SF Commission greenlights Lurie’s controversial permitting software deal

<p>A city commission on Thursday cleared a key hurdle for Mayor Daniel Lurie‘s beleaguered permitting overhaul, voting 4-1 to allow San Francisco to continue its lucrative — and controversial — contract with software firm OpenGov. The Civil Service Commission’s vote authorizes the city to contract out IT work to OpenGov, the SF-based tech firm that Lurie’s office hired last summer to modernize the city’s outdated permitting system, bypassing a competitive bid process and sparking allegations of favoritism. The approval came after a grueling two-hour meeting, during which the Planning Department leadership defended its admittedly rough implementation of the new permitting software. Meanwhile, city IT employees, represented by the union IFPTE Local 21, attacked the software as riddled with security holes and called it a “black box” the city could neither improve nor modify. The Civil Service Commission cleared the path for OpenGov, but with strings attached: City leaders agreed to include a labor intermediary in the program to ensure worker protection and remain in talks with IFPTE Local 21 to smooth the software’s implementation. The Planning Department must report back to the commission every six months. The commissioners’ decision knocks down a key roadblock in the way of Lurie’s $6.5 million contract for professional services with OpenGov. The city is planning to spend an additional $22 million in OpenGov licensing fees over the next five years, with the option of a one-year extension. The OpenGov contract is still subject to a vote by the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Adam Wood cast the lone dissenting vote. He said the implementation of OpenGov was obviously “half-baked” and “rushed.” The commission’s vote comes on the heels of an   investigation  by The Standard, published last month, into the contract. Multiple former OpenGov employees and current city workers said the company knew it would not meet benchmarks laid out by the mayor’s office and that the software is missing key features.  Lurie is betting heavily on OpenGov’s implementation — it’s the centerpiece of his PermitSF plan to revitalize San Francisco’s archaic way of processing the public’s paperwork. In the meeting, Sarah Dennis Phillips, the executive director of the Planning Department, told the Civil Service Commission that the transition to OpenGov isn’t just crucial to meeting the city’s goals of accelerating housing permit approvals; it’s also part of building the city’s tax base.  “We’re midstream in our economic recovery,” Phillips said. “We don’t want permits to hold up our jobs or small businesses.” Roughly a dozen union members showed up to the meeting with signs that read, “Protect public services. No contracting out.”  Lurie’s office referred The Standard to Office of Small Business  spokesperson Michelle Reynolds  for comment. “We are looking forward to continuing the vital work to modernize San Francisco’s permitting, in close partnership with city staff whose hard work every day makes  it possible,” Reynolds said. We’ve made strong progress and the Civil Service Commission’s approval is an important step towards even more.”   That staff was less than happy with OpenGov’s software. IFPTE staff representative Emily Wallace alleged in the meeting that San Franciscans’ data may be left vulnerable. In the meeting, she said the software’s framework reached “end of life” in 2022, raising security issues.  Wallace alleged that city workers who spoke out against PermitSF in meetings — where feedback was solicited — were pulled off the work in retaliation, causing a “chilling effect” on staff.  “They were told ‘you have too much information, and it threatens to undermine what we are trying to do,’” Wallace claimed. “They were moved.” Planning Department leadership defended their personnel assignments, saying the task of assigning them was complex and ongoing.  Last month, ex-SF Planning employee Michael Christensen   alleged  intimidation by project leaders’ objections to OpenGov’s implementation and said that Liz Watty, one of the managers of PermitSF, asked him to report colleagues who spoke critically of the project. The city denied Christensen’s claims.  Lurie began PermitSF in February 2025 and chose OpenGov as the software to lead that effort later that summer. The mayor’s office did not seek a competing bid for the technology, and city staff had preferred another company over OpenGov, raising issues with its apparent lack of features and high cost. A $5.9 million deal was signed with OpenGov in October. Lurie also has connections to OpenGov: The company’s founders donated tens of thousands of dollars to his former nonprofit, Tipping Point Community. Katherine August-deWilde, a major donor to Tipping Point who leads one of the mayor’s business groups, Partnership for San Francisco, was an adviser to OpenGov when the city signed the deal with the company. Lurie and his family also   held  investments in OpenGov through a firm headed by another Tipping Point donor.  In response to the revelations, Supervisor Jackie Fielder called for an   investigation  into how OpenGov was chosen. The  report  found the OpenGov selection process “did not violate city requirements,” although it could not be assured that an unfair advantage was not given to bidders for the permit reform contract, because a lack of transparency made it hard to tell. The mayor’s office has denied any favoritism in the deal and claimed that OpenGov was the only software company capable of meeting its aggressive implementation deadlines. Lurie had given the city until February 2026 to create a new, OpenGov-powered software.  But the city has not met its deadlines. The city’s contract with OpenGov promised 15 permit types by March. By last month, less than half were available on the new PermitSF platform.  In the meeting, Civil Service Commissioner Vitus Leung pressed the Planning Department on OpenGov’s myriad delays. Watty denied OpenGov had any culpability. “The delays are not due to the vendor,” she said. “The delays are due to the city.”</p>

Ex-city planner alleges intimidation over objections to Lurie’s permit project

<p>Mayor Daniel Lurie’s controversial permitting reform project, PermitSF, faces a new wave of questions after a former City Hall employee came forward Friday with allegations about the contracting and rollout of the system built by the San Francisco firm OpenGov.  Michael Christensen, a principal planner at SF Planning who also worked at the SF Permit Center, left his job in December over concerns that city officials were intimidating workers to stay silent about the system’s shortcomings and that a former manager had asked OpenGov to build a backdoor that would allow city leaders to bypass staffers’ permitting decisions.  Christensen worked on the team implementing OpenGov’s software platform, which was selected by the mayor’s office  last summer under unusual circumstances  to revamp the city’s convoluted permitting system. As detailed in two whistleblower complaints, a letter filed to a city commission, and an exclusive interview with The Standard, Christensen claims that internal dissent about the project was suppressed by leaders of the project, that OpenGov vastly overpromised on its capabilities, and that the new system is not as efficient as the city’s pre-existing infrastructure.  Christensen said that Liz Watty, director of current planning and one of the managers of the project, told him last year that OpenGov promised it could revamp San Francisco’s entire permitting system in one year. The city ended up focusing on a narrow scope of permits in the first year, but even those deadlines have not been met. Christensen said Watty told him to report colleagues who expressed concerns about OpenGov, but he declined to do so.  Watty did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for the Office of Small Business, one of the departments involved in OpenGov’s implementation, denied Christensen’s claims about his conversations with Watty.  Christensen also said that Florence Simon, the former director of the mayor’s office of innovation, asked prospective software companies during last year’s procurement process whether they could build a system that would allow city leaders to override staffers’ permitting rulings if there was disagreement or any delays. He said OpenGov agreed to build the feature. Other companies under consideration for the project — including Clariti, the software firm that a majority of city staff preferred over OpenGov — said they would do so only within legal requirements.  “I never wanted to leave. I wanted to retire from the city,” Christensen said. “But the internal politics, the blatant hostility … it made me feel I’m no longer working for the place I was before.” Simon,  who was fired from the city in March , said that her ask of software vendors was simply whether users could get visibility into the permitting platform to help speed up delayed permits, and that the inquiry did not include access for any elected officials. She said that she had never spoken to Christensen about this feature.  Christensen’s remarks come two days after The Standard published  an investigation  into the adoption of OpenGov’s system and the trajectory of  PermitSF , the name the mayor has chosen for the modernization effort. Interviews with former OpenGov employees revealed doubts within the govtech firm about meeting the deadlines. Meanwhile, city staffers detailed a lack of features in the software that has impeded their work. At a budget hearing Wednesday, Supervisor Connie Chan cited The Standard’s investigation and  expressed skepticism about PermitSF , asking city officials for more information.  Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office, said in a statement, “For years, our permitting system has been failing San Franciscans — wasting people’s time, frustrating small businesses, and holding back housing and our economic recovery. Fixing it will take time, it won’t always go as planned, and there will always be people who defend a failed status quo that works for special interests, but our job is to deliver for San Franciscans, and that’s what PermitSF is doing.” He said the city is open to input on the project, including anonymous feedback.  “We have one job: to deliver the fastest, easiest, most transparent permitting system for San Franciscans,” Lutvak said. A spokesperson for OpenGov deferred comment to the city but said the company offers “an established, commercially available government software platform used by more than 2,000 agencies across the country.” ‘I t didn’t do any of the things we needed’ After procuring the OpenGov software last summer in a no-bid contract valued at $5.9 million, Lurie  launched a limited version of a new permit system  in February. But PermitSF is still months behind schedule, despite the mayor’s office insisting last year that OpenGov was the only company capable of meeting its aggressive deadlines.  While city officials acknowledged that the project has hit roadblocks, they believe it has laid a foundation that will bring genuine reform to the city’s permitting infrastructure in the years to come. Some city employees told The Standard that the new platform has made their jobs easier, and the mayor’s office has cited statistics showing that OpenGov is speeding up permitting. But other city employees are speaking out against the project. Christensen’s concerns  were outlined in a May 7 letter  he submitted to the Civil Service Commission, a governing body that will decide Monday whether to proceed with a $6.5 million renewal of the OpenGov contract that also includes $22 million in licensing fees over five years, with the option of a one-year extension. The contract is subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors.  IFPTE Local 21, the public employee union that represents more than 13,000 city workers, has pushed back against the contract extension. The union has been a major critic of Lurie, most recently over his decision to lay off more than 100 employees to close a $643 million budget deficit.  Christensen said in his letter that the OpenGov-powered platform, which currently allows the public to obtain permits for windows, siding, and door replacement, along with a handful of others, is less efficient than the city’s preexisting systems. He said residents previously filled out a one-page application that would often be approved the same day. The new system, he said, asks dozens of questions that extend the process to days or weeks.  The mayor’s office maintains that the new system is more efficient, has cut wait times in half for fire permits, and has reduced trips to the city’s Permit Center by 15%. Christensen’s exit in December came approximately two months after the city signed its first contract with OpenGov. Last year, as Lurie was launching PermitSF, Christensen was asked to play a lead role in the project’s implementation.  “My departure from city service was a direct result of my concerns about the project, having been asked by department leadership to report colleagues who might ‘cause problems for the project,’ and having experienced direct retaliation after I filed two formal whistleblower complaints with the SF city controller’s office,” Christensen wrote.  The letter claims that OpenGov maintains significant control over the software, unlike similar products, thereby making dozens of city staff positions obsolete. This was the subject of Christensen’s first whistleblower complaint, filed Oct. 15, which the controller’s office portal shows is still under investigation.  His second whistleblower complaint, filed Nov. 17, raised concerns around OpenGov funding a white paper about San Francisco’s permitting process, something Christensen argues was a misuse of the contract. Such research, he contends, should have been conducted by city staff. The controller’s office portal shows that the investigation was referred to the Civil Service Commission.   A spokesperson said the controller’s office doesn’t comment on the status of whistleblower complaints. Christensen declined to say who had retaliated against him for filing the whistleblower complaints. He said he is speaking up now because OpenGov’s contract is up for renewal and is urging the Civil Service Commission to deny it.  “There was consternation that we had selected a product that staff had really looked into,” he said in an interview. “And that it didn’t do any of the things we needed it to do.” Other city employees have written in support of the contract. Natalia Fossi, a principal planner; Sylvia Jimenez, an SF Planning team manager; and Darcy Bender, who did not specify a position, wrote letters to the Civil Service Commission urging it to renew OpenGov’s contract. “We have launched multiple permit types in a matter of months,” wrote Bender. “Anyone who has worked in city technology knows how remarkable that timeline is. The public who apply for these permits and the staff who process them every day are already experiencing a difference. That momentum is real, and it is fragile. Further delays to this contract put it at risk.”</p>

Lurie promised a permitting overhaul. Its builders say it was troubled from the start

<p>Soon after Mayor Daniel Lurie took office in January 2025, he set out to solve a problem that affects nearly every San Francisco resident and business: the nightmare of getting a permit. Lurie’s effort to overhaul the permitting system, a tangled mess of antiquated software and arcane procedures that has long been the bane of the city’s homeowners, contractors, business owners, and tradespeople, culminated last summer with the announcement of a $5.9 million contract for a San Francisco-based tech company called OpenGov. The promise: a hassle-free, one-stop, online shop that Lurie branded “ PermitSF .”  OpenGov’s contract with the city, signed in October, did not come without controversy.  The Standard reported  that a majority of city staffers preferred a different software, claiming OpenGov lacked necessary features. Additionally, the company was found to have eyebrow-raising links to Lurie and some of his circle. The mayor’s office denied any favoritism, insisting that OpenGov was the only company capable of meeting the city’s aggressive timeline for launching PermitSF. Lurie had given the city until February 2026 to get some form of new system working. But the high-stakes project has been beset with extensive delays and concerns over key deficiencies in OpenGov’s software, according to documents obtained by The Standard and interviews with five former OpenGov employees and current city staffers. The delays in implementing the new permitting system should come as no surprise, the former OpenGov employees say: From the beginning of the city’s expedited, no-bid contracting process, the company harbored doubts about the city’s timeline. The former staffers said delays were almost a certainty, as OpenGov had never undertaken such a large or complex project. Are you a City Hall employee? We’d love to get in touch. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com. According to the contract signed by the city , 15 types of permits — for projects ranging from kitchen and bath remodels to fire alarm and sprinklers — were to be transferred from San Francisco’s old system to the PermitSF platform by March.   The new, OpenGov-powered platform would allow residents to file for those permits online, rather than having to visit the Permit Center. As of Tuesday,   about two months after the deadline, only  seven of the permits are available on PermitSF . The rest are scheduled to go live by June, according to the company. But a city official overseeing the project told The Standard not to expect all of those permits to be available on the platform before the end of summer.  The halting progress, alongside issues with the software’s capabilities raised by city employees, renews a critical question: Was OpenGov the right company for one of the most technically complicated projects the city has undertaken in recent years?  For some former OpenGov employees, the answer is an unequivocal no.  “Our system was not prepared for it,” said one ex-staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals. “When they go for these deals, they just promise, promise, promise. … There was knowledge that this was a much bigger lift than what was going to be possible.” Another added: “We didn’t have any of the stuff that we promised [the city]. … The money was very important to [the company]. I think it was more the prestige for doing it for a big city like San Francisco.”  Some city employees concur that OpenGov’s permitting software lacks important features, leading to missed deadlines and a rush by the mayor’s office to celebrate progress on PermitSF even as the system remains limited.  “It’s been amateur hour, to be honest. I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said one city worker. “The ability to spin absolute failures as success is absolutely wild to me.” Lurie said in a statement, “It’s clear our new portal is working.” He added, “We’re seeing strong adoption, faster processing, and more flexibility for applicants, exactly what San Francisco needs to move projects forward. By modernizing how permits are submitted and reviewed, we’re making life easier for San Franciscans and helping accelerate the housing and investment our city needs.”  In a statement, a company spokesperson said, “OpenGov remains committed to supporting San Francisco’s permitting transformation and working alongside its teams to deliver the project.” The company deferred questions about the project’s timelines and contract to the city. Questions about the software’s efficacy come at a crucial moment for both the company and the Lurie administration. OpenGov’s contract is up for renewal, with members of the Civil Service Commission set to vote Monday on a new $6.5 million, six-year contract that is subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The proposal is already facing objections from IFPTE Local 21, a union that represents more than 13,000 city employees and has been critical of Lurie’s leadership at times, including  his decision to lay off 127 city workers  to help close a $643 million budget deficit. Lurie has staked much on the project's success. In February, his office  trumpeted the system’s launch , signaling to voters that he was delivering on one of the pillars of his 2024 mayoral campaign of making government more efficient. However, as with the campaign promise to create  1,500 shelter beds in six months , City Hall has quietly walked back some of Lurie’s ambitious targets.  Elizabeth Watty, director of current planning and one of the managers of PermitSF, admitted that there have been hiccups in the project’s rollout.  “If we were to do it over again, we probably would have selected different things to work on for this first year,” she said, referring to the types of permits the city prioritized for launch. “Once you start digging in, you’re like, oh, it’d be great if we could actually launch this instead. But this was enumerated in the contract.” But Watty defended the city’s adoption of the OpenGov-built platform, describing the “first phase” as “foundational” to the city’s overhaul of an antiquated system. “I think we’re really excited to be able to kick off phase two with all those lessons learned under our belt, too, and have this opportunity to structure the contract in a way that gives us more of that nimbleness to do it the right way for permitting to be successful,” she said. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for the Office of Small Business, one of the departments involved in PermitSF’s execution, said the city’s permitting is “notoriously complex,” and the initial February launch was undertaken in four months, something the city “has been trying to do for over 15 years.” “ OpenGov’s approach is to use their pre-built tool as a foundation, off of which they develop additional features that San Francisco needs,” she said. “That is not a limitation, it’s a deliberate risk-management strategy, and it’s already working.” Reynolds said the new contract will require OpenGov to train city staff to maintain the software indefinitely. The city projects it will be “cost neutral” by the fourth year of the contract, she said, because of savings through letting go of old permitting systems.  A contract leads to an inquiry Software procurement doesn’t usually court controversy. But that wasn’t the case with OpenGov, which was founded in 2012 by former CEO Zac Bookman and conservative entrepreneur Joe Lonsdale. The company, which was acquired by cable conglomerate Cox Enterprises in a $1.8 billion deal  in 2024, touts 2,000 government clients, for whom it modernizes the old, creaky software that many cities and states depend on. In addition to streamlining permitting, the company builds out systems to manage licensing, budgets, procurement, and tax and revenue collection.  When Lurie launched his permit reform initiative at the beginning of 2025, the search for a software provider began. Watty; Ned Segal, the mayor’s chief of housing and economic development; and Florence Simon, the office’s former innovation director ( who was fired in March ), sought a company that could take on the complex endeavor of overhauling a system that,  in Mission Local columnist Joe Eskenazi’s words , was so old, “it wouldn’t even get carded.”  San Francisco has hundreds of permit types, and a whopping 20 software programs have been used to coordinate their approval across multiple departments — a migraine-inducing exercise that Lurie and others have argued inhibits business and lowers confidence in local government. A winner in the PermitSF sweepstakes was announced in the summer. “We’re just trying to make life easier, more efficient, more effective, and deliver faster for the people of San Francisco,” Lurie  said  in an Instagram post Aug. 26 about the selection of OpenGov. However, questions quickly surfaced about the company’s selection. The mayor’s office never issued a competitive bid, arguing that doing so would have delayed the self-imposed February deadline. Instead, it asked dozens of software companies to showcase their products to the city, an informal process known as a “request for information,” rather than the traditional bidding procedure known as a “request for proposal.”  In April 2025, a month before the city notified companies that it was looking for a permitting solution, Segal, the former COO of Twitter, introduced OpenGov’s then-CEO to another city official. “Zac can help us think through permitting technology,” Segal said in an email, adding a smiley face. “Zac has been patiently waiting for the right partner.”  By July, Segal and his team had narrowed the competition to two companies: OpenGov and Vancouver-based Clariti. Documents obtained by The Standard show that city staffers across departments flagged OpenGov as having “gaps so significant” in its features that it “shouldn’t be considered” and expressed concerns about the product’s cost. A majority of staff preferred Clariti, though there were worries about one department’s past experiences with the Canadian company.  The  Standard reported  on the links between OpenGov and Lurie in October.  Katherine August-deWilde, who leads the  Partnership for San Francisco , a business group that provides policy advice to the mayor, was an adviser to OpenGov at the time of the deal. (August-deWilde no longer remains an “active” adviser to the company, a spokesperson said.) Lonsdale and Bookman, who stepped down as CEO in April and now serves as chairman emeritus, have collectively given tens of thousands of dollars over the past decade to Tipping Point Community, the nonprofit Lurie founded. Financial records show that  Lurie and his family  held investments in OpenGov through a fund overseen by another Tipping Point donor. In response to these revelations, Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who has sparred with Lurie during his mayoral tenure and remains wary of tech’s power in the city,  launched an inquiry  in November into how the OpenGov contract was procured. (Fielder  went on leave in April , citing mental health issues, and is expected to return in June.) The Standard obtained a draft version of the Board of Supervisors’ budget and legislative analyst report, which has not been released publicly, finding that the OpenGov contract was eight times larger than the average new software contract procured through the same no-bid process.  While investigators found the selection process did not violate city requirements, the report states it did not abide by best practices and that the procurement of OpenGov was “less transparent.” The report’s authors urged the board to adopt a policy prohibiting the procurement methods used by the mayor’s office.  A small but working product The budget and legislative analyst’s report pointed out another aspect of the deal: The mayor’s office’s “key justification” for the no-bid contract was that OpenGov was the only company that could meet its deadlines.  But records  released on a weekly basis by the company  show that those deadlines haven’t been met. The OpenGov contract was supposed to deliver the 15 permit types on a new system by March 16.  On that date , the company released an update spelling out that there would be an eight- to 14-week “extension for remaining workflows.”  Today, the public can obtain permits through PermitSF for window, door, and siding replacements; fire alarms; sprinklers and water flow; special events; and contractor authorization. According to the city, between February and April, 772 permits were processed through the new platform — 10.2% of all permits issued during that period. Though its reach is limited, some front-line city staffers who are working with PermitSF said the platform has made their jobs easier.  “We do the same type of review, we do the same type of back and forth with applicants,” said Dakota Spycher, a staff member of the planning department. “It’s just all in one system. We don’t have to write on [a] physical form. We don’t have to enter information into a system that was created in the ’90s, and we don’t have to create a new record ourselves. So it’s really streamlined.” Spycher pointed out that he can access the platform remotely, allowing him to tackle an influx of permit applications even if he isn’t at the Permit Center, an option that wasn’t available before. Another SF Planning employee said she can spend more time with customers answering questions.  The mayor’s office pointed to data that it says shows success: Fewer people are going to the Permit Center, and wait times to get a permit from the San Francisco Fire Department have decreased from an average of 30 minutes to 14 minutes.  But there are many types of permits not yet on OpenGov’s platform: reroofing, solar, electrical, kitchen and bath remodel, and a handful of others that require more technical work than those that went online in February. Beyond that, there are many more complicated permit types to transfer to the new system in the coming years. Reynolds from the Office of Small Business said sign and reroofing will be completed in June, “with additional permit types rolling out shortly after.” The delays, said city employees, can be attributed in part to the software’s limited or lackluster features related to customization, data access, and reporting and analytics. City staff have put together a list of more than 50 enhancements they say the software needs, according to a copy of the internal document obtained by The Standard. The issues include problems with basic labeling, gaps in the permissions controls governing who can edit data in the system, and a lack of integration with the city’s existing systems.  One former OpenGov employee agreed with the city staffers’ sentiments, saying the company is “not even close” to its competitors in terms of feature parity. The person estimated that OpenGov software can handle approximately 25% of what other govtech firms, like Clariti and Tyler Technologies, can do.  Said one current city employee: “I think San Francisco is funding the research and development work of OpenGov.”</p>

As Lurie weighs Sunset appointment, history offers guidance: Pick a woman

<div class="content-grid article-content"><div class="Metadata_container__fxAzw"><div class="Metadata_metadata__W_0LF"><span>By <a class="" href="https://sfstandard.com/author/han-li/">Han Li</a></span><time datetime="2025-10-10T13:00:00.000Z">Published Oct. 10, 2025 • 6:00am</time></div></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">If you believe in gender curses — or superpowers — Sunset politics offers a neat case study.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">As Mayor Daniel Lurie considers whom to appoint as District 4 supervisor, history suggests that there’s a clear divide in how successful women have been in the role (and in the years after leaving City Hall) compared with men.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Since San Francisco returned to district supervisor elections in 2000, seven people have represented the Sunset (currently part of District 4). Of the women, all three — Fiona Ma, Carmen Chu, and Katy Tang — have gone onto higher office or become department heads in the current administration. Of the men, two (Leland Yee and Ed Jew) have done jail time, one (Gordon Mar) was booted after a single term, and one (Joel Engardio) didn’t even make it that far, being recalled in a landslide election last month.  </p></div><div class="!p-0 !m-0"></div><div class="floats"><div class="block-aside align-right align-right-overflow"><aside class="py-lg px-md md:px-xl bg-warm-gray-100 text-text-primary"><h2 class="pb-md mb-md font-bold border-b border-b-warm-gray-300 text-heading-xl">The Sunset gender divide: Women thrive…</h2><div class=""><ul class="list-block ListBlock_List__NF3JL article-body"><li>Fiona Ma, supervisor from 2002 to 2006, was elected to the state Legislature and Board of Equalization. She now serves as state treasurer and is running for lieutenant governor.<br/></li><li>Carmen Chu, appointed supervisor in 2007, later became the city’s assessor-recorder and is now city administrator — SF’s highest-ranking non-elected official. <br/></li><li>Katy Tang, appointed in 2013, now heads the city’s Office of Small Business.</li></ul></div></aside></div><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“I don’t think it’s a coincidence,” said Caryl Ito, a former president of the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women. “There is clearly a gender disparity in who succeeds and who doesn’t. It appears the men have failed.”</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Ito doesn’t necessarily think Lurie’s appointment to the supervisor role should be gender-motivated. But she noted that women frequently enter office with stronger credentials and a focus on community connection.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Alondra Esquivel Garcia, copresident of the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, said women “have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously.” Female supervisors, she added, “have proved to be qualified leaders who can unify the district.”</p></div><figure class="ImageBlock_ImageFigure__ZnquR grid-wide inset-image mobile-grid-full mobile-grid-full" data-align="wide"><div class="relative"><div><img alt="" class="block lazyloaded" data-nimg="1" decoding="async" height="1707" loading="lazy" sizes="(min-width: 1001px) 800px, (min-width: 768px) 100vw, 100vw" src="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S3840x2561-FPNG" srcset="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S640x427-FPNG 640w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S750x500-FPNG 750w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S768x512-FPNG 768w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S828x552-FPNG 828w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S1024x683-FPNG 1024w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S1080x720-FPNG 1080w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S1200x800-FPNG 1200w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S1920x1280-FPNG 1920w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S2048x1366-FPNG 2048w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_28fpefa8m17jrcdkh37vpgjv5b/-S3840x2561-FPNG 3840w" style="color:transparent;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url(&quot;data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 2560 1707'%3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href=''/%3E%3C/svg%3E&quot;)" width="2560"/></div></div><figcaption class="basis-full mt-[10px] text-xs text-gray-550 font-inter leading-[18px]">Joel Engardio and Gordon Mar at a debate in 2022.<span class="image-caption-divider"> | </span><span class="image-credit"><span class="sr-only">Source: </span>Paul Kuroda for The Standard</span></figcaption></figure><div class="!p-0 !m-0"></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Ma — who served as supervisor from 2002 to 2006, currently acts as California’s state treasurer, and is running for lieutenant governor in 2026 —  said it often takes women “a lot longer to decide to run for office,” and they are usually inspired to do so “because of some main issue or cause near and dear to our hearts.” </p><div class="block-aside align-right align-right-overflow"><aside class="py-lg px-md md:px-xl bg-warm-gray-100 text-text-primary"><h2 class="pb-md mb-md font-bold border-b border-b-warm-gray-300 text-heading-xl">…while men stumble</h2><div class=""><ul class="list-block ListBlock_List__NF3JL article-body"><li>Leland Yee, who was elected as the first D4 Supervisor in 2000, was convicted of corruption charges and <u><a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-state-senator-leland-yee-sentenced-five-years-imprisonment-racketeering" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">sentenced to five years in prison in 2016<span class="sr-only"> (opens in new tab)</span></a></u>.<br/></li><li>Ed Jew, supervisor from 2006 to 2007, served jail time on extortion and bribery convictions.<br/></li><li>Gordon Mar, elected in 2018, <u><a href="https://sfstandard.com/2022/10/20/sf-district-chinese-american-supervisors/">lost reelection four years later</a></u>, becoming the first elected incumbent to be ousted since 2000. Mar now serves on the San Francisco Democratic Party County Central Committee.<br/></li><li>Joel Engardio, who bested Mar in the 2022 election, was <u><a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/10/07/joel-engardio-exit-interview-recall-sunset-dunes/">recalled</a></u> last month in a landslide election spurred by his support for closing the Great Highway.</li></ul></div></aside></div><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“So when we finally do run, we want to do a good job, and not because of fame or fortune,” she added. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Lurie has faced pressure to appoint a woman to the D4 post after Engardio leaves office Oct. 17. The San Francisco Women’s Political Committee in September <u><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26175257-sfwpc-letter-d4-supervisor/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">sent a letter<span class="sr-only"> (opens in new tab)</span></a></u> to Lurie urging him to appoint a female supervisor, citing past supervisors Ma, Chu (now city administrator), and Tang (now head of the Office of Small Business) as examples of successful leadership.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“With the rich history of successful District 4 women supervisors,” the letter read, “we firmly believe that a woman is essential not only for representation, but for restoring stability, accountability, and community trust.”</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Garcia said the group isn’t backing a specific candidate but wants the mayor’s office to elevate women’s voices in the appointment process</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Lurie’s office has been interviewing potential D4 candidates in recent weeks but has not set a time frame for an announcement. At a recent town hall in the Sunset, the mayor confirmed that several people have expressed interest in the role and that the process is moving quickly.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Among the contenders is small business owner Albert Chow, who was a key figure in the campaign to recall Engardio. Chow said women are great leaders, but he’s ready to break the gender curse against male D4 supervisors. He compared his background to that of women who’ve held the role.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“I feel like I’m more like Katy and Carmen — they didn’t expect the role and got appointed,” Chow said. “I want to bring a small-business and true-resident approach. I don’t think there’s anyone quite like me in the mix.”</p></div></div>

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.

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 Committee

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 Committee

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 Commission

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.

Jefferson Robert Eppler

John Trasviña

Jose Lopez

Rick Swig

Board of Appeals Commissioner 5

Board of Appeals conducts final reviews of City permitting decisions through an impartial panel. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process. The department operates under rules established by the City Charter of 1932.