The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a sweeping set of ordinances on Tuesday, finalizing the city’s $15.9 billion budget for the next two fiscal years. While Supervisor Connie Chan, chair of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, described the result as a “balanced proposal” that protects housing investments, advocates say the measures will deepen hardship for low-income and immigrant communities.
Among the changes: controversial restrictions on RV parking; fee increases that could burden street vendors and working-class residents; amendments to Prop C rules that shift control over homelessness spending; and a philanthropic grant for immigration defense.
Citywide RV parking restrictions approved
The Board passed Ordinance 250655 in a 9–2 vote, imposing a strict two-hour parking limit on large vehicles, including RVs, across the city. The new law affects hundreds of residents, many of them working-class Latino families, who rely on RVs as their only form of housing.
Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who co-authored the measure, framed the ordinance as a response to years of system failures in housing outreach and safety enforcement. She described how families in her district were overlooked due to language barriers and were often forced to rent unsafe, unregulated RVs parked on city streets.
“Many of these families were just poor and didn’t speak English and were newcomers to our country,” Melgar said, adding that language barriers de-prioritized them in the city’s shelter and housing services.
Melgar emphasized the environmental hazards posed by generators and gasoline storage in areas near dry vegetation and water sources.
The legislation includes several new mechanisms: $13 million over two years for rapid rehousing subsidies, a six-month renewable “refuge permit” for vehicle residents who follow sanitation and community guidelines a vehicle buyback program to help residents transition out of RV living, and coordination between agencies to monitor placements and recover street space.
Supervisor Shamann Walton, one of two dissenters alongside Jackie Fielder, denounced the measure as unrealistic and punitive. He cited the April closure of the Bayview Vehicle Triage Center at Candlestick Point — which cost $2.9 million annually to serve just 35 RVs — as evidence that even well-funded programs like Candlestick Point failed to transition residents into stable housing.
“There was a failure to transfer folks from vehicles into homes,” Walton said. “Now, all of a sudden, those homes are available? I think not.”
He warned that without sufficient shelter capacity or clarity on implementation, the ordinance would simply displace people from the only homes they have while overlooking and de-prioritizing unhoused people living on the streets.
“This is a plan to criminalize people who don’t have stable brick and mortar homes,” he said. “To say someone living in a vehicle does not have a home is malicious when they have no other form of shelter.”
Calling the plan “unattainable,” Walton urged the Board not to support mass evictions under the guise of public safety, especially when the units needed to house RV occupants don’t yet exist.
Supervisor Connie Chan, who supported the measure, acknowledged the controversy and said she would closely track implementation via monthly progress reports.
“These guarantees do not mean that we should simply trust the process,” Chan said. “We must continue to hold city departments accountable for an ongoing compassionate approach, results-driven solutions.”
She urged transparency and ongoing adjustments through the refuge permit system and short-term parking exemptions to prevent abrupt displacement.
Budget changes increase fees and reshape public programs
As part of a broader vote on budget-related “trailing legislation,” the Board unanimously approved a restructuring and increase of a range of city fees. These included updates to health inspection charges, new fees for public toilet access and Rec and Park services, and changes to sidewalk use rules.
While permitted businesses will benefit from reduced bureaucracy, unpermitted vendors — many of them immigrant street sellers — still face enforcement with little clarity on pathways to compliance.
Chair of the Budget Committee, Supervisor Connie Chan, defended the fee measures as difficult but essential to meet projected revenue:
“No one wants to increase fees,” she said. “But without these, the budget doesn’t work.”
She emphasized that these adjustments, while not ideal, are necessary to balance the city’s financial plan, and that each fee increase contributes to funding city services, including housing and enforcement programs.
Changes to Prop C raise transparency concerns
The Board amended how San Francisco administers Proposition C, the voter-approved business tax that funds homelessness services. The revision temporarily lowers the threshold for reallocating Prop C funds, allowing up to $19 million in changes by a simple majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote through 2027.
Advocates warn the change will divert funds away from permanent supportive housing — the long-term solution for chronic homelessness — and into short-term shelter programs. The shift raises alarm for those who say it undercuts the original voter intent behind Prop C.
Supervisors Fielder, Walton, and Chyanne Chen opposed the change, warning it could weaken accountability and erode democratic oversight.
“If collaboration means steamrolling local democracy, count me out,” Fielder said, calling the measure a reversal of the checks and balances necessary to maintain the balance of governmental powers.
Chan, who led budget negotiations, defended the compromise as a needed fix to avoid bureaucratic delays.
“I know that these amendments represented a balanced proposal,” she said. “Instead of holding up these sorely needed funds with a parliamentary debate, I want to see this fund spent now.”
The measure passed 8–3.
$3.4 million immigration defense grant approved
In a rare bright spot, the Board unanimously approved Item 15, accepting a $3.4 million philanthropic grant from the Crankstart Foundation for the Public Defender’s Immigration Defense Unit. The funding will support three new attorneys and a legal assistant through 2029.
Supervisor Jackie Fielder welcomed the support but emphasized the city’s dependence on philanthropy.
“This does not represent city funding to community immigration legal defense services,” she said. “It represents a donation by a foundation for the public defender’s office … I support this, but these are two different things. City funding for immigration legal defense services was kept at a baseline.”
She added that the need for ongoing public investment remains urgent.
Supervisors demand answers on ICE coordination
Supervisors Chen and Fielder introduced new measures to bolster immigrant protections and investigate potential law enforcement collaboration with ICE.
Chen introduced a resolution affirming due process rights and calling for clear SFPD and Sheriff protocols amid rising ICE activity and impersonation reports.
“ICE operations have escalated over the past months,” Chen said. “In addition to the escalation of detentions and deportation in the United States, there has been a massive spike in law enforcement impersonations in which non-federal agents pretend to be ICE operatives to spread fears, hate, and chaos.”
Fielder announced a formal inquiry into SFPD and the Sheriff’s Office following a San Francisco Standard investigation that revealed that the departments shared license plate reader information with multiple federal agencies in violation of city and state sanctuary law.
“I have questions on the cost of deploying SFPD officers and sheriffs to protests, surveillance of demonstrators, protocols for protecting protesters during interactions with ICE, and the steps, if any, that law enforcement takes to verify the identity of federal agents to thwart impersonators,” she said.
What’s next?
The July 15 votes marked the first full budget cycle under Mayor Lurie’s administration. While some city officials call it a “balanced” blueprint for recovery , critics argue the city’s latest policies lean more toward law enforcement than investment, raising costs for vulnerable residents while promising limited relief, and reducing resources for the departments and organizations meant to support the most vulnerable.