Mayor’s panda plans bogged down as supervisors question $25M fundraising ask

Mayor London Breed’s giant panda dreams are meeting some harsh political realities.



Citing concerns about potential conflicts of interest among the Mayor’s Office and major political donors, a three-person committee at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 Thursday morning to postpone Breed&#8217;s request to allow “behested payments” in her nascent efforts to raise $25 million for the San Francisco Zoo to host pandas leased from China.



The panda proposal stems from Breed’s April trip to China, where she secured an agreement to bring a pair of pandas to the city’s zoo. Housing and caring for the pandas is likely to cost the zoo tens of millions of dollars. Breed introduced a resolution to the board that would clear certain city departments to fundraise for a new enclosure and other needed infrastructure upgrades to the zoo.



Among these departments are the Recreation and Park Department, which owns the zoo, and the city-operated San Francisco International Airport and its commission. Breed’s resolution would allow these departments to receive unlimited donations, or behests, from individuals, charities or private-sector companies, even if donors have contracts or do business with the city.



Such an exemption from the city&#8217;s complex behested payment rules, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/06/17/how-sfs-anti-corruption-law-is-causing-fundraising-headaches-in-all-the-wrong-places-and-spurring-backlash-from-mayor-breed/">tightened in 2022</a> because of the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/02/01/san-francisco-city-hall-corruption-scandal-nuru/">Department of Public Works corruption scandal</a>, requires the Board of Supervisors’ approval. The proposed exemption would be only for panda purposes and would last six months, with the possibility of renewal.



At the Government Audit and Oversight Committee hearing Thursday, Breed&#8217;s Chief of Staff Sean Elsbernd said that no taxpayer dollars will be used for hosting the pandas, necessitating an aggressive fundraising campaign from the city.



“That&#8217;s why we continue to ensure only philanthropic [money] will go to support the pandas,” Elsbernd said.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5400" height="3600" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg?w=2500" alt="A giant panda walks through grass near wooden structures, looking toward the camera." class="wp-image-237864" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg 5400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/xiao-qi-ji-01.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5400px) 100vw, 5400px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">China agrees to send a pair of pandas to San Francisco. But the city still needs to fundraise tens of millions of dollars.</figcaption></figure>



However, with the city facing budget cuts, Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, who is running to replace Breed for mayor, criticized the timing and nature of her proposal as a distraction to the city’s pressing priorities.



Safaí said he supported the pandas coming to the city but questioned how leaders could justify the attention paid to such fundraising while the city is also cutting millions of dollars from the multibillion city budget and defunding many programs, which could hurt nonprofits, families and children.&nbsp;



“This is about prioritizing children over pandas,” the supervisor said. “This is about prioritizing our future.”



Some donors are already expressing interest. Elsbernd said that United Airlines has reached out about donating toward the pandas’ costs, but Breed’s office has to wait until the city passes an exemption because the airline has contracts with the airport.



Supervisors Connie Chan and Dean Preston questioned the mayor’s top aide about the potential for corruption if airport commissioners were allowed to ask for unlimited donations from airlines.&nbsp;



“Is it necessary to include airport commissioners?” Chan asked, emphasizing that the behested payment rules aim to stop potential &#8220;pay-to-play&#8221; schemes. Preston also demanded more transparency from the Mayor&#8217;s Office about which donors it plans to approach.



In a statement, Airport Commission President Malcolm Yeung, a Chinese American who went to China with Breed, said that San Francisco hosting pandas was the dream of many mayors and he’s excited to help make it a reality, but he agreed that the commission should stay out of the fundraising campaign.



“While I’m disappointed that I won’t be able to help in this way,” Yeung said. “I understand the need to remove an airport commissioner from the behesting exemption.”



Another concern centered on the zoo’s ability to care for the pandas properly, in light of investigative reports by the San Francisco Chronicle detailing incidents involving a dangerous working environment and the death of a penguin.



Elsbernd parried these questions by suggesting that zoological experts from China and federal authorities will have a chance to assess the zoo’s safety and conditions. The city is currently engaged in discussions involving multiple international partners regarding the technical requirements for the zoo to receive the pandas, he said.



The committee eventually voted to shelve the resolution temporarily, with Chan and Preston voting to postpone, while Supervisor Catherine Stefani, a Breed ally, voted against the delay. Preston, the chair of the committee, would not commit to bringing up the item in the next meeting.



After the vote, Breed&#8217;s office released a statement saying the delay of the issue is not uncommon, and the office will amend the resolution based on the supervisors&#8217; feedback.



“This is an exciting moment and opportunity for our city,” the statement said. “Mayor Breed will continue to work across city departments and with the Board of Supervisors to ensure the private funding needed can proceed.”



The city and the zoo have not yet released a timeline or specific costs for the pandas’ arrival, and the $25 million is just an estimated number, based on previous costs incurred by U.S. zoos that have hosted China’s national animal. Breed can only start the fundraising effort when the resolution passes the board.&nbsp;



Several prominent and wealthy Chinese American leaders have told The Standard that they are interested in donating to the cause but said it is still too early for them to start considering the sizes of their checks.

Oakland just changed its airport name. San Francisco is pissed

Oakland officials have approved changing the name of the city’s airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport, a controversial move that is ruffling feathers with its neighbor across the water and <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/04/08/san-francisco-oakland-airport-renaming-lawsuit/">could set up a fierce legal battle</a>.



Port of Oakland commissioners gave the official thumbs up in a unanimous vote on Thursday, doing away with the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport moniker to better advertise, in their view, the travel hub’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay and bring in more service. 



The site’s three-letter code, OAK, will stay the same.



&#8220;This is to boost Oakland,&#8221; said Danny Wan, executive director of the East Bay city&#8217;s port, during Thursday&#8217;s meeting. &#8220;This is to bring more business to Oakland.&#8221; 



Port spokesperson Robert Bernardo said the name change must go through a second reading among the commissioners for it to be officially implemented.



But the simple name swap, which is expected to cost $150,000 in operating expenses, could carry legal penalties.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1359" height="906" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/inlined04_20240115laborwar.jpg?w=1359" alt="Mayor London Breed talks with City Attorney David Chiu." class="wp-image-239378" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/inlined04_20240115laborwar.jpg 1359w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/inlined04_20240115laborwar.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/inlined04_20240115laborwar.jpg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1359px) 100vw, 1359px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Both Mayor London Breed and City Attorney David Chiu are pushing back against the Oakland airport name change.</figcaption></figure>



On Monday, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the city would sue to block the name change. 



<a href="https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CAO-Ltr-to-Port-of-Oakland-re-OAK-Renaming.pdf">In a letter</a>, Chiu argued that it would infringe on the trademark of San Francisco International Airport and confuse travelers, especially those coming from abroad.



&#8220;While the proposed new name is very likely to cause confusion and mistakes broadly, the problem will be particularly acute for an audience of international travelers who may not speak or read English,&#8221; Chiu wrote.&nbsp;



Mayor London Breed also called out Oakland’s move, saying the city should try to improve its airport instead of using San Francisco’s name.



&#8220;[Oakland] does not need the name San Francisco as part of its airport to stand out,&#8221; Breed wrote in a letter to Oakland Port Commission President Barbara Leslie.



But the Port of Oakland&#8217;s Wan pushed back on those claims on Thursday.



&#8220;This is really not about San Francisco,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We’re not trying to confuse people. We’re not trying to copy them.&#8221;



In a statement on Thursday, City Attorney Chiu wrote, “We are disappointed that Oakland did not take the opportunity to work collaboratively with us to develop alternative names and to avoid litigation. We will have further updates in the coming days.”



A spokesperson with the San Francisco Mayor’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.



Oakland port officials conducted polling that shows over half of Oakland residents and the broader East Bay are comfortable with the name change. About two-thirds said they were in support after reviewing information about how the action could improve demand and bring more flights to the airport. 



The survey was conducted in 2023 with over 1,400 East Bay registered voters.











“The airline industry is perceived as being reluctant to sustain certain new routes and destinations to and from OAK, in large part based on the lack of awareness of OAK’s geographic advantages and the centrality of Oakland to the San Francisco Bay by air travelers residing outside of the local region,” a memo from Thursday’s name change vote reads.



This week, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2024/04/10/oakland-airport-rename-ideas/">The Standard turned to readers to crowdsource names</a> for Oakland’s airport. The ideas included names like, “Raiders Airport of Las Vegas in California,” “Brokeland International,” “No Sports San Francisco Bay Area International Airport,” “The Athletics-Raiders-Warriors Departure Field” and finally, “The There&#8217;s No There There International Airport,” a nod to Gertrude Stein.

San Francisco airport to rename international terminal after Feinstein

Airport commissioners signed off Tuesday on a proposal to rename San Francisco’s international airport terminal in honor of the late <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/search/?query=dianne%20feinstein">Dianne Feinstein</a>, the longest-serving woman senator in U.S. history and the first woman to serve as mayor of the city.



Multiple city officials previously told The Standard that the Airport Commission’s vote Tuesday to rename San Francisco International Airport’s overseas terminal after Feinstein would sail through, although there will be more meetings to discuss what kind of displays will be installed to recognize <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/10/05/dignitaries-arrive-at-san-francisco-city-hall-for-dianne-feinstein-funeral/">her legacy</a>. The commission’s vote on renaming the terminal does not require any additional approval from the mayor or supervisors.



Talks of honoring Feinstein have been discussed for years, but those discussions ramped up after <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/09/29/san-franciscans-react-to-icon-dianne-feinstein-dying-at-90/">her death at the age of 90</a> in September. Former Mayor Willie Brown has been part of the group advocating for renaming part of the airport after Feinstein along with Jim Lazarus, who served as her deputy mayor, and Jim Gonzalez, a chief aide to Feinstein who was later elected to the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/search/?query=board%20of%20supervisors">Board of Supervisors</a>.



Brown cited Feinstein’s work in developing San Francisco’s airport as part of her key accomplishments as mayor.&nbsp;



“The development around the airport is part of what she was most effective at, if not most effective, of all the other things that she did,” Brown told The Standard.



In 2018, San Francisco’s airport renamed Terminal 1 in honor of Supervisor Harvey Milk, an LGBTQ+ rights icon who was assassinated at City Hall in 1978 along with Mayor George Moscone. Feinstein’s legacy is closely tied to both men, as she was <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/09/29/diane-feinstein-san-francisco-mayor-senator-photos/">the person who found Milk’s body</a> and she was elevated from president of the Board of Supervisors to acting mayor as a result of Moscone’s death.



After spending more than nine years as mayor, Feinstein lost a race for governor in 1990 before winning a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1992. She went on to become one of the most powerful members of Congress, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-inside-war">overseeing the Senate Intelligence Committee</a> that revealed CIA torture tactics. She had a reputation as a stern but pragmatic leader, and one of her key pieces of legislation was an assault weapons ban. That legislation sunsetted after a decade in 2004 due to lobbying by the NRA.



Declining health in her final years limited Feinstein’s ability to fulfill some of her duties, but she was widely revered by San Francisco’s political establishment. She is consistently mentioned as a mentor to many women who have followed her path in public service.



Next week’s vote may be the first in a slew of Feinstein renamings. The New York Times reported that other <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/us/california-feinstein-airport-name.html">places to honor the late senator</a> could include a bicycle trail along Lake Tahoe, Diamond Valley Lake in Southern California and the Elk River Trail in Humboldt County.



Tuesday’s vote was not be the first time the international terminal has honored a former elected official. In 2019, the city renamed the terminal’s departures hall after late Mayor <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/sfo-departures-hall-to-be-named-after-mayor-ed-lee-but-not-the-international-terminal/article_d8812e7a-4896-5c08-a017-5b5e939d9fc3.html">Ed Lee</a>, who died from a heart attack while still in office in 2017.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-happens-next">What Happens Next</h2>



With the adoption of the resolution to rename the International Terminal for Dianne Feinstein, SFO will begin work with the Dianne Feinstein 100-plus Committee to develop an approach for implementation. This will include collaboration on locations, design, and content to celebrate the legacy of Senator Feinstein relative to both SFO and the City of San Francisco. There is no defined timeline for this activity, but the goal is to ensure the finished result captures the intent which led to the naming campaign.

Plan to fix ‘broken’ San Francisco blows up in 2 weeks

In an embarrassing blunder, a moderate political group in San Francisco withdrew <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/12/05/san-francisco-could-vote-on-drastic-reforms-to-city-hall-next-year/">a ballot measure intended to cut bureaucracy</a> at City Hall just two weeks after it announced the ordinance in a press conference.



TogetherSF Action confirmed to The Standard on Monday that it was pulling one of two proposed ballot measures to reform the city charter because, contrary to <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/22/does-san-franciscos-mayor-need-more-power-this-group-says-yes/">the group&#8217;s goal of empowering the mayor</a> to make more decisions, it would actually hand more authority to the Board of Supervisors.&nbsp;



The group decided to scrap the measure before a Tuesday deadline after huddling with officials in the Mayor&#8217;s Office last week. TogetherSF Action plans to revise it and submit a new version to the Department of Elections.



Earlier this month, TogetherSF Action announced it was introducing two ballot measures to reform the city charter—one to give the mayor more power and the other to cut the number of city commissions in half. The group contends that giving the mayor more authority is key to making progress on public safety and the housing, homelessness and drug crises.&nbsp;



But the proposal to eliminate commissions contained a fatal flaw, according to multiple sources in and around City Hall: Eliminating certain commissions would kick oversight responsibilities over to the Board of Supervisors, a group Mayor London Breed has repeatedly criticized as being <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/07/mayor-breed-pushes-27m-police-overtime-bill-slams-obstructionist-board/">“obstructionist”</a> and <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/03/29/mayor-breed-hits-back-at-sf-progressives-touts-conservatorship-in-jon-stewart-interview/">tone-deaf on the issues</a> many San Franciscans are facing.



Multiple sources in and around City Hall suggested the errors in TogetherSF Action’s proposed measure came from a DIY approach and a failure to consult with experts until concerns arose. One source, who is familiar with the issues but was not authorized to speak publicly, called the proposal “sloppy.”



Kanishka Cheng, the head of the nonprofit TogetherSF and its political arm, TogetherSF Action, said in a statement Monday that the ballot measure to eliminate commissions—known as the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24229164-20231204_cutthedysfunctionalbureaucracy_text">“Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative”</a>—was being updated to change the “status quo” on city operations.



“San Francisco’s governance structure is broken and we are committed to advancing bold reforms at the ballot this November to ensure city government is better positioned to tackle the challenges facing our city,” Cheng said. “We are making updates to our reform measure that will make the initiative stronger and clarify authority and responsibilities between the executive and legislative branches. Voters deserve to know who is responsible for the city government’s decisions and to hold them accountable.”&nbsp;



Michael Moritz, who is chairman of The Standard, has provided funding to the 501c3 nonprofit TogetherSF and its political arm, TogetherSF Action.



The second proposed ballot measure—known as the “We Need SF To Work Initiative”—would give the mayor sole discretion to hire and fire department heads, strengthen the mayor’s ability to control commissions, and allow for the creation of deputy mayor positions.



Under city rules, any voter-led ballot initiative must first be submitted to the Department of Elections. After a 15-day review period by the City Attorney’s Office, the proposal receives a title and summary, and advocates can proceed to collect petition signatures. Sources suggested it would take four to five months to collect the almost 50,000 petition signatures required by July 8 to <a href="https://sfelections.org/tools/cscal_nov24/">qualify for the November 2024 ballot</a>. That 15-day period was to expire Tuesday.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-plan-to-cut-commissions-in-san-francisco">Plan to Cut Commissions in San Francisco</h2>



The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24229164-20231204_cutthedysfunctionalbureaucracy_text">“Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative”</a> proposed creating a task force to review commissions in the city and suggest which ones were redundant and ripe for elimination. As of this summer, San Francisco had <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/06/only-1-person-at-sf-city-hall-knows-the-answer-to-this-simple-question/">53 departments, 56 boards and commissions and 74 other advisory bodies</a>.



TogetherSF Action’s original plan suggested the number of commissions be capped at 65.&nbsp;



TogetherSF Action said the revised version will seek to keep bodies such as the Board of Appeals, Police Commission, Fire Commission and Planning Commission while allowing the mayor and supervisors the ability to hire and fire commissioners for the Public Utilities Commission, the Fine Arts Commissions, the War Memorial Board and the Airport Commission.



Permitting appeals would go to the Board of Appeals instead of supervisors. For commissions such as the Public Utilities Commission, the Airport Commission and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the mayor would be able to appoint a supermajority of commissioners.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the president of the Board of Supervisors, said the mistakes should be seen as a “teachable moment.” He suggested the group should have worked with <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/10/31/san-francisco-city-hall-ballot-measure-reforms-rafael-mandelman/">Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who also introduced a charter reform measure</a> that had some overlapping goals with TogetherSF Action’s proposal.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2999" height="2000" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man gesticulates and speaks with 1 hand extended out next to a podium with a gilded facade in the background." class="wp-image-219949" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg 2999w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109_detentiondrugdealers-37.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2999px) 100vw, 2999px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin criticized TogetherSF Action&#8217;s proposed ballot measure as ill-conceived. </figcaption></figure>



“We can have a discussion about what the best public policy is, but if it’s not what they intended, it shows this organization and its members don’t know what they’re doing,” Peskin said. “When you’re tinkering with your constitution, it should be tinkered with in public.”



The Mayor’s Office declined to comment.



The Department of Elections received <a href="https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/20231218_Withdrawal%20Letter.pdf">a letter from Cheng</a> requesting that the ballot measure be withdrawn Monday afternoon. She added that she plans to submit a revised version “in the coming days.” Once resubmitted, another 15-day review process would start before any signatures could be gathered.&nbsp;



Mandelman said he has not seen TogetherSF Action’s ballot measures, but he and the group have been talking about ways to improve the city through charter reform. He indicated his ballot measure, which also suggests the creation of deputy mayors, would be more incremental with an eye on continuing to reform the city charter in 2026.



“To their credit, they are motivated by a sincere desire to fix problems in San Francisco city governance. In my experience, that’s not easy,” Mandelman said. “It’s hard to fault them for trying to come up with some structural solutions.”

San Francisco construction executive sentenced to prison for bribing top city official

A former San Francisco city engineer who left the civil service to become a businessman was sentenced to six months in prison, one year of supervised release and a $100,000 fine Thursday in federal court after admitting to a yearslong scheme to funnel over $100,000 in bribes to a top public official.



Balmore Hernandez, the 58-year-old ex-CEO of construction firm Azul Works Inc. previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, a crime connected to bribing a public official.



“I accept the sentence with grace,” Hernandez told The Standard. “I’m glad it’s coming to an end.”



From 2013 to 2020, Hernandez worked with two business partners, Alan Varela and William Gilmartin III, to bribe ex-San Francisco Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru so he would use his high-ranking position to funnel lucrative contracts their way, according to court documents. Hernandez brought a box stuffed with $25,000 in cash to Nuru and helped arrange the delivery of a $40,000 John Deere tractor to the official’s vacation ranch, according to his attorney.



Varela already served a two-year prison sentence for his role in the scheme. But Assistant U.S. Attorney David Ward said Hernandez earned a lighter sentence by cooperating with the government and providing evidence against his co-conspirators.



“Hernandez engaged in egregious corruption, driven by his greed to enrich himself and his business partners,” Ward wrote in court filings ahead of the hearing. “However, once charged, Hernandez promptly accepted responsibility for his actions.”



Hernandez’s attorney, Julia Jayne, argued that her client’s extensive cooperation with law enforcement and history of community service warranted a lighter sentence without incarceration.



U.S. District Judge William Orrick asked Hernandez why he committed his crimes.



“It was not about greed,” Hernandez replied. “It was more, &#8216;I don’t want to rock the boat; these are important people.&#8217;” He was a conduit and he had a hard time saying no, Hernandez added.



Orrick mused that Hernandez’s crime may not have been about greed, as he claimed, “But it was about money, about getting contracts, that was a byproduct of staying quiet,” Orrick said before imposing the prison time.&nbsp;



Hernandez is the latest in a <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/08/04/players-in-san-francisco-corruption-scandal-mohammed-nuru/">series of powerful business people and influential San Francisco officials</a> to be sentenced in a wide-ranging federal corruption probe that exposed a culture of casual corruption in the city. Nuru is currently serving a seven-year sentence in a Santa Barbara County federal prison and was the center of a bevy of corrupt schemes, receiving benefits from a <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/10/05/billionaire-corruption-san-francisco-nuru-zhang-li-z-l-properties-fine/">billionaire real estate tycoon</a> and the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/09/21/san-francisco-corruption-recology-executive-sentenced-nuru-bribery-scandal/">city’s garbage giant</a>. Meanwhile, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/10/17/san-francisco-corruption-inspector-bernie-curran-checks-homeowners/">one local building inspector</a> is slated for a one-year prison sentence, and two more were <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/11/03/department-of-building-inspection-former-engineers-charged/">charged with crimes last week</a>.



Gilmartin pleaded guilty to criminal charges in 2021 and is set to be sentenced early next year.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1707" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-scaled.jpg?w=2500" alt="A photo shows Mohammed Nuru speaking." class="wp-image-122237" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-2500x1667.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-650x433.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-370x247.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-800x533.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-450x300.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-20x13.jpg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-185x123.jpg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-740x493.jpg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-400x267.jpg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-1600x1067.jpg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-225x150.jpg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-900x600.jpg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/INLINED07_UrbanAlchemyMiller11102022-72x48.jpg 72w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Ex-San Francisco Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru speaks on the steps of City Hall in October 2019.</figcaption></figure>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-asphalt-plant">The Asphalt Plant</h2>



The Nuru-Hernandez bribery scheme centered on a bid to land a Port of San Francisco contract to operate an asphalt recycling plant on public land, according to prosecutors.&nbsp;



Hernandez’s involvement began in the early days of the effort, when his former colleague Gilmartin approached Hernandez and asked him to contact Nuru to see if the official would be handling the public project, according to Hernandez’s attorney. Nuru and Hernandez had been friends for more than a decade, first meeting during Hernandez’s two-decade tenure as a civil engineer for the city, according to court documents.



Nuru eventually agreed to ensure that Gilmartin and Varela’s company, ProVen Management, landed the Port asphalt contract. In exchange, he initially demanded a $50,000 cash bribe and a percentage of future profits from the venture, according to prosecutors.



For leveraging his relationship with Nuru to help ProVen get the deal, Hernandez was promised a percentage of the profits from the contract by his business partners, according to prosecutors.



The public bidding process for the asphalt plant dragged on for years. During that time, Hernandez provided tens of thousands of dollars worth of free construction work and material to Nuru’s vacation ranch in Colusa County, according to prosecutors. Meanwhile, Hernandez and Gilmartin, sometimes Varela, too, would regularly host and pay for lavish dinners for Nuru, prosecutors say. For example, in August 2015, Gilmartin picked up the tab on a nearly $400 dinner for the trio and in September 2015, the group treated Nuru to a $575 dinner.



As the bribes rolled in, Nuru sent the three businessmen internal city documents related to the asphalt project, including a Port Commission staff report in February 2015, according to prosecutors.



In September 2015, the Department of Public Works selected ProVen as the most qualified bidder for the asphalt project, and Nuru began demanding cash payments for his corrupt assistance, prosecutors say. That’s when Gilmartin dropped off a box containing $25,000 in cash at Hernandez’s home. Hernandez then personally delivered the cash to Nuru, according to court documents.



To pay for the rest of the bribes, Gilmartin arranged for Hernandez to get a $105,000 consulting deal with another company. Hernandez then used some of that money to cover the cost of sending construction crews and materials to Nuru’s vacation ranch, according to prosecutors.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1831" height="1220" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/1774-fnv230714v.jpg?w=1831" alt="A man with a thin beard, while wearing a blue sport coat laughs out loud with brown stone in the background." class="wp-image-219793" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/1774-fnv230714v.jpg 1831w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/1774-fnv230714v.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/1774-fnv230714v.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/1774-fnv230714v.jpg?resize=1536,1023 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1831px) 100vw, 1831px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Alan Varela attends an event in Napa on July 2023.</figcaption></figure>



Despite ProVen being selected as the most qualified bidder in 2015, negotiations between ProVen and the city stretched on for years. During that time, the three businessmen continued treating Nuru to lavish meals, and in February 2019, they sent him a $40,000 John Deere tractor.



The trio still hadn’t ...

$24K ethics fine levied against ex-San Francisco planning commissioner

Former San Francisco Planning Commissioner Frank Fung agreed to be fined $24,200 for violating multiple city ethics rules at a hearing on Friday.



A stipulation agreement brought by the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2022/07/06/for-failing-to-report-income-former-san-francisco-appeals-board-president-and-ex-school-district-board-member-get-fined-by-ethics-watchdogs/">San Francisco Ethics Commission</a> found that Fung&#8217;s architectural firm, ED2 International, entered into a subcontract with the city&#8217;s Airport Commission in 2021 while he served as a city official. ED2 International received $39,460 from the city as part of the subcontract agreement.



Fung was a planning commissioner from May 2019 to June 2022.



Fung also failed to report large sources of income he received as an owner of the architectural firm while he was a planning commissioner, according to the stipulation agreement.



Fung admitted he &#8220;made a mistake&#8221; and misunderstood San Francisco&#8217;s laws on the extent his company could be involved in public work, he told The Standard. 



If the Ethics Commission approves the agreement put forward by commission staff on Friday, Fung could be fined $20,000 for entering a contract agreement with the city while holding a governmental position and $4,200 for his failures to disclose income.

Do San Francisco city workers get ‘company car’ perks?

<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-the-standard-s-mike-ege-backs-into-a-reader-question-submitted-to-ask-the-standard-can-city-employees-drive-city-owned-cars-for-personal-use">The Standard&#8217;s Mike Ege backs into a reader question submitted to Ask The Standard: Can city employees drive city-owned cars for personal use?</h2>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="alignright size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5107" height="3127" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?w=2500" alt="Image of speech bubble with &quot;Ask The Standard&quot; inside." class="wp-image-247020" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png 5107w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=300,184 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=768,470 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=2500,1531 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=1536,940 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rebrand_askthestandard.png?resize=2048,1254 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5107px) 100vw, 5107px" /></figure></div>


San Francisco <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/06/29/san-francisco-lawmakers-hash-out-14-billion-budget-deal/">approved an annual budget of almost $15 billion last month</a>—the largest in memory, despite major economic pressures <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/2023/07/12/san-franciscos-hefty-taxes-threaten-downtowns-revival-report-finds/">stemming from the pandemic</a>.



That leaves many San Francisco taxpayers wondering where the money goes, and one commonsense reader question fielded by Ask The Standard is a perennial one: Do city workers get to drive city-owned cars for personal use?



The answer is no, strictly speaking. 



But some city employees in certain critical roles continue to have “take-home” cars, the use of which is subject to strict rules. Those rules have become tighter in recent years after recurring allegations that employees were misusing city vehicles.&nbsp;



San Francisco recently adopted a <a href="https://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Forms-Documents/Citywide-Vehicle-Use-Policy.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">citywide vehicle-use policy</a>, and earlier passed a <a href="https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-1632" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">city ordinance</a> that limits the use of city-owned vehicles for official purposes. The law does allow for “take-home” cars for employees whose job requires them to be “on call,” or who work for certain emergency service or utility agencies that need vehicles with special equipment.&nbsp;



The policy came partly in response to <a href="https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911003&amp;GUID=E29FAE16-CA59-48B1-B8AC-2386729EA1C7&amp;Options=ID%7CText%7C&amp;Search=city+owned+vehicles" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a 2019 Board of Supervisors hearing</a> examining take-home car use. Then-Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer called the hearing after being advised of widespread compliance issues some months earlier.&nbsp;



According to a 2019 <a href="https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BLA_Policy_Report_Assignment_Take-Home%20Vehicles_March_2019.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">report from the Budget and Legislative Analyst&#8217;s Office</a>, 247 take-home vehicles had been authorized by city agencies—more than twice the number permitted by city law, costing the city $1.58 million per year. Departments with the most take-home vehicles included the police and fire departments and the Airport Commission.&nbsp;



The issue got enough <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/audit-raises-questions-about-san-franciscos-take-home-vehicles/99912/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">media attention</a> that a representative of car-sharing service Zipcar showed up to the hearing and suggested the city use its service rather than maintain take-home cars.



Mayor Willie Brown <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Brown-Wants-Curbs-On-Employees-Use-Of-City-Owned-2983210.php" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">also scrutinized take-home cars</a> when he was faced with fixing a $70 million budget deficit in 1996. The answer was the implementation of a city motor pool that had originally been authorized by an ordinance in 1939. Around 400 take-home cars had been authorized at the time, and Brown himself was known at the time for being chauffeured around the city in a Lincoln Town Car.&nbsp;



Shortly thereafter, the city’s civil grand jury <a href="https://civilgrandjury.sfgov.org/1996_1997/City_and_County_Motor_Vehicle_Policy_9697.pdf">released a report</a> deeming the current system “unsatisfactory,” adding, “The current system lacks any supervisory control. Abuses of the current system are widespread.”



Despite the various reports, hearings and investigations over the years, allegations of improper use of city vehicles still crop up regularly.&nbsp;



Investigations by the Controller’s Office this year showed six reports of improper use, including one case where a city vehicle was <a href="https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Whistleblower%20Program%20FY22%20Q4-Annual%20Report%2010.25.22.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">used to move personal belongings</a> and another where a city employee <a href="https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Whistleblower%20Program%20FY22%20Q3%20Report%208.2.22.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">regularly drove their child to school using a city vehicle</a>. Repercussions for those violations ranged from counseling to a cease-and-desist letter plus “additional corrective action planned.”&nbsp;



Under current policy, the city can fine employees who violate the ordinance an amount equivalent to three times the city’s mileage reimbursement for unauthorized miles traveled.



<div style="width:100%;height:500px;" data-fillout-id="9i1svJd2kSus" data-fillout-embed-type="standard" data-fillout-inherit-parameters data-fillout-dynamic-resize></div><script src="https://server.fillout.com/embed/v1/"></script>

San Francisco RV homeless shelter to remain open

Details have begun to emerge of an accord that would resolve a three-month standoff over the fate of “Site F,” a homeless shelter at Pier 94 in San Francisco.



Supervisor Shamann Walton announced Monday that the site will stay open &#8220;for the time being&#8221; after a “tentative agreement” was reached between the city&#8217;s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH)—the city agency responsible for the site—and the Port of San Francisco, where the site is located.



The agreement—not yet reduced to writing—would end the public confrontation between the Board of Supervisors, who wanted to keep the site open, and the homelessness department, which had acceded to the port&#8217;s insistence that the site be closed.



Emily Cohen, the department&#8217;s deputy director for communications and legislative affairs, said a “verbal agreement” has been reached between the port and the city that will allow the site to remain in operation on a month-to-month arrangement until shelter operations are eventually wound down.



Key terms still being negotiated include how long the site may stay in operation and when intake of new residents will recommence.



READ MORE: <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/public-health/homelessness/san-francisco-illegal-homeless-sweeps/">San Francisco Blasts Homeless Advocates Accusing City of Illegal Sweeps</a>



The anticipated outcome would be a win for the 82 people currently living at the facility and Walton, who lead the charge to keep the shelter open.



Site F is on port land near Pier 94 and contains 114 trailers that in April sheltered as many as 118 people experiencing homelessness.



While the location is distant from commercial areas and air quality has been a concern, the site has been in operation since April 13, 2020. Many of the residents have lived there for years.



Each trailer at Site F contains a kitchen and a bathroom and is powered by 24/7 electric service. There is a small medical clinic at the site.



The site was initially established during the pandemic, and it was to continue only through the end of the public health emergency. Mayor London Breed <a href="https://sfbos.org/mayor%E2%80%99s-proclamation-covid-19-local-emergency-and-supplemental-declarations">declared the emergency over</a> on Feb. 28.



The homelessness department initially asked the port for a two-year extension, but the port declined, claiming to need the land for maritime uses. The department then negotiated a 10-month arrangement that it said would allow time to wind the site down and close it in an orderly fashion.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1667" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BCN-20230411-SITEF-04-2500x1667-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-180722" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BCN-20230411-SITEF-04-2500x1667-1.jpeg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BCN-20230411-SITEF-04-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BCN-20230411-SITEF-04-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BCN-20230411-SITEF-04-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BCN-20230411-SITEF-04-2500x1667-1.jpeg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">&#8220;Site F&#8221; near Pier 94 in San Francisco uses trailers to provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness. </figcaption></figure>



That agreement was presented to the Port Commission for “informational” purposes at a meeting on April 11. Port staff advised the commissioners that they would bring the matter back for a vote on  April 25.



After the hearing, questions surfaced about the wisdom of closing a shelter site amid a profound citywide shortage of shelter beds. The city is under a federal court order barring authorities from clearing tent encampments while there are not enough shelter beds to cover all people sleeping on the streets. Testimony in the case showed the city’s bed shortfall exceeds 4,000.



Walton, whose district includes Bayview, where many of the residents of Site F came from, had called the agreement a “travesty” and introduced a resolution that opposed closing the site.



Walton said that the agreement between the port and the homelessness department to wind down and close the site amounted to “forcing homelessness by our very own city departments.”



He noted angrily that the closure would mean that “over 100 people, mostly Black, mostly minorities, will be put out on the street with no alternative placement and be evicted by the Port and [the homelessness department] and sent right back to the street.”



Walton emphasized that the trailers at Site F provide individualized places to stay and included private bathrooms and showers. He said it was “unbelievable” that this option was in place. “To have this available is like a treasure.”



Walton criticized the department for deferring to the port as if it were an “alien nation.” In his mind, the port is a part of the city family and had to do its part for the homeless, like any other city agency.



Supervisor Myrna Melgar said she has been working for two years unsuccessfully to find a place in the city that can provide safe parking for people living in their vehicles with electric, water and sanitary services. She said it was “inconceivable” that the city would let this site—which already has those services in place—close. She said the site should be expanded to serve more people.



On May 9, the full board adopted Walton’s resolution.



However, notwithstanding the supervisors’ expressed opposition to closure and the fact that commission had not approved the wind-down agreement, the homelessness department was actively working to close the site.



The department ceased new intake in April (even though it had until October to do so under its wind-down agreement with the port). As a result, by July 7 only 82 people were living at the site, down 36 from April, according to data on HSH&#8217;s shelter inventory website.



Moreover, on May 19, 10 days after Walton’s resolution was adopted, Louis Bracco, shelter system supervisor for the homelessness department, reached out to two individuals working on homelessness issues for the City of Oakland. Bracco advised them that San Francisco was looking for alternative sites to reuse or store the trailers from Site F, “but we expect to have at least 20-50 leftover without a home.”



Bracco explained that the trailers were donated to San Francisco by the state in 2020 and were new at the time. Bracco asked if Oakland would “have any interest in taking some of these RVs and/or storing them at one of your existing sites.”



Email requests for comment to Bracco were returned by Cohen. “As we plan for Site F, or any program wind down, significant due diligence is needed,&#8221; Cohen wrote. &#8220;In response to HSH’s due diligence in exploring options, the City of Oakland expressed a desire to learn more about the trailers.”



The homelessness department had not contacted cities other than Oakland, she said, and in light of the tentative agreement with the port, “we probably won&#8217;t donate the habitable trailers to another jurisdiction.”



Beyond the loss of shelter beds, the closure of Site F would have been another blow to the efforts of the city to test potential alternatives to traditional shelter models.



While Site F has not been without its share of problems, it has provided residents with personal space and autonomy that are missing in other models. According to Cohen, more than 300 people have been served at the site over the three years of operation and 38 have moved on to permanent housing.



“It&#8217;s something we would certainly consider replicating if we could find the property for it &#8230; [but] finding a site appropriate for this stuff is incredibly hard,” she said.



Daniel Wlodarczyk, a San Francisco internist who has provided medical services at the clinic, said he was relieved to hear the shelter would remain open, calling it “a valuable resource to the people experiencing homelessness in the Bayview Hunters Point community. Having a stable, secure place is essential to the residents’ well-being.”



Walton said he was pleased that the site would remain in operation.



“Site F is a very special place where residents, staff and volunteers have created a tight community supporting folks experiencing homelessness to transition into a more stable environment and eventually to permanent housing,” Walton said. “This is a one-of-a-kind community and model that does not exist elsewhere.”



Copyright © 2023 Bay City News, Inc.

‘Spite project’ for 10 townhouses delayed by San Francisco lawmakers

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors ruled on appeals for two controversial housing developments Tuesday, perhaps providing a preview of how permit appeals will fare in a new regulatory environment dominated by <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/politics/city-hall/housing-shell-game-supes-latest-actions-set-to-slow-new-housing-as-state-mandate-looms/">state intervention to expedite the construction of new housing</a>.



Compared with Peskin’s introduction later in the meeting of <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/politics/san-francisco-lawmakers-cut-deal-to-boost-housing-construction/">major reforms of the city’s inclusionary affordable housing rules and fees,</a> which he is co-sponsoring with Mayor London Breed, the appeal votes reflect continued ambivalence over the city’s new development landscape.



The board upheld the appeal of one project on Nob Hill that had been deemed a “spite project” by appellants and denied another for a group housing project in the Mission that had already been the subject of state review.



The first project, a <a href="https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/08/wall-of-nob-hill-townhomes-now-on-the-boards.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">cluster of 10 townhomes at 1151 Washington St.</a> on the slope of Nob Hill near Upper Chinatown, had been described by appellant attorney Scott Emblidge in a<a href="https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&amp;ID=12100994&amp;GUID=D2854055-6997-4851-B3C2-D68685656C98" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> June 16 appeal letter</a> as “absurd in so many ways” and as a “spite project.”



GET THE INSIDE SCOOP: Power Play is The Standard&#8217;s insider email newsletter covering City Hall and politics. Sign up&nbsp;<a href="https://mailchi.mp/sfstandard/powerplay_signup/">here</a>.



In the letter, Emblidge alleged the developer “made it clear through extensive online posts that he is proposing this monstrosity because of his anger at the city for having turned down an earlier remodel project that did not comply with the Planning Code.”



Earlier plans to expand the existing two-story house on the site were abandoned after the Planning Department blocked a conditional use authorization in 2021. The <a href="https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/11/foreshadowing-problems-or-a-redesign-that-wall-townhomes.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">new plans</a> are for a row of townhouses totaling over 12,000 square feet in area and 50 feet in height, overlooking the basketball court of the adjacent Betty Ong Recreation Center.&nbsp;&nbsp;



While perhaps not as much of an eyebrow-raiser as plans for a 50-story skyscraper apartment complex near Ocean Beach, <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/housing-development/skyscraper-plans-revealed-for-san-franciscos-ocean-beach-712-homes-50-stories/">which were submitted to the Planning Department last April</a>, the Washington Street project drew incredulous opposition from both neighbors and community groups.&nbsp;



Opponents cited three major objections to the project, including likely shadows on the basketball court, the presence in the ground of what appellant attorney Richard Drury called “very unusual toxic chemicals” and fire safety issues due to the houses’ narrow paths and spiral staircases.



“There are too many unknowns in this project,” said Hanmin Liu of the Upper Chinatown Neighborhood Association, supporting the appeal of the project’s exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 



Staff from the Planning Department and the Department of Public Health repeatedly testified that issues laid out by the appellants either were irrelevant to the CEQA process, or well within the coverage of the project’s site mitigation plan and did not merit an environmental impact report.&nbsp;



Most supervisors disagreed. Board President Aaron Peskin, in whose district the project is located, said the project presented very unusual circumstances, particularly in regard to its proximity to the Betty Ong Center, which he described as a “precious, unique public resource.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1668" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-2500x1668.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-132363" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-2500x1668.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-1536x1025.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-650x434.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-370x247.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-800x534.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-450x300.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-20x13.jpg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-185x123.jpg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-740x494.jpg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-400x267.jpg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-1600x1067.jpg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-225x150.jpg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-900x600.jpg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/022723BOSRoundup-65-72x48.jpg 72w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Supervisor Myrna Melgar speaks during the Board of Supervisors meeting at City Hall on Feb. 28, 2023. | Michaela Vatcheva for The Standard</figcaption></figure>



Supervisor Myrna Melgar concurred. “There’s a mismatch in how we’re treating this. … It’s unusual,” citing the toxics and life safety access issues.&nbsp;



Several members of the pro-housing group YIMBY Action testified in favor of the project and opposed the appeal, warning of consequences from Sacramento. “If we continue to abuse local control, we’re going to lose local control,” said Jane Natoli, a YIMBY Action lead organizer and airport commissioner, during public comment.&nbsp;



In the end, the board remanded the project back for environmental review by a vote of 7-4 with Supervisors Ahsha Safaí, Matt Dorsey, Catherine Stefani and Joel Engardio in dissent.&nbsp;



The board then went on to block an appeal of the conditional use authorization for a six-story “group housing” project at 3832 18th St.&nbsp;



The project originally <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2023/04/sf-rebuked-by-state-revives-controversial-housing-projects/">had a floor trimmed by the Planning Commission in 2021</a> to allay neighbors’ shadow concerns, and Peskin <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/politics/city-hall/sf-board-supervisors-tenderloin-group-housing-parklets/">led a successful tightening of regulations</a> around group housing, also known as “microunit” or “efficiency apartment” buildings, in its wake.&nbsp;



Last year the California Department of Housing and Community Development got involved and ordered San Francisco to allow the original plan.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2215" height="1476" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-132405" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39.jpg 2215w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-650x433.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-370x247.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-800x533.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-450x300.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-20x13.jpg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-185x123.jpg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-740x493.jpg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-400x267.jpg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-1600x1066.jpg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-225x150.jpg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-900x600.jpg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1022723BOSRoundup-39-72x48.jpg 72w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2215px) 100vw, 2215px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Supervisor Rafael Mandelman listens during the Board of Supervisors meeting at City Hall o...

San Francisco mayor proposes record spending despite $780M deficit

Mayor London Breed’s budget proposal ramps up spending on homelessness and the police department and grows San Francisco&#8217;s budget by $612 million from the current year to $14.6 billion for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1.



The proposed increase, unveiled in a speech at City Hall Wednesday, comes as the city faces a projected two-year deficit of <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/politics/city-hall/san-franciscos-deficit-swells-to-780m-in-latest-sign-of-budget-distress/">$780 million</a> in the general fund, which accounts for its discretionary spending.



In the coming fiscal year, Breed is proposing a 1% increase to $6.86 billion in San Francisco’s general fund; in the following year, general fund spending is projected to breach $7 billion. To offset higher spending, Breed’s budget dips into budget reserves, relies on other sources of funding and lays out cuts in select city departments.&nbsp;



“I’m really proud that in balancing this budget, we were still able to deliver for our nonprofit workers, our public safety officials and other things, even though we’re facing a budget deficit,” Breed said her speech. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1128" height="752" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1BreedBudgetReveal053123-035.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-165909" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1BreedBudgetReveal053123-035.jpg 1128w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1BreedBudgetReveal053123-035.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1BreedBudgetReveal053123-035.jpg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1128px) 100vw, 1128px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Mayor London Breed talks about the balanced budget and key priorities for the city in San Francisco, on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. | Justin Katigbak for The Standard</figcaption></figure>



GET THE INSIDE SCOOP:&nbsp;Power Play is The Standard&#8217;s new insider email newsletter covering City Hall and politics. Sign up&nbsp;<a href="https://mailchi.mp/sfstandard/powerplay_signup/">here</a>.



Breed’s budget proposal will be hashed out at the Board of Supervisors and must be signed by Aug. 1. If the board&#8217;s Budget Committee Chair Connie Chan’s statement on the budget proposal is any indication, the negotiation process could prove contentious.



“I will go through every line item, and ask each and every city department how they will spend our public dollars and deliver the results we all deserve,&#8221; Chan said in a statement. &#8220;They all will be held accountable, dollar for dollar.&#8221;



<iframe title="San Francisco Annual Budget" aria-label="Stacked Column Chart" id="datawrapper-chart-LEzSX" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LEzSX/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important; border: none;" height="400" data-external="1"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r<e.length;r++)if(e[r].contentWindow===a.source){var i=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";e[r].style.height=i}}}))}();
</script>



To balance the budget, the proposed spending increase is paired with departmental cuts that include a reduction of certain contracts and decreased salary budgets by eliminating vacant positions. The proposed budget funds salaries and benefits for 33,476 city employees next year, a 0.8% increase in the labor force compared with last year.&nbsp;



As part of her budget instructions to departments, the mayor required general fund budget reductions of 5% next year and 8% the year after.&nbsp;



The departments that are seeing the biggest increases in year-over-year funding include the Department of Public Health, the Airport Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Municipal Transportation Agency.&nbsp;



Those seeing the biggest losses by dollar amount include the San Francisco Port, the Department of Early Childhood and the Office of the Mayor.



<iframe title="San Francisco City Department Funding Changes Under Mayor's Proposed Budget" aria-label="Table" id="datawrapper-chart-p2Yj7" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/p2Yj7/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important; border: none;" height="572" data-external="1"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r<e.length;r++)if(e[r].contentWindow===a.source){var i=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";e[r].style.height=i}}}))}();
</script>



Cuts also include reduced funding for the city’s 10-year capital plan. Instead of wholesale elimination of individual programs, departments generally proposed marginal cuts across a variety of programs and spending areas. The city is also dipping into an additional $76 million in reserve funds, as well as $90 million in previously appropriated reserve funds, to close the budget shortfall.&nbsp;



In order to sustain or increase spending in priority areas while balancing the budget, Breed’s proposal also relies on some creative accounting, like shifting spending to non-general fund revenue sources like state funds and special tax funds.



The budget directs revenue from 2018’s Prop. C, known as Our City, Our Home, toward helping to fund efforts to combat homelessness. As proposed, Breed’s budget <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/public-health/homelessness/san-francisco-mayor-to-increase-homelessness-spending-despite-budget-deficit/">increases homelessness spending</a> from $672 million this year to $692.6 million next year. If approved, Breed has said the spending would help create 600 shelter beds and 545 housing units over the next year. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1507" height="1005" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-229-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-165900" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-229-1.jpg 1507w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-229-1.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-229-1.jpg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1507px) 100vw, 1507px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">People in the crowed held up signs around housing including “Family and Tay Housing” during Mayor London Breed speech about the City's budget. | Justin Katigbak for The Standard</figcaption></figure>



That’s tied to an effort to <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/public-health/breed-to-fund-wellness-hubs-for-overdose-prevention-in-upcoming-budget/">boost funding for behavioral health and addiction initiatives</a>, including the addition of 30 beds for those with both mental health and substance abuse disorders, implementation of the state’s Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court system and three new wellness hubs for overdose prevention.&nbsp;



The city will rely on a portion of the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/public-health/walgreens-to-pay-san-francisco-230m-for-opioid-crisis/">$350 million settlement</a> gained through litigation against pharma companies and Walgreens to help shift spending away from general revenue and start new programs.&nbsp;



The budget also allocates around $30 million in <a href="https://sfoece.org/2021/06/29/baby-prop-c-fact-sheet-legal-uses-and-allocations/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">revenue from Baby Prop. C</a>, a tax measure to fund early childhood services, to the city’s Food Access Program, which supports food pantries and grocery vouchers.&nbsp;



On the public safety front, the mayor is <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/london-breed-wants-sfpd-to-hire-200-new-cops-by-end-of-2024/article_fa4482c4-fbe8-11ed-a1e0-f364c1df2fea.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proposing increased investment</a> for recruiting at the San Francisco Police Department with the goal of hiring 220 officers in the next two years. Her budget proposal also includes additional hiring and retention bonuses, boosting the number of police service aides and maintaining existing ambassador programs. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1667" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-2500x1667.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-165906" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-2500x1667.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-650x433.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-370x247.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-800x533.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BreedBudgetReveal053123-233-450x300.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-conten...

The Port Commission oversees the management and development of San Francisco's waterfront properties. It makes decisions on leasing, permits, and maritime activities, ensuring economic and environmental sustainability. The commission exercises authority over property use, tenant diversity, and strategic partnerships.

Port Commission

Port Commission Commissioner 1

Port Commission Commissioner 2

Port Commission Commissioner 3

Port Commission Commissioner 4

Port Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.