SF voted to close juvenile hall. Seven years later, it costs $543K per kid

A child arrested and taken to San Francisco’s Juvenile Justice Center first sees the sun-drenched parking lot where a police car or van brings them to the facility. When they step inside, their eyes have to adjust quickly to darkness. In the reception room, staff sitting behind an imposing, semi circular desk process them in and assign them a bed. Next is a hallway so long and curved, from some perspectives it seems to never end. The juvenile hall was built in the classic prison architecture style of the 1990s. Multiple locked doors separate cells from hallways from the yard. They close with loud, reverberating clangs. The 75-square foot cells are painted beige and light blue, and feature bed frames and sinks built into the brick. For decades, progressive-minded activists, attorneys, and politicians have tried to shut down the hall, arguing that the jail-like space near Twin Peaks is no place for children. The closest they ever came to success was a 2019 vote by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to close the facility within three years. At the time, Mayor London Breed criticized the legislation as “not the most responsible thing to do without a real plan of action.” By 2019, the Juvenile Justice Center had come to exemplify all the apparent wrongs of a previous era’s tendency to lock up children. On an average day, it housed less than a fifth of its capacity, which contributed to an eye-watering cost of $270,000 annually to lock up a child, according to a San Francisco Chronicle investigation . But the city never had a clear plan for where to put the young people that had been jailed there. Then California Gov. Gavin Newsom changed the rules — youth who committed the most serious crimes, who had been imprisoned in state facilities, suddenly became San Francisco’s responsibility. This mirrored the “realignment” process that moved many incarcerated people out of state prisons and into local jails. Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Katy Weinstein Miller was once part of a working group set up to close the facility. Now she runs it. “This building is far from ideal,” she admitted about the dark, echoey space. Seven years after the Board of Supervisors’ decisive vote and five years beyond the deadline to close it, the justice center doesn’t just remain open and operational — it is even more expensive than it was when the city vowed to close it. San Francisco isn’t the only county stuck with an oversized juvenile hall. Giant, chronically empty juvies litter California, a hangover headache from an era of mass incarceration. And like San Francisco’s hall, as the population in these facilities has fallen, the price to keep them open has soared. What sets San Francisco apart is that its leaders — progressive minded, and maybe a little naive — tried to fix things. They moved to stem the bleeding and close the hall, recruiting high-ranking officials from city government and lifelong juvenile justice activists who dedicated years to the effort. And they completely failed. Today, the annual cost of jailing one youth in San Francisco is $534,000 — roughly double the 2019 price — with a daily average population of 31. In part, today’s increased cost is a sign of success. On any given day in 2025, San Francisco jailed one-third fewer youth than it did in 2018. But many of the costs of operating the enormous, mostly empty hall are fixed, meaning the per child cost has ballooned. Some advocates say this is the price of running a much more humane hall. It may be the most expensive juvie, but it may also be better than it’s ever been before. So what’s San Francisco getting for its money? ‘A major public policy blunder’ In the mid-1990s, the homicide arrest rate for juveniles in California was skyrocketing, mirroring a grim national trend. San Francisco was a poster child for the troubling phenomenon. In 1993, San Francisco’s juvenile arrest rate was the highest in the state, 50% higher than the California average. In 1995, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office predicted that the number of juvenile violent crime arrests in the state would increase 60% by 2004. “The primary focus of the juvenile justice agenda, at least among the [San Francisco] Probation Department, was to build a new juvenile hall,” said Daniel Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University. At the time, the justice center consisted of a number of so-called cottages with a maximum occupancy of 135. “It was overcrowded all the time. Kids had been sleeping on the floors,” Miller said. “I worked in the mayor’s office when we built this building and everyone believed we needed that size.” A prison building boom was already underway in California and other states across the country, and now it had reached the kids. The federal government began distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to states and municipalities earmarked for the construction of larger juvenile detention facilities. But by the time San Francisco’s new juvie opened in 2005, the crime wave was over. Youth crime rates continued to plummet for the next two decades. According to a 2025 report by the advocacy group The Sentencing Project, juvenile arrests fell 75% from 1995 to 2023. From 2000 to 2023, the youth incarceration rate declined 74%. The nation was riddled with empty jails built for kids. “It was a major public policy blunder,” Macallair said. “And we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it.” San Francisco’s juvenile hall “was never full from the day they cut the ribbon,” Miller said. ‘It was a misnomer’ Continuing to operate the current facility is expensive. But after voting to close the hall, the city soon realized the alternatives would cost even more. The legislation vaguely stated the intention to “expand community-based alternatives to detention, and provide a rehabilitative, non-institutional place or places of detention, in a location approved by the Court.” But those alternatives could never have led to the full closure of juvenile hall because state law requires that youth arrested for certain offenses be detained at secure facilities. The mandate also didn’t come with any funding. To this day, San Francisco is still paying off its mostly empty juvie, paying more than $2 million each year to service the total $22.3 million remaining debt on the facility’s construction. The jail won’t be paid off until 2034. A new justice center or even a remodel of the old one would cost millions the county doesn’t have. Patti Lee, the assistant chief of defense for the Public Defender’s Office, who previously worked in the public defender’s juvenile unit for three decades, had lobbied for the legislation. She said she told the supervisors at the time that it wouldn’t be that easy. She believes the campaign to close the Juvenile Justice Center mismanaged expectations. “ Maybe we shouldn’t have said close juvenile hall,” she said. “It was a misnomer.” A “Close Juvenile Hall Work Group” considered alternative spaces — a former foster home, an old hospital — but ultimately rejected them all. Covid slowed their work, and emptied the hall even further. In 2020, as the average daily population at juvie plummeted to 17, the yearly cost to jail a child reached just shy of $900,000. The work group submitted its final report in November 2021, a month before the Board of Supervisors’ legislation targeted for the closing of the hall. It offered recommendations for how to improve the city’s juvenile justice system writ large, but no plan to wind down operations at the current facility. Macallair, who was also on the work group, acknowledges that the primary objective of the Close Juvenile Hall Work Group was in its name. It was expected to offer a solution. “I think the [work group] failed on that,” he said. ‘It’s going to cost more’ On an average day in 2018 , 47 beds at the Juvenile Justice Center were occupied of a total 150, and it cost $266,000 a year to jail a child. In 2025, the cost had nearly doubled, to $543,015 — calculated by dividing total budget by daily population. The facility had an average daily population of only 31, leaving nearly 80% of beds empty. Many cells are now used for storage. Fewer kids mean higher fixed costs per child. And the population itself has greater needs. The city stopped sending youths to alternative facilities outside the city, some of which closed due to low occupancy. In 2022, California dissolved its state youth prison system, which housed children convicted of very violent acts. Counties were suddenly responsible for creating “Secure Youth Treatment Facilities,” requiring additional segregated housing units, individually tailored rehabilitation plans, and 24/7 counselors. In San Francisco, the program has cost an additional $8.7 million from fiscal years 2019-20 to 2024-25. Still, Miller admits that the cost of the hall is high. “You have fixed costs when you run buildings, so it’s really expensive,” she said. “And also [the kids] are worthy of really important investments for themselves and for all of us. If we don’t do that, no one is safer. And they’re going to live a kind of life that none of us want for them.” Macallair frames the cost in terms of the now-shuttered youth prisons formerly run by the state. “ You had one staff person for 30 kids and there was a lot of violence,” Macallair said. “You have to have a good ratio of staff to kids in order to change the environment. So it’s going to cost more.” But not everyone agrees. “ I think it’s overstaffed for the few kids that we have,” said Lee. When asked about the high cost of running the hall, she replied, “ I still find that shocking.” ‘It’s better now than it was’ At a glance, the justice center hasn’t changed much in decades, from its imposing intake area to its Escher-like hallway. “All of these secure facilities for kids that came online in the early 2000s, they feel of a particular era,” said Miller. “ We built these institutions that looked like jails and prisons for kids in the early 2000s, probably across the whole country. They all looked the same. One of the architects who helped design this building told me a few years ago that they would never design a building like that today.” But while the building is the same, the programming has changed significantly since 2019. Of the eight living units, only five are currently used for their intended purpose. One is a “merit room” with video games, a piano, and a recording studio. Two others were repurposed as a gym and a cooking space for a newly introduced culinary course. Aside from the living spaces, the justice center also has an indoor basketball court, a dedicated wing for classrooms where the incarcerated attend school, and a very large backyard with a barbecue and planter boxes where food is grown. The homiest room in the facility is a space where families come to visit their imprisoned loved ones. The room has a view of the ocean in the distance. A colorful side room caters to toddlers and small children, either younger siblings coming to visit their locked up siblings, or babies visiting their young parents. In the corner, a tiny cloth playhouse is set up for toddlers. The hall hosts workshops aimed at deprogramming toxic masculinity and understanding the impacts of crimes on their victims, developed by incarcerated people at Soledad State Prison and San Quentin, respectively. Soon after children arrive at the hall, they’re greeted by a “credible messenger,” an employee of a community-based organization with carceral experience, who is more able to connect with the youth than regular staffers. Credible messengers are an almost constant presence. “Because I’ve been a critic of the place for a long time, it’s hard for me to concede we have a rich array of services,” said Macallair. “It’s better now than it was before.” Community justice activists, Public Defender’s Office staff, and the president of the Juvenile Probation Commission agreed. Much of the praise for how the hall has changed is credited to Miller. ”Katy Miller is probably the best chief probation officer that we’ve had the fortune to work with,” said Lee. “She’s very pro-child.” But that praise comes with a caveat that echoes the failed 2019 push to close the hall. “ A jail is a jail is a jail,” Lee said. “You can only slap so much lipstick on a pig. If you ask any youth that goes into juvenile hall, whether it was back in the ’80s, ’90s, or currently, their first request is, ‘When can I get out?’” In 2024, the Juvenile Probation Department commissioned the architectural firm KMD to design a remodeled justice center. The plans envision a campus-like space, with a green central plaza in place of two of the existing living units. Large windows and natural light accentuate a series of new and renovated buildings. Dedicated training spaces would teach kids how to barber, smith, cook, and grow vegetables. If the current hall reflects an era that tried to solve youth crime by locking kids up and throwing away the key, the KMD design is a contemporary dream of how to rehabilitate kids into happy, productive adults. The designs were spurred not by any work group or Board of Supervisors vote, but primarily by the Juvenile Probation Department. Kids detained at juvie for longer stays were paid for their input on the new designs. “ When our kids were given the opportunity to dream, what they actually dreamed up looks like a junior college and not like a house,” said Miller. The projected cost to realize this new, blue-sky dream? $220 million.

Lurie’s $15.9B budget just landed. Here’s what to know

Mayor Daniel Lurie released his nearly <a href="https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/70_CSF_Proposed_Budget_Book_June_2024_Final_REV1_0525v2.pdf">$16 billion budget proposal</a> Friday, showcasing his master plan to close San Francisco’s $782 million deficit.



Many services will keep their funding at the current levels: the San Francisco Police Department, the public defender’s office, the district attorney’s office, street cleaning crews, and homelessness services.&nbsp;Other city agencies will likely lose funding. Lurie wants to cut roughly $185 million in contracts and nonprofit spending over two years, though the specifics of those reductions were not immediately available. He has also proposed eliminating approximately 1,400 positions from the city’s job rolls, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/28/san-francisco-mayor-daniel-lurie-budget-layoffs/">mostly vacancies and retirements</a>. More than 100 of those cuts could come from layoffs.



Under Lurie&#8217;s proposal, the city&#8217;s total budget amounts to $15.9 billion in fiscal 2026 and $16.3 billion in fiscal 2027. 



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="405257"></div>



In an address Friday morning, Lurie said the cuts are needed to right-size San Francisco’s habit of spending beyond its means, starting with the tech boom in the 2010s and continuing into the pandemic.



“Here’s the bottom line: We have to stop spending more than we can afford,” Lurie said. &#8220;The era of soaring city budgets and deteriorating street conditions is over.”



Despite Lurie’s talk of fiscal austerity, the majority of city departments would receive a budget bump under his proposal. The Department of Emergency Management, home of the 911 dispatch center, gets a 15% increase, the largest in the city. Budgets for the Juvenile Probation Department, the City Treasurer and Tax Collector and the Board of Supervisors would also shoot up by over 10%.&nbsp;



Discounting so-called enterprise departments, or agencies that are largely self-sufficient with independent budget processes, Human Services is set to pull in the largest overall windfall, with an $81 million increase. The police, fire, and sheriff&#8217;s departments would each get a more than $22 million bump.



But 21 departments do lose out in Lurie’s proposal: the Homelessness and Supportive Housing department is set to lose nearly $104 million; the Economic and Workforce Development Department faces a $57 million cut; and the Department of Public Works could lose $26 million trim.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="404910"></div>



Other departments that are set to lose large shares of their budget include the Ethics Commission, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/30/sf-status-of-women-human-rights-commission-budget/">Human Rights Commission</a>, and the Arts Commission. Lurie closed the massive two-year deficit in his budget proposal partially through cuts but also by factoring in better-than-expected estimates for revenue in coming years. Despite delivering a balanced budget proposal for the next two years and taking an estimated $300 million chunk out of the long-term deficit, the mayor acknowledged that the structural deficit will persist in the following years. The mayor’s office confirmed that in balancing the budget, it tapped into $40 million in reserve funds to pay for new equipment across city departments. While other departments are facing layoffs, the administrative budget of the mayor&#8217;s office will get a bump due to negotiated wage increases, officials confirmed.



The mayor’s proposal kicks off negotiations with the Board of Supervisors before the final budget deadline of July 31. Public hearings will begin next month, allowing departments to request more funding.&nbsp;



&#8220;As we move through the board’s budget process in the month of June, it is clear that we have no good options,&#8221; said Supervisor Connie Chan. &#8220;As budget chair, I will work with Mayor Lurie and my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to invest our public dollars in protecting San Franciscans and our values.&#8221;&nbsp;



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-uncertain-times">Uncertain times </h2>



The financial threats to the city’s coffers are twofold.



San Francisco has struggled more than many U.S. cities in its economic recovery from the Covid pandemic. Downtown office vacancies skyrocketed at the start of the pandemic, throwing a critical component of the city&#8217;s economy into disarray. Those vacancies remain above 30%.&nbsp;



Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to San Francisco and other sanctuary cities that don’t comply with his hard-line immigration policies. The president’s budget plans include <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/14/san-francisco-hud-homelessness-housing-trump-budget-cuts/">gutting tens of millions</a> of dollars for low-income housing and homeless-prevention strategies. Republicans in Congress have&nbsp;also proposed cuts to programs for low-income residents, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/political-fight-medicaid-escalates-house-republicans-trump-big-bill-rcna209194">such as Medicaid</a>, which would similarly impact city revenue.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



The <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/24/san-francisco-judge-blocks-trump-sanctuary-city-order/">city has responded</a> <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/02/san-francisco-sues-hud-over-illegal-funding-dem/">with federal lawsuits</a> to block those efforts and protect funding streams for critical services.



Also at risk is hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Emergency Management Agency funding that the city used for emergency shelters for homeless people during the height of the pandemic. City officials now fear they will not be reimbursed for those funds.&nbsp; Lurie confirmed Friday that the federal agency had notified the city of plans to claw back $140 million in funding it has already provided. 



The city also receives $1 billion in federal funding each year for Medicaid and housing, among other services. But there are increasing worries among city leaders that the money will not come through under Trump’s administration. Lurie is therefore proposing a $400 million reserve fund as a way to &#8220;deal with that uncertainty.&#8221;



When asked what will happen if those safety funds are not sufficient, Lurie told reporters at City Hall that he hopes the city&#8217;s economic recovery,&nbsp;predicated on increased tax revenue, will cover for the missing funds.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-critics-decry-budget-cuts">Critics decry budget cuts </h2>



Socking that money away, however, has put more pressure on an already buckled budget.



One of Lurie&#8217;s most controversial proposals is to redirect large portions of the <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2022/11/08/wanting-more-from-tax-dollars-voters-poised-to-add-oversight-to-homelessness-department/">Our City, Our Home fund</a>, which voters approved via a 2018 ballot measure. The money was intended to boost transitional housing for younger residents, along with mental health services&nbsp;and additional shelter beds. Lurie instead wants to broaden the pool of San Franciscans the fund would help, raising concerns that there will be less money for the youth whom the ballot measure was intended to serve.&nbsp;



The proposal, which is likely to meet fierce opposition from supporters of homelessness nonprofits, would require a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors to approve.



Swift condemnation from local unions came as Lurie was in the middle of his budget address. In addition to criticizing proposed layoffs, labor groups decried tech companies such as Airbnb that have sued the city <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/31/san-francisco-budget-deficit-lawsuits-business-taxes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">to recoup tax</a> <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/31/san-francisco-budget-deficit-lawsuits-business-taxes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">money</a> they allege was overpaid.



Lurie declined to comment on the Airbnb lawsuit but said he welcomes more businesses to San Francisco.



&#8220;We want businesses here so that we can bring that tax revenue, and we can bring jobs back to San Francisco,&#8221; Lurie said.



&#8220;This is ridiculous. [Lurie] said this is a new era of accountability,&#8221; Anya Worley-Ziegmann of the People&#8217;s Budget Coalition, which advocates for nonprofits, community groups and unions, said Friday at City Hall. &#8220;Where&#8217;s the transparency? Where&#8217;s the budget?&#8221;



Service Employees International Union Local 1021 President Theresa Rutherford, whose union represents many city healthcare workers, said in a statement she was &#8220;deeply disappointed&#8221; in Lurie&#8217;s budget plans.



Rudy Gonzalez of the San Francisco Building &amp; Construction Trades Council said, &#8220;Layoffs are totally unnecessary. We can find the funds to save jobs and uphold San Francisco values.&#8221;



In response to the unions&#8217; criticism, Lurie said, &#8220;I take no joy in this. I was elected to make hard choices.&#8221;



Aside from union leaders,&nbsp;some&nbsp;city officials were dismayed by the proposed budget cuts. Patrick Ford, executive director of the San Francisco Ethics Commission, which monitors campaign finance issues and other matters, said despite <a href="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/press-release_-lurie-takes-on-city-hall-insider-corruption-with-aggressive-ethics-enforcement-proposal-to-restore-trust-integrity-accountability-in-city-government.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lurie&#8217;s promises on the campaign trail</a>&nbsp;to fully fund the department, up to four positions in the 28-person city agency could be affected by the mayor&#8217;s layoff plans. 



&#8220;Based on what I know so far,&#8221; Ford said, &#8220;the rhetoric and reality are pretty different when it comes to the mayor’s support for ethics.&#8221;

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

STATUTORY signing duty: indictments 'signed by the foreman' (Penal Code 940); presides

SF Civil Grand Jury Foreperson

SF Superior Court

SF Superior Court Presiding Judge

judicial assignments; court administration (CRC 10.603); CEO direction

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

Airport Commission Commissioner 2

Airport Commission Commissioner 3

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

Arts Commission Commissioner 5

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

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 3

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 4

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

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 4

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.

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

Assesses property, applies exemptions, collects transfer taxes, and records official documents.

Assessor-Recorder

Joaquín Torres

The Ballot Simplification Committee ensures voter materials are clear and understandable. It reviews and revises ballot language to accurately reflect propositions and measures. The committee advises on simplifying complex legal and technical terms for voter comprehension.

Ballot Simplification Council

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Council

The Behavioral Health Commission advises on mental health policy implementation and quality service delivery. It reviews and advocates for effective mental health services, ensuring policies meet community needs. It educates stakeholders to integrate mental health considerations into broader health strategies.

Behavioral Health Council

The Bicycle Advisory Committee advises on making bicycling safer and more accessible in San Francisco. It provides recommendations to city agencies to address traffic violence and climate change. The committee advocates for cyclists and addresses biking-related complaints.

Bicycle Advisory Committee

The Board of Appeals provides final review for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The Board exercises authority to make binding decisions on appeals.