve Item 38 and table Items 39–40.

Conditional Use Appeal — 825 Sansome St Fleet EV Charging (Items 41–44)

• Sponsor withdrawal: Tesla confirmed it was withdrawing and not proceeding.
• Appellant: represented by Peter Ziblatt (and Mark Gleason for Teamsters), argued fleet charging/autonomous taxi charging has externalities and warranted conditional-use scrutiny; stated location near Jackson Square/Barbary Coast was inappropriate.
• Board action:
  • Supervisor Sauter moved to grant the appeal and disapprove the CU authorization (Item 43, 8-vote threshold) because the project was no longer active; tabled Items 42 and 44.
  • Vote: 10-0 (Supervisor Cheryl excused) to approve Item 43 (as amended) and table Items 42 and 44.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Gender-affirming care (Item 49 later adopted): Multiple speakers from San Francisco Community Health Center, Lyon-Martin Community Health Services, nurses, parents/advocates, and transgender youth urged passage of a resolution reaffirming access to gender-affirming care and criticized health systems’ perceived preemptive service reductions; several requested that the resolution be paired with tangible budget and policy actions.
• Fire displacement (Item 51 later adopted): Numerous displaced tenants from 50 Golden Gate urged stronger city displacement assistance, higher asset limits (speakers contrasted the existing $30,000 asset cap with a proposed $130,000 Medi-Cal limit for an individual), more staffing, and language access; speakers also called for holding the property manager/owner accountable.
• Additional general public comment included concerns about public safety and fentanyl impacts, and calls for youth violence prevention investments.

Key Outcomes

• Consent items (1–8): Approved 11-0.
• Capital plan reporting shift + GO bond election: Items 9–10 finally passed; bond measure up to $535 million set for June 2, 2026 special election.
• Hydrogen fueling station permitting: Item 11 finally passed 9-2 (Chan, Fielder no).
• Lifetime term limits charter amendment: Item 12 submitted to voters (June 2, 2026) on a 7-4 vote.
• Downtown EIFD: Item 20 adopted 7-4, with debate centered on projected $610 million diversion over 45 years, affordability exemptions (including 1.5 million sq. ft.), and transparency about “48 properties.”
• SB35 map appeal (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge): Board approved DPW decision and tabled disapproval motions 11-0, concluding design concerns were outside the map appeal’s legal scope.
• SFO RADP EIR appeal: Board affirmed the EIR certification 10-0 (Cheryl excused).
• 825 Sansome conditional use appeal: Board disapproved the CU authorization after Tesla withdrew, 10-0 (Cheryl excused).
• Tenderloin/SoMa Retail Hours Restriction Pilot expansion: Item 31 passed first reading 8-2.
• Adoption Without Committee Reference:
  • Item 49: Resolution reaffirming access to gender-affirming care adopted (amended to direct transmittal to leadership of Sutter Health, Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Health, Stanford Medicine).
  • Item 51: Resolution urging strengthened fire displacement response adopted.
  • Item 52: Supported AB 1633 (private detention facility tax; revenues to Due Process for All Fund); adopted.
  • Item 53: Black History Month resolution adopted.
• In Memoriam: Meeting adjourned in memory of Michael B. Freeman, longtime SFGovTV production/operations supervisor (requested by Board President Mandelman on behalf of the full Board).