Board rejects resolution supporting SB 1024 after debate over fines and role of mental‑health providers

A resolution to declare San Francisco’s support for California Senate Bill 1024 (SB 1024) failed during the May 8 meeting by a 7‑4 vote after supervisors debated elements of the bill.

Supervisor Katie Tang sponsored the resolution and said SB 1024 strengthens responses to animal cruelty and establishes mandatory mental‑health evaluation for certain cruelty offenses; Tang and supporters also cited studies linking animal cruelty histories and later violent acts in some cases. Tang referenced a letter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund clarifying that the bill raises the maximum fine from $1,000 to $2,000 but that courts would retain discretion in imposing fines.

Several supervisors voiced objections. Supervisor Mark Farrell (not present to vote) was not cited in the debate; supervisors who spoke against the resolution raised two principal concerns: the bill’s potential to increase monetary penalties that translate into larger mandatory fees under California law, disproportionately affecting low‑income people; and language that would give mental‑health providers authority tied to compliance, which critics said could be used to send people to jail for failing to comply with treatment. Supervisor London Breed, Supervisor Malia Cohen and Supervisor London Breed joined others in the “no” votes; Supervisor Norman Yee and Supervisor Aaron Peskin voted “aye.”

The clerk recorded 4 ayes and 7 no votes; the motion failed. Tang said she understood colleagues’ concerns and had circulated clarifying letters from the Animal Legal Defense Fund since some objections were based on misreadings. The board did not take further action on the underlying state bill at this meeting.